Cited by 296Smoking Behavior and CessationInhalation and Respiratory Drug DeliverySubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Have combustible cigarettes met their match? The nicotine delivery profiles and harmful constituent exposures of second-generation and third-generation electronic cigarette users

Open access
Wagener, Theodore L, Floyd, Evan L, Stepanov, Irina, Driskill, Leslie M, Frank, Summer G, Meier, Ellen, Leavens, Eleanor L, Tackett, Alayna P +2 more·2017·Tobacco Control

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Electronic cigarettes' (e-cigarettes) viability as a public health strategy to end smoking will likely be determined by their ability to mimic the pharmacokinetic profile of a cigarette while also exposing users to significantly lower levels of harmful/potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs). The present study examined the nicotine delivery profile of third- (G3) versus second-generation (G2) e-cigarette devices and their users' exposure to nicotine and select HPHCs compared with cigarette smokers. METHODS: 30 participants (10 smokers, 9 G2 and 11 G3 users) completed baseline questionnaires and provided exhaled carbon monoxide (eCO), saliva and urine samples. Following a 12-hour nicotine abstinence, G2 and G3 users completed a 2-hour vaping session (ie, 5 min, 10-puff bout followed by ad libitum puffing for 115 min). Blood samples, subjective effects, device characteristics and e-liquid consumption were assessed. RESULTS: Smokers, G2 and G3 users had similar baseline levels of cotinine, but smokers had 4 and 7 times higher levels of eCO (p<0.0001) and total 4-(Methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (i.e., NNAL, p<0.01), respectively, than G2 or G3 users. Compared with G2s, G3 devices delivered significantly higher power to the atomiser, but G3 users vaped e-cigarette liquids with significantly lower nicotine concentrations. During the vaping session, G3 users achieved significantly higher plasma nicotine concentrations than G2 users following the first 10 puffs (17.5 vs 7.3 ng/mL, respectively) and at 25 and 40 min of ad libitum use. G3 users consumed significantly more e-liquid than G2 users. Vaping urges/withdrawal were reduced following 10 puffs, with no significant differences between device groups. DISCUSSION: Under normal use conditions, both G2 and G3 devices deliver cigarette-like amounts of nicotine, but G3 devices matched the amount and speed of nicotine delivery of a conventional cigarette. Compared with cigarettes, G2 and G3 e-cigarettes resulted in significantly lower levels of exposure to a potent lung carcinogen and cardiovascular toxicant. These findings have significant implications for understanding the addiction potential of these devices and their viability/suitability as aids to smoking cessation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053041

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wagener, T. L., Floyd, E. L., Stepanov, I., Driskill, L. M., Frank, S. G., Meier, E., Leavens, E. L., Tackett, A. P., Molina, N., & Queimado, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Oklahoma State University (US)
Corresponding author
Wagener, Theodore L
Venue
Tobacco Control
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2016-10-11
Volume
26
Issue
e1
Pages
e23-e28
ISSN
  • 0964-4563 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3318
OpenAlex
W2531489008
Cited by
296
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 2
FWCI
29.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Tobacco Control (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (T32DA007097)
  • National Cancer Institute (R33CA202898, R01CA204891, L30 CA209711)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (U54GM104938)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Inhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
nicotine delivery, harmful and potentially harmful constituents, nicotine pharmacokinetics, plasma nicotine concentration, exhaled carbon monoxide, NNK, cotinine, smoking cessation
MeSH terms
Smokers, Adult, Carbon Monoxide, Cotinine, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nicotine, Surveys and Questionnaires, Saliva, Smoking, Time Factors, Young Adult, Tobacco Products, Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review