An Actual Scientific Study About Hookah Use

[mgcsinc]

Here is the study I've been promising in the thread about the Georgetown University press release about hookah (I posted about this a couple months ago, as well, but I didn't post a link then). I'm putting this in a new thread because it's ultimately unrelated to the Georgetown report, and I think it deserves its own thread:

http://webfea-lb.fea.aub.edu.lb/aerosol/do...gilehpaper1.pdf

Do not comment on it without reading it; that's downright disrespectful to the researchers. Specifically, read the actual conclusions and the comments they make on the limitations of it's interpretation before you comment.

I am going to summarize parts of the study here, but again, read the actual thing before you comment:

About puff volume:

"In the absence of detailed smoking topography data
for argileh users, and to provide reasonable values for
the number of puffs, their duration, frequency and
volume, a pilot study was conducted in which 28
mo’assel smokers were observed anonymously in local
coffee shops. Because the glass bowl of the argileh is
transparent, the beginning and end of each puff could
be observed visually from a distance, and event timing
recorded manually with a stopwatch. In addition to
recording the puff/rest interval timing, number of puffs,
and total smoking session time, the amount of tobacco
mixture used to pack the head, and the amount burned
during the smoking session was determined with a portable
digital scale by measuring the prepared head
weight before and after each session, as well as the
weight of the smoked head with the tobacco removed.
This was done in co-operation with the service staff of
the coffee shops who allowed a research assistant to
weigh the argileh heads leaving and returning to the
service area.

The puff and rest intervals were calculated for each
smoking session by summing the respective times over
the entire session and dividing by the number of puffs.
Each of the 28 smoking sessions was therefore represented
by average puff and rest intervals, and number of
puffs, and these numbers, in turn, were averaged over
the 28 sessions. The results are given in Table 1."

About the tobacco, and coal:

"To standardize the experiments, self-starting charcoal
disks manufactured by Three Kings Charcoal Co.
(Holland) sold widely in tobacco supply shops were
utilized, at a rate of one disk for each 100-puff smoking
session. The disks were held by a metal tong with the
radial axis of the disk in a vertical plane, and the bottom
side exposed for 5 s to the flame of a butane
cigarette lighter, and held for an additional 100 s in the
same position to ensure that the ignition agent had been
entirely consumed before placing the charcoal disk on
the argileh head (the reaction front visibly traverses the
entire length of the disk in roughly 45 s after lighting).
The first puff was initiated 15 s after the disk was placed
on the head. One disk, weighing 5.8 g, was used in each
smoking session, and its weight recorded before and
after each session.

Three 250-g packages of the locally most popular type
of mo’assel tobacco mixture (‘‘Two Apples’’ flavor,
manufactured by Adel El-Ibiary & Co., Egypt) were
mixed together, and large agglomerations and stems
removed (accounting for approx. 10% of the as-purchased
weight) so as to create a more homogeneous
mixture for the experiments. The mixture was parceled
into airtight packets of roughly 12 g each, and stored in
a sealed container at 20
C in the dark for the duration
of the study. For each smoking run, an individual
packet was unwrapped and 10 g of tobacco mixture was
loaded into the head, essentially filling it.
A small aluminium foil sheet (approx. 9 cm9 cm)
was used to cover the head, and was perforated
according to the 18-hole pattern shown in Fig. 2."

The main conclusion:

"The results are summarized in Table 4. While the
nicotine produced in a standard smoking session is of
similar magnitude to what would be found in a single
cigarette, the NFDPM is one to two orders of magnitude
greater; that is, a single standard argileh smoking
session produces as much ‘‘tar’’ as 20 low-tar cigarettes.
This interpretation, however, must taken with caution,
as the composition of the NFDPM is likely to be quite
different than that for cigarette smoke. Considering that
the maximum temperatures found in the argileh head
are approximately 450
C, which is too low to sustain
combustion, and considerably lower than maximum
temperatures of circa 900
C found in cigarettes
(Wakeham, 1972), it would be expected that a larger
fraction of the smoke condensates of the argileh are
produced by simple distillation rather than by pyrolysis
and combustion, and as a result, would tend to carry
considerably less of the pyrosynthesized compounds
found in cigarette smoke. Studies of tobacco pyrolysis
condensates have demonstrated that tumorigenicity
(Wynder et al., 1958) and mutagenicity (White et al.,
2001) increase with pyrolysis temperature."

I also encourage people to pay particular attention to Table 3.

[Sonthert]

I will read the article, but his conclusion is similiar to what I've said in previous posts...the tarcontent is not completely comparable.

[mgcsinc]

I will read the article, but his conclusion is similiar to what I've said in previous posts...the tarcontent is not completely comparable.

Glad you'll read it. Sorry I never finished our discussion a little while ago - I arrived back at school and have been incredibly busy. I hope you'll comment on the study and it's findings, particularly as they relate to our earlier discussion. I'm particularly concerned with the significant quantities of heavy metals that they found in the smoke, which seems to let on that their must be at least some degree of carcinogenicity in hookah smoke. Also, I think it's good for people to recognize that while the tar in hookah smoke may not be as carcinogenic as in cigarette smoke, it is still there. Out of curiosity, do you label you products as containing no tar, and if so, is that based on laboratory testing?

[Pieces]

I've only read about half of this, and will finish it tomorrow, but at least there's something about it that's somewhat informed. That news post earlier and my reaction was me blowing up due to other collected stuff. I do appreciate you linking this informative bit though.

From what I've read, I to am concerned about the metals. I also have to wonder if the metal content would go down using a smaller hookah as opposed to a larger, giving less run through and thus less time to collect the metal. And on the flip-side, would the smaller hookah cause more nicotine content to get through the hose as well?

I started out knowing it wasn't really healthy, and I keep smoking hookah because I enjoy it

edit: and wtf?! standard procedure for a hookah place to not wash?! WTF?! Edited February 7, 2007 by Pieces

[cypherkk]

here is what I have to ask any researcher. Why don't you just use a given weight of shisha smoke and pull that though a gaschronomicon (sp?) and study the actual material content of the smoke. The amounts given could then be used with known levels and weights to determine effects of the smoke.


ps.
Oh, I'm not even sure about the technical tools of science experimentation. So the item I refered to above may not be accurate. However, they do have tools to accomplish exactly what I'm talking about. Edited February 7, 2007 by cypherkk

[Pieces]

here is what I have to ask any researcher. Why don't you just use a given weight of shisha smoke and pull that though a gaschronomicon (sp?) and study the actual material content of the smoke. The amounts given could then be used with known levels and weights to determine effects of the smoke.

This person was trying to recreate the smoking experience through machine, so that the results would be more accurate. Just taking a large amount and averaging it out would work as well as the method used, taking the average puff times hold times etc.

this wasn't done to say "this will happen if you smoke hookah." It's more of proving that smoking a hookah isn't as healthy as people make it out to be. Edited February 7, 2007 by Pieces

[OPR234]

It seems like a pretty solid study. It doesnt answer all questions about hookahs and health, but its a good start from what got by briefly reading over it. If one wanted to be overly critical, here are some things they can say about the experiment itself.

- The coals only had about 2 minutes to get lit from only the quicklight sparking. From my experience, 3kings take longer than 2 minutes to become fully lit and white all around without sitting on a burner. What difference does it make? I dont know, but its not the way anyone I know uses coals.

- Is the bowl packed properly? If its filled to the brim the shisha might be burning and harsh if one actually smoked it.

-Is the tap water theyre using giving off anything that may skew results?

-Is the electrical tape giving off any illicit chemicals? Its known to contain traces of lead, its possible it could be infecting results, although unlikely.

I doubt whether these things would matter too much, I just wanted to throw them out there to see if anyone else thought differently.

[Pieces]

It seems like a pretty solid study. It doesnt answer all questions about hookahs and health, but its a good start from what got by briefly reading over it. If one wanted to be overly critical, here are some things they can say about the experiment itself.

- The coals only had about 2 minutes to get lit from only the quicklight sparking. From my experience, 3kings take longer than 2 minutes to become fully lit and white all around without sitting on a burner. What difference does it make? I dont know, but its not the way anyone I know uses coals.

- Is the bowl packed properly? If its filled to the brim the shisha might be burning and harsh if one actually smoked it.

-Is the tap water theyre using giving off anything that may skew results?

-Is the electrical tape giving off any illicit chemicals? Its known to contain traces of lead, its possible it could be infecting results, although unlikely.

I doubt whether these things would matter too much, I just wanted to throw them out there to see if anyone else thought differently.

Actually, the tape could skew things. Electrical tape isn't known for holding its own against water, and the adhesive could very well be dissolving into the water. As for the coals, I don't atually know anyone that waits for them to be ash all around. I just get it lit, wait for the quicklite to finish off, and get it glowing hot.

[glz88]

hmmm interesting there is tar involved i was naive...grrrr

[Sonthert]

I always use electrical tape.

As the study concedes, which I have been saying all along, the content of the effluent will vary between cigarettes and hookah. Additionally, nothing in the study demonstrates that charcoal isn't the responsible party for all/most of the materials they are seeing (other than the nicotine). What about different charcoal? What about an electrical heater (although I hear they suck nuts)? In short, yes hookah produces enormous amounts of "tar" but does that tar represent the same human health dangers (on a 1:1 or 1:2 or 1:3 basis, etc.) as "tar" from a cigarette. My knowledge says no and the study as much admits they don't know.

Your table 3 is interesting on the surface, but to add a little perspective...several of the heavy metals listed are toxic, several are carcinogens or suspected carcinogens. As to their potential to cause cancer, I can't answer to it. Those sorts of things aren't established. I did look up toxicity data on the heavy metals, and I found LD50s for three of the metals, based on a person who was 50Kg (110Lbs)

Metal LD50 data for LD50 (in grams) # of bowls to get LD50 level (study data) years at 1 bowl/day
Beryllium Beryllium (mice) .025g 380000 1000
Lead Lead (Rats) 10g 1500000 4100
Nickel Nickel Sulfate (guinea pigs) 3.1g 3100000 8600

If the risks are cumulative (worst case) I think I shall be eminantly safe from not dropping dead of lead poisoning from smoking hookah.

[Test]

So by reading this, I'm finding out that every hookah shisha company is lying about the tar content? Every kind that I've ever used has said 0.0%. How can they legally do this if there were traces of tar found?

[Bleeding_Heart1]

after reading that im gonna smoke a hookah.

[CaliforniaRose]

So by reading this, I'm finding out that every hookah shisha company is lying about the tar content? Every kind that I've ever used has said 0.0%. How can they legally do this if there were traces of tar found?

This is a guess as I skimmed the article, maybe the reason is that there is no added tar?

[Gex]

Hmm, looks like a good clean experiment to me. A couple factors I think could possibly make a bit of a difference are:

Coals - What about non-quicklights? I've heard of research stating standard hookah charcoals could be much cleaner.

Foil - Same as above, I've heard that the foil could possibly be adding carcinogens; what about the metal plates or a Smiley glass bowl?

Thermocouplers - Could these possibly be adding to the heavy metals? Most likely not, but couldn't it be possible that some of the equipment released slight amounts of heavy metals along the way?

Electrical Tape - Huh? That's... scientific O.o Isn't that stuff meant for, like, splicing? Or have I been using it wrong all these years?


On another note, most those metals are part of a healthy daily diet =P Okay, maybe not the particular isotopes, but oh well. And woah, that's a lot of lead. Like, ouch. As for LD50's on these, that's not really the only concern - sure, you might not be dropping dead on the spot, but heavy metals tend to cause damage (esp. to nervous system) in quantities much lower than the LD50. But at least you won't be dropping dead on the spot while having a session. I'm also wondering about the tar, would other ("tar-free") brands have less? And maybe I read it wrong, but they didn't actually measure the tar, did they? They merely used the measurements from other materials to arrive at a number, right? I think the NFDPM composition could be quite different than what they were estimating, but there's no way to be sure until it's actually tested. Dang it, who wants to hook up a spectrolysis machine (or w/e) to their hose? Let's get some exact quantities here =P

Interesting read, thanks for posting it. I agree with them, any people seem to be overstating the "safeness" of hookah smoking. But then again, most people don't chain smoke hookas, so to me it would seem that cigarettes present a much larger health threat.

[SLF_1452_]

I like many other people, knew that hookah smoking was bad for you, i mean putting anything in your lungs besides oxygen is gonna be bad for you. I am glad that they did this study and i hope more are conducted to compile a large amount of data. I'm not gonna stop smoking hookah because i enjoy it, (and am probably gonna work at a hookah bar now ). However, if more studies like this come out i will definitely think twice about when i load up a bowl, and maybe cut down my amount of sessions per week.

[Chip]

nice find thanks for the info

[Johnny_D]

I wonder how the funnel bowl would affect these findings?

1. The coal sits over the tobacco so any debrie lands in the tobacco?
2. Any tobacco residue would sit in the bowl and would (probably) not be transfered to the smoker, or at least it would be
reduced?

Opinions?

JD

[SLF_1452_]

What i really wanna know is what could possibly be creating all of those metals? I think its gotta be the aluminum foil and the quick lites. I would really like to see another experiment done with a screen and natural wood coals, like Nour or something.

[Oni_Dragon]

So by reading this, I'm finding out that every hookah shisha company is lying about the tar content? Every kind that I've ever used has said 0.0%. How can they legally do this if there were traces of tar found?

exactly my question....

and just like SLF said, putting anything in your lungs besides oxygen is bad for you....

[aldonb1]

eh just kinda reviving this thread for those who didn't see it. "bump"

hehe... maybe i can put my schools new $3 million mass spectrometer and tell you EXACTLY whats in smoke =). too bad they wont let anyone w/o a PhD close to the damn thing

[Calcartman]

Tar is tobacco residue. It doesn't form until after you put the coal on it, so technically the shisha companies aren't lying.
But yes, once you place the coal on the bowl, tobacco burns, and particulate tar goes through the air, through the water, and into your lungs.

Smoking kills.
But it tastes good doing it.

[mgcsinc]

Tar is tobacco residue. It doesn't form until after you put the coal on it, so technically the shisha companies aren't lying.

The same is true of cigarettes, but cigarettes don't label their products as 0-tar, because it is illegal for them to.

There should be one standard for all tobacco products, and that standard should be the one applied to cigarette labeling, because that is what makes sense.

[michaela]

but does anyone have a response to the questions posed earlier about the types of coals and not using foil? I may have missed it in the responses but I know that when I smoke I always use glass bowls with glass tops and naturaly stove top coals. It tastes much cleaner, without the taste of the coals (like when using the quicklights) Does this really have an impact on the toxins? I'd imagine it does condering there's no chemicals added in the natural coals, and you aren't burning foil, just heating up glass. Any ideas? I'm really curious of this.

[mgcsinc]

but does anyone have a response to the questions posed earlier about the types of coals and not using foil? I may have missed it in the responses but I know that when I smoke I always use glass bowls with glass tops and naturaly stove top coals. It tastes much cleaner, without the taste of the coals (like when using the quicklights) Does this really have an impact on the toxins? I'd imagine it does condering there's no chemicals added in the natural coals, and you aren't burning foil, just heating up glass. Any ideas? I'm really curious of this.

The researchers calculated that a very small percentage of the tar actually came from the quicklight coal, but they did not determine whether the coal was a disproportionately high contributor of more dangerous smoke (i.e. with more heavy metals / carcinogens). It probably is, but probably not as much as you'd expect.

I don't think there is anything about the contribution of the foil, although I simply don't buy the claims that foil is a major contributor to health problems with hookah. Some previous debates on this topic are (I think) available, if you do a search.

[Hannibal]

I cook with foil on the grill.....and in the oven... I mean thats what it is originally made for, so I also dont think it really contributes to any health problems found with hookah smoking.