Comparison of urinary mercapturic acid excretions in users of various tobacco/nicotine products

Abstract

Urinary mercapturic acids (MAs) are detoxification products for electrophiles occurring in the human body. They are suitable biomarkers of exposure to directly acting electrophilic chemicals or to chemicals which generate the electrophile during its metabolism. We determined the urinary excretion of 19 MAs in habitual users of combustible cigarettes (CCs), electronic cigarettes (ECs), heated tobacco products (HTPs), oral tobacco (OT), and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) products, and nonusers (NUs) of any tobacco/nicotine products. The 19 MAs are assumed to be physiologically formed primarily from 15 toxicants with three of them belonging to IARC Group 1 (human carcinogen), seven to Group 2A (probable human carcinogen), four to Group 2B (possible human carcinogen), and one to Group 3 (not classifiable as carcinogen). Smoking (CC) was found to be associated with significantly elevated exposure to ethylene oxide (or ethylene), 1,3‐butadiene, benzene, dimethylformamide, acrolein, acrylamide, styrene, propylene oxide, acrylonitrile, crotonaldehyde, and isoprene compared with the other user groups and NU. Users of HTPs revealed slight elevation in the MAs related to acrolein, acrylamide, and crotonaldehyde compared with the other non‐CC groups. Vaping (EC) was not found to be associated with any of the MAs studied. In conclusion, the determination of urinary MAs is a useful tool for assessing the exposure to toxicants (mainly potential carcinogens) in users of various tobacco/nicotine products. Our data also give cause to clarify the role of vaping (EC) in urinary excretion of DHPMA (precursor: glycidol).

The Product Science of Electrically Heated Tobacco Products: An Updated Narrative Review of the Scientific Literature

“…The study protocol for the second study, as described in the original review [11], detailed a controlled, single-center study involving 60 healthy subjects, divided into six product use groups (five nicotine product user groups and one non-user group) based on the sole use of their products of choice (cigarettes, HTPs, EVPs, oral tobacco products, and oral/transdermal nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) products) [114]. The results of the study have been published in several articles, with each article looking at different biomarker classes [115][116][117][118][119][120][121]. The subjects were confined in a clinical setting for a period of 76 hours, during which time unrestricted use of their product of choice was permitted as described (cigarettes, HTPs, EVPs, oral tobacco products, and oral/transdermal nicotine replacement therapy products).…”

“…The exposure of HTP users to tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), minor alkaloids, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), aromatic amines, ethylene oxide, 1,3-butadiene, and benzene was reported to be at levels comparable to those observed for non-users [116][117][118][119][120]. Overall, the authors concluded that unique differentiation between product use groups by means of a single biomarker was not possible for users of oral tobacco products, HTP users, and nicotine gum users [121].…”

Oral health risks in users of new generation nicotine/tobacco products (NGPs): Systematic review and qualitative meta-analyses

“…NGPs deliver similar or somewhat reduced amounts of nicotine (19), but signi cantly lower amounts of toxicants (1,20). Use of NGPs was shown to be implicated with substantial reductions in the exposure to all classes of toxicants including aldehydes, epoxides, tobacco-speci c nitrosamines (TSNAs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), aromatic amines compared to smokers of CCs by measuring suitable biomarkers of exposure (21)(22)(23)(24) (for review, see: (20,(25)(26)(27)(28)).…”

“…Apart from the considerable reduction (80-95%) in the exposure to tobacco combustion chemicals, use of NGPs involves the daily exposure to nicotine, matrix components and avor compounds in larger amounts and some toxicants more likely in trance amounts (microgram to nanogram range (20)). A systematic biomarker of exposure (BOE) study under controlled conditions with users of CCs, ECs, HTPs, oral tobacco (OT) and nicotine gum in comparison to non-users (NU) revealed that OT users (various products, not only snus) showed elevations in the exposure to TSNAs lower or close to that in CC smokers (21)(22)(23)(24). There was some weak evidence that HTP users' exposure to acrolein, acrylamide, acrylonitrile, o-toluidine and TSNA was slightly (but not signi cantly) higher than that of NU and the other non-CC groups, but much lower than that of smokers (CC).…”

The science behind vaping

“…They suggest that this model can be used to screen for optimal pharmacokinetic properties of nicotine delivery systems. Scherer et al 7 describe some of their research to differentiate between users of different types of tobacco and nicotine products. They compared the urinary excretions of 19 different mercapturic acids (MAs; which serve as Biomarkers of Exposure to certain tobacco smoke toxicants) in six groups of volunteers who were exclusively using: combustible cigarettes; e‐cigarettes, heated tobacco products; oral tobacco products (predominantly snus); or nicotine replacement therapy (NRT; primarily nicotine gum); plus a group who did not use any tobacco or nicotine products.…”