4.0 Article

A comparative study of electronic cigarette vapor extracts on airway-related cell lines in vitro

Journal

INHALATION TOXICOLOGY
Volume 29, Issue 3, Pages 126-136

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/08958378.2017.1318193

Keywords

Electronic cigarettes; airways; cytotoxicity; epithelials; in vitro models

Categories

Funding

  1. School of Engineering and Applied Science, Aston University (UK)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The use of electronic cigarettes (ECs) is rapidly increasing worldwide; however, scientific evidence regarding EC cytotoxicity is limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the acute cytotoxicity of EC vapor extract (ECE) on airway-related cells in vitro. Cigarette smoke extract (CSE), vapor extract of fifteen brands/flavors of ECs and the extract from the E-vehicle (propylene glycol and glycerin) was collected. Extracts, in concentrations of 100-12.5%, were added to human bronchial epithelial (BEAS-2B, IB3-1 and C38), fibroblast (Wi-38) and macrophage (J774 and THP-1) cell lines. Viability was assessed after 24h using a standard XTT assay. Viability of <70% of control (no extract) was considered cytotoxic according to UNI EN ISO 10993-5 standards. CSE displayed a concentration-dependent influence on cell viability across all four cell lines with 100% producing the most toxic effect, therefore validating the model and indicating higher cytotoxicity than in ECEs. ECEs did reduce viability although this was not correlated with nicotine content or the E-vehicle. However, several flavors proved cytotoxic, with variation between different brands and cell lines. These data indicate that not all ECs are the same and that use of a particular flavor or brand may have differing effects. The cell line used is also an important factor. More research is crucial to ascertain the health effects of different ECs before they can be accepted as a safe alternative to tobacco cigarettes.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available