INTRODUCTION: Cotinine, the primary proximate metabolite of nicotine, is commonly measured as an index of exposure to tobacco in both active users of tobacco and nonsmokers with possible exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS). A number of laboratories have implemented analyses for measuring serum cotinine in recent years, but there have been few interlaboratory comparisons of the results. Among nonsmokers exposed to SHS, the concentration of cotinine in blood can be quite low, and extensive variability in these measurements has been reported in the past. METHODS: In this study, a group of seven laboratories, all experienced in serum cotinine analysis, measured eight coded serum pools with concentrations ranging from background levels of about 0.05 ng/ml to relatively high concentrations in the active smokers range. All laboratories used either gas-liquid chromatography with nitrogen-phosphorus detection or liquid chromatography with mass spectrometric detection. RESULTS: All seven laboratories reliably measured the cotinine concentrations in samples that were within the range of their methods. In each case, the results for the pools were correctly ranked in order, and no significant interlaboratory bias was observed at the 5% level of significance for results from any of the pools. DISCUSSION: We conclude that present methods of chromatographic analysis of serum cotinine, as used by these experienced laboratories, are capable of providing accurate and precise results in both the smoker and the nonsmoker concentration range.
INTRODUCTION:Cotinine, the primary proximate metabolite of nicotine, is commonly measured as an index of exposure to tobacco in both active users of tobacco and nonsmokers with possible exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS). A number of laboratories have implemented analyses for measuring serum cotinine in recent years, but there have been few interlaboratory comparisons of the results. Among nonsmokers exposed to SHS, the concentration of cotinine in blood can be quite low, and extensive variability in these measurements has been reported in the past. METHODS: In this study, a group of seven laboratories, all experienced in serum cotinine analysis, measured eight coded serum pools with concentrations ranging from background levels of about 0.05 ng/ml to relatively high concentrations in the active smokers range. All laboratories used either gas-liquid chromatography with nitrogen-phosphorus detection or liquid chromatography with mass spectrometric detection. RESULTS: All seven laboratories reliably measured the cotinine concentrations in samples that were within the range of their methods. In each case, the results for the pools were correctly ranked in order, and no significant interlaboratory bias was observed at the 5% level of significance for results from any of the pools. DISCUSSION: We conclude that present methods of chromatographic analysis of serum cotinine, as used by these experienced laboratories, are capable of providing accurate and precise results in both the smoker and the nonsmoker concentration range.
Authors: N Jacob; C Berny; J-C Boyer; B Capolaghi; G de L'Homme; G Desch; D Garelik; N Houdret; G Le Moel; M Moulsma; E Plantin-Carrenard Journal: Ann Biol Clin (Paris) Date: 2005 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 0.459
Authors: Kathleen Strong; Regina Guthold; Ju Yang; Donna Lee; Patrick Petit; Christopher Fitzpatrick Journal: Eur J Cancer Prev Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Neal L Benowitz; John T Bernert; Ralph S Caraballo; David B Holiday; Jiantong Wang Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2008-11-19 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: James L Pirkle; John T Bernert; Samuel P Caudill; Connie S Sosnoff; Terry F Pechacek Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Lanqing Wang; John T Bernert; Neal L Benowitz; June Feng; Peyton Jacob; Ernest McGahee; Samuel P Caudill; Gerhard Scherer; Max Scherer; Nikola Pluym; Mira V Doig; Kirk Newland; Sharon E Murphy; Nicolas J Caron; Lane C Sander; Makiko Shimizu; Hiroshi Yamazaki; Sung Kim; Loralie J Langman; Jeanita S Pritchett; Lorna T Sniegoski; Yao Li; Benjamin C Blount; James L Pirkle Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2018-05-31 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Cindy M Chang; Selvin H Edwards; Aarthi Arab; Arseima Y Del Valle-Pinero; Ling Yang; Dorothy K Hatsukami Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2016-11-09 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Peyton Jacob; Neal L Benowitz; Hugo Destaillats; Lara Gundel; Bo Hang; Manuela Martins-Green; Georg E Matt; Penelope J E Quintana; Jonathan M Samet; Suzaynn F Schick; Prue Talbot; Noel J Aquilina; Melbourne F Hovell; Jian-Hua Mao; Todd P Whitehead Journal: Chem Res Toxicol Date: 2016-12-21 Impact factor: 3.739
Authors: Suzaynn F Schick; Benjamin C Blount; Peyton Jacob; Najat A Saliba; John T Bernert; Ahmad El Hellani; Peter Jatlow; R Steven Pappas; Lanqing Wang; Jonathan Foulds; Arunava Ghosh; Stephen S Hecht; John C Gomez; Jessica R Martin; Clementina Mesaros; Sanjay Srivastava; Gideon St Helen; Robert Tarran; Pawel K Lorkiewicz; Ian A Blair; Heather L Kimmel; Claire M Doerschuk; Neal L Benowitz; Aruni Bhatnagar Journal: Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 5.464
Authors: Erica B Johnstone; Germaine M Buck Louis; Patrick J Parsons; Amy J Steuerwald; Christopher D Palmer; Zhen Chen; Liping Sun; Ahmad O Hammoud; Jessie Dorais; C Matthew Peterson Journal: Reprod Toxicol Date: 2014-06-30 Impact factor: 3.143
Authors: Britton Trabert; Zhen Chen; Kurunthachalam Kannan; C Matthew Peterson; Anna Z Pollack; Liping Sun; Germaine M Buck Louis Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2014-05-07 Impact factor: 5.563