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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schneller, Liane, Mahoney, Martin, Bansal-Travers, Maansi, McCann, Susan, O’Connor, Richard
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