ArticleTobacco prevention & cessation2020
Testing of a commercial waterpipe electric heater and a research-grade waterpipe electric heater.
Article in Tobacco prevention & cessation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of effects of charcoal versus electric heating of waterpipe tobacco on carbon monoxide levels: Cardiovascular measures; benzene, pyrene, and nicotine uptake; and subjective reactions.Toxicology reports · 2026Article
- Investigating the transfer rate of waterpipe additives to smoke as an integral part of toxicological risk assessments.Toxicology reports · 2022Article
- Levels of Chemical Toxicants in Waterpipe Tobacco and Waterpipe Charcoal Solid Waste.Journal of environmental protection · 2021Article
- Aquatic toxicity of waterpipe wastewater chemicals.Environmental research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe capability of a commercial waterpipe electric heater to simulate the waterpipe charcoal heating system using waterpipe tobacco consumption as a metric was evaluated, and a research-grade waterpipe electric heater to standardize waterpipe tobacco emission testing was designed.
methodsThe experiment was conducted in two phases. In Phase 1, tobacco was heated using either charcoal or a commercial electric heater. The tobacco temperature was recorded during a 57-minute machine-smoking session and tobacco consumption was measured. In Phase 2, a similar procedure was followed using a novel research-grade electric heater.
resultsIn Phase 1, tobacco consumption using either charcoal or the commercial electric heater averaged 31.35% and 20.56%, respectively. In Phase 2, tobacco consumption using the research-grade electric heater, set at target temperatures of 470, 430, 400, 380, 370 and 350°C, averaged 55.74, 41.22, 40.18, 39.10, 31.57 and 26.14%, respectively.
conclusionsThe commercial electric heater did not reach consumption levels seen in the charcoal heating system, whereas the research-grade electric heater did and can be used as part of a standardize waterpipe tobacco emission testing regimen.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.