Initial ratings of different types of e-cigarettes and relationships between product appeal and nicotine delivery

Peter Hajek,Dunja Przulj,Anna Phillips-Waller,Hayden McRobbie,Rebecca Anderson

doi:10.1007/s00213-017-4826-z

Peter Hajek, Dunja Przulj + Show 3 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-017-4826-z

Copy DOI

Abstract

AimsLittle is known about features of e-cigarettes (EC) that facilitate or hinder the switch from smoking to vaping. We tested eight brands of EC to determine how nicotine delivery and other product characteristics influence user’s initial reactions.MethodsFifteen vapers tested each product after overnight abstinence from both smoking and vaping. At each session, participant’s vaped ad lib for 5 min. Blood samples were taken at baseline and at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 30 min after starting vaping. Participants rated the products on a range of characteristics. The products tested included six ‘cig-a-like’ and two refillable products, one with variable voltage. We also tested participants’ own EC.ResultsAll products significantly reduced urges to smoke. Refillable products delivered more nicotine and received generally superior ratings in terms of craving relief, subjective nicotine delivery, throat hit and vapour production but in overall ratings, they were joined by a cig-a-like, Blu. Participants puffed more on low nicotine delivery products. Participants’ estimates of nicotine delivery from different EC were closely linked to ‘throat hit’. Nicotine delivery was less important in the initial product ratings than draw resistance, mouthpiece comfort and effects on reducing urge to smoke.ConclusionsAll EC products reduced urges to smoke. Refillable products received generally more favourable ratings than ‘cig-a-likes’ with similar nicotine content. Perception of nicotine delivery was guided by throat sensations. Lower nicotine delivery was associated with more frequent puffing. The first impressions of EC products are guided less by nicotine delivery than by sensory signals.

Highlights

E-cigarettes (EC) have the potential to generate a substantial public health benefit if there is a switch from smoking to vaping on a population scale (Hajek et al 2014a; PHE 2015; RCP 2016)
We reported a comparison of pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles of own brand cigarette and different EC products in the 11 dual users in a separate report (Hajek et al 2017).This study uses the full sample of 15 participants and focuses on EC product ratings
Our finding suggests that existing EC products provide only a limited scope for varying nicotine intake by varying vaping topography

Summary

Introduction

E-cigarettes (EC) have the potential to generate a substantial public health benefit if there is a switch from smoking to vaping on a population scale (Hajek et al 2014a; PHE 2015; RCP 2016). EC technology is evolving and market forces are steering product development to features that appeal to smokers and increase the rate of adoption. Nicotine delivery is likely to be among the key factors that determines whether a smoker will continue to use a device (Marynak et al 2017), but other product features are likely to play an important role, during early experimentation. These may include characteristics such as product appearance, ease of use, puff resistance, ‘throat hit’, vapour volume, mouthpiece comfort, handling characteristics and eliquid flavour and other constituents. The cost and product marketing are likely to be important too

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion