4.5 Article

Nicotine, Carbon Monoxide, and Carcinogen Exposure after a Single Use of a Water Pipe

Journal

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
Volume 20, Issue 11, Pages 2345-2353

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-0545

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program [15RT-0181]
  2. NIH [DA012393]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Smoking tobacco preparations in a water pipe (hookah) is widespread in many places of the world, including the United States, where it is especially popular among young people. Many perceive water pipe smoking to be less hazardous than cigarette smoking. We studied systemic absorption of nicotine, carbon monoxide, and carcinogens from one water pipe smoking session. Methods: Sixteen subjects smoked a water pipe on a clinical research ward. Expired carbon monoxide and carboxyhemoglobin were measured, plasma samples were analyzed for nicotine concentrations, and urine samples were analyzed for the tobacco-specific nitrosamine 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) metabolite biomarker concentrations. Results: We found substantial increases in plasma nicotine concentrations, comparable to cigarette smoking, and increases in carbon monoxide levels that are much higher than those typically observed from cigarette smoking, as previously published. Urinary excretion of NNAL and PAH biomarkers increased significantly following water pipe smoking. Conclusions: Absorption of nicotine in amounts comparable to cigarette smoking indicates a potential for addiction, and absorption of significant amounts of carcinogens raise concerns of cancer risk in people who smoke tobacco products in water pipes. Impact: Our data contribute to an understanding of the health impact of water pipe use. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 20(11); 2345-53. (C) 2011 AACR.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available