Marielle C Brinkman1, Hyoshin Kim2, Sydney M Gordon3, Robyn R Kroeger3, Iza L Reyes4, Dawn M Deojay5, Caleb Chitwood4, Timothy E Lane6, Pamela I Clark7. 1. Public Health Center for Tobacco Research, Battelle, Columbus, OH; Health and Analytics, Battelle, Columbus, OH; brinkmmc@battelle.org. 2. Public Health Center for Tobacco Research, Battelle, Columbus, OH; Health and Analytics, Battelle, Seattle, WA; 3. Public Health Center for Tobacco Research, Battelle, Columbus, OH; Health and Analytics, Battelle, Columbus, OH; 4. Public Health Center for Tobacco Research, Battelle, Columbus, OH; 5. Health and Analytics, Battelle, Columbus, OH; 6. Applied Biology and Aerosol Technology, Battelle, Columbus, OH; 7. School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Worldwide, commercially available waterpipes vary widely in design and durability, including differences in fabrication materials, degree of leak-tight fit, and flow path diameter. Little is known about how the components of the waterpipe may influence puffing behavior and user's exposure to toxins. To systematically evaluate exposure, it is necessary to use a standardized research-grade waterpipe (RWP) when conducting clinical and laboratory-based trials. METHODS: We developed a RWP that is configured with an in-line topography system which allows real-time measurement and recording of the smoke volume drawn through the RWP. The RWP was calibrated across the flow rate range expected for waterpipe tobacco smoking and the calibration was verified for known puff volumes using a smoking machine. Operation of the RWP was qualified in a cohort of experienced waterpipe smokers, each smoker using the RWP ad libitum in a laboratory setting while smoker topography and subjective effects data were collected. RESULTS: RWP machine smoking was highly reproducible and yielded puff volumes that agreed well with true values. User acceptance was comparable, and puffing behavior was similar in pattern, with more frequent puffing in the beginning of the session, but significantly different in intensity from that used to estimate the majority of toxicant exposure reported in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: The RWP operates with known precision and accuracy and is well accepted by experienced smokers. This tool can be used to determine the extent to which puffing behaviors are affected by the waterpipe design, components, and/or accessories, tobacco nicotine content, sweet flavorings and/or additives known to increase addictiveness. IMPLICATIONS: This study describes a standardized RWP, equipped with a puffing topography analyzer, which can operate with known precision and accuracy, and is well-accepted by experienced smokers in terms of satisfaction and reward. The RWP is an important tool for determining if puffing behaviors, and thus estimated toxin exposures, are affected by the waterpipe design, components, and/or accessories, tobacco nicotine content, sweet flavorings, and/or additives that are known to increase addictiveness.
INTRODUCTION: Worldwide, commercially available waterpipes vary widely in design and durability, including differences in fabrication materials, degree of leak-tight fit, and flow path diameter. Little is known about how the components of the waterpipe may influence puffing behavior and user's exposure to toxins. To systematically evaluate exposure, it is necessary to use a standardized research-grade waterpipe (RWP) when conducting clinical and laboratory-based trials. METHODS: We developed a RWP that is configured with an in-line topography system which allows real-time measurement and recording of the smoke volume drawn through the RWP. The RWP was calibrated across the flow rate range expected for waterpipe tobacco smoking and the calibration was verified for known puff volumes using a smoking machine. Operation of the RWP was qualified in a cohort of experienced waterpipe smokers, each smoker using the RWP ad libitum in a laboratory setting while smoker topography and subjective effects data were collected. RESULTS: RWP machine smoking was highly reproducible and yielded puff volumes that agreed well with true values. User acceptance was comparable, and puffing behavior was similar in pattern, with more frequent puffing in the beginning of the session, but significantly different in intensity from that used to estimate the majority of toxicant exposure reported in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: The RWP operates with known precision and accuracy and is well accepted by experienced smokers. This tool can be used to determine the extent to which puffing behaviors are affected by the waterpipe design, components, and/or accessories, tobacconicotine content, sweet flavorings and/or additives known to increase addictiveness. IMPLICATIONS: This study describes a standardized RWP, equipped with a puffing topography analyzer, which can operate with known precision and accuracy, and is well-accepted by experienced smokers in terms of satisfaction and reward. The RWP is an important tool for determining if puffing behaviors, and thus estimated toxin exposures, are affected by the waterpipe design, components, and/or accessories, tobacconicotine content, sweet flavorings, and/or additives that are known to increase addictiveness.
Authors: Brian A Primack; Ariel Shensa; Kevin H Kim; Mary V Carroll; Mary T Hoban; E Victor Leino; Thomas Eissenberg; Kathleen H Dachille; Michael J Fine Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2012-05-28 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Assieh A Melikian; Mirjana V Djordjevic; Shuquan Chen; John Richie; Steven D Stellman Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Melissa D Blank; Caroline O Cobb; Barbara Kilgalen; Janet Austin; Michael F Weaver; Alan Shihadeh; Thomas Eissenberg Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2011-02-01 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Peyton Jacob; Ahmad H Abu Raddaha; Delia Dempsey; Christopher Havel; Margaret Peng; Lisa Yu; Neal L Benowitz Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2013-03-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Gideon St Helen; Neal L Benowitz; Katherine M Dains; Christopher Havel; Margaret Peng; Peyton Jacob Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-05-16 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Carmen S Tellez; Daniel E Juri; Loryn M Phillips; Kieu Do; Cindy L Thomas; Randy Willink; Wendy W Dye; Guodong Wu; Yue Zhou; Hammad Irshad; Shosei Kishida; Tohru Kiyono; Steven A Belinsky Journal: Toxicol Sci Date: 2021-10-27 Impact factor: 4.109
Authors: Marielle C Brinkman; Hyoshin Kim; Stephanie S Buehler; Anna M Adetona; Sydney M Gordon; Pamela I Clark Journal: Tob Control Date: 2018-10-30 Impact factor: 7.552