ReviewToxics2022
A Critical Review of Recent Literature on Metal Contents in E-Cigarette Aerosol.
Review in Toxics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of ElfBar Elfa vaping product aerosol compared with cigarette smoke and regulatory safety limits.iScience · 2026Article
- Methylglyoxal and Glyoxal in High-Puff Disposable Electronic Cigarette Liquids: Unexpected Accumulation and Enhanced Cytotoxicity.ACS omega · 2026Article
- Immortalization of Human Adult Alveolar Epithelial Cells to Study Environmental Exposures of the Distal Lung.Current protocols · 2026Article
- Prenatal Exposure to Tobacco Smoke and Vaping Aerosols: Mechanisms Disrupting White-Matter Formation.Toxics · 2025Review
- Biomarkers of metal exposure in adolescent e-cigarette users: correlations with vaping frequency and flavouring.Tobacco control · 2025Article
- Tracking metal presence in cannabis vaping products from source to inhalation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Review
- Quantification of 16 Metals in Fluids and Aerosols From Ultrasonic Pod-Style Cigarettes and Comparison to Electronic Cigarettes.Environmental health perspectives · 2025Article
- Risk assessment of metals measured in regulated Canadian dried cannabis and cannabis vaping products: case study and perspectives.Frontiers in toxicology · 2025Article
- Article
- Acute exposure to electronic cigarette components alters mRNA expression of pre-osteoblasts.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2024Article
- Method Development and Validation of an Aerosol Sampling Technique for the Analysis of Nicotine in Electronic Cigarette Aerosols.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Analytical methods and experimental quality in studies targeting carbonyls in electronic cigarette aerosols.Frontiers in chemistry · 2024Review
- Review
- Physical and chemical characterizations of a reference e-cigarette used in animal testing.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Estimation of Health Risks Caused by Metals Contained in E-Cigarette Aerosol through Passive Vaping.Toxics · 2023Article
- Multi-omic assessment shows dysregulation of pulmonary and systemic immunity to e-cigarette exposure.Respiratory research · 2023Article
- Comparison of biomarkers of exposure among US adult smokers, users of electronic nicotine delivery systems, dual users and nonusers, 2018-2019.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The inhalation of metallic compounds in e-cigarette (EC) aerosol emissions presents legitimate concerns of potential harms for users. We provide a critical review of laboratory studies published after 2017 on metal contents in EC aerosol, focusing on the consistency between their experimental design, real life device usage and appropriate evaluation of exposure risks. All experiments reporting levels above toxicological markers for some metals (e.g., nickel, lead, copper, manganese) exhibited the following experimental flaws: (i) high powered sub-ohm tank devices tested by means of puffing protocols whose airflows and puff volumes are conceived and appropriate for low powered devices; this testing necessarily involves overheating conditions that favor the production of toxicants and generate aerosols that are likely repellent to human users; (ii) miscalculation of exposure levels from experimental outcomes; (iii) pods and tank devices acquired months and years before the experiments, so that corrosion effects cannot be ruled out; (iv) failure to disclose important information on the characteristics of pods and tank devices, on the experimental methodology and on the resulting outcomes, thus hindering the interpretation of results and the possibility of replication. In general, low powered devices tested without these shortcomings produced metal exposure levels well below strict reference toxicological markers. We believe this review provides useful guidelines for a more objective risk assessment of EC aerosol emissions and signals the necessity to upgrade current laboratory testing standards.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.