In the steadily evolving landscape of electronic liquid (e-liquid) formulation, fragrance and flavour systems are no longer simply “add a flavour and you’re done.” As manufacturers of food-grade aroma compounds for e-liquids, we must appreciate the complex interplay between flavour chemistry, nicotine system (freebase vs nicotine salts vs hybrid), solvent matrix (PG/VG), device/atomiser dynamics, and consumer perception.
This blog post—“Flavor Behavior Under Different Nicotine Systems”—explores this interplay from the perspective of fragrance formulation: how different nicotine forms influence flavour-release, flavour-perception (sensory), chemical stability, aroma-synergy, and ultimately product performance. It is written with the goal of providing authoritative, structured guidance for R&D teams, flavour houses, and e-liquid manufacturers, and is optimized to align with Google user-intent (search terms: “nicotine system flavour behaviour”, “freebase vs salt nicotine flavour performance”, “how nicotine form affects e-liquid flavour”).
We will cover:
Definitions and classifications of nicotine systems
Mechanistic effects of nicotine form on flavour behaviour (chemical & sensory)
Empirical findings and case-studies from research
Formulation considerations for flavour design in different nicotine systems
Recommendations for fragrance manufacturers (and for your client – the e-liquid brand)
A summary and call to action
Throughout we will refer to our own position as a fragrance manufacturer supplying high-purity aroma compounds, but the principles apply equally to e-liquid formulators seeking synergy between flavour and nicotine system.
1. Understanding Nicotine Systems and Their Characteristics
1.1 What do we mean by “nicotine systems”?
In e-liquid parlance, “nicotine systems” typically refer to the chemical form of nicotine used, as well as how it is delivered via the aerosol. The main systems in commercial use are:
Free-base nicotine— the base (un-protonated) form of nicotine that has been used in early e-liquids.
Nicotine salts— nicotine that is protonated (typically with an acid such as benzoic acid) to form a salt, which can change pH, throat-hit, absorption kinetics etc.
Hybrid systems / buffered nicotine— some products claim to combine aspects of both free-base and salt, or use a buffered pH system to modulate throat-hit and flavour stability.
1.2 Key differentiating parameters of the systems
Some of the key functional differences between nicotine systems that matter for flavour include:
pH and protonation state: Nicotine salts have a lower pH (more acidic environment) compared to free-base. This affects irritation (throat-hit) and uptake.
Nicotine delivery kinetics: Some salt-based systems deliver nicotine more quickly or smoothly, with less throat-irritation, enabling higher nicotine concentrations to be tolerated.
Solvent interactions: The solvent matrix (propylene glycol [PG], vegetable glycerin [VG], water, other humectants) interacts with nicotine form, flavour compounds, viscosity, aerosol behaviour.
Device/atomiser compatibility: The device style (MTL “mouth-to-lung” vs DTL “direct-to-lung”), coil resistance, power, airflow etc., all influence how the nicotine system behaves and therefore how flavour behaves in tandem. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention visual dictionary outlines device generations and notes that salt-based nicotine is common in pod-mods with higher nic levels.
Sensory perception changes: Nicotine form influences flavour perception (sweetness, bitterness, throat-hit, aromatic intensity) through both chemical and sensory interactions. (See section 2).
1.3 Why this matters for flavour design
From the vantage point of a fragrance or flavour house supplying to the e-liquid industry, the nicotine system is a critical “co-ingredient” that cannot be ignored. The same flavour formula may behave differently (in terms of release, stability, aroma profile, and consumer perception) depending on whether the nicotine system is free-base or salt. Hence, understanding these effects is essential for:
Communicating formulation rationale to e-liquid brand partners
2. Mechanistic Effects of Nicotine System on Flavour Behaviour
In this section we dive deeper into how the nicotine system influences flavour behaviour — both at a chemical/physical level and at a sensory/perceptual level.
2.1 Chemical and physical interactions
2.1.1 pH, protonation and solubility
Nicotine salts, being protonated, typically create a more acidic environment than free-base nicotine. This shift in pH can influence several flavour-relevant factors:
The protonation of flavour molecules (if they have basic functional groups) may shift their volatility or partitioning.
The ionic strength and acid content may influence viscosity, humectant behaviour (PG/VG), and solubility of aroma compounds.
Some aroma compounds (esters, aldehydes, ketones) may hydrolyse or degrade faster under acidic conditions; others may form adducts or interact with the salt matrix.
2.1.2 Volatility, aerosol dynamics and release kinetics
The nicotine system can indirectly affect how flavour compounds are released in aerosol form:
Some research (e.g., a study on holographic microscopy of e-cigarette aerosols) found that the addition of nicotine dominated the evaporation behaviour of aerosol particles: “for a given PG/VG composition, the addition of nicotine dominated the evaporation dynamics …”
Variation in aerosol droplet size, evaporation rate, and condensation behaviour will change how aroma compounds evolve during the puff (heating, vapour-droplet formation, condensation, inhalation). The quicker the nicotine is absorbed or the aerosol evaporates, the less time for flavour compounds to partition or degrade.
2.1.3 Flavour stability and chemical reactions
The more acidic environment (in salt systems) may accelerate certain chemical reactions (e.g., acid-catalysed hydrolysis of esters, oxidation of aldehydes, formation of Schiff bases with amines).
The presence of nicotine, humectants, and flavour compounds creates a complex chemical environment; some flavour compounds may be adsorbed onto coil surfaces or react with other ingredients (including nicotine).
Free-radical generation or high temperatures may promote flavour compound breakdown; since nicotine system influences heating behaviour (via device settings or coil temperature), the flavour stability link is relevant.
2.2 Sensory and perceptual interactions
From the end-user perspective, how the flavour is perceived when the nicotine system is free-base versus salt is important.
2.2.1 Bitterness, throat-hit and irritation
A key study found that added nicotine increased perceived irritation and bitterness, and decreased the perceived sweetness of the e-liquid aerosol.
That means in high-nicotine free-base systems, flavour sweetness or fruit/candy notes may be substantially masked by irritation; flavour houses must compensate accordingly.
Conversely, salt nicotine systems often present smoother throat-hit and lower perceived irritation (even at higher nicotine levels) which means flavour perception may be “cleaner” and sweeter notes can shine. The beginner’s guide for e-liquids confirms this.
2.2.2 Mixture suppression and cross-modal interactions
The phenomenon of mixture suppression (when two stimuli reduce each other’s perceived intensity) and cross-modal modulation (e.g., bitterness suppressing sweetness) plays a role in e-liquid flavour perception. A 2022 review article explains this concept in the context of e-Cig flavour science.
If nicotine contributes bitterness and irritation, it may suppress or distort the flavour notes – e.g., fruit esters may taste weaker, menthol may be overshadowed by throat-hit, or sweet dessert notes may be flattened.
Understanding these interactions is key: flavour intensity must be calibrated relative to nicotine system, not simply “one size fits all”.
2.2.3 Aroma‐system dynamics under different nicotine systems
In salt nicotine systems, due to smoother throat-hit and possibly quicker nicotine uptake, the user may experience the flavour earlier and more distinctly (less overshadowed by irritation). This can influence flavour design strategy: higher flavour complexity, finer top-notes, more delicate mid-notes may be more viable in salt systems, whereas in free-base higher strength, bold flavours may be necessary to overcome nicotine interference.
Nicotine Forms: Molecular Comparison
3. Empirical Evidence & Research Insights
Here are key findings from recent research and how they inform flavour behaviour under different nicotine systems.
3.1 Flavour liking and nicotine effects
As mentioned earlier, the study by Pullicin et al. (“Impacts of Nicotine and Flavoring on the Sensory Perception of E-Cigarette Aerosol”) found that nicotine addition increased irritation and bitterness, and reduced perceived sweetness. This suggests that in higher nicotine (particularly free-base) e-liquids, flavour sweetness will be suppressed. In turn, flavour houses must adjust the sweetness/back-sweet layer of the flavour.
3.2 Flavour impact on nicotine exposure and pH effects
A study by St Helen et al. (“Impact of e-liquid flavors on nicotine intake and …”) found that flavourings may influence nicotine exposure via the pH of the solution and absorption rate. Implication: the flavour system itself (via pH, solvent–flavour interactions) can influence how nicotine is delivered; the nicotine system also influences how flavour systems must behave.
3.3 Complexity of flavour compounds and interaction networks
A 2024 study (“An ingredient co-occurrence network gives insight into e-liquid flavour complexity, …”) found that flavour ingredient combinations are non-random and interact in complex ways, meaning that behaviour under one nicotine system may not translate simply to another. Implication: treat nicotine system as a primary axis of design — flavour behaviour will differ between free-base and salt systems.
3.4 General e-liquid system context
The CDC and WHO describe e-liquid composition, noting that e-liquids typically contain nicotine (various forms), flavourings, humectants (PG/VG) and other additives. That baseline context reminds us that flavour + nicotine + solvent matrix + device = integrated system.
4. Formulation Considerations for Flavour Design Under Different Nicotine Systems
In this section we translate the mechanistic and empirical insights into actionable formulation guidelines for flavour houses / e-liquid brands.
4.1 Mapping flavour design to nicotine system
Nicotine System
Key flavour design considerations
Free-base nicotine
• Possibly more throat-hit, more irritation → choose flavour compounds with stronger top-notes and higher flavour intensity. • Because sweetness may be suppressed by nicotine bitterness, consider boosting sweet/back-sweet layers (but maintain balance and regulatory constraints). • Use flavour compounds that maintain stability in a higher pH / less acidic matrix. • Analytical stability testing (GC–MS) essential to evaluate release under irritation-heavy aerosol. • Device selection matters (often lower nic levels, MTL style) so flavour must be optimised accordingly.
Nicotine salts
• Smoother throat-hit, less irritation → opportunity for more nuanced flavour profiles (lighter top-notes, delicate mid-notes, subtle backsweet). • Acidic environment may affect some flavour chemistries — check stability of ester/aldehyde based notes under acidic pH. • Because flavours may be experienced more clearly, avoid overshooting intensity (risk of “flavour fatigue”). • Evaluate flavour-nicotine interaction in aerosol: is bitterness/irritation sufficiently low? If yes, you can exploit more refined flavour systems.
Hybrid/buffered systems
• Intermediate approach: expect moderate throat-hit, moderate irritation suppression — flavour design can be tuned accordingly. • Pay attention to the pH/buffer interplay: flavour compounds sensitive to acid/base changes must be tested. • Reuse data from both systems with caution — expect mid-behaviour.
4.2 Flavour compound selection & stability
Volatility & Partitioning: For aerosol delivery, flavour compounds must volatilise at the heating temperatures, partition into the aerosol droplets, remain chemically intact until inhalation, and deposit flavour perceivably in the mouth/palay region. Nicotine system influences aerosol behaviour (particle size, evaporation) and hence partitioning.
Chemical stability: Flavour compounds must resist acid-catalysed degradation (in salt systems) and high-temperature breakdown (in device heating). Perform GC–MS time-course studies under device simulation.
Sensory masking and boosting: Given nicotine’s bitterness and irritation, flavour formulators must consider sensory masking (e.g., bitterness blockers) or boosting of targeted aroma pathways (e.g., sweetness, cooling, or savoury).
Synergy and suppression: In multi-note flavour systems, understand that nicotine may suppress certain aroma pathways (e.g., fruit ester sweetness) — design accordingly (e.g., boost front-note intensity, adjust matrix).
Compatibility with humectant matrix (PG/VG): Flavour solubility, stability and performance depend on PG/VG ratio, which also influences aerosol behaviour. Ensure flavour-nicotine-PG/VG interactions are tested.
4.3 Device & atomiser context
Match flavour design to the expected device/atomiser type: free-base systems often pair with higher power/DTL devices; salt systems often with pod devices. Device temperature, coil material, airflow and power affect aerosol heating, flavour compound breakdown, and nicotine uptake.
Conduct aerosol generation experiments (simulate the puff profile) for each nicotine system with the flavour under evaluation: measure flavour intensity, throat-hit, nicotine delivery, and flavor balance.
4.4 Sensory testing & quality assurance
Conduct consumer sensory panels (or expert panels) comparing identical flavour formulations under different nicotine systems (freebase vs salt). Measure perceived sweetness, bitterness, throat-hit, flavour intensity, flavour ‘clarity’.
Use analytical tools (GC–MS, GC-Olfactometry) to measure flavour compound retention, breakdown products, and volatility under each nicotine system.
Document any off-notes or degradation markers which differ by nicotine system; this informs formulation adjustment or improved fragrance compound sourcing.
Track shelf-life stability: under salt systems (acidic), some compounds may degrade faster; include accelerated ageing (e.g., 40 °C, humidity) for comparative stability.
4.5 Regulatory and flavour-house communication best practice
As a flavour house supplying to e-liquid manufacturers, clearly label recommended nicotine system compatibility (e.g., “Optimised for salt nicotine systems up to X mg/ml”).
Provide recommended usage levels, stability profile notes, sensory guidelines (e.g., “Expected to remain perceivable above 10 mg/ml nic free-base; if used above 20 mg/ml free-base we recommend boosting sweet‐layer by ~15%”).
Offer troubleshooting guidance: e.g., “If flavour perceivable intensity drops in high-nicotine free-base (>18 mg/ml) systems, consider alternative sweeter/back-sweet compounds or adjust PG/VG ratio”.
Maintain documentation of aroma compound purity, stability under acid/heat, solvent compatibility — this strengthens corporate communication and helps clients optimise.
5. Fragrance Manufacturer Case Study: Designing for Salt vs Freebase
Let’s walk through a hypothetical case study to illustrate how a flavour house (for example us) might approach designing a “fresh tropical fruit” aroma for two different nicotine systems: one free-base (6 mg/ml) and one salt-nicotine (20 mg/ml).
5.1 Brief
Target: a fresh tropical fruit flavour (mango-pineapple-guava) for an e-liquid line.
Two formulations: (A) Free-base nicotine at 6 mg/ml; (B) Nicotine salt system at 20 mg/ml.
Same PG/VG matrix (50/50) initially.
5.2 Approach
Initial flavour build(common base): Use high-quality fruit esters, top-note volatile aldehydes (for freshness), mid‐note tropical fruit lactones, back-note soft sweeteners and a light cooling for clarity.
System-specific tuning:
Free-base (6 mg/ml): Expect some bitterness/throat-hit; sweetness may be suppressed. Mitigate by boosting the sweet-back layer (~10-15 %) and selecting flavour compounds less susceptible to acid/heat degradation (though matrix is neutral). Choose fruit lactones with stability in mid‐pH.
Salt (20 mg/ml): Smoother mouth-feel, low irritation; sweetness suppression is lower. Accordingly, reduce sweet-back layer slightly (to avoid cloying), and select more delicate volatiles (top-notes of guava aldehydes) to shine. However, matrix may be slightly more acidic (due to nicotine salt), so test stability of chosen lactones/esters under lower pH conditions.
Analytical testing (GC–MS etc.): For both systems, simulate aerosol generation; measure flavour compound retention and breakdown. Perhaps the salt system shows minor hydrolysis of a chosen ester — switch to a more stable ester analog for salt formulation.
Sensory evaluation: Panel test both versions. Compare metrics: flavour intensity, clarity, sweetness, bitterness, throat-hit, flavour longevity. Suppose the free-base sample shows slightly muted pineapple sweet note and higher perceived bitterness; adjust sweet-layer further upward or change to a less bitter-masked top-note compound. The salt version panel finds the guava top‐note pleasantly clear; but some participants find the flavour too sweet; adjust accordingly.
Final formulation recommendations: Provide two separate flavour codes: FT-Trop-FB (for free-base) and FT-Trop-Salt (for salt). Include usage instructions: “For free-base > 6 mg/ml, use 2.5 % dosage; for salt at 20 mg/ml, use 2.0 % dosing and limit PG/VG to 50/50 or lean VG to maintain aerosol clarity.”
5.3 Key take-aways from the case
The nicotine system required different flavour intensity and sweeter/back-sweet balancing.
Stability under different pH/ionic conditions mattered.
Sensory perception changed with nicotine form (bitterness/irritation in freebase suppressed sweet fruit).
Device/usage context (MTL for salt) also influenced flavour perception and dosage.
Communication to the brand was clear: two flavour codes, two recommended dosing ranges.
E-Liquid Flavor Formulation Lab
6. Strategic Considerations for Fragrance Manufacturers & e-Liquid Brands
6.1 Aligning flavour design with nicotine system strategy
When a brand chooses a nicotine system (free-base vs salt) as part of its product strategy, flavour suppliers must align accordingly. Early coordination is beneficial:
If a brand plans a high-nicotine (>18 mg/ml) salt-system MTL line, flavour house designs should anticipate smooth throat-feel and allow for more subtle flavour notes.
If a brand targets low-nicotine (<6 mg/ml) free-base DTL line, flavour intensity may need boosting or boldness to stand out.
For multi-platform brands (both salt and free-base), flavour houses should plan flavour families with system-specific variants, not a single flavour used across both systems without adjustment.
6.2 Testing and robustness for commercial launch
Provide datasets or guidance showing how flavour behaves under both nicotine systems (where relevant) so the brand is aware of potential changes in perception when switching systems.
Encourage the brand to run device/usage simulations replicating their intended hardware, nicotine system, and flavour to validate performance.
Offer optional “nicotine-system adjustment kits” — for example, flavour house can supply a small “adjustment pack” of sweet/back-sweet modifiers tailored for salt systems so brand R&D tweaks in-house.
6.3 Regulatory and marketing support
While flavour houses may not be directly responsible for marketing claims about nicotine systems, they can support the brand by providing sensory data, stability data, and flavour-system rationales which help brand’s regulatory submissions or technical files.
From a marketing perspective, for example: “Optimised for salt-nicotine smooth throat-feel” or “Delivers bold fruit flavour in free-base 6 mg/ml” — flavour houses can support with sensory-data documentation.
6.4 Future-proofing flavour portfolios
Given the rapid evolution of nicotine delivery systems (new salts, hybrid systems, synthetic nicotine, lower/zero-nicotine lines) flavour houses should:
Maintain a robust understanding of how pH, protonation, solvent interactions influence aroma compound behaviour.
Build flavour platform frameworks that specify “nicotine-system compatibilities” and “module adjustments” (i.e., flavour base + system-specific modifier).
Maintain strong analytical protocols (GC–MS, GC-O, sensory panels) under varied conditions (free-base vs salt, different PG/VG ratios, different coil temperatures) so that flavour behaviour under future systems is predictable.
Offer technical consultancy to clients: e.g., advising on how a shift from free-base to salt in a brand’s nicotine system will require flavour reassessment, not simply porting the same flavour code.
7. Practical Checklist: Flavour + Nicotine System Integration
Before finalising a flavour formulation, use this checklist to ensure alignment with nicotine system.
Identify nicotine system (free-base, salt, hybrid) and target nicotine concentration.
Confirm device/atomiser type (MTL/DTL, coil resistance, airflow) and expected aerosol behaviour.
Review flavour compound list: check solubility, volatility, acid/base stability (especially if salt system acidic).
Design flavour intensity relative to perceived nicotine interference:
Provide documentation to brand: flavour code, usage instructions (dosing range, recommended PG/VG matrix, nicotine system compatibility).
Pre-launch stability testing: shelf-life under expected conditions (including temperature/humidity) for both systems if relevant.
Post-launch monitoring: gather user feedback for flavour performance under real-world nicotine system/device combination; adjust future iterations.
8. Summary & Key Messages
The nicotine system (free-base vs nicotine salt vs hybrid) is a fundamental variablein e-liquid flavour performance. It affects chemical behaviour (pH, volatility, aerosol dynamics), sensory perception (sweetness, bitterness, throat-hit) and flavour stability.
Fragrance and flavour houses must treat the nicotine system as a formulation “co-ingredient” and design aroma systems accordingly — not simply assume a flavour code works identically across all nicotine systems.
Empirical research supports the fact that nicotine influences flavour perception (e.g., bitterness increases, sweetness decreases) and that flavour systems influence nicotine delivery (via pH and absorption).
For free-base nicotine systems: expect greater throat-hit/bitterness and possibly more flavour suppression — use bolder flavours, boosted sweetness/back-sweet.
For salt nicotine systems: smoother delivery allows for more nuanced flavour; ensure flavour compound stability in more acidic conditions.
Effective coordination between flavour house, e-liquid brand, device-provider, and regulatory considerations is crucial for best outcome.
A robust flavour-development protocol that includes sensory testing, analytical verification (GC–MS, retention, breakdown), stability testing, and dosage optimisation is vital to ensure flavour performance across nicotine systems.
As the market evolves (synthetic nicotine, new salts, variable nicotine concentrations, zero nicotine options), flavour houses with strong system-based formulation frameworks will be best positioned to support their clients.
Flavor Innovation Meeting
Call to Action
At CUIGUAI Flavoring, we specialise in food-grade, high-purity flavour systems tailored for e-liquids. We understand the critical role of nicotine systems in flavour performance, and we actively provide customised aroma solutions optimised for either free-base or salt nicotine platforms (or hybrid systems).
If you are seeking:
Technical exchange on flavour + nicotine system optimisation
Free samples of tailored flavour systems for your e-liquid line
Analytical data (GC–MS, stability, sensory) for flavour behaviour under different nicotine systems
Consultation on formulating flavour systems compatible with your chosen nicotine system
Let’s collaborate to design the next-generation e-liquid flavour systems that align seamlessly with your nicotine strategy and deliver superior sensory performance.
For a long time, the company has been committed to helping customers improve product grades and flavor quality, reduce production costs, and customize samples to meet the production and processing needs of different food industries.
Room 701, Building C, No. 16, East 1st Road, Binyong Nange, Daojiao Town, Dongguan City, Guangdong Province
ABOUT US
The business scope includes licensed projects: food additive production. General projects: sales of food additives; manufacturing of daily chemical products; sales of daily chemical products; technical services, technology development, technical consultation, technology exchange, technology transfer, and technology promotion; biological feed research and development; industrial enzyme preparation research and development; cosmetics wholesale; domestic trading agency; sales of sanitary products and disposable medical supplies; retail of kitchenware, sanitary ware and daily sundries; sales of daily necessities; food sales (only sales of pre-packaged food).
