Comparison of emissions across tobacco products: A slippery slope in tobacco control.

In this narrative review, we highlight the challenges of comparing emissions from different tobacco products under controlled laboratory settings (using smoking/vaping machines). We focus on tobacco products that generate inhalable smoke or aerosol, such as cigarettes, cigars, hookah, electronic cigarettes, and heated tobacco products. We discuss challenges associated with sample generation including variability of smoking/vaping machines, lack of standardized adaptors that connect smoking/vaping machines to different tobacco products, puffing protocols that are not representative of actual use, and sample generation session length (minutes or number of puffs) that depends on product characteristics. We also discuss the challenges of physically characterizing and trapping emissions from products with different aerosol characteristics. Challenges to analytical method development are also covered, highlighting matrix effects, order of magnitude differences in analyte levels, and the necessity of tailored quality control/quality assurance measures. The review highlights two approaches in selecting emissions to monitor across products, one focusing on toxicants that were detected and quantified with optimized methods for combustible cigarettes, and the other looking for product-specific toxicants using non-targeted analysis. The challenges of data reporting and statistical analysis that allow meaningful comparison across products are also discussed. We end the review by highlighting that even if the technical challenges are overcome, emission comparison may obscure the absolute exposure from novel products if we only focus on relative exposure compared to combustible products.

Nontargeted Analysis in Tobacco Research: Challenges and Opportunities.

Tobacco products are evolving at a pace that has outstripped tobacco control, leading to a high prevalence of tobacco use in the population. Researchers have been tirelessly developing suitable techniques to assess these products' emissions, toxicity, and public health impact. The nonclinical testing of tobacco products to assess the chemical profile of emissions is needed for evidence-based regulations. This testing has largely relied on targeted analytical methods that focus on constituent lists that may fall short in determining the toxicity of newly designed tobacco products. Nontargeted analysis (NTA), or the process of identifying and quantifying compounds within a complex matrix without prior knowledge of its chemical composition, is a promising technique for tobacco regulation, but it is not without challenges. The lack of standardized methods for sample generation, sample preparation, chromatographic separation, compound identification, and data analysis and reporting must be addressed so that the quality and reproducibility of the data generated by NTA can be benchmarked. This review discusses the challenges and highlights the opportunities of NTA in studying tobacco product constituents and emissions.

Nicotine flux as a powerful tool for regulating nicotine delivery from e-cigarettes: Protocol of two complimentary randomized crossover clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: Electronic cigarette (EC) use has increased rapidly in the last decade, especially among youth. Regulating nicotine delivery from ECs could help curb youth uptake and leverage EC use in harm reduction yet is complicated by varying device and liquid variables that affect nicotine delivery. Nicotine flux, the nicotine emission rate, is a parameter that incorporates these variables and focuses on the performance rather than the design of an EC. Nicotine flux therefore could be a powerful regulatory tool if it is shown empirically to predict nicotine delivery and subjective effects related to dependence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This project consists of two complementary clinical trials. In Trial I, we will examine the relationship between nicotine flux and the rate and dose of nicotine delivery from ECs, hence, impacting abuse liability. It will also examine the extent to which this relationship is mediated by nicotine form (i.e., freebase versus protonated). At Yale School of Medicine (YSM), study participants will puff EC devices under conditions that differ by flux and form, while arterial blood is sampled in high time resolution. In Trial II, we will assess the relationship between nicotine flux, form, and subjective effects. At the American University of Beirut (AUB), participants will use EC devices with varying nicotine fluxes and forms, while dependency measures, such as the urge to use ECs, nicotine craving, and withdrawal symptoms, will be assessed. We will also monitor puffing intensity and real-time exposure to toxicants. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol of Trial I and Trial II was approved by YSM and AUB IRBs, respectively. We will disseminate study results through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05706701 for Trial I and NCT05430334 for Trial II.

The sweet spot study-Developing e-liquid product standards for nicotine form and concentration to improve public health: Protocol for a randomized, double-blinded, crossover study.

OBJECTIVES: E-cigarettes pose significant risks to youth, but smokers may benefit from switching to e-cigarettes by reducing their exposure to toxicants, which creates a challenge for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in regulating e-cigarettes to protect population health. This study aims to develop e-liquid product standards for nicotine form and concentration that reduce the appeal of e-cigarettes to young people while keeping e-cigarettes available as a safer alternative for smokers. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: A single-visit, double-blinded, randomized crossover design will be used to examine the effects of e-liquids with varying fractions of free-base nicotine (5%, 25%, 45%, 65%, 85%) among a sample of 66 young adult EC users and 66 older adult smokers, across ecologically valid total nicotine concentrations (20 mg or 50 mg/mL). INTERVENTIONS AND OUTCOMES: A 2-puff session will be conducted to test each of the 10 e-liquids in randomly assigned sequences, followed by a 10-minute washout period and participant ratings on appeal and sensory attributes such as throat hit and harshness, as well as behavioral intentions for continued use. Generalized linear mixed models will be used to determine a free-base nicotine level that has limited or no appeal to young adult e-cigarette users while remaining acceptable to smokers. CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide the FDA with scientific evidence regarding the effect of product standards that mandate a minimum threshold for the fraction of free-base nicotine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov under the identifier NCT05864586.

Impact of smoking intensity and device cleaning on IQOS emissions: comparison with an array of cigarettes.

SIGNIFICANCE: IQOS is a heated tobacco product that has been widely advertised by Philip Morris International (PMI) as a reduced-exposure product compared with cigarettes. Reduced exposure results from reduced emission of toxicants which could be influenced by product constituents and user behaviour. This study aims to assess the influence of user behaviour, including device cleaning and puffing parameters, on toxicant emissions from IQOS. METHODS: IQOS aerosols were generated by a smoking machine using the combination of two cleaning protocols (after 1 stick vs 20 sticks) and five puffing regimes (including standard cigarette puffing regimes and IQOS-tailored regimes). The generated aerosols were analysed by targeted methods for phenol and carbonyl quantification, and by chemical screening for the identification of unknown compounds. RESULTS: Puffing parameters significantly affected phenol and carbonyl emissions while device cleaning had no effect. Harsher puffing conditions like more, longer, and larger puffs yielded higher levels for most toxicant emissions. Comparing the obtained data with data reported by PMI on 50 cigarette brands smoked under different puffing regimes showed various trends for phenol and carbonyl emissions, with IQOS emissions sometimes higher than cigarettes. Also, the chemical screening resulted in the tentative identification of ~100 compounds in the IQOS aerosols (most of limited toxicity data). CONCLUSION: This study showed that puffing parameters, but not device cleaning, have significant effects on carbonyl, phenol and other emissions. Data analysis highlighted the importance of comparing IQOS emissions with an array of commercial cigarettes tested under different puffing regimes before accepting reduced exposure claims.