Next Article in Journal
Moderating Effects of Self-Esteem on the Relationship between Communication Anxiety and Academic Performance among Female Health College Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Next Article in Special Issue
E-Cigarette Retailers’ Use of Instagram in New Zealand: A Content Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Subjective Socioeconomic Status, Class Mobility and Health Disparities of Older People
Previous Article in Special Issue
Smokers’ Engagement Behavior on Facebook: Verbalizing and Visual Expressing the Smoking Cessation Process
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Expanding the E-Liquid Flavor Wheel: Classification of Emerging E-Liquid Flavors in Online Vape Shops

1
Center for Tobacco Research, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH 43214, USA
2
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
3
Department of Biomedical Informatics, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
4
Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(21), 13953; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192113953
Submission received: 28 September 2022 / Revised: 19 October 2022 / Accepted: 25 October 2022 / Published: 27 October 2022

Abstract

:
Introduction: Electronic cigarettes are the most popular tobacco product among U.S. youth, and over 80% of current youth users of e-cigarettes use flavored e-cigarettes, with fruit, mint/menthol, and candy/sweets being the most popular flavors. A number of new e-liquid flavors are currently emerging in the online e-cigarette market. Menthol and other flavored e-cigarettes could incentivize combustible tobacco smokers to transition to e-cigarette use. Methods: From February to May 2021, we scraped data of over 14,000 e-liquid products, including detailed descriptions of their flavors, from five national online vape shops. Building upon the existing e-liquid flavor wheel, we expanded the semantic databases (i.e., key terms) to identify flavors using WordNet—a major database for keyword matching and group discussion. Using the enriched databases, we classified 14,000+ e-liquid products into the following 11 main flavor categories: “fruit”, “dessert/candy/sweets”, “coffee/tea”, “alcohol”, “other beverages”, “tobacco”, “mint/menthol”, “nuts”, “spices/pepper”, “other flavors”, and “unspecified flavor”. Results: We find that the most prominent flavor sold in the five online vape shop in 2021 was fruit flavored products, followed by dessert/candy/other sweets. Online vendors often label a product with several flavor profiles, such as fruit and menthol. Conclusions: Given that online stores market products with multiple flavor profiles and most of their products contain fruit flavor, the FDA may have issued marketing denial orders to some of these products. It is important to further examine how online stores respond to the FDA flavor restrictions (e.g., compliance or non-compliance).

1. Introduction

Electronic cigarettes are a group of novel nicotine or tobacco products that have rapidly gained popularity in recent years, especially among US adolescents and young adults [1,2]. An e-cigarette is a device that evaporates a liquid solution called e-liquid, so that the user could inhale vapor [3,4]. Flavor is one of the key attributes of e-liquids, especially to youth users of e-cigarettes [5,6]. Menthol flavor in nicotine e-liquids may counter the aversiveness of nicotine through its cooling effect, and for nicotine-free e-liquid products, fruit flavor may increase the product appeal to cigarette smokers [7,8]. Adolescents are interested in trying e-cigarettes with fruit flavor compared to tobacco or alcohol flavor, partially due to the perception that fruit-flavored e-cigarettes are less harmful than tobacco-flavored e-cigarettes [9]. Despite flavors being one of the main reasons why youth initiate e-cigarette use, they are often not aware of the nicotine level in the e-cigarettes they use [10]. Development of new e-liquid flavors could be associated with initiation and escalation of e-cigarette use among USA adolescents and adults [5,6,11,12,13]. In total, 82.9% of current youth users of e-cigarettes in the USA used flavored e-cigarettes in 2020, and the most popular flavors are fruit, mint/menthol, and dessert/candy/sweets [14]. The market of e-cigarettes has quickly expanded since mid-2000s, and online vape shops are one of the most common outlets for purchases of e-cigarettes [15,16,17].
Unlike combustible cigarettes, e-cigarettes typically come in a variety of product design, such as open versus closed system, which poses challenges to tobacco control policies [4]. Open system e-cigarettes have refillable tanks and are completely reusable, whereas closed system e-cigarettes are either single-use products (disposable) or reloadable with pre-filled cartridges [18]. Open systems allow users to manually refill cartridges with flavored e-liquids that they purchase, thus giving them customized vaping experience, and closed systems are designed to allow little modification of contents by users [4,19].
E-cigarettes may serve as a gateway to cigarette smoking, through increasing the initiation of nicotine use (that would not occur in the absence of e-cigarettes) and e-cigarette users (who become addicted to nicotine) transitioning from e-cigarettes to other tobacco products including cigarettes [16,20,21,22]. In addition, a growing proportion of e-cigarette users report that they initiated use at a young age (14 years old or younger), and 22.5% of high school users are daily vapers, indicating their addiction to e-cigarettes [14,23]. Regulations on e-liquid flavors are under the authority of the USA Food Drug Administration (FDA). In response to the alarming rise of vaping behaviors especially among youth in the USA, a federal regulation was imposed in February 2020 that bans all flavors in cartridge-based e-cigarettes except for tobacco and menthol, but it has left loopholes for manufacturers to sell menthol-flavored cartridge products, as well as flavored e-liquid products that are used in disposable e-cigarettes and open-system e-cigarettes [24,25,26,27]. In addition, the FDA has been issuing marketing denial orders to manufacturers of e-cigarette products [28]. Several states in the USA have restricted the sale of flavored e-cigarette products, including Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island, and their flavor bans were implemented in either 2019 or 2020 [29].
In order to examine e-cigarette marketplace and enforce FDA and local flavor restrictions, identifying and categorizing e-cigarette flavors are critical. Although research efforts have been made to document and classify e-cigarette flavors (e.g., flavor wheel), such efforts may fail to capture the rapid evolvement of e-cigarette marketplace, such as the development in flavor profiles. Moreover, all existing studies on flavors focus on the primary flavor profile of a product (e.g., the flavor labeled on a package), which may not reflect secondary flavors or multiple flavors that could be marketed to consumers [30]. Finally, as the FDA bans flavored cartridges and issues market denial orders to flavored e-cigarette products, manufacturers and retailers may market their products using concept flavors, i.e., ambiguous flavor descriptors to evoke sensory or other pleasant vaping experiences (e.g., jazz, ice, etc.). These challenges need to be evaluated in order to better inform flavor restrictions and marketing regulatory policies.
To address some of the research gaps or regulatory challenges identified above, we conduct this study to achieve the following goals: (1) expanding and enriching the existing flavor wheel to capture the diversity of words that are used to describe flavors (i.e., building a semantic database for flavors); (2) use this semantic database to identify and classify flavors of over 14,000 products sold online. Given that both the e-cigarette market and the regulatory environment have been rapidly evolving, our flavor semantic database could be a very useful tool to identify and classify flavors in real time and used by researchers and policymakers to surveille marketplace and check compliance for flavor restrictions. Thus, the findings of this study can be used not only to inform potential policies, but also to shed light on future research directions regarding e-cigarette flavors.

2. Materials and Methods

To build the semantic database for flavors, we use key words documented in the following sources: (1) the e-cigarette flavor wheel created by Krüsemann et al. (2019) [30], which defined the main categories and subcategories of flavors (e.g., fruit, sweet, etc.); (2) WordNet [31], a large lexical database of English in which words are interlinked by semantic relations, which listed keywords for each flavor category (fruit, sweet, etc.); (3) Marketing description data from Ma et al. (2022) [32] where we identify words related to flavors; and (4) group discussion where six coauthors discuss the inclusion and exclusion of each word that WordNet provides.
Using the semantic database, we classified flavors for over 14,000 e-liquid products that we collected from give online stores. Given that each store may describe or list product flavors differently, we obtained the flavor information using three different methods: (1) extracting product flavor(s) directly from source code of product webpage, which is presumably the most accurate; (2) identifying product flavor(s) from flavor filter provided by each vape shop; and (3) extracting product flavor(s) from product description box on list page aided by keyword matching. (See Figure A1 in the Appendix A for an example of flavor filters on a store website). For each product, multiple flavor classifications could be assigned if the marketing description or language mentioned key words that fall into different flavor classifications.

3. Results

The key terms we used in each main category and subcategory are summarized in Table A1. Figure 1 is a frequency plot of the e-liquid products in our sample based on whether they contain a specific flavor. As shown in both Appendix A Table A1 and Figure 1, we classify e-liquid flavors into 11 main categories, i.e., fruit, dessert/candy/other sweets, tobacco, menthol/mint, nuts, spices/pepper, coffee/tea, alcohol, other beverages, other flavors, and unflavored. Within the main category of fruity flavors, there are four subcategories: berry, citrus, tropical, and other fruits. We present in Figure 1 that, out of the 14,477 e-liquid products in our sample, 12,291 of them contain at least one fruity flavor. There are 7755 e-liquid products from the five online vape shops that contain dessert/candy/other sweet flavor(s). A total of 3043 e-liquids are flavored with menthol/mint. There are 2433 products that contain alcohol flavors, while 3873 e-liquid products contain flavors of beverages other than alcohol and coffee/tea. In our sample, 1244 e-liquids contain tobacco flavors. The three main categories, nuts, spices/pepper, and coffee/tea are seen relatively less in our sample of e-liquids sold in online stores.
In Figure 2, we present a frequency plot of the 14,477 e-liquids in our sample, by classifying their flavor description into one of the following: (1) unflavored or flavor unknown, i.e., the product either is flavorless, or contains flavor(s) that are not identified by our key terms; (2) fruity flavor(s) only, i.e., the product contains one or more fruity flavors, and no additional flavor from any of the other main categories; (3) dessert/candy/other sweet flavor(s) only; (4) tobacco flavor only; (5) menthol/mint flavor only; (6) the product contains flavor(s) from one of the other flavor main categories, i.e., nuts, spices/pepper, coffee/tea, alcohol, or other beverages; (7) a combination of fruity and dessert/candy/other sweet flavors; (8) fruity and menthol/mint flavors; (9) a combination of fruity flavor(s), and beverage(s) other than alcohol and coffee/tea; (10) a combination of dessert/candy/other sweets, and tobacco; (11) dessert/candy/other sweets, and beverage(s) other than alcohol and coffee/tea; (12) containing flavors from two different main categories, but other than the ones described above; (13) a combination of fruit, menthol/mint, and dessert/candy/other sweets; (14) a combination of fruit, alcohol, and dessert/candy/other sweets; (15) a combination of fruit(s), dessert/candy/other sweets, and beverage(s) other than alcohol and coffee/tea; (16) a combination of fruit, menthol/mint, and beverage(s) other than alcohol and coffee/tea; (17) containing flavors from three different main categories, but other than the ones described above; (18) containing flavors from four or more different main categories. Among them, (2)–(6) describe single-flavored e-liquid products, i.e., containing flavor(s) from one main category only; (7)–(12) indicates a mix of flavors from two main categories; (13)–(17) mean the products each contains a mix of flavors from three main categories; and (18) describes e-liquid products in our sample that each contains a mix of flavors from four or more different main categories. One thing worth noting is that e-liquids with tobacco flavor only (total N = 230) may contain nicotine (N = 193; 83.91%) or be nicotine-free (N = 37; 16.09%).
As shown in Figure 2, the most prevalent flavor based on the count of products, is a combination of fruity and dessert/candy/other sweet flavors (N = 2872 products). The single-flavored e-liquids with fruity flavor(s) are also quite prevalent (N = 2472 products), followed by flavor description of four or more flavor main categories in e-liquid (N = 1787 products). A total of 1095 e-liquid products contain a combination of fruity and menthol/mint flavors; and there are 844 products with combined flavors of fruit(s), dessert/candy/other sweets, and beverage(s) other than alcohol and coffee/tea; in our sample, among 795 e-liquid products, each of them contains a combination of fruity flavor(s), and beverage(s) other than alcohol and coffee/tea. There are 417 products containing a combination of fruit, menthol/mint, and dessert/candy/other sweet flavors, while 496 e-liquids are flavored with a combination of fruit, alcohol, and dessert/candy/other sweets. A mix of two or more flavors from different main categories seems very common in e-liquids sold by online vape shops. We plot in Figure 3 the top seven flavors by frequency counts in each online store. The top e-liquid flavors by frequency counts in store 1 (from highest to lowest) are: fruity flavor(s) only (36.4%); fruity and dessert/candy/other sweet flavors (17.6%); fruity and menthol/mint flavors (7.6%); two different main categories, other than (7)–(11) (6.1%); three different main categories, other than (13)–(16) (5.6%); fruity flavor(s), and beverage(s) other than alcohol and coffee/tea (5%); and tobacco flavor only (3.8%). The top seven e-liquid flavors in store 2 are mostly similar to those in store 1: fruity flavor(s) only (21.5%); fruity and dessert/candy/other sweet flavors (20.3%); fruity and menthol/mint flavors (13.6%); fruity flavor(s), and beverage(s) other than alcohol and coffee/tea (8.6%); three different main categories, other than (13)–(16) (7.4%); two different main categories, other than (7)–(11) (6.1%); and a combination of flavors from four or more different main categories (4.3%). By frequency counts, the top seven (from highest to lowest) in store 3 are the following: fruity and dessert/candy/other sweet flavors (22.9%); fruity flavor(s) only (21.3%); two different main categories, other than (7)–(11) (7.7%); fruity and menthol/mint flavors (6.8%); unflavored or flavor unknown (6.3%); three different main categories, other than (13)–(16) (6.3%); fruity flavor(s), and beverage(s) other than alcohol and coffee/tea (6.1%). A combination of flavors from four or more different main categories is the most prevalent flavor by frequency counts, in both store 4 (27.9%) and store 5 (27.4%). It is likely that in both stores, e-liquid product description box contains links that direct customers to different flavored products in the same collection, and thus more than three different main categories were captured during keyword matching. In store 4, what follows are: fruity and dessert/candy/other sweet flavors (17.7%); containing flavors from three different main categories, other than (13)–(16) (10%); a combination of fruit(s), dessert/candy/other sweets, and beverage(s) other than alcohol and coffee/tea (8.3%); fruity flavor(s) only (6.4%); fruity and menthol/mint flavors (5.3%); a combination of fruity, menthol/mint, and dessert/candy/other sweet flavors (4.5%). Among e-liquids in store 5, the 2nd to 7th highest are: fruity and dessert/candy/other sweet flavors (17.8%); a combination of fruit(s), dessert/candy/other sweets, and beverage(s) other than alcohol and coffee/tea (12%); a combination of fruit(s), dessert/candy/other sweets, and alcoholic beverage(s) (8.9%); containing flavors from three different main categories, other than (13)–(16) (8.4%); a combination of fruity, menthol/mint, and dessert/candy/other sweet flavors (6.8%); fruity and menthol/mint flavors (4.9%).

4. Discussion

To understand and keep up with a variety of emerging e-liquid flavors available in the market of e-cigarettes, innovations in data sciences such as keyword matching has been increasingly used for identifying and classifying e-cigarette flavors and other characteristics when conducting surveillance of e-cigarette brand websites [33], social media [33,34,35,36], and manufacturer scan [37]. However, the semantic databases for conducting such as identification and classifications are often not publicly accessible and may be outdated by the evolvement of the marketplace. To address this gap, this article publishes the keywords for identifying and classifying flavors that can be readily used by the research community to code and update flavors.
Another contribution of the semantic database is to allow for a more accurate and comprehensive flavor classification. For example, the e-cigarette flavors reported by Nielsen Retail Scanner Data are limited to products sold in traditional brick-and-mortar stores [38,39,40,41,42,43], and the flavors of these products only reflect the primary flavor on a package, which may not capture all the flavor labels that are given to a product in the marketplace. Our research study is, to the best of our knowledge, the first to categorize multiple flavor labels based on real-world marketing practice.
Our study is informative and timely in that, it not only provides a database to help tobacco control researchers classify and analyze e-liquid flavors, but also shows that e-liquid products sold online are marked with multiple and complex flavor profiles, such as fruit + dessert, fruit + menthol, and fruit + spice, etc. Given that these attractive flavors are likely the most important attribute motivating adolescents and young adults to experiment with e-cigarettes and initiate vaping, restricting the flavor availability from online vendors could be important for curbing e-cigarette use among young populations [44,45,46,47,48,49,50]. Interestingly, e-liquids flavored with tobacco only do not make to the top seven by frequency count in any store except store 1, which has policy implication relevant to the role of tobacco-flavored e-cigarettes in smoking gateway pathway [16,20,21,22].
Flavor restrictions have been increasingly adopted by federal, state, and local policies to curb e-cigarette use. In recent years, the FDA issued Marketing Denial Orders (MDOs) to approximately 1 million flavored e-cigarettes and banned characterizing flavors other than menthol/mint and tobacco in cartridge-based e-cigarettes [27]. However, whether online vendors comply with these federal regulations are unknown [48,51,52]. Moreover, a growing number of states and localities, including New Jersey, New York, and San Francisco, California have adopted local restrictions to reduce the availability of flavored e-cigarette products [53]. These local flavor restrictions may incentivize e-cigarette users of flavored products to purchase products online to avoid regulations. More research is needed to ascertain the scale of online supply and purchases of flavored products and whether these activities undermine the impact of flavor restrictions on curbing e-cigarette use among young people.
Monitoring e-cigarette flavor profiles is also critical for understanding the relative appeals of nicotine and tobacco products in the marketplace. In April 2022, the FDA has issued two proposals that would ban menthol as a characterizing flavor in cigarettes and all characterizing flavors other than tobacco in cigars—an action to reduce the appeal of combustible tobacco [54,55,56]. If these policies are implemented, the availability of menthol and other attractive flavors in e-cigarettes could incentivize combustible tobacco smokers to transition into e-cigarettes. The cost and benefit of regulating e-cigarette flavors therefore need to be carefully weighted.
Finally, with a semantic database developed for flavors, our study could shed light for future research that identifies “concept flavors”—a group of ambiguous or vague descriptors that evoke sensory or other pleasant experiences (e.g., jazz, ice, etc.). Concept flavors could replace characterizing flavors as a marketing strategy and continue to attract consumers when products with explicit flavors are banned by authorities [43,57,58]. Our database will allow researchers to identify products that do not fall into any of the known flavor categories, thereby assisting in the evaluation of whether these producers adopt concept flavors to market these products.
Our study has several limitations. The flavor semantic database contains pre-determined hierarchies and categories of flavors based on the current consensus, which could change over time. Nonetheless, users of our database may modify hierarchies and categories as needed to reflect the development of marketplace. In addition, although we used several iterations of keyword matching and expert reviews to enrich the flavor vocabulary, the database is not an exhaustive list of all flavor-related words. We welcome readers and users of this paper to improve and augment the database and make their contributions publicly accessible to facilitate future research. Finally, although our approach could assist in identifying concept flavors, such effort is beyond the scope of this paper. We will conduct a follow-up study to specifically investigate concept flavors.

5. Conclusions

Flavor is an important attribute of e-liquid products, especially to youth users of e-cigarettes. Development of new e-liquid flavors could be associated with initiation and escalation of e-cigarette use among U.S. adolescents and adults. Regulations on e-liquid flavors are under the authority of the U.S. Food Drug Administration. The findings of this study can be used not only to inform potential policies, but also to shed light on future research directions regarding e-cigarette flavors.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.S. and S.M.; methodology, S.M.; software, Z.Q.; validation, C.S., J.C. and J.F.P.B.; formal analysis, S.M.; investigation, S.M., Q.Y. and C.S.; resources, C.S. and J.C.; data curation, Z.Q., Q.Y. and S.M.; writing—original draft preparation, S.M.; writing—review and editing, C.S.; visualization, S.M.; supervision, C.S., J.C. and J.F.P.B.; project administration, S.M. and Z.Q.; funding acquisition, C.S. and J.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study is funded by The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center (OSUCCC) Center for Tobacco Research Pilot Grant (PI: Ce Shang; 1/1/2021-06/30/2021). Dr. Shang is funded by the National Cancer Institute (R21CA249757; PI: Ce Shang; 9/16/2021-8/30/2023). Dr. Ma is supported by the Pelotonia Fellowship (6/1/2022-5/31/2024) from The Ohio State University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study obtains and utilizes web data of e-liquid products from store websites that are publicly accessible. Thus, ethics approval was not required.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The price data was made available through another open-access publication (DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-057033). We will also publish the data with this study.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Center for Tobacco Research at The Ohio State University for the research funding. We also thank the WordNet team at Princeton University for making it available to the research community free of charge.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. The Process of Obtaining and Cleaning Flavor Data

Among the five stores in our sample, stores 2–3 did not have product flavors readily available in the source code of product webpage, i.e., method (1); as a result, for those two stores we relied on methods (2) and (3), which might introduce errors and are potentially less accurate than method (1). Furthermore, for stores 4 and 5, methods (1) and (2) provide the exact same information, i.e., flavor information in the source code of product webpage were used to filter products by flavors on those two store websites. That effectively leaves us with two data sources of product flavor information for four out of five stores in our sample. During data analyses, we have found out that flavor information from filters provided by store websites could sometimes inaccurate, and we also observed that an individual e-liquid product could contain a mix of flavors. For instance, an e-liquid product with primary flavor of fruit and secondary flavor of menthol might be placed under the filter of fruity flavors only. To improve the accuracy of flavor data for each individual e-liquid product sold by each store and make efforts to best capture the full description of product flavors, we thus obtained flavor information using more than one method and compared product flavor information from different sources. We obtained the source code of e-liquid products from store 1 on 17 February 2021, from stores 2 and 4 on 7 April 2021, from store 5 on 4 May 2021, and from store 3 on 20 May 2021.
In particular, the process of keyword matching in method (3) is the following. Aided by WordNet [31], a large lexical database of English in which words are interlinked by semantic relations, we expanded keywords for each flavor category. Building upon the e-liquid flavor wheel created by Krüsemann et al. (2019) [30], we refined the main categories and subcategories of e-liquid flavors to better classify the new e-liquid flavors from our web data. The key terms we used in each main category and subcategory are summarized in Table A1. Our flavor vocabulary will be publicly available at http://www.ce-shang.com/vape-shop-product-information-collection.html (accessed on 24 October 2022), and we will continue to update the vocabulary and include new keywords for e-cigarette flavors.
Figure A1. An Example of E-liquid Flavor Filters, i.e., Flavor Options of E-liquids Sold by Store 1 (Location of E-liquid Filters Highlighted by Square Bracket).
Figure A1. An Example of E-liquid Flavor Filters, i.e., Flavor Options of E-liquids Sold by Store 1 (Location of E-liquid Filters Highlighted by Square Bracket).
Ijerph 19 13953 g0a1
Table A1. E-liquid Flavors: Main Categories, Subcategories, and Key Terms.
Table A1. E-liquid Flavors: Main Categories, Subcategories, and Key Terms.
Main Category (-Subcategory)Key Terms
alcohol6-pack, absinthe, alcohol, amaretto, bar, bartender, beer, bellini, black label, bloody mary, bootleg, bootlegger, bootlegging, booze, boozy, bottle covers, bottle holder, bottle opener, bottle sleeve, bourbon, brandy, brewed, brewery, brewing, brewski, bubbly, bud light, budweiser, busch, cabernet, champagne, champers, chardonnay, cocktail, cognac, colada, cold one, cooler, coors, coozy, corkscrew, corona, crème, daiquiri, distilled, distiller, distillery, drunk, fireball, firewater, fizz, flask, giggle, gin, greyhound, guinness, half-rack, happy hour, heineken, homebrew, hooch, ice cube, ipa, irish, jack daniel’s, jameson, johnnie walker, julep, kahlua, karsk, keystone, koozie, lager, liqueur, liquid courage, liquor, mai tai, malbec, malt, mardi gras, margarita, marnier, martini, mead, menthe, mescal, michelob, miller, mimosa, mixer, mojito, moonshine, moscato, mule, muscat, nightcap, oktoberfest, patrick, pina, piña colada, pinot, pint, pisco sour, punch, rotgut, rum, sake, sangria, sauce, sauvignon, scotch, screwdriver, shaker, sherry, shooter, shot, shot, six-pack, sixer, spirit, stella artois, stout, straw, suds, sunrise, tequila, tipple, tipsy, vodka, wallbanger, wedge, whiskey, whisky, wine, winery
(-and-)
WordNet alcohol.n.01
coffee/teacaffe latte, cappuccino, coffee, espresso, tea *
(-and-)
coffee.n.01 and tea.n.01 from WordNet
other beveragescola, energy drink, lemonade, milk, soda *
(-and-)
WordNet beverage.n.01 (with coffee.n.01, tea.n.01 and alcohol.n.01 removed)
dessert/candy/other sweetsapple pie, bananas foster, bubble gum, butter, cake, caramel, cereals, cheese, chocolate, cookie, cotton candy, cream, cupcake, custard, donut, gummy bears, honey, ice cream, muffin, quick bread, vanilla, waffle, wine gum *
(-and-)
sweet.n.03 and dessert.n.01 from WordNet
fruit-berryblackberry, blueberry, raspberry, strawberry *
(-and-)
WordNet berry.n.02
fruit-citruslemon, lime, orange *
(-and-)
WordNet citrus.n.01
fruit-tropicalacai, banana, carambola, coconut, dragonfruit, guava, ilama, jackfruit, longan, lychee, mango, mangosteen, papaya, passionfruit, pineapple, pitaya, soursop, starfruit
fruit-otherapple, cherry, grape, peach, pear, plum, pomegranate, watermelon *
(-and-)
WordNet fruit.n.01 (with berry.n.02, citrus.n.01 and nut.n.01 removed)
menthol/mintmenthol, mentholated, mint, peppermint
nutsalmond, hazelnut, peanut, pecan *
(-and-)
WordNet nut.n.01
spice/peppercinnamon, clove, licorice, mace, nutmeg, pepper *
(-and-)
spice.n.02 and pepper.n.04 from WordNet
tobaccotobacco
other flavors
unflavored
Note: * key terms from Krüsemann et al. (2019) [30].

References

  1. Park-Lee, E.; Ren, C.; Sawdey, M.D.; Gentzke, A.S.; Cornelius, M.; Jamal, A.; Cullen, K.A. Notes from the Field: E-Cigarette Use Among Middle and High School Students—National Youth Tobacco Survey, United States, 2021. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2021, 70, 1387–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Cornelius, M.E.; Wang, T.W.; Jamal, A.; Loretan, C.G.; Neff, L.J. Tobacco Product Use Among Adults—United States, 2019. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2020, 69, 1736–1742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Truth Initiative E-Cigarettes: Facts, Stats and Regulations. Available online: https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/emerging-tobacco-products/e-cigarettes-facts-stats-and-regulations#What-is (accessed on 27 November 2021).
  4. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Vaporizers, E-Cigarettes, and Other Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS). Available online: https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/products-ingredients-components/vaporizers-e-cigarettes-and-other-electronic-nicotine-delivery-systems-ends (accessed on 27 November 2021).
  5. Balfour, D.J.K.; Benowitz, N.L.; Colby, S.M.; Hatsukami, D.K.; Lando, H.A.; Leischow, S.J.; Lerman, C.; Mermelstein, R.J.; Niaura, R.; Perkins, K.A.; et al. Balancing Consideration of the Risks and Benefits of E-Cigarettes. Am. J. Public Health 2021, 111, 1661–1672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Get the Facts on E-Cigarettes | Know the Risks: E-Cigarettes & Young People. Available online: https://e-cigarettes.surgeongeneral.gov/getthefacts.html (accessed on 27 November 2021).
  7. DeVito, E.E.; Jensen, K.P.; O’Malley, S.S.; Gueorguieva, R.; Krishnan-Sarin, S.; Valentine, G.; Jatlow, P.I.; Sofuoglu, M. Modulation of “Protective” Nicotine Perception and Use Profile by Flavorants: Preliminary Findings in E-Cigarettes. Nicotine Tob. Res. 2020, 22, 771–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Leventhal, A.; Cho, J.; Barrington-Trimis, J.; Pang, R.; Schiff, S.; Kirkpatrick, M. Sensory Attributes of E-Cigarette Flavours and Nicotine as Mediators of Interproduct Differences in Appeal among Young Adults. Tob. Control 2020, 29, 679–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Pepper, J.K.; Ribisl, K.M.; Brewer, N.T. Adolescents’ Interest in Trying Flavoured e-Cigarettes. Tob. Control 2016, 25, ii62–ii66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Alexander, J.P.; Williams, P.; Lee, Y.O. Youth Who Use E-Cigarettes Regularly: A Qualitative Study of Behavior, Attitudes, and Familial Norms. Prev. Med. Rep. 2019, 13, 93–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Romijnders, K.A.G.J.; Krüsemann, E.J.Z.; Boesveldt, S.; de Graaf, K.; de Vries, H.; Talhout, R. E-Liquid Flavor Preferences and Individual Factors Related to Vaping: A Survey among Dutch Never-Users, Smokers, Dual Users, and Exclusive Vapers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Chen, Z.; Zeng, D.D. Mining Online E-Liquid Reviews for Opinion Polarities about e-Liquid Features. BMC Public Health 2017, 17, 633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Villanti, A.C.; Johnson, A.L.; Ambrose, B.K.; Cummings, K.M.; Stanton, C.A.; Rose, S.W.; Feirman, S.P.; Tworek, C.; Glasser, A.M.; Pearson, J.L.; et al. Flavored Tobacco Product Use in Youth and Adults: Findings From the First Wave of the PATH Study (2013–2014). Am. J. Prev. Med. 2017, 53, 139–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, T.W.; Neff, L.J.; Park-Lee, E.; Ren, C.; Cullen, K.A.; King, B.A. E-Cigarette Use Among Middle and High School Students—United States, 2020. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2020, 69, 1310–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Counter Tobacco E-Cigarettes at the Point of Sale. Available online: https://countertobacco.org/resources-tools/evidence-summaries/e-cigarettes-at-the-point-of-sale/ (accessed on 27 November 2021).
  16. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. E-Cigarette Use among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2016. Available online: https://e-cigarettes.surgeongeneral.gov/documents/2016_SGR_Full_Report_508.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2022).
  17. Zhu, S.H.; Sun, J.Y.; Bonnevie, E.; Cummins, S.E.; Gamst, A.; Yin, L.; Lee, M. Four Hundred and Sixty Brands of E-Cigarettes and Counting: Implications for Product Regulation. Tob. Control 2014, 23, iii3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Chen, C.; Zhuang, Y.-L.; Zhu, S.-H. E-Cigarette Design Preference and Smoking Cessation: A U.S. Population Study. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2016, 51, 356–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. St Helen, G. A Ban Targeting Only Open-System e-Cigarettes Is Unlikely to Prevent a Future EVALI-like Outbreak among e-Cigarette Users. Addiction 2021, 116, 995–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. Public Health Consequences of E-Cigarettes; Eaton, D., Kwan, L., Stratton, K., Eds.; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  21. Adams, J. Surgeon General’s Advisory on E-Cigarette Use among Youth. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/surgeon-general-advisory/index.html (accessed on 24 October 2022).
  22. Vasiljevic, M.; Petrescu, D.C.; Marteau, T.M. Impact of Advertisements Promoting Candy-like Flavoured e-Cigarettes on Appeal of Tobacco Smoking among Children: An Experimental Study. Tob. Control 2016, 25, e107–e112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Evans-Polce, R.; Veliz, P.; Boyd, C.J.; McCabe, V.V.; McCabe, S.E. Trends in E-Cigarette, Cigarette, Cigar, and Smokeless Tobacco Use among US Adolescent Cohorts, 2014–2018. Am. J. Public Health 2020, 110, 163–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sindelar, J.L. Regulating Vaping—Policies, Possibilities, and Perils. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, e54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Truth Initiative. What Vape Products Are Still Allowed under the New E-Cigarette Policy? Available online: https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/emerging-tobacco-products/what-vape-products-are-still-allowed-under-new-e (accessed on 27 November 2021).
  26. American Association for Respiratory Care (AARC). Ban on Flavored E-Cigarettes. Available online: https://www.aarc.org/advocacy/federal-policies-affecting-rts/ban-on-flavored-e-cigarettes/ (accessed on 27 November 2021).
  27. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. FDA Finalizes Enforcement Policy on Unauthorized Flavored Cartridge-Based E-Cigarettes That Appeal to Children, Including Fruit and Mint; DFA: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2020.
  28. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Tobacco Products Marketing Orders; DFA: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2022.
  29. Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids States & Localities That Have Restricted the Sale of Flavored Tobacco Products. Available online: https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/assets/factsheets/0398.pdf (accessed on 31 August 2022).
  30. Krüsemann, E.J.Z.; Boesveldt, S.; De Graaf, K.; Talhout, R. An E-Liquid Flavor Wheel: A Shared Vocabulary Based on Systematically Reviewing E-Liquid Flavor Classifications in Literature. Nicotine Tob. Res. 2019, 21, 1310–1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Princeton University about WordNet. Available online: https://wordnet.princeton.edu/ (accessed on 24 October 2022).
  32. Ma, S.; Jiang, S.; Wagener, T.; Mays, D.; Chen, J.; Shang, C. How Vaping Products Are Priced Based on Product Characteristics: Evidence from Online Vape Shops. In Proceedings of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 28th Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD, USA, 15–18 March 2022. [Google Scholar]
  33. Hsu, G.; Sun, J.Y.; Zhu, S.-H. Evolution of Electronic Cigarette Brands From 2013–2014 to 2016–2017: Analysis of Brand Websites. J. Med. Internet Res. 2018, 20, e80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhan, Y.; Liu, R.; Li, Q.; Leischow, S.J.; Zeng, D.D. Identifying Topics for E-Cigarette User-Generated Contents: A Case Study from Multiple Social Media Platforms. J. Med. Internet Res. 2017, 19, e24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wang, L.; Zhan, Y.; Li, Q.; Zeng, D.D.; Leischow, S.J.; Okamoto, J. An Examination of Electronic Cigarette Content on Social Media: Analysis of E-Cigarette Flavor Content on Reddit. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 14916–14935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Lu, X.; Chen, L.; Yuan, J.; Luo, J.; Luo, J.; Xie, Z.; Li, D. User Perceptions of Different Electronic Cigarette Flavors on Social Media: Observational Study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2020, 22, e17280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Krüsemann, E.J.Z.; Havermans, A.; Pennings, J.L.A.; de Graaf, K.; Boesveldt, S.; Talhout, R. Comprehensive Overview of Common E-Liquid Ingredients and How They Can Be Used to Predict an e-Liquid’s Flavour Category. Tob. Control 2021, 30, 185–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Zare, S.; Zheng, Y. Consumer Preferences for E-Cigarette Flavor, Nicotine Strength, and Type: Evidence from Nielsen Scanner Data. Nicotine Tob. Res. 2021, 23, 823–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Liber, A.; Cahn, Z.; Larsen, A.; Drope, J. Flavored E-Cigarette Sales in the United States Under Self-Regulation from January 2015 Through October 2019. Am. J. Public Health 2020, 110, 785–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Diaz, M.C.; Donovan, E.M.; Schillo, B.A.; Vallone, D. Menthol E-Cigarette Sales Rise Following 2020 FDA Guidance. Tob. Control 2021, 30, 700–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Marynak, K.L.; Gammon, D.G.; Rogers, T.; Coats, E.M.; Singh, T.; King, B.A. Sales of Nicotine-Containing Electronic Cigarette Products: United States, 2015. Am. J. Public Health 2017, 107, 702–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Romberg, A.R.; Miller Lo, E.J.; Cuccia, A.F.; Willett, J.G.; Xiao, H.; Hair, E.C.; Vallone, D.M.; Marynak, K.; King, B.A. Patterns of Nicotine Concentrations in Electronic Cigarettes Sold in the United States, 2013-2018. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019, 203, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Ali, F.R.M.; Diaz, M.C.; Vallone, D.; Tynan, M.A.; Cordova, J.; Seaman, E.L.; Trivers, K.F.; Schillo, B.A.; Talley, B.; King, B.A. E-Cigarette Unit Sales, by Product and Flavor Type—United States, 2014–2020. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2020, 69, 1313–1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Zare, S.; Nemati, M.; Zheng, Y. A Systematic Review of Consumer Preference for E-Cigarette Attributes: Flavor, Nicotine Strength, and Type. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0194145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Leventhal, A.M.; Goldenson, N.I.; Barrington-Trimis, J.L.; Pang, R.D.; Kirkpatrick, M.G. Effects of Non-Tobacco Flavors and Nicotine on e-Cigarette Product Appeal among Young Adult Never, Former, and Current Smokers. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019, 203, 99–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Du, P.; Bascom, R.; Fan, T.; Sinharoy, A.; Yingst, J.; Mondal, P.; Foulds, J. Changes in Flavor Preference in a Cohort of Long-Term Electronic Cigarette Users. Ann. Am. Thorac. Soc. 2020, 17, 573–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Baker, A.N.; Wilson, S.J.; Hayes, J.E. Flavor and Product Messaging Are the Two Most Important Drivers of Electronic Cigarette Selection in a Choice-Based Task. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 4689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gaiha, S.M.; Lempert, L.K.; McKelvey, K.; Halpern-Felsher, B. E-Cigarette Devices, Brands, and Flavors Attract Youth: Informing FDA’s Policies and Priorities to Close Critical Gaps. Addict. Behav. 2022, 126, 107179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Shang, C.; Huang, J.; Chaloupka, F.J.; Emery, S.L. The Impact of Flavour, Device Type and Warning Messages on Youth Preferences for Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: Evidence from an Online Discrete Choice Experiment. Tob. Control 2018, 27, e152–e159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Perry, C.L.; Creamer, M.R.; Chaffee, B.W.; Unger, J.B.; Sutfin, E.L.; Kong, G.; Shang, C.; Clendennen, S.L.; Krishnan-Sarin, S.; Pentz, M.A. Research on Youth and Young Adult Tobacco Use, 2013–2018, from the Food and Drug Administration–National Institutes of Health Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science. Nicotine Tob. Res. 2020, 22, 1063–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Majmundar, A.; Xue, Z.; Asare, S.; Nargis, N. Trends in Public Interest in Shopping and Point-of-Sales of JUUL and Puff Bar 2019–2021. Tob. Control 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Dai, H.; Hao, J. Online Popularity of JUUL and Puff Bars in the USA: 2019–2020. Tob. Control 2022, 31, 7–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Truth Initiative. Local Restrictions on Flavored Tobacco and E-Cigarette Products; Truth Initiative: Washington, DC, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  54. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. FDA Proposes Rules Prohibiting Menthol Cigarettes and Flavored Cigars to Prevent Youth Initiation, Significantly Reduce Tobacco-Related Disease and Death; DFA: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2022.
  55. Yang, Y.; Lindblom, E.N.; Salloum, R.G.; Ward, K.D. Impact of Flavours, Device, Nicotine Levels and Price on Adult e-Cigarette Users’ Tobacco and Nicotine Product Choices. Tob. Control 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Buckell, J.; Marti, J.; Sindelar, J.L. Should Flavours Be Banned in Cigarettes and E-Cigarettes? Evidence on Adult Smokers and Recent Quitters from a Discrete Choice Experiment. Tob. Control 2019, 28, 168–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Leventhal, A.M.; Tackett, A.P.; Whitted, L.; Jordt, S.E.; Jabba, S.V. Ice Flavours and Non-Menthol Synthetic Cooling Agents in e-Cigarette Products: A Review. Tob. Control 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Truth Initiative. Flavored Tobacco Use among Youth and Young Adults; Truth Initiative: Washington, DC, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Frequencies of E-liquids Containing a Certain Flavor (Product Total N = 14,477).
Figure 1. Frequencies of E-liquids Containing a Certain Flavor (Product Total N = 14,477).
Ijerph 19 13953 g001
Figure 2. Frequencies of E-liquids Based on Flavor Description (Product Total N = 14,477).
Figure 2. Frequencies of E-liquids Based on Flavor Description (Product Total N = 14,477).
Ijerph 19 13953 g002
Figure 3. Top Seven Flavors in Each Online Vape Shop by Frequency Counts (Subfigures (ae) show the top seven flavors by frequency counts in stores 1–5 respectively).
Figure 3. Top Seven Flavors in Each Online Vape Shop by Frequency Counts (Subfigures (ae) show the top seven flavors by frequency counts in stores 1–5 respectively).
Ijerph 19 13953 g003aIjerph 19 13953 g003bIjerph 19 13953 g003c
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ma, S.; Qiu, Z.; Yang, Q.; Bridges, J.F.P.; Chen, J.; Shang, C. Expanding the E-Liquid Flavor Wheel: Classification of Emerging E-Liquid Flavors in Online Vape Shops. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 13953. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192113953

AMA Style

Ma S, Qiu Z, Yang Q, Bridges JFP, Chen J, Shang C. Expanding the E-Liquid Flavor Wheel: Classification of Emerging E-Liquid Flavors in Online Vape Shops. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(21):13953. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192113953

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ma, Shaoying, Zefeng Qiu, Qian Yang, John F. P. Bridges, Jian Chen, and Ce Shang. 2022. "Expanding the E-Liquid Flavor Wheel: Classification of Emerging E-Liquid Flavors in Online Vape Shops" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 21: 13953. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192113953

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop