Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Research
  • Published:

Erosive potential of commonly available vapes: a cause for concern?


Objectives Relatively little is known about the erosive potential of vape products, an important consideration for dental health. This study analysed flavoured vapes with potentially low pH, including fruit and drink flavours.

Methods The pH of 45 purposefully selected vapes was measured undiluted in triplicate. Serial dilution was conducted on the most erosive product to investigate if/when the erosive potential pH of 5.5 was reached. One of the most erosive samples was tested, undiluted and diluted, after four months of opening. Content analysis of the vape labels determined ingredients, place of manufacture, product usage instructions and health warnings.

Results Eighty-four percent of undiluted vape samples had a pH below 5.5. Erosive potential was not predicted by the flavour, with orange and cola samples higher than anticipated (pH 3.56-6.23 and 5.04-5.63, respectively). Products that were predicted to be non-acidic such as vanilla showed considerable variation ranging from pH 4.69-5.63. Freshly opened or stored samples did not reach a non-erosive potential pH of 5.5 or above, even when diluted to represent concentrations used when vaped. Labels were not detailed enough to ascertain which ingredients were contributing to acidity or buffering capacity or to allow consumers to identify the least harmful products in terms of oral health.

Conclusions Present labelling of commercially available vapes does not allow consumers to ascertain the erosive potential and possible dental damage that may be inflicted by their use. More effective labelling and/or health warnings are required to educate consumers and dental health professionals on these products.

Key points

  • A large number of vapes available in the UK are potentially erosive.

  • Erosive potential cannot be predicted by name or flavour.

  • Erosive potential persists even at levels far lower than vapes are inhaled at.

  • Present labelling of vapes does not allow consumers to select non-erosive products.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Couch E T, Chaffee B W, Gansky S A, Walsh M M. The changing tobacco landscape: What dental professionals need to know. J Am Dent Assoc 2016; 147: 561-569.

  2. Nutt D J, Phillips L D, Balfour D et al. E-cigarettes are less harmful than smoking. Lancet 2016; 387: 1160-1162.

  3. Glantz S A, Bareham DW. E-Cigarettes: Use, Effects on Smoking, Risks, and Policy Implications. Ann Rev Public Health 2018; 39: 215-235.

  4. Harrell M B, Weaver S R, Loukas A et al. Flavoured e-cigarette use: Characterizing youth, young adult and adult users. Prev Med Rep 2017; 5: 33-40.

  5. WHO Study Group on Tobacco Production Regulation. Report on the scientific basis of tobacco product regulation: third report of a WHO Study Group. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 2009; 955: 1-41.

  6. FDA. Lung Injuries Associated with Use of Vaping Products. 2020. Available at (accessed August 2020).

  7. Vape UK. Online store information. Available at (accessed August 2020).

  8. Kim S A, Smith S, Beauchamp C et al. Cariogenic potential of sweet flavours in electronic-cigarette liquids. PLoS ONE 2018; 13: 1-22.

  9. Lussi A, Schlueter N, Rakhmatullina E, Ganss C. Dental Erosion - An Overview with Emphasis on Chemical and Histopathological Aspects. Caries Res 2011; DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203717.

  10. Hunter M L, Patel R, Loyn T, Morgan M Z, Fairchild R M, Rees J S. The effect of dilution on the erosive potential of a range of fruit squashes: a pilot study in vitro. Int J Paediatr Dent 2008; 18: 251-255.

  11. Clapp O, Morgan M Z, Fairchild R M. The top 5 Selling UK Energy Drinks implications for dental and general health. Br Dent J 2019; 226: 493-497.

  12. Lisko J G, Tran H, Stanfill S B, Blount B C, Watson C H. Chemical composition and evaluation of nicotine, tobacco alkaloids, pH, and selected flavours in e-cigarette cartridges and refill solutions. Nicotine Tob Res 2015; 17: 1270−1278.

  13. Henningfield J E, Fant R V, Radzius A, Frost S. Nicotine concentration, smoke pH and whole tobacco aqueous pH of some cigar brands and types popular in the United States. Nicotine Tob Res 1999; 1: 163-168.

  14. Castells C B, Rafols C, Rosés M, Bosch E. Effect of temperature on pH measurements and acid-base equilibria in methanol-water mixtures. J Chromatogr 2003; 1002: 41-53.

  15. Rios D, Ionta F Q, Rebelato R et al. The effect of aspartame and pH changes on the erosive potential of cola drinks in bovine enamel: An in vitro study. J Clin Exp Dent 2018; DOI: 10.4317/jced.54963.

  16. Ford A, MacKintosh A M, Bauld L, Moodie C, Hastings G. Adolescents' responses to the promotion and flavouring of e-cigarettes. Int J Public Health 2016; 61: 215-224.

  17. Morean M E, Butler E R, Bold K W et al. Preferring more e-cigarette flavours is associated with e-cigarette use frequency among adolescents but not adults. PLoS ONE 2018; DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189015.

  18. Zare S, Nemati M, Zheng Y. A systematic review of consumer preference for e-cigarette attributes: Flavour, nicotine strength, and type. PLoS ONE 2018; DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194145.

  19. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services. Notice Regarding Requirement for Annual Submission of the Quantity of Nicotine Contained in Smokeless Tobacco Products Manufactured, Imported, or Packaged in the United States. Fed Reg 1999; 64: 14086-14096.

  20. Irusa K F, Vence B, Donovan T. Potential oral health effects of e-cigarettes and vaping: A review and case reports. J Esthet Restor Dent 2020; 32: 260-264.

  21. Huilgol P, Bhatt S P, Biligowda N, Wright N C, Wells J M. Association of e-cigarette use with oral health: a population-based cross-sectional questionnaire study. J Public Health 2019; 41: 354-361.

  22. WHO. The Tobacco Body. 2019. Available at (accessed August 2020).

  23. McNeill A, Brose L S, Calder R, Bauld L & Robson D. Vaping in England: an evidence update including mental health and pregnancy. 2020. Available at (accessed August 2020).

Download references


Data are available from the lead author.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ruth Fairchild.

Ethics declarations

The authors have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fairchild, R., Setarehnejad, A. Erosive potential of commonly available vapes: a cause for concern?. Br Dent J 231, 487–491 (2021).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links