Minor Tobacco Alkaloids as Biomarkers to Distinguish Combusted Tobacco Use From Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems Use. Two New Analytical Methods.

Biomarkers for the use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are desirable for studies of the health effects of electronic cigarettes and related devices. However, the aerosols inhaled from these devices do not contain substances that are unique to this class of products, i.e., substances that are not present in cigarette smoke or those that do not have common environmental or dietary sources. Consequently, identifying selective biomarkers for ENDS use remains a challenge. If co-use of conventional tobacco products can be definitively ruled out, then nicotine and its metabolites are suitable for assessing exposure. Self-reports from questionnaires are often used to obtain information on product use. But self-reports may not always be accurate, and are not amenable to obtaining quantitative information on exposure. An alternative approach is to use selective biomarkers for conventional tobacco products to definitively rule out their use. In this article, we describe two new LC-MS/MS methods for the minor tobacco alkaloids anabasine, anatabine, nicotelline, anatalline, and 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL), a tobacco-specific nitrosamine metabolite, all biomarkers that are selective for the use of conventional tobacco products. Applications of these biomarkers in studies of ENDS use and dual use of ENDS and conventional tobacco products are also discussed.

Large Differences in Urinary Benzene Metabolite S-Phenylmercapturic Acid Quantitation: A Comparison of Five LC-MS-MS Methods.

Benzene is a known genotoxic carcinogen linked to many hematological abnormalities. S-phenylmercapturic acid (PHMA, N-acetyl-S-(phenyl)-L-cysteine, CAS# 4775-80-8) is a urinary metabolite of benzene and is used as a biomarker to assess benzene exposure. Pre-S-phenylmercapturic acid (pre-PHMA) is a PHMA precursor that dehydrates to PHMA at acidic pH. Published analytical methods that measure urinary PHMA adjust urine samples to a wide range of pH values using several types of acid, potentially leading to highly variable results depending on the concentration of pre-PHMA in a sample. Information is lacking on the variation in sample preparation among laboratories regularly measuring PHMA and the effect of those differences on PHMA quantitation in human urine samples. To investigate the differences in PHMA quantitation, we conducted an inter-laboratory comparison that included the analysis of 50 anonymous human urine samples (25 self-identified smokers and 25 self-identified non-smokers), quality control samples and commercially available reference samples in five laboratories using different analytical methods. Observed urinary PHMA concentrations were proportionally higher at lower pH, and results for anonymous urine samples varied widely among the methods. The method with the neutral preparation pH yielded results about 60% lower than the method using the most acidic conditions. Samples spiked with PHMA showed little variation, suggesting that the variability in results in human urine samples across methods is driven by the acid-mediated conversion of pre-PHMA to PHMA.