ArticleBMC public health2024
The levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in traditional cigarettes and E-cigarettes in Saudi Arabia markets: a comparative risk assessment study.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differential induction of hepatic CYP enzymes by tobacco products and e-cigarettes: recommendation to rethink smoking status in clinical pharmacology.Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
- Article
- Molecular Health Effects of Electronic Cigarettes.Biomolecules · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTwo validated and effective extraction techniques have been developed to ascertain the presence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in traditional cigarettes and E-cigarettes. PAHs are a class of chemicals that occur naturally, and these contaminants may cause cancer and other harmful effects in human beings. Traditional cigarettes and E-cigarettes contain many PAHs.
methodIn terms of linearity, limit of detection, limit of quantification, accuracy (%), and precision (%), the two in-house lab setups for 7PAHs extraction from traditional cigarettes and E-cigarette were validated using high-performance liquid chromatography-fluorescence detection.
resultsThe concentration of Σ7PAHs for traditional cigarettes and E-cigarettes ranged from 6.23 ± 0.04 ng/cig to 75.61 ± 0.02 ng/cig, and non-detectable to 3.56 ± 2.71 ng/puff. The PAHs recovery in traditional cigarettes and E-cigarettes ranged from 92.74-110.45%, and 97.20-111.74%. The toxicity of equivalent (TEQs) of carcinogens revealed that traditional cigarettes brands have higher TEQs than E-cigarettes.
conclusionThis study highlights the detection of 7PAHs levels and its risk assessment in product brands for traditional cigarettes and E-cigarettes marketed in Saudi Arabia. The results suggested that the developed methods are a precise and versatile approach for measuring 7PAHs in traditional cigarettes and E-cigarettes.
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.