Journal of Public Health

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 69–73 | Cite as

Public health intervention for narghile (hookah, shisha) use requires a radical critique of the related “standardised” smoking machine

Comment

Abstract

Aim

Much has been written about the toxicity of narghile (hookah, shisha) smoke. However, it is seldom mentioned that narghile smoke is actually far less complex than that of cigarettes. In spite of being a much simpler object to research, there has been a world of avoidable and preventable confusion due, to a great extent, to the inappropriate use of the narghile smoking machine designed at the US-American University of Beirut that now is considered to be “standardised”. This machine has allowed the claims of high yields of tar, CO, PAH, heavy metals and, lastly, volatile aldehydes. Consequently, any public health intervention against narghile (hookah, shisha) use requires a long overdue critique of this machine on which a large amount of the peer-reviewed “waterpipe” literature uncritically relies. Public health policy makers should be aware of the unprecedented degree of confusion in this field.

Methods

The analysis is twofold. On one hand, the classical FTC (Federal Trade Commission) regime applied to cigarette testing (and behind the official figures printed on cigarette packs) is presented, whereby it is recalled that a 35-ml puff is drawn each minute for only a few minutes. On the other hand, a discussion follows about the relevancy of the narghile smoking machine based on averaging a complex human and social activity to a puff relentlessly drawn every 17 s over a full hour, with, marginally, the heating source (coal) in the same position over the smoking mixture (contrary to common practice). It is assumed that such stress-strain conditions result in abnormal perturbations in the chemical reactions at stake. The case of aldehyde generation is taken as an example.

Results

The narghile smoking machine was modelled after the one for cigarettes, which not only is an inappropriate reference, but also is totally irrelevant for a kind of tobacco use that is different from all points of view. The narghile smoking machine and its underlying smoking topography represent a biased toxicological model of the related practice. Human-centered alternatives are presented.

Conclusion

Against the background of a public health epidemic, a recommended research avenue is to focus on biological measurements of human subjects (urinary carcinogens, chemical or biological markers) carried out in a natural environment in realistic conditions and coupled with a puff-by-puff smoke analysis.

Keywords

Smoking Tobacco Narghile Shisha Smoking machine Puffing behaviour 

References

  1. Adam T, Baker RR, Zimmermann R (2007) Characterization of puff-by-puff resolved cigarette mainstream smoke by single photon ionization-time-of-flight mass spectrometry and principal component analysis. J Agric Food Chem 55(6):2055–2061CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Al Rashidi M, Shihadeh A, Saliba NA (2008) Volatile aldehydes in the mainstream smoke of the narghile waterpipe. Food Chem Toxicol 46(11):3546–3549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker RR (2006a) The generation of formaldehyde in cigarettes—Overview and recent experiments. Food Chem Toxicol 44:1799–1822CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker RR (2006b) Carbonyl compounds in cigarette smoke. Environ Toxicol 21:621–622CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Becquemin MH, Bertholon JF, Attoui M, Roy F, Roy M, Dautzenberg B (2008) Tailles particulaires de la fumée de chicha [Particle size in water pipe smoke]. Rev Mal Respir 25(7):839–46PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Borgerding M, Klus H (2005) Analysis of complex mixtures–cigarette smoke. Exp Toxicol Pathol 57(Suppl 1):43–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Chaouachi K (2006) A critique of the WHO’s TobReg “Advisory Note” entitled: “Waterpipe tobacco smoking: health effects, research needs and recommended actions by regulators” (2005). Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine 5:17 http://www.jnrbm.com/content/pdf/1477-5751-5-17.pdf CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Chaouachi K (2007) The narghile (hookah, shisha, goza) epidemic and the need for clearing up confusion and solving problems related with model building of social situations. TheScientificWorldJOURNAL: TSW Holistic Health &Medicine 7:1691–1696Google Scholar
  9. Chaouachi K (2009) Hookah (shisha, narghile) smoking and environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). A critical review of the relevant literature and the public health consequences. Int J Environ Res Public Health 6(2):798–843 http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/6/2/798/ CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. El-Aasar AM, El-Merzabani MM (1991a) Studies on jurak smoke. I. The organic constituents of jurak smoke. Journal of King Abdulaziz University (Science) 3:169–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. El-Aasar AM, El-Merzabani MM, Ba-Akel H (1991b) Studies on Jurak Smoke: II. The metallic constituents of jurak paste and jurak smoke. Journal of King Abdulaziz University (Science) 3:183–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fromme H, Dietrich S, Heitmann D, Dressel H, Diemer J, Schulz T, Jörres RA, Berlin K, Völkel W (2009) Indoor air contamination during a waterpipe (narghile) smoking session. Food Chem Toxicol 2009 [Epub ahead of print] (10.1016/j.fct.2009.04.017)
  13. Fujioka K, Shibamoto T (2006) Determination of toxic carbonyl compounds in cigarette smoke. Environ Toxicol 21(1):47–54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Guillerm R, Badré R, Vignon B (1961) Effet inhibiteurs de la fumée de tabac sur l’activité ciliaire de l’épithélium respiratoire et nature des composants responsables [Inhibitory effects of tobacco smoke on the respiratory epithelium ciliary activity]. Académie Nationale de Médecine:416–423Google Scholar
  15. Hammond D, Wiebel F, Kozlowski LT, Borland R, Cummings KM, O’Connor RJ, McNeill A, Connolly GN, Arnott D, Fong GT (2007) Revising the machine smoking regime for cigarette emissions: implications for tobacco control policy. Tob Control 16:8–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Helsinki Declaration (2008) Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. 1964–2008 General Assemblies (http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm)
  17. Huber GL, First MW, Grubner O (1991) Marijuana and tobacco smoke gas-phase cytotoxins. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 40:629–636CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Monn C, Kindler P, Meile A, Brandli O (2007) Ultrafine particle emissions from waterpipes. Tob Control 16:390–3CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Patent (2005) Narghile with simplified ignition. Appl. EP20050291196. Filed 3 June. Published 14 Dec.Google Scholar
  20. Philip Morris USA (1967) FTC to begin cigarette testing [Press Release, Aug 1)] http://www2.philipmorrisusa.com/en/product_facts/tar_nicotine/ftc_1967_press_release.asp
  21. Rakower J, Fatal B (1962) Study of narghile smoking in relation to cancer of the lung. Br J Cancer 16:1–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Sajid KM, Chaouachi K, Mahmood R (2008) Hookah smoking and cancer. Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels in exclusive/ever hookah smokers. Harm Reduct J 24 May;5(19):http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/pdf/1477-7517-5-19.pdf
  23. Salem ES, Mesrega SM, Shallouf MA, Nosir MI (1990) Determination of lead levels in cigarette and goza smoking components with a special reference to its blood values in human smokers. The Egyptian Journal of Chest Diseases and Tuberculosis 37(2)Google Scholar
  24. Shihadeh A, Saleh R (2005) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, “tar”, and nicotine in the mainstream smoke aerosol of the narghile water pipe. Food Chem Toxicol 43(5):655–661CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Torikai K, Yoshida S, Takahashi H (2004) Effects of temperature, atmosphere and pH on the generation of smoke compounds during tobacco pyrolysis. Food Chem Toxicol 42(9):1409–1417CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. WHO-EMRO (World Health Organisation - Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office) and ESPRI (Egyptian Smoking Prevention Research Institute) (2007) Shisha hazards profile “Tobacco Use in Shisha—Studies on Water-pipe Smoking in Egypt”. Cairo. ISBN: 978-92-9021-569-1. 84 pages. Prepared by senior editors: Mostafa K. Mohamed, Christopher A. Loffredo, Ebenezer Israel et alGoogle Scholar
  27. Zielinski S (2005) Smoking machine test inadequate and confusing, but no replacement a decade later. J Natl Cancer Inst 97(1):10–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DIU TabacologieParis XI UniversityVersaillesFrance

Personalised recommendations