ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
SIGNIFICANCE: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) aerosolise liquids that contain nicotine, propylene glycol, glycerol and appealing flavours. In the USA, regulations have limited the availability of flavoured e-cigarettes in pod-based systems, and further tightening is expected. In response, some e-cigarette users may attempt to make their e-liquids (do-it-yourself, DIY). This study examined toxicant emissions from several aerosolised DIY e-liquids. METHODS: DIY additives were identified by reviewing users' responses to a hypothetical flavour ban, e-cigarette internet forums and DIY mixing internet websites. They include essential oils, cannabidiol, sucralose and ethyl maltol. E-liquids with varying concentrations and combinations of additives and tobacco and menthol flavours were prepared and were used to assess reactive oxygen species (ROS), carbonyl and phenol emissions in machine-generated aerosols. RESULTS: Data showed that adding DIY additives to unflavoured, menthol-flavoured or tobacco-flavoured e-liquids increases toxicant emissions to levels comparable with those from commercial flavoured e-liquids. Varying additive concentrations in e-liquids did not have a consistently significant effect on the tested emissions, yet increasing power yielded significantly higher ROS, carbonyl and phenol emissions for the same additive concentration. Adding nicotine to DIY e-liquids with sucralose yielded increase in some emissions and decrease in others, with freebase nicotine-containing e-liquid giving higher ROS emissions than that with nicotine salt. CONCLUSION: This study showed that DIY additives can impact aerosol toxicant emissions from e-cigarettes and should be considered by policymakers when restricting commercially available flavoured e-liquids.
