Exhaled carbon monoxide levels and demographics of water-pipe smoking young at outdoor areas of water-pipe smoking cafes, in Ankara.

Year 2020, Volume: 10 Issue: 4, 530 - 534, 30.12.2020

İlknur Bostancı , Rukiye Ünsal Saç , Dilek Kahvecioğlu , Serhat Emeksiz , Medine Taşar

https://doi.org/10.16899/jcm.662133

Abstract

Background: Water-pipe smokers are exposed to several toxicants, including carbon monoxide (CO), causing potential health effects.
Objectives: The aim of the study was to investigate demographic features and exhaled CO levels of water pipe smoking (WPS) young.
Methods: The study was implemented at the outdoor areas of WPS cafes, in Ankara, in August. Demographic characteristics and exhaled CO levels of young were detected before and after one hour of WPS.
Findings:. Mean exhaled CO levels before and after WPS were 1.4±1.2 ppm (min 0.1-max 5.6) and 9.4±5.3 ppm (min 3-max 25), respectively (p=0.001). Males and cigarette smokers had higher mean exhaled CO levels, before WPS (p=0.033 and p=0.001, respectively). A significant correlation was detected between duration of WPS and with exhaled CO levels before (p=0.005, r=0.363) and after WPS (p=0.039, r=0.270). In association with the rise in daily number of cigarettes, a rise in exhaled CO levels was detected after WPS (p=0.044, r=0.383).
Conclusions: In Ankara, nearly half of WPS young are also cigarette smokers, are mostly students or unemployed, and WPS is perceived as a social event. Mean post-WPS levels were lower compared to previous studies, because study was conducted in the open and non-polluted air. Males, cigarette smokers and longer years of WPS practice are associated with higher mean exhaled CO levels, suggesting that these groups are subject to more health detriment risks caused by CO exposure.
Large cohort studies, especially targeting high-risk groups are needed in understanding how to curb WPS and take environmental and policy controls.

Keywords

Exhaled carbon monoxide, young, water-pipe smoking

References

• 1. World Health Organization Tobacco fact sheet. Available at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs339/en/. Accessed date: 12 December 2014.
• 2. Knishkowy B, Amitai Y. Water-pipe (narghile) smoking: an emerging health risk behavior. Pediatrics. 2005;116:e113-9.
• 3. Poyrazoglu S¸ Sarlı S, Gencer Z, Gunay O. Waterpipe (narghile) smoking among medical and non-medical university students in Turkey. Ups J Med Sci. 2010;115:210-6.
• 4. Aslam HM, Saleem S, German S, Qureshi WA. Harmful effects of shisha: literature review. Int Arch Med. 2014;7:16.
• 5. Akhter S, Warraich UA, Rizvi N, Idrees N, Zaina F. Comparison of end tidal carbon monoxide (eCO) levels in shisha (water pipe) and cigarette smokers. Tob Induc Dis. 2014;12:10.
• 6. Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM. Bibliometric analysis of scientific publications on waterpipe (narghile, shisha, hookah) tobacco smoking during the period 2003-2012. Tob Induc Dis. 2014;12:7.
• 7. Tuncay Alvur M, Cinar N, Akduran F, Dede C. Fallacies about Water Pipe Smoking in Turkish University Students. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15:1977-80.
• 8.Turkish Statistical Institute Databases, Air quality statistics. Available at: http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1019. Accessed date: 5 March 2016.
• 9. Jawad M, Wilson A, Lee JT, Jawad S, Hamilton FL, Millett C. Prevalence and predictors of water pipe and cigarette smoking among secondary school students in London. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013;15:2069-75.
• 10. Jackson D, Aveyard P. Waterpipe smoking in students: prevalence, risk factors, symptoms of addiction, and smoke intake. Evidence from one British university. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:174.
• 11. Helen G, Benowitz NL, Dains KM, Havel C, Peng M, Jacob P. Nicotine and carcinogen exposure after water pipe smoking in hookah bars. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014;23:1055-66.
• 12. A Cunnington, P Hormbrey. Breath analysis to detect recent exposure to carbon monoxide. Postgrad Med J. 2002;78(918):233–7.
• 13. Singh S, Soumya M, Saini A, Mittal V, Singh UV, Singh V. Breath carbon monoxide levels in different forms of smoking. Indian J Chest Dis Allied Sci. 2011;53(1):25–8.
• 14. Maziak W, Rastam S, Ibrahim I, Ward KD, Shihadeh A, Eissenberg T. CO exposure, puff topography, and subjective effects in waterpipe tobacco smokers. Nicotine Tob Res. 2009;11(7): 806-11.
• 15. Al-Sheyab N, Kheirallah KA, Mangnall LJ, Gallagher R. Agreement between exhaled breath carbon monoxide threshold levels and self-reported cigarette smoking in a sample of male adolescents in Jordan. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;12(1):841-54. doi: 10.3390/ijerph120100841.
• 16. Taha AZ, Sabra AA, Al-Mustafa ZZ, Al-Awami HR, Al-Khalaf MA, Al-Momen MM. Water pipe (shisha) smoking among male students of medical colleges in the eastern region of Saudi Arabia. Ann Saudi Med. 2010;30:222–6.
• 17. Brockman LN, Pumper MA, Christakis DA, Moreno MA. Hookah's new popularity among US college students: a pilot study of the characteristics of hookah smokers and their Facebook displays. BMJ Open. 2012;2.
• 18. Jawaid A, Zafar A, Rehman T, Nazir M, Jawaid A, Zafar AM, .et al. Knowledge, attitudes and practice of university students regarding waterpipe smoking in Pakistan. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2008;12:1077–84.
• 19. Dar-Odeh NS, Bakri FG, Al-Omiri MK, Al-Mashni HM, Eimar HA, Khraisat AS, et al. Narghile (water pipe) smoking among university students in Jordan: prevalence, pattern and beliefs. Harm Reduct J. 2010;7:10. doi: 10.1186/1477-7517-7-10.
• 20. Global Adult Tobacco Survey, Turkey Report, Ministry of Health, Publ. No 803, 2010. Available at: http://www.who.int/tobacco/surveillance/en_tfi_gats_turkey_2009.pdf. Accessed date: 4 March 2016.