Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2017 Oct;25(5):380-392.
doi: 10.1037/pha0000140.

Electronic cigarette user plasma nicotine concentration, puff topography, heart rate, and subjective effects: Influence of liquid nicotine concentration and user experience

Marzena Hiler  1 , Alison Breland  1 , Tory Spindle  1 , Sarah Maloney  1 , Thokozeni Lipato  1 , Nareg Karaoghlanian  2 , Alan Shihadeh  1 , Alexa Lopez  1 , Carolina Ramôa  1 , Thomas Eissenberg  1
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Electronic cigarette user plasma nicotine concentration, puff topography, heart rate, and subjective effects: Influence of liquid nicotine concentration and user experience

Marzena Hiler et al. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2017 Oct.

Abstract

Electronic cigarette (ECIG) nicotine delivery and other effects may depend on liquid nicotine concentration and user experience. This study is the first to systematically examine the influence of ECIG liquid nicotine concentration and user experience on nicotine delivery, heart rate, puff topography, and subjective effects. Thirty-three ECIG-experienced individuals and 31 ECIG-naïve cigarette smokers completed 4 laboratory conditions consisting of 2, 10-puff bouts (30-sec interpuff interval) with a 3.3-V ECIG battery attached to a 1.5-Ω "cartomizer" (7.3 W) filled with 1 ml ECIG liquid. Conditions differed by liquid nicotine concentration: 0, 8, 18, or 36 mg/ml. Participants' plasma nicotine concentration was directly related to liquid nicotine concentration and dependent on user experience, with significantly higher mean plasma nicotine increases observed in ECIG-experienced individuals relative to ECIG-naïve smokers in each active nicotine condition. When using 36 mg/ml, mean plasma nicotine increase for ECIG-experienced individuals was 17.9 ng/ml (SD = 17.2) and 6.9 (SD = 7.1; p < .05) for ECIG-naïve individuals. Between-group differences were likely due to longer puffs taken by experienced ECIG users: collapsed across condition, mean puff duration was 5.6 sec (SD = 3.0) for ECIG-experienced and 2.9 (SD = 1.5) for ECIG-naïve individuals. ECIG use also suppressed nicotine/tobacco abstinence symptoms in both groups; the magnitude of abstinence symptom suppression depended on liquid nicotine concentration and user experience. These and other recent results suggest that policies intended to limit ECIG nicotine delivery will need to account for factors in addition to liquid nicotine concentration (e.g., device power and user behavior). (PsycINFO Database Record

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Drs. Eissenberg and Shihadeh are paid consultants in litigation against the tobacco industry and are named on a patent application for a device that measures the puffing behavior of electronic cigarette users. Other authors have no conflicts to report.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Mean ± plasma nicotine boost for 33 ECIG-experienced and 31 ECIG-naïve participants. Arrows indicate the onset of each 10-puff ECIG-use bout (30 sec IPI). Filled symbols indicate significant difference from baseline (−5 time point), asterisks (*) indicate significant differences from the 0 mg/ml condition at that time point and pound (#) symbols indicate significant differences between the 8 and 36 mg/ml condition at that timepoint (ps < .05; Tukey’s HSD). Plus signs (+) indicate significant between group differences at that time point for that concentration (only conducted on timepoints immediately post-bout; independent t-tests; ps < .05).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Mean ± subjective ratings for 33 ECIG-experienced and 31 ECIG-naïve participants. Arrows and symbols are as indicated in Figure 1.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Adkison SE, O’Connor RJ, Bansal-Travers M, Hyland A, Borland R, Yong HH, Cummings M, McNeil A, Thrasher JF, Hammond D, Fong GT. Electronic nicotine delivery systems: international tobacco control four-country survey. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2013;44(3):207–215. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.10.018. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ashton H, Stepney R, Thompson JW. Self-titration by cigarette smokers. BMJ. 1979;2(6186):357–360. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.2.6186.357. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Blank MD, Breland AB, Cobb CO, Spindle T, Ramôa C, Eissenberg T. Clinical laboratory evaluation of e-cigarettes: methodological challenges. Tobacco Regulatory Science. 2016;2(4):426–439. doi: 10.18001/TRS.2.4.12. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Blank MD, Disharoon S, Eissenberg T. Comparison of methods for measurement of smoking behavior: mouthpiece-based computerized devices versus direct observation. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 2009;11(7):96–903. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntp083. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Breland A, Soule E, Lopez A, Ramôa C, El-Hellani A, Eissenberg T. Electronic cigarettes: what are they and what do they do? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences; 2016. In press. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types