Pod-mod vs. conventional e-cigarettes: nicotine chemistry, ph, and health effects.

Introduction:
This text is a scientific study published in the Journal of applied Physiology that compares the nicotine chemistry, ph, and health effects of Pod-Mod e-cigarettes, specifically JUUL, and conventional e-cigarettes, specifically Blu. The study focuses on the differences in ph and protonated vs. unprotonated nicotine between the two types of e-cigarettes and the potential health effects of these differences.

Key Points:

* JUUL e-cigarettes contain 5% nicotine in benzoic salt form, while Blu e-cigarettes contain 2.4% nicotine free base.
* The ph of JUUL e-liquid is 6.0, while the ph of Blu e-liquid is 8.26.
* The concentration of protonated nicotine, the ligand of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (naChRs), in JUUL is 6.9 times higher than Blu.
* The concentration of unprotonated nicotine, which readily diffuses across membranes, in Blu is 26 times higher than that in JUUL.
* Theoretically, JUUL e-cigarettes potentially would lead to more detrimental effects on the lung, while conventional E-cigarettes such as Blu would lead to more systemic effects, such as on cardiovascular and nervous systems.
* The ph of e-liquid is an important factor in its health effects, and regulatory policies on the ph of E-liquid are implicated.

Main Message:
The study highlights the importance of ph and protonated vs. unprotonated nicotine in e-cigarettes on their health effects. The authors suggest that JUUL e-cigarettes, with its low ph and high concentration of protonated nicotine, could potentially produce more pronounced toxic effects in the lungs, including lung cancer promotion, than conventional e-cigarettes such as Blu. The study also emphasizes the need for more investigation on nicotine pharmacokinetics and inhalation toxicity on the lungs of vapers or animal models for public health and for regulatory policies on the ph of E-liquid.

Shao XM, Friedman TC. Pod-mod vs. conventional e-cigarettes: nicotine chemistry, ph, and health effects. Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md : 1985). 2020;128(4):1056-1058. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00717.2019