Chemical analysis of snus products from the United States and northern Europe.

INTRODUCTION: Snus is an oral tobacco product that originated in Sweden. Snus products are available as fine-cut loose tobacco or in pre-portioned porous "pouches." Some snus products undergo tobacco pasteurization during manufacturing, a process that removes or reduces nitrite-forming microbes, resulting in less tobacco-specific nitrosamine content in the product. Some tobacco companies and researchers have suggested that snus is potentially less harmful than traditional tobacco and thus a potential smoking cessation aid or an alternative to continued cigarette consumption. Although snus is available in various countries, limited information exists on snus variants from different manufacturers. METHODS: Moisture, pH, nicotine, and tobacco-specific N'-nitrosamines (TSNAs) were quantified in 64 snus products made by 10 manufacturers in the United States and Northern Europe (NE). Reported means, standard errors, and differences are least-square (LS) estimates from bootstrapped mixed effects models, which accounted for correlation among repeated measurements. Minor alkaloids and select flavors were also measured. RESULTS: Among all product types, moisture (27.4%-59.5%), pH (pH 5.87-9.10), total nicotine (6.81-20.6 mg/g, wet), unprotonated nicotine (0.083-15.7 mg/g), and total TSNAs (390-4,910 ng/g) varied widely. The LS-mean unprotonated nicotine concentration of NE portion (7.72 mg/g, SE = 0.963) and NE loose (5.06 mg/g, SE = 1.26) snus were each significantly higher than US portion snus (1.00 mg/g, SE = 1.56). Concentrations of minor alkaloids varied most among products with the highest total nicotine levels. The LS-mean NNN+NNK were higher in snus sold in the US (1360 ng/g, SE = 207) than in NE (836 ng/g, SE = 132) countries. The most abundant flavor compounds detected were pulegone, eucalyptol, and menthol. CONCLUSION: Physical and chemical characteristics of US and NE products labeled as snus can vary considerably and should not be considered "equivalent". Our findings could inform public health and policy decisions pertaining to snus exposure and potential adverse health effects associated with snus.

Caffeine Concentrations in Coffee, Tea, Chocolate, and Energy Drink Flavored E-liquids.

INTRODUCTION: Most electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) contain a solution of propylene glycol/glycerin and nicotine, as well as flavors. E-cigarettes and their associated e-liquids are available in numerous flavor varieties. A subset of the flavor varieties include coffee, tea, chocolate, and energy drink, which, in beverage form, are commonly recognized sources of caffeine. Recently, some manufacturers have begun marketing e-liquid products as energy enhancers that contain caffeine as an additive. METHODS: A Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) method for the quantitation of caffeine in e-liquids was developed, optimized and validated. The method was then applied to assess caffeine concentrations in 44 flavored e-liquids from cartridges, disposables, and refill solutions. Products chosen were flavors traditionally associated with caffeine (ie, coffee, tea, chocolate, and energy drink), marketed as energy boosters, or labeled as caffeine-containing by the manufacturer. RESULTS: Caffeine was detected in 42% of coffee-flavored products, 66% of tea-flavored products, and 50% of chocolate-flavored e-liquids (limit of detection [LOD] - 0.04 µg/g). Detectable caffeine concentrations ranged from 3.3 µg/g to 703 µg/g. Energy drink-flavored products did not contain detectable concentrations of caffeine. Eleven of 12 products marketed as energy enhancers contained caffeine, though in widely varying concentrations (31.7 µg/g to 9290 µg/g). CONCLUSIONS: E-liquid flavors commonly associated with caffeine content like coffee, tea, chocolate, and energy drink often contained caffeine, but at concentrations significantly lower than their dietary counterparts. Estimated daily exposures from all e-cigarette products containing caffeine were much less than ingestion of traditional caffeinated beverages like coffee. IMPLICATIONS: This study presents an optimized and validated method for the measurement of caffeine in e-liquids. The method is applicable to all e-liquid matrices and could potentially be used to ensure regulatory compliance for those geographic regions that forbid caffeine in e-cigarette products. The application of the method shows that caffeine concentrations and estimated total caffeine exposure from e-cigarette products is significantly lower than oral intake from beverages. However, because very little is known about the effects of caffeine inhalation, e-cigarette users should proceed with caution when using caffeine containing e-cigarette products. Further research is necessary to determine associated effects from inhaling caffeine.