INTRODUCTION: E-cigarette e-liquid nicotine concentrations typically are labeled as mg/mL or percent nicotine. We examined whether these metrics accurately convey nicotine strength to young e-cigarette users and if youth can compare concentrations presented in mg/mL and percent nicotine. AIMS AND METHODS: Eight hundred and twenty-one adolescent and young adult e-cigarette users participated in the survey. Participants rated nicotine concentration strengths presented as mg/mL (0-60 mg/mL) and percent nicotine (0%-6%) from "no nicotine" to "very high nicotine." Participants also viewed pairs of nicotine concentrations (eg, 18 mg/mL vs. 5%) and indicated which concentration was stronger or if the concentrations were equivalent. RESULTS: On average, participants correctly identified 5.92 (2.68) of 18 nicotine strengths, correctly identifying strengths labeled as mg/mL (3.47 [2.03]) more often than percent nicotine (2.45 [1.38], p < .001). Excluding nicotine-free, participants rated concentrations presented as mg/mL as stronger, more addictive, and more harmful than equivalent concentrations presented as percent nicotine. Participants seldom correctly identified that one concentration was stronger or that both were equivalent (7.58 [5.88] of 19 pairings), although they more often correctly identified the stronger concentration when it was presented in mg/mL (4.02 [SD = 3.01]) than in percent nicotine (2.53 [2.73], p < .001). The most consistent predictor of correct answers on these tasks was familiarity with using both products labeled as mg/mL and labeled as percent nicotine. CONCLUSIONS: Young e-cigarette users had difficulty understanding nicotine concentrations labeled using the most common metrics, raising concerns about inadvertent exposure to high nicotine levels and suggesting that a more intuitive labeling approach is needed. IMPLICATIONS: This study extends prior work showing that young e-cigarette users often are uncertain whether the e-liquids they use contain nicotine by demonstrating that adolescents and young adults have difficulty understanding nicotine concentrations labeled using the two most common metrics (mg/mL and percent nicotine). Errors generally underestimated nicotine strength, and users were not able to accurately compare nicotine concentrations presented as mg/mL and percent nicotine. Difficulty understanding labeling metrics persisted even after accounting for user characteristics like age and vaping experience, suggesting that a novel, easy to understand labeling system is needed to convey information about nicotine strength accurately.
INTRODUCTION: E-cigarette e-liquid nicotine concentrations typically are labeled as mg/mL or percent nicotine. We examined whether these metrics accurately convey nicotine strength to young e-cigarette users and if youth can compare concentrations presented in mg/mL and percent nicotine. AIMS AND METHODS: Eight hundred and twenty-one adolescent and young adult e-cigarette users participated in the survey. Participants rated nicotine concentration strengths presented as mg/mL (0-60 mg/mL) and percent nicotine (0%-6%) from "no nicotine" to "very high nicotine." Participants also viewed pairs of nicotine concentrations (eg, 18 mg/mL vs. 5%) and indicated which concentration was stronger or if the concentrations were equivalent. RESULTS: On average, participants correctly identified 5.92 (2.68) of 18 nicotine strengths, correctly identifying strengths labeled as mg/mL (3.47 [2.03]) more often than percent nicotine (2.45 [1.38], p < .001). Excluding nicotine-free, participants rated concentrations presented as mg/mL as stronger, more addictive, and more harmful than equivalent concentrations presented as percent nicotine. Participants seldom correctly identified that one concentration was stronger or that both were equivalent (7.58 [5.88] of 19 pairings), although they more often correctly identified the stronger concentration when it was presented in mg/mL (4.02 [SD = 3.01]) than in percent nicotine (2.53 [2.73], p < .001). The most consistent predictor of correct answers on these tasks was familiarity with using both products labeled as mg/mL and labeled as percent nicotine. CONCLUSIONS: Young e-cigarette users had difficulty understanding nicotine concentrations labeled using the most common metrics, raising concerns about inadvertent exposure to high nicotine levels and suggesting that a more intuitive labeling approach is needed. IMPLICATIONS: This study extends prior work showing that young e-cigarette users often are uncertain whether the e-liquids they use contain nicotine by demonstrating that adolescents and young adults have difficulty understanding nicotine concentrations labeled using the two most common metrics (mg/mL and percent nicotine). Errors generally underestimated nicotine strength, and users were not able to accurately compare nicotine concentrations presented as mg/mL and percent nicotine. Difficulty understanding labeling metrics persisted even after accounting for user characteristics like age and vaping experience, suggesting that a novel, easy to understand labeling system is needed to convey information about nicotine strength accurately.
Authors: Jeffrey G Willett; Morgane Bennett; Elizabeth C Hair; Haijuan Xiao; Marisa S Greenberg; Emily Harvey; Jennifer Cantrell; Donna Vallone Journal: Tob Control Date: 2018-04-18 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Barrett H Raymond; Katreena Collette-Merrill; Roger G Harrison; Sabrina Jarvis; Ryan Jay Rasmussen Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2018 Mar/Apr Impact factor: 3.702
Authors: Adam M Leventhal; David R Strong; Matthew G Kirkpatrick; Jennifer B Unger; Steve Sussman; Nathaniel R Riggs; Matthew D Stone; Rubin Khoddam; Jonathan M Samet; Janet Audrain-McGovern Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Mohamad Sleiman; Jennifer M Logue; V Nahuel Montesinos; Marion L Russell; Marta I Litter; Lara A Gundel; Hugo Destaillats Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2016-07-27 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Jessica L Barrington-Trimis; Robert Urman; Kiros Berhane; Jennifer B Unger; Tess Boley Cruz; Mary Ann Pentz; Jonathan M Samet; Adam M Leventhal; Rob McConnell Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2016-06-13 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Mohammadhassan Mirbolouk; Paniz Charkhchi; Sina Kianoush; S M Iftekhar Uddin; Olusola A Orimoloye; Rana Jaber; Aruni Bhatnagar; Emelia J Benjamin; Michael E Hall; Andrew P DeFilippis; Wasim Maziak; Khurram Nasir; Michael J Blaha Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2018-08-28 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Teresa W Wang; Kat Asman; Andrea S Gentzke; Karen A Cullen; Enver Holder-Hayes; Carolyn Reyes-Guzman; Ahmed Jamal; Linda Neff; Brian A King Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2018-11-09 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Meghan E Morean; Olivia A Wackowski; Thomas Eissenberg; Cristine D Delnevo; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin; Ralitza Gueorguieva Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2022-06-15 Impact factor: 5.825
Authors: Elise E DeVito; Tessa Fagle; Alicia M Allen; Raina D Pang; Nicole Petersen; Philip H Smith; Andrea H Weinberger Journal: Curr Addict Rep Date: 2021-07-21
Authors: Elizabeth Crespi; Jeffrey J Hardesty; Qinghua Nian; Joshua Sinamo; Kevin Welding; Ryan David Kennedy; Joanna E Cohen Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-04-27 Impact factor: 7.076
Authors: Devin M McCauley; Shivani Mathur Gaiha; Lauren Kass Lempert; Bonnie Halpern-Felsher Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-18 Impact factor: 4.614