4.5 Review

Waterpipe smoking and nicotine exposure: A review of the current evidence

期刊

NICOTINE & TOBACCO RESEARCH
卷 9, 期 10, 页码 987-994

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1080/14622200701591591

关键词

-

资金

  1. FIC NIH HHS [R01 TW005964-05, R01 TW005964] Funding Source: Medline
  2. FOGARTY INTERNATIONAL CENTER [R01TW005964] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The waterpipe, also known as shisha, hookah, narghile, goza, and hubble bubble, has long been used for tobacco consumption in the Middle East, India, and parts of Asia, and more recently has been introduced into the smokeless tobacco market in western nations. We reviewed the published literature on waterpipe use to estimate daily nicotine exposure among adult waterpipe smokers. We identified six recent studies that measured the nicotine or cotinine levels associated with waterpipe smoking in four countries (Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, and India). Four of these studies directly measured nicotine or cotinine levels in human subjects. The remaining two studies used smoking machines to measure the nicotine yield in smoking condensate produced by the waterpipe. Meta-analysis of the human data indicated that daily use of the waterpipe produced a 24-hr urinary cotinine level of 0.785 mu g/ml (95% CI=0.578-0.991 mu g/ml), a nicotine absorption rate equivalent to smoking 10 cigarettes/day (95% CI=7-13 cigarettes/day). Even among subjects who were not daily waterpipe smokers, a single session of waterpipe use produced a urinary cotinine level that was equivalent to smoking two cigarettes in one day. Estimates of the nicotine produced by waterpipe use can vary because of burn temperature, type of tobacco, waterpipe design, individual smoking pattern, and duration of the waterpipe smoking habit. Our quantitative synthesis of the limited human data from four nations indicates that daily use of waterpipes produces nicotine absorption of a magnitude similar to that produced by daily cigarette use.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据