Smoking Topography | ScienceGate

IntroductionOne possible reason for the rapid proliferation of waterpipe (WP) smoking is the pervasive use of flavoured WP tobacco. To begin to understand the impact of WP tobacco flavours, the current study examined the impact of a preferred WP tobacco flavour compared with a non-preferred tobacco flavoured control on user’s smoking behaviour, toxicant exposure and subjective smoking experience.MethodThirty-six current WP smokers completed two, 45-minute ad libitum smoking sessions (preferred flavour vs non-preferred tobacco flavour control) in a randomised cross-over design. Participants completed survey questionnaires assessing subjective smoking experience, exhaled carbon monoxide (eCO) testing, and provided blood samples for monitoring plasma nicotine. WP smoking topography was measured continuously throughout the smoking session.ResultsWhile participants reported an enhanced subjective smoking experience including greater interest in continued use, greater pleasure derived from smoking, increased liking and enjoyment, and willingness to continue use after smoking their preferred WP tobacco flavour (p values <0.05), no significant differences were observed in nicotine and carbon monoxide boost between flavour preparations. Greater average puff volume (p=0.018) was observed during the non-preferred flavour session. While not significant, measures of flow rate, interpuff interval (IPI), and total number of puffs were trending towards significance (p values <0.10), with decreased IPI and greater total number of puffs during the preferred flavour session.DiscussionThe current study is the first to examine flavours in WP smoking by measuring preferred versus control preparations to understand the impact on subjective experience, smoking behaviour and toxicant exposure. The pattern of results suggests that even this relatively minor manipulation resulted in significant changes in subjective experience. These results indicate a possible need for regulations restricting flavours in WP tobacco as with combustible cigarettes.

Download Full-text

Effects of suppressing the urge to drink on smoking topography: A preliminary study.

Psychology of Addictive Behaviors ◽

10.1037/0893-164x.11.2.115 ◽

1997 ◽

Vol 11 (2) ◽

pp. 115-123 ◽

Cited By ~ 19

Author(s):

Tibor P. Palfai ◽

Suzanne M. Colby ◽

Peter M. Monti ◽

Damaris J. Rohsenow

Keyword(s):

Smoking Topography ◽

Preliminary Study

Download Full-text

Impact of flavors and humectants on waterpipe tobacco smoking topography, subjective effects, toxicant exposure and intentions for continued use

Tobacco Control ◽

10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2019-055509 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. tobaccocontrol-2019-055509 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Theodore L Wagener ◽

Eleanor L S Leavens ◽

Toral Mehta ◽

Jessica Hale ◽

Alan Shihadeh ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Subjective Effects ◽

Smoking Behaviour ◽

Toxicant Exposure ◽

Smoking Topography ◽

Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking ◽

Exhaled Carbon Monoxide ◽

Continued Use ◽

Ad Libitum ◽

Post Hoc ◽

Continue Smoking

IntroductionThe present study examined how the lack of characterising flavours and low levels of humectants may affect users’ waterpipe tobacco (WT) smoking topography, subjective effects, toxicant exposure and intentions for continued use.Methods89 WT smokers completed four ad libitum smoking sessions (characterising flavor/high humectant (+F+H); characterising flavor/low humectant (+F-H); no characterising flavor/high humectant (-F+H); no characterising flavor/low humectant (-F-H)) in a randomised cross-over design. WT was commercially available; same brand but nicotine levels were not held constant. A subsample (n=50) completed a standardised, 10-puff session preceding ad libitum smoking. Participants completed questionnaires, exhaled carbon monoxide (eCO) testing and provided blood samples for plasma nicotine. Smoking topography was measured throughout the session. Post hoc analyses showed that -F+H and -F-H did not differ significantly in humectant levels. Therefore, these groups were collapsed in analyses (-F-H).ResultsWT smokers reported significantly greater satisfaction, liking, enjoyment and greater intentions for continued use when smoking +F+H compared with other WT products, with -F-H receiving the lowest ratings. Significant differences in topography were observed during standardised and ad libitum sessions, with the -F-H preparation leading to greater total inhaled volume and eCO boost, but lower nicotine boost compared with +F+H (all p<0.05).DiscussionThe findings demonstrate the importance of flavours and humectants on improving WT smoking experience and increasing the likelihood that users will want to initiate and continue smoking. Moreover, it demonstrates that flavours and humectants influence smoking behaviour and toxicant exposure in some unexpected ways that are important for regulatory efforts.

Download Full-text

Differences in Smoking Topography and Subjective Responses to Smoking Among African American and White Menthol and Non-Menthol Smokers

Nicotine & Tobacco Research ◽

10.1093/ntr/ntaa079 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 22 (10) ◽

pp. 1718-1725 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Tommy Gunawan ◽

Laura M Juliano

Keyword(s):

African American ◽

Health Disparities ◽

Nicotine Dependence ◽

Smoking Behavior ◽

Sensory Stimulation ◽

Smoke Exposure ◽

Interactive Effects ◽

Future Research ◽

Subjective Responses ◽

Smoking Topography

Abstract Introduction It has been suggested that menthol increases exposure to harmful elements of smoking and makes smoking more rewarding, easier to initiate, and harder to quit. Isolating the direct effects of menthol is challenging as African American (AA) race and menthol preference are highly overlapping. This study evaluated smoking behavior and subjective responses among a balanced sample of AA and white menthol and non-menthol smokers. In addition, smoking topography (ST) was compared to naturalistic smoking (NS) and interactions with menthol and race were explored. Aims and Methods Smokers (N = 100) smoked and rated their preferred brand of cigarettes via ST or NS during two laboratory visits (counterbalanced). Results Controlling for baseline differences among the groups (eg, nicotine dependence), menthol smokers took shorter and smaller puffs and AA smokers took longer puffs, but there were no differences in total puff volume, carbon monoxide, or other ST parameters. Menthol smokers reported greater urge reduction and lower sensory stimulation. The smoking method (ST vs. NS) had no effects on smoking behavior or exposure. Cigarettes smoked via ST were rated stronger. Differences in satisfaction based on the smoking method interacted with race and menthol status. Ratings of aversion differed by race and menthol status. Conclusions Menthol was not associated with increased smoke exposure or reward (except for urge reduction). ST caused minimal experimental reactivity relative to NS. Additional research that isolates the effects of menthol and examines potential interactive effects with race and other variables is needed to better understand its role in smoking-related health disparities. Implications Menthol and non-menthol smokers differed on some demographic variables and menthol preference was associated with greater nicotine dependence and greater urge reduction after smoking. Menthol was not associated with greater smoke exposure. Future research that investigates the unique risks associated with menthol and examines potential interactive effects with race and other related variables is warranted to better understand the role of menthol in smoking-related health disparities.

Download Full-text