ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Open-system electronic cigarette (EC) product features, such as battery capacity, maximum output wattage, and so forth, are major components that drive product costs and may influence use patterns. Moreover, continued innovation and monitoring of product features and prices will provide critical information for designing appropriate taxation policies and product regulations. OBJECTIVE: This study will examine how product features are associated with the prices of devices sold in web-based vape shops. METHODS: We draw samples from 5 popular, US-based, web-based vape shops from April to August 2022 to examine starter kits, device-only products, and e-liquid container-only products. We implemented a linear regression model with a store-fixed effect to examine the association between device attributes and prices. RESULTS: EC starter kits or devices vary significantly by type, with mod prices being much higher than pod and vape pen prices. The prices of mod starter kits were even lower than those of mod devices, suggesting that mod starter kits are discounted in web-based vape shops. The price of mod kits, mod device-only products, and pod kits increased as the battery capacity and output wattage increased. For vape pens, the price was positively associated with the volume size of the e-liquid container. On the other hand, the price of pod kits was positively associated with the number of containers. CONCLUSIONS: A unit-based specific tax, therefore, will impose a higher tax burden on lower-priced devices such as vape pens or pod systems and a lower tax burden on mod devices. A volume- or capacity-based specific tax on devices will impose a higher tax burden on vape pens with a larger container size. Meanwhile, ad valorem taxes pegged to wholesale or retail prices would apply evenly across device types, meaning those with advanced features such as higher battery capacities and output wattage would face higher rates. Therefore, policy makers could manipulate tax rates by device type to discourage the use of certain device products.
ABSTRACT
Tree peony (Paeonia suffruticosa Andr.) is a traditional Chinese flower with significant ornamental and medicinal value. Its growth and development process is regulated by some internal and external factors, and the related regulatory mechanism is largely unknown. Myelocytomatosis transcription factors (MYCs) play significant roles in various processes such as plant growth and development, the phytohormone response, and the stress response. As the identification and understanding of the MYC family in tree peony remains limited, this study aimed to address this gap by identifying a total of 15 PsMYCs in tree peony and categorizing them into six subgroups based on bioinformatics methods. Furthermore, the gene structure, conservative domains, cis-elements, and expression patterns of the PsMYCs were thoroughly analyzed to provide a comprehensive overview of their characteristics. An analysis in terms of gene structure and conserved motif composition suggested that each subtribe had similarities in function. An analysis of the promoter sequence revealed the presence of numerous cis-elements associated with plant growth and development, the hormone response, and the stress response. qRT-PCR results and the protein interaction network further demonstrated the potential functions of PsMYCs in the growth and development process. While in comparison to the control, only PsMYC2 exhibited a statistically significant variation in expression levels in response to exogenous hormone treatments and abiotic stress. A promoter activity analysis of PsMYC2 revealed its sensitivity to Flu and high temperatures, but exhibited no discernible difference under exogenous GA treatment. These findings help establish a basis for comprehending the molecular mechanism by which PsMYCs regulate the growth and development of tree peony.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Prior studies have demonstrated that the e-cigarette market contains a large number of brands. Identifying these existing e-cigarette brands is a key element of market surveillance, which will further assist in policy making and compliance checks. OBJECTIVE: To facilitate the surveillance of the diverse product landscape in the e-cigarette market, we constructed a semantic database of e-cigarette brands that have appeared in the US market as of 2020-2022. METHODS: In order to build the brand database, we searched and compiled e-cigarette brands from a comprehensive list of retail channels and sources, including (1) e-liquid and disposable brands sold in web-based stores, (2) e-cigarette brands sold in brick-and-mortar stores and collected by the Nielsen Retail Scanner Data, (3) e-cigarette brands compiled by Wikipedia, (4) self-reported e-cigarette brands from the 2020 International Tobacco Control Four-Country Smoking and Vaping (ITC 4CV) US survey, and (5) e-cigarette brands on Twitter. We also estimated the top 5 e-cigarette brands by sales volume in brick-and-mortar stores, by the frequency and variety of offerings in web-based shops, and by the frequency of self-reported brands from the 2020 ITC 4CV US survey. RESULTS: As of 2020-2022, a total of 912 e-cigarette brands have been sold by various retail channels. During 2020-2022, the top 5 brands are JUUL, vuse, njoy, blu, and logic in brick-and-mortar stores; blu, king, monster, twist, and air factory for e-liquids in web-based stores; hyde, pod mesh, suorin, vaporlax, and xtra for disposables sold in web-based stores; and smok, aspire, vaporesso, innokin, and eleaf based on self-reported survey data. CONCLUSIONS: As the US Food and Drug Administration enforces the premarket tobacco market authorization, many e-cigarette brands may become illegal in the US market. In this context, how e-cigarette brands evolve and consolidate in different retail channels will be critical for understanding the regulatory impacts on product availability. Our semantic database of e-cigarette brands can serve as a useful tool to monitor product and marketplace development, conduct compliance checks, assess manufacturers' marketing behaviors, and identify regulatory impacts.
ABSTRACT
Synthetic nicotine (relative to tobacco-derived, or "natural" nicotine) is an emerging feature of e-cigarettes including e-liquids in the online marketplace. This study investigated a total of 11,161 unique nicotine e-liquids sold in online stores in the US during 2021, using keyword matching approach to identify the feature of synthetic nicotine based on product description texts. We showed that in 2021, 2.13% of nicotine-containing e-liquids in our sample were marketed as synthetic nicotine e-liquids. About a quarter of the synthetic nicotine e-liquids that we identified were salt-based; the nicotine strength varied; and those synthetic nicotine e-liquids had a variety of flavor profiles. Synthetic nicotine containing e-cigarettes are likely to remain in the market and manufacturers might market those products as "tobacco-free," to attract consumers who this feature as healthier or less addictive. It is important to monitor synthetic nicotine in the e-cigarette marketplace and assess how this feature influences consumer behaviors.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The present study empirically examined the association between price discounts and product attributes of e-liquids sold by online retailers. METHODS: We analysed 14 000 e-liquid products from five major online e-cigarette retailers between April and May 2021 to determine the association between price discounts and product attributes such as nicotine level and form, flavour and vegetable glycerine/propylene glycol ratio. A fixed-effects model was used in the analysis and discounts were calculated in US cents/mL of e-liquid volume. RESULTS: Out of 14 407 e-liquid products, 92.5% were offered at a discounted price. On average, the price discount for the 13 324 products that had discounts was 16.84 cents/mL across the five stores. Among the three forms of nicotine (salt, freebase and nicotine free), salt e-liquids had the highest average price discount. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that e-liquids with salt nicotine have a higher average price discount when sold online, which may influence consumer purchasing behaviour. Further research is needed to assess the potential impact of these discounts on youth and adult tobacco use. Policymakers may consider implementing measures to limit online price discounts for e-liquids as a means of reducing sales among young people.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Electronic cigarettes are the most popular tobacco product among U.S. youth, and over 80% of current youth users of e-cigarettes use flavored e-cigarettes, with fruit, mint/menthol, and candy/sweets being the most popular flavors. A number of new e-liquid flavors are currently emerging in the online e-cigarette market. Menthol and other flavored e-cigarettes could incentivize combustible tobacco smokers to transition to e-cigarette use. METHODS: From February to May 2021, we scraped data of over 14,000 e-liquid products, including detailed descriptions of their flavors, from five national online vape shops. Building upon the existing e-liquid flavor wheel, we expanded the semantic databases (i.e., key terms) to identify flavors using WordNet-a major database for keyword matching and group discussion. Using the enriched databases, we classified 14,000+ e-liquid products into the following 11 main flavor categories: "fruit", "dessert/candy/sweets", "coffee/tea", "alcohol", "other beverages", "tobacco", "mint/menthol", "nuts", "spices/pepper", "other flavors", and "unspecified flavor". RESULTS: We find that the most prominent flavor sold in the five online vape shop in 2021 was fruit flavored products, followed by dessert/candy/other sweets. Online vendors often label a product with several flavor profiles, such as fruit and menthol. CONCLUSIONS: Given that online stores market products with multiple flavor profiles and most of their products contain fruit flavor, the FDA may have issued marketing denial orders to some of these products. It is important to further examine how online stores respond to the FDA flavor restrictions (e.g., compliance or non-compliance).
