ArticleTobacco control2023
Flavours and flavourings in waterpipe products: a comparison between tobacco, herbal molasses and steam stones.
Article in Tobacco control, 2023. 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.
- Mapping the flavoring landscape: a comparative analysis of tobacco and related products.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2026Article
- Coolants, organic acids, flavourings and other additives that facilitate inhalation of tobacco and nicotine products: implications for regulation.Tobacco control · 2026Review
- Across the world availability of flavour accessories for tobacco products.Tobacco control · 2025Article
- Toxicity of waterpipe tobacco smoking: the role of flavors, sweeteners, humectants, and charcoal.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2024Review
- Menthol and related compounds in waterpipe products.Tobacco prevention & cessation · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectivesFlavoured products are especially appealing to youth and contribute to the onset of waterpipe smoking and continued use of waterpipe tobacco. The goal of database and chemical analysis was to provide a clear overview of commonly used flavours and flavourings in tobacco and related waterpipe products, that is, herbal molasses and steam stones.
methodsIn 2019, 249 waterpipe tobacco products were registered in the European Common Entry Gate by manufacturers to be marketed in The Netherlands. Flavour categories were assigned to the registered products based on their brand names and product descriptions. Nicotine and eleven 1111 flavourings were identified and quantified in waterpipe tobacco (n=8), herbal molasses (n=7) and steam stones (n=4) by extraction and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis.
resultsFlavour categories could be assigned to 237 of 249 registered waterpipe tobacco products. Eight flavour main categories and 48 unique subcategories were identified and presented in a flavour wheel. All registered waterpipe tobacco products were flavoured, and the majority (78%) was fruit flavoured. Herbal molasses contained similar median flavouring levels, and steam stones contained lower median levels compared with waterpipe tobacco. Flavourings in waterpipe products were almost exclusively fruity and sweet, often in combination with menthol/mint flavourings.
conclusionsThis study is the first to present a waterpipe tobacco flavour wheel, providing a quick overview of waterpipe tobacco flavours and thereby aiding communication among experts around the globe. GC-MS analysis revealed that the most prevalent flavourings are present in similar levels in herbal and tobacco waterpipe products. Banning flavourings in all waterpipe products would be a good strategy to reduce waterpipe smoking among youth.
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.