Loading…

GC–MS analysis of e-cigarette refill solutions: A comparison of flavoring composition between flavor categories

•We identified and quantified flavoring ingredients in 320 e-liquids using GC–MS.•The most prevalent flavorings were vanillin, ethyl butyrate, and cis-3-hexenol.•Based on flavoring prevalence, we distinguished 4 clusters of flavor categories.•Flavoring concentrations varied between e-liquids within...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis 2020-09, Vol.188, p.113364-113364, Article 113364
Main Authors: Krüsemann, Erna J.Z., Pennings, Jeroen L.A., Cremers, Johannes W.J.M., Bakker, Frank, Boesveldt, Sanne, Talhout, Reinskje
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c377t-508b6167e760655fa8e6904c2fbb30d5f7e4656b7daa9002484833c7b358aa723
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c377t-508b6167e760655fa8e6904c2fbb30d5f7e4656b7daa9002484833c7b358aa723
container_end_page 113364
container_issue
container_start_page 113364
container_title Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis
container_volume 188
creator Krüsemann, Erna J.Z.
Pennings, Jeroen L.A.
Cremers, Johannes W.J.M.
Bakker, Frank
Boesveldt, Sanne
Talhout, Reinskje
description •We identified and quantified flavoring ingredients in 320 e-liquids using GC–MS.•The most prevalent flavorings were vanillin, ethyl butyrate, and cis-3-hexenol.•Based on flavoring prevalence, we distinguished 4 clusters of flavor categories.•Flavoring concentrations varied between e-liquids within a category. Electronic cigarette refill solutions (e-liquids) are available in various flavor descriptions that can be categorized as fruit, tobacco, and more. Flavors increase sensory appeal, thereby stimulating e-cigarette use, and flavoring ingredients can contribute to e-cigarette toxicity. We aim to inform toxicologists, sensory scientists, and regulators by determining flavoring compounds in e-liquids with various flavors, and compare results between flavor categories. Gas chromatography - mass spectrometry (GC–MS) was used to identify 79 flavorings in 320 e-liquids, classified in 15 flavor categories. Ten flavorings highly prevalent in e-liquids according to information from manufacturers were quantified. Flavoring prevalence was defined as the number of e-liquids with the flavoring as percentage of the total number of e-liquids. The method was validated in terms of specificity, linearity, repeatability, recovery, and sensitivity. The mean number of flavorings per e-liquid was 6 ± 4. Flavoring prevalence was highest for vanillin (creamy/vanilla flavor), ethyl butyrate (ethereal/fruity), and cis-3-hexenol (fresh/green). Based on similarities in flavoring prevalence, four clusters of categories were distinguished: (1) fruit, candy, alcohol, beverages; (2) dessert, coffee/tea, nuts, sweets; (3) menthol/mint; and (4) spices, tobacco, and unflavored. Categories from cluster 4 generally had less flavorings per e-liquid than fruit, candy, alcohol, beverages (cluster 1) and dessert (cluster 2) (p < 0.05). Flavoring concentrations varied between e-liquids within the categories. We evaluated flavoring compositions of 320 e-liquids using a simple GC–MS method. Flavoring prevalence was similar within four clusters of typically fresh/sweet, warm/sweet, fresh/cooling, and non-sweet flavor categories. To compare flavoring concentrations between individual flavor categories, additional research is needed.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jpba.2020.113364
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2411107946</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0731708520312504</els_id><sourcerecordid>2411107946</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c377t-508b6167e760655fa8e6904c2fbb30d5f7e4656b7daa9002484833c7b358aa723</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kLFOwzAQhi0EEqXwAkweWVLs2LETxFJVUJCKGACJzXKcS-UojVM7BXXjHXhDnoSEdGY66b_vP-k-hC4pmVFCxXU1q9pcz2IS9wFlTPAjNKGpZFEs-PsxmhDJaCRJmpyisxAqQkhCMz5B2-Xi5-v76QXrRtf7YAN2JYbI2LX20HWAPZS2rnFw9a6zrgk3eI6N27Ta2-CagS5r_eG8bdZ_uQt24HAO3SdAc9hioztY9xSEc3RS6jrAxWFO0dv93eviIVo9Lx8X81VkmJRdlJA0F1RIkIKIJCl1CiIj3MRlnjNSJKUELhKRy0LrjJCYpzxlzMicJanWMmZTdDXebb3b7iB0amODgbrWDbhdUDGnlBKZcdGj8Yga70LoP1attxvt94oSNfhVlRr8qsGvGv32pduxBP0THxa8CsZCY6CwHkynCmf_q_8CZC-Fkg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2411107946</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>GC–MS analysis of e-cigarette refill solutions: A comparison of flavoring composition between flavor categories</title><source>Elsevier</source><creator>Krüsemann, Erna J.Z. ; Pennings, Jeroen L.A. ; Cremers, Johannes W.J.M. ; Bakker, Frank ; Boesveldt, Sanne ; Talhout, Reinskje</creator><creatorcontrib>Krüsemann, Erna J.Z. ; Pennings, Jeroen L.A. ; Cremers, Johannes W.J.M. ; Bakker, Frank ; Boesveldt, Sanne ; Talhout, Reinskje</creatorcontrib><description>•We identified and quantified flavoring ingredients in 320 e-liquids using GC–MS.•The most prevalent flavorings were vanillin, ethyl butyrate, and cis-3-hexenol.•Based on flavoring prevalence, we distinguished 4 clusters of flavor categories.•Flavoring concentrations varied between e-liquids within a category. Electronic cigarette refill solutions (e-liquids) are available in various flavor descriptions that can be categorized as fruit, tobacco, and more. Flavors increase sensory appeal, thereby stimulating e-cigarette use, and flavoring ingredients can contribute to e-cigarette toxicity. We aim to inform toxicologists, sensory scientists, and regulators by determining flavoring compounds in e-liquids with various flavors, and compare results between flavor categories. Gas chromatography - mass spectrometry (GC–MS) was used to identify 79 flavorings in 320 e-liquids, classified in 15 flavor categories. Ten flavorings highly prevalent in e-liquids according to information from manufacturers were quantified. Flavoring prevalence was defined as the number of e-liquids with the flavoring as percentage of the total number of e-liquids. The method was validated in terms of specificity, linearity, repeatability, recovery, and sensitivity. The mean number of flavorings per e-liquid was 6 ± 4. Flavoring prevalence was highest for vanillin (creamy/vanilla flavor), ethyl butyrate (ethereal/fruity), and cis-3-hexenol (fresh/green). Based on similarities in flavoring prevalence, four clusters of categories were distinguished: (1) fruit, candy, alcohol, beverages; (2) dessert, coffee/tea, nuts, sweets; (3) menthol/mint; and (4) spices, tobacco, and unflavored. Categories from cluster 4 generally had less flavorings per e-liquid than fruit, candy, alcohol, beverages (cluster 1) and dessert (cluster 2) (p &lt; 0.05). Flavoring concentrations varied between e-liquids within the categories. We evaluated flavoring compositions of 320 e-liquids using a simple GC–MS method. Flavoring prevalence was similar within four clusters of typically fresh/sweet, warm/sweet, fresh/cooling, and non-sweet flavor categories. To compare flavoring concentrations between individual flavor categories, additional research is needed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0731-7085</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-264X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2020.113364</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>e-Liquids ; Electronic cigarettes ; Flavor compounds ; Flavor ingredients ; Flavors ; Gas chromatography - mass spectrometry</subject><ispartof>Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis, 2020-09, Vol.188, p.113364-113364, Article 113364</ispartof><rights>2020 The Author(s)</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c377t-508b6167e760655fa8e6904c2fbb30d5f7e4656b7daa9002484833c7b358aa723</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c377t-508b6167e760655fa8e6904c2fbb30d5f7e4656b7daa9002484833c7b358aa723</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27900,27901</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Krüsemann, Erna J.Z.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pennings, Jeroen L.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cremers, Johannes W.J.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bakker, Frank</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boesveldt, Sanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Talhout, Reinskje</creatorcontrib><title>GC–MS analysis of e-cigarette refill solutions: A comparison of flavoring composition between flavor categories</title><title>Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis</title><description>•We identified and quantified flavoring ingredients in 320 e-liquids using GC–MS.•The most prevalent flavorings were vanillin, ethyl butyrate, and cis-3-hexenol.•Based on flavoring prevalence, we distinguished 4 clusters of flavor categories.•Flavoring concentrations varied between e-liquids within a category. Electronic cigarette refill solutions (e-liquids) are available in various flavor descriptions that can be categorized as fruit, tobacco, and more. Flavors increase sensory appeal, thereby stimulating e-cigarette use, and flavoring ingredients can contribute to e-cigarette toxicity. We aim to inform toxicologists, sensory scientists, and regulators by determining flavoring compounds in e-liquids with various flavors, and compare results between flavor categories. Gas chromatography - mass spectrometry (GC–MS) was used to identify 79 flavorings in 320 e-liquids, classified in 15 flavor categories. Ten flavorings highly prevalent in e-liquids according to information from manufacturers were quantified. Flavoring prevalence was defined as the number of e-liquids with the flavoring as percentage of the total number of e-liquids. The method was validated in terms of specificity, linearity, repeatability, recovery, and sensitivity. The mean number of flavorings per e-liquid was 6 ± 4. Flavoring prevalence was highest for vanillin (creamy/vanilla flavor), ethyl butyrate (ethereal/fruity), and cis-3-hexenol (fresh/green). Based on similarities in flavoring prevalence, four clusters of categories were distinguished: (1) fruit, candy, alcohol, beverages; (2) dessert, coffee/tea, nuts, sweets; (3) menthol/mint; and (4) spices, tobacco, and unflavored. Categories from cluster 4 generally had less flavorings per e-liquid than fruit, candy, alcohol, beverages (cluster 1) and dessert (cluster 2) (p &lt; 0.05). Flavoring concentrations varied between e-liquids within the categories. We evaluated flavoring compositions of 320 e-liquids using a simple GC–MS method. Flavoring prevalence was similar within four clusters of typically fresh/sweet, warm/sweet, fresh/cooling, and non-sweet flavor categories. To compare flavoring concentrations between individual flavor categories, additional research is needed.</description><subject>e-Liquids</subject><subject>Electronic cigarettes</subject><subject>Flavor compounds</subject><subject>Flavor ingredients</subject><subject>Flavors</subject><subject>Gas chromatography - mass spectrometry</subject><issn>0731-7085</issn><issn>1873-264X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kLFOwzAQhi0EEqXwAkweWVLs2LETxFJVUJCKGACJzXKcS-UojVM7BXXjHXhDnoSEdGY66b_vP-k-hC4pmVFCxXU1q9pcz2IS9wFlTPAjNKGpZFEs-PsxmhDJaCRJmpyisxAqQkhCMz5B2-Xi5-v76QXrRtf7YAN2JYbI2LX20HWAPZS2rnFw9a6zrgk3eI6N27Ta2-CagS5r_eG8bdZ_uQt24HAO3SdAc9hioztY9xSEc3RS6jrAxWFO0dv93eviIVo9Lx8X81VkmJRdlJA0F1RIkIKIJCl1CiIj3MRlnjNSJKUELhKRy0LrjJCYpzxlzMicJanWMmZTdDXebb3b7iB0amODgbrWDbhdUDGnlBKZcdGj8Yga70LoP1attxvt94oSNfhVlRr8qsGvGv32pduxBP0THxa8CsZCY6CwHkynCmf_q_8CZC-Fkg</recordid><startdate>20200905</startdate><enddate>20200905</enddate><creator>Krüsemann, Erna J.Z.</creator><creator>Pennings, Jeroen L.A.</creator><creator>Cremers, Johannes W.J.M.</creator><creator>Bakker, Frank</creator><creator>Boesveldt, Sanne</creator><creator>Talhout, Reinskje</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20200905</creationdate><title>GC–MS analysis of e-cigarette refill solutions: A comparison of flavoring composition between flavor categories</title><author>Krüsemann, Erna J.Z. ; Pennings, Jeroen L.A. ; Cremers, Johannes W.J.M. ; Bakker, Frank ; Boesveldt, Sanne ; Talhout, Reinskje</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c377t-508b6167e760655fa8e6904c2fbb30d5f7e4656b7daa9002484833c7b358aa723</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>e-Liquids</topic><topic>Electronic cigarettes</topic><topic>Flavor compounds</topic><topic>Flavor ingredients</topic><topic>Flavors</topic><topic>Gas chromatography - mass spectrometry</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Krüsemann, Erna J.Z.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pennings, Jeroen L.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cremers, Johannes W.J.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bakker, Frank</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boesveldt, Sanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Talhout, Reinskje</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Krüsemann, Erna J.Z.</au><au>Pennings, Jeroen L.A.</au><au>Cremers, Johannes W.J.M.</au><au>Bakker, Frank</au><au>Boesveldt, Sanne</au><au>Talhout, Reinskje</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>GC–MS analysis of e-cigarette refill solutions: A comparison of flavoring composition between flavor categories</atitle><jtitle>Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis</jtitle><date>2020-09-05</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>188</volume><spage>113364</spage><epage>113364</epage><pages>113364-113364</pages><artnum>113364</artnum><issn>0731-7085</issn><eissn>1873-264X</eissn><abstract>•We identified and quantified flavoring ingredients in 320 e-liquids using GC–MS.•The most prevalent flavorings were vanillin, ethyl butyrate, and cis-3-hexenol.•Based on flavoring prevalence, we distinguished 4 clusters of flavor categories.•Flavoring concentrations varied between e-liquids within a category. Electronic cigarette refill solutions (e-liquids) are available in various flavor descriptions that can be categorized as fruit, tobacco, and more. Flavors increase sensory appeal, thereby stimulating e-cigarette use, and flavoring ingredients can contribute to e-cigarette toxicity. We aim to inform toxicologists, sensory scientists, and regulators by determining flavoring compounds in e-liquids with various flavors, and compare results between flavor categories. Gas chromatography - mass spectrometry (GC–MS) was used to identify 79 flavorings in 320 e-liquids, classified in 15 flavor categories. Ten flavorings highly prevalent in e-liquids according to information from manufacturers were quantified. Flavoring prevalence was defined as the number of e-liquids with the flavoring as percentage of the total number of e-liquids. The method was validated in terms of specificity, linearity, repeatability, recovery, and sensitivity. The mean number of flavorings per e-liquid was 6 ± 4. Flavoring prevalence was highest for vanillin (creamy/vanilla flavor), ethyl butyrate (ethereal/fruity), and cis-3-hexenol (fresh/green). Based on similarities in flavoring prevalence, four clusters of categories were distinguished: (1) fruit, candy, alcohol, beverages; (2) dessert, coffee/tea, nuts, sweets; (3) menthol/mint; and (4) spices, tobacco, and unflavored. Categories from cluster 4 generally had less flavorings per e-liquid than fruit, candy, alcohol, beverages (cluster 1) and dessert (cluster 2) (p &lt; 0.05). Flavoring concentrations varied between e-liquids within the categories. We evaluated flavoring compositions of 320 e-liquids using a simple GC–MS method. Flavoring prevalence was similar within four clusters of typically fresh/sweet, warm/sweet, fresh/cooling, and non-sweet flavor categories. To compare flavoring concentrations between individual flavor categories, additional research is needed.</abstract><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/j.jpba.2020.113364</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0731-7085
ispartof Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis, 2020-09, Vol.188, p.113364-113364, Article 113364
issn 0731-7085
1873-264X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2411107946
source Elsevier
subjects e-Liquids
Electronic cigarettes
Flavor compounds
Flavor ingredients
Flavors
Gas chromatography - mass spectrometry
title GC–MS analysis of e-cigarette refill solutions: A comparison of flavoring composition between flavor categories
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-24T04%3A18%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=GC%E2%80%93MS%20analysis%20of%20e-cigarette%20refill%20solutions:%20A%20comparison%20of%20flavoring%20composition%20between%20flavor%20categories&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20pharmaceutical%20and%20biomedical%20analysis&rft.au=Kr%C3%BCsemann,%20Erna%20J.Z.&rft.date=2020-09-05&rft.volume=188&rft.spage=113364&rft.epage=113364&rft.pages=113364-113364&rft.artnum=113364&rft.issn=0731-7085&rft.eissn=1873-264X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jpba.2020.113364&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2411107946%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c377t-508b6167e760655fa8e6904c2fbb30d5f7e4656b7daa9002484833c7b358aa723%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2411107946&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true