Introduction:Snus is a smokeless tobacco product traditionally used in Scandinavia and available in pouched or loose forms. The objective of this study was to determine nicotine absorption for current pouched and loose snus products in comparison with a cigarette and an over-the-counter nicotine gum.Methods:We conducted an open-label, randomized, 6-way, crossover study involving 20 healthy snus and cigarette users. One of 6 products (2 pouched snus, 2 weights of loose snus, a cigarette, and a nicotine gum) was administered at each of 6 visits. Blood samples were taken at intervals over 120 min and sensory perception assessed by questionnaire.Results:For the 4 smokeless tobacco products and the nicotine gum, blood plasma levels of nicotine were ranked according to total nicotine content as follows: loose snus (27.1 mg nicotine) > pouched snus (14.7 mg nicotine) > loose snus (10.8 mg nicotine) = pouched snus (10.7 mg nicotine) > nicotine gum (4.2 mg nicotine). The area under the plasma concentration–time curve (AUC) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) of nicotine ranged from 26.9 to 13.1 ng.h/ml and 17.9 to 9.1 ng.h/ml, respectively across all the products. Nicotine was absorbed more rapidly from the cigarette but systemic exposure was within the range of the smokeless tobacco products (AUC = 14.8 ng.h/ml; Cmax = 12.8 ng.h/ml).Conclusions:This study has generated new information on comparative nicotine absorption from a cigarette, loose snus, and pouched snus typical of products sold in Scandinavia. The similar nicotine absorption for 1 g portions of loose and pouched snus with approximately 11 mg of nicotine indicate that absorption kinetics were dependent on quantity of tobacco by weight and total nicotine content rather than product form.

Introduction:Snus is an oral snuff consisting of moist finely ground tobacco which is available in a loose form or with portions of the tobacco sealed in small sachets termed “pouches.” The product has a long history of use in Sweden. Currently, there is very little published information on levels of consumption and usage behaviors for snus in Sweden. The objective of this study was to obtain data on the frequency and duration of loose and pouched snus consumption in Sweden and investigate usage behaviors.Methods:Telephone surveys of snus users randomly selected from telephone directories in all regions of Sweden were conducted in 2007 and 2008. In total, 2,914 respondents answered questions on snus usage, including the types of products used and the quantity and frequency of use.Results:The majority of respondents (96%) used either pouched or loose snus alone. A minority (12.6%) reported dual use of smokeless and combustible tobacco products. Average daily consumption was 11–12 g for pouched snus and 29–32 g for loose snus. The typical duration of use of each pouch/portion was 60–70 min.Discussion:This survey has provided new insights into contemporary snus use in Sweden, such as the marked differences in daily consumption between loose and pouched snus, length of time that snus users typically keep pouches in the mouth, differential patterns of use in males and females, and the simultaneous use of multiple pouches in a small proportion of users.

Background: E-cigarette designs, materials, and ingredients are continually evolving, with cotton wicks and diverse coil materials emerging as the popular components of atomisers. Another recent development is the use of nicotine salts in e-liquids to replicate the form of nicotine found in cigarette smoke, which may help cigarette smokers to transition to e-cigarettes. However, scientific understanding of the impact of such innovations on e-cigarette aerosol chemistry is limited.Methods: To address these knowledge gaps, we have conducted a comparative study analyzing relevant toxicant emissions from five e-cigarettes varying in wick, atomiser coil, and benzoic acid content and two tobacco cigarettes, quantifying 97 aerosol constituents and 84 smoke compounds, respectively. Our focus was the potential for benzoic acid in e-liquids and cotton wicks to form aerosol toxicants through thermal degradation reactions, and the potential for nickel–iron alloy coils to catalyze degradation of aerosol formers. In addition, we analyzed e-cigarette emissions for 19 flavor compounds, thermal decomposition products, and e-liquid contaminants that the FDA has recently proposed adding to the established list of Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents (HPHCs) in tobacco products.Results: Analyses for benzene and phenol showed no evidence of the thermal decomposition of benzoic acid in the e-cigarettes tested. Measurements of cotton decomposition products, such as carbonyls, hydrocarbons, aromatics, and PAHs, further indicated that cotton wicks can be used without thermal degradation in suitable e-cigarette designs. No evidence was found for enhanced thermal decomposition of propylene glycol or glycerol by the nickel–iron coil. Sixteen of the 19 FDA-proposed compounds were not detected in the e-cigarettes. Comparing toxicant emissions from e-cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes showed that levels of the nine WHO TobReg priority cigarette smoke toxicants were more than 99% lower in the aerosols from each of five e-cigarettes as compared with the commercial and reference cigarettes.Conclusions: Despite continuing evolution in design, components and ingredients, e-cigarettes continue to offer significantly lower toxicant exposure alternatives to cigarette smoking.

Background: As e-cigarette popularity has increased, there is growing evidence to suggest that while they are highly likely to be considerably less harmful than cigarettes, their use is not free of risk to the user. There is therefore an ongoing need to characterise the chemical composition of e-cigarette aerosols, as a starting point in characterising risks associated with their use. This study examined the chemical complexity of aerosols generated by an e-cigarette containing one unflavored and three flavored e-liquids. A combination of targeted and untargeted chemical analysis approaches was used to examine the number of compounds comprising the aerosol. Contributions of e-liquid flavors to aerosol complexity were investigated, and the sources of other aerosol constituents sought. Emissions of 98 aerosol toxicants were quantified and compared to those in smoke from a reference tobacco cigarette generated under two different smoking regimes.Results: Combined untargeted and targeted aerosol analyses identified between 94 and 139 compounds in the flavored aerosols, compared with an estimated 72–79 in the unflavored aerosol. This is significantly less complex (by 1-2 orders of magnitude) than the reported composition of cigarette smoke. Combining both types of analysis identified 5–12 compounds over and above those found by untargeted analysis alone. Gravimetrically, 89–99% of the e-cigarette aerosol composition was composed of glycerol, propylene glycol, water and nicotine, and around 3% comprised other, more minor, constituents. Comparable data for the Ky3R4F reference tobacco cigarette pointed to 58–76% of cigarette smoke “tar” being composed of minor constituents. Levels of the targeted toxicants in the e-cigarette aerosols were significantly lower than those in cigarette smoke, with 68.5–>99% reductions under ISO 3308 puffing conditions and 88.4–>99% reductions under ISO 20778 (intense) conditions; reductions against the WHO TobReg 9 priority list were around 99%.Conclusion: These analyses showed that the e-cigarette aerosols contain fewer compounds and at significantly lower concentrations than cigarette smoke. The chemical diversity of an e-cigarette aerosol is strongly impacted by the choice of e-liquid ingredients.

In order to understand the behaviour of tobacco additives in the burning cigarette it is important to know whether they transfer intact to the smoke or whether there is any decomposition during smoking. There are practical problems in comparing the chemical analysis of whole smoke from cigarettes with and without additives. Changes to the smoke chemistry may be insignificant in analytical terms and therefore missed from a general scan. Targeted analysis of key components potentially overcomes this concern, but has the drawback of being expensive in terms of time and analytical resources. Pyrolysis-GC-MS is an attractive solution in that it potentially enables the effects of combustion of a single material to be studied in isolation. However, it is not entirely valid to base an assessment of a material on a pyrolysis experiment alone unless the results can be demonstrably related to the cigarette smoke chemistry. The variables that affect the outcome of combustion are temperature, rate of change of temperature, oxygen concentration and chemical environment (matrix and gas phase). The key to this work has been in performing pyrolysis experiments under a range of different conditions and relating the experimental conditions to those within the burning zone of the cigarette to give a prediction of smoke chemistry. To test the theory in practise, the transfer and the extent of degradation of anisole, p-anisaldehyde, benzaldehyde, isoamylisovalerate, methyl trans-cinnamate and vanillin within a burning cigarette were investigated using this pyrolysis method. Pyrolyses were undertaken on each additive at 14 sets of pyrolysis conditions: temperatures between 200°C and 700°C in 2 % and 10 % oxygen, and at 800°C and 900°C in 2 % oxygen. By monitoring the presence of the intact additive in the volatile components from the pyrolysis, the temperature at which the additive is likely to transfer to the smoke was determined. By monitoring the decomposition products at temperatures up to this transfer temperature, the extent and products of decomposition likely from the additive were estimated. The pyrolysis predictions were compared with results from a previous study involving adding 14C-analogues of the materials to cigarettes and measuring the resultant radioactive species in the smoke. The results from the pyrolysis experiments lead us to make the following predictions: Anisole, isoamylisovalerate and vanillin will transfer intact to the smoke at 200°C. p-Anisaldehyde and methyl trans-cinnamate are likely to transfer to the smoke at a higher temperature of around 400°C leading to some decomposition/oxidation (3 % and 1 %, respectively). Benzaldehyde is likely to transfer to the smoke at 200°C, but at this temperature a significant amount (~26 %) oxidises to benzoic acid. Both compounds appear resilient to further degradation at higher temperatures. These levels of transfer were found to be consistent with smoke chemistry data.