Electronic cigarette refill liquids: Nicotine content, presence of child-resistant packaging, and in-shop compounding.

Abstract

PURPOSE\nTo expand on our 2015 study of the nicotine content accuracy of e-liquids, including salts, and the presence of child-resistant packaging. We also describe compounding in shop (CIS).\n\n\nDESIGN AND METHODS\nWe analyzed samples from 35 shops. CIS processing was observed. Descriptive statistics summarized the data, and inference was performed.\n\n\nRESULTS\nActual nicotine content was significantly less than the identified content, on average, with a mean percent deviation 34.0% below the identified content. Only 3.8% of the samples actual nicotine content was within 10% of the identified content; the maximum deviation was 213.2%. Of eight uniquely packaged samples, including designs resembling pop cans, ice cream cones, etc., the mean percent deviation was -39.6%; none were within 10% of the identified content. Eight shops compounded samples. After removing outlier values, significant differences were found in the percent deviations between the CIS and non-CIS free-base samples. A significantly higher percentage of CIS samples had nicotine content > 10% above the identified content, and none were within 10%. One shop visually estimated the nicotine quantities to add, e-liquids were not always relabeled to reflect new nicotine levels, and protective materials were not always worn during compounding. Child-resistant packaging was not present for one third of the samples.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nLabeling of nicotine content in e-liquids remains inaccurate, child-resistant packaging is inconsistent, and CIS is problematic. Effective e-liquid regulation is needed to protect public health.\n\n\nPRACTICE IMPLICATIONS\nNurses should educate families about the serious health risks of e-liquids and advocate for increased e-liquid regulations.