Medicinal cannabis users are more prone to consume nicotine products than the general population, according to a recent study.
The study, published in the American Journal on Addictions, is among the first to examine nicotine use among patients of a medical marijuana dispensary, according to a release from Rutgers University.
“Simultaneous use of cannabis and nicotine is a growing concern, but while the relationship between recreational cannabis and nicotine use is well-established, little is known about nicotine use among users of medical cannabis,” said Mary Bridgeman, a clinical professor at Rutgers Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy.
The researchers surveyed 697 patients between ages 18 and 89 at a medical marijuana dispensary on their nicotine and cannabis use, how they self-administered the cannabis (smoked, vaped) and the medical conditions that qualified them for using therapeutic cannabis.
They found that close to 40 percent of medical marijuana users also use nicotine – sharply higher than the 14 percent of U.S. adults who smoke.
Therapeutic cannabis users who also used e-cigarettes or didn’t use nicotine at all were about four times more likely to vape, rather than smoke, cannabis than those who exclusively smoked cigarettes.
The study also found that 75 percent of the respondents smoked cannabis rather than vaped and about 80 percent of the cigarette smokers reported planning to quit in the next six months.
“These findings reveal that while medical cannabis dispensaries may recommend vaping rather than smoking cannabis due to the health concerns associated with combustible products, this recommendation alone may not influence patients who also smoke cigarettes,” said co-author Marc Steinberg, author of the study and a professor in the department of psychiatry at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School.
“Between the higher rates of nicotine use in those using medical cannabis, the fact that cigarette smokers opt to smoke cannabis as well and that those people also are seeking to quit using nicotine presents a strong argument that dispensaries provide tobacco control messaging at the point-of-sale to encourage cigarette smokers to quit,” Steinberg added. “The strategy also could increase the chances that a medical cannabis user would vape the product, which is a less harmful route than smoking.”
Disposable vapes help smokers to quit combustibles but are deadly for the environment.
By Maria Verven
Cigarettes used to be the most littered things in the world.
Trillions of cigarette butts are thrown onto our streets, parks and beaches every year. The Ocean Conservancy estimates that cigarette butts account for 25 percent of the total number of garbage items collected—over twice as much as any other category. Worldwide, it’s estimated that 1.69 billion pounds of cigarette butts end up as waste each year.
While some smokers may think their butts will eventually decompose, it actually takes decades for them to degrade. Cigarette filters aren’t made of innocuous cotton; they’re made of cellulose acetate and about 12,000 nonbiodegradable plastic-based fibers.
The chemicals in a single cigarette butt can contaminate hundreds of gallons of water. They can also be dangerous, causing fatal fires that burn hundreds of acres every year.
Things have changed dramatically in the last several years as many smokers have switched to vaping, thanks in large part to the convenience of disposable e-cigarettes.
In fact, these handy-dandy devices appear to be taking over the industry since they’re the simplest and most accessible vaping devices on the market.
But in the process, we created a whole new environmental hazard that, as of yet, has no easy solution.
Popular among youth
Among all the vaping devices on the market, none are more popular than disposable electronic nicotine-delivery systems (ENDS), particularly among young people.
According to the 2021 National Youth Tobacco Survey, well over half (54 percent) of youth who reported using e-cigarettes had used disposables. The 2020 Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study corroborated this finding. It reported that 38 percent of young adults aged 18–24 versus 17 percent of older adults (over age 25) who had used any ENDS product in the past 30 days had used a disposable.
At the May 2022 Vaper Expo U.K., nearly every vendor offered some variety of disposable device. Many were new to the market that were capitalizing on the trend—as well as renowned companies such as Innokin, which launched its new Aquios Bar disposable device in 10 different flavors.
“Disposable vapes are certainly the hottest-selling item among smoke-free nicotine-delivery devices,” said Dimitris Agrafiotis, owner of Global eVapor Consulting, executive director of the Tennessee Smoke Free Association and brand ambassador and designer at Innokin Technology.
Agrafiotis said disposable vapes attract individuals who make impulse buys at various points of sale as well as new users who enjoy the convenience of a product that doesn’t require any knowledge of coils or ohms. They can purchase disposables nearly anywhere where cigarettes are sold. They can simply tear open the package and start vaping, making disposables the perfect solution for beginners.
“In my experience, vapers who quit smoking use disposable vapes part time as secondary devices when they don’t want to take their usual rig with them, such as at a nice dinner or in situations requiring them to be more discrete,” he said.
The technology behind disposables has only continued to improve over the past several years. Most vape pens can now deliver around 400 puffs before they’re no longer viable—nearly twice as many puffs as a pack of cigarettes can deliver. Some vape pens with larger batteries can even deliver as much as 5,000 puffs.
Another significant advance is the use of auto-draw switches that activate the device and heat the coil when the vaper inhales, delivering a smooth and seamless experience.
And thanks to nicotine salts, disposables offer a smoother vaping experience. While the nicotine level in most disposables is limited to 5 mg, vapers can satisfy their nicotine cravings without a harsh throat hit or any interference in the flavor experience.
Speaking of flavor, that’s another advantage disposables have over refillable vape devices. Manufacturers often add sweeteners to disposables to make the flavors pop without having to worry that the sweeteners will gunk up and ruin the device. The disposable will be tossed long before that happens.
The range of flavors available from disposables is mind-blowing. As more and more manufacturers take advantage of the growth in this market, they entice vapers with interesting and often exotic flavor profiles, such as bergamot and carambola.
While battery technology hasn’t necessarily improved dramatically, some brands have created larger internal or rechargeable batteries in their efforts to increase puff count. This is a step in the right direction to reduce battery waste.
The environmental impact
Even refillable and replaceable vape pens typically contain several metal, plastic and cotton elements, making them difficult to separate and recycle. Thus, they tend to end up as general household waste. Even the smaller replaceable coils and pods don’t often get recycled.
But disposable e-cigarettes are way worse because the vaper disposes the entire device, which is composed of plastic and metal coils as well as a battery cell. While some brands and vape stores offer recycling programs for disposables, most vapers simply toss them into the trash.
Millions of lithium-ion batteries, hard plastic and nicotine-contaminated pods are being disposed of in our landfills, creating a significant waste problem. Nicotine, including nicotine salt, is listed by the Environmental Protection Agency as an acute hazardous waste. When disposables leak battery acid and/or nicotine into the environment, they harm fish and wildlife in the process.
The Food and Drug Administration is required under the National Environmental Policy Act to evaluate all major agency actions to determine if they will have a significant impact on the human environment. If the environmental assessment identifies significant environmental effects, the FDA will prepare an environmental impact statement to help make informed decisions on the relevant environmental consequences and alternatives available.
In addition to assessing potential environmental impacts of new tobacco products during premarket review, the FDA has also posted information for consumers on proper disposal of e-cigarettes and e-liquid waste.
“While we are excited that lots of people are not inhaling combustible tobacco, we should be concerned over the environmental sustainability and proper ethics in the sale of these products,” Agrafiotis said. “In its quest to market and sell millions of these products, the industry has failed to implement any type of consumer education or recycling initiative that would help alleviate the disaster,” he said.
“The irony is that in most countries in Europe, plastic straws are banned—and yet these products continue to be dumped by the boatloads. I simply cannot see how governments will allow this to continue, especially in Europe, where environmental waste is such a huge issue,” Agrafiotis said.
“With TPD 3 approaching and countries already discussing legislative measures, I believe the days are numbered for disposables—at least as we know them right now.”
What’s the solution?
The first and most obvious answer is to encourage consumers to use rechargeable devices.
Consumers could also be encouraged to purchase refillable pod devices, vape pens with replaceable coils or even rebuildable tank atomizers, all of which are far more cost effective in the long run, not to mention more eco-friendly.
The industry has yet to find ways to encourage and/or incentivize consumers to dispose of these devices in the right manner. When Agrafiotis tried offering a financial incentive for every disposable brought back to his store, there were very few takers.
“The younger demographic that predominantly uses these products simply doesn’t seem to care,” he said. “At least the older demographic tends to quickly transition from disposables to open systems when they realize the daily costs and environmental impact.”
Agrafiotis said he’s unaware of any other outlets for collecting and recycling disposable vapes. “At this point, there’s no budget or avenue for us to try and change the existing system. Incentives and/or drop-off points for hazardous waste should have started with the construction and sale of the first disposable vaping device ever made.”
“The only thing I could do is break the plastic and remove the battery and bring it to a battery recycler, but I would still have to dispose the plastic and nicotine pod in the trash,” he said. “All brands would have to work together to start a viable recycling program, but unfortunately, I simply do not see this is possible.”
Nevertheless, Agrafiotis said Innokin is striving to reduce environmental waste in its products. Innokin was the first company to start using fully recyclable packaging for its open vapor systems, made entirely of paper with absolutely no plastic, he said.
The first disposable vaping device that can be disassembled and recycled, the Innokin Enviro uses materials with a lower carbon footprint—a reinforced paper shell—to replace the plastic shell found in most disposable vaping devices.
“We believe disposable vapes should have less impact on the environment,” Agrafiotis said. “With more efficient manufacturing processes and recyclable designs, our goal is to continually optimize Enviro and make disposable vaping greener. We can only hope demand grows for this approach and more companies follow in the same green footsteps.”
Clearly, the industry must act quickly to devise solutions before the products that help millions of smokers are carbon taxed or—even worse—removed completely from the market.
“Most of all, I hope we see more people quit smoking and transition to vaping, regardless of the device they choose to help them. Any vaping devices that can help smokers around the world make the switch is worth pursuing,” Agrafiotis said.
“Plastic casings and batteries simply should not go into our landfills after just one use,” he said. “More companies should be actively looking at sustainable solutions and proactively working with existing recycling companies to implement programs to keep these products out of our already overflowing landfills.”
The original “Vaping Vamp,” Maria Verven owns Verve Communications, a PR and marketing firm specializing in the vapor industry.
MORE ON VAPING WASTE
Garbage facts
There is an estimated 44.7 million tons of e-waste generated around the world every year. That waste contains up to $65 billion worth of raw materials like gold, silver and platinum sent to a landfill. The amount of global e-waste is expected to increase by almost 17 percent to 52.2 million tons in 2021, or about 8 percent every year, according to Cleanaway Waste Management, an Australian waste management, industrial and environmental services company.
Vaping products contain lithium-ion batteries, a heating element and a circuit board. These components—which may include plastic and heavy metals—make disposing of e-cigarettes a considerable challenge because of the various types of chemicals and materials involved in their manufacturing.
The global disposable e-cigarettes market size is expected to be valued at $6.34 billion in 2022, according to Future Market Insights (FMI). The overall demand for disposable e-cigarettes is projected to grow at a CAGR of 11.2 percent between 2022 and 2032, totaling around $18.32 billion by 2032.
“Demand for non-tobacco products is expected to augment the growth of the disposable e-cigarettes market in the near future. It has been observed that older people prefer this product as it does not have any negative effect on health,” stated an FMI analyst.
There are no direct regulations for recycling or use of e-cigarettes, heated-tobacco products (HTPs) or the cellulose acetate filters in combustible cigarettes in the EU, U.S., China and Japan. There is some legislation that regulates the management of e-waste; however, these guidelines typically apply only to cell phones, computers and other large electronic products.
According to the Global Overview of Recycling Programs for E-Cigarettes, Heated-Tobacco Products and Vaporizers Business for 2022 and Future Prospects of Electronic Devices and Consumables Development report by Research and Markets, large vaping industry players have several recycling programs and recycling targets for the near future:
Philip Morris International established two hubs in Europe and Asia that inspect, process and separate materials from electronic devices for recycling. The effective recycling rate of IQOS devices increased from 30 percent in 2018 to 40 percent in 2020. The target recycling rate is 80 percent by 2025.
BAT replaces plastic elements of vapor products with pulp-based alternatives. The share of recycled waste was 79–80 percent in 2019–2021. The target recycling rate is 95 percent by 2025.
Japan Tobacco International launched a return scheme of used devices through the recycling boxes at shops. In 2020, 67 percent of produced waste was recycled. The target for waste reduction is 20 percent by 2030.
Imperial Brands launched takeback recycling schemes for used vaping devices and pods. The recycling rate decreased from 69 percent in 2017 to 61 percent in 2021. The target recycling rate is 75 percent by 2030.
Other vape companies (Dotmod, Shanlaan, Dovpo and Vinn) launch their own recycling programs by return schemes. Innokin works on battery utilization programs.
FEELM, an atomization brand and an independent business unit of Smoore Technology Ltd., won the IF Design Award 2020 for its eco-friendly Disposable Paper E-cigarette. CCELL launched a new line of disposable vaporizers in 2021.
Recycling companies Gaiaca and TerraCycle cooperate with vape manufacturers to provide services for collecting and recycling e-waste. Some vape producers cooperate directly with recycling companies; for example, RELX cooperates with China Siyan Foundation for Poverty Alleviation.
The Bowman Company offers refill stations to fill empty vapor bottles/pods. It will help to reduce plastic usage for vapor bottle production in the future.
It is expected that the future of e-cigarette, HTP and vaporizer recycling will depend on producers’ product life cycle programs. Recycling decisions from large vaping companies to combat waste include using a combination of polylactic acid (PLA) and plastic or starch blend and plastic for the device body; using paper packaging; and making inner packaging consist of paper or paper and PLA.
A survey by Opinium on behalf of Material Focus, a not-for-profit established to help the U.K. meet its electrical reuse and recycling targets, found that 18 percent of 4,000 people surveyed in the U.K. had bought a vape device in the previous year, with 7 percent buying a single-use device.
The Opinium figures would suggest that about 168 million disposable vapes are being bought every year in the U.K. Two of the biggest brands in the country are Elf Bar and Geek Bar, which between them make up about 60 percent of the market.
More than half of people that buy single-use e-cigarettes dispose of them in a general trash bin compared to 33 percent on average for all types of vape, according to the research. While each vape contains just 0.15 g of lithium, the scale of the waste means that about 10 tons of metal is ending up in landfills. – VV staff
A new report from Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) has found that vaping has reached record levels in Great Britain with an estimated 4.3 million people being active vapers.
The data, shared exclusively with the PA news agency, suggests that 8.3 percent of adults in England, Wales and Scotland vape, according to the Glasgow Evening Times.
Ten years ago the number was 1.7 percent (an estimated 800,000 people).
ASH stated that a “vaping revolution” has taken place over the last decade. Of the 4.3 million current vapers, around 2.4 million are ex-smokers, 1.5 million are current smokers and 350,000 have never smoked a cigarette, according to the report.
The figures also show that the proportion of current e-cigarette users who have never smoked has increased from 4.9 percent last year to 8.1 percent this year. In 2022, 35 percent of current vapers also smoked, according to the report.
The report, based on a YouGov survey of more than 13,000 adults from across Great Britain, found that 28 percent of current smokers had never tried an e-cigarette, with 10 percent of this group saying they were “concerned e-cigarettes are not safe enough.”
A third of adults said they believe that vaping is more, or equally as harmful, as smoking. One in five former smokers said they used a vape to help them quit. However, more than half (56 percent) of current vapers who are ex-smokers said they had been vaping for more than three years.
Vapers reported that the main reason they used e-cigarettes were for quitting smoking, to prevent them from returning to smoking and 14 percent said they used vapes “because they enjoy it.”
Most vapers reported using refillable tank systems but the report points to a rise in disposable e-cigarettes – up from 2.3 percent of vapers using these in 2021 to 15 percent this year. The authors suggested that younger adults are driving the increase in the disposable vapes, with 48 percent of 18 to 24-year-old vapers use a disposable device.
“Over the last decade we’ve seen a vaping revolution take hold,” said Hazel Cheeseman, deputy chief executive of ASH. “There are now five times as many vapers as there were in 2012, with millions having used them as part of a quit attempt.
“However, they haven’t worked for everyone. Just under half of smokers who have tried them have stopped using them and 28 percent have never tried one at all. Government has said that a ‘vaping revolution’ will help them meet their ambition for a smoke-free country by 2030 but it won’t be enough – we need a comprehensive plan that will help all smokers.”
Earlier this year a separate report from ASH concluded that the proportion of children vaping is on the rise, with many being influenced by social media sites such as TikTok. While it is illegal to sell vapes to under-18s, the proportion of children aged 11 to 17 currently vaping has jumped from 4 percent in 2020 to 7 percent in 2022.
Ash started its annual survey, Smokefree GB, in 2010.
Nicotine was first synthesized nearly 120 years ago and is now being considered a new tobacco product.
By Timothy S. Donahue
Synthetic nicotine has been under fire recently. News reports surrounding the product have been negative, and technically, all synthetic nicotine products are illegal in the U.S. Companies had until May 14 to submit a premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to keep their products on the market. Those that did not gain the FDA’s authorization for their synthetic nicotine products would have had to pull those products from the market by July 13. However, the FDA does seem to be using some discretion in its enforcement of synthetic nicotine products.
During a panel presentation on synthetic nicotine at the Next Generation Nicotine Delivery USA 2022 (NGN) conference in Miami, Florida, in June, Todd Cecil, the acting co-director for the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products’ Office of Science, commenting from the audience, said that he could not confirm enforcement discretion for synthetic products. He said “everything” on the market after July 13 is illegal. However, he insisted that the agency would evaluate synthetic products based on the science.
“I can say that without doubt … the Office of Science will evaluate synthetic nicotine as you would any product, and [it] isn’t looked at with bias either for or against. It is up to the application to demonstrate that their product is APPH [appropriate for the protection of public health],” said Cecil. “And, like the rest of the FDA, no end verdict is evaluated in the absence of the dosage form in which it is administered.
“So, you may well find a lot of synthetic nicotine products coming off of the marketplace because they didn’t hit the requirements of submission, didn’t hit the requirements of data that’s in the rule, or that they have not demonstrated that it’s APPH, all of which is part of this analysis process. It’s not simply a ‘Well, it’s synthetic. That means it’s OK.’ It has to be evaluated as part of [the PMTA].”
George Cassels-Smith, CEO of Tobacco Technologies Inc., parent to eLiquiTech, the global distributor of SyNic products, said during the NGN panel that public misconceptions present a considerable challenge in the discussion about synthetic nicotine, adding that the FDA may be partly to blame because of the agency’s lack of clarity on the product’s safety and efficacy.
“Our role now is to work with the FDA and to educate people that [synthetic nicotine] is a viable alternative and that it’s got a good spot in the future of tobacco products and pharmaceutical products, that it ticks all the boxes,” explained Cassels-Smith. “But unless we can educate the consumer, we’ll continue working with a 90 percent misconception of what this product actually is.”
Tony Abboud
Tony Abboud, also speaking on the NGN panel, said that anti-vaping zealots, because of a few bad actors in the vaping industry, wrongly believe that synthetic nicotine was created only to evade the regulatory scope of the FDA. Companies like U.K.-based Zanoprima Lifesciences (the parent to SyNic) “have been manufacturing synthetic nicotine and perfecting the scientific process associated with it for years before the deeming regulation took effect, before the deeming regulation was fully implemented and long before the PMTA process kicked off,” said Abboud. “So that fact suggests that circumvention, again, is no longer an argument that is relevant.”
Synthetic explained
Synthetic nicotine is not new. Nicotine was first synthesized by Swiss chemist Ame Pictet in 1904. Since extracting nicotine from natural tobacco is efficient and inexpensive and synthesis from precursor compounds is relatively complex and expensive, for more than a century, synthetic nicotine had no commercial role, according to researchers at Stanford University in the U.S.
Molecules such as nicotine may exist in mirror image forms with identical chemical makeup but sometimes differing biological activity. The nicotine molecule possesses chirality, meaning it exists in two mirror image versions called enantiomers or stereoisomers. Nicotine comes in left (S) and right (R) forms. The (S) isomer of nicotine greatly predominates in tobacco leaf, which contains only small amounts of the (R) variant (0.1 percent to 1.2 percent).
Most synthetic nicotine has equal parts of both the (S) and (R) isomers. SyNic only has the (S) isomer—the one that holds all the psychotropic effects that nicotine consumers want, according to David Johnson, eLiquiTech’s president and chief scientific officer. SyNic USP/EP, SyNic nicotine bitartrate and SyNic polacrilex resin are manufactured in FDA-registered facilities using current good manufacturing practices. These products have confirmed purity levels of more than 99.9 percent, (S) levels of more than 99.7 percent and are free of tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) and carcinogens, according to Johnson.
“The molecule is the same and the three-dimensional structure’s the same. It’s not different. There’s nothing new. And so all those studies that were done with tobacco-derived nicotine can be bridged to this synthetic product, so it creates some synergies, reduces some effort on the part [of] people who are generating reports and reduces some of the burden on the regulators in terms of assessing the data that’s generated as well,” explains Johnson. “So this seems to be a pretty straightforward case, right? You have a pure product in terms of the active ingredient. You have delivery mechanisms that clearly evolve at the low end of the risk containers, and you have a strong basic science upon which you compare the products and then evaluate them.”
Naturally derived nicotine and synthetic nicotine are identical on a molecular level. The differences are the individual or potential impurities. Nicotine derived from tobacco can contain potentially harmful impurities if it is not purified sufficiently. That can be difficult and costly because the impurities appear structurally similar to the nicotine molecule itself. But synthetic nicotine is virtually free of any impurities from the beginning, and none of its varieties are carcinogenic.
ELiquiTech is committed to Zanoprima to serve as SyNic’s global distributor and the manufacturer of record for synthetic nicotine bitartrate and synthetic nicotine polacrilex resin as well as proprietary SyNic e-liquid formulas. Zanoprima holds the patent, and eLiquiTech maintains the exclusive rights for global distribution to the tobacco and electronic nicotine-delivery system industries. ELiquiTech does not sell flavorings for e-liquids.
Cassels-Smith said the marketplace for synthetic nicotine has been a rollercoaster. He said SyNic does not make any sales to people that do not have an active PMTA. He said that when marketing denial orders for flavored tobacco-derived nicotine products began to come down from the FDA, the demand for synthetic nicotine was strong. However, SyNic only did business with companies that submitted a PMTA. Subsequently, the FDA opened a short window for new products to enter the marketplace.
“We saw a very robust sampling and ordering process for people to [bring new products to market]. Now, we are in a period where companies would be marketing that product. But surprisingly, I’m not seeing the demand that I experienced in the beginning,” said Cassels-Smith. “My guess is that people are waiting to find out how those applications will be reviewed before they come in. I think their concern is that if there’s a market denial order and they must remove the products from the shelves, they would have excessive inventory and a high exposure to potential cash flow issues.”
Globally, the United States has always been the country that “tosses the paddle in the water, and then we quickly see over in Europe the ripple effect,” according to Cassels-Smith. He said that he had recently spent time in Europe and was amazed at the number of vapers and heat-not-burn consumers there.
“The ratio of people that were smoking cigarettes was the smallest that I’ve ever seen in Europe. I was in Poland for the Global Nicotine Forum. Going to the conventions, I was in Birmingham for [the World Vape Show] two weeks prior. Synthetic nicotine was all the rage, and the U.K. is seeing smoking plummet because of its embracing of vapor products. World Vape Show Dubai had many synthetic products too … it’s very strong right now in the Middle East. And most recently, we see that China is licensing companies to produce an estimated 200 metric tons to [a rumored] 500 metric tons of synthetic nicotine. With those kinds of quantities, they must anticipate an extremely strong demand.”
Credit: NDABCREATIVITY
Forward thinking
The vapor industry is always changing. However, nicotine has always been a traditionally quiet segment. When some companies announced that they would use synthetic nicotine to circumvent FDA regulation, the U.S. Congress acted. It changed the definition of tobacco in the Tobacco Control Act to include synthetic nicotine. That change turned the synthetic nicotine market on its head.
Cassels-Smith predicts a bifurcation in the nicotine market. This is due to factors such as making the cost of synthetic production more affordable and the certain security guarantees that synthetic nicotine offers over its natural cousin. Synthetic nicotine can be purchased for nearly the same price as tobacco-derived nicotine and in some instances for even less. This is due to advancements in the commercially scaled bulk production of synthetic nicotine for use in the tobacco, vaping, pharmaceutical and scientific research industries.
However, natural nicotine may not be the best option for nicotine-replacement therapy (NRT) and next-generation nicotine products. This is because nicotine extraction outside the U.S. comes from a supply of dust and recon. India, for example, has used its large stocks of tobacco dust to create a crude nicotine, which is then refined into a purer liquid nicotine extraction.
Several NRT products have been taken off the market by the FDA recently because they were found to contain TSNAs, residuals from the natural nicotine used in the NRT’s production. Synthetic nicotine has no TSNAs, the harmful, cancer-causing chemicals found in combustible tobacco products, because TSNAs are formed when tobacco leaves are grown, cured, aged and processed. The problem with the tobacco used in most naturally derived liquid nicotine is that the leaf used for extraction can’t be traced back to its origins.
“When you pick up a pack of cigarettes, you can tell that tobacco is grown in this farm, in this soil, with this seed, with this residual pesticide, with this amount of heavy metals … with a nicotine extraction, you have no idea. You can’t track and trace it,” explains Cassels-Smith. “So that’s an advantage to our product. And I think that you’re going to see more and more of tobacco grown from a specific area with a farmer with known residual pesticides and known heavy metal contents of the soil, and that will be extracted. And I call that the pedigree of natural nicotine. I do see an opportunity for a pedigree brand of natural nicotine to have a substantial seat at the table.”
Johnson said that having a manufacturing process that produces a synthetic nicotine offers a controlled process that’s repeatable, reproducible and well defined. Every raw material that goes into the production process can be traced by lot. Ingredients can all be tracked back to the source. “You’ve got batch records. You’ve got lot tracking. It meets that pharmaceutical model for producing a product that’s very well characterized [and] very reproducible,” said Johnson from the NGN panel stage. “The product that you produce is very low in impurities. It has no TSNAs, OK? Because those are not produced in this process.”
David Renteln, co-founder and CEO of Lucy Goods, said that a pure, consistent, traceable form of nicotine is both easier to work with and also better for the consumer. He said that if one were to consider what the future of farming is going to look like, it isn’t going to be the traditional growing on billions and billions of acres of land. And land that needs to be used for food won’t be taken up by tobacco.
“We’re still using farmland to grow tobacco, something that we’ve done for thousands of years [it’s labor intensive and bad for the environment]. The chemical production and synthetic production of key chemicals is something that will definitely not be done [in the future] by just growing plants on essentially two-dimensional plots of land,” said Renteln. “And as a result, the efficiencies are better for the environment, it’s better for human quality of life and labor practices. And when we reach scale, it will probably be less expensive, all the while being better for the manufacturer and the consumer.”
Credit: TTI
A closing cause
The benefits of synthetic nicotine could extend to other products, such as pharmaceuticals. The 1958 Food Additives Amendment requires the FDA to ban additives that are found to cause or induce cancer in humans or animals as indicated by testing, such as TSNAs.
Cassels-Smith said that this is why his company is preparing its drug master file for SyNic. The lack of track and traceability for natural nicotine has been a problem not only for the tobacco industry but also for the pharmaceutical industry and NRT manufacturers.
“I think a lot of data needs to be presented, but I think [an] argument clearly can be made that this is more helpful to use in a habitual way than a Nicorette gum or something else in the NRT space. So, yes, a rising tide will lift all ships,” he said. “We will eventually see pharmaceutical, as well as tobacco products, with a cleaner active ingredient because what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”
Renteln said that the agency has the ability to do what it wants. It has a high degree of latitude to make decisions that it believes will help the agency achieve its mission: protecting public health. He said that the intent behind regulating vaping products is to ensure that these products that are APPH remain on the market and that those that aren’t APPH are not allowed to remain on the market.
“We should take an appropriate amount of time and get the burden of evidence that they need to make that decision. I think that there are, just using common sense, products that are more complicated and will require more time to assess, and then there are products where it would be kind of difficult to mess up,” he says. “I think enforcement priorities can make a great deal of sense. We’ve seen that work relatively effectively already, and so I think they’ve got a precedent that’s not perfect but good enough.”
Instead of overzealous regulatory actions, Renteln said he would like to see more action taken against the bad actors of the industry. Nobody seems to care if they get a warning letter. He thinks misinformation is a serious issue, claiming 90 percent of the doctors he has spoken with believe nicotine causes cancer and is extremely poisonous. He also doesn’t want the FDA’s decisions to be political.
“The problem we have is misconceptions and people telling false truths. Nicotine isn’t made in a microcosm; nicotine does have an addictive quality to it, but it’s super clean. It’s not carcinogenic,” said Renteln. “My biggest concern is just that there will be a great deal of pressure [on the FDA] to bow to political influences rather than scientific decision-making … that’s really the agency’s role; that’s their mission. That’s their approach to dealing with everything. I think that the scientists at the agency tend to feel very strongly that they’re going to make a decision based on science.”
E-cigarettes may help people decrease their dependence on combustible cigarettes without increasing their overall nicotine dependence, according to a recent Penn State College of Medicine study.
The researchers enrolled 520 participants interested in reducing their cigarette intake but with no plans or interest to quit smoking and instructed them to reduce their cigarette consumption over the six-month study period. Participants randomly received an e-cigarette that delivered 36, 8 or 0 mg/mL of nicotine, or a cigarette substitute that contained no tobacco, as an aid in their efforts to reduce their cigarette consumption.
At six months, all participants in the e-cigarette groups reported significant, decreased cigarette consumption, with those in the 36 mg/mL group smoking the least number of cigarettes per day. Those in the e-cigarette groups reported significantly lower dependence on the Penn State Cigarette Dependence Index than those in the cigarette substitute group.
“Our results suggest that using e-cigarettes or a cigarette substitute to reduce cigarette consumption can result in a reduction of self-reported cigarette use and dependence,” said Jessica Yingst, who directs the College of Medicine’s Doctor of Public Health Program. “Importantly, use of the high-concentration e-cigarette did not increase overall nicotine dependence and was associated with a greater reduction in cigarette smoking compared to the cigarette substitute.”
A study by Yale Professor Abigail Friedman and Georgia State University Professor Michael Pesko has found higher vaping taxes boost sales of combustible cigarettes.
The researchers examined the impact that tax increases on vaping products had on both e-cigarette usage and traditional combustible cigarette smoking, specifically researching the impact on young consumers (ages 18-25), according to Fee.org.
The study found that as taxes increase on vaping products, vaping decreases. It also shows that higher taxes on vaping products leads to an increase in traditional cigarette smoking among young people.
“A one dollar increase in [vaping] taxes yielded significant reductions in young adults’ daily vaping alongside increases in recent smoking,” the authors find.
The researchers ultimately conclude that “higher taxes on electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are associated with decreased ENDS use but increased cigarette smoking among 18-25 year-olds.”
This is what’s known as the “substitution effect,” defined by Investopedia as “the decrease in sales for a product that can be attributed to consumers switching to cheaper alternatives when its price rises.”
Smoore has opened China’s first non-clinical full-scale testing laboratory for U.S. premarket tobacco product applications (PMTA).
Operated by Smoore’s Analysis, Testing and Safety Assessment Center, the laboratory provides all non-clinical evidence required to bring a new nicotine product to market, including material safety, hazardous components and potentially hazardous components (HPHC’s), and toxicology testing.
This is the first PMTA testing laboratory to open in China, and will allow Smoore to further improve the safety of its products, and help the brands they work with to successfully pass PMTA certification.
Prior to Smoore opening its new laboratory, vaping companies wanting to enter the U.S. would need to use third-party partners to complete their PMTA testing, which can be a costly and time-consuming process. With the new China facility, Smoore’s brand partners can more easily complete their PMTA certification and improve their accessibility to the US market.
“The FDA is very concerned about HPHCs and has set out a list of 33 substances which must be tested for,” said Dr Long, the director of Smoore’s new Safety Assessment Center, in a statement. “Our new laboratory can do all this and more, and has the capacity to test for 37 substances; we are the only facility in China whose testing capabilities covers the full range of HPHCs substances.”
According to Smoore, the laboratory tests against a world-leading new database of HPHCs, developed by Smoore and derived from international toxicity databases including those maintained by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Advanced computational toxicology software is also used to predict for unknown and potentially hazardous ingredients not included in these databases, further increasing Smoore’s safety assessments.
Since establishing its first research institute in 2017, Smoore has continued to lead the industry in evidence-based research. Its Safety Assessment Center has raised safety standards to medical grade, and works to constantly review product safety.
A total of eight products have been approved for marketing by the FDA, many of which are manufactured by Smoore.
An FDA-funded study falsely claims that e-cigarette use negatively impacts health and increases utilization and cost.
By VV staff
Misinformation is incorrect or misleading information. It is different from disinformation, which is deliberately deceptive. Both are rampant in the vaping industry; however, it is difficult to distinguish between them.
Complicating the issue, it’s impossible to tell if researchers of disproven or flawed anti-vaping studies conducted defective studies intentionally or if they were just bad at their jobs. Many vapor industry advocates claim researchers are intentionally coming to conclusions that fit the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s “supposed goal” of eventually banning all nicotine products, especially when the studies are being funded by the FDA.
In one recent study, researchers found that the use of electronic cigarettes costs the United States $15 billion annually in healthcare expenditures—more than $2,000 per person a year. The study, published on May 23 in Tobacco Control, is the first to look at the healthcare costs of e-cigarette use among adults aged 18 and older, according to researchers at the University of California San Francisco School of Nursing.
“Our finding indicates that healthcare expenditures for a person who uses e-cigarettes are $2,024 more per year than for a person who doesn’t use any tobacco products,” said lead author Yingning Wang of the University of California San Francisco Institute for Health and Aging.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, combustible cigarette smoking-related illness in the United States costs more than $300 billion each year, including more than $225 billion for direct medical care for adults. With an estimated 30 million smokers, that is $10,000 a year more than for a person a who doesn’t use tobacco products.
The researchers based their estimates of healthcare costs and utilization on data from the 2015–2018 National Health Interview Survey. Healthcare utilization included nights in the hospital, emergency room visits, doctor visits and home visits. “Healthcare costs attributable to e-cigarette use are already greater than our estimates of healthcare costs attributable to cigar and smokeless tobacco use,” said Wang. “This is a concerning finding given that e-cigarettes are a relatively new product whose impact is likely to increase over time.”
The results of the study appear to be based on two key assumptions, according to Jamie Brown, professor of behavioral science and health and director of the Tobacco and Alcohol Research Group at University College London.
“First, that the identified associations between e-cigarette use and poor health status are caused by e-cigarettes. The majority of people who use e-cigarettes are also former or current cigarette smokers. Despite the attempts at adjustment, it is likely that at least some of the association is actually caused by cigarettes,” said Brown. “The second assumption appears to be that the alternative is simply that these people would not be using e-cigarettes. However, we know that e-cigarettes help people to quit smoking cigarettes and that cigarette smoking causes enormous healthcare expenditure. Therefore, the key question is: What is the net impact on healthcare utilization when trying to account for how e-cigarettes affect how many people smoke cigarettes? These types of models have tended to suggest net benefits are likely.”
Credit: Adrian_ilie825
Peter Hajek, director of the Tobacco Dependence Research Unit at Queen Mary University of London, called the study a “baffling” piece of work. “The authors report that people who use e-cigarettes have poorer health and incur higher health costs than nonsmokers, but it is not clear why they assume that the excess health expenditure incurred by smokers who are trying to limit their smoking by using e-cigarettes—often because of acute health problems—is caused by their recent vaping rather than by their lifetime smoking,” said Hajek. “This is like claiming that the extra health expenditure incurred by people with broken legs is caused by using crutches.”
Researchers for the study sought to put a price tag on the health costs of e-cigarette use, certainly a reasonable component in the policy trade-offs over the use of e-cigarettes, according to Chuck Dinerstein, director of medicine at the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), who has over 25 years of experience as a vascular surgeon.
He stated that in order to get their data, researchers developed a model using the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), a household survey of the general population in the U.S. that includes detailed questions on health and use of tobacco products. “The researchers point to a study using NHIS data that per smoker—meaning combustible—attributable healthcare expenditures are $5,602,” explained Dinerstein. “The finding of this study, for both those exclusively using e-cigarettes and the dual users, is roughly a third as much. E-cigarettes reduce healthcare utilization and costs.
“The researchers point out that exclusive e-cigarette users had ‘higher odds of reporting poor health status than never tobacco users.’ That would be no surprise; no one is claiming e-cigarettes do no harm; they are less harmful than the alternative. Just like the prescription of buprenorphine is less harmful than the free-market acquisition of fentanyl … E-cigarettes have been marketed for 15 years and have been the tobacco product of choice for young adults for eight years. I find the assumption that e-cigarettes alone have manifested increased health costs at this point debatable.”
Cameron English, director of bio-sciences at ACSH, believes that the study had several critical flaws, with the most serious being the assumption that e-cigarette use would negatively impact an individual’s health and that this negative impact would increase utilization and cost. “The authors assumed what they should have demonstrated,” stated English. “That’s especially troublesome because existing evidence suggests that vaping is far less harmful than smoking. Instead of boosting healthcare expenditures, e-cigarette use probably reduces the amount of money spent to treat sick smokers. In sum, the Tobacco Control paper is terrible.”
While the research itself is scientifically suspect, two other troubling details should also be highlighted, according to English. “First, FDA paid for this low-quality study—then publicly denied any involvement until the paper was published. Second, the agency’s actions appear to reflect a broader effort to shape the peer-reviewed vaping literature then use it to justify excessive e-cigarette regulations.”
It should also be noted that while the FDA’s primary concern is saving youth from the dangers of vaping, researchers in the FDA-funded study’s opening cite concerns about the increased use of e-cigarettes by youth, especially those aged 15 to 24. “The Truth Initiative, an anti-smoking group funded by money from the Tobacco Settlement, reports that those [aged] 15 to 17 are ‘16 times more likely to vape than people aged 25 to 34,’” explains English. “Among the limitations of the study, the researchers indicate that the young, those we should be most concerned about, were not included in the study. ‘We did not include youth in the analysis due to their low healthcare utilization,’ [the researchers said].”
EVALI caused chaos
Whether it’s misinformation or disinformation, it’s costing lives. It’s keeping combustible cigarette smokers from switching to less harmful products. Another recent study led by researchers at the American Cancer Society shows that perceptions of e-cigarettes as being “more harmful” than cigarettes by adults in the United States more than doubled between 2019 and 2020, and perceptions of e-cigarettes as “less harmful” declined between 2018 and 2020.
Credit: andriano_cz.
The study also found that an increase in cigarette smoking prevalence (2019–2020) was restricted to those who perceived e-cigarettes as “more harmful” than cigarettes while increases in prevalence of e-cigarette use were restricted to those who perceived e-cigarettes as “less harmful” than cigarettes, according to a press release.
Prevalence of dual use of both products increased only among those who perceived these products “as harmful.” The results coincide with the e-cigarette or vaping use-associated lung injury outbreak (EVALI) and the Covid-19 pandemic. The data was published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
“While all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, pose a risk to the health of the user, major health events, such as the EVALI epidemic in late 2019 and the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, paved the way to new smoking/e-cigarette health risks,” the release states. “During this time, the quality and type of information individuals were exposed to may have shaped how they compare the potential harms of tobacco products, which, in turn, may have altered tobacco use behaviors.”
How individuals perceive the harm of e-cigarettes versus traditional cigarettes can predict their individual decision to use tobacco products, but according to the study authors, this is the first study to provide evidence that this relationship translates to population-based prevalence changes.
“While this study showed sharp changes in public perceptions of e-cigarette versus cigarette harms during EVALI and Covid-19, the more relevant finding for public health is that increases in cigarette smoking and e-cigarette use prevalence occurred primarily in individuals who perceived their preferred product as relatively less harmful,” said Priti Bandi, principal scientist of risk factors and screening surveillance research at the American Cancer Society and lead author of the study. “This suggests that public perceptions of e-cigarette versus cigarette harms influence population tobacco use patterns.”
In this study, researchers analyzed data from the National Cancer Institute-sponsored Health Information National Trends Survey collected from more than 10,000 U.S. adults from 2018 to 2020. The results showed that perceptions of e-cigarettes as “more harmful” than cigarettes doubled each year, increasing most between 2019 and 2020 (2018: 6.8 percent; 2019: 12.8 percent; 2020: 28.3 percent) while uncertainty (responses of “don’t know”) in relative harm declined (2018: 38.2 percent; 2019: 34.2 percent; 2020: 24.7 percent).
“Less harmful” relative perceptions declined (2018: 17.6 percent; 2019: 15.3 percent; 2020: 11.4 percent) while “as harmful” perceptions remained steady (2018: 37.4 percent; 2019: 37.7 percent; 2020: 35.6 percent). Exclusive cigarette smoking increased between 2019 and 2020 among those who perceived e-cigarettes as relatively “more harmful”(2018: 18.5 percent; 2019: 8.4 percent; 2020: 16.3 percent), exclusive e-cigarette use increased linearly among those who perceived them as relatively “less harmful” (2018: 7.9 percent; 2019: 15.3 percent; 2020: 26.7 percent), and dual use increased linearly in those who perceived them “as harmful”(2018: 0.1 percent; 2019: 1.4 percent; 2020: 2.9 percent).
“It is challenging for individuals to make conclusions about the short[-term] and long-term health effects of tobacco products without clear, effective and ongoing communication from public health authorities, especially when new contextual events that change health harms happen,” said Bandi in a statement. “There is a need for behavioral interventions to encourage individuals to be informed consumers of available scientific findings and appreciate that while no tobacco product is safe, there are inherent differences between relative and absolute harms between tobacco products that can influence behavior. In turn, public health education campaigns must facilitate informed decision-making by translating emerging scientific evidence accurately to appropriate audiences.”
Many people also mistakenly believe that the most dangerous thing about smoking is nicotine. Many falsely believe that nicotine causes cancer. “When people who smoke perceive nicotine-replacement therapy or nicotine vapor products to be as harmful or more harmful than smoking, they are less likely to use less harmful products when attempting to quit smoking,” says Kim Murray, a research fellow with the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.
Murray believes that the widespread misperception about nicotine is due to misinformation. The misinformation is rampant in media and government messaging. This can have damaging impacts on public health.
Credit: Wachiwit
“Unfortunately, the number of people believing the misinformation about nicotine vapor products is rising,” she wrote in an opinion piece. “One of the biggest sources of misinformation is fake news shared on social media. There is a real need for informative and accurate information about smoking and nicotine, but most people don’t know where to find the information,” states Murray. “A logical resource should be their healthcare provider. However, most of the time, that would be the wrong choice because 60 percent of nurses incorrectly perceive nicotine as carcinogenic, and 72 percent believe that nicotine patches could cause heart attacks.”
In April, researchers concluded that more than 60 percent of all doctors incorrectly believe all tobacco products are equally harmful, making them less likely to recommend e-cigarettes for people trying to quit smoking, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.
The authors of the study, led by Rutgers University, asked more than 2,000 doctors in the U.S. in 2018 and 2019 how they would advise patients on using e-cigarettes as a method of combustible smoking cessation. One in four physicians discouraged all use of e-cigarettes and were more likely to advise against e-cigarettes if the hypothetical smoker they were counseling were a younger, light smoker compared to an older, heavy smoker.
Although no associations were found between harm reduction beliefs and being asked about e-cigarettes by patients, the association between physicians’ harm reduction beliefs and their e-cigarette recommendation practices was significant.
“It will take a lot to change minds and dispel the now entrenched, and largely mistaken, mistrust of nicotine. As in many areas of public life, urban myths and half-truths, which are ingrained over time, are often easier to believe than the truth for many in society. It is difficult to persuade people that the beliefs that they hold are wrong,” states Murray. “Consumers deserve accurate information to enable them to make informed choices. The country won’t achieve health equity and social justice if we continue to misinform those who choose to use nicotine in a safe manner.”
This article first appeared in Vapor Voice 3, 2022.
Aquios Labs introduces the industry’s first e-liquids with a water concentration of more than 3 percent.
By Timothy S. Donahue
Jack Sanders has been in the vapor industry for only six years. He has been in China for the last nine years, and for the last year, he’s been researching a revolutionary idea. When the pandemic forced him to stay in Shenzhen, the capital of e-cigarette production that accounts for about 90 percent of the global vaping market’s manufacturing output, it turned out to be a life-changing happenstance. The situation gave Sanders the motivation he needed to potentially disrupt an already disruptive industry.
The vaping industry has always embraced innovation. From its beginning, it set out to take customers away from the combustible cigarette sector by offering less risky alternatives for consuming nicotine. Except for maybe synthetic nicotine and nicotine salts, the major innovations in e-cigarettes have been in hardware. Now, Sanders and his new company are introducing a new e-liquid system that its founder says is going to transform the industry.
It all started with a conversation, almost a joke, among close friends that set Sanders on a journey to take water-based vaping seriously. “We can do this,” he said at the time. Aquios Labs in April launched its new AQ30 disposable vaping system in the United Kingdom. The water-based e-liquids could be troubling for the competition. Sanders, co-founder and CEO of Aquios Labs, says the first generation of this new technology, which requires a specialized atomizer, can support e-liquids with up to a 30 percent water concentration. Water allows for the usage of less PG and/or VG as a base for the nicotine and flavoring.
“We noticed that there was really nothing new in terms of e-liquids and technology breakthroughs. There’s not been much in terms of e-liquid innovation since nicotine salts came out, so we thought we’d give this idea we had a go,” explains Sanders. “The technology just basically evolved through numerous tests and numerous hours spent in R&D. We managed to make a [coil] technology that matched the liquid with a higher water content. It was never just the e-liquid itself that we were developing.”
Sanders and his team began to delve deeper into research on water-based liquids, and they found that no one had gotten above 3 percent. As the team got closer to its objectives, through researching and testing, they began to discover that water-based e-liquids brought ancillary benefits as well. Nicotine, for example, can be delivered into the body faster with the addition of water into the liquid. The system can also be used with nicotine salts and synthetic nicotine.
“You can reduce the temperature of the boiling point. So, PG and VG, their boiling point is about 188 degrees Celsius [370 degrees Fahrenheit] and 290 degrees Celsius [540 degrees Fahrenheit], respectively,” explains Sanders. “So obviously, being able to bring the temperatures down makes the liquid’s chemical stability better. Lower temps also enhance flavor profiles in the e-liquids.”
Aquios Labs is positioning itself as a technology company rather than a consumer-facing brand, hoping to integrate water-based vaping into existing product portfolios. The first generation of its technology, dubbed AQ30, can support up to 30 percent water content using a combination of specially formulated e-liquid and hardware design. The first commercially available water-based vaping devices came to market in mid-May. Aquios says it is already developing the capability to support even higher levels of water content.
“We’re aiming to get the majority of the liquid to be water. It’s in the R&D process. I can’t put out a date on when that would be released, but it’s definitely in the process, and we are more than capable of reaching these points,” explains Sanders. “Currently, the [Aquios] technology is only available in disposable devices because it’s the most stable. But we are working on refillable tanks and to be able to sell separate juices and separate coils for refillable or open systems.”
Sanders says it’s all very intricate research. One change in the water content and the coil technology needs to change as well. “The technology and the core elements of the devices that we’re producing, they have to be matched. It must be the AQ30 liquids matched with the AQ30 coil. Any kind of deviation, like any less water, we need to change the tech. Any more water, we need to change the tech,” says Sanders.
The tricky part of the equation in water-based vaping has always been getting enough vapor production because the addition of water reduces vapor production significantly. It is also challenging to ensure the liquid has the proper flavor and doesn’t leak or create dry hits. Everything has to be just right. Sanders says that it entailed a lot of R&D, but with the help of Innokin’s engineers, the problem was solved. However, he can’t give that secret away yet. How the nicotine remains soluble in water is proprietary.
Sanders says that several devices have been stored for months, and there has been no detectable drop in performance. He just can’t discuss the technology behind the Aquios system because the products are just starting to enter the global market, and no secret is safe in the competitive vaping industry.
“I just can’t talk about it,” Sanders says. “How the technology must change for varying amounts of water … the technology changes. How that works exactly, I just can’t say. This is as far as I can delve into this right now. I don’t expect it will be long, however, before someone tries to figure out exactly what we are doing. And if they do that, then fantastic. It means that I know that there’s a lot of interest in the product. But we’re working on the next stage of development already, so it would just become a game of catch-up for other companies. We also have the best manufacturing partner that is highly skilled.”
What sets Aquios Labs apart from other device manufacturers, beyond its high amount of water usage in its liquids, is the dedication and expertise of the company’s manufacturing partner, China-based hardware manufacturer Innokin, says Sanders. Innokin has been in the vaping industry for more than a decade and has a market presence in more than 80 countries. Innokin’s long history includes pioneering variable wattage capability and, more recently, the success of its Zenith tank, which has won numerous awards for being one of the best mouth-to-lung tanks on the market due to its exceptional flavor delivery.
“We utilized Innokin’s innovation expertise on our hardware. Without the partnership, we would not be able to release a water-based disposable right now,” Sanders says. “Hardware innovation is not as simple as it looks. We needed to balance power, airflow, wicking, the heating element, internal structure, etc. If someone opens it and sees what we are doing, that’s not enough for reverse-engineering. Just think about Zenith tanks; any factory can get the samples, but no one had made something on the same level yet.”
Several brands are already using the Aquios system. In the U.S., it’s used in Esco Bars. Additionally, Innokin says that it was “already placing a significant bet” on the future of water-based vaping. The company went beyond just manufacturing the hardware and also partnered with Aquios in launching Innokin’s own lineup of vaporizers using the Aquios system in April under the Lota brand.
“Innokin has always believed that new technology has the power to eliminate the need for combustible tobacco. When we were introduced to Aquios, our product development team was immediately sold on the unique advantages of water-based vaping,” George Xia, a co-founder of Innokin, said. “Water-based technology and e-liquids result in a vaping experience that no other device can replicate, with no leakage, enhanced flavor clarity and faster nicotine satisfaction.”
Lota’s initial launch included a portfolio of three water-based devices, each with their own position for specific global markets and consumer needs. The Lota Enviro is a disposable device with a clear mission to reduce the carbon footprint of typical disposable vapes. Enviro achieves this with a unique paper shell design using recyclable materials and user-recyclable components. After the Enviro has been fully depleted, the device can be disassembled by the end user, and every component aside from the e-liquid reservoir can be fully recycled. The Enviro launched with 10 flavors and provides a 600-puff lifespan with 2 mL e-liquid capacity for TPD-regulated markets.
The Lota F600 is the brand’s flagship disposable vaporizer, which is also targeted toward TPD markets. The F600 features a 600-puff lifespan and delivers a constant 3.6 V output, which means consistent performance from the first puff to the last, according to Innokin.
The third product in the launch is the Lota Prefilled Pod. The Lota Prefilled Pod Kit integrates revolutionary Aquios water-based vaping technology into a closed pod system with a rechargeable battery. Each 2 mL pod is designed to last for 600 puffs, and the battery provides constant 3.6 V output for a consistent vaping experience throughout each charge cycle.
The Aquios devices are also more environmentally friendly than most current vaping products. Sanders says that the disposable products that use the Aquios system can be easily broken down by the consumer and recycled through traditional means. “The outer shell, which makes up most of the device, is made from reinforced cardboard. This can be recycled in any standard recycling bin,” he says. “The lithium-ion battery has been designed to easily detach from the atomizer and can be recycled at any battery disposal point.”
Aquios products have been well received by consumers. Sanders says reviews online have shown that people were skeptical at first because the technology is new. However, after vaping Aquios and comparing it to their old device, consumers realize there is a big difference between the two systems.
“The Aquios vape is a lot smoother. Lowering the PG and VG allows for a lot of advantages, especially in reducing irritation. I know that I’m personally a little bit allergic to PG, so any high-PG ratio liquids for me are not good. It just doesn’t agree with me,” he explains. “Also, with the reduction of the VG, liquids aren’t oversweetened by the VG. The flavoring is amplified. By reducing the amount of VG, you get a much cleaner, natural taste as well.”
Moving forward, Sanders says he hopes Aquios can collaborate with multiple different companies in producing a range of coils for multiple different tanks. Those coils would be paired with Aquios liquids with varying water amounts, such as 30 percent, 40 percent or even as high as 50 percent water. Currently, the company is based in the U.K. and is developing its European market. It’s a natural place to start because it’s the largest market that has fully embraced vaping as a harm reduction tool. Aquios has its sights set on the global market, however.
“Moving into additional markets is something that I do think is in the pipeline right now,” says Sanders. “We’re focusing on getting through the intial launch, but there are numerous markets we are looking at in terms of growth and opportunity. The general feeling of this liquid and the tech behind it is that together the system produces a much smoother and more pleasurable vape. I think it’s a product that can be successful in every market.”
“That’s the end result,” he says. “You don’t have as much of the dry mouth. You don’t have as much irritation in your throat from continuous vaping or higher nicotine levels. It’s going to be something cool. And I think it’s going to be something that—once it has a larger market presence and more people have the opportunity to test it out—consumers are going to realize that it’s something worth having. This is the product they will want to vape. It’s a game changer.”
The new FEELM Max line has the potential to make a significant difference if it’s given a chance.
By Mike Huml
In this second edition of our two-part series on FEELM, a subsidiary of Smoore International, the FEELM Max line introduces the first ceramic coil disposable device to the market. FEELM Max refers to an entire potential range of new disposables using FEELM technology, but this review will focus on the two primary designs. To keep things simple given these two products have not officially been named, they’ll be designated the Large and Small for the remainder of this review.
Keep in mind that what’s happening within these devices is the important part—aesthetics are important too, but FEELM ceramic coil technology can be incorporated into many different future designs.
That being said, let’s talk about the differences in shape and size between the Large and Small as the vape experience is, for all intents and purposes, identical. Obviously, the Large is larger than the Small. It’s longer by roughly a centimeter and about 50 percent wider in terms of diameter. The Large features a flat plastic mouthpiece while the Small makes use of a round silicone mouthpiece that allows for biting and hands-free vaping.
Both devices are cylindrical with an anodized aluminum body that’s resistant to fingerprints. Overall, the Large is comparable to a short cigar and the Small is just small enough to be handled like an analog cigarette. The Large would be better suited to a vaper looking to maximize their puff count, and the Small would be more appealing to those who prioritize the familiar hand feel of a traditional cigarette.
In terms of auxiliary features, neither the Large nor the Small have any. Being disposable devices, adjustable airflow, adjustable juice flow and the ability to refill and recharge are nonexistent. There is also no manual switch, and both devices are 100 percent draw activated, and the tips illuminate white when a draw is taken. That isn’t to say that extravagant features are needed here. The fact that disposable devices such as the FEELM Max line represent the fastest-growing segment of the vapor market should say something about the convenience factor of being able to remove a vapor device from the packaging and begin using it immediately.
What really sets FEELM Max apart from other disposable devices is the overall vape quality and consistency. Each puff is exactly the same from start to finish, and the flavor is very clean without any residual taste from machine oils, imperfect coil construction or inadequate wicking. Disposables have historically been synonymous with low quality, but that isn’t the case for FEELM Max. These devices can hold their own against any mouth-to-lung device available, and that includes rebuildables.
While the customization factor is naturally nowhere to be found, the vast majority of nicotine users want something that they can pick up in a store as they would a pack of cigarettes and begin using right away without any fuss. Many people have been turned off from e-cigarettes over the years simply because the best vapes were too complicated and the most convenient vapes suffered from too many drawbacks. The FEELM Max line puts punctuation on many years of refinement for disposable devices.
There are several factors contributing to the outstanding vape quality of the FEELM Max, the first being the ceramic heating element. Known colloquially as the “coil,” this ceramic heating element is rough and porous, which yields an enormous amount of surface area in a small package. More surface area translates into smaller aerosolized particles that are smoother on the throat and more quickly absorbed into the lungs.
Satisfying the nicotine craving more quickly is always a good thing, but the benefits of ceramic heating elements don’t end there. A larger surface area means that heat isn’t concentrated at a single point and is instead spread out for more uniform heating. This produces a more consistent vape experience and eliminates potential hotspots and burning.
The FEELM Max takes it one step further and features “terraced” temperature that accentuates certain flavors at different points. This means that each type of flavor profile (menthol, fruit, etc.) performs differently at different temperatures. FEELM’s Flavor-Lock technology incorporates heating elements with separate zones of temperature so that each flavor can be experienced optimally. To put it in layman’s terms, the flavor is crisper and more consistent with FEELM heating elements compared to traditional coils, especially those found in most other disposables.
FEELM ceramic coils also increase efficiency. Each puff consumes less e-liquid while at the same time producing an equivalent amount of or more vapor. Along with an efficient battery, this means that when compared to any other disposable of equal size using traditional coils, the FEELM Max will flat-out last longer. As is clearly demonstrated by the Large and Small, this increased level of efficiency can be incorporated into smaller devices to make them more viable and convenient or into a normal-sized device to boost the lifespan.
The Large will last for a full day with extremely heavy use, three to five days for the average user, and upward of a week for light users. Surprisingly, the Small isn’t far behind with an approximately 25 percent shorter lifespan compared to the Large. The average user can expect at least a full day’s use out of the Small and likely more than that, which is impressive for a device smaller than the original eGo. Remember, it wasn’t that long ago that a battery the average size of a cigarette couldn’t last more than an hour or two of consistent use.
Surface area is also the best way to increase vapor production, and the FEELM Max line produces the perfect amount of satisfying vapor. More than that, the vapor is easily produced, which can’t be said for so many other disposable devices. Often, disposables can be anemic in terms of vapor production and harsh on the throat for an assortment of reasons.
With the FEELM Max, a comfortable drag will produce vapor nearly instantly with satisfying volume. There’s no fighting with the device whatsoever, and the importance of this point can’t be overstated. Many potential vapers have given up on vaping after a short time simply because they can’t be bothered. Cigarettes are easy, familiar and don’t require prior knowledge to get them to work correctly. Having easy access to a device that’s actually easier to use than a cigarette and that performs so well right out of the box could very well be a game changer.
Airflow is also a huge factor with any device when it comes to flavor, vapor production and throat hit. Too much airflow and the flavor becomes diluted and the draw is uncomfortable. Too little airflow and the throat hit becomes too harsh, and the risk of spitback increases. Not only does the FEELM Max line have the perfect amount of airflow but also the perfect airflow feel.
The term “turbulence” is often used to describe how the airflow feels, and a turbulent airflow path leads to a “scratchy” sensation when vaping. The level of turbulence experienced with the FEELM Max is minimal. It’s smooth and nearly silent, contributing significantly to that easy and relaxed overall vape experience.
When it comes to vaping, it’s always been a double-edged sword. There is a level of patience required that many people are unwilling or unable to devote to vaping. The more you learn about different devices, features, etc., the more likely you are to enjoy vaping since it’s easier to make informed choices and develop a genuine interest. The level of patience needed has been receding over time, but it’s understandable that many people aren’t looking for a new hobby.
The enthusiast vaper will gladly ensure that the mod is held upright at all times, that at least 120 mL of juice is on hand 24/7 and that two extra batteries are securely stowed in the overhead compartment. It’s a constant struggle of worrying about juice running out, batteries dying, tanks leaking and even pants falling down because the mod is too heavy for the pocket. But the performance is worth it.
Not to mention that toward the beginning of the cloud-chasing era, vaping in public was largely greeted with curiosity and wonder rather than scorn when done with an ounce of common sense and decency. However, it wasn’t unjustified. Disposables and even pod systems just didn’t hit the spot like the good stuff, so that’s what it took to stave off the cigarettes for good for many vapers.
The popularity of vaping is now hitting a fever pitch—the easy and convenient devices such as disposables can be just as good as hobbyist-level devices. That in itself will retain new adopters, but even for longtime vapers there can be a sense of relief knowing that when the occasion calls for it, they can take a disposable out for the day and enjoy vaping without having to worry about anything.
That’s really the key to the popularity of pod systems and disposables. There is a certain point that varies for every person where the value of convenience outweighs the promise of performance rather than vice versa. As disposables continue to be improved, innovated and refined, more and more people will find themselves switching off of analogs because they like vaping better than smoking and not necessarily because they’re trying to quit.
Convenience plays an enormous role in the switch from smoking to vaping; there’s likely an alarming number of people who gave up on e-cigarettes because their first starter kit didn’t work correctly, and when the cravings kicked in, it was easier to pick up a pack of smokes. Disposables have been neglected for too long, and for the sake of harm reduction and public health, it’s about time a manufacturer like Smoore gave them the attention they deserve.
The FEELM Max finally bridges the gap between quality and convenience. All the improvements are clearly more than the sum of their parts and don’t necessarily require detailed explanation for the target market. The end result is a worthy vape experience that anybody can pick up, even with no patience or time investment. There’s no airflow ring to fiddle with. There’s no button that powers or fires the device. There’re no graphs or meters or temperature settings. It’s a tube to puff on until it stops puffing.
It works like a cigarette that you don’t have to light. Spitback? Dry hits? Those are antiquated inconveniences—words of a time past. It really gets no simpler, and the FEELM Max satisfies the cigarette craving consistently.
For experienced vapers, there’s no longer a reason to sacrifice performance for convenience. The hobby aspect of vaping will always be there, but now the choice to put it down every now and again is real. Instead of putting up with a cheap disposable while pining for the Kayfun, either can be used without sacrifice, and rebuilding can be done when it’s wanted instead of when it’s needed.
The FEELM Max line has the potential to make a significant difference if it’s given a chance. Disposables have developed a bad reputation and mostly for good reason up until now. This isn’t a “fool me once” situation. This is the fruit of nearly two decades of labor. Many people put everything on the line for vaping and harm reduction so that one day, anybody can easily switch away from smoking by choosing the colorful tubes at the gas station instead of the small stinky ones.
No matter which design, Smoore has something special with the FEELM Max line. It may not look like much, but the trick is to not think about it and just enjoy it. It may feel like a betrayal to lay praise upon a disposable with seemingly nothing to it, but it’s easy to forget that this was always the endgame. Modding, rebuilding, DIY—the impetus for these things was the need to push vaping to be as good or better than smoking. The quality and simplicity of the FEELM Max has reached that point. From here, it’s just diminishing returns.
