↓ Skip to main content

Frontiers

Article Metrics

Inflammatory and Oxidative Responses Induced by Exposure to Commonly Used e-Cigarette Flavoring Chemicals and Flavored e-Liquids without Nicotine

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 6,899)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
49 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
101 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
3 Redditors
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 Mendeley
Title
Inflammatory and Oxidative Responses Induced by Exposure to Commonly Used e-Cigarette Flavoring Chemicals and Flavored e-Liquids without Nicotine
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2017.01130
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thivanka Muthumalage, Melanie Prinz, Kwadwo O. Ansah, Janice Gerloff, Isaac K. Sundar, Irfan Rahman

Abstract

Background: The respiratory health effects of inhalation exposure to e-cigarette flavoring chemicals are not well understood. We focused our study on the immuno-toxicological and the oxidative stress effects by these e-cigarette flavoring chemicals on two types of human monocytic cell lines, Mono Mac 6 (MM6) and U937. The potential to cause oxidative stress by these flavoring chemicals was assessed by measuring the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS). We hypothesized that the flavoring chemicals used in e-juices/e-liquids induce an inflammatory response, cellular toxicity, and ROS production. Methods: Two monocytic cell types, MM6 and U937 were exposed to commonly used e-cigarette flavoring chemicals; diacetyl, cinnamaldehyde, acetoin, pentanedione, o-vanillin, maltol and coumarin at different doses between 10 and 1,000 μM. Cell viability and the concentrations of the secreted inflammatory cytokine interleukin 8 (IL-8) were measured in the conditioned media. Cell-free ROS produced by these commonly used flavoring chemicals were also measured using a 2',7'dichlorofluorescein diacetate probe. These DCF fluorescence data were expressed as hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) equivalents. Cytotoxicity due to the exposure to selected e-liquids was assessed by cell viability and the IL-8 inflammatory cytokine response in the conditioned media. Results: Treatment of the cells with flavoring chemicals and flavored e-liquid without nicotine caused cytotoxicity dose-dependently. The exposed monocytic cells secreted interleukin 8 (IL-8) chemokine in a dose-dependent manner compared to the unexposed cell groups depicting a biologically significant inflammatory response. The measurement of cell-free ROS by the flavoring chemicals and e-liquids showed significantly increased levels of H2O2 equivalents in a dose-dependent manner compared to the control reagents. Mixing a variety of flavors resulted in greater cytotoxicity and cell-free ROS levels compared to the treatments with individual flavors, suggesting that mixing of multiple flavors of e-liquids are more harmful to the users. Conclusions: Our data suggest that the flavorings used in e-juices can trigger an inflammatory response in monocytes, mediated by ROS production, providing insights into potential pulmonary toxicity and tissue damage in e-cigarette users.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 101 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 122 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 35 29%
Researcher 16 13%
Student > Master 12 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Other 9 7%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 27 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 6%
Psychology 6 5%
Other 28 23%
Unknown 33 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 481. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 February 2020.
All research outputs
#20,699
of 14,554,082 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#8
of 6,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,142
of 399,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#2
of 673 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,554,082 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,899 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 399,456 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 673 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.