Synthetic cooling agent in oral nicotine pouch products marketed as 'Flavour-Ban Approved'.

BACKGROUND: US sales of oral nicotine pouches (ONPs) have rapidly increased, with cool/mint-flavoured ONPs the most popular flavour category. Restrictions on sales of flavoured tobacco products have either been implemented or proposed by several US states and localities. Zyn, the most popular ONP brand, is marketing Zyn Chill and Zyn Smooth as 'Flavour-Ban Approved' or 'unflavoured', probably to evade flavour bans and increase product appeal. At present, it is unclear whether these ONPs are indeed free of flavour additives that can impart pleasant sensations such as cooling. METHODS: Sensory cooling and irritant activities of 'Flavour-Ban Approved' Zyn ONPs, Chill and Smooth, along with minty varieties (Cool Mint, Peppermint, Spearmint, Menthol), were analysed by Ca2+ microfluorimetry in HEK293 cells expressing the cold/menthol (TRPM8) or menthol/irritant receptor (TRPA1). Flavour chemical content of these ONPs was analysed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. RESULTS: Zyn Chill ONP extracts robustly activated TRPM8, with much higher efficacy (39%-53%) than the mint-flavoured ONPs. In contrast, mint-flavoured ONP extracts elicited stronger TRPA1 irritant receptor responses than Chill extracts. Chemical analysis demonstrated that Chill exclusively contained WS-3, an odourless synthetic cooling agent, while mint-flavoured ONPs contained WS-3 together with mint flavourants. CONCLUSIONS: ONP products marketed as 'Flavour-Ban Approved' or 'unflavoured' contain flavouring agents, proving that the manufacturer's advertising is misleading. Synthetic coolants such as WS-3 can provide a robust cooling sensation with reduced sensory irritancy, thereby increasing product appeal and use. Regulators need to develop effective strategies for the control of odourless sensory additives used by the industry to bypass flavour bans.

Synthetic Cooling Agent in Oral Nicotine Pouch Products Marketed as "Flavor-Ban Approved".

Background: US sales of oral nicotine pouches (ONPs) have rapidly increased, with cool/mint-flavored ONPs the most popular. Restrictions on sales of flavored tobacco products have either been implemented or proposed by several US states and localities. Zyn, the most popular ONP brand, is marketing Zyn-"Chill" and Zyn-"Smooth" as "Flavor-Ban Approved", probably to evade flavor bans. At present it is unclear whether these ONPs are indeed free of flavor additives that can impart pleasant sensations such as cooling. Methods: Sensory cooling and irritant activities of "Flavor-Ban Approved" ONPs, Zyn-"Chill" and "Smooth", along with "minty" varieties (Cool Mint, Peppermint, Spearmint, Menthol), were analyzed by Ca2+ microfluorimetry in HEK293 cells expressing the cold/menthol (TRPM8) or menthol/irritant receptor (TRPA1). Flavor chemical content of these ONPs was analyzed by GC/MS. Results: Zyn-"Chill" ONP extracts robustly activated TRPM8, with much higher efficacy (39-53%) than the mint-flavored ONPs. In contrast, mint-flavored ONP extracts elicited stronger TRPA1 irritant receptor responses than Zyn-"Chill" extracts. Chemical analysis demonstrated the presence of WS-3, an odorless synthetic cooling agent, in Zyn-"Chill" and several other mint-flavored Zyn-ONPs. Conclusions: Synthetic cooling agents such as WS-3 found in 'Flavor-Ban Approved' Zyn-"Chill" can provide a robust cooling sensation with reduced sensory irritancy, thereby increasing product appeal and use. The label "Flavor-Ban Approved" is misleading and may implicate health benefits. Regulators need to develop effective strategies for the control of odorless sensory additives used by the industry to bypass flavor bans.

Synthetic Cooling Agents in US-marketed E-cigarette Refill Liquids and Popular Disposable E-cigarettes: Chemical Analysis and Risk Assessment.

INTRODUCTION: Menthol, through its cooling and pleasant sensory effects, facilitates smoking and tobacco product initiation, resulting in the high popularity of mint/menthol-flavored E-cigarettes. More recently, E-cigarette vendors started marketing synthetic cooling agents as additives that impart a cooling effect but lack a characteristic minty odor. Knowledge about content of synthetic coolants in US-marketed E-cigarette products and associated health risks is limited. AIMS AND METHODS: E-liquid vendor sites were searched with the terms "koolada", "kool/cool", "ice", or WS-3/WS-23, denoting individual cooling agents, and relevant refill E-liquids were purchased. "Ice" flavor varieties of Puffbar, the most popular disposable E-cigarette brand, were compared with non-"Ice" varieties. E-liquids were characterized, and synthetic coolants quantified using GC/MS. Margin of exposure (MOE), a risk assessment parameter, was calculated to assess the risk associated with synthetic coolant exposure from E-cigarette use. RESULTS: WS-3 was detected in 24/25 refill E-liquids analyzed. All Puffbar flavor varieties contained either WS-23 (13/14) or WS-3 (5/14), in both "Ice"- and non-"Ice" flavors. Modeling consumption of WS-3 from vaped E-liquids, resulted in MOEs below the safe margin of 100 for most daily use scenarios. MOEs for WS-23 were <100 for 10/13 Puffbar flavors in all use scenarios. Puffbar power specifications are identical to Juul devices. CONCLUSIONS: Synthetic cooling agents (WS-3/WS-23) were present in US-marketed E-cigarettes, at levels that may result in consumer exposures exceeding safety thresholds set by regulatory agencies. Synthetic coolants are not only found in mint- or menthol-flavored products but also in fruit- and candy-flavored products, including popular disposable E-cigarette products such as Puffbar. IMPLICATIONS: Synthetic cooling agents are widely used in "kool/cool"- and "ice"-flavored E-liquids and in E-liquids without these labels, both as a potential replacement for menthol or to add cooling "notes" to nonmenthol flavors. These agents may be used to bypass current and future regulatory limits on menthol content in tobacco products, and not just E-cigarettes. Because synthetic cooling agents are odorless, they may not fall under the category of "characterizing flavor", potentially circumventing regulatory measures based on this concept. Regulators need to consider the additional health risks associated with exposure to synthetic cooling agents.

Quantification of Flavorants and Nicotine in Waterpipe Tobacco and Mainstream Smoke and Comparison to E-cigarette Aerosol.

INTRODUCTION: Waterpipe use remains popular among youth with the availability of flavored shisha tobacco being one of the main drivers of waterpipe use. Although waterpipe mainstream toxicant emissions are well understood, less is known about the carryover of flavorants such as vanillin, benzaldehyde, and eugenol. In this study, flavored waterpipe tobacco was analyzed for flavorants and nicotine, and subsequent carryover to mainstream smoke. METHODS: Flavorants vanillin, benzaldehyde, and eugenol, and nicotine were quantified in vanilla-, cherry-, and cinnamon-flavored shisha tobacco by gas chromatography/flame ionization detector and subsequently in waterpipe mainstream smoke generated by a smoking machine. The setup allowed for sampling before and after the water-filtration step. RESULTS: Flavorant and nicotine content in smoke was reduced 3- to 10-fold and 1.4- to 3.1-fold, respectively, due to water filtration. Per-puff content of filtered waterpipe mainstream smoke ranged from 13 to 46 µg/puff for nicotine and from 6 to 55 µg/puff for flavorants. CONCLUSIONS: Although water filtration reduced flavor and nicotine content in waterpipe mainstream smoke, the detected flavorant concentrations were similar or higher to those previously reported in e-cigarette aerosol. Therefore, users could be drawn to waterpipes due to similar flavor appeal as popular e-cigarette products. Absolute nicotine content of waterpipe smoke was lower than in e-cigarette aerosol, but the differential use patterns of waterpipe (>100 puffs/session) and e-cigarette (mostly <10 puffs/session, multiple session throughout the day) probably result in higher flavorant and nicotine exposure during a waterpipe session. Strategies to reduce youth introduction and exposure to nicotine via waterpipe use may consider similar flavor restrictions as those for e-cigarettes. IMPLICATIONS: Although waterpipe mainstream smoke is well characterized for toxicants content, little is known about carryover of molecules relevant for appeal and addiction: flavorants and nicotine. This study shows that flavorant content of waterpipe mainstream smoke is comparable or higher than e-cigarette aerosol flavorant content. Regulatory action to address tobacco use behaviors targeting the availability of flavors should also include other tobacco products such as flavored shisha tobacco.