Table 2.

The Influence of E-cig Device Type and E-liquid Flavors on the Extent of DNA Damage in Vapers Versus Nonusers

			Lesions/10 kb	Lesions/10 kb/Years vaped*	Lesions/10 kb/Cum e-liq*
Vapers	Device	Mod	0.684 ± 0.239	0.195 ± 0.059	1.80E-4 ± 6.22E-5
		Pod	0.864 ± 0.175†	1.077 ± 0.336	3.13E-2 ± 1.70E2
		Multiple	0.423 ± 0.280	0.089 ± 0.044	1.20E-4 ± 5.10E-5
	Flavor	Fruit	0.402 ± 0.176	0.295 ± 0.187	0.001 ± 0.001
		Sweet	1.262 ± 0.148‡	1.513 ± 0.836	0.065 ± 0.041
		Mint or Menthol	0.692 ± 0.222	0.598 ± 0.224	0.009 ± 0.005
		Tobacco	0.670¶	0.164	4.6E-4
		Multiple	0.699 ± 0.320	0.193 ± 0.068	2.0E-4 ± 9.0E-5
Nonusers			0.262 ± 0.049	NA	NA

NA = Not applicable, ANOVA = Analysis of variance.

Summary results of LA-QPCR in the POLB gene in oral cells of vapers as compared to nonusers. Vapers were divided into three groups, including users of third-generation devices (“mod”), users of fourth-generation devices (“pod” = JUUL and JUUL alike), and users of “multiple” generation devices. E-liquid flavors consumed by vapers were divided into five categories, including (1) fruit, (2) sweet (ie, candy or desserts or other sweets), (3) mint or menthol, (4) tobacco, and (5) multiple.

^*To account for the extent and duration of use of different generation devices or different e-liquid flavors, data were adjusted for “years vaped” and “cumulative e-liquid consumed.” Cumulative e-liquid (Cum e-liq) is calculated as the total volume of e-liquid (in milliliters) vaped by a person during his or her lifetime.

^†Statistically significant as compared to nonusers; ANOVA: F = 3.886, p = .0152 | Tukey’s HSD p = .0216. We have also analyzed the data using the nonparametric test of Kruskal Wallis followed by post hoc Dunn’s test, which is better equipped for smaller samples with data variability.²³ Analysis of the data by this nonparametric test yielded statistically significant results similar to those obtained by its parametric counterpart (ANOVA) as follows: p = .036 | Dunn’s p = .0038.

^‡Statistically significant as compared to nonusers; ANOVA: F = 3.238, p = .0146 | Tukey’s HSD p < .05. We note that exclusion of ^¶tobacco group from the analysis did not change the statistically significant result: ANOVA: F = 4.002, p = .0077 | Tukey’s HSD p = .0112. Furthermore, the nonparametric test of Kruskal Wallis followed by post hoc Dunn’s test yielded similar statistically significant results: Tobacco group included: p = .043 | Dunn’s p = .0041 and Tobacco group excluded: p = .033 | Dunn’s p = .0048.

Results are expressed as mean ± SE from duplicate samples assayed independently up to 2 times.