Table 4.
Studies on CO, ROS, degradation pathways and nicotine vs. carbonyls. Author names are hyperlinked to review entries in Section 7, Section 8, Section 9 and Section 10. The traffic light codes are given in Table 2: [✔, +/−, ✖, ?] and [●, ●, ●, ●] are respectively [Fully Consistent, Restricted Consistency, Completely Inconsistent, Missing information] and [Fully Reliable, Restricted Reliability, Completely Unreliable, Missing information]. The number codes in the column “Comments” are: (1) sub-ohm device with CORESTA high powers, (2) sub-ohm device with CORESTA recommended powers, (3) other forms of inconsistent protocol, (4) incorrect computation of exposure, (5) outliers not properly identified, (6) devices not fully identified, (7) testing power not identified, (8) too frequent puffs, (9) too long puffs, (10) used old devices. (NA) stands for “does not apply” (these studies only simulated an EC).
| Experimental Consistency |
Reproducibility | Toxicological Confidence |
Comments | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First Author & Hyperlink |
Vaping Regime |
Power Range |
Emissions Generation |
Trapping & Analysis |
||
| CO | ||||||
| Casebolt [35] | ✖ | ✖ | +/− | ✔ | ● | (1)(3) |
| El Hellani [36] | ✖ | ✖ | +/1 | ✔ | ● | (1)(3)(4) |
| Son [37] | +/− | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ● | (2)(3) |
| ROS | ||||||
| Bitzer (a) [38] | ✖ | +/− | ✔ | ✔ | ● | (2)(3) |
| Bitzer (b) [39] | ✖ | ✖ | ✔ | ✔ | ● | (2)(3) |
| Son [40] | ✔ | +/− | ✔ | ✔ | ● | (3)(4) |
| Haddad [41] | ✖ | ✖ | +/− | ✔ | ● | (1)(3)(9) |
| Degradation reactions & carbonyl formation | ||||||
| Jensen [42] | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ● | (9) |
| Wang [43] | (NA) | +/− | +/− | ✔ | ● | (3) |
| Li [44] | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ● | (8)(9) |
| Melvin [45] | ✔ | ✔ | +/− | ✔ | ● | (6)(9)(10) |
| Jaegers [46] | (NA) | (NA) | ✔ | ✔ | (NA) | |
| Nicotine compensation vs. carbonyls | ||||||
| Dawkins [47] | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ● | |
| Kosmider [48] | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ● | |