ArticleTobacco regulatory science2018
Can Established Vapers Distinguish Different PG:VG Ratios? A Pilot Study.
Article in Tobacco regulatory science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multidisciplinary approaches in electronic nicotine delivery systems pulmonary toxicology: emergence of living and non-living bioinspired engineered systems.Communications engineering · 2024Review
- In vitro toxicological evaluation of aerosols generated by a 4th generation vaping device using nicotine salts in an air-liquid interface system.Respiratory research · 2024Article
- Chemosensory Contributions of E-Cigarette Additives on Nicotine Use.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Review
- An Unrecognized Hazard in E-Cigarette Vapor: Preliminary Quantification of Methylglyoxal Formation from Propylene Glycol in E-Cigarettes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Method Validation Approaches for Analysis of Constituents in ENDS.Tobacco regulatory science · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesUsing the triangle test, this study explores whether established vapers can distinguish small differences between e-liquid propylene glycol: vegetable glycerin (PG:VG) ratios at fixed levels of nicotine and flavor, in order to examine the extent to which solvent ratios affects sensory experiences.
methodsWatermelon flavored e-liquids (16mg/mL nicotine) used for this study differed in the ratio of PG:VG (30:70, 50:50; 70:30). Current vapers were randomized to one of 3 possible study conditions differing by PG:VG ratio. Participants sampled products following the triangle test, which presents 3 blinded products, 2 of which are identical. They were asked to identify and rate the 'odd' product.
resultsOf the 14 participants who completed the study, 34.9% were able to determine the 'odd' product. Ratings on the subjective response scales for the 'odd' product were quite low. Aversion scores differed significantly by correct identification of the 'odd' product (p = .045).
conclusionsEstablished vapers in this study were unable to consistently distinguish PG:VG ratios, even for relatively large differences, and correct identification inconsistently related to subjective effects ratings. These preliminary findings suggest that the PG:VG ratio may not be a salient feature of vaping.
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.