Cargando…
Impact of menthol delivery methods on smoker sensory perceptions
INTRODUCTION: Menthol can be added to cigarettes in several ways; these different delivery methods of menthol may lead to changes in sensory attributes, as well as perceived risk and appeal of these products. METHODS: Using a randomized, controlled study design, 18 current, established menthol smoke...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
European Publishing on behalf of the European Network for Smoking and Tobacco Prevention (ENSP)
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7291915/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32548363 http://dx.doi.org/10.18332/tpc/118437 |
_version_ | 1783545995316953088 |
---|---|
author | Schneller, Liane Mahoney, Martin Bansal-Travers, Maansi McCann, Susan O’Connor, Richard |
author_facet | Schneller, Liane Mahoney, Martin Bansal-Travers, Maansi McCann, Susan O’Connor, Richard |
author_sort | Schneller, Liane |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Menthol can be added to cigarettes in several ways; these different delivery methods of menthol may lead to changes in sensory attributes, as well as perceived risk and appeal of these products. METHODS: Using a randomized, controlled study design, 18 current, established menthol smokers were asked to sample Camel Crush and Camel Menthol cigarette products, crushed and uncrushed. Smoking behavior, exhaled carbon monoxide, subjective ratings, and perceived risk measures were assessed for each product. RESULTS: Cigarette Evaluation Scale relief of craving scores for participants’ preferred brand (mean: 5.3, SE: 0.3) were significantly higher (p=0.012) than Camel Menthol crushed (mean: 4.6, SE: 0.3) as were the Sensory Scale satisfaction scores (preferred brand mean: 6.9, SE: 0.7 compared to Camel Menthol crushed mean: 5.1, SE: 0.6; p=0.004). In addition, the average Sensory Scale smoke strength scores for participants’ preferred brand (mean: 6.9, SE: 0.5) was also significantly higher than Camel Crush crushed (mean: 5.0, SE: 0.5; p=0.022). There were no significant differences in smoking topography measures, CO boosts, or perceived risk between Camel Crush or Camel Menthol products. CONCLUSIONS: The delivery method and amount of menthol present in cigarettes did not appear to affect short-term smoking behavior, sensory perceptions, or perceived product risk among a small sample of current established adult menthol smokers. It is possible that consumers of cigarette products may be attracted to the innovative technology of the crushable filter capsule as opposed to the taste experience, however, further research is needed. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7291915 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | European Publishing on behalf of the European Network for Smoking and Tobacco Prevention (ENSP) |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-72919152020-06-15 Impact of menthol delivery methods on smoker sensory perceptions Schneller, Liane Mahoney, Martin Bansal-Travers, Maansi McCann, Susan O’Connor, Richard Tob Prev Cessat Research Paper INTRODUCTION: Menthol can be added to cigarettes in several ways; these different delivery methods of menthol may lead to changes in sensory attributes, as well as perceived risk and appeal of these products. METHODS: Using a randomized, controlled study design, 18 current, established menthol smokers were asked to sample Camel Crush and Camel Menthol cigarette products, crushed and uncrushed. Smoking behavior, exhaled carbon monoxide, subjective ratings, and perceived risk measures were assessed for each product. RESULTS: Cigarette Evaluation Scale relief of craving scores for participants’ preferred brand (mean: 5.3, SE: 0.3) were significantly higher (p=0.012) than Camel Menthol crushed (mean: 4.6, SE: 0.3) as were the Sensory Scale satisfaction scores (preferred brand mean: 6.9, SE: 0.7 compared to Camel Menthol crushed mean: 5.1, SE: 0.6; p=0.004). In addition, the average Sensory Scale smoke strength scores for participants’ preferred brand (mean: 6.9, SE: 0.5) was also significantly higher than Camel Crush crushed (mean: 5.0, SE: 0.5; p=0.022). There were no significant differences in smoking topography measures, CO boosts, or perceived risk between Camel Crush or Camel Menthol products. CONCLUSIONS: The delivery method and amount of menthol present in cigarettes did not appear to affect short-term smoking behavior, sensory perceptions, or perceived product risk among a small sample of current established adult menthol smokers. It is possible that consumers of cigarette products may be attracted to the innovative technology of the crushable filter capsule as opposed to the taste experience, however, further research is needed. European Publishing on behalf of the European Network for Smoking and Tobacco Prevention (ENSP) 2020-04-29 /pmc/articles/PMC7291915/ /pubmed/32548363 http://dx.doi.org/10.18332/tpc/118437 Text en © 2020 Schneller L http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
spellingShingle | Research Paper Schneller, Liane Mahoney, Martin Bansal-Travers, Maansi McCann, Susan O’Connor, Richard Impact of menthol delivery methods on smoker sensory perceptions |
title | Impact of menthol delivery methods on smoker sensory perceptions |
title_full | Impact of menthol delivery methods on smoker sensory perceptions |
title_fullStr | Impact of menthol delivery methods on smoker sensory perceptions |
title_full_unstemmed | Impact of menthol delivery methods on smoker sensory perceptions |
title_short | Impact of menthol delivery methods on smoker sensory perceptions |
title_sort | impact of menthol delivery methods on smoker sensory perceptions |
topic | Research Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7291915/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32548363 http://dx.doi.org/10.18332/tpc/118437 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT schnellerliane impactofmentholdeliverymethodsonsmokersensoryperceptions AT mahoneymartin impactofmentholdeliverymethodsonsmokersensoryperceptions AT bansaltraversmaansi impactofmentholdeliverymethodsonsmokersensoryperceptions AT mccannsusan impactofmentholdeliverymethodsonsmokersensoryperceptions AT oconnorrichard impactofmentholdeliverymethodsonsmokersensoryperceptions |