<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><submitter>Omaiye EE</submitter><funding>National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences</funding><funding>Predoctoral Fellowship from the UCR Graduate Division</funding><funding>NIEHS NIH HHS</funding><pagination>e3-e9</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC8716610</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>31(e1)</volume><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently banned flavours from pod-style electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), except for menthol and tobacco. JUUL customers have quickly discovered that flavoured disposable e-cigarettes from other manufacturers, such as Puff, are readily available. Our goal was to compare flavour chemicals, synthetic coolants and pulegone in mint-flavoured/menthol-flavoured e-cigarettes from JUUL and Puff, evaluate the cytotoxicity of the coolants and perform a cancer risk assessment for pulegone, which is present in both JUUL pods and disposable Puff products.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>Identification and quantification of chemicals were performed using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Cytotoxicity of the coolants was evaluated with BEAS-2B cells using the MTT 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide assay. The cancer risk of pulegone was calculated using the margin of exposure (MOE).&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>Menthol was the dominant flavour chemical (>1 mg/mL) in all products from both manufacturers. Minor flavour chemicals (&lt;1 mg/mL) differed in the JUUL and Puff fluids and may produce flavour accents. The concentrations of WS-3 and WS-23 were higher in Puff than in JUUL. WS-23 was cytotoxic in the MTT assay at concentrations 90 times lower than concentrations in Puff fluids. The risk of cancer (MOE&lt;10 000) was greater for mint than for menthol products and greater for Puff than for JUUL.&lt;h4>Conclusions&lt;/h4>Switching from flavoured JUUL to Puff e-cigarettes may expose users to increased harm due to the higher levels of WS-23 and pulegone in Puff products. Cancer risk may be reduced in e-cigarettes by using pure menthol rather than mint oils to produce minty-flavoured e-cigarette products.</pubmed_abstract><journal>Tobacco control</journal><pubmed_title>Flavour chemicals, synthetic coolants and pulegone in popular mint-flavoured and menthol-flavoured e-cigarettes.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC8716610</pmcid><funding_grant_id>R01ES029741-01</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>R01 ES029741</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>no award grant number</funding_grant_id><pubmed_authors>Omaiye EE</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>McWhirter KJ</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Luo W</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Talbot P</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Pankow JF</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Flavour chemicals, synthetic coolants and pulegone in popular mint-flavoured and menthol-flavoured e-cigarettes.</name><description>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently banned flavours from pod-style electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), except for menthol and tobacco. JUUL customers have quickly discovered that flavoured disposable e-cigarettes from other manufacturers, such as Puff, are readily available. Our goal was to compare flavour chemicals, synthetic coolants and pulegone in mint-flavoured/menthol-flavoured e-cigarettes from JUUL and Puff, evaluate the cytotoxicity of the coolants and perform a cancer risk assessment for pulegone, which is present in both JUUL pods and disposable Puff products.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>Identification and quantification of chemicals were performed using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Cytotoxicity of the coolants was evaluated with BEAS-2B cells using the MTT 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide assay. The cancer risk of pulegone was calculated using the margin of exposure (MOE).&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>Menthol was the dominant flavour chemical (>1 mg/mL) in all products from both manufacturers. Minor flavour chemicals (&lt;1 mg/mL) differed in the JUUL and Puff fluids and may produce flavour accents. The concentrations of WS-3 and WS-23 were higher in Puff than in JUUL. WS-23 was cytotoxic in the MTT assay at concentrations 90 times lower than concentrations in Puff fluids. The risk of cancer (MOE&lt;10 000) was greater for mint than for menthol products and greater for Puff than for JUUL.&lt;h4>Conclusions&lt;/h4>Switching from flavoured JUUL to Puff e-cigarettes may expose users to increased harm due to the higher levels of WS-23 and pulegone in Puff products. Cancer risk may be reduced in e-cigarettes by using pure menthol rather than mint oils to produce minty-flavoured e-cigarette products.</description><dates><release>2022-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2022 Aug</publication><modification>2026-07-15T21:25:24.553Z</modification><creation>2026-07-09T10:14:34.638Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC8716610</accession><cross_references><pubmed>34193607</pubmed><doi>10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056582</doi></cross_references></HashMap>