Search

Background and aims Method Results Conclusions As of 2023, Elfbar remains the most popular brand of disposable e‐cigarette available in the United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK), with similar flavor options in both countries. At the time of this study, 5% nicotine Elfbar BC5000 was the only version available in the US, whereas 2% Elfbar 600 was the most popular in the UK. This study measured differences in nicotine content and form, aerosol emissions and flavoring chemicals in the US and UK Elfbar products.A convenience sample of eight Elfbar devices sold in the US and UK, consisting of two Elfbar models with four identical flavor options (Peach Ice, Strawberry Banana, Strawberry Ice and Strawberry Kiwi) purchased between December 2022 and February 2023, were laboratory tested. We measured nicotine concentration, form and total content. We also determined aerosol emissions and estimated the nicotine dose delivery per puff. We identified solvents and flavoring chemicals in these products.Elfbar products within the same country had similar nicotine content, concentration, form and solvents, but they differed in flavoring chemicals. US Elfbar contained, on average, higher volume (mean ± standard deviation = 6.5 ± 0.5 versus 1.8 ± 0.3 ml) of nicotine solution with a higher concentration (41.8 ± 2.3 versus 19.7 ± 1.2 mg/ml) than the UK Elfbar. An estimated dose of nicotine delivered per puff was four times higher from US Elfbar than UK Elfbar. There were differences in the type and amount of flavoring chemicals used in US and UK Elfbars, including a higher concentration of a synthetic coolant WS‐23 in US Elfbar than in UK Elfbar (17.8 ± 1.5 versus 12.9 ± 5.4 mg/ml).Because the amount of nicotine found in the US Elfbar e‐cigarettes is equivalent to that found in eight UK Elfbar e‐cigarettes, people who use Elfbar sold in the US have access to much more nicotine from a single device than those who use Elfbar sold in the United Kingdom. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 analyses using gas chromatography with mass spectrometry (GC-MS, Agilent Technologies, Inc) Results The qualitative analysis detected 296 compounds (range = 9–67 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. Conclusions 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 ± 28.0 vs. 50.9 ± 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 ± 2.0 vs. 41.6 ± 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 (p s > .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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increasing shift from cannabis smoking to cannabis vaping is largely driven by the perception that vaping to form an aerosol represents a safer alternative to smoking and is a form of consumption appealing to youth. Herein, we compared the chemical composition and receptor-mediated activity of cannabis smoke extract (CaSE) to cannabis vaping extract (CaVE) along with the biological response in human bronchial epithelial cells. Chemical analysis using HPLC and GC/MS revealed that cannabis vaping aerosol contained fewer toxicants than smoke; CaSE and CaVE contained teratogens, carcinogens, and respiratory toxicants. A bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET)-based biosensor detected the receptor-mediated activity of the extracts, primarily driven by Δ9-THC concentration. RNA- sequencing showed both CaSE and CaVE induced similar transcriptional responses, significantly upregulating genes within pathways related to inflammation, cancer, and cellular stress. This was paralleled by downregulation of pathways related to lipid synthesis and metabolism similarly from both CaSE and CaVE. Targeted metabolomics revealed significant changes in metabolites involved in lipid and membrane metabolism, energy production, nucleotide/DNA/RNA pathways, and oxidative stress response, suggesting potential impairment of lung epithelial cell repair and function. Additionally, the upregulation of 5-hydroxymethylcytosine (5hmC) indicates epigenetic changes potentially contributing to inflammation, oxidative stress, and an increased risk of cancer. These findings challenge the notion that cannabis vaping is risk-free, highlighting an urgent need for comprehensive research into its respiratory health effects. This comparison of cannabis consumption methods offers insights that could inform public health policies and raise consumer awareness regarding the potential risks of inhaling cannabis aerosol.

Introduction: In December 2022, California (CA) enforced a voter-approved regulation restricting the retail sale of flavoured tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes. Shortly after, new products emerged on the market containing similar blue and green package colours yet with 'non-menthol' descriptors. Using chemical analyses, we measured the content of menthol and 15 other cooling chemicals in Californian cigarettes with 'non-menthol' descriptors and compared concentrations to similar 'menthol'-labelled counterparts available in New York State (NY)., Methods: A convenience sample of 10 brands and types of cigarettes in CA were purchased based on package colours suggesting a cooling effect and/or 'non-menthol' descriptors. The exact brand and type of cigarettes (with menthol descriptors) were purchased in NY. Cigarettes from CA were compared with equivalent cigarettes from NY on package design and colours, cigarette physical characteristics and the presence of cooling additives., Results: Menthol was not detected in any CA cigarette, except for Maverick-green box type, while its presence was confirmed in most NY counterpart products. A synthetic cooling chemical WS-3 was not detected in any NY cigarettes but was detected in four CA brands and types with implied cooling effect, ranging from 1.24±0.04 to 1.97±0.05 mg/cigarette., Conclusion: While manufacturers have removed menthol descriptors from CA packaging and the menthol ingredient from cigarettes, synthetic cooling chemicals detected in several CA brands suggest that cooling sensory effects may still be sustained. Policymakers must consider both the chemical ingredients themselves and sensory effects in future regulatory approaches., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MLG received a research grant from and served as an advisory board member to pharmaceutical companies that manufacture smoking cessation drugs., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)