ArticleArchives of toxicology2026
Toxic in vitro effects of flavoured-air inhalers containing essential oils in differentiated human nasal epithelial cells at air-liquid interface.
Article in Archives of toxicology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Flavoured-air inhalers containing essential oils are marketed as safe, natural alternatives to smoking and vaping, yet their potential respiratory toxicity remains effectively unexamined. Manufacturers claim safety based on "100% natural" ingredients, despite evidence that essential oil inhalation can cause adverse respiratory effects. Our objective was to assess the in vitro toxicity of six commercially available flavoured-air products on human nasal airway epithelial cells. Differentiated air-liquid interface cultures of primary nasal airway epithelial cells from eight healthy adults were exposed for one hour to air (control) or flavoured air from three devices (Füm, Lio, Cigtrus; two flavours each) generated by drawing air through essential oil-infused cores at a continuous airflow of 1 L/min for one hour into an 1000 mL exposure chamber. Outcomes included transepithelial electrical resistance, cytotoxicity, protein release, cytokine/chemokine profiling and histological assessment. Chemical analysis characterised the chemical composition of device cores and identified 29 compounds across the six products, including the possible carcinogen pulegone and cytotoxic cinnamaldehyde. Five of six flavours significantly reduced transepithelial electrical resistance indicating compromised epithelial barrier integrity. Mediator responses were compartment-specific: apical surfaces showed predominantly pro-inflammatory profiles while basal release was broadly suppressed. Histological analysis revealed reduced cilia coverage, fewer mucus-producing cells, and decreased epithelial thickness across multiple treatments. This study shows that a single one-hour exposure to flavoured-air vapour led to epithelial barrier dysfunction, immune dysregulation, and structural damage in healthy human nasal airway epithelial cells, contradicting manufacturer safety claims. Rigorous toxicological evaluation of these products is urgently needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42587134What 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.