Evaluation of toxicant and carcinogen metabolites in the urine of e-cigarette users versus cigarette smokers.

INTRODUCTION: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are rapidly increasing in popularity but little information is available on their potential toxic or carcinogenic effects. METHODS: Twenty-eight e-cigarette smokers who had not smoked tobacco cigarettes for at least 2 months provided urine samples which were analyzed by validated methods for a suite of toxicant and carcinogen metabolites including 1-hydroxypyrene (1-HOP), 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol and its glucuronides (total NNAL), 3-hydroxypropylmercapturic acid (3-HPMA), 2-hydroxypropylmercapturic acid (2-HPMA), 3-hydroxy-1-methylpropylmercapturic acid (HMPMA), S-phenylmercapturic acid (SPMA), nicotine, and cotinine. Levels of these compounds were compared to those found in cigarette smokers from three previous studies. RESULTS: Levels of 1-HOP, total NNAL, 3-HPMA, 2-HPMA, HMPMA, and SPMA were significantly lower in the urine of e-cigarette users compared to cigarette smokers. Levels of nicotine and cotinine were significantly lower in e-cigarette users compared to cigarette smokers in one study but not in another. CONCLUSIONS: With respect to the compounds analyzed here, e-cigarettes have a more favorable toxicity profile than tobacco cigarettes.

Are Rubber Gloves Marketed as Accelerator-Free Truly Free of Accelerators?

BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis to rubber accelerators in gloves has been well described in the literature. In response to this, glove manufacturers have recently marketed "accelerator-free" gloves. Little research has been done, to confirm whether these gloves are truly free from the accelerators known to cause contact dermatitis. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to verify use of accelerators in reportedly accelerator-free/low-dermatitis-potential gloves. METHODS: A total of 16 commercially available medical gloves touted as "accelerator-free," "sensitive," or "low dermatitis potential" were obtained and analyzed via mass spectrometry (liquid chromatography heated electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry and liquid chromatography heated electrospray high-resolution tandem mass spectrometry) to determine whether any of the 9 known rubber accelerators were present (thiurams, carbamates, mercaptobenzothiazole, and diphenylguanidine). RESULTS: Despite marketing claims to the contrary, all tested gloves had at least 1 accelerant detected. Dipentamethylenethiuram disulfide, a thiuram, was found in all 16 gloves. Half of the gloves (8/16) contained more than 1 accelerator, with 1 glove having 5 rubber accelerators present. CONCLUSION: Patients with allergic contact dermatitis to accelerators should be aware potentially sensitizing accelerators may be present in gloves that are reported to not contain them.

Combined analysis of N'-nitrosonornicotine and 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol in the urine of cigarette smokers and e-cigarette users.

A liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization-tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-ESI(+)-MS/MS) method for the analysis of the tobacco-specific carcinogens N'-nitrosonornicotine (NNN) and 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL) and their glucuronides (total NNN and total NNAL) in human urine was developed. The method has excellent accuracy and intra-day and inter-day precision, and limits of quantitation of 0.015 and 0.075pmol/mL urine, respectively, for total NNN and total NNAL. A unique aspect of this method is internal assessment of possible artifactual formation of NNN by inclusion of the monitor amine [pyridine-D4]nornicotine. We found that artifactual formation of NNN comprised only 2.5% of the measured amounts of total NNN in urine of cigarette smokers, under our conditions using ammonium sulfamate as an inhibitor of nitrosation. The method was applied to urine samples from cigarette smokers and e-cigarette users. Levels of total NNN and total NNAL in the urine of cigarette smokers averaged 0.060±0.035pmol/mL and 2.41±1.41pmol/mL urine, (N=38), respectively, which were both significantly greater than in the urine of 27 e-cigarette users.