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
. 2023 May 22;25(6):1145-1154.
doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntad003.

Vaping Dose, Device Type, and E-Liquid Flavor are Determinants of DNA Damage in Electronic Cigarette Users

Affiliations

Vaping Dose, Device Type, and E-Liquid Flavor are Determinants of DNA Damage in Electronic Cigarette Users

Stella Tommasi et al. Nicotine Tob Res. .

Abstract

Introduction: Despite the widespread use of electronic cigarettes, the long-term health consequences of vaping are largely unknown.

Aims and methods: We investigated the DNA-damaging effects of vaping as compared to smoking in healthy adults, including "exclusive" vapers (never smokers), cigarette smokers only, and nonusers, matched for age, gender, and race (N = 72). Following biochemical verification of vaping or smoking status, we quantified DNA damage in oral epithelial cells of our study subjects, using a long-amplicon quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay.

Results: We detected significantly increased levels of DNA damage in both vapers and smokers as compared to nonusers (p = .005 and p = .020, respectively). While the mean levels of DNA damage did not differ significantly between vapers and smokers (p = .522), damage levels increased dose-dependently, from light users to heavy users, in both vapers and smokers as compared to nonusers. Among vapers, pod users followed by mod users, and those who used sweet-, mint or menthol-, and fruit-flavored e-liquids, respectively, showed the highest levels of DNA damage. The nicotine content of e-liquid was not a predictor of DNA damage in vapers.

Conclusions: This is the first demonstration of a dose-dependent formation of DNA damage in vapers who had never smoked cigarettes. Our data support a role for product characteristics, specifically device type and e-liquid flavor, in the induction of DNA damage in vapers. Given the popularity of pod and mod devices and the preferability of sweet-, mint or menthol-, and fruit-flavored e-liquids by both adult- and youth vapers, our findings can have significant implications for public health and tobacco products regulation.

Implications: We demonstrate a dose-dependent formation of DNA damage in oral cells from vapers who had never smoked tobacco cigarettes as well as exclusive cigarette smokers. Device type and e-liquid flavor determine the extent of DNA damage detected in vapers. Users of pod devices followed by mod users, and those who use sweet-, mint or menthol-, and fruit-flavored e-liquids, respectively, show the highest levels of DNA damage when compared to nonusers. Given the popularity of pod and mod devices and the preferability of these same flavors of e-liquid by both adult- and youth vapers, our findings can have significant implications for public health and tobacco products regulation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All the authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Comparison of DNA damage levels between vapers and nonusers, smokers and nonusers, and vapers and smokers. DNA damage levels were determined in genomic DNA of oral epithelial cells from healthy adult “exclusive” vapers (never smokers), cigarette smokers only, and nonusers by LA-QPCR, as described in the text. Panels (A–C) show the LA-QPCR results in the POLB gene whereas Panels (D–F) displays the respective results in the HPRT gene. Distribution of data within each group is shown by box and whisker plots whereby “lower” and “upper” edges of the boxes represent the first and third quartiles, respectively, and horizontal lines within the boxes indicate the second quartile. The “lower” and “upper” vertical lines extending from the boxes, also known as the “whiskers,” represent the lowest and highest data points, respectively, in the set (minimum and maximum values, respectively, excluding values outside the whiskers’ range). The five measures of box and whisker plots are all labeled within the graphs. All samples were assayed independently up to 2 times and results were averaged for each sample. DNA damage levels were compared between each two independent groups, as described in the text; p values are indicated for all comparisons.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Dose-dependent formation of DNA damage in vapers and smokers as compared to nonusers. To examine the dose dependency of DNA damage, both vapers and smokers were divided into two groups, including “light” and “heavy” users based on cumulative e-liquid consumption and pack year, respectively, as described in the text. Distribution of data within each group is shown by box and whisker plots, with the five indicating measures of each plot being labeled within the graphs (see, description in legend for Figure 1). *Statistically significant as compared to nonusers: Analysis of variance (ANOVA): F = 4.571, p = .0156 | Tukey’s HSD p = .0195. Statistically significant as compared to nonusers: ANOVA: F = 4.368, p = .0185 | Tukey’s HSD p = .0135.

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Hartmann-Boyce J, McRobbie H, Lindson N, et al. . Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;10:CD010216. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wang RJ, Bhadriraju S, Glantz SA.. E-cigarette use and adult cigarette smoking cessation: a meta-analysis. Am J Public Health. 2020;111(2):230–246. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Balfour DJK, Benowitz NL, Colby SM, et al. . Balancing consideration of the risks and benefits of e-cigarettes. Am J Public Health. Sep 2021;111(9):1661–1672. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Besaratinia A, Tommasi S.. Vaping epidemic: challenges and opportunities. Cancer Causes Control. 2020;31(7):663–667. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gordon T, Karey E, Rebuli ME, et al. . E-cigarette toxicology. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2022;62:301–322. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

-