Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2016 Nov;25(Suppl 2):ii55-ii61.
doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053221. Epub 2016 Oct 5.

Role of sweet and other flavours in liking and disliking of electronic cigarettes

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Role of sweet and other flavours in liking and disliking of electronic cigarettes

Hyoshin Kim et al. Tob Control. 2016 Nov.

Abstract

Objective: To examine the extent to which the perception of sweet and other flavours is associated with liking and disliking of flavoured electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes).

Methods: 31 participants (13 females/18 males; 12 sole/19 dual users) vaped 6 commercially available flavours of blu Tanks: Classic Tobacco (CT), Magnificent Menthol (MM), Cherry Crush (CC), Vivid Vanilla (VV), Piña Colada (PC) and Peach Schnapps (PS); all 'medium' strength, 12 mg/mL nicotine concentration. For each flavoured e-cigarette, participants first rated liking/disliking on the Labeled Hedonic Scale, followed by perceived intensities of sweetness, coolness, bitterness, harshness and specific flavour on the generalised version of the Labeled Magnitude Scale. The psychophysical testing was conducted individually in an environmental chamber.

Results: PC was perceived as sweetest and liked the most; CT was perceived as least sweet and liked the least. Across all flavours, liking was correlated with sweetness (r=0.31), coolness (r=0.25), bitterness (r=-0.25) and harshness (r=-0.29, all p<0.001). Specifically, liking was positively correlated with sweetness of PS (r=0.56, p=0.001) and PC (r=0.36, p=0.048); and with coolness of MM, CT and VV (r=0.41-0.52, p<0.05). In contrast, harshness was negatively correlated with liking for CC, PC and PS (r=0.37-0.40, p<0.05). In a multivariate model, sweetness had the greatest positive impact on liking followed by coolness; harshness had the greatest negative impact on liking.

Conclusions: Our findings indicate that bitterness and harshness, most likely from nicotine, have negative impacts on the liking of e-cigarettes, but the addition of flavourants that elicit sweetness or coolness generally improves liking. The results suggest that flavours play an important role in e-cigarette preference and most likely use.

Keywords: Electronic nicotine delivery devices; Nicotine; Public policy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(A) Mean hedonic ratings ±SEMs (top left) and scatter plot of hedonic ratings (top right) of the six e-cigarette flavours with 12 mg/mL nicotine concentration across all participants (N=31). CT, MM, CC, PC, PS and VV represent for Classic Tobacco, Magnificent Menthol, Cherry Crush, Piña Colada, Peach Schnapps and Vivid Vanilla. Letters on the right y-axis represent semantic labels of the LHS. (B) Log10 means±SEMs of intensity ratings of sweetness, coolness, bitterness, harshness and own flavour across all participants. Letters on the right y-axis represent semantic labels of the gLMS. Different letters (a–c) indicate significant differences between e-cigarette flavours (Tukey’s honest significant difference test, p<0.05). BD, barely detectable; DE, dislike extremely; DVM, dislike very much; DM, dislike moderately; DS, dislike slightly; e-cigarette, electronic cigarette; gLMS, general version of the Labeled Magnitude Scale; LHS, Labeled Hedonic Scale; LS, like slightly; LM, like moderately; LVM, like very much; LE, like extremely; M, moderate; S, strong; VS, very strong; W, weak.

References

    1. Jaffe AJ, Glaros AG. Taste dimensions in cigarette discrimination: a multidimensional scaling approach. Addict Behav. 1986;11:407–13. - PubMed
    1. King BA, Tynan MA, Dube SR, et al. Flavored-little-cigar and flavored-cigarette use among U.S. middle and high school students. J Adolesc Health. 2014;54:40–6. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Carpenter CM, Wayne GF, Pauly JL, et al. New cigarette brands with flavors that appeal to youth: tobacco marketing strategies. Health Aff (Millwood) 2005;24:1601–10. - PubMed
    1. Manning KC, Kelly KJ, Comello ML. Flavoured cigarettes, sensation seeking and adolescents’ perceptions of cigarette brands. Tob Control. 2009;18:459–65. - PubMed
    1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Flavored Tobacco Product Sheet. [accessed 15 Apr 15];2011 Jan 1; http://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/ProductsIngredient....

Publication types