Jona M Johnson1, Luke P Naeher2, Xiaozhong Yu2, Connie Sosnoff3, Lanqing Wang3, Stephen L Rathbun4, Víctor R De Jesús3, Baoyun Xia3, Cory Holder5, Jessica L Muilenburg6, Jia-Sheng Wang7. 1. Environmental Health Science Department, College of Public Health, University of Georgia, 206 Environmental Health Science Building, Athens, GA, 30602, USA. Electronic address: jmogden@uga.edu. 2. Environmental Health Science Department, College of Public Health, University of Georgia, 206 Environmental Health Science Building, Athens, GA, 30602, USA. 3. Division of Laboratory Sciences, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, Atlanta, GA, 30341, USA. 4. Epidemiology and Biostatistics Department, College of Public Health, University of Georgia, 206 Miller Hall, Health Sciences Campus, Athens, GA, 30602, USA. 5. Division of Laboratory Sciences, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, Atlanta, GA, 30341, USA; Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, TN, 37831, USA. 6. Health Promotion and Behavior Department, College of Public Health, University of Georgia, 233 Wright Hall, Health Sciences Campus, Athens, GA, 30602, USA. 7. Environmental Health Science Department, College of Public Health, University of Georgia, 206 Environmental Health Science Building, Athens, GA, 30602, USA. Electronic address: jswang@uga.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) conventions regularly bring together thousands of users around the world. In these environments, secondhand exposures to high concentrations of e-cigarette emissions are prevalent. Some biomarkers for tobacco smoke exposure may be used to characterize secondhand e-cigarette exposures in such an environment. METHODS: Participants who did not use any tobacco product attended four separate e-cigarette events for approximately six hours. Urine and saliva samples were collected from participants prior to the event, immediately after the event, 4-h after the event, and the next morning (first void). Urine samples from 34 participants were analyzed for cotinine, trans-3'-hydroxycotinine, S-(3-hydroxypropyl)-N-acetylcysteine (3-HPMA), S-carboxyethyl-N-acetylcysteine (CEMA), select tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), and 8-isoprostane. Saliva samples were analyzed for cotinine and trans-3'-hydroxycotinine. RESULTS: Data from 28 of 34 participants were used in the data analysis. Creatinine-adjusted urinary cotinine concentrations increased up to 13-fold and peaked 4-h after completed exposure (range of adjusted geometric means [AGMs] = 0.352-2.31 μg/g creatinine). Salivary cotinine concentrations were also the highest 4-h after completed exposure (range of AGMs = 0.0373-0.167 ng/mL). Salivary cotinine and creatinine-corrected concentrations of urinary cotinine, trans-3'-hydroxycotinine, CEMA, and 3-HPMA varied significantly across sampling times. Urinary and salivary cotinine, urinary trans-3'-hydroxycotinine, and urinary 3-HPMA concentrations also varied significantly across events. CONCLUSION: Secondhand e-cigarette exposures lasting six hours resulted in significant changes in exposure biomarker concentrations of both nicotine and acrolein but did not change exposure to tobacco-specific nitrosamines. Additional research is needed to understand the relationship between biomarker concentrations and environmental concentrations of toxicants in e-cigarette emissions. Published by Elsevier GmbH.
BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) conventions regularly bring together thousands of users around the world. In these environments, secondhand exposures to high concentrations of e-cigarette emissions are prevalent. Some biomarkers for tobacco smoke exposure may be used to characterize secondhand e-cigarette exposures in such an environment. METHODS:Participants who did not use any tobacco product attended four separate e-cigarette events for approximately six hours. Urine and saliva samples were collected from participants prior to the event, immediately after the event, 4-h after the event, and the next morning (first void). Urine samples from 34 participants were analyzed for cotinine, trans-3'-hydroxycotinine, S-(3-hydroxypropyl)-N-acetylcysteine (3-HPMA), S-carboxyethyl-N-acetylcysteine (CEMA), select tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), and 8-isoprostane. Saliva samples were analyzed for cotinine and trans-3'-hydroxycotinine. RESULTS: Data from 28 of 34 participants were used in the data analysis. Creatinine-adjusted urinary cotinine concentrations increased up to 13-fold and peaked 4-h after completed exposure (range of adjusted geometric means [AGMs] = 0.352-2.31 μg/g creatinine). Salivary cotinine concentrations were also the highest 4-h after completed exposure (range of AGMs = 0.0373-0.167 ng/mL). Salivary cotinine and creatinine-corrected concentrations of urinary cotinine, trans-3'-hydroxycotinine, CEMA, and 3-HPMA varied significantly across sampling times. Urinary and salivary cotinine, urinary trans-3'-hydroxycotinine, and urinary 3-HPMA concentrations also varied significantly across events. CONCLUSION: Secondhand e-cigarette exposures lasting six hours resulted in significant changes in exposure biomarker concentrations of both nicotine and acrolein but did not change exposure to tobacco-specific nitrosamines. Additional research is needed to understand the relationship between biomarker concentrations and environmental concentrations of toxicants in e-cigarette emissions. Published by Elsevier GmbH.
Authors: Jona M Johnson; Jessica L Muilenburg; Stephen L Rathbun; Xiaozhong Yu; Luke P Naeher; Jia-Sheng Wang Journal: J Community Health Date: 2018-02
Authors: Mohamad Sleiman; Jennifer M Logue; V Nahuel Montesinos; Marion L Russell; Marta I Litter; Lara A Gundel; Hugo Destaillats Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2016-07-27 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Maciej Lukasz Goniewicz; Jakub Knysak; Michal Gawron; Leon Kosmider; Andrzej Sobczak; Jolanta Kurek; Adam Prokopowicz; Magdalena Jablonska-Czapla; Czeslawa Rosik-Dulewska; Christopher Havel; Peyton Jacob; Neal Benowitz Journal: Tob Control Date: 2013-03-06 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Gideon St Helen; J Thomas Bernert; Daniel B Hall; Connie S Sosnoff; Yang Xia; John R Balmes; John E Vena; Jia-Sheng Wang; Nina T Holland; Luke P Naeher Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2012-04-06 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Erika Avila-Tang; Wael K Al-Delaimy; David L Ashley; Neal Benowitz; John T Bernert; Sungroul Kim; Jonathan M Samet; Stephen S Hecht Journal: Tob Control Date: 2012-09-02 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Kevin T Caron; Wanzhe Zhu; John T Bernert; Lanqing Wang; Benjamin C Blount; Kristin Dortch; Ronald E Hunter; Tia Harmon; J Ricky Akins; James Tsai; David M Homa; James L Pirkle; Connie S Sosnoff Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-11 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Markus Hilpert; Vesna Ilievski; Maxine Coady; Maria Andrade-Gutierrez; Beizhan Yan; Steven N Chillrud; Ana Navas-Acien; Norman J Kleiman Journal: Inhal Toxicol Date: 2019-12-04 Impact factor: 2.724
Authors: Zachery R Jarrell; Matthew Ryan Smith; Xiaojia He; Michael Orr; Dean P Jones; Young-Mi Go Journal: Toxicol Sci Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Jeffery S Edmiston; Ali A Rostami; Qiwei Liang; Sandra Miller; Mohamadi A Sarkar Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 5.472
Authors: Sharon A McGrath-Morrow; Julie Gorzkowski; Judith A Groner; Ana M Rule; Karen Wilson; Susanne E Tanski; Joseph M Collaco; Jonathan D Klein Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2020-02-11 Impact factor: 9.703