Skip to main content
. 2020 Nov 23;179(2):220–228. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfaa174

Table 5.

Potency Score, Chemical, and Carbonyl Burdens for E-Liquids

E-Liquid a Assay b
NRU ROS TBARs MN Total Score c Chemicals (mg/ml) d Carbonyls (ng/Puff) e
Unflavored 1 0 0 5 6 0.46 101
Arctic Blast 0 1 2 0 3 8.20 2576
Blue Pucker 2 3 2 5 14 1.94 1232
Jamestown 2 1 1 8 12 0.35 186
Love Potion 2 8 6 1 17 3.12 1319
Mardi Gras 1 4 0 3 8 1.90 2171
Midnight Splash 0 3 4 2 9 0.88 4090
Port Royale 0 5 3 3 11 14.60f 2156
Tobacco Row 2 4 2 4 10 4.35 690
Tortuga 0 5 0 2 7 9.69 424
Uptown 1 1 0 4 6 1.59 1930
a

All e-liquids contain 70%PG/30%VG.

b

One point for each exposure causing ≥20% cytotoxicity assessed by NRU, 1 point for each exposure when significant for ROS-Glo, TBARs, and MN (micronuclei) and 1 point when dose response was seen.

c

There was no correlation between chemicals (p = .96) or carbonyls (p = .62) and total score.

d

Total level of 30 chemical constituents previously assessed (Zhou et al., 2020).

e

Combined level of carbonyls: formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein previously quantified from e-liquid vapor containing nicotine at 5 V (Zhou et al., 2020).

f

Menthol comprised 12.26 mg/ml of the chemical burden.