Chinese ‘low-tar’ cigarettes do not deliver lower levels of nicotine and carcinogens

BackgroundLow-tar cigarette smoking is gaining popularity in China. The China National Tobacco Corporation (CNTC) promotes low-tar cigarettes as safer than regular cigarettes.MethodsA total of 543 male smokers smoking cigarettes with different tar yields (15 mg, regular cigarettes, 10-13 mg low-tar cigarettes and < 10 mg low-tar cigarettes) were recruited in Shanghai, China, who then completed a questionnaire on smoking behaviour and provided a urine sample for analysis of the nicotine metabolites cotinine and trans-3'-hydroxycotinine. A total of 177 urine samples were selected at random for the analysis of the carcinogens polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon metabolites (PAHs) (1-hydroxypyrene, naphthols, hydroxyfluorenes and hydroxyphenanthrenes) and the tobacco specific nitrosamine 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-butanone (NNK) metabolites, 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-butanol (NNAL) and NNAL-glucuronide. Values were normalised by creatinine to correct for possible distortions introduced by dilution or concentration of the urine.ResultsSmokers of low-tar cigarettes smoked fewer cigarettes per day (p=0.001) compared to smokers of regular cigarettes. Despite this lower reported consumption, levels of cotinine, trans-3'-hydroxycotinine and PAHs in urine of people smoking low-tar cigarettes were not correlated with nominal tar delivery of the cigarettes they smoked. Urine concentrations of NNAL were higher in smokers of lower tar than higher tar cigarettes.ConclusionsChinese low-tar cigarettes do not deliver lower doses of nicotine and carcinogens than regular cigarettes, therefore it is unlikely that there would be any reduction in harm. CNTC's promotion of low-tar cigarettes as 'less harmful' is a violation of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which China ratified in 2005

In Vitro Consequences of Electronic-Cigarette Flavoring Exposure on the Immature Lung.

Background: The developing lung is uniquely susceptible and may be at increased risk of injury with exposure to e-cigarette constituents. We hypothesize that cellular toxicity and airway and vascular responses with exposure to flavored refill solutions may be altered in the immature lung. Methods: Fetal, neonatal, and adult ovine pulmonary artery smooth muscle cells (PASMC) were exposed to popular flavored nicotine-free e-cigarette refill solutions (menthol, strawberry, tobacco, and vanilla) and unflavored solvents: propylene glycol (PG) or vegetable glycerin (VG). Viability was assessed by lactate dehydrogenase assay. Brochodilation and vasoreactivity were determined on isolated ovine bronchial rings (BR) and pulmonary arteries (PA). Results: Neither PG or VG impacted viability of immature or adult cells; however, exposure to menthol and strawberry flavored solutions increased cell death. Neonatal cells were uniquely susceptible to menthol flavoring-induced toxicity, and all four flavorings demonstrated lower lethal doses (LD50) in immature PASMC. Exposure to flavored solutions induced bronchodilation of neonatal BR, while only menthol induced airway relaxation in adults. In contrast, PG/VG and flavored solutions did not impact vasoreactivity with the exception of menthol-induced relaxation of adult PAs. Conclusion: The immature lung is uniquely susceptible to cellular toxicity and altered airway responses with exposure to common flavored e-cigarette solutions

Correlation between biomarkers of exposure, effect and potential harm in the urine of electronic cigarette users.

ObjectivesTo determine if urinary biomarkers of effect and potential harm are elevated in electronic cigarette users compared with non-smokers and if elevation correlates with increased concentrations of metals in urine.Study design and settingThis was a cross-sectional study of biomarkers of exposure, effect and potential harm in urine from non-smokers (n=20), electronic cigarette users (n=20) and cigarette smokers (n=13). Participant's screening and urine collection were performed at the Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, and biomarker analysis and metal analysis were performed at the University of California, Riverside.ResultsMetallothionein was significantly elevated in the electronic cigarette group (3761±3932 pg/mg) compared with the non-smokers (1129±1294 pg/mg, p=0.05). 8-OHdG (8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine) was significantly elevated in electronic cigarette users (442.8±300.7 ng/mg) versus non-smokers (221.6±157.8 ng/mg, p=0.01). 8-Isoprostane showed a significant increase in electronic cigarette users (750.8±433 pg/mg) versus non-smokers (411.2±287.4 pg/mg, p=0.03). Linear regression analysis in the electronic cigarette group showed a significant correlation between cotinine and total metal concentration; total metal concentration and metallothionein; cotinine and oxidative DNA damage; and total metal concentration and oxidative DNA damage. Zinc was significantly elevated in the electronic cigarette users (584.5±826.6 µg/g) compared with non-smokers (413.6±233.7 µg/g, p=0.03). Linear regression analysis showed a significant correlation between urinary zinc concentration and 8-OHdG in the electronic cigarette users.ConclusionsThis study is the first to investigate biomarkers of potential harm and effect in electronic cigarette users and to show a linkage to metal exposure. The biomarker levels in electronic cigarette users were similar to (and not lower than) cigarette smokers. In electronic cigarette users, there was a link to elevated total metal exposure and oxidative DNA damage. Specifically, our results demonstrate that zinc concentration was correlated to oxidative DNA damage

Toxicity of Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking: the Role of Flavors, Sweeteners, Humectants, and Charcoal

Waterpipe tobacco (WPT) smoking is a public health concern, particularly among youth and young adults. The global spread of WPT use has surged since the introduction of pre-packaged flavored and sweetened WPT, which is widely marketed as a safer tobacco alternative. Besides flavorants and sugars, WPT additives include humectants, which enhance the moisture and sweetness of WPT, act as solvents for flavors, and impart smoothness to the smoke, thus increasing appeal to users. In the United States (U.S.), unlike cigarette tobacco flavoring (with the exception of menthol), there is no FDA product standard or policy in place prohibiting sales of flavored WPT. Research has shown that the numerous fruit, candy, and alcohol flavors added to WPT entice individuals to experience those flavors, putting them at an increased risk of exposure to WPT smoke-related toxicants. Additionally, burning charcoal briquettes-used as a heating source for WPT-contributes to the harmful health effects of WPT smoking. This review presents existing evidence on the potential toxicity resulting from humectants, sugars, and flavorants in WPT, and from the charcoal used to heat WPT. The review discusses relevant studies of inhalation toxicity in animal models and of biomarkers of exposure in humans. Current evidence suggests that more data are needed on toxicant emissions in WPT smoke to inform effective tobacco regulation to mitigate the adverse impact of WPT use on human health

A Review of the Toxicity of Ingredients in E-Cigarettes, Including Those Ingredients Having the Fda\u27s generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) Regulatory Status for Use in Food.

Some firms and marketers of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes; a type of electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS)) and refill liquids (e-liquids) have made claims about the safety of ingredients used in their products based on the term GRAS or Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS). However, GRAS is a provision within the definition of a food additive under section 201(s) (21 U.S.C. 321(s)) of the U.S. Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). Food additives and GRAS substances are by the FD&C Act definition intended for use in food, thus safety is based on oral consumption; the term GRAS cannot serve as an indicator of the toxicity of e-cigarette ingredients when aerosolized and inhaled (i.e., vaped). There is no legal or scientific support for labeling e-cigarette product ingredients as GRAS . This review discusses our concerns with the GRAS provision being applied to e-cigarette products and provides examples of chemical compounds that have been used as food ingredients but have been shown to lead to adverse health effects when inhaled. The review provides scientific insight into the toxicological evaluation of e-liquid ingredients and their aerosols to help determine the potential respiratory risks associated with their use in e-cigarettes

E-cigarette puffing patterns associated with high and low nicotine e-liquid strength: effects on toxicant and carcinogen exposure

Contrary to intuition, use of lower strength nicotine e-liquids might not offer reduced health risk if compensatory puffing behaviour occurs. Compensatory puffing (e.g. more frequent, longer puffs) or user behaviour (increasing the wattage) can lead to higher temperatures at which glycerine and propylene glycol (solvents used in e-liquids) undergo decomposition to carbonyl compounds, including the carcinogens formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. This study aims to document puffing patterns and user behaviour associated with using high and low strength nicotine e-liquid and associated toxicant/carcinogen exposure in experienced e-cigarette users (known as vapers herein)

Biomarkers of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) use

This perspective summarizes available evidence on biomarkers of exposure in electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) users to aid the overall assessment of the health consequences of using ENDS. Identification of novel biomarkers of exposure specific to ENDS use remains challenging because chemicals emitted from ENDS devices have many familiar sources. The biomarker levels of many tobacco-related toxicants measured in biological samples collected from ENDS users did not differ significantly from non-users, except for nicotine metabolites and a small number of biomarkers of exposure to volatile organic compounds and tobacco-specific tobacco nitrosamines. Several studies have shown that while exposed to nicotine, long-term exclusive ENDS users showed significantly lower levels of toxicant biomarkers than cigarette smokers. Studies have also shown that concurrent users of ENDS and combustible cigarettes (‘dual users’) are not reducing overall exposure to harmful toxicants compared to exclusive cigarette smokers. Because of an absence of validated ENDS-specific biomarkers, we recommend combining several biomarkers to differentiate tobacco product user groups in population-based studies and monitor ENDS compliance in randomized controlled trials. Using a panel of biomarkers would provide a better understanding of health effects related to ENDS use