4.5 Article

An inter-laboratory in vitro assessment of cigarettes and next generation nicotine delivery products

Journal

TOXICOLOGY LETTERS
Volume 315, Issue -, Pages 14-22

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2019.08.004

Keywords

Cigarette; Smoke; In vitro; E-cigarette; Tobacco heating product; Next generation nicotine delivery products; Nicotine; Oxidative stress; Epithelial

Categories

Funding

  1. British American Tobacco
  2. Japan Tobacco

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In vitro testing can facilitate the rapid assessment of next generation nicotine delivery products (NGPs) with comparisons to combustible tobacco products. In vitro assays for cytotoxicity and oxidative stress were employed at BAT (UK) and JT (Japan) to test total particulate matter (TPM) of a scientific reference cigarette and aerosol collected mass (ACM) of a commercially available E-cigarette and two tobacco heating products (THP). 3R4F TPMs were generated using the Health Canada intense (HCI) regimen, a modified regime (mHCI) for the THP ACMs and the CORESTA recommended method no. 81 for the E-cigarette ACM. Human lung cells were exposed to the test product TPM/ACMs at concentrations between 0-200 mu g/ml followed by the employment of commercially available assays for endpoint analysis that included reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation, the glutathione ratio (GSH: GSSG), activation of the antioxidant response elements (ARE) and cellular viability. TPM/ACM nicotine concentrations were quantified using a UPLC-PDA technique. At both laboratories the 3R4F TPM induced significant and dose-dependent responses in all in vitro assays, whereas no significant responses could be measured for the NGP ACMs. In conclusion, both laboratories obtained comparable results across all endpoints therefore demonstrating the utility of the in vitro techniques combined with standardised test products to support the assessment of NGPs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available