Removal of mango-flavoured Juul pods created opportunity for adulterated mango Juul-compatible pods with altered chemical constituents

Dell, Liam G; Page, Michelle K; Leigh, Noel J.; Goniewicz, Maciej Ł.

doi:10.1136/tc-2022-057476

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Due to variations in design and construction, these pods may modify the operation of original manufacturer devices, resulting in different nicotine and other toxicant emissions. Previous researchers found that the liquid used in prefilled aftermarket pods for JUUL contained greater numbers and concentrations of flavoring chemicals than the original pods, and that the maximum particulate yield per puff was 5.6 times higher for one aftermarket pod than JUUL …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Effects of Aftermarket Electronic Cigarette Pods on Device Power Output and Nicotine, Carbonyl, and ROS Emissions

Talih,

Karaoghlanian,

Salman

et al. 2023

Chem. Res. Toxicol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aftermarket pods designed to operate with prevalent electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) products such as JUUL are marketed as low-cost alternatives that allow the use of banned flavored liquids. Subtle differences in the design or construction of aftermarket pods may intrinsically modify the performance of the ENDS device and the resulting nicotine and toxicant emissions relative to the original equipment manufacturer's product. In this study, we examined the electrical output of a JUUL battery and the aerosol emissions when four different brands of aftermarket pods filled with an analytical-grade mixture of propylene glycol, glycerol, and nicotine were attached to it and puffed by machine. The aerosol emissions examined included total particulate matter (TPM), nicotine, carbonyl compounds (CCs), and reactive oxygen species (ROS). We also compared the puff-resolved power and TPM outputs of JUUL and aftermarket pods. We found that all aftermarket pods drew significantly greater electrical power from the JUUL battery during puffing and had different electrical resistances and resistivity. In addition, unlike the case with the original pods, we found that with the aftermarket pods, the power provided by the battery did not vary greatly with flow rate or puff number, suggesting impairment of the temperature control circuitry of the JUUL device when used with the aftermarket pods. The greater power output with the aftermarket pods resulted in up to three times greater aerosol and nicotine output than the original product. ROS and CC emissions varied widely across brands. These results highlight that the use of aftermarket pods can greatly modify the performance and emissions of ENDS. Consumers and public health authorities should be made aware of the potential increase in the level of toxicant exposure when aftermarket pods are employed.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Effects of Aftermarket Electronic Cigarette Pods on Device Power Output and Nicotine, Carbonyl, and ROS Emissions

Talih,

Karaoghlanian,

Salman

et al. 2023

Chem. Res. Toxicol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Characteristics and ingredients of disposable ‘Elfbar’ e‐cigarettes sold in the United States and the United Kingdom

Leigh,

Page,

Jamil

et al. 2024

Addiction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aimsAs 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.MethodA 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.ResultsElfbar 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).ConclusionsBecause 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.

show abstract

Impact of flavour restricting policies on non-cigarette tobacco products

Goniewicz

Stanton

2022

Tob Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Removal of mango-flavoured Juul pods created opportunity for adulterated mango Juul-compatible pods with altered chemical constituents

Cited by 3 publications

References 23 publications

Effects of Aftermarket Electronic Cigarette Pods on Device Power Output and Nicotine, Carbonyl, and ROS Emissions

Effects of Aftermarket Electronic Cigarette Pods on Device Power Output and Nicotine, Carbonyl, and ROS Emissions

Characteristics and ingredients of disposable ‘Elfbar’ e‐cigarettes sold in the United States and the United Kingdom

Impact of flavour restricting policies on non-cigarette tobacco products

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About