ArticleNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2020
Sensory Evaluation of E-Liquid Flavors by Smelling and Vaping Yields Similar Results.
Article in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic Assessment of Flavor Cues and Additives in Cigarettes and Heated Tobacco Products in Korea: Cross-Sectional Surveillance Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2026Article
- Coolants, organic acids, flavourings and other additives that facilitate inhalation of tobacco and nicotine products: implications for regulation.Tobacco control · 2026Review
- Chemosensory tobacco product toxicology part 1: sensory mechanisms.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2025Review
- Chemosensory tobacco product toxicology part 2: toxicological testing, assays, and state of the science.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2025Review
- Chemosensory Contributions of E-Cigarette Additives on Nicotine Use.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Review
- Improving the Analysis of E-Cigarette Emissions: Detecting Human "Dry Puff" Conditions in a Laboratory as Validated by a Panel of Experienced Vapers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Both Nonsmoking Youth and Smoking Adults Like Sweet and Minty E-liquid Flavors More Than Tobacco Flavor.Chemical senses · 2021Article
- Turbocharged Juul device challenges European tobacco regulators.The European respiratory journal · 2020Article
- Neurotoxicity of e-cigarettes.Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association · 2020Review
- An Electronic Aerosol Delivery System for Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Substance abuse : research and treatment · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSensory research on e-liquid flavors can be performed by means of smelling and vaping. However, data comparing smelling versus vaping e-liquid flavors are lacking. This study aims to investigate if smelling could be an alternative to vaping experiments by determining the correlation for hedonic flavor assessment between orthonasal smelling and vaping of e-liquids, for smokers and nonsmokers.
methodsTwenty-four young adult smokers (mean age 24.8 ± 9.3) and 24 nonsmokers (mean age 24.9 ± 7.7) smelled and vaped 25 e-liquids in various flavors. Participants rated liking, intensity, familiarity, and irritation on a 100-mm Visual Analog Scale. Pearson correlations within and between smelling and vaping were calculated. Differences between user groups were calculated using t tests.
resultsCorrelation coefficients between smelling and vaping based on mean group ratings were 0.84 for liking, 0.82 for intensity, 0.84 for familiarity, and 0.73 for irritation. Means of the within-subjects correlation coefficients were, respectively, 0.51, 0.37, 0.47, and 0.25. Correlations between smelling and vaping varied across individuals (ranging from -0.27 to 0.87) and flavors (-0.33 to 0.81). Correlations and mean liking ratings did not differ between smokers and nonsmokers.
conclusionsThe strong group-level correlations between orthonasal smelling and vaping e-liquid flavors justify the use of smelling instead of vaping in future research. For example, smelling could be used to investigate differences in e-liquid flavor liking between (potential) user groups such as nicotine-naïve adolescents. The more modest within-subject correlations and variation across individuals and flavors merit caution in using smelling instead of vaping in other types of experiments. IMPLICATIONS: This study supports the use of orthonasal smelling (instead of vaping) e-liquids to measure hedonic flavor perception in some studies where vaping would be inappropriate or not feasible. Examples of research situations where smelling e-liquids may be sufficient are (1) investigating nicotine-naïve individuals (ie, nonusers), (2) investigating individuals under legal age for e-cigarette use (ie, youth and adolescents), (3) investigating brain responses to exposure of e-liquid flavors using functional magnetic resonance imaging or electroencephalogram, and (4) comparing hedonic flavor assessment between adolescent nonusers and current smokers to provide support for future regulations on e-liquid flavors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.