4.7 Article

Assessment of reactive oxygen species generated by electronic cigarettes using acellular and cellular approaches

Journal

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Volume 344, Issue -, Pages 549-557

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.10.057

Keywords

Electronic cigarette; Nicotine; Reactive oxygen species; Oxidative stress

Funding

  1. NIEHS Grant [ES-000002]
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation [P2LAP3_161808]
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [P2LAP3_161808] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) have fast increased in popularity but the physico-chemical properties and toxicity of the generated emission remain unclear. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) are likely present in e-cig emission and can play an important role in e-cig toxicity. However, e-cig ROS generation is poorly documented. Here, we generated e-cig exposures using a recently developed versatile exposure platform and performed systematic ROS characterization on e-cig emissions using complementary acellular and cellular techniques: 1) a novel acellular Trolox-based mass spectrometry method for total ROS and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) detection, 2) electron spin resonance (ESR) for hydroxyl radical detection in an acellular and cellular systems and 3) in vitro ROS detection in small airway epithelial cells (SAEC) using the dihydroethidium (DHE) assay. Findings confirm ROS generation in cellular and acellular systems and is highly dependent on the e-cig brand, flavor, puffing pattern and voltage. Trolox method detected a total of 1.2-8.9 nmol H(2)O(2)eq/puff; H2O2 accounted for 12-68% of total ROS. SAEC cells exposed to e-cig emissions generated up to eight times more ROS compared to control. The dependency of e-cig emission profile on e-cig features and operational parameters should be taken into consideration in toxicological studies. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available