Both Nonsmoking Youth and Smoking Adults Like Sweet and Minty E-liquid Flavors More Than Tobacco Flavor.

Smokers may reduce their health risk by switching to electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use. As e-cigarettes are not harmless, concerns exist about e-cigarette use by nonsmokers and youth. E-liquids are available in many different flavors that increase sensory appeal. Flavor preferences may differ between user groups, which could open doors for product regulation. We investigated which e-liquid flavors are attractive to specific user groups by comparing liking between adolescent nonsmokers (n = 41; mean age 16.9 ± 0.8), young adult nonsmokers (n = 42; mean age 22.7 ± 1.7), and adult smokers (n = 56; mean age 39.7 ± 11.1). Participants smelled tobacco- (n = 6) and nontobacco (n = 24)-flavored e-liquids and rated liking on a 9-point labeled hedonic scale, and familiarity, overall intensity, perceived sweetness, perceived bitterness, and irritation of the odors on a 100-unit Visual Analog Scale. Mean liking ranged from 2.3 (whiskey) to 6.7 (peppermint). Within all groups, the typically sweet and minty flavors (e.g., wine gum, watermelon, peppermint, menthol) were liked significantly more than the tobacco-flavored e-liquids. The set of tobacco-flavored e-liquids was significantly, but slightly, less disliked by adult smokers (3.9 ± 0.2) than adolescent (3.1 ± 0.3) and young adult (3.4 ± 0.3) nonsmokers (P < 0.001). No between-group differences were observed for sweet and minty flavors. Liking correlated significantly positively with odor sweetness (R = 0.49) and familiarity (R = 0.48) and negatively with odor bitterness (R = -0.58), irritation (R = -0.47), and overall intensity (R = -0.27). Thus, sweet- and minty-flavored e-liquids are liked equally by young nonsmokers and adult smokers, and more than tobacco flavors. Banning all flavors except tobacco will likely reduce e-cigarette appeal; potentially more for young nonsmokers than adult smokers.

Sensory analysis of characterising flavours: evaluating tobacco product odours using an expert panel.

OBJECTIVES: Tobacco flavours are an important regulatory concept in several jurisdictions, for example in the USA, Canada and Europe. The European Tobacco Products Directive 2014/40/EU prohibits cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco having a characterising flavour. This directive defines characterising flavour as 'a clearly noticeable smell or taste other than one of tobacco […]'. To distinguish between products with and without a characterising flavour, we trained an expert panel to identify characterising flavours by smelling. METHODS: An expert panel (n=18) evaluated the smell of 20 tobacco products using self-defined odour attributes, following Quantitative Descriptive Analysis. The panel was trained during 14 attribute training, consensus training and performance monitoring sessions. Products were assessed during six test sessions. Principal component analysis, hierarchical clustering (four and six clusters) and Hotelling's T-tests (95% and 99% CIs) were used to determine differences and similarities between tobacco products based on odour attributes. RESULTS: The final attribute list contained 13 odour descriptors. Panel performance was sufficient after 14 training sessions. Products marketed as unflavoured that formed a cluster were considered reference products. A four-cluster method distinguished cherry-flavoured, vanilla-flavoured and menthol-flavoured products from reference products. Six clusters subdivided reference products into tobacco leaves, roll-your-own and commercial products. CONCLUSIONS: An expert panel was successfully trained to assess characterising odours in cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco. This method could be applied to other product types such as e-cigarettes. Regulatory decisions on the choice of reference products and significance level are needed which directly influences the products being assessed as having a characterising odour.

Sensory appeal and puffing intensity of e-cigarette use: Influence of nicotine salts versus free-base nicotine in e-liquids.

BACKGROUND: In the US, nicotine salts (with protonated nicotine instead of free-based nicotine) have been reported to lower the harshness and bitterness of e-cigarette aerosols, making it easier to inhale high levels of nicotine. This study aimed to determine whether nicotine salts also increase sensory appeal at lower concentrations (< 20mg/mL). Moreover, and novel, inhalation intensity of both types of e-liquids was compared. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blinded, within-participants design, healthy adults who use e-cigarettes (n=68) vaped tobacco-flavored e-liquids containing 12mg/mL of free-based nicotine or nicotine salt ad libitum, using their own device, during two online sessions (June-July 2021, Utrecht, The Netherlands). The sensory parameters perceived liking, nicotine intensity, harshness, and pleasantness were rated on a 100-unit visual analog scale. The intensity of use was determined by the recorded puff number, duration and interval. RESULTS: Test scores on appeal, harshness and puffing behavior parameters showed no significant differences between the nicotine salt and the free-base condition. The average inhalation time was 2.5seconds. Additional analyses found no significant effect of liquid order, age, gender, smoking status, vaping frequency and familiarity with nicotine salts. Significant positive correlations were found between the sensory parameters except for harshness. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to a previous study that used higher nicotine concentrations and standardized puffing conditions in a laboratory setting, we did not observe the effects of nicotine salts on sensory appeal in our real-life study paradigm. Moreover, we did not see effects on study parameters related to puffing intensity.