Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Jun 5;10(36):21535-21544.
doi: 10.1039/d0ra02138e. eCollection 2020 Jun 2.

Reducing toxic reactive carbonyl species in e-cigarette emissions: testing a harm-reduction strategy based on dicarbonyl trapping

Affiliations

Reducing toxic reactive carbonyl species in e-cigarette emissions: testing a harm-reduction strategy based on dicarbonyl trapping

Bruna de Falco et al. RSC Adv. .

Abstract

Reducing the concentration of reactive carbonyl species (RCS) in e-cigarette emissions represents a major goal to control their potentially harmful effects. Here, we adopted a novel strategy of trapping carbonyls present in e-cigarette emissions by adding polyphenols in e-liquid formulations. Our work showed that the addition of gallic acid, hydroxytyrosol and epigallocatechin gallate reduced the levels of carbonyls formed in the aerosols of vaped e-cigarettes, including formaldehyde, methylglyoxal and glyoxal. Liquid chromatography mass spectrometry analysis highlighted the formation of covalent adducts between aromatic rings and dicarbonyls in both e-liquids and vaped samples, suggesting that dicarbonyls were formed in the e-liquids as degradation products of propylene glycol and glycerol before vaping. Short-term cytotoxic analysis on two lung cellular models showed that dicarbonyl-polyphenol adducts are not cytotoxic, even though carbonyl trapping did not improve cell viability. Our work sheds lights on the ability of polyphenols to trap RCS in high carbonyl e-cigarette emissions, suggesting their potential value in commercial e-liquid formulations.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Authors Bruna de Falco, W. Edryd Stephens and Alberto Fiore are associated with a patent pending on content relating to this manuscript.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Heat-map showing the concentration of carbonyls and dicarbonyls in the aerosols of vaped e-cigarettes after addition of phenolic compounds in the e-liquid formulations. The addition of polyphenols reduced carbonyl and dicarbonyl concentration in the corresponding aerosols. Data were subjected to one-way ANOVA and significant differences (P ≤ 0.05) between means were determined using Tukey's test. Lowercase letters denote differences between treatments for each reactive carbonyl species. Each block is the mean value of three replicates ± SE, n = 3. C, control (model e-liquid system); EGCG, epigallocatechin gallate; nd, not detected; ns, not significant. Other carbonyls were area summed from known and unknown peaks as previously reported by Stephens et al., 2019. Boxes without letters, below limit of quantification.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2. The reduction of polyphenols in the e-liquid (SEL) and aerosol condensate samples. GA, gallic acid; HT, hydroxytyrosol, EGCG, epigallocatechin gallate.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3. Molecular structures and their exact masses of hypothesized adducts. Abbreviations used: HT, hydroxytyrosol, EGCG, epigallocatechin gallate, DOPAL, 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetaldehyde, GO, glyoxal, MGO, methylglyoxal.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4. The formation of adducts between phenolic compounds and dicarbonyls in e-liquid (SEL) and aerosol condensate samples after addition of phenolic compounds in the e-liquid formulations. DOPAL, 3,4-dihydrophenyl-acetaldehyde; EGCG, epigallocatechin gallate; GA, gallic acid; GO, glyoxal; MGO, methylglyoxal.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5. Putative pathway leading to the formation of the epigallocatechin gallate adduct (m/z [M − H] 567) as degradation product of the EGCG plus two methylglyoxal residues.
Fig. 6
Fig. 6. Short-term cytotoxic effect of e-cigarette aerosols on two lung cellular models, alveolar (A549) and bronchial (BEAS-2B) cell lines. Data were subjected to one-way ANOVA and significant differences (P ≤ 0.05) between means were determined using Tukey's test. Asterisks indicate differences between treatments of the same dilution in relation to the control water. Bars are the mean value of three replicates ± SE, n = 3. CC, condensed control; EGCG, epigallocatechin gallate; GA, gallic acid; HT, hydroxytyrosol.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Stephens W. E. Tob. Control. 2018;27(1):10. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-053808. - DOI - PubMed
    1. McNeill A., Brose L. S., Calder R., Bauld L. and Robson D., A report commissioned by Public Health England, London, Public Health England, 2018, vol. 6
    1. Farsalinos K. E. Polosa R. Ther. Adv. Drug Saf. 2014;5:67–86. doi: 10.1177/2042098614524430. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Eriksen M., Mackay J. and Ross H., The tobacco atlas, American cancer society Inc., Atlanta, GA, USA, 2012
    1. Hecht S. S. Langenbeck's Arch. Surg. 2006;391:603–613. doi: 10.1007/s00423-006-0111-z. - DOI - PubMed