Does a 10-puff bout reflect natural puffing patterns for electronic nicotine delivery systems?

Authors

Melissa D Blank, Nicholas Felicione, Alison Breland, Andrea R Milstred, Caroline Cobb

Published in

Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. Jul 22, 2026. Epub Jul 22, 2026.

Abstract

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.
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.
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.
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.

PMID:
42485456
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 23 Jul 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.