Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38250996›Full record

ArticleToxics2024

A Practical Framework for Novel Electronic Nicotine Delivery System Evaluation: Chemical and Toxicological Characterization of JUUL2 Aerosol and Comparison with Reference Cigarettes.

David K Cook, Guy Lalonde, Michael J Oldham, Jiaming Wang, Austin Bates, Sifat Ullah, Christina Sulaiman, Karen Carter, Candice Jongsma, Gary Dull and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Toxics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

11 authors.

David K CookJUUL Labs, 1000 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20004, USA.
Guy LalondeJUUL Labs, 1000 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20004, USA.
Michael J OldhamJUUL Labs, 1000 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20004, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6371-9405
Jiaming WangJUUL Labs, 1000 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20004, USA.
Austin BatesJUUL Labs, 1000 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20004, USA.
Sifat UllahJUUL Labs, 1000 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20004, USA.
Christina SulaimanJUUL Labs, 1000 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20004, USA.
Karen CarterJUUL Labs, 1000 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20004, USA.
Candice JongsmaJUUL Labs, 1000 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20004, USA.
Gary DullJUUL Labs, 1000 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20004, USA.
I Gene GillmanJUUL Labs, 1000 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20004, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9022-5144

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDSs) are designed as a non-combustible alternative to cigarettes, aiming to deliver nicotine without the harmful byproducts of tobacco combustion. As the category evolves and new ENDS products emerge, it is important to continually assess the levels of toxicologically relevant chemicals in the aerosols and characterize any related toxicology. Herein, we present a proposed framework for characterizing novel ENDS products (i.e., devices and formulations) and determining the reduced risk potential utilizing analytical chemistry and in vitro toxicological studies with a qualitative risk assessment. To demonstrate this proposed framework, long-term stability studies (12 months) analyzing relevant toxicant emissions from six formulations of a next-generation product, JUUL2, were conducted and compared to reference combustible cigarette (CC) smoke under both non-intense and intense puffing regimes. In addition, in vitro cytotoxicity, mutagenicity, and genotoxicity assays were conducted on aerosol and smoke condensates. In all samples, relevant toxicants under both non-intense and intense puffing regimes were substantially lower than those observed in reference CC smoke. Furthermore, neither cytotoxicity, mutagenicity, nor genotoxicity was observed in aerosol condensates generated under both intense and non-intense puffing regimes, in contrast to results observed for reference cigarettes. Following the proposed framework, the results demonstrate that the ENDS products studied in this work generate significantly lower levels of toxicants relative to reference cigarettes and were not cytotoxic, mutagenic, or genotoxic under these in vitro assay conditions.

Indexed as

aerosolchemicale-cigaretteelectronic cigaretteENDSframeworktoxicological

Identifiers

PMID38250996
PMCPMC10820849
OpenAlexW4390589875

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.