IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i9p4777-d546576.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Nicotine Dependence and Biomarker Levels among Traditional Cigarette, Heat-Not-Burn Cigarette, and Liquid E-Cigarette Users: Results from the Think Study

Author

Listed:
  • Guillaume Rudasingwa

    (Integrated Research Center of Risk Assessment, Soonchunhyang University, Soonchunhyang-Ro 22, Asan 31538, Korea)

  • Yeonjin Kim

    (Department of ICT Environmental Health System, Graduate School, Soonchunhyang University, Soonchunhyang-Ro 22, Asan 31538, Korea)

  • Cheolmin Lee

    (Department of Family Medicine, Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul 06236, Korea)

  • Jeomkyu Lee

    (Division of Respiratory and Allergy Disease Research, Department of Chronic Disease Convergence Research, National Institute of Health (NIH), Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA), Osong 28159, Korea)

  • Seunghyun Kim

    (Division of Respiratory and Allergy Disease Research, Department of Chronic Disease Convergence Research, National Institute of Health (NIH), Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA), Osong 28159, Korea)

  • Sungroul Kim

    (Integrated Research Center of Risk Assessment, Soonchunhyang University, Soonchunhyang-Ro 22, Asan 31538, Korea
    Department of ICT Environmental Health System, Graduate School, Soonchunhyang University, Soonchunhyang-Ro 22, Asan 31538, Korea)

Abstract

This study aimed to compare Korean smokers’ smoking-related biomarker levels by tobacco product type, including heat-not-burn cigarettes (HNBC), liquid e-cigarettes (EC), and traditional cigarettes (TC). Nicotine dependence levels were evaluated in Korean adult study participants including TC-, EC-, HNBC-only users and nonsmokers ( n = 1586) from March 2019 to July 2019 in Seoul and Cheonan/Asan South Korea using the Fagerström Test Score. Additionally, urine samples ( n = 832) were collected for the measurement of urinary nicotine, cotinine, OH-cotinine, NNAL(4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol), CYMA(N-acetyl-S-(2-cyanoehtyl)-L-cysteine), or CEMA (2-cyanoethylmercapturic acid) using LC–MS/MS. The median(interquartile range) nicotine dependence level was not different among the three types of smokers, being 3.0 (2.0–5.0) for TC- ( n = 726), 3.0 (1.0–4.0) for EC- ( n = 316), and 3.0 (2.0–4.0) for HNBC- ( n = 377) only users. HNBC-only users presented similar biomarker levels compared to TC-only users, except for NNAL (HNBC: 14.5 (4.0–58.8) pg/mL, TC: 32.0 (4.0–69.6) pg/mL; p = 0.0106) and CEMA (HNBC: 60.4 (10.0–232.0) ng/mL, TC: 166.1 (25.3–532.1) ng/mL; p = 0.0007). TC and HNBC users showed increased urinary cotinine levels as early as the time after the first smoke of the day. EC users’ biomarker levels were possibly lower than TC or HNBC users’ but higher than those of non-smokers.

Suggested Citation

  • Guillaume Rudasingwa & Yeonjin Kim & Cheolmin Lee & Jeomkyu Lee & Seunghyun Kim & Sungroul Kim, 2021. "Comparison of Nicotine Dependence and Biomarker Levels among Traditional Cigarette, Heat-Not-Burn Cigarette, and Liquid E-Cigarette Users: Results from the Think Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-12, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:9:p:4777-:d:546576
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/9/4777/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/9/4777/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. World Health Organization, 2016. "Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems and Electronic Non-Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS/ENNDS)," University of California at San Francisco, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education qt2f65f2j5, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, UC San Francisco.
    2. Tolstrup, J.S. & Hvidtfeldt, U.A. & Flachs, E.M. & Spiegelman, D. & Heitmann, B.L. & Bälter, K. & Goldbourt, U. & Hallmans, G. & Knekt, P. & Liu, S. & Pereira, M. & Stevens, J. & Virtamo, J. & Feskani, 2014. "Smoking and risk of coronary heart disease in younger, middle-aged, and older adults," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 104(1), pages 96-102.
    3. Tindle, H.A. & Shiffman, S., 2011. "Smoking cessation behavior among intermittent smokers versus daily smokers," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 101(7), pages 1-3.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Melanie Boeckmann & Daniel Kotz & Lion Shahab & Jamie Brown & Sabrina Kastaun, 2018. "German Public Support for Tobacco Control Policy Measures: Results from the German Study on Tobacco Use (DEBRA), a Representative National Survey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-15, April.
    2. Marcela V. Parada‐Contzen, 2019. "The Value of a Statistical Life for Risk‐Averse and Risk‐Seeking Individuals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(11), pages 2369-2390, November.
    3. Elaine M. Hernandez & Mike Vuolo & Laura C. Frizzell & Brian C. Kelly, 2019. "Moving Upstream: The Effect of Tobacco Clean Air Restrictions on Educational Inequalities in Smoking Among Young Adults," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 56(5), pages 1693-1721, October.
    4. Gianna Gayle Herrera Amul & Tikki (Pangestu) Pang, 2018. "Progress in Tobacco Control in Singapore: Lessons and Challenges in the Implementation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(1), pages 102-121, January.
    5. Penelope Truman & Marewa Glover & Trish Fraser, 2018. "An Online Survey of New Zealand Vapers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-14, January.
    6. Jialie Chen & Vithala R. Rao, 2020. "A Dynamic Model of Rational Addiction with Stockpiling and Learning: An Empirical Examination of E-cigarettes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(12), pages 5886-5905, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:9:p:4777-:d:546576. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.