Data for 'Real-world’ compensatory behaviour with low nicotine concentration e-liquid: subjective effects and nicotine, acrolein and formaldehyde exposure

  • Lynne Dawkins (Creator)
  • sharon cox (Contributor)
  • M Goniewicz (Contributor)
  • Hayden McRobbie (Contributor)
  • Catherine Kimber (Contributor)
  • M Doig (Contributor)
  • Kosmider L (Contributor)

Dataset

Description

This is a UK study of 20 experienced e-cigarette users (12 males; 8 females) which aimed to compare the effects of i) high vs. low nicotine e-liquid concentration and ii) fixed vs. adjustable power settings on vaping behaviour, subjective effects, nicotine intake, and exposure to acrolein and formaldehyde in an everyday setting. All participants completed a baseline session and then four different conditions (each one weeks’ duration) under a) high nicotine, fixed power; b) high nicotine, adjustable power; c) low nicotine, fixed power; and d) low nicotine, adjustable power. Order was counterbalanced but the two fixed conditions always came first. The data include, under each condition: puffing patterns (puff number, puff duration, inter-puff-interval, volume of e-liquid consumed), craving and withdrawal symptoms, subjective (positive and negative) effects, and HPMA (for acrolein) and formate (for formaldehyde) exposure.
Date made available25 Jul 2019
PublisherWiley
Date of data production1 Sept 2016 - 28 Feb 2017
Geographical coverageLondon and the South East, England

Keywords for datasets

  • Keyword
  • e-cigarettes
  • vaping
  • nicotine
  • compensatory behaviour
  • formaldehyde
  • acrolein
  • puffing patterns

Data Collection Method

  • Description
  • Twenty experienced e‐cigarette users (recruited between September 2016 and February 2017) vaped ad libitum using an eVic Supreme™ with a ‘Nautilus Aspire’ tank over 4 weeks (1 week per condition).

Data preparation and processing activities

  • Description
  • Participants were given coded reference numbers in order to anonymise the study.

Statement on legal, ethical, and access issues:

  • Description
  • The study was approved by London South Bank University ethics committee (UREC 1604) and conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki. Participants provided written informed consent to take part and for the study to be written up for publication.

Cite this