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

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.

Response to Letter to the Editor Regarding Characterizing the Chemical Landscape in Commercial E-Cigarette Liquids and Aerosols by Liquid Chromatography–High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry

“…More specifically, Crosswhite et al claim that the use of ultrapure water as a blank does not sufficiently account for compounds introduced during sample processing and that performing blank subtraction was inadequate to exclude background contaminants and analytical artifacts. The claim that our study substantially overestimated the number of compounds present in e-cigarette aerosols is based on a comparison with results of a study published by Crosswhite et al in which the authors only detected 79 compounds in Juul Virginia Tobacco 3.0% pods (VT3), which is one of the products analyzed in our study. We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the questions raised and to highlight some significant distinctions between the two studies that likely explain the difference in the number of detected compounds.…”

Targeted Characterization of the Chemical Composition of JUUL Systems Aerosol and Comparison with 3R4F Reference Cigarettes and IQOS Heat Sticks

“…The JUUL system includes tightly controlled temperature regulation of the coil, with the goal of minimizing potential heat degradation by-products and HPHCs in the resulting aerosols [31]. Unlike prior work [31,32], the targeted analysis described in this paper combined with the non-targeted analysis described in our companion paper provide a more complete analysis of aerosol constituents in the JUUL device [33].…”

Critical Review of the Recent Literature on Organic Byproducts in E-Cigarette Aerosol Emissions

“…Crosswhite at al. This study [29] was also funded by Juul Labs. It applied a nontargeted analysis to obtain a more complete list of aerosol constituents in the aerosol generated by the 4 varieties of Juul devices: Virginia Tobacco pods with 3.0% and 5.0% nicotine concentrations (VT3 and VT5).…”