Synthetic nicotine e-liquids sold in US online vape shops

Ma, Shaoying; Qiu, Zefeng; Chen, Jian; Shang, Ce

doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2023.102222

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our database includes e-cigarette brands that are predominately sold in web-based stores; in particular, e-liquid brands are typically not well captured in existing data sources (eg, Nielsen Retail Scanner Data) and our database makes a contribution to the literature by providing those brands. For e-cigarette brands sold on the web, we have also observed that web-based vape shops sell a variety of products with different flavors, nicotine levels, and forms, suggesting the appeals of these brands sold in web-based stores [ 18 , 19 , 32 , 38 , 39 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to Identify e-Cigarette Brands Available in the United States During 2020-2022: Development and Usability Study

Ma,

Kaareen,

Park

et al. 2024

JMIR Form Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Prior studies have demonstrated that the e-cigarette market contains a large number of brands. Identifying these existing e-cigarette brands is a key element of market surveillance, which will further assist in policy making and compliance checks. Objective To facilitate the surveillance of the diverse product landscape in the e-cigarette market, we constructed a semantic database of e-cigarette brands that have appeared in the US market as of 2020-2022. Methods In order to build the brand database, we searched and compiled e-cigarette brands from a comprehensive list of retail channels and sources, including (1) e-liquid and disposable brands sold in web-based stores, (2) e-cigarette brands sold in brick-and-mortar stores and collected by the Nielsen Retail Scanner Data, (3) e-cigarette brands compiled by Wikipedia, (4) self-reported e-cigarette brands from the 2020 International Tobacco Control Four-Country Smoking and Vaping (ITC 4CV) US survey, and (5) e-cigarette brands on Twitter. We also estimated the top 5 e-cigarette brands by sales volume in brick-and-mortar stores, by the frequency and variety of offerings in web-based shops, and by the frequency of self-reported brands from the 2020 ITC 4CV US survey. Results As of 2020-2022, a total of 912 e-cigarette brands have been sold by various retail channels. During 2020-2022, the top 5 brands are JUUL, vuse, njoy, blu, and logic in brick-and-mortar stores; blu, king, monster, twist, and air factory for e-liquids in web-based stores; hyde, pod mesh, suorin, vaporlax, and xtra for disposables sold in web-based stores; and smok, aspire, vaporesso, innokin, and eleaf based on self-reported survey data. Conclusions As the US Food and Drug Administration enforces the premarket tobacco market authorization, many e-cigarette brands may become illegal in the US market. In this context, how e-cigarette brands evolve and consolidate in different retail channels will be critical for understanding the regulatory impacts on product availability. Our semantic database of e-cigarette brands can serve as a useful tool to monitor product and marketplace development, conduct compliance checks, assess manufacturers’ marketing behaviors, and identify regulatory impacts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to Identify e-Cigarette Brands Available in the United States During 2020-2022: Development and Usability Study

Ma,

Kaareen,

Park

et al. 2024

JMIR Form Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…ENDS consists of an LED battery-operated device that mimics the shape of a conventional cigarette; it comprises a metal heating element in a stainless-steel case, a cartridge that holds the e-liquid, and an atomizer. The e-liquid solutions can have different nicotine percentages and are available in different flavors [7]. The cartridge and solution chemicals are mainly diethylene glycol, glycerin, nitrosamines, and potentially harmful contaminants, such as heavy metals, aldehydes, and carbonyls [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electronic Cigarettes, Heated Tobacco Products, and Oral Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Camoni,

Conti,

Esteves-Oliveira

et al. 2023

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Smokers employing electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) and heated tobacco products (HTP) are currently the most common types of smoking patients seen in the dental practice. Both types of smoking are currently viewed as less harmful than cigarette smoking. However, many studies already indicate that they could harm oral health. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to collect a comprehensive overview of the actual knowledge regarding ENDS and HTP from a clinical and a laboratory perspective. Publications available through PubMed, Embase, the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar were used to summarize the effects of ENDS and HTP on oral health. Six surveys on self-perceived gum disease (T2 = 9.47 I2 = 99.32%), three cross-sectional studies reporting the BOP score (T2 = 8.68 I2 = 99.13%), and four in vitro studies on apoptosis after vaping exposure in human oral fibroblasts (T 2 = 8.10 I2 = 91.50%) were separately analyzed. The risk of bias ranged from critical to low. Both ENDS and HTP seem to have detrimental effects on periodontal and peri-implant parameters, and laboratory tests confirmed the presence of carcinogenic and inflammatory biomarkers. flavored e-liquids may also be a caries risk factor. Comprehensive smoking counseling should be carried out with all types of smoking patients, investigating the type of habit in terms of duration, nicotine percentage, and additional flavorings. Additional research is necessary to assess the long-term effects of alternative tobacco products on oral health.

show abstract

E-cigarette market share by nicotine claims

Ma,

Brinkman,

Berman

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Nicotine forms (salt vs. freebase) and isomers (synthetic vs. tobacco-derived) are key characteristics of e-cigarettes that manufacturers manipulate, and "tobacco-free" claims may have served to attract new consumers and increase their intention to use. Method: This study presents a snapshot of nicotine marketing claims for e-cigarettes using Nielsen ScanTrack data from brick-and-mortar stores. Market share was calculated as the ratio of unit sales of each nicotine claim category to the total unit sales of e-cigarettes during the four weeks ending 1-20-2024. Results: We summarized the market share for the following six nicotine form/isomer category: 1) nicotine (77%), 2) nicotine salt (10%), 3) synthetic nicotine (2%), 4) zero tobacco or tobacco-free (2%), 5) zero nicotine or nicotine-free (0.03%), and 6) no claim or CBD/hemp/cannabis (9%). Conclusion: The market share of products that explicitly carried nicotine salt claims (10%) or synthetic nicotine or tobacco-free claims (2% each) was notable. This study informs regulatory authorities on the recent trend of nicotine claims marketed by the e-cigarette industry, which may be contributing to the use of these products or addiction to nicotine among young people and non-users.

show abstract

Synthetic nicotine e-liquids sold in US online vape shops

Cited by 5 publications

References 15 publications

How to Identify e-Cigarette Brands Available in the United States During 2020-2022: Development and Usability Study

How to Identify e-Cigarette Brands Available in the United States During 2020-2022: Development and Usability Study

Electronic Cigarettes, Heated Tobacco Products, and Oral Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

E-cigarette market share by nicotine claims

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About