You are here

Article Text

Article menu

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Commentary
Evolving chemical landscape of e-cigarettes, 2021
  1. Elise Hickman1,
  2. Ilona Jaspers2
  1. 1Curriculum in Toxicology and Environmental Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
  2. 2Pediatrics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Ilona Jaspers, Pediatrics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill 27599, NC, USA; ilona_jaspers{at}med.unc.edu

https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056808

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Commentary

    Despite more than a decade of research on the health effects of e-cigarettes, there is still much that is unknown about how the chemicals in e-cigarettes may impact human health. One of the major challenges in e-cigarette research is keeping up with the wide variety of devices and e-liquid formulations available on the market. Recently, disposable e-cigarettes, such as Puff Bar and Puff Plus, skyrocketed in popularity following the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) restrictions on flavoured, cartridge-based products, such as JUUL. While the ban on flavoured, cartridge-based e-cigarettes was intended to reduce the appeal of e-cigarettes to youth, in reality, youth simply switched to disposable products that were not included in the flavour ban. This notion is supported by data from the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey, which indicates that between 2019 and 2020, the percentage of high school e-cigarette users who used disposable …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors EH and IJ developed an outline for this commentary. EH wrote the document and IJ edited and approved the final version.

    • Funding This study was funded by National Institutes of Health (F31 HL154758, R01 HL139369, T32 ES007126).

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles