Secondhand exposure to vapors from electronic cigarettes.
ABSTRACT: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are designed to generate inhalable nicotine aerosol (vapor). When an e-cigarette user takes a puff, the nicotine solution is heated and the vapor is taken into lungs. Although no sidestream vapor is generated between puffs, some of the mainstream vapor is exhaled by e-cigarette user. The aim of this study was to evaluate the secondhand exposure to nicotine and other tobacco-related toxicants from e-cigarettes.We measured selected airborne markers of secondhand exposure: nicotine, aerosol particles (PM(2.5)), carbon monoxide, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in an exposure chamber. We generated e-cigarette vapor from 3 various brands of e-cigarette using a smoking machine and controlled exposure conditions. We also compared secondhand exposure with e-cigarette vapor and tobacco smoke generated by 5 dual users.The study showed that e-cigarettes are a source of secondhand exposure to nicotine but not to combustion toxicants. The air concentrations of nicotine emitted by various brands of e-cigarettes ranged from 0.82 to 6.23 µg/m(3). The average concentration of nicotine resulting from smoking tobacco cigarettes was 10 times higher than from e-cigarettes (31.60±6.91 vs. 3.32±2.49 µg/m(3), respectively; p = .0081).Using an e-cigarette in indoor environments may involuntarily expose nonusers to nicotine but not to toxic tobacco-specific combustion products. More research is needed to evaluate health consequences of secondhand exposure to nicotine, especially among vulnerable populations, including children, pregnant women, and people with cardiovascular conditions.
Project description:Electronic cigarettes, also known as e-cigarettes, are devices designed to imitate regular cigarettes and deliver nicotine via inhalation without combusting tobacco. They are purported to deliver nicotine without other toxicants and to be a safer alternative to regular cigarettes. However, little toxicity testing has been performed to evaluate the chemical nature of vapour generated from e-cigarettes. The aim of this study was to screen e-cigarette vapours for content of four groups of potentially toxic and carcinogenic compounds: carbonyls, volatile organic compounds, nitrosamines and heavy metals.Vapours were generated from 12 brands of e-cigarettes and the reference product, the medicinal nicotine inhaler, in controlled conditions using a modified smoking machine. The selected toxic compounds were extracted from vapours into a solid or liquid phase and analysed with chromatographic and spectroscopy methods.We found that the e-cigarette vapours contained some toxic substances. The levels of the toxicants were 9-450 times lower than in cigarette smoke and were, in many cases, comparable with trace amounts found in the reference product.Our findings are consistent with the idea that substituting tobacco cigarettes with e-cigarettes may substantially reduce exposure to selected tobacco-specific toxicants. E-cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy among smokers unwilling to quit, warrants further study. (To view this abstract in Polish and German, please see the supplementary files online.).
Project description:Importance:Use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) is increasing. Measures of exposure to known tobacco-related toxicants among e-cigarette users will inform potential health risks to individual product users. Objectives:To estimate concentrations of tobacco-related toxicants among e-cigarette users and compare these biomarker concentrations with those observed in combustible cigarette users, dual users, and never tobacco users. Design, Setting, and Participants:A population-based, longitudinal cohort study was conducted in the United States in 2013-2014. Cross-sectional analysis was performed between November 4, 2016, and October 5, 2017, of biomarkers of exposure to tobacco-related toxicants collected by the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study. Participants included adults who provided a urine sample and data on tobacco use (N?=?5105). Exposures:The primary exposure was tobacco use, including current exclusive e-cigarette users (n?=?247), current exclusive cigarette smokers (n?=?2411), and users of both products (dual users) (n?=?792) compared with never tobacco users (n?=?1655). Main Outcomes and Measures:Geometric mean concentrations of 50 individual biomarkers from 5 major classes of tobacco product constituents were measured: nicotine, tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Results:Of the 5105 participants, most were aged 35 to 54 years (weighted percentage, 38%; 95% CI, 35%-40%), women (60%; 95% CI, 59%-62%), and non-Hispanic white (61%; 95% CI, 58%-64%). Compared with exclusive e-cigarette users, never users had 19% to 81% significantly lower concentrations of biomarkers of exposure to nicotine, TSNAs, some metals (eg, cadmium and lead), and some VOCs (including acrylonitrile). Exclusive e-cigarette users showed 10% to 98% significantly lower concentrations of biomarkers of exposure, including TSNAs, PAHs, most VOCs, and nicotine, compared with exclusive cigarette smokers; concentrations were comparable for metals and 3 VOCs. Exclusive cigarette users showed 10% to 36% lower concentrations of several biomarkers than dual users. Frequency of cigarette use among dual users was positively correlated with nicotine and toxicant exposure. Conclusions and Relevance:Exclusive use of e-cigarettes appears to result in measurable exposure to known tobacco-related toxicants, generally at lower levels than cigarette smoking. Toxicant exposure is greatest among dual users, and frequency of combustible cigarette use is positively correlated with tobacco toxicant concentration. These findings provide evidence that using combusted tobacco cigarettes alone or in combination with e-cigarettes is associated with higher concentrations of potentially harmful tobacco constituents in comparison with using e-cigarettes alone.
Project description:The WHO study group on tobacco product regulation (TobReg) advised regulating and lowering toxicant levels in cigarette smoke. Aldehydes are one of the chemical classes on the TobReg smoke toxicants priority list. To provide insight in factors determining aldehyde yields, the levels of 12 aldehydes in mainstream cigarette smoke of 11 Dutch brands were quantified. Variations in smoking behavior and cigarette design affecting human exposure to aldehydes were studied by using four different machine testing protocols. Machine smoking was based on the International Standardization Organization (ISO) and Health Canada Intense (HCI) regime, both with and without taping the filter vents. The 11 cigarette brands differed in (i) design and blend characteristics; (ii) tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide (TNCO) levels; (iii) popularity; and (iv) manufacturer. Cigarette smoke was trapped on a Cambridge filter pad and carboxen cartridge. After being dissolved in methanol/CS2 and derivatization with DNPH, the aldehyde yields were determined using HPLC-DAD. Using an intense smoking regime (increased puff volume, shorter puff interval) significantly increased aldehyde yields, following the pattern: ISO < ISO-taped < HCI-untaped < HCI. For all of the regimes, acetaldehyde and acrolein yields were strongly correlated ( r = 0.804). The difference in TNCO and aldehyde levels between regular and highly ventilated low-TNCO cigarettes (as measured using ISO) diminished when smoking intensely; this effect is stronger when combined with taping filter vents. The highly ventilated low-TNCO brands showed six times more aldehyde production per mg nicotine for the intense smoking regimes. In conclusion, acetaldehyde and acrolein can be used as representatives for the class of volatile aldehydes for the different brands and smoking regimes. The aldehyde-to-nicotine ratio increased when highly ventilated cigarettes were smoked intensely, similar to real smokers. Thus, a smoker of highly ventilated low-TNCO cigarettes has an increased potential for higher aldehyde exposures compared to a smoker of regular cigarettes.
Project description:In the U.S. menthol remains the sole permitted characterizing cigarette flavor additive in part because efforts to link menthol cigarette use to increased tobacco-related disease risk have been inconclusive. To perform definitive studies, cigarettes that differ only in menthol content are required, yet these are not commercially available. We prepared research cigarettes differing only in menthol content by deposition of L-menthol vapor directly onto commercial nonmenthol cigarettes, and developed a method to measure a cigarette's menthol and nicotine content. With our custom-mentholation technique we achieved the desired moderately high menthol content (as compared to commercial brands) of 6.7 ± 1.0 mg/g (n = 25) without perturbing the cigarettes' nicotine content (17.7 ± 0.7 mg/g [n = 25]). We also characterized other pertinent attributes of our custom-mentholated cigarettes, including percent transmission of menthol and nicotine to mainstream smoke and the rate of loss of menthol over time during storage at room temperature. We are currently using this simple mentholation technique to investigate the differences in human exposure to selected chemicals in cigarette smoke due only to the presence of the added menthol. Our cigarettes will also aid in the elucidation of the effects of menthol on the toxicity of tobacco smoke.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:The aerosol composition of electronic cigarettes (ECs) suggests that exposure to toxicants during use is greatly reduced compared to exposure from combustible cigarettes (CCs). METHODS:This randomized, parallel-group, clinical study enrolled smokers to switch to Vuse Solo (VS) Digital Vapor Cigarettes (Original or Menthol) or Nicorette 4 mg nicotine gum (NG) in a controlled setting. Subjects who smoked CCs ad libitum for 2 days during a baseline period were then randomized to ad libitum use of either VS or NG for 5 days. Biomarkers of 23 toxicants were measured in 24-hour urine samples and blood collected at baseline and following product switch. RESULTS:A total of 153 subjects completed the study. Total nicotine equivalents decreased in all groups, but higher levels were observed in the VS groups compared to the NG groups, with decreases of 38% and 60%-67%, respectively. All other biomarkers were significantly decreased in subjects switched to VS, and the magnitude of biomarker decreases was similar to subjects switched to NG. Decreases ranged from 30% to greater than 85% for constituents such as benzene and acrylonitrile. CONCLUSIONS:These results indicate that exposure to toxicants when using VS is significantly reduced compared to CC smoking, and these reductions are similar to those observed with use of NG. Although statistically significantly decreased, nicotine exposure is maintained closer to CC smoking with VS use compared to NG use. This research suggests that use of VS exposes consumers to fewer and lower levels of smoke toxicants than CCs while still providing nicotine to the consumer. IMPLICATIONS:This is the first study to report changes in nicotine delivery and biomarkers of tobacco exposure following a short-term product switch from CCs to either an EC or NG in a controlled environment. The study shows that nicotine exposure decreased in both groups but was maintained closer to CC smoking with the EC groups. Biomarkers of tobacco combustion decreased to similar levels in both EC and gum groups.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:This study examined changes in biomarkers of exposure (BoE) after 5 days of nicotine-salt pod system (NSPS) use, compared with continuation of usual-cigarette smoking and cigarette abstinence, among adult combustible cigarette smokers. AIMS AND METHODS:A randomized, open-label, parallel-cohort, confinement study of healthy adult smokers, naive to NSPS use, was conducted. Participants (N = 90) were randomized to six cohorts (n = 15 each): exclusive ad libitum use of NSPS (four flavors: Virginia Tobacco, Mint, Mango, Creme), continuation of usual-brand cigarette smoking, or cigarette abstinence. Total nicotine equivalents and BoE (NNN, NNAL, 3-HPMA, MHBMA, S-PMA, HMPMA, CEMA, 1-OHP, and COHb) were measured. RESULTS:Eight non-nicotine BoEs, measured in urine, were reduced by an aggregate of 85.0% in the pooled NSPS cohort; increased by 14.4% in the cigarette cohort (p < .001 for pooled NSPS vs. cigarette); and reduced by 85.3% in the abstinence cohort (p > .05; 99.6% relative reduction between pooled NSPS vs. abstinence). Similar changes in individual BoEs were also observed (p < .001 for each BoE between pooled NSPS vs. cigarettes; and abstinence vs. pooled NSPS; p > .05 for each BoE between pooled NSPS vs. abstinence). Blood COHb decreased by 71.8% in the pooled NSPS cohort and 69.1% in the abstinence cohort (p > .05) and increased by 13.3% in the cigarette cohort (p < .001). Mean total urine nicotine equivalents increased in the pooled NSPS and cigarette cohorts by 9% and 26%, respectively, and did not significantly differ (p > .05). CONCLUSION:Complete switching from cigarettes to NSPS produced significant reductions in key non-nicotine BoEs associated with cigarette smoking. IMPLICATIONS:The results of this study concorded with evidence that complete switching from combustible cigarettes to tobacco and nontobacco-flavored vapor products may reduce exposure to key carcinogens and other toxicants known to be associated with tobacco-related diseases. Future research is needed to assess the long-term health effects of NSPS use. These results should not be interpreted to mean that the use of NSPS is without any risk, particularly for nonusers of tobacco products.
Project description:BACKGROUND:The dose-response relationships between number of cigarettes smoked per day (CPD) and health outcomes, such as cancer and heart disease, are well established, but much less is known about the relationships between CPD and biomarkers of exposure. METHODS:We analyzed biomarker data by CPD from more than 2,700 adult daily cigarette smokers in Wave 1 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study. Tobacco use categories consisted of exclusive cigarette smokers, dual cigarette and e-cigarette users, and dual cigarette and smokeless tobacco users. RESULTS:Biomarker concentrations consistently increased with CPD for each tobacco user group, although concentrations tended to level off at high smoking levels, such as those at and above 20 CPD. Dual cigarette and e-cigarette users had higher levels of some biomarkers such as Total Nicotine Equivalents-2 (P = 0.0036) than exclusive cigarette smokers, and dual cigarette and smokeless tobacco users had higher levels of 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (P < 0.0001) and N'-nitrosonornicotine (P = 0.0236) than exclusive cigarette smokers. CONCLUSIONS:Among daily smokers, exposure to tobacco toxicants and constituents exhibits a dose-response relationship by number of cigarettes smoked, but the relationship is not necessarily linear in form. Dual users of cigarettes with either e-cigarettes or smokeless tobacco are exposed to higher levels of certain toxicants and carcinogens than exclusive cigarette smokers. IMPACT:Availability of biomarker data by CPD may aid in comparisons between cigarette smoking and use of new and potentially reduced exposure tobacco products, which may result in different levels of constituent and toxicant exposure.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Cannabis and tobacco couse is common and could expose users to higher levels of toxicants. No studies have examined biomarkers of toxicant exposure in cousers of cannabis and cigarettes, compared with cigarette smokers (CS). AIMS AND METHODS:Adult daily CS were recruited from 10 US sites for a study of reduced nicotine cigarettes. In this analysis of baseline data, participants were categorized as either cousers of cannabis and tobacco (cousers; N = 167; urine positive for 11-nor-9-carboxy-??9-tetrahydrocannnabinol and self-reported cannabis use ?1×/week), or CS (N = 911; negative urine and no self-reported cannabis use). Participants who did not meet either definition (N = 172) were excluded. Self-reported tobacco and cannabis use and tobacco and/or combustion-related biomarkers of exposure were compared between groups. RESULTS:Compared to CS, cousers were younger (couser Mage = 38.96, SD = 13.01; CS Mage = 47.22, SD = 12.72; p < .001) and more likely to be male (cousers = 67.7%, CS = 51.9%, p < .001). There were no group differences in self-reported cigarettes/day, total nicotine equivalents, or breath carbon monoxide, but cousers had greater use of non-cigarette tobacco products. Compared to CS, cousers had higher concentrations of 3-hydroxypropylmercapturic acid, 2-cyanoethylmercapturic acid, S-phenylmercapturic acid, 3-hydroxy-1-methylpropylmercapturic acid (ps < .05), and phenanthrene tetraol (p < .001). No biomarkers were affected by number of cannabis use days/week or days since last cannabis use during baseline (ps > .05). CONCLUSIONS:Cousers had higher concentrations of biomarkers of exposure than CS, but similar number of cigarettes per day and nicotine exposure. Additional studies are needed to determine whether cannabis and/or alternative tobacco products are driving the increased toxicant exposure. IMPLICATIONS:Cousers of cannabis and tobacco appear to be exposed to greater levels of harmful chemicals (ie, volatile organic compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), but similar levels of nicotine as CS. It is unclear if the higher levels of toxicant exposure in cousers are due to cannabis use or the increased use of alternative tobacco products compared with CS. It is important for studies examining biomarkers of exposure among CS to account for cannabis use as it may have a significant impact on outcomes. Additionally, further research is needed examining exposure to harmful chemicals among cannabis users.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Article 10 of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control states the need for industry disclosure of tobacco contents and emissions. Currently, the profiles of key tobacco compounds in legal and illegal cigarettes are largely unknown. We aimed to analyze and compare concentrations of nicotine, nitrosamines, and humectants in legal and illegal cigarettes collected from a representative sample of smokers. METHODS:Participants of the International Tobacco Control cohort provided a cigarette pack of the brand they smoked during the 2014 wave. Brands were classified as legal or illegal according to the Mexican legislation. Nicotine, nitrosamines, glycerol, propylene glycol, and pH were quantified in seven randomly selected packs of each brand. All analyses were done blinded to legality status. Average concentrations per brand and global averages for legal and illegal brands were calculated. Comparisons between legal and illegal brands were conducted using t tests. RESULTS:Participants provided 76 different brands, from which 6.8% were illegal. Legal brands had higher nicotine (15.05?±?1.89 mg/g vs 12.09?±?2.69 mg/g; p?<?0001), glycerol (12.98?±?8.03 vs 2.93?±?1.96 mg/g; p?<?0.001), and N-nitrosanatabine (NAT) (1087.5?±?127.0 vs 738.5?±?338 ng/g; p?=?0.006) concentrations compared to illegal brands. For all other compounds, legal and illegal brands had similar concentrations. CONCLUSION:Compared to illegal cigarettes, legal brands seem to have higher concentrations of nicotine, NAT, and glycerol. Efforts must be made to implement and enforce Article 10 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control to provide transparent information to consumers, regulators, and policy-makers; and to limit cigarette engineering from the tobacco industry.
Project description:The Food and Drug Administration has the authority to regulate tobacco product constituents, including nicotine, to promote public health. Reducing the nicotine content in cigarettes may lead to lower levels of addiction. Smokers however may compensate by smoking more cigarettes and/or smoking more intensely. The objective of this study was to test whether individual differences in the level of nicotine dependence (as measured by the Fagerstrom Test of Cigarette Dependence [FTCD]) and/or the rate of nicotine metabolism influence smoking behavior and exposure to tobacco toxicants when smokers are switched to reduced nicotine content cigarettes (RNC).Data from 51 participants from a previously published clinical trial of RNC were analyzed. Nicotine content of cigarettes was progressively reduced over 6 months and measures of smoking behavior, as well as nicotine metabolites and tobacco smoke toxicant exposure, CYP2A6 and nicotinic CHRNA5-A3-B4 (rs1051730) genotype were measured.Higher baseline FTCD predicted smoking more cigarettes per day (CPD), higher cotinine and smoke toxicant levels while smoking RNC throughout the study, with no interaction by RNC level. Time to first cigarette (TFC) was associated with differences in compensation. TFC within 10 min was associated with a greater increase in CPD compared to TFC greater than 10 min. Neither rate of nicotine metabolism, nor CYP2A6 or nicotinic receptor genotype, had an effect on the outcome variables of interest.FTCD is associated with overall exposure to nicotine and other constituents of tobacco smoke, while a short TFC is associated with an increased compensatory response after switching to RNC.