23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Toxicant content, physical properties and biological activity of waterpipe tobacco smoke and its tobacco-free alternatives

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          Waterpipe smoking using sweetened, flavoured tobacco products has become a widespread global phenomenon. In this paper, we review chemical, physical and biological properties of waterpipe smoke.

          Data sources

          Peer-reviewed publications indexed in major databases between 1991 and 2014. Search keywords included a combination of: waterpipe, narghile, hookah, shisha along with names of chemical compounds and classes of compounds, in addition to terms commonly used in cellular biology and aerosol sizing.

          Study selection

          The search was limited to articles published in English which reported novel data on waterpipe tobacco smoke (WTS) toxicant content, biological activity or particle size and which met various criteria for analytical rigour including: method specificity and selectivity, precision, accuracy and recovery, linearity, range, and stability.

          Data extraction

          Multiple researchers reviewed the reports and collectively agreed on which data were pertinent for inclusion.

          Data synthesis

          Waterpipe smoke contains significant concentrations of toxicants thought to cause dependence, heart disease, lung disease and cancer in cigarette smokers, and includes 27 known or suspected carcinogens. Waterpipe smoke is a respirable aerosol that induces cellular responses associated with pulmonary and arterial diseases. Except nicotine, smoke generated using tobacco-free preparations marketed for ‘health conscious’ users contains the same or greater doses of toxicants, with the same cellular effects as conventional products. Toxicant yield data from the analytical laboratory are consistent with studies of exposure biomarkers in waterpipe users.

          Conclusions

          A sufficient evidence base exists to support public health interventions that highlight the fact that WTS presents a serious inhalation hazard.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The effects of waterpipe tobacco smoking on health outcomes: a systematic review.

          There is a need for a comprehensive and critical review of the literature to inform scientific debates about the public health effects of waterpipe smoking. The objective of this study was therefore to systematically review the medical literature for the effects of waterpipe tobacco smoking on health outcomes. We conducted a systematic review using the Cochrane Collaboration methodology for conducting systematic reviews. We rated the quality of evidence for each outcome using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Twenty-four studies were eligible for this review. Based on the available evidence, waterpipe tobacco smoking was significantly associated with lung cancer [odds ratio (OR) = 2.12; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32-3.42], respiratory illness (OR = 2.3; 95% CI 1.1-5.1), low birth-weight (OR = 2.12; 95% CI 1.08-4.18) and periodontal disease (OR = 3-5). It was not significantly associated with bladder cancer (OR = 0.8; 95% CI 0.2-4.0), nasopharyngeal cancer (OR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.20-1.23), oesophageal cancer (OR = 1.85; 95% CI 0.95-3.58), oral dysplasia (OR = 8.33; 95% CI 0.78-9.47) or infertility (OR = 2.5; 95% CI 1.0-6.3) but the CIs did not exclude important associations. Smoking waterpipe in groups was not significantly associated with hepatitis C infection (OR = 0.98; 95% CI 0.80-1.21). The quality of evidence for the different outcomes varied from very low to low. Waterpipe tobacco smoking is possibly associated with a number of deleterious health outcomes. There is a need for high-quality studies to identify and quantify with confidence all the health effects of this form of smoking.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Application of toxicological risk assessment principles to the chemical constituents of cigarette smoke.

            To provide a hazard prioritisation for reported chemical constituents of cigarette smoke using toxicological risk assessment principles and assumptions. The purpose is to inform prevention efforts using harm reduction. International Agency for Research on Cancer Monographs; California and US Environmental Protection Agency cancer potency factors (CPFs) and reference exposure levels; scientific journals and government reports from the USA, Canada, and New Zealand. This was an inclusive review of studies reporting yields of cigarette smoke constituents using standard ISO methods. Where possible, the midpoint of reported ranges of yields was used. Data on 158 compounds in cigarette smoke were found. Of these, 45 were known or suspected human carcinogens. Cancer potency factors were available for 40 of these compounds and reference exposure levels (RELs) for non-cancer effects were found for 17. A cancer risk index (CRI) was calculated by multiplying yield levels with CPFs. A non-cancer risk index (NCRI) was calculated by dividing yield levels with RELs. Gas phase constituents dominate both CRI and NCRI for cigarette smoke. The contribution of 1,3-butadiene (BDE) to CRI was more than twice that of the next highest contributing carcinogen (acrylonitrile) using potencies from the State of California EPA. Using those potencies from the USEPA, BDE ranked third behind arsenic and acetaldehyde. A comparison of CRI estimates with estimates of smoking related cancer deaths in the USA showed that the CRI underestimates the observed cancer rates by about fivefold using ISO yields in the exposure estimate. The application of toxicological risk assessment methods to cigarette smoke provides a plausible and objective framework for the prioritisation of carcinogens and other toxicant hazards in cigarette smoke. However, this framework does not enable the prediction of actual cancer risk for a number of reasons that are discussed. Further, the lack of toxicology data on cardiovascular end points for specific chemicals makes the use of this framework less useful for cardiovascular toxicity. The bases for these priorities need to be constantly re-evaluated as new toxicology information emerges.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Waterpipe tobacco and cigarette smoking: direct comparison of toxicant exposure.

              Waterpipe (hookah, shisha) tobacco smoking has spread worldwide. Many waterpipe smokers believe that, relative to cigarettes, waterpipes are associated with lower smoke toxicant levels and fewer health risks. For physicians to address these beliefs credibly, waterpipe use and cigarette smoking must be compared directly. The purpose of this study is to provide the first controlled, direct laboratory comparison of the toxicant exposure associated with waterpipe tobacco and cigarette smoking. Participants (N=31; M=21.4 years, SD=2.3) reporting monthly waterpipe use (M=5.2 uses/month, SD=4.0) and weekly cigarette smoking (M=9.9 cigarettes/day, SD=6.4) completed a crossover study in which they each smoked a waterpipe for a maximum of 45 minutes, or a single cigarette. Outcome measures included expired-air carbon monoxide (CO) 5 minutes after session's end, and blood carboxyhemoglobin (COHb), plasma nicotine, heart rate, and puff topography. Data were collected in 2008-2009 and analyzed in 2009. On average, CO increased by 23.9 ppm for waterpipe use (SD=19.8) and 2.7 ppm for cigarette smoking (SD=1.8), while peak waterpipe COHb levels (M=3.9%, SD=2.5) were three times those observed for cigarette smoking (M=1.3%, SD=0.5; p's<0.001). Peak nicotine levels did not differ (waterpipe M=10.2 ng/mL, SD=7.0; cigarette M=10.6 ng/mL, SD=7.7). Significant heart rate increases relative to pre-smoking were observed at 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 35 minutes during the cigarette session and at 5-minute intervals during the waterpipe session (p's<0.001). Mean total puff volume was 48.6 L for waterpipe use as compared to 1.0 L for cigarette smoking (p<0.001). Relative to cigarette smoking, waterpipe use is associated with greater CO, similar nicotine, and dramatically more smoke exposure. Physicians should consider advising their patients that waterpipe tobacco smoking exposes them to some of the same toxicants as cigarette smoking and therefore the two tobacco-smoking methods likely share some of the same health risks.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Tob Control
                Tob Control
                tobaccocontrol
                tc
                Tobacco Control
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                0964-4563
                1468-3318
                March 2015
                : 24
                : Suppl 1 , Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking: A Global Epidemic
                : i22-i30
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Mechanical Engineering, American University of Beirut , Beirut, Lebanon
                [2 ]Department of Psychology, Center for the Study of Tobacco Products, Virginia Commonwealth University , Richmond, Virginia, USA
                [3 ]Department of Safety of Pesticides, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment , Berlin, Germany
                [4 ]Department of Chemistry, American University of Beirut , Beirut, Lebanon
                [5 ]Department of Human Morphology, American University of Beirut , Beirut, Lebanon
                [6 ]Department of Chemicals and Product Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment , Berlin, Germany
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Professor Alan Shihadeh, Department of Mechanical Engineering, PO Box 11-0236, Riad El Solh, Beirut 1107 2020, Lebanon; as20@ 123456aub.edu.lb
                Article
                tobaccocontrol-2014-051907
                10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051907
                4345918
                25666550
                415addc0-e598-41c2-a44a-0a1b92a6f3e4
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 2 October 2014
                : 14 January 2015
                Categories
                1506
                Supplement
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Public health
                carcinogens,non-cigarette tobacco products,toxicology
                Public health
                carcinogens, non-cigarette tobacco products, toxicology

                Comments

                Comment on this article