Tracy T Smith1,2, Bryan W Heckman1,2, Amy E Wahlquist2,3, K Michael Cummings1,2,3, Matthew J Carpenter1,2,3. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. 2. Cancer Control and Prevention, Hollings Cancer Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. 3. Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) vary on a wide range of characteristics that may affect reinforcement value and use. One characteristic is the ratio of two solvents commonly used in most e-liquids: propylene glycol (PG) and vegetable glycerin (VG). The goal of this study was to understand how PG/VG ratio affects subjective effects, reinforcement value, and tobacco use patterns among current smokers who try using ENDS. AIMS AND METHODS: Current smokers with minimal ENDS use history (n = 30) sampled, in a double-blind fashion, three different e-liquids that varied in PG/VG ratio (70/30, 50/50, 0/100) while holding constant other aspects of the e-liquid and ENDS. Participants tried each e-liquid before rating the subjective effects on a modified version of the Cigarette Evaluation Questionnaire. Reinforcement value was assessed using a preference task where participants chose between the three e-liquids. The impact of each e-liquid on cigarette reinforcement was assessed using a modified version of the Cigarette Purchase Task. Participants were randomly assigned to receive one e-liquid to take home for 1 week. RESULTS:PG/VG ratio had minimal impact on most of the tested outcomes. Participants rated the highest PG concentration as having a stronger "throat hit" than the other two. There was no significant difference between the number of participants who preferred each of the PG/VG ratios in the preference assessment. PG/VG ratio did not affect cigarette or ENDS use during the sampling week. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that PG/VG ratio has minimal impact on subjective effects and reinforcement value in ENDS naive current smokers. IMPLICATIONS: These data suggest that PG/VG ratio, within the range that is commonly used, has minimal impact on subjective effects, reinforcement value, or uptake in current smokers with minimal ENDS experience.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) vary on a wide range of characteristics that may affect reinforcement value and use. One characteristic is the ratio of two solvents commonly used in most e-liquids: propylene glycol (PG) and vegetable glycerin (VG). The goal of this study was to understand how PG/VG ratio affects subjective effects, reinforcement value, and tobacco use patterns among current smokers who try using ENDS. AIMS AND METHODS: Current smokers with minimal ENDS use history (n = 30) sampled, in a double-blind fashion, three different e-liquids that varied in PG/VG ratio (70/30, 50/50, 0/100) while holding constant other aspects of the e-liquid and ENDS. Participants tried each e-liquid before rating the subjective effects on a modified version of the Cigarette Evaluation Questionnaire. Reinforcement value was assessed using a preference task where participants chose between the three e-liquids. The impact of each e-liquid on cigarette reinforcement was assessed using a modified version of the Cigarette Purchase Task. Participants were randomly assigned to receive one e-liquid to take home for 1 week. RESULTS:PG/VG ratio had minimal impact on most of the tested outcomes. Participants rated the highest PG concentration as having a stronger "throat hit" than the other two. There was no significant difference between the number of participants who preferred each of the PG/VG ratios in the preference assessment. PG/VG ratio did not affect cigarette or ENDS use during the sampling week. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that PG/VG ratio has minimal impact on subjective effects and reinforcement value in ENDS naive current smokers. IMPLICATIONS: These data suggest that PG/VG ratio, within the range that is commonly used, has minimal impact on subjective effects, reinforcement value, or uptake in current smokers with minimal ENDS experience.
Authors: Joseph C Cappelleri; Andrew G Bushmakin; Christine L Baker; Elizabeth Merikle; Abayomi O Olufade; David G Gilbert Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2006-07-27 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: S Sean Hu; Linda Neff; Israel T Agaku; Shanna Cox; Hannah R Day; Enver Holder-Hayes; Brian A King Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2016-07-15 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: David J Nutt; Lawrence D Phillips; David Balfour; H Valerie Curran; Martin Dockrell; Jonathan Foulds; Karl Fagerstrom; Kgosi Letlape; Riccardo Polosa; John Ramsey; David Sweanor Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-03-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Alexa A Lopez; Marzena M Hiler; Eric K Soule; Carolina P Ramôa; Nareg V Karaoghlanian; Thokozeni Lipato; Alison B Breland; Alan L Shihadeh; Thomas Eissenberg Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Theodore L Wagener; Evan L Floyd; Irina Stepanov; Leslie M Driskill; Summer G Frank; Ellen Meier; Eleanor L Leavens; Alayna P Tackett; Neil Molina; Lurdes Queimado Journal: Tob Control Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Vani Nath Simmons; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Paul T Harrell; Lauren R Meltzer; John B Correa; Marina Unrod; Thomas H Brandon Journal: Addict Res Theory Date: 2016-02-23
Authors: Blair Coleman; Brian Rostron; Sarah E Johnson; Alexander Persoskie; Jennifer Pearson; Cassandra Stanton; Kelvin Choi; Gabriella Anic; Maciej Lukasz Goniewicz; Kenneth Michael Cummings; Karin A Kasza; Marushka L Silveira; Cristine Delnevo; Raymond Niaura; David B Abrams; Heather L Kimmel; Nicolette Borek; Wilson M Compton; Andrew Hyland Journal: Tob Control Date: 2018-04-25 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Cristina Miliano; E Reilly Scott; Laura B Murdaugh; Emma R Gnatowski; Christine L Faunce; Megan S Anderson; Malissa M Reyes; Ann M Gregus; Matthew W Buczynski Journal: J Neurosci Methods Date: 2019-10-12 Impact factor: 2.390
Authors: Natalia Peraza; Mariel S Bello; Sara J Schiff; Junhan Cho; Yi Zhang; Carly Callahan; Alayna Tackett; Adam M Leventhal Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2021-09-21 Impact factor: 4.492