Analysis and differentiation of tobacco-derived and synthetic nicotine products: Addressing an urgent regulatory issue

Andrew G Cheetham; Susan Plunkett; Preston Campbell; Jacob Hilldrup; Bonnie G Coffa; Stan Gilliland, III; Steve Eckard

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0267049

. 2022 Apr 14;17(4):e0267049. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267049

Analysis and differentiation of tobacco-derived and synthetic nicotine products: Addressing an urgent regulatory issue

Andrew G Cheetham ^1,^*, Susan Plunkett ^1,², Preston Campbell ², Jacob Hilldrup ¹, Bonnie G Coffa ¹, Stan Gilliland III ², Steve Eckard ¹

Editor: Charles Michael Greenlief³

PMCID: PMC9009602 PMID: 35421170

Abstract

There is significant regulatory and economic need to distinguish analytically between tobacco-derived nicotine (TDN) and synthetic nicotine (SyN) in commercial products. Currently, commercial e-liquid and oral pouch products are available that contain tobacco-free nicotine, which could be either extracted from tobacco or synthesized. While tobacco products that contain TDN are regulated by FDA Center for Tobacco Products, those with SyN are currently not in the domain of any regulatory authority. This regulatory difference provides an economic incentive to use or claim the use of SyN to remain on the market without submitting a Premarket Tobacco Product Application. TDN is ~99.3% (S)-nicotine, whereas SyN can vary from racemic (50/50 (R)/(S)) to ≥ 99% (S)-nicotine, i.e., chemically identical to the tobacco-derived compound. Here we report efforts to distinguish between TDN and SyN in various samples by characterizing impurities, (R)/(S)-nicotine enantiomer ratio, (R)/(S)-nornicotine enantiomer ratio, and carbon-14 (¹⁴C) content. Only ¹⁴C analysis accurately and precisely differentiated TDN (100% ¹⁴C) from SyN (35–38% ¹⁴C) in all samples tested. ¹⁴C quantitation of nicotine samples by accelerator mass spectrometry is a reliable determinate of nicotine source and can be used to identify misbranded product labelled as containing SyN. This is the first report to distinguish natural, bio-based nicotine from synthetic, petroleum-based nicotine across a range of pure nicotine samples and commercial e-liquid products.

Introduction

Regulatory context

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (“FSPTCA”) gives the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) authority to regulate the manufacture, distribution, and marketing of tobacco products in the United States [1]. The Act defines a tobacco product as “any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption, including any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product (except raw materials other than tobacco used in manufacturing a component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product).” The FDA Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) regulates any product containing tobacco-derived materials, either leaf tobacco or tobacco-derived nicotine, or nicotine-free products intended to be used as tobacco products. In order to legally market a tobacco product, FDA must issue a marketing granted order for a tobacco product based on a comprehensive, expensive application through the substantial equivalence (SE) or premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) pathways. FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) regulates nicotine products intended to be used as a drug, device, or combination product. One example is over-the-counter nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) products in various formats such as gum, patch, lozenge, nasal spray, and tablets. Per CDER’s mission, these nicotine drug products must be safe, effective, and therapeutic. There is significant regulatory ambiguity whether synthetic nicotine-containing products are a tobacco product, a drug, or neither. Additionally, whether CTP or CDER has jurisdiction over synthetic nicotine products is unclear despite the identical chemical composition of nicotine sourced from natural tobacco plant-derived versus synthetic processes.

This regulatory difference incentivizes manufacturers attempting to evade regulation to use SyN to remain on the market. Puff Bar is the earliest publicly acknowledged example of a product switching from tobacco-derived nicotine (TDN) to synthetic nicotine (SyN), in response to a July 2020 FDA letter ordering the removal of Puff Bar e-cigarettes from the market for lacking the required premarket authorization [2]. In early 2021, Puff Bar announced they were returning to the market, claiming that their “nicotine-containing products are crafted from a patented manufacturing process, not from tobacco” [3]. The Puff Bar website states that “All Puff Bar products listed on this website contain nicotine but do not contain tobacco or anything derived from tobacco. Puff Bar products are not intended for use with any tobacco product or any component or part of a tobacco product.” A study by Duell et al. examined both early and current Puff Bar products, concluding that they did switch from TDN to SyN [4]. The authors found that the older Puff Bar products contained >99% (S)-nicotine, whereas the newer SyN-containing Puff Bars contained both (R)- and (S)-isomers in a ~1:1.2 ratio, inconsistent with a racemic SyN being used (see Scientific Context below). Further spotlighting Puff Bar, the 2021 National Youth Tobacco Survey (NYTS) showed that Puff Bar was the most popular brand among youth e-cigarette users [5], stating that, “Among high school current e-cigarette users, 26.1% reported that their usual brand was Puff Bar,” and, “Among middle school current users, 30.3% reported that their usual brand was Puff Bar.” Beyond FDA CTP attention, the legislative branch is also interested in Puff Bar and SyN. On November 8, 2021, Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Illinois), the chair of the Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, requested that Puff Bar provide, among other things, “all documents and communications referring or relating to the use of synthetic nicotine in Puff Bar products, including the decision to switch to synthetic nicotine, and all documents relating to the purchase of synthetic nicotine” [6]. Most recently, Representative Mikie Sherrill (D-New Jersey) introduced the “Clarifying Authority Over Nicotine Act of 2021,” bipartisan legislation that would ensure SyN-based products are within FDA CTP’s regulatory purview [7].

As of October 13, 2021, FDA CTP had taken action on more than 98% of the over 6.5 million products in electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) PMTAs. These actions were largely marketing denial orders (MDOs) for more than 1 million non-tobacco flavored ENDS products [8]. After receiving MDOs, many companies publicly stated their intent to switch to SyN to remain on the market and avoid business closure [9, 10]. Current FDA CTP Director Mitch Zeller acknowledged that “To try to avoid FDA regulation and evade enforcement, several companies that received MDOs are publicly saying they are switching to synthetic nicotine to keep their products on the market.” [11] Mainstream media coverage in outlets such as Time Magazine [12] and Politico [13] also indicates that this issue has become part of the public consciousness.

It is unclear if companies are actually transitioning to SyN or simply claiming its use to skirt regulations. Companies must carefully consider the financial implications of switching to SyN, as it is currently much more expensive than TDN at roughly four times the cost. Current supply cannot meet the growing demand. Thus, there is economic incentive to claim the use of SyN while actually using the much cheaper TDN or a mixture of the two. Accordingly, there is clear, significant regulatory and economic need to distinguish analytically between TDN, SyN, and their mixtures.

Scientific context

Nicotine is an optically active molecule, existing as two enantiomers that are denoted as (S)-nicotine and (R)-nicotine (Fig 1). While the enantiomers have differing pharmacological properties, regulatory authorities do not currently distinguish between the two forms, only between how the nicotine is produced. Fig 2 illustrates the production pathways for both tobacco-derived and synthetic nicotine. Tobacco-derived nicotine is predominately the (S)-enantiomer (≥ 99%), with only minor amounts of the (R)-enantiomer (≤ 1%). The (S)-enantiomer possesses the well-known pharmacological properties associated with tobacco use (Fig 1). SyN is commonly produced as a racemic (50:50) mixture of both the (S)- and (R)-enantiomers [14, 15] that then may be enriched to produce ≥ 99% (S)-nicotine [15, 16]. The exception to this is a chemoenzymatic approach patented by Zanoprima Lifesciences [17] that enzymatically reduces myosmine to produce ≥ 99% (S)-nornicotine, followed by methylation to yield (S)-nicotine. More information can be found in a recent article by Jordt [18], who provides a thorough discussion of SyN’s history and the various manufacturing pathways. Both the racemic and enriched forms are marketed as SyN, with the racemic mixture being the cheaper option since enantiomeric enrichment is not required. Historically, SyN has been very expensive to purchase due to the aforementioned production needs and little commercial demand relative to the cheaper, more abundant TDN. However, the price of SyN has been decreasing as the demand grows from manufacturers attempting to evade regulation by using SyN to remain on the market. Due to the relatively high cost of SyN and rare use, there has been very little published literature regarding SyN.

Whether extracted from tobacco or synthesized from precursors, the nicotine produced is the same chemical compound. Consequently, the production source cannot be determined by standard analytical techniques. This makes nicotine source identification in a given product challenging. Analytical techniques that can resolve the two nicotine enantiomers, such as liquid chromatography, gas chromatography, NMR, and optical rotation, provide potential paths. These approaches are limited in that they can only distinguish SyN from TDN if the former is a racemic mixture. The two sources become indistinguishable If the nicotine used is ≥ 99% (S)-nicotine.

Beyond enantiomeric differentiation, TDN may retain tobacco signatures or impurities that would elucidate its tobacco leaf origins, such as nicotine degradants, tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), metals, and other tobacco-related metabolites. Conversely, there could be synthetic process impurities that would indicate a synthetic origin, such as precursors or residual solvents. However, the level of purification that is now utilized for both types make this challenging and was recently commented upon by FDA CTP Director, Mitch Zeller, who said, “Tobacco-derived nicotine is now readily available as higher quality U.S. pharmaceutical-grade 99% nicotine, which no longer contains traditional tobacco agricultural markers like tobacco DNA or tobacco-specific nitrosamines–making it harder to distinguish tobacco-derived nicotine from synthetic” [11].

Given the high purity of both tobacco-derived and synthetic (S)-nicotine, it was proposed by Jordt that carbon isotope content analysis may provide a solution. Naturally abundant carbon exists as three isotopes, carbon-12 (¹²C), carbon-13 (¹³C), and carbon-14 (¹⁴C or radiocarbon), with the latter being an isotope that undergoes radioactive decay. It is this property of ¹⁴C that is useful for the differentiation of biologically derived materials from fossil-derived (synthetic analogs). While ¹⁴C decays with a half-life of 5700 years, it is constantly replenished in the atmosphere (as CO₂) and incorporated into living plant matter at levels that are near constant. ¹⁴C in fossil-derived feedstocks (oil, gas), however, is not replenished and so, given the millions of years required for their formation, typically exhibit zero ¹⁴C levels. As such, the ¹⁴C content of a material can be used to determine if it is biologically derived, synthesized from petrochemical stocks, or even a mixture of the two. This technique, developed as ASTM-D6866 [19], is routinely used in the food and biofuel industry to confirm the authenticity of the stated origin and is determined by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) [20, 21]. The analysis of ¹³C as the ¹³C/¹²C ratio, also known as δC13, is also possible via isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS), typically in tandem with some form of chromatographic separation. However, this technique is generally more useful when there are clear metabolic differences between the origin sources, since it is based on the varying degrees of uptake of ¹²CO₂ and ¹³CO₂ by different plants, and it is frequently used to determine if various food products have been adulterated with other natural ingredients. Whether it would be applicable to distinguishing TDN from SyN is unclear, as no study has yet been performed to explore this.

The authors did not identify any peer-reviewed, published studies concerning the use of radiocarbon analysis to identify the source of a nicotine sample. In 2017, Next Generation Labs posted an authenticity study to their website that showed a 10% nicotine formulation claiming to be synthetically derived was actually tobacco-derived, since the ¹⁴C content matched that of known TDN samples and not that of their own SyN product, TFN® Nicotine [22]. This non-peer-reviewed study indicates that it is feasible to use radiocarbon analysis to identify if a nicotine sample is tobacco-derived or synthetically-derived provided that it is isolated from the e-liquid formulation. Interestingly, they also showed that the test sample contained anatabine, which is formed in the tobacco plant, providing further evidence of the tobacco plant origin.

Herein, we present the results of our investigations into developing a robust method for distinguishing between TDN and SyN in nicotine-containing products. We explored a number of techniques to accomplish this, including the screening of nicotine samples for impurities such as nicotine degradants and metals, chiral analysis of nicotine and nornicotine, and radiocarbon analysis. The results from each technique will be presented and their significance and feasibility with respect to routine analysis discussed.

Materials and methods

Nicotine (single production lots) and e-liquids samples were received and used as-is from suppliers and e-liquid companies (Table 1). ISO 17034 analytical standards were purchased from Spex Certiprep (Metuchen NJ, United States), Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis MO, United States), Toronto Research Chemicals (North York ON, Canada), and Inorganic Ventures (Christiansburg VA United States). Internal standards were obtained from CDN Isotopes (Pointe Claire QC, Canada), Santa Cruz Biotechnology (Paso Robles CA, United States), and Inorganic Ventures. Reagents were sourced through Thomas Scientific (Swedesboro NJ, United States).

Table 1. Nicotine samples and e-liquid formulations studied.

Nicotine Source	Identifier	Supplier	Description
Tobacco-Derived	TDN-1	Alchem	(S)-Nicotine
	TDN-2	North American Nicotine	(S)-Nicotine
	TDN-3	Siegfried	(S)-Nicotine
	TDN-4	TCI America	(S)-Nicotine, aged sample^*
	TDN-5	Puff Bar	(S)-Nicotine, 5% nicotine salt, Mixed Berries
Synthetic	SyN-1	Next Generation Labs	TFN® (R)/(S)-Nicotine
	SyN-2	Contraf-Nicotex Tobacco (CNT)	(S)-Nicotine
	SyN-3	eLiquiTech	(S)-Nicotine, chemoenzymatic synthesis
	SyN-4	Siegfried	(S)-Nicotine
	SyN-5	Hangsen	(S)-Nicotine, aged 200 mg/mL formulation^**

Open in a new tab

* This nicotine sample had been stored at -20°C but was extensively used over a two-year period.

** This formulation had been stored under ambient conditions for at least three months before testing began, and stored at -20°C thereafter.

All testing was conducted at Enthalpy Analytical, LLC (Richmond, VA) or Beta Analytic, Inc. (Miami, FL) using validated methods under ISO 17025 accreditation, where applicable.

Nicotine degradants by LC-MS/MS

The seven nicotine degradants (myosmine, cotinine, nornicotine, anabasine, anatabine, nicotine N-oxide, and β-nicotyrine) were determined using LC-MS/MS. Samples were prepared in triplicate at 50 mg/mL in a mixture of methanol/water (70:30) containing deuterated internal standards (myosmine-d₄, cotinine-d₄, nornicotine-d₄, and anabasine-d₄). Analysis was performed on an Agilent 1260 Infinity II HPLC system equipped with an Agilent 6460 Triple Quad mass spectrometer using a Waters XBridge C18 (2.1 x 50 mm, 2.5 μm) analytical column; mobile phase A: 0.1 M ammonium acetate (pH 10); mobile phase B: Methanol.

Metals by ICP-MS

The nicotine samples were analyzed for thirteen metal analytes (arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, nickel, selenium, silver, tin, and zinc) by ICP-MS. Samples were prepared in triplicate through the microwave-assisted digestion of nicotine (0.5 g) in 2% aqueous nitric acid containing internal standards (²⁰⁹Bi, ⁷Li, ⁷²Ge, ¹⁰³Rh, and ¹²⁵Te). Extracts were analyzed using an Agilent 7700x ICP-MS system in helium gas mode for all analytes except beryllium (no gas) and selenium (hydrogen).

Palladium screening of the nicotine samples was also performed by ICP-MS. Samples were prepared in singlicate through initial digestion of nicotine in 1% aqueous nitric acid at 95°C, followed by digestion in conc. nitric acid at 95°C, and finally the addition of 30% hydrogen peroxide. Extracts were analyzed using an Agilent 7700x ICP-MS system in helium gas mode using ¹⁰³Rh as the internal standard.

Non-targeted analysis by GC-MS

Non-targeted analysis was performed by preparing nicotine samples at 5 mg/mL in ethanol containing internal standard (6-methylcoumarin). Samples were analyzed using an Agilent 7890 Gas Chromatograph coupled to a Mass Selective Detector (MSD) operating in full scan mode (35 to 450 amu). Any software-identified peaks were compared to spectra contained within the 2017 NIST/EPA/NIH Mass Spectral Library (NIST 2017).

Chiral chromatography

All chiral chromatography was performed using an AZYP Nicoshell SPP column (100 × 4.6 mm, 2.7 μm) using an isocratic elution profile with 0.2 wt. % ammonium formate in methanol. Flow rates and detection methods are detailed below.

Chiral analysis of the nicotine enantiomers was performed by UPLC-UV. Samples were prepared in singlicate at approximately 0.1 mg/mL in methanol. Analysis was performed using a Waters Acquity UPLC system equipped with a photodiode array (PDA), with a flow rate of 0.75 mL/min and monitoring at 260 nm.

Chiral analysis of the nornicotine enantiomers was performed by LC-MS/MS. Samples were prepared in singlicate at 50 mg/mL in methanol. Analysis was performed on an Agilent 1260 Infinity II HPLC system equipped with an Agilent 6460 Triple Quad mass spectrometer, with a flow rate of 1 mL/min. The flow was diverted to waste until one minute before the expected nornicotine elution time so as not to introduce concentrated nicotine into the mass spectrometer.

Radiocarbon analysis

Sample preparation was performed by Enthalpy Analytical, LLC, and the subsequent radiocarbon analysis (ASTM D-6866 version 21) was conducted by Beta Analytic, Inc. (www.betalabservices.com).

Neat nicotine samples were analyzed as-is, whereas lab-made or commercial e-liquid formulations were first extracted to isolate the nicotine. Nicotine-fortified propylene glycol (PG)-vegetable glycerin (VG) (unflavored) formulations were dissolved in 1 M sodium hydroxide and extracted twice with hexanes. The combined organic extracts were dried over Na₂SO₄ and then evaporated to dryness. Flavored e-liquids were dissolved in 1 M hydrochloric acid and washed twice with dichloromethane. Next, the pH was adjusted to >10 with 5.5 M sodium hydroxide and then the solution was extracted twice with dichloromethane. After drying the combined organic extracts over Na₂SO₄, the solution was evaporated to dryness. If the resulting liquid was unscented and colorless (or very pale yellow), it was analyzed with no further processing. If the liquid was scented or colored, then it was redissolved in 5 mL of hexanes and washed twice with basic water. The hexanes were then dried over Na₂SO₄ and evaporated to dryness to yield a colorless or pale-yellow liquid that was then submitted for radiocarbon analysis.

Blends of tobacco-derived and synthetic nicotine were prepared by mixing the appropriate amounts of each type on a percent weight basis and analyzed as-is.

Results and discussion

Nicotine impurity screening

Due to the different production pathways for tobacco-derived and synthetic nicotine, it might be expected that the impurity profile of each would offer a potential means to distinguish the two sources. To this end, we screened a number of nicotine samples for common impurities that can be found in tobacco products (nicotine degradants and metals) and conducted a more expansive screen via non-targeted analysis that can identify unknown constituents through comparison of mass spectral data to the NIST Mass Spectral Library.

The U.S. Pharmacopeia monograph for nicotine lists seven nicotine-related compounds that must be analyzed and found to be ≤ 0.3 wt. % individually and ≤ 0.8 wt. % collectively in order to be considered acceptable for use [23]. These seven compounds, also known as nicotine degradants, are anabasine, anatabine, cotinine, nicotine-N-oxide, β-nicotyrine, nornicotine, and myosmine. Of these seven, anabasine and anatabine would be expected to be found exclusively in tobacco-derived nicotine, since the synthetic pathway would exclude their formation. Myosmine and nornicotine are both common intermediates in the chemical synthesis of nicotine and as such could potentially be more abundant in synthetic nicotine. Nicotine-N-oxide, β-nicotyrine, and cotinine are oxidation products of nicotine, and their presence would not necessarily be indicative of either production route. The sourced nicotine samples were analyzed for the seven nicotine degradants using Enthalpy’s in-house validated LC-MS/MS method that was modified to provide lower detection and quantitation limits. The results for the four nicotine degradants that could be potential identifiers (anabasine, anatabine, myosmine, and nornicotine) are shown in Fig 3. Tabulated results for all seven nicotine degradants can be found in S1 Table.

All samples were observed to meet the U.S. Pharmacopeia criteria for nicotine-related compounds, but no clear trends in the analyte levels on the basis of their production source were apparent from the analysis. Anabasine and anatabine were quantifiable in two of the tobacco-derived samples, TDN-1 and TDN-4, but were not detectable in the remaining samples with the exception of TDN-3 and SyN-4, for which anatabine was below the level of quantification (<0.5 μg/g). That TDN-2 and TDN-3 were comparable to the synthetic samples suggests these were purified to a greater degree than TDN-1 and TDN-4. Mysosmine and nornicotine were observed in all of the studied samples to varying degrees, but again TDN-2 and TDN-3 were comparable to three of the synthetic nicotine samples, SyN-1, SyN-2, and SyN-4. SyN-3 exhibited higher levels of both myosmine and nornicotine, particularly the former, relative to the other three SyN samples. Cotinine and nicotine-N-oxide were observed in all samples, following a similar pattern of results to that seen for myosmine. β-Nicotyrine was seen only in TDN-4 and SyN-3. Based on the results, the only analyte that could possibly serve as an indicator would be anabasine. This analyte would be of limited utility, however, since anabasine was only detected in two of the four tobacco-derived nicotine samples. Furthermore, the analyzed samples were pure nicotine and even if anabasine were present in the nicotine itself, it would require extraction and/or concentration in order to detect anabasine in an e-liquid formulation.

Metals are known constituents of the tobacco leaf that can be retained in the final tobacco product [24], being introduced through either the soil or the air (via deposition onto the leaf). Geographical differences are also apparent based on the soil type, use of pesticides and fertilizers, and from environmental pollution [25, 26]. As such, there is the potential for metals to be present in tobacco-derived nicotine. Synthetic nicotine can involve the use of metal-based reagents during synthesis [14, 16], which could be present in trace amounts in the final product. To test these hypotheses, the nicotine samples were analyzed for various metals using Enthalpy’s in-house validated methods. The results, however, revealed no discernable trends, as the majority of metals assessed were not detected or were below the respective limits of quantitation (see S1 Table).

In order to expand the scope of our impurity screening, we conducted non-targeted analysis (NTA) of the nicotine samples to determine if there were any compounds that would be specific to a particular production route. The samples were prepared and analyzed using Enthalpy’s in-house validated GC-MS method, with the resulting spectra compared against the 2017 NIST/EPA/NIH Mass Spectral Library. The only commonly observed impurity across all samples appeared to be cotinine, with no other compounds that were consistently observed between samples of the same production origin.

Chiral chromatography

Chiral chromatography involves the resolution of enantiomeric mixtures through their differing interactions with a chiral stationary phase, thus allowing quantitation of the relative (or absolute) amounts of each enantiomer present. As mentioned in the introduction, the use of chiral chromatography to distinguish between TDN and SyN is not expected to be conclusive, since both types can be produced containing ≥ 99% (S)-nicotine. To confirm this, we analyzed (S)-nicotine and racemic (R)/(S)-nicotine standards of known purity by UPLC-UV using a modified version of a published method [27]. The AZYP Nicoshell SPP chiral column used for this purpose provides excellent baseline resolution between the (S)- and (R)-nicotine enantiomers (Fig 4(A)), allowing both to be accurately quantified. Next, we screened the neat nicotine materials (TDN-1 to 4 and SyN-1 to 4) and two formulations (TDN-5 and SyN-5) to determine their enantiomeric composition (Fig 4(B)). The analysis confirmed that all the test nicotine samples contained ≥ 99% (S)-nicotine, with the exception of SyN-1 which was found to be racemic as expected. On this basis, the chiral analysis of nicotine cannot definitively identify if TDN or SyN has been used in an e-liquid product, unless the amount of (R)-nicotine present greatly exceeds that found in TDN, i.e., > 1.5%.

Fig 4 — (a) Example chromatograms for an (S)-nicotine (left) and racemic (R)/(S)-nicotine (right) standards, and (b) relative amounts of (S)- and (R)-nicotine (as percentages) in various tobacco-derived and synthetic nicotine samples and formulations.

The published method on which our chiral analysis was based [27] also demonstrated the separation of other nicotine-related compounds, such as anabasine, anatabine, and nornicotine. Given that all the nicotine samples we studied contained nornicotine to some degree, we explored the possibility of using this constituent to differentiate between TDN and SyN. Nornicotine in the tobacco plant is predominantly formed by enzymatic demethylation of nicotine [28, 29], a process that appears biased toward the (R)-nicotine enantiomer and leads to an observed wide variation in the (R)/(S)-ratio of tobacco-derived nornicotine (4–75%) [30, 31] which would not match the (R)/(S)-ratio of the nicotine from the same plant (0.1–1.2%) [32]. SyN is typically formed via methylation of nornicotine, which will result in the same (R)/(S)-ratio for both nicotine and nornicotine, even if further enantiomeric enrichment is performed. Therefore, it is hypothesized that chiral analysis of nornicotine may be able to distinguish between tobacco-derived and synthetic nicotine samples by characterizing and comparing the (R)/(S)-ratios of nornicotine and nicotine as they would be the same in SyN but different in TDN samples.

To test this theory, we analyzed the nicotine samples using LC-MS/MS and found that we could achieve excellent separation of (R)- and (S)-nornicotine (Fig 5(A)). However, the intensity of the observed signals was much lower than would be expected, with an up to 75% reduction in the total response (sum of both enantiomers) compared to the achiral method used for the nicotine degradant analysis. Furthermore, the quality of the chromatography varied considerably between the nicotine samples, with a number being too poor to allow confident analysis. Where the chromatography was acceptable, the measured results are shown in Fig 5(B) and would appear to support our hypothesis. Both TDN-1 and TDN-4 have nornicotine (R)/(S)-ratios that are mismatched to their respective nicotine (R)/(S)-ratios. SyN-1 and SyN-2, on the other hand, have well-matched nornicotine and nicotine (R)/(S)-ratios. The approach, therefore, appears promising but is currently hindered by poor sensitivity and matrix effects. Furthermore, given that the studied samples contained very small amounts of nornicotine, the highest being 0.06 wt. % in TDN-4, the analysis of e-liquid samples in which the nicotine and any nornicotine impurities are diluted in propylene glycol and glycerol would be even more challenging. Developing this into a routine analytical method, therefore, would require significant work and involve some form of extraction and concentration. The method applicability would also strongly depend upon the level of purification that the nicotine sample has been subjected, i.e., the amount of nornicotine present.

Fig 5 — (a) Example chromatography in a racemic nornicotine standard, TDN-1, and SyN-2 (left-to-right), and (b) comparison of the (R)/(S)-nornicotine ratio to the corresponding (R)/(S)-nicotine ratio.

Radiocarbon analysis

The analysis of a molecule’s ¹⁴C content is perhaps the most definitive indicator of its origin as being biological, synthetic, or some combination thereof. The most commonly used method for assessing the radiocarbon content is the standardized method ASTM D6866, which uses accelerator mass spectrometry to separate ¹⁴C from the other two carbon isotopes (¹²C and ¹³C). The result is typically given as “percent modern carbon” or pMC, in which the measured ¹⁴C content of the sample is normalized to the current atmospheric ¹⁴C levels. For greater clarity, the result is then often simplified to “% Bio-carbon,” in which the results are presented on a 0% to 100% scale, since pMC can return results higher than 100 pMC. Substances that are purely biological in origin will give a result of 100% Bio-carbon, whereas purely petrochemical-based synthetic compounds will return a 0% Bio-carbon value. Synthetic materials that are derived from a mixture of biological and petrochemical feedstocks will fall somewhere in between depending on the relative amount of each source. Similarly, adulterated materials in which a natural substance has been mixed with a synthetic analog will fall between the two extremes. The radiocarbon analysis results from our nicotine samples are shown in Fig 6 and clearly indicate a distinct difference between the two production routes. The TDN samples are all 100% biobased, as expected, whereas the SyN samples returned values of 35% or 36% Bio-carbon. That the synthetic samples contained any ¹⁴C suggests that there is a common biologically-derived reagent being incorporated into the molecule at earlier stages of synthesis.

Given potential issues with the supply and demand of SyN, in addition to the higher associated costs, there is the concern of nicotine or nicotine products being sold that contain a mixture of TDN and SyN. For example, a company trying to skirt tobacco product regulations could add SyN to their TDN to raise the concentration of (R)-nicotine. Subsequent chiral analysis of products containing this nicotine mixture would appear to show the product contains SyN that has only been partially enantiomerically enriched. Theoretically, a mixture of the two nicotine types should give a radiocarbon result that is the sum of the proportion-weighted individual pMC values. We therefore tested this by preparing mixtures of known compositions using the TDN-2 and SyN-1. The radiocarbon analysis of these blends showed excellent agreement with the theoretical values (Fig 7) and confirms that the technique would be able to discern if a particular nicotine sample were purely tobacco-derived, synthetic, or a mixture of the two. However, it should be noted that this is predicated on the SyN used returning radiocarbon results that fall within the pMC value ranges we have observed during this study. The radiocarbon content of SyN could potentially be affected by the synthetic pathway and origin of the chemical ingredients used. Consequently, there may be SyN on the market, either currently or in the future, that does not possess a similar ¹⁴C content to those analyzed here. As such, it is recommended that the assessment of the relative amounts of TDN and SyN in a mixture of the two be for qualitative purposes only.

As determined in this study, the radiocarbon results from nicotine analysis can fall under one of three scenarios:

pMC < 40%: The test sample is confirmed to contain SyN.
pMC = 100%: The test sample is confirmed to contain TDN.
pMC value falls between those in scenarios 1 and 2: The result is suggestive of the sample containing a mixture of both SyN and TDN and warrants further investigation.

From a regulatory standpoint, therefore, radiocarbon analysis of nicotine offers a definitive method for assessing the need for regulatory action with regards to nicotine products claiming to contain SyN. The caveat here, however, is that the nicotine must first be isolated from all other components of the product formulation, as discussed in the following section.

Isolation of nicotine from ENDS e-liquid

While the radiocarbon analysis method is well-suited for determining the origin of pure materials, its main limitation is that it is not a selective separation technique. It is only capable of determining the ¹⁴C content of the sample that is analyzed and not a specific component of it. For this reason, the analysis of nicotine in an e-liquid formulation requires that the nicotine is first isolated from all the other components present, e.g., PG, glycerol (VG), flavorings, etc. If not, the result will be skewed depending on what ingredients are used. VG, for example, is quite often naturally derived and so if not removed would bias the result towards being 100% bio-based, while flavorings can be natural or artificial in origin. To be confident in the result obtained, therefore, an extraction method must be developed so that only the nicotine present is being tested.

The most obvious strategy to isolate the nicotine is to take advantage of its acid-base properties and use liquid-liquid extraction techniques. Indeed, the authenticity study posted by Next Generation Labs used this method to remove the nicotine from an unflavored PG formulation (10% nicotine). In our own studies, we found that the nicotine in similar unflavored formulations could be simply isolated by dissolving the e-liquid in basic water (pH > 10) and extracting with hexanes or dichloromethane, with no apparent extraction of either PG or VG into the organic phase. The addition of flavorings, however, introduces the need for extraction under acidic conditions in order to remove these ingredients. We created our own e-liquid formulations using PG-VG (50:50) that had been flavored with natural or artificial flavors. These formulations were prepared using TDN-2 and SyN-1 at 3 mg/mL, giving four e-liquids that were first extracted as described above. The resulting nicotine extracts, however, were similarly colored to the e-liquids (pale green) and strongly aromatic, indicating that the flavorings were still present. The extracts were subsequently dissolved in 1 M hydrochloric acid and washed with dichloromethane, followed by pH adjustment and extraction into dichloromethane. The results of the subsequent radiocarbon analysis are shown in Table 2 and show excellent agreement with the nicotine used to prepare the e-liquid. The values for both of the e-liquids prepared using the artificial flavorings did appear to be slightly lower than expected for both nicotine types, suggesting that this flavoring was not completely removed during the extraction of these formulations. Nevertheless, the slight deviation is insufficient to cast doubt on the origin of the nicotine.

Table 2. Radiocarbon analysis of lab-prepared e-liquid formulation extracts.

Nicotine ID	Flavor	Flavoring Type	¹⁴C Result in Extract
TDN-2	None	N/A	100%^a
TDN-2	Citrus	Natural	100%
TDN-2	Apple	Synthetic	99%
SyN-1	None	N/A	36%^a
SyN-1	Citrus	Natural	36%
SyN-1	Apple	Synthetic	35%

Open in a new tab

^a neat material result provided for ease of reference

Using the modified extraction protocol, we next extracted the 200 mg/mL Hangsen synthetic nicotine e-liquid formulation, SyN-5. Some color changes were observed as the pH was adjusted, being pale pink in acidic conditions and yellow under basic conditions. The final nicotine extract was also colored, being a dark shade of pink. These observations are indicative of an ingredient not being fully removed and that it is quite possibly a food coloring given the apparent pH-sensitivity of the hue. To remove this component, the nicotine extract was dissolved in hexanes and washed with basic water to give a colorless liquid after solvent removal. Radiocarbon analysis of the sample showed the Hangsen nicotine to be 38% Bio-carbon, confirming its synthetic origins.

Our study has shown that it is quite feasible to extract the nicotine from e-liquid formulations and determine if it is tobacco-derived or synthetic. Adaptation of this technique to a more high-throughput environment, however, will require further optimization to both streamline the extraction workflow and to improve the recovery yield. The average yield of nicotine was approximately 40%, but was much lower for the dilute formulations (3 mg/mL) and consequently required a large sample volume to obtain a sufficient amount for radiocarbon analysis (> 50 mg nicotine). Extension of the method to oral non-tobacco nicotine products will also be important as the same current regulatory loophole could be similarly exploited to circumvent the costly PMTA process for these products.

Conclusions

Radiocarbon analysis offers a definitive method to differentiate tobacco-derived nicotine from synthetic nicotine for regulatory purposes. This is especially true as most current TDN samples no longer have impurities or traditional tobacco agricultural markers like DNA or TSNAs, as they are removed using current extraction and purification techniques. Chiral analysis of nicotine is an important complementary characterization to determine the enantiomeric purity of the sample which could have pharmacological and toxicological implications. If natural adulterants are suspected, other more traditional analytical methods are needed. These results should be pivotal in assisting regulators in determining whether products contain TDN or SyN and in assessing whether the products are misbranded in an attempt to skirt FDA tobacco product regulation. Future work will focus on refining analytical methods to improve method sensitivity as well as refining extraction techniques to extract and concentrate nicotine from low concentration matrix samples such as 3 mg/mL nicotine strength e-liquids more easily. Other tobacco products such as modern oral products (e.g., pouches, tablets, gum, discs) will also be analyzed in future work.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Tabulated analyte data for tobacco-derived and synthetic nicotine samples.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(66.7KB, pdf)}

S1 File. Raw data for nicotine degradants and metals analyses.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(21.9KB, xlsx)}

S1 Data

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(20.8KB, xlsx)}

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the following for providing nicotine and e-liquid samples and helpful discussions: Anthony Dillion (Twelfth State Brands), Tricia Desmarais (My Vape Order, Inc.), Rob Reisel (Turning Point Brands), Kevin Burd (North America Nicotine), George Cassels-Smith (eLiquiTech), and Tony Nash (VapinDirect).

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

1.Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111–31 (June 22, 2009).
2.FDA Notifies Companies, Including Puff Bar, to Remove Flavored Disposable E-Cigarettes and Youth-Appealing E-Liquids from Market for Not Having Required Authorization [press release]. Silver Spring, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, July 20, 2020. [Google Scholar]
3.Puff Bar: Homepage 2021 [cited December 20, 2021]. Available from: https://puffbar.com.
4.Duell AK, Kerber PJ, Luo W, Peyton DH. Determination of (R)-(+)- and (S)-(-)-Nicotine Chirality in Puff Bar E-Liquids by (1)H NMR Spectroscopy, Polarimetry, and Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry. Chem Res Toxicol. 2021;34(7):1718–20. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.1c00192 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Park-Lee E, Ren C, Sawdey MD, Gentzke AS, Cornelius M, Jamal A, et al. Notes from the Field: E-Cigarette Use Among Middle and High School Students—National Youth Tobacco Survey, United States, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70(39):1387–9. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7039a4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Chairman Krishnamoorthi Launches Investigation into the Production, Sale of Unregulated Synthetic Nicotine [press release]. Washington, DC: US House Committee on Oversight and Reform 117th Congress, November 8, 2021. [Google Scholar]
7.Rep. Sherrill Tours Superfund Sites With EPA Regional Administrator, NJDEP Commissioner After Announcement of New National Remediation Plans Made Possible By Bipartisan Infrastructure Law [press release]. Washington, DC: US Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill, New Jersey, 11th Congressional District, December 17, 2021. [Google Scholar]
8.FDA Makes Significant Progress in Science-Based Public Health Application Review, Taking Action on Over 90% of More Than 6.5 Million ‘Deemed’ New Tobacco Products Submitted [press release]. Silver Spring, MD: US Food and Drug Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services, September 9, 2021. [Google Scholar]
9.Firms Embrace Synthetic Nicotine After FDA Rejections 2021 [cited December 20, 2021]. Available from: https://vaporvoice.net/2021/08/31/vapor-companies-eye-synthetic-nicotine-after-marketing-denials/.
10.Norcia A. Denied FDA Authorization, Vaping Companies Start to Explore Loopholes. Filter Magazine. August 30, 2021. [Google Scholar]
11.Zeller MR. Updates from FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products. Tobacco and Nicotine Products Regulation and Policy Conference; October 27, 2021; Virtual. [Google Scholar]
12.Ducharme J. Some Vaping Companies Are Turning to Synthetic Nicotine to Outsmart the FDA. Time. 2021. September 17, 2021. [Google Scholar]
13.Foley KE. Synthetic nicotine: Unregulated and increasingly popular. Politico. 2022. February 7, 2022. [Google Scholar]
14.Arnold M , inventor; Next Generation Labs, LLC, assignee. Process for the preparation of (R, S)-nicotine. United States patent US 9,556,142 B2. 2017. [Google Scholar]
15.Willis B, Ahmed MM, Freund W, Sawyer D, inventors; NJOY, LLC, assignee. Synthesis and resolution of nicotine. United States patent US 9,809,567 B2. 2017. [Google Scholar]
16.Divi MKP, Padakandla GR, Rao MAN, Katta HB, inventors; Divi’s Laboratories, Ltd, assignee. Process for the resolution of (R, S)-nicotine patent US 8,378,111 B2. 2013. [Google Scholar]
17.McCague R, Narasimhan AS, inventors; Zanoprima Lifesciences Limited, assignee. Process of making (S)-nicotine patent US 10,913,962 B2. 2021. [Google Scholar]
18.Jordt SE. Synthetic nicotine has arrived. Tob Control. 2021. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056626 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.ASTM International. ASTM D6866-21: Standard Test Methods for Determining the Biobased Content of Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Samples Using Radiocarbon Analysis. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International; 2021. [Google Scholar]
20.Downey G. Advances in food authenticity testing. Amsterdam: Woodhead Publishing; 2016. [Google Scholar]
21.Rodrigues C, Maia R, Lauteri M, Brugnoli E, Máguas C. Chapter 4—Stable Isotope Analysis. In: de la Guardia M, Gonzálvez A, editors. Comprehensive Analytical Chemistry. 60: Elsevier; 2013. p. 77–99. [Google Scholar]
22.Next Generation Labs. Authenticity Case Study: HiLIQ—NTN “Non Tobacco Nicotine”: Next Generation Labs, LLC; 2021 [cited December 20, 2021]. Available from: http://www.nextgenerationlabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/1-NGL_HiLiq_authenticity_Report_FINAL.pdf.
23.United States Pharmacopeial Convention. United States Pharmacopeia and National Formulary (USP 29-NF 24): Nicotine. 2020. Available from: https://online.uspnf.com/uspnf/document/1_GUID-3D851985-2C16-408D-99E1-F241A9767168_4_en-US.
24.Caruso RV, O’Connor RJ, Stephens WE, Cummings KM, Fong GT. Toxic metal concentrations in cigarettes obtained from U.S. smokers in 2009: results from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) United States survey cohort. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;11(1):202–17. doi: 10.3390/ijerph110100202 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.O’Connor RJ, Li Q, Stephens WE, Hammond D, Elton-Marshall T, Cummings KM, et al. Cigarettes sold in China: design, emissions and metals. Tob Control. 2010;19 Suppl 2(Suppl_2):i47–53. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Viana GF, Garcia KS, Menezes-Filho JA. Assessment of carcinogenic heavy metal levels in Brazilian cigarettes. Environ Monit Assess. 2011;181(1–4):255–65. doi: 10.1007/s10661-010-1827-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Hellinghausen G, Roy D, Wang Y, Lee JT, Lopez DA, Weatherly CA, et al. A comprehensive methodology for the chiral separation of 40 tobacco alkaloids and their carcinogenic E/Z-(R,S)-tobacco-specific nitrosamine metabolites. Talanta. 2018;181:132–41. doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2017.12.060 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Cai B, Bush LP. Variable nornicotine enantiomeric composition caused by nicotine demethylase CYP82E4 in tobacco leaf. J Agric Food Chem. 2012;60(46):11586–91. doi: 10.1021/jf303681u [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Cai B, Siminszky B, Chappell J, Dewey RE, Bush LP. Enantioselective demethylation of nicotine as a mechanism for variable nornicotine composition in tobacco leaf. J Biol Chem. 2012;287(51):42804–11. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M112.413807 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Armstrong DW, Wang X, Lee J-T, Liu Y-S. Enantiomeric composition of nornicotine, anatabine, and anabasine in tobacco. Chirality. 1999;11(1):82–4. [Google Scholar]
31.Liu B, Chen C, Wu D, Su Q. Enantiomeric analysis of anatabine, nornicotine and anabasine in commercial tobacco by multi-dimensional gas chromatography and mass spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography B. 2008;865(1–2):13–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2008.01.034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Armstrong DW, Wang X, Ercal N. Enantiomeric composition of nicotine in smokeless tobacco, medicinal products, and commercial reagents. Chirality. 1998;10(7):587–91. [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267049.r001

Decision Letter 0

Charles Michael Greenlief

23 Feb 2022

PONE-D-22-00042Analysis and differentiation of tobacco-derived and synthetic nicotine products: Addressing an urgent regulatory issuePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Cheetham,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 09 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

C. Michael Greenlief, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

(No specific funding was provided for this work. The authors' salaries were provided by their respective employers, Enthalpy Analytical, LLC (AC, JH, BC, and SE) and Consilium Sciences (PC, and SG). SP is an independent consultant to both companies. All research costs were borne by Enthalpy Analytical, LLC. The funders played no role in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the paper; and/or decision to submit for publication.

No part of this work has been funded by a tobacco company or similar entity.)

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. The authors are paid employees of their respective companies. Enthalpy Analytical, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Montrose Environmental Group, Inc., is an independent contract research laboratory with a focus on nicotine-containing products that provides analytical testing services for a wide range of clients, including tobacco manufacturers and government regulatory authorities. Consilium Sciences provides consulting services, offering scientific and regulatory solutions for materials science, nicotine, and cannabis organizations with a focus on potentially harm-reduced products.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Jacob Hilldrup.

6. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:

(The authors are paid employees of their respective companies. Enthalpy Analytical, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Montrose Environmental Group, Inc., is an independent contract research laboratory with a focus on nicotine-containing products that provides analytical testing services for a wide range of clients, including tobacco manufacturers and government regulatory authorities. Consilium Sciences provides consulting services, offering scientific and regulatory solutions for materials science, nicotine, and cannabis organizations with a focus on potentially harm-reduced products.)

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Carefully consider the comments of Reviewer 1 and respond as needed.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript, "Analysis and differentiation of tobacco-derived and synthetic nicotine products: Addressing an urgent regulatory issue," by Cheetham et al. is a timely and addresses an important issue (the identification of whether a sample containing nicotine is, in fact, synthetic or not. This is important both to the scientific and the regulatory audiences. The use of radiocarbon data is potentially useful and so this manuscript is a useful addition to the literature. However, at least in the view of this reviewer, there remains a constraint that the authors do not make clear to the reader: The residual number for %-bio-carbon (e.g., in Figure 5) for the SyN-# samples likely depends on the method of synthesis. Thus, the application of a calibration curve (e.g., Figure 6) may lead to an incorrect number for %-tobacco derived nicotine. Thus, their method is not as definitive as suggested, and this limitation should be made clear, both in the Discussion and the Abstract. Alas, the goal of a final and definitive method for characterizing all these samples remains elusive.

Reviewer #2: None

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Apr 14;17(4):e0267049. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267049.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

14 Mar 2022

We are grateful to the Academic Editor and Reviewers who took the time to assess our manuscript and provide helpful feedback. Below are our point-by-point responses to the comments and suggestions that were made.

Responses to the Academic Editor Comments

Comment 1

Minor revisions were made to the manuscript formatting to be in compliance with the journal guidelines. One major revision was the replacement of Table 1 with a figure (Fig 1) due to the presence of graphical objects. The numbering of subsequent figures was adjusted accordingly.

Comment 2

The authors thank the Academic Editor for their timely response to our request for clarification on this comment. As suggested, the financial disclosure statement has been updated in the cover letter to be:

“No specific funding was provided for this work. No part of this work has been funded by a tobacco company or similar entity.”

Comment 3

No response required, see Comment 6.

Comment 4

All raw data for the analyses that were performed in triplicate (nicotine degradants and metals) have been included in the Supplementary Materials as an Excel workbook. Raw data for analyses performed in singlicate (chiral and radiocarbon analysis) were already included in S1 Table. The following statement has been added to the cover letter:

“All associated raw data can be found either in S1 Table or in the Excel workbook (Raw Data for Nicotine Degradants and Metals Analyses.xlsx).”

Comment 5

The manuscript submission data has been edited to include Jacob Hilldrup; we apologize for the inadvertent omission.

Comment 6

The authors thank the Academic Editor for their timely response to our request for clarification on this comment. As suggested, the Competing Interested statement has been updated in our cover letter to include the additional text indicated in red below:

“The authors are paid employees of their respective companies and do not claim any competing interests. Enthalpy Analytical, LLC, a wholly owned…”

Comment 7

The reference list has been reviewed and verified as requested. One change was the addition of a reference to a Politico article on synthetic nicotine that was released during the initial review period.

Responses to Reviewer 1 Comments

We thank the reviewer for their comments and appreciate that they feel the study will be of use to the scientific and regulatory community. Our responses to the specific points are given below:

Specific point 1

“However, at least in the view of this reviewer, there remains a constraint that the authors do not make clear to the reader: The residual number for %-bio-carbon (e.g., in Figure 5) for the SyN-# samples likely depends on the method of synthesis.”

The reviewer is correct that the %-biocarbon values for SyN samples may be dependent upon their route of synthesis and the reagents used, and as such may differ significantly from those we assessed. We have amended the text to clarify that different %-biocarbon values may be possible depending on the synthetic route and reagents used. Specifically:

Line 349:

“…of the two. However, it should be noted that this is predicated on the SyN used returning radiocarbon results that fall within the pMC value ranges we have observed during this study. The radiocarbon content of SyN could potentially be affected by the synthetic pathway and origin of the chemical ingredients used. Consequently, there may be SyN on the market, either currently or in the future, that does not possess a similar 14C content to those analyzed here. As such, it is recommended that the assessment of the relative amounts of TDN and SyN in a mixture of the two be for qualitative purposes only.”

We do note, however, that the samples we looked at represent the major suppliers of synthetic nicotine to the US market. Furthermore, since this work was performed, Enthalpy has tested additional samples for radiocarbon analysis and we have not seen any product with a %-biocarbon result that differs from those in this study, either being below 40% or at 100%.

Specific point 2

“Thus, the application of a calibration curve (e.g., Figure 6) may lead to an incorrect number for %-tobacco derived nicotine.”

The reviewer is correct in this assertion; however, it was not our intent that calibration curves would be generated and used to determine the SyN-to-TDN ratio of a mixture. Our intention for this experiment was merely to demonstrate that such a blended mixture would return a radiocarbon result that would be the proportion-weighted sum of their individual values. As such, a radiocarbon result somewhere between the two extremes we’ve observed would be suggestive of the test sample being a mixture of SyN and TDN, rather than one or the other. Taking into account the reviewer’s previous point, a SyN with a significantly different (and higher) biocarbon value could give a misleading identification as a mixture. Given that we have yet to observe such a SyN, however, the burden would be upon the manufacturer to prove they are using a genuine synthetic nicotine. The following text was added to clarify this:

Line 361:

“As such, it is recommended that the assessment of the relative amounts of TDN and SyN in a mixture of the two be for qualitative purposes only.”

Specific point 3

“Thus, their method is not as definitive as suggested, and this limitation should be made clear, both in the Discussion and the Abstract. Alas, the goal of a final and definitive method for characterizing all these samples remains elusive.”

If taken from the perspective of a method that could quantify the amount of TDN and SyN in a given sample, then the reviewer is correct. However, from the current regulatory standpoint it only needs to be shown that the sample in question does not contain any TDN to avoid regulatory action. The method as described allows for this since if the result is consistent with those of known SyN samples then it is confirmed to be synthetic in origin and no action can be taken. If any result above 40% is obtained, then it must be proven by the manufacturer they are using a genuine synthetic nicotine, otherwise a mixture would be assumed. A result of 100% would indicate the nicotine is tobacco-derived and the product has been misbranded (if labelled as SyN). From this regulatory perspective, we consider the method to be a definitive indicator with regard to the determining appropriate regulatory actions. The following text was added at the end of the “Radiocarbon Analysis” section to clarify this:

Line 358:

“As determined in this study, the radiocarbon results from nicotine analysis can fall under one of three scenarios:

1. pMC < 40 %: The test sample is confirmed to contain SyN.

2. pMC = 100 %: The test sample is confirmed to contain TDN.

3. pMC value falls between those in scenarios 1 and 2: The result is suggestive of the sample containing a mixture of both SyN and TDN and warrants further investigation.

The first line of the “Conclusions” was also modified to read (changes highlighted in red):

Line 413:

“Radiocarbon analysis offers a definitive method to differentiate tobacco-derived nicotine from synthetic nicotine for regulatory purposes.”

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

Click here for additional data file.^{(107.1KB, pdf)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267049.r003

Decision Letter 1

Charles Michael Greenlief

1 Apr 2022

Analysis and differentiation of tobacco-derived and synthetic nicotine products: Addressing an urgent regulatory issue

PONE-D-22-00042R1

Dear Dr. Cheetham,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

C. Michael Greenlief, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors have addressed the minor concerns of the reviewers well. The manuscript is now in an acceptable form for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267049.r004

Acceptance letter

Charles Michael Greenlief

6 Apr 2022

PONE-D-22-00042R1

Analysis and differentiation of tobacco-derived and synthetic nicotine products: Addressing an urgent regulatory issue

Dear Dr. Cheetham:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Charles Michael Greenlief

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Table. Tabulated analyte data for tobacco-derived and synthetic nicotine samples.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(66.7KB, pdf)}

S1 File. Raw data for nicotine degradants and metals analyses.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(21.9KB, xlsx)}

S1 Data

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(20.8KB, xlsx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

Click here for additional data file.^{(107.1KB, pdf)}

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

[pone.0267049.ref001] 1.Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111–31 (June 22, 2009).

[pone.0267049.ref002] 2.FDA Notifies Companies, Including Puff Bar, to Remove Flavored Disposable E-Cigarettes and Youth-Appealing E-Liquids from Market for Not Having Required Authorization [press release]. Silver Spring, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, July 20, 2020. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0267049.ref003] 3.Puff Bar: Homepage 2021 [cited December 20, 2021]. Available from: https://puffbar.com.

[pone.0267049.ref004] 4.Duell AK, Kerber PJ, Luo W, Peyton DH. Determination of (R)-(+)- and (S)-(-)-Nicotine Chirality in Puff Bar E-Liquids by (1)H NMR Spectroscopy, Polarimetry, and Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry. Chem Res Toxicol. 2021;34(7):1718–20. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.1c00192 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0267049.ref005] 5.Park-Lee E, Ren C, Sawdey MD, Gentzke AS, Cornelius M, Jamal A, et al. Notes from the Field: E-Cigarette Use Among Middle and High School Students—National Youth Tobacco Survey, United States, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70(39):1387–9. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7039a4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0267049.ref006] 6.Chairman Krishnamoorthi Launches Investigation into the Production, Sale of Unregulated Synthetic Nicotine [press release]. Washington, DC: US House Committee on Oversight and Reform 117th Congress, November 8, 2021. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0267049.ref007] 7.Rep. Sherrill Tours Superfund Sites With EPA Regional Administrator, NJDEP Commissioner After Announcement of New National Remediation Plans Made Possible By Bipartisan Infrastructure Law [press release]. Washington, DC: US Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill, New Jersey, 11th Congressional District, December 17, 2021. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0267049.ref008] 8.FDA Makes Significant Progress in Science-Based Public Health Application Review, Taking Action on Over 90% of More Than 6.5 Million ‘Deemed’ New Tobacco Products Submitted [press release]. Silver Spring, MD: US Food and Drug Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services, September 9, 2021. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0267049.ref009] 9.Firms Embrace Synthetic Nicotine After FDA Rejections 2021 [cited December 20, 2021]. Available from: https://vaporvoice.net/2021/08/31/vapor-companies-eye-synthetic-nicotine-after-marketing-denials/.

[pone.0267049.ref010] 10.Norcia A. Denied FDA Authorization, Vaping Companies Start to Explore Loopholes. Filter Magazine. August 30, 2021. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0267049.ref011] 11.Zeller MR. Updates from FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products. Tobacco and Nicotine Products Regulation and Policy Conference; October 27, 2021; Virtual. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0267049.ref012] 12.Ducharme J. Some Vaping Companies Are Turning to Synthetic Nicotine to Outsmart the FDA. Time. 2021. September 17, 2021. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0267049.ref013] 13.Foley KE. Synthetic nicotine: Unregulated and increasingly popular. Politico. 2022. February 7, 2022. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0267049.ref014] 14.Arnold M , inventor; Next Generation Labs, LLC, assignee. Process for the preparation of (R, S)-nicotine. United States patent US 9,556,142 B2. 2017. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0267049.ref015] 15.Willis B, Ahmed MM, Freund W, Sawyer D, inventors; NJOY, LLC, assignee. Synthesis and resolution of nicotine. United States patent US 9,809,567 B2. 2017. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0267049.ref016] 16.Divi MKP, Padakandla GR, Rao MAN, Katta HB, inventors; Divi’s Laboratories, Ltd, assignee. Process for the resolution of (R, S)-nicotine patent US 8,378,111 B2. 2013. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0267049.ref017] 17.McCague R, Narasimhan AS, inventors; Zanoprima Lifesciences Limited, assignee. Process of making (S)-nicotine patent US 10,913,962 B2. 2021. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0267049.ref018] 18.Jordt SE. Synthetic nicotine has arrived. Tob Control. 2021. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056626 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0267049.ref019] 19.ASTM International. ASTM D6866-21: Standard Test Methods for Determining the Biobased Content of Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Samples Using Radiocarbon Analysis. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International; 2021. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0267049.ref020] 20.Downey G. Advances in food authenticity testing. Amsterdam: Woodhead Publishing; 2016. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0267049.ref021] 21.Rodrigues C, Maia R, Lauteri M, Brugnoli E, Máguas C. Chapter 4—Stable Isotope Analysis. In: de la Guardia M, Gonzálvez A, editors. Comprehensive Analytical Chemistry. 60: Elsevier; 2013. p. 77–99. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0267049.ref022] 22.Next Generation Labs. Authenticity Case Study: HiLIQ—NTN “Non Tobacco Nicotine”: Next Generation Labs, LLC; 2021 [cited December 20, 2021]. Available from: http://www.nextgenerationlabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/1-NGL_HiLiq_authenticity_Report_FINAL.pdf.

[pone.0267049.ref023] 23.United States Pharmacopeial Convention. United States Pharmacopeia and National Formulary (USP 29-NF 24): Nicotine. 2020. Available from: https://online.uspnf.com/uspnf/document/1_GUID-3D851985-2C16-408D-99E1-F241A9767168_4_en-US.

[pone.0267049.ref024] 24.Caruso RV, O’Connor RJ, Stephens WE, Cummings KM, Fong GT. Toxic metal concentrations in cigarettes obtained from U.S. smokers in 2009: results from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) United States survey cohort. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;11(1):202–17. doi: 10.3390/ijerph110100202 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0267049.ref025] 25.O’Connor RJ, Li Q, Stephens WE, Hammond D, Elton-Marshall T, Cummings KM, et al. Cigarettes sold in China: design, emissions and metals. Tob Control. 2010;19 Suppl 2(Suppl_2):i47–53. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0267049.ref026] 26.Viana GF, Garcia KS, Menezes-Filho JA. Assessment of carcinogenic heavy metal levels in Brazilian cigarettes. Environ Monit Assess. 2011;181(1–4):255–65. doi: 10.1007/s10661-010-1827-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0267049.ref027] 27.Hellinghausen G, Roy D, Wang Y, Lee JT, Lopez DA, Weatherly CA, et al. A comprehensive methodology for the chiral separation of 40 tobacco alkaloids and their carcinogenic E/Z-(R,S)-tobacco-specific nitrosamine metabolites. Talanta. 2018;181:132–41. doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2017.12.060 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0267049.ref028] 28.Cai B, Bush LP. Variable nornicotine enantiomeric composition caused by nicotine demethylase CYP82E4 in tobacco leaf. J Agric Food Chem. 2012;60(46):11586–91. doi: 10.1021/jf303681u [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0267049.ref029] 29.Cai B, Siminszky B, Chappell J, Dewey RE, Bush LP. Enantioselective demethylation of nicotine as a mechanism for variable nornicotine composition in tobacco leaf. J Biol Chem. 2012;287(51):42804–11. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M112.413807 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0267049.ref030] 30.Armstrong DW, Wang X, Lee J-T, Liu Y-S. Enantiomeric composition of nornicotine, anatabine, and anabasine in tobacco. Chirality. 1999;11(1):82–4. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0267049.ref031] 31.Liu B, Chen C, Wu D, Su Q. Enantiomeric analysis of anatabine, nornicotine and anabasine in commercial tobacco by multi-dimensional gas chromatography and mass spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography B. 2008;865(1–2):13–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2008.01.034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0267049.ref032] 32.Armstrong DW, Wang X, Ercal N. Enantiomeric composition of nicotine in smokeless tobacco, medicinal products, and commercial reagents. Chirality. 1998;10(7):587–91. [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Analysis and differentiation of tobacco-derived and synthetic nicotine products: Addressing an urgent regulatory issue

Andrew G Cheetham

Susan Plunkett

Preston Campbell

Jacob Hilldrup

Bonnie G Coffa

Stan Gilliland III

Steve Eckard

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Regulatory context

Scientific context

Fig 1. Nicotine enantiomers and their pharmacological properties.

Fig 2. Nicotine production pathways.

Materials and methods

Table 1. Nicotine samples and e-liquid formulations studied.

Nicotine degradants by LC-MS/MS

Metals by ICP-MS

Non-targeted analysis by GC-MS

Chiral chromatography

Radiocarbon analysis

Results and discussion

Nicotine impurity screening

Fig 3. Analysis of select nicotine degradants in tobacco-derived and synthetic nicotine samples.

Chiral chromatography

Fig 4. Chiral analysis of the (S)- and (R)-nicotine enantiomers.

Fig 5. Chiral analysis of the (R)- and (S)-nornicotine analysis in tobacco-derived and synthetic nicotine samples.

Radiocarbon analysis

Fig 6. Radiocarbon analysis of neat tobacco-derived and synthetic nicotine samples.

Fig 7. Radiocarbon analysis of blended nicotine mixtures, comparing the observed pMC result to the theoretical value.

Isolation of nicotine from ENDS e-liquid

Table 2. Radiocarbon analysis of lab-prepared e-liquid formulation extracts.

Conclusions

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Charles Michael Greenlief

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Charles Michael Greenlief

Roles

Acceptance letter

Charles Michael Greenlief

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases