Premium
Plasma nicotine and cotinine concentrations in habitual smokeless tobacco users
Author(s) -
Gritz Ellen R,
BaerWeiss Vivian,
Benowitz Neal L,
Van Vunakis Helen,
Jarvik Murray E
Publication year - 1981
Publication title -
clinical pharmacology and therapeutics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.941
H-Index - 188
eISSN - 1532-6535
pISSN - 0009-9236
DOI - 10.1038/clpt.1981.149
Subject(s) - smokeless tobacco , cotinine , snuff , nicotine , morning , radioimmunoassay , medicine , zoology , toxicology , physiology , endocrinology , tobacco use , population , environmental health , pathology , biology
Plasma nicotine and cotinine levels were measured in habitual users of smokeless tobacco. The subjects were 12 male college students who regularly used smokeless tobacco (11 dipped snuff and one chewed tobacco) and did not smoke cigarettes. Subjects abstained from tobacco use overnight and blood was drawn at 8 A.M. and again after a single day of ad libitum consumption of their own tobacco product. Subjects recorded the times at which tobacco was used and the remainder product was weighed. Plasma samples were analyzed by both gas‐liquid chromatography (GLC) and radioimmunoassay (RIA) techniques. Subjects consumed about one third of a can of moist ground snuff (10.8 gm) in eight dips spaced throughout the day. Nicotine absorption was observed and an increase in mean plasma concentration from 2.9 ng/ml after overnight abstinence to 21.6 ng/ml after 6 to 8 hr ad libitum consumption was recorded. Plasma cotinine concentrations rose from a morning mean of 137.3 ng/ml to an afternoon mean of 197.2 ng/ml, concentrations that are typical of those reached in regular cigarette smokers. Subjects fell into two subgroups by post hoc analysis: two‐thirds absorbed substantial amounts of nicotine and one‐third appeared to have almost no absorption. Subjective effects of tobacco use were not marked; there was little perception of physiologic changes, stimulation, or feelings of relaxation/satisfaction. Results are discussed in terms of pharmacologie effects, comparison of results from GLC and RIA methodologies, and implications for health behaviors. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (1981) 30, 201–209; doi: 10.1038/clpt.1981.149