Non-Targeted Chemical Characterization of JUUL Virginia Tobacco Flavored Aerosols Using Liquid and Gas Chromatography

Mark R Crosswhite,J Brian Jameson,I Gene Gillman,Anastasia Lioubomirov,Patrick C Bailey,Lena N Jeong,Adam Ozvald,Clarissa Yang

doi:10.3390/separations8090130

Abstract

The chemical constituents of JUUL Virginia Tobacco pods with 3.0% and 5.0% nicotine by weight (VT3 and VT5) were characterized by non-targeted analyses, an approach to detect chemicals that are not otherwise measured with dedicated methods or that are not known beforehand. Aerosols were generated using intense and non-intense puffing regimens and analyzed by gas chromatography electron ionization mass spectrometry and liquid chromatography electrospray ionization high resolving power mass spectrometry. All compounds above 0.7 µg/g for GC–MS analysis or above 0.5 µg/g for LC–HRMS analysis and differing from blank measurements were identified and semi-quantified. All identifications were evaluated and categorized into five groups: flavorants, harmful and potentially harmful constituents, extractables and/or leachables, reaction products, and compounds that could not be identified/rationalized. For VT3, 79 compounds were identified using an intense puffing regimen and 69 using a non-intense puffing regimen. There were 60 compounds common between both regimens. For VT5, 85 compounds were identified with an intense puffing regimen and 73 with a non-intense puffing regimen; 67 compounds were in common. For all nicotine concentrations, formulations and puffing regimens, reaction products accounted for the greatest number of compounds (ranging from 70% to 75%; 0.08% to 0.1% by mass), and flavorants comprised the second largest number of compounds (ranging from for 15% to 16%; 0.1 to 0.2% by mass). A global comparison of the compounds detected in JUUL aerosol to those catalogued in cigarette smoke indicated an approximate 50-fold decrease in chemical complexity. Both VT3 and VT5 aerosols contained 59 unique compounds not identified in cigarette smoke.

Highlights

In light of the fact that combustible cigarette (CC) smoking is the number one cause of preventable death in the world [1], causing over 8 million deaths each year and comprising 30% of cancer-related deaths overall [2], numerous public health agencies have developed programs with the intent of both preventing smoking initiation and promoting smoking cessation [3,4]
This is due in part to the difference in regulated electronic heating and combustion as well as the ingredients unique to Electronic Nicotine Delivery System (ENDS)
Nicotine delivery from a CC is based on the combustion of plant material, whereas nicotine delivery from ENDS products is based on heating and aerosolizing nicotine-containing liquids

Summary

Introduction

In light of the fact that combustible cigarette (CC) smoking is the number one cause of preventable death in the world [1], causing over 8 million deaths each year and comprising 30% of cancer-related deaths overall [2], numerous public health agencies have developed programs with the intent of both preventing smoking initiation and promoting smoking cessation [3,4]. There are, many smokers who are not likely to quit in the near term [6] With this in mind, in 2017, the FDA announced the Comprehensive Plan for Tobacco and Nicotine Regulation (“Comprehensive Plan”), which recognizes that nicotine is delivered on a continuum of risk and seeks to render cigarettes and other combustible tobacco products minimally or non-addictive through the creation of a very low nicotine cigarette product standard [7]. In 2017, the FDA announced the Comprehensive Plan for Tobacco and Nicotine Regulation (“Comprehensive Plan”), which recognizes that nicotine is delivered on a continuum of risk and seeks to render cigarettes and other combustible tobacco products minimally or non-addictive through the creation of a very low nicotine cigarette product standard [7] This continuum of risk places combustible cigarettes at the highest risk and nicotine replacement therapies at the lowest risk of the harm spectrum. It is the combination of thousands of other chemical constituents present in the smoke of CCs [9]

Methods

Results

Conclusion