Few studies have comprehensively characterized toxic chemicals related to waterpipe use and secondhand waterpipe exposure. This cross-sectional study investigated biomarkers of toxicants associated with waterpipe use and passive waterpipe exposure among employees at waterpipe venues. We collected urine specimens from employees in waterpipe venues from Istanbul, Turkey and Moscow, Russia, and identified waterpipe and cigarette smoking status based on self-report. The final sample included 110 employees. Biomarkers of exposure to sixty chemicals (metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), nicotine, and heterocyclic aromatic amines (HCAAs)) were quantified in the participants' urine. Participants who reported using waterpipe had higher urinary manganese (geometric mean ratio (GMR): 2.42, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.16, 5.07) than never/former waterpipe or cigarette smokers. Being exposed to more hours of secondhand smoke from waterpipes was associated with higher concentrations of cobalt (GMR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.10, 1.75). Participants involved in lighting waterpipes had higher urinary cobalt (GMR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.10, 1.86), cesium (GMR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.48), molybdenum (GMR: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.08, 1.93), 1-hydroxypyrene (GMR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.80), and several VOC metabolites. Waterpipe tobacco users and nonsmoking employees of waterpipe venues had higher urinary concentrations of several toxic metals including manganese and cobalt as well as of VOCs, in a distinct signature compared to cigarette smoke. Employees involved in lighting waterpipes may have higher exposure to multiple toxic chemicals compared to other employees.

Little is known about differences in tobacco product dependence among people who use two tobacco products versus one. Self-reported product dependence among individuals using cigarettes only, electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) only, and both cigarettes and ENDS (dual users) was compared. PATH Wave 3 data were collected between 2015 and 2016. We used 11 Wisconsin Inventory of Smoking Dependence Motives items to assess cigarette and ENDS dependence, averaged to generate Cigarette Dependence (CD) and ENDS Dependence (ED) scores. Linear regression models were used to assess the association between tobacco use groups and the two dependence scores. Our analytic sample included 5538 (91.5 %) cigarette only, 399 (6.7 %) ENDS only, and 108 (1.8 %) dual users. There was no difference in CD between cigarette only and dual users. ENDS only users' ED (2.11, SE = 0.05) was higher than dual users' ED (1.67, SE = 0.04) (p < 0.05). Dual users' mean ED (1.70, SE = 0.09) was significantly lower than their CD (3.03, SE = 0.11) (p < 0.001), and ENDS only users' ED (2.34, SE = 0.05) was significantly lower than cigarette only users' CD (2.94, SE = 0.02) (p < 0.001). While there was no difference in CD between dual and cigarette only users, dual users' ED was lower than that for ENDS only users. ENDS appeared to produce less dependence than cigarettes among dual users. Given the high nicotine concentration ENDS products that entered the market after PATH Wave 3 data were collected, future research should examine ED among ENDS only and dual users.

Background: Research is inconclusive on the effectiveness of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) as cigarette cessation aids compared with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or non-NRT medication. This study compared the cigarette cessation rates for ENDS, NRT and non-NRT medication.Method: Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study wave 3 cigarette-only users who used ENDS, NRT or non-NRT medication (varenicline and bupropion) to quit smoking between wave 3 and 4 were included. ‘Cessation’ was defined as being a former cigarette smoker in wave 4. χ², logistic regression, and a sensitivity analysis with Bayes factor assessed the association between quitting smoking and method used.Results: Among 6794 cigarette-only users, 532 used ENDS (n=75), NRT (n=289), non-NRT medication (n=68), or a combination of NRT and non-NRT medication (n=100) to quit smoking between wave 3 and 4. The percentages of quitting smoking among those who used ENDS, NRT, non-NRT medication, and a combination of NRT and non-NRT medication were 16.2% (n=14), 16.1% (n=47), 17.7% (n=13), and 14.8% (n=12), respectively (p=0.97). None of the cigarette-only users who used ENDS to quit smoking became ENDS-only users in wave 4; 37.6% became dual users of ENDS and cigarettes.Conclusion: No differences were found when cessation rates of ENDS, NRT or non-NRT medication were compared. Given uncertainty about the long-term health effect of ENDS and the likelihood of becoming dual users, people who smoke and need assistance quitting should be encouraged to use current Food and Drug Administration-approved cessation methods until more effective methods are developed.

The combination of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) device and liquid characteristics affect user nicotine and toxicant exposure, however population-level national survey studies have not reported device and liquid features jointly nor in detail. We examined combinations of characteristics of devices and liquids used by adult ENDS users. U.S. adults (21+) using ENDS at least five days/week (n = 1,179) completed an online survey in 2020 and uploaded photos of their most used device and liquid. Device/liquid combinations were analyzed to determine and describe the most common pairings. Data were weighted to the U.S. population of adult daily ENDS users. Five device/liquid combinations accounted for 87 % of those reported. The most prevalent combination, reported by 36.2 %, was re-useable devices with adjustable settings and a tank refilled with a free-base nicotine liquid with a median nicotine concentration of 5.2 mg/mL. The second most frequent combination - re-usable devices with no adjustable settings and a nicotine salt liquid in a disposable pod or cartridge - was reported by 22.8 % and the median nicotine concentration was 49.4 mg/mL. Wattage, voltage and resistance varied across device/liquid combination. Overall, 66.5 % refilled their device's tank or pod and 64.2 % had the ability to manipulate device characteristics (power, airflow, and/or coil). Analyzing ENDS device/liquid combinations rather than each separately can allow researchers to better evaluate relationships between use and key outcomes, such as quitting cigarettes and abuse liability. Additional research may reveal whether certain combinations are more effective at helping smokers quit and which device/liquid combinations should remain on the market.

Aims: Electronic Nicotine Delivery System (ENDS) use is increasing among US adults. While existing research has demonstrated higher cigarette smoking rates among people with mental health conditions, there is sparse information on the association between ENDS use and mental health such as internalizing and externalizing problems. The aim of this study was to evaluate associations between internalizing and externalizing problems for cigarette only, ENDS only, and dual users, as well as changes in mental health among those groups. Method: We used the U.S. Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study Wave 3 adult data. Internalizing and externalizing problems were self-reported and assessed via the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs-Short Screener; response options were dichotomized to reflect past 12 months and any lifetime problems. Self-reported changes in mental health over the past 12 months were also assessed. Participants’ tobacco use status was categorized as ENDS only use (n = 618), cigarette only use (n = 6,779), dual use (cigarettes and ENDS) (n = 681), and non-current use (n = 16,515). Results: Lifetime and past 12 month internalizing problems were reported by 63.8% (n = 18,706) and 50.4% (n = 15,326), respectively, while lifetime and past 12 months externalizing problems were reported by 63.3% (n = 18,835) and 52.7% (n = 16,005), respectively. Six percent of participants reported worse mental health over the past 12 months. Compared to non-current use of any tobacco product, and adjusting for age, sex, race, education, and household income, those reporting ENDS use only had higher odds of ever (aOR = 1.52; 95%CI: 1.22–1.89) and past 12 months (aOR = 1.49; 95%CI: 1.22–1.84) internalizing, and externalizing problems (aOR = 1.32; 95%CI: 1.04–1.66 and aOR = 1.34; 95%CI: 1.07–1.67, respectively), and higher odds of reporting worse mental health over the past 12 months (aOR = 1.50; 95%CI: 1.05–2.12). Conclusion: Health care providers should be aware that internalizing and externalizing problems, and worsening mental health, are more common among adults who use ENDS, cigarettes, or both of these tobacco products.

Significance: Secondhand tobacco smoke (SHS) exposure is a major cause of morbidity and mortality around the world. The objective of this study was to evaluate the presence of smoking in outdoor areas of public places in three largest Turkish cities (Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir). Method: For this cross-sectional observational study, the Turkish Statistical Institute randomly selected 10 sampling points in each city. Around each sampling point, fieldworkers visited the closest bars/nightclubs, cafes, government buildings, hospitals, restaurants, schools, shopping malls, traditional coffee houses, universities, children's playgrounds, parks and open markets. We observed smoking, ashtrays, and cigarette butts at the outdoor areas of public venues within the urban districts of each city. The fieldwork was conducted in April-May 2016. Results: 477 venues were observed, covering 1017 outdoor locations in which 17,737 people were observed. Smoking in outdoor areas ranged from 3.7% around schools to 90% in open markets. Ashtrays were almost ubiquitous in hospitals (95.6%), shopping malls (92.0%), and universities (90.9%). Cigarette butts were more often observed in open markets (100%), shopping malls (96%), universities (95.5%), and parks (93.3%). Smoking at outdoor areas around schools was significantly lower than around other venues. Conclusion: Smoking in outdoor areas was common in most public places in Turkey except schools. The current indoor SHS legislation should be extended to cover adjacent outdoor areas of public venues in order to effectively protect people from SHS exposure in Turkey.