Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2026
Does a 10-puff bout reflect natural puffing patterns for electronic nicotine delivery systems?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Blank Melissa D, Felicione Nicholas, Breland Alison, Milstred Andrea R, Cobb Caroline
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: An important research gap is how users of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) group puffs together, and whether that pattern accurately reflects the standardized 10-puff procedure often employed in laboratory-based work. Previously defined "puff cluster" parameters were applied to data from our own work and then the patterns compared to those published elsewhere.
METHODS: For all studies (N=8), the same definition of a puff cluster was used (number of puffs separated by <60 seconds), as was the same cluster categorizations: 1 puff (single), 2-5 puffs (short), 6-10 puffs (medium), or >10 puffs (long). Descriptive analyses included the average frequency, average number of puffs taken, and percent of total puffs/session, for each cluster type. Differences in cluster patterns as a function of pre-session ENDS abstinence and puffing bout length were explored.
RESULTS: Single and small clusters were the most common in 7 of 8 studies; the average number of cluster types was 9.02 (SD=7.55) single clusters, 5.96 (SD=4.02) small clusters, 0.94 (SD=0.74) medium clusters, and 0.49 (SD=0.44) large clusters. Small clusters made up the largest percentage of total puffs within a session (M=37.12%), followed by single puffs (M=28.55%), large clusters (M=17.41%), and medium clusters (M=16.92%). Puff cluster patterns were similar regardless of the pre-session ENDS abstinence requirement and the ENDS puffing bout duration.
CONCLUSIONS: Single puffs and small clusters were the predominant cluster types, accounting for accounting for 67.0% of all puffs. The 10-puff bout typically used in laboratory work to standardize product use does not represent naturalistic ENDS puffing.
METHODS: For all studies (N=8), the same definition of a puff cluster was used (number of puffs separated by <60 seconds), as was the same cluster categorizations: 1 puff (single), 2-5 puffs (short), 6-10 puffs (medium), or >10 puffs (long). Descriptive analyses included the average frequency, average number of puffs taken, and percent of total puffs/session, for each cluster type. Differences in cluster patterns as a function of pre-session ENDS abstinence and puffing bout length were explored.
RESULTS: Single and small clusters were the most common in 7 of 8 studies; the average number of cluster types was 9.02 (SD=7.55) single clusters, 5.96 (SD=4.02) small clusters, 0.94 (SD=0.74) medium clusters, and 0.49 (SD=0.44) large clusters. Small clusters made up the largest percentage of total puffs within a session (M=37.12%), followed by single puffs (M=28.55%), large clusters (M=17.41%), and medium clusters (M=16.92%). Puff cluster patterns were similar regardless of the pre-session ENDS abstinence requirement and the ENDS puffing bout duration.
CONCLUSIONS: Single puffs and small clusters were the predominant cluster types, accounting for accounting for 67.0% of all puffs. The 10-puff bout typically used in laboratory work to standardize product use does not represent naturalistic ENDS puffing.