Comparing POD and MOD ENDS Users' Product Characteristics, Use Behaviors, and Nicotine Exposure.

INTRODUCTION: POD electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), often containing high concentrations of nicotine salts, have replaced MODs (ie, open/modifiable devices) as the most popular devices. The purpose of this study was to compare device/liquid characteristics, use behavior, and nicotine exposure between POD and MOD users. METHODS: Data from the initial visit of a prospective observational study of exclusive ENDS users compared MOD (n = 48) and POD (n = 37) users. Participants completed questionnaires on demographic characteristics, patterns of ENDS use, and ENDS features. A urine sample was collected to test for cotinine and an ENDS liquid sample was collected to test for nicotine and salts. Puff topography was captured during an ad libitum bout at the end of the session. RESULTS: MOD and POD users did not differ on demographic characteristics. MOD users reported purchasing more liquid in the past month than POD users (180.4 ±â€…28.0 vs. 50.9 ±â€…9.0 ml, p < .001). Differences in characteristics of devices used by MOD and POD users included flavor type (p = .029), nicotine concentration (liquids used by MOD users contained less nicotine than those used by POD users: 8.9 ±â€…2.0 vs. 41.6 ±â€…3.2 mg/ml, p < .001), and presence of the nicotine salt (fewer MOD liquids had salts present than POD liquids: 11.9% vs. 77.4%, p < .001). User groups did not differ on urinary cotinine levels or puff topography (ps > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite different characteristics of MOD and POD ENDS, users of those products are exposed to similar amounts of nicotine, likely due to using more liquid among MOD users. IMPLICATIONS: This study directly compares ENDS product characteristics, user behavior, and nicotine exposure between MOD and POD ENDS users. Although POD products contained higher nicotine concentrations compared to MOD products, users of PODs reported consuming less liquid than MOD users. Ultimately, MOD and POD users were exposed to similar levels of nicotine, suggesting users behaviorally compensate for differences in product characteristics.

Chemicals in cigarette flavor capsules from Guatemala and Mexico.

BACKGROUND: The global market share for cigarettes with flavor capsules has grown exponentially over the last decade, particularly in Latin America. When smoking, consumers crush a liquid capsule in the filter that flavors the smoke. Little is known about the chemical constituents of the liquids in capsules or their potential health risks. METHODS: Based on consumer data and availability in Mexico and Guatemala, 31 flavor capsule brands were purchased (19 and 12, respectively) in 2020. Since some cigarettes included multiple capsules in a stick (up to 2) or pack (up to 4), the final analytic sample included 50 capsules. We conducted qualitative and quantitative analysis using gas chromatography with mass spectrometry (GC-MS, Agilent Technologies, Inc.). RESULTS: The qualitative analysis detected 296 compounds (range=9 to 67 per capsule), and all capsules contained menthol. Among the compounds detected in more than half the sample were limonene, menthone, benzaldehyde, eucalyptol and triacetin. Traces of nicotine were found in 22% of the capsules. In the quantitative analysis, menthol concentrations were 33 times greater than the next most common compound (limonene). Benzyl alcohol and vanillin were also found in high concentrations. Comparing same brand varieties across countries showed substantial variability in the concentration of menthol and other compounds. CONCLUSION: Menthol is an omnipresent constituent in capsule cigarettes, perhaps because of its anesthetizing and reinforcing addictive properties. Other compounds found are toxic, potentially carcinogenic, and may enhance addictiveness. Variance in the presence and concentrations of such compounds highlights the importance of product standards to regulate capsule content. IMPLICATIONS: This study evaluated the chemical content of capsule cigarettes from two Latin American countries that have two of the highest market shares for capsule cigarettes worldwide. Compared to other studies, our assessment included brand varieties from two countries to compare the differences in chemical content by country. Our results yield that menthol is found in all capsules, and that other chemicals found may prolong nicotine exposure and therefore reinforce the addictive properties of cigarettes.

Still 'Cool': tobacco industry responds to state-wide menthol ban with synthetic coolants.

INTRODUCTION: In December 2022, California (CA) enforced a voter-approved regulation restricting the retail sale of flavoured tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes. Shortly after, new products emerged on the market containing similar blue and green package colours yet with 'non-menthol' descriptors. Using chemical analyses, we measured the content of menthol and 15 other cooling chemicals in Californian cigarettes with 'non-menthol' descriptors and compared concentrations to similar 'menthol'-labelled counterparts available in New York State (NY). METHODS: A convenience sample of 10 brands and types of cigarettes in CA were purchased based on package colours suggesting a cooling effect and/or 'non-menthol' descriptors. The exact brand and type of cigarettes (with menthol descriptors) were purchased in NY. Cigarettes from CA were compared with equivalent cigarettes from NY on package design and colours, cigarette physical characteristics and the presence of cooling additives. RESULTS: Menthol was not detected in any CA cigarette, except for Maverick-green box type, while its presence was confirmed in most NY counterpart products. A synthetic cooling chemical WS-3 was not detected in any NY cigarettes but was detected in four CA brands and types with implied cooling effect, ranging from 1.24±0.04 to 1.97±0.05 mg/cigarette. CONCLUSION: While manufacturers have removed menthol descriptors from CA packaging and the menthol ingredient from cigarettes, synthetic cooling chemicals detected in several CA brands suggest that cooling sensory effects may still be sustained. Policymakers must consider both the chemical ingredients themselves and sensory effects in future regulatory approaches.

Effects of 'Ice' flavoured e-cigarettes with synthetic cooling agent WS-23 or menthol on user-reported appeal and sensory attributes.

BACKGROUND: This clinical experiment tested the effects of exposure to e-cigarettes with WS-23 or menthol cooling additives on user appeal and sensory attributes, and, secondarily, whether WS-23 effects generalised across base characterising flavour, nicotine concentration, or nicotine/tobacco product use status. METHODS: In this within-participant double-blind experiment, adult tobacco/nicotine users administered standardised puffs of 18 different e-cigarette solutions in randomised sequences using a pod-style device. Each of three base characterising e-cigarette flavour solutions ('bold tobacco', 'mango,' 'wintergreen') in both 2% and 4% concentrations of nicotine benzoate salt were manipulated by adding either: (1) Menthol (0.5%), (2) WS-23 (0.75%) or (3) No cooling agent. After each administration, participants rated 3 appeal and 5 sensory attributes (0-100 scales). RESULTS: Participants (n=84; M(SD)=38.6 (13.6) years old) were either exclusive e-cigarette (25.0%), cigarette (36.9%) or dual (38.1%) users. WS-23 versus no coolant products produced higher liking, willingness to use again, smoothness, and coolness and lower disliking, bitterness, and harshness ratings (|B|difference range: 4.8 to 20.1; ps<0.005). Menthol (vs no coolant) increased willingness to use again and reduced harshness and coolness (ps<0.05). Flavours with WS-23 (vs menthol) were rated as smoother, cooler and less harsh (ps<0.05). Coolant effects did not differ by base flavour, nicotine concentration, or tobacco use status. CONCLUSIONS: Adding synthetic coolant WS-23 to e-cigarettes appears to make the vaping user experience more appealing, regardless of characterising base flavour. Regulatory agencies should be aware that the manufacturing process of adding synthetic coolants may increase the attractiveness of various e-cigarette products.Cite Now.

Effects of flavour and modified risk claims on nicotine pouch perceptions and use intentions among young adults who use inhalable nicotine and tobacco products: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Availability of flavours and potential modified risk tobacco product (MRTP) claims may influence young adults' (YAs') perceptions of and intentions to use nicotine pouches ('pouches'). METHODS: YAs aged 21-34 years (N=47, M age=24.5, SD=3.1) with past-month nicotine/tobacco use (10.6% cigarette-only, 51.1% e-cigarette-only, 38.3% dual use) and no intention to quit were randomised to self-administer four Zyn 3 mg nicotine pouches in a 4 (flavour; within-subjects: smooth, mint, menthol, citrus) × 2 (MRTP claim on packaging; between subjects: present or absent) mixed-factorial design. After self-administering each pouch, participants reported appeal, use intentions and perceived harm compared with cigarettes and e-cigarettes. Three mixed-factorial analysis of variances (ANOVAs) examined main and interactive effects of flavour and MRTP claim on appeal, use intentions and comparative harm perceptions. RESULTS: Mint (M=55.9, SD=26.4), menthol (M=49.7, SD=26.8) and citrus (M=46.6, SD=24.8) flavours were significantly more appealing than smooth (M=37.6, SD=25.4; p<0.001). MRTP claim did not significantly affect product appeal (p=0.376). Use intentions were greater for mint (M=2.6, SD=1.3) and menthol (M=2.0, SD=1.1) flavours than smooth (M=1.8, SD=1.0; p=0.002). Flavour did not affect comparative harm perceptions (p values>0.418). MRTP claims increased use intention (p=0.032) and perceptions of pouches as less harmful than cigarettes (p=0.011), but did not affect perceived harm relative to e-cigarettes (p=0.142). Flavour × MRTP claim interactions were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Flavoured (vs smooth) pouches were more appealing to YAs. MRTP claims reduced perceived harm of pouches compared with cigarettes; however, intentions to switch were low. To protect YAs' health, regulatory restrictions could target flavours and MRTP claims.

Removal of mango-flavoured Juul pods created opportunity for adulterated mango Juul-compatible pods with altered chemical constituents.

INTRODUCTION: Juul is a leading electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) brand in the USA. By November 2019, Juul pre-emptively limited online and in-store sales of non-tobacco or menthol-flavoured pods ahead of impending flavour bans. Since this removal, sale of mango-flavoured Juul-compatible pods was introduced to the market by smaller companies. The aim of this study was to compare chemical constituents of original Juul mango pods with mango-flavoured Juul-compatible pods. METHODS: Juul and 16 brands of Juul-compatible mango-flavoured pods were purchased online in May 2018 (original Juul) and November 2019 (Juul-compatible), after Juul voluntarily removed their flavoured pods from the market. Liquid was extracted from pods and analysed using chromatography and mass spectrometry methods for nicotine concentration, solvent ratios, nicotine salt identification, as well as flavouring identification and quantitation. RESULTS: Juul-compatible pods had a significantly lower average nicotine concentration compared with original Juul pod (42.8±8.9 vs 57.2±0.9 mg/mL, p<0.0001). Nicotine benzoate was used in original Juul pod and all Juul-compatible pods. The propylene glycol to vegetable glycerin volumetric ratio of Juul-compatible pods averaged 55:45, while the original Juul pod was 35:65 (p<0.0001). Total number of flavouring chemicals detected was significantly higher in Juul-compatible pods as compared with Juul (p<0.0001). In Juul-compatible pods, average concentrations of benzyl alcohol (fruity flavouring) were 0.8±1.3 mg/mL, approximately 27 times higher than in original Juul pod (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Adulterated Juul-compatible products may expose e-cigarette consumers to more chemical constituents at higher concentrations than previously found in the original product, despite similarity in product design.

Changes in product labelling practices and the use of flavouring chemical additives in vaping products after enactment of statewide flavour legislation.

INTRODUCTION: On 18 May 2020, New York State enacted legislation banning the sale of vaping products with distinguishable flavours (other than tobacco). According to this new statute, vaping products are deemed flavoured if they include a statement, whether expressed or implied, that have distinguishable tastes or aromas other than tobacco. This study aimed to determine how manufacturers responded. METHODS: We collected 555 vaping products from daily vapers (238 preban and 317 postban). We compared preban and postban labelling of products for expressed and implied flavour descriptions, graphics and colours. Flavouring chemicals and concentrations were identified using chromatography methods and were compared preban and postban. RESULTS: Analysis of the labels preban and postban did not reveal a change in products with expressed flavoured descriptors (45.8% vs 44.2%) and a minimal decrease in implied descriptors (22.3% vs 14.5%). An increase in products without any descriptors was observed (28.2% vs 37.2%) notably within products from a popular pod brand. The average concentration of eight popular flavourings identified preban was 1.4±2.7 compared with 2.3±3.5 mg/mL (p<0.001) postban. No significant changes between individual flavouring concentrations in the most popular refill solutions and pods were found. CONCLUSION: While a majority of products appeared to remain non-compliant, this study suggests that enactment of legislation on vaping products making expressed or implied flavour claims may result in some manufacturer changes to product labelling including removal of flavour descriptors. However, use of flavouring additives in vaping products appeared not to be impacted by the ban.

Nicotine, Humectants, and Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines (TSNAs) in IQOS Heated Tobacco Products (HTPs): A Cross-Country Study.

Heated Tobacco Products (HTPs) purport to reduce exposure to tobacco-related toxicants compared to combustible cigarettes. This cross-sectional study examined the content of nicotine, two humectants (propylene glycol (PG) and vegetable glycerin (VG)), and four tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs: NNN, NNK, NAT, and NAB) in the tobacco filler of a popular HTP brand (IQOS). Non-menthol and menthol IQOS sticks were purchased from nine countries between 2017 and 2020 and were classified into two versions ("Bold" and "Light") using Philip Morris's flavor descriptors. The average nicotine concentration was 4.7 ± 0.5 mg/stick, and the highest nicotine concentration was found in products from Japan (5.1 ± 0.2 mg/stick). VG was the dominant humectant found in all sticks, with an average concentration of (31.5 ± 2.3 mg/stick). NNN, NNK, and NAT were substantially higher in the "Bold" sticks than the "Light" sticks. Significant differences between countries for TSNAs were also observed: the NAT and NAB contents were the highest in the "Light" products from Canada (192.5 ± 24.1 and 22.9 ± 1.0 ng/stick, respectively); the NNK concentration was the highest in the "Bold" products from Poland (64.8 ± 7.9 ng/stick); and the highest NNN concentrations were observed in the "Bold" products from South Africa (488.9 ± 26.7 ng/stick). As NNN and NNK are known human carcinogens, and as humectants like PG and VG can degrade into toxic carbonyl compounds upon heating, monitoring the concentration of these chemicals in HTPs is important for protecting users' health and ensuring compliance with regulations.

New Analytical Method for Quantifying Flavoring Chemicals of Potential Respiratory Health Risk Concerns in e-Cigarette Liquids.

Numerous flavoring chemicals are added to e-cigarette liquids to create various flavors. Flavorings provide sensory experience to users and increase product appeal; however, concerns have been raised about their potential inhalation toxicity. Estimating potential health risk of inhaling these chemicals has been challenging since little is known about their actual concentrations in e-cigarette products. To date, a limited number of analytical methods exist to measure the concentrations of flavoring chemicals in e-cigarette products. We have developed an analytical method that accurately and precisely measures the concentrations of 20 flavoring chemicals of potential inhalation risk concerns: 2,3,5-trimethylpyrazine, acetoin, benzaldehyde, benzyl alcohol, butanoic acid, dl-limonene, ethyl maltol, ethyl salicylate, ethyl vanillin, eucalyptol, eugenol, furaneol, isovanillin, l-menthol, maltol, methyl salicylate, pulegone, trans-cinnamaldehyde, triacetin, and vanillin. Calibration and QC solutions were prepared in 50:50 propylene glycol (PG):vegetable glycerin (VG) and 5% H2O and flavoring concentrations ranging from 0.02 to 10.00 mg/ml. Samples of commercial e-cigarette liquids, calibration and QC solutions were combined with 30 µL of an internal standard mix (benzene-d6, pyridine-d5, chlorobenzene-d5, naphthalene-d8 and acenaphthene-d10; 1 mg/ml each) and were diluted 100-fold into methanol. Analysis was performed on an Agilent 7890B/7250 GC/Q-TOF using a DB-624UI column (30 m x 0.25 mmID x 1.4 µm film thickness), with a total runtime of 13.5 min. Calibration curves were fit using a weighted quadratic model and correlations of determination (r 2) values exceeded 0.990 for all chemicals. Bias and precision tests yielded values less than 20% and lower limits of quantitation (LLOQ) ranged from 0.02 to 0.63 mg/ml. Over 200 commercially available products, purchased or collected from adult e-cigarette users and spanning a range of flavor categories, were evaluated with this method. Concentrations of pulegone, a suspected carcinogen, varied from below limit of quantitation (BLOQ) to 0.32 mg/ml, while acetoin and vanillin, known precursors to more cytotoxic byproducts, ranged from BLOQ to 1.52 mg/ml and from BLOQ to 16.22 mg/ml, respectively. This method features a wide dynamic working range and allows for a rapid routine analysis of flavoring additives in commercial e-cigarette liquids.