4.5 Article

Measurement of tobacco smoke exposure: Comparison of toenail nicotine biomarkers and self-reports

期刊

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
卷 17, 期 5, 页码 1255-1261

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-2695

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Accurate measurement tools of exposure for use in large epidemiologic studies are lacking. Biomarkers of tobacco exposure provide additional advantages to self-reports and there is a need to further develop and validate them. The objective is to compare toenail nicotine levels, a novel biomarker of tobacco exposure, with self-reports of tobacco exposure from a large cohort study. Methods: In this cross-sectional analysis, toenail samples were collected from 2,485 women participating in the Nurses' Health Study in 1982. Detailed self-reports of smoking habits and reported exposure to second-hand smoke (SHS) were collected from these women near the time of toenail collection. The toenail samples were analyzed by a high-performance liquid chromatography method for measuring nicotine. Results: The 5 to 95 percentile range of toenail nicotine was from 0.06 to 4.06 ng/mg toenail and the median level was 0.21 ng/mg. There was a significant difference in toenail nicotine levels according to reported smoking status (the median level for nonsmokers with no SHS was 0.10 ng/mg, the median level for nonsmokers with SHS was 0.14 ng/mg, and the median level for active smokers was 1.77 ng/mg). However there was considerable overlap in nicotine levels according to reported smoking status. Toenail nicotine level was strongly associated with reported smoking level (Spearman r=0.63), but there was no complete concordance, suggesting that the two methods are measuring different aspects of the same exposure. Conclusion: Our findings show that toenail nicotine levels capture the overall burden of tobacco smoke exposure and provide additional information on exposure not captured by reported history.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据