Mainstream smoke constituents and in vitro toxicity comparative analysis of 3R4F and 1R6F reference cigarettes

Jaccard, G.; Djoko, Donatien Tafin; Korneliou, Alexandra; Stabbert, Regina; Belushkin, Maxim; Esposito, Marco

doi:10.1016/j.toxrep.2019.02.009

Cited by 63 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 62 publications

(81 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the dataset analyzed for cigarette emissions, acrylamide and ethylene oxide were not determined. Mainstream smoke data are, however, available in the literature for these two compounds in the smoke of the 3R4F and 1R6F reference cigarettes (Forster et al 2018 ; Jaccard et al 2019 ). Applying the same methodology as described, the cancer potencies were determined for these two substances on the basis of the published yields in smoke.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cancer potencies and margin of exposure used for comparative risk assessment of heated tobacco products and electronic cigarettes aerosols with cigarette smoke

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health risk associated with the use of combustible cigarettes is well characterized and numerous epidemiological studies have been published for many years. Since more than a decade, innovative non-combusted tobacco products have emerged like heated tobacco products (HTP) or electronic cigarettes (EC). Long-term effects of these new products on health remain, however, unknown and there is a need to characterize associated potential health risks. The time dedicated to epidemiological data generation (at least 20 to 40 years for cancer endpoint), though, is not compatible with innovative development. Surrogates need, therefore, to be developed. In this work, non-cancer and cancer risks were estimated in a range of HTP and commercial combustible cigarettes based upon their harmful and potentially harmful constituent yields in aerosols and smoke, respectively. It appears that mean lifetime cancer risk values were decreased by more than one order of magnitude when comparing HTPs and commercial cigarettes, and significantly higher margin of exposure for non-cancer risk was observed for HTPs when compared to commercial cigarettes. The same approach was applied to two commercial ECs. Similar results were also found for this category of products. Despite uncertainties related to the factors used for the calculations and methodological limitations, this approach is valuable to estimate health risks associated to the use of innovative products. Moreover, it acts as predictive tool in absence of long-term epidemiological data. Furthermore, both cancer and non-cancer risks estimated for HTPs and ECs highlight the potential of reduced risk for non-combusted products when compared to cigarette smoking.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cancer potencies and margin of exposure used for comparative risk assessment of heated tobacco products and electronic cigarettes aerosols with cigarette smoke

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In case of CO, Cobb et al [ 40 ] observed almost a four-fold higher exposure (based on carboxyhemoglobin) in waterpipe tobacco users than in cigarette smokers. Alternatively—on the basis of the nicotine yield from a single waterpipe session and a 1R6F reference cigarette [ 41 ]—according to the present results, one waterpipe session corresponds to smoking <1 to 7 cigarettes. There is clearly a need for better understanding of the behavior of waterpipe products consumers in order to allow comparison of such products with other tobacco products.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 89%

Analysis of waterpipe aerosol constituents in accordance with the ISO standard 22486

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Many studies found similarities in the chemical family and compound content between cigarettes smoke and waterpipe smoke, but with differences in the levels of these constituents. [37][38][39] The highest reported benzo[a]pyrene level in the cigarette smoke was found in the American Spirit Blue King HP; however, the benzo[a]pyrene level was still 8 times higher in the waterpipe smoke. 37 Additionally, the produced levels of formaldehyde in waterpipe smoke is 6 to 7 times higher compared with a 1R6F intense regime, whereas CO and nicotine levels were significantly higher in waterpipe smoke.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…37 Additionally, the produced levels of formaldehyde in waterpipe smoke is 6 to 7 times higher compared with a 1R6F intense regime, whereas CO and nicotine levels were significantly higher in waterpipe smoke. 26,38,39 Many factors could contribute to the wide gap of chemical levels between waterpipe and cigarette smoke, including session length, number of puffs, tobacco quantity, heating system, and temperature. Given that a typical waterpipe session lasts approximately 60 minutes and involves an average of 100 puffs compared with an average of 11 puffs from smoking 1 cigarette, waterpipe use is likely to lead to greater exposure to these chemicals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Waterpipe Tobacco Chemical Content, Microbial Contamination, and Genotoxic Effects: A Systematic Review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The spread of tobacco smoking has increased over time at the global and national levels. One of the widely spread tobacco products is waterpipe. Recent studies showed that waterpipe tobacco smoke contains toxic substances, including carbon monoxide and nicotine. Some of them are genotoxic carcinogen, such as formaldehyde. This study aims to provide comprehensive insight into the types and depth of the scientific literature on waterpipe tobacco smoke chemical content, its genotoxic effects, and waterpipe device microbial contamination. We conducted a systematic comprehensive review of articles published between 1986 and December 2018. Primary research articles focusing on the content of waterpipe smoke, including chemical, genotoxic, and microbial contaminants, were eligible for inclusion. Of the 1,286 studies generated, 22 studies were included. Twenty-three chemical families were extracted from waterpipe smoke. Aldehydes were the most identified chemical family in 6 studies, and next is polycyclic hydrocarbons, found in 5 studies. About 206 chemical compounds were identified. Flavobacterium, Pseudomonas, coagulase-negative Staphylococci, and Streptococcus were the most abundant pathogen contaminants. Waterpipe smoke had elevated levels of many DNA damage markers (8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine and cytochrome P450 1A1) and inhibited levels of many DNA repair genes ( OGG1 and XRCC1) in waterpipe smokers. Waterpipe smoke is associated with the genotoxic effect, which elevates the levels of many DNA damage markers and inhibits the levels of many DNA repair genes. In addition, waterpipe smoking can expose smokers to a range of pathogenic bacteria.

show abstract

Mainstream smoke constituents and in vitro toxicity comparative analysis of 3R4F and 1R6F reference cigarettes

Abstract: Graphical abstract

Cited by 63 publications

References 62 publications

Cancer potencies and margin of exposure used for comparative risk assessment of heated tobacco products and electronic cigarettes aerosols with cigarette smoke

Cancer potencies and margin of exposure used for comparative risk assessment of heated tobacco products and electronic cigarettes aerosols with cigarette smoke

Analysis of waterpipe aerosol constituents in accordance with the ISO standard 22486

Waterpipe Tobacco Chemical Content, Microbial Contamination, and Genotoxic Effects: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About