ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2025
Quantification of 16 Metals in Fluids and Aerosols From Ultrasonic Pod-Style Cigarettes and Comparison to Electronic Cigarettes.
Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Electronic cigarettes: emerging challenges in cessation and dependence management. A call for evidence-based guidelines to address a growing epidemic among Brazilian youth.Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia · 2025Article
- Acetaldehyde and methylglyoxal: comparative analysis of toxic electronic cigarette degradation products in 3D and 2D exposure systems using human bronchial epithelial models.Frontiers in toxicology · 2025Article
- A review of popular vaping misconceptions: redefining ENDS safety and usage risks.Inhalation toxicologyReview
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
Abstract
backgroundElectronic cigarette (e-cigarette) fluids and aerosols contain metals, which can be detrimental to human health. Recently marketed ultrasonic cigarettes (u-cigarettes) claim to be less harmful than e-cigarettes, which use heating coils.
objectivesWe quantified chemical elements/metals in multiple flavors of SURGE u-cigarettes, JUUL e-cigarettes, and "Other Brands" of pod-style e-cigarettes.
methodsElements/metals were identified in atomizers of SURGE using a scanning electron microscope and energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometer. Quantitation of elements/metals in fluids and aerosols from SURGE, JUUL, and "Other Brands" was performed using inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy.
resultsU-cigarettes contained a sonicator, unlike e-cigarettes, which had heated coils. Sixteen elements were identified in at least one fluid or aerosol sample. Generally, u-cigarette fluids and aerosols had more elements/metals at higher concentrations than aerosols from fourth-generation e-cigarettes. Element concentrations generally increased in fluids after vaping. All products, including SURGE, had silicon in their fluids and aerosols. Nickel, which was present in low concentrations in all fluids except KWIT Stick (up to DISCUSSION: SURGE u-cigarettes produce aerosols with metals equivalent to heated coil-style e-cigarettes and had high levels of arsenic and selenium, which are a health concern. Regulations limiting arsenic and selenium in these products are needed, and routine surveillance to identify rogue products, such as KWIT Stick, which have abnormally high levels of nickel or other metals, could protect human health. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP15648.
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.