Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35202238›Full record

ArticleToxics2022

E-Liquids from Seven European Countries-Warnings Analysis and Freebase Nicotine Content.

Patryk Krystian Bębenek, Vinit Gholap, Matthew Halquist, Andrzej Sobczak, Leon Kośmider

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Toxics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Patryk Krystian BębenekDepartment of General and Inorganic Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences in Sosnowiec, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Jagiellonska 4, 41-200 Sosnowiec, Poland.
Vinit GholapDepartment of Pharmaceutics, School of Pharmacy, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23298, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4920-8497
Matthew HalquistDepartment of Pharmaceutics, School of Pharmacy, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23298, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9591-3117
Andrzej SobczakDepartment of General and Inorganic Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences in Sosnowiec, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Jagiellonska 4, 41-200 Sosnowiec, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-4554-1313
Leon KośmiderDepartment of General and Inorganic Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences in Sosnowiec, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Jagiellonska 4, 41-200 Sosnowiec, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-7837-9813

Funding

Medical University of Silesia PCN-1-002/N/1/F
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electronic cigarettes are available in a variety of devices with e-liquids also available in many flavors, and nicotine concentrations, albeit less than 20 mg/mL in Europe. Given the dynamics of these products, it is important to evaluate product content, including labeling, nicotine content versus labeled claim, nicotine form, and other aspects that may help policy decisions and align with the Tobacco Product Directive (TPD). Herein, we performed a study on 86 e-liquids from seven European countries (Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and the United Kingdom) with 34 different liquid brands and 57 different flavors. Nicotine content versus labeled claim, labeling, volume, pH, and nicotine form (i.e., freebase nicotine) were evaluated. From all tested products, eight of them from Germany, Poland, and UK (from 3 to 18 mg/mL), met the ±2% criteria. The ±10% criteria was fulfilled by 50 (58.1%) liquids from all countries. Among 71 liquids which contained nicotine, (one e-liquid labeled as 6 mg/mL had no nicotine level quantified), the amount of freebase nicotine differed from 0 to 97.8%, with a mean value 56.5 ± 35.7. None of the tested liquids had nicotine salt listed in the ingredients. Therefore, a low level of freebase nicotine in some liquids was most likely achieved by added flavorings. All tested liquids presented in this study met the basic requirements of the TPD. There were differences in the scope of information about harmfulness, type of warnings on packaging, attaching leaflets, placing graphic symbols, and discrepancies between the declared and quantified nicotine concentrations.

Indexed as

e-liquidsEuropean legislationnicotinenicotine form

Identifiers

PMID35202238
PMCPMC8875468

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.