Environmental Chemistry Letters

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 465–471 | Cite as

Higher cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of burning incense than cigarette

  • R. ZhouEmail author
  • Q. An
  • X. W. Pan
  • B. Yang
  • J. Hu
  • Y. H. Wang
Original Paper


Hazardous particulates and volatiles produced by incense burning accumulate in the indoor atmosphere, where they pose a health risk, entering the human body via the respiratory system. Yet, few studies have focused on the effects of the total particulate matter from incense burning on human health. Here, we evaluate the health risks associated with the total particulate matter generated from burning incense indoors for the first time. The total particulate matter and major chemical components of two types of incense smoke were characterized using an electrical low pressure impactor and gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry. Their genotoxicity and cytotoxicity were compared with mainstream tobacco smoke using in vitro assays. Our results show that both the particulate number and mass of incense smoke were dominated by ultrafine to fine particles. In addition, many aromatic, irritant, and toxic compounds were identified in the particulate fraction. In vitro assessments showed that the genotoxicity of the particulate matter from one particular incense sample was higher than the reference cigarette sample with the same dose. All particulate matter fractions from the incense investigated were found to possess greater cytotoxicity on Chinese hamster ovary cells than smoke from the reference cigarette. Collective assessment of these data will affect the evaluation of incense products and facilitate measures to reduce exposure to their smoke. Clearly, there needs to be greater awareness and management of the health risks associated with burning incense in indoor environments.


Total particulate matter Incense smoke Chemical composition Cytotoxicity Genotoxicity 


  1. Bitterle E, Karg E, Schroeppel A et al (2006) Dose-controlled exposure of A549 epithelial cells at the air–liquid interface to airborne ultrafine carbonaceous particles. Chemosphere 65:1784–1790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brouwer DH, Gijsbers JH, Lurvink MW (2004) Personal exposure to ultrafine particles in the workplace: exploring sampling techniques and strategies. Ann Occup Hyg 48:439–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chang HJ, Kuo ML, Lin JM (1997) Mutagenic activity of incense smoke in comparison to formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in Salmonella typhimurium. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 58:394–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen CC, Lee H (1996) Genotoxicity and DNA adduct formation of incense smoke condensates: comparison with environmental tobacco smoke condensates. Mutat Res/Genet Toxicol 367:105–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chuang HC, Jones T, Chen TT, BéruBé K (2013) Cytotoxic effects of incense particles in relation to oxidative stress, the cell cycle and F-actin assembly. Toxicol Lett 220:229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gianluigi DG, Paolo RD, Annamaria DL et al (2014) Indoor air quality in schools. Environ Chem Lett 12:467–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hakura A, Shimada H, Nakajima M et al (2005) Salmonella/human S9 mutagenicity test: a collaborative study with 58 compounds. Mutagenesis 20:217–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lee SC, Wang B (2004) Characteristics of emissions of air pollutants from burning of incense in a large environmental chamber. Atmos Environ 38:941–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Liou SW, Chen CY, Yang TT, Lin JM (2008) Determination of particulate-bound formaldehyde from burning incense by solid phase microextraction. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 80:324–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Löforth G, Stensman C, Brandhorst-Satzkorn M (1991) Indoor sources of mutagenic aerosol particulate matter: smoking, cooking and incense burning. Mutat Res/Genet Toxicol 261:21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lowengard RA, Peters JM, Cinioni C et al (1987) Childhood leukemia and parents’ occupational and home exposures. J Natl Cancer Inst 79:39–46Google Scholar
  12. Maclennan R, Costa JD, Day NE et al (1977) Risk factors for lung cancer in Singapore Chinese, a population with high female incidence rate. Int J Cancer 20:854–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Maron DM, Ames BN (1983) Revised methods for the Salmonella mutagenicity test. Mutat Res 113:173–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nardini B, Granella M, Clonfero E (1994) Mutagens in indoor air particulate. Mutat Res/Genet Toxicol 322:193–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (1997) Bacterial reverse mutation test. In: OECD guidelines for testing of chemicals. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  16. Ott W (1985) Total human exposure: an emerging science focuses on humans as receptors of environmental pollution. Environ Sci Technol 19:880–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Preston-Martin S, Mimi CY, Benten B, Henderson BE (1982) N-nitroso compounds and childhood brain tumors: a case-control study. Cancer Res 42:5240–5245Google Scholar
  18. Rasmussen RE (1987) Mutagenic activity of incense smoke in Salmonella typhimurium. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 38:827–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shah AB, Combes RD, Rowland IR (1990) Activation and detoxification of 1,8-dinitropyrene by mammalian hepatic fractions in the Salmonella mutagenicity assay. Mutagenesis 5:45–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shaocai Y, Qingyu Z, Renchang Y et al (2014) Origin of air pollution during a weekly heavy haze episode in Hangzhou, China. Environ Chem Lett 12:543–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Song JG, Mei C (2013) 13C isotope evidence for photochemical production of atmospheric formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acetone pollutants in Guangzhou. Environ Chem Lett 11:77–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Staub PO, Schiestl FP, Leonti M, Weckerle CS (2011) Chemical analysis of incense smokes used in Shaxi, Southwest China: a novel methodological approach in ethnobotany. J Ethnopharmacol 138:212–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ulukaya E, Ozdikicioglu F, Oral AY, Demirci M (2008) The MTT assay yields a relatively lower result of growth inhibition than the ATP assay depending on the chemotherapeutic drugs tested. Toxicol In Vitro 22:232–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wichmann HE, Spix C, Tuch T, Wlke G, Peters A, Heinrich J et al (2000) Daily mortality and fine and ultrafine particles in Erfurt, Germany part I: role of particle number and particle mass. Res Rep 98:5–86Google Scholar
  25. Yang TT, Chen CC, Lin JM (2006) Characterization of gas and particle emission from smoldering incenses with various diameters. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 77:799–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zenzen V, Diekmann J, Gerstenberg B et al (2012) Reduced exposure evaluation of an electrically heated cigarette smoking system. Part 2: smoke chemistry and in vitro toxicological evaluation using smoking regimens reflecting human puffing behavior. Regul Toxicol Pharm 64:11–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Zhou
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Q. An
    • 3
  • X. W. Pan
    • 2
  • B. Yang
    • 3
  • J. Hu
    • 2
  • Y. H. Wang
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Light Industry and Food SciencesSouth China University of TechnologyGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.Technology CenterChina Tobacco Guangdong Industrial Co., LtdGuangzhouChina
  3. 3.School of Bioscience and BioengineeringSouth China University of TechnologyGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations