RESEARCH PAPER
Impact of menthol delivery methods on smoker sensory perceptions
 
More details
Hide details
1
University of Rochester Medical Center, New York, United States
2
Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, United States
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Liane Schneller   

Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, United States
Publication date: 2020-04-29
Submission date: 2020-01-06
Final revision date: 2020-02-18
Acceptance date: 2020-02-25
 
Tob. Prev. Cessation 2020;6(April):26
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
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.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none was reported.
FUNDING
Funding for this study was provided, in part, by the Mark Diamond Research Fund of the Graduate Student Association at the University at Buffalo, The State University of New York (L. Schneller, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY), the Mark Hamister-Christopher Lee Awards for Doctoral Student Research of the Roswell Park Alliance Foundation (L. Schneller, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY), and by the National Cancer Institute via the Roswell Park Cancer Center Support Grant (P30CA016056).
PROVENANCE AND PEER REVIEW
Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
 
REFERENCES (15)
1.
Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee. Menthol cigarettes and public health: review of the scientific evidence and recommendations. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration; 2011. https://wayback.archive-it.org.... Accessed January 27, 2020.
 
2.
World Health Organization. Banning Menthol in Tobacco Products. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2016. https://apps.who.int/iris/bits.... Accessed February 18, 2020.
 
3.
Villanti AC, Mowery PD, Delnevo CD, Niaura RS, Abrans DB, Giovino GA. Changes in the prevalence and correlates of menthol cigarette use in the USA, 2004-2014. Tob Control. 2016;25(Suppl 2):ii14-ii20. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053329
 
4.
GovTrack. H.R. 1256 (111th): Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. https://www.govtrack.us/congre.... Published 2009. Accessed February 18, 2020.
 
5.
RJ Reynolds. Camel Crush: Pleasure on Demand. https://www.industrydocuments..... Accessed January 27, 2020.
 
6.
Strasser AA, Ashare RL, Kaufman M, Tang KZ, Mesaros AC, Blair IA. The effect of menthol on cigarette smoking behaviors, biomarkers and subjective responses. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013;22(3):382-389. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-1097
 
7.
Schneller LM, Bansal-Travers M, Mahoney M, McCann S, O’Connor R. Menthol, Nicotine, and Flavoring Content of Capsule Cigarettes in the US. Tob Regul Sci. 2020;6(3):196-204. doi:10.18001/TRS.6.3.4
 
8.
Tiffany ST, Drobes DJ. The development and initial validation of a questionnaire on smoking urges. Br J Addict. 1991;86(11):1467-1476. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1991.tb01732.x
 
9.
Hughes JR, Hatsukami D. Signs and symptoms of tobacco withdrawal. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1986;43(3):289-294. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1986.01800030107013
 
10.
Cappelleri JC, Bushmakin AG, Baker CL, Merikle E, Olufade AO, Gilbert DG. Confirmatory factor analyses and reliability of the modified cigarette evaluation questionnaire. Addict Behav. 2007;32(5):912-923. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.06.028
 
11.
Hanson K, O'Connor R, Hatsukami D. Measures for assessing subjective effects of potential reduced-exposure products. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18(12):3209-3224. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-0971
 
12.
Strasser AA, Tang KZ, Sanborn PM, Zhou JY, Kozlowski LT. Behavioral filter vent blocking on the first cigarette of the day predicts which smokers of light cigarettes will increase smoke exposure from blocked vents. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2009;17(6):405-412. doi:10.1037/a0017649
 
13.
Hatsukami DK, Vogel RI, Severson HH, Jensen JA, O'Connor RJ. Perceived Health Risks of Snus and Medicinal Nicotine Products. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016;18(5):794-800. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntv200.
 
14.
Federal Trade Commission. Federal trade commission cigarette report for 2016. https://www.ftc.gov/system/fil.... Published 2008. Accessed January 28, 2020.
 
15.
Villanti AC, Collins LK, Niaura RS, Gagosian SY, Abrams DB. Menthol cigarettes and the public health standard: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):983. doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4987-z
 
eISSN:2459-3087