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.

Heavy metals in ENDS: a comparison of open versus closed systems purchased from the USA, England, Canada and Australia.

INTRODUCTION: Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are known to contain heavy metals such as lead (Pb), nickel (Ni) and chromium (Cr). The presence of heavy metals in ENDS may be due to contamination of e-liquids or leaching from elements of the ENDS device. This study investigates differences in ENDS metal concentrations between product type, year of purchase, country of purchase and e-liquid flavour. METHODS: Various open-system (refill e-liquids; n=116) and closed-system (prefilled with e-liquid; n=120) products were purchased in 2017 and 2018 from the USA, England, Canada and Australia. Electrothermal atomic absorption spectroscopy was used to analyse each product for Pb, Ni and Cr. Multiple linear regression and Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric statistical tests were conducted using GraphPad. RESULTS: Linear regression showed system type, year of purchase (not supported by Kruskal-Wallis), country of purchase and flavour type each had significant impacts on heavy metal concentrations. Open-system e-liquid samples showed no quantifiable levels of heavy metals. Closed-system samples contained concerningly high concentrations of Pb, Ni and Cr. Closed-system samples from the USA commonly displayed higher average heavy metal concentrations than those from England. Some fruit and mint-flavoured closed-system products showed higher heavy metal concentrations than tobacco-flavoured products. CONCLUSION: The presence of heavy metals only in closed-system products suggests that metals may be leaching from ENDS device parts. Highly variable heavy metal concentrations between ENDS products demonstrate that various product characteristics may affect the degree of leaching and that there is a need for further regulation of these products.

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.

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.