Salazar · ACS central science 2025 · analytical chemistry and toxicological risk assessment study · n=?

Elevated Toxic Element Emissions from Popular Disposable E‑Cigarettes: Sources, Life Cycle, and Health Risks.

Cited 28 times in the scientific literature.

Level 5 - mechanism / opinion, no new human data

Bench and analytical laboratory investigation with toxicological risk assessment; no human participants.

PubMed 40893954 · doi:10.1021/acscentsci.5c00641 · record verified 2026-08-29

What was done

Researchers measured emissions of toxic metallic elements in aerosols and e-liquids across flavored and unflavored versions of three disposable e-cigarette brands (Esco Bar, Flum Pebble, and ELF Bar). They tracked element concentrations over device lifecycles, performed chemical speciation of chromium and antimony, identified device material sources, and modeled cancer and noncancer toxicological risk thresholds.

What was found

Coil-derived elements (chromium and nickel) increased up to 1000-fold in concentration over device lifecycles. Esco Bar devices showed high maximum concentrations of lead (up to 175 ppm), nickel (up to 38 ppm), copper (up to 546 ppm), and zinc (up to 462 ppm) in both e-liquids and aerosols. Illicit leaded bronze in nonheating components contacting e-liquid was identified as the lead source. Speciation detected chromium as nontoxic Cr-(III) and antimony as a mixture of nontoxic Sb-(V) and carcinogenic Sb-(III). Cancer risks (Ni, Sb-(III)) and noncancer toxicity risks (Pb, Ni) exceeded established safety thresholds.

Why it matters

This study shows that popular disposable e-cigarettes expose users to high concentrations of toxic heavy metals due to manufacturing defects and coil breakdown. It highlights a critical regulatory failure in device component safety and material standards.

Limits

The study is limited to laboratory device testing without human biomonitoring or clinical outcome evaluation. The exact number of individual devices tested was not reported in the abstract, and the material source for elevated antimony could not be identified.

Cited by