Talk:Nicotine poisoning

Inaccuracy regarding amount of cigarettes necessary for overdose

According to [Nicotine], "(an average cigarette yields about 1 mg of absorbed nicotine)." Nicotine Poisoning, this article, states that "about 500 cigarettes" are necessary to provide the nicotine for an overdose "if all the nicotine is absorbed." A cigarette, I'm sure, does not result in 100% absorption of its nicotine. At least a small amount must be broken down due to the fact it's vaporized though I'm not a chemist. In any case, this article states 60mg is a potential lethal dose, yet the number of cigarettes cited is well over 500mg total nicotine content. This seems wrong to me. 69.193.6.146 (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Sources generally indicate 1mg of nicotine is asorbed by a human in smoking one cigarette. However, the actual content of nicotine in cigarettes is much higher still than that, as it is combustible and most burns off as the cigarette burns. Sources I have read indicate a content of 9 mg of nicotine per cigarette (http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/nic.html), and in fact the reference footnoted for that section indicates that there are 15-25mg nicotine per cigarette. Based on these numbers, 60 mg of nicotine could be obtained from as few as 3 to 9 cigarettes, if the nicotine was extracted, the content of the cigarette was consumed orally, or something other than smoking. Of course, if the route of exposure is inhalation of cigarette smoke, the numbers wouldn't be this low, but they'd still be much lower than the unsourced 500 currently quoted in the article. 153.31.113.21 (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding providing medical advice

Authors should be cautious of including information on treatments for medical conditions. In the case of the article "nicotine poisoning", a previous author had made the statements that people with mild nicotine poisoning should take some sugar and water and lie down. I can't find any source to support this medical advice. Further, this article does not clarify what "mild nicotine poisoning" is. Keeping this section in the article may endanger the life of an individual should they follow this medical advice for serious nicotine poisoning. i got that shit now i feel like ima shit and puke same time ewwfaaa

Yes, I agree that people should be cautious of taking any advice from the internet, and especially from Wikipedia. However, some people do follow this advice and I think it is prudent to just exclude unclear and unsupported medical advice.DivaNtrainin 21:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You can find out more information regarding the effects of nicotine poisoning and the required amounts necessary for this to take place here Nicotine Poisoning — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.248.3 (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

LD50

If the ld50 for cocaine is 95.1mg/kg, how is 50mg/kg "high", compared to it? --98.246.94.67 (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

oh wait, i see, the nicotine article has the decimal wrong and i didnt look closely here. pfft! --98.246.94.67 (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

no wait, again.. its just using two different amounts.. why is one in parentheses? compare things in the same quantities use mg/kg for both, please --98.246.94.67 (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

ok, finally figured it out.. the ld50 for nicotine in rats is 50mg/kg, and the ld50 for cocaine in mice is 91.5mg/kg.. then someone had put the ld50 for nicotine in humans is 40-60mg.. and put in parentheses (0.5-1.0mg/kg) very confusing to a drunk. but it's fixed. --98.246.94.67 (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I changed some wording in the prognosis section. Changed he or she to they.--Jessica Gordon (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Impossible?

The "impossible to overdose from smoking alone" line sounds really dubious to me. If it means *fatally* overdose, that may be right... but certainly smoking can produce many of the extremely unpleasant symptoms of nicotine overdose such as intense nausea and sweating. One or two cigarettes can produce these symptoms in a non-tolerant individual. 74.80.58.186 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Differentiate between nicotine content and nicotine yields

The lede as is stands is misleading or plain wrong.

Sixty milligrams of nicotine (the amount in about 30-40 cigarettes [1]), has the potential to kill an adult who is not a smoker[2] if all of the nicotine were absorbed. This figure is ~120 mg in chronic cigarette smokers, smoking an average of 20 non-light cigarettes delivering ~1.7 mg of nicotine each daily. One cigarette's-worth of nicotine is enough to make a toddler severely ill.

Bold figures refer to the machine-smoked nicotine yield of cigarettes, i.e. the amount of nicotine that would be inhaled. The actual amount of nicotine that a cigarette contains will be 5 to 15 times higher. For example:

Players Extra Light cigarettes in Canada have quite a high filter ventilation level (42%) for the 1.2 mg nicotine yield brand, but this is coupled with a very high total nicotine content (18.3 mg per cigarette), whereas the Players Full Flavor were unventilated at 1.4 mg nicotine yield and had a nicotine content of only 8.0 mg per cigarette. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/7/4/369.full (source could be biased but that's not the point)

Nicotine poisoning by inhaling cigarette smoke is a highly unlikely scenario, so the total nicotine content would be more appropriate. Ingesting two or more cigarettes could be life-threatening for a child, reference 2 of the article quotes a case of four children each ingesting two cigarettes who developed cardiac arrhythmias within 40 minutes, convulsions within 60. Ssscienccce (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Nicotine poisoning

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Nicotine poisoning's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "inchem":

• From Spider bite: While, Julian and Gray, Michael (1989). "Atrax Robustus". IPCS INCHEM. International Programme on Chemical Safety.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• From Nicotine: "Nicotine (PIM)". Inchem.org. Retrieved 2012-12-19.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

2nd Paragraph Makes No Sense

"The estimated lower limit of a lethal dose of nicotine has been reported as between 500 and 1000 mg.[7] Historical data as between 40 and 60 milligrams (the total amount in about 2 cigarettes if all of the nicotine was absorbed) in adults and about 1 mg/kg in children (less than 1 cigarette) .[8][9][10]"

"Historical data AS..."?? As what? Plus I'm having trouble reconciling the idea that between 500 and 1000 from one source and between 40 and 60 in another.Jonny Quick (talk) 05:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Amount of nicotine contained

I searched for about an hour for this information in PubMed and Google Scholar. I could not find it.

Nicotine in various products

product	amount of nicotine in single use/dose product	amount of nicotine delivered into body	concentration of nicotine in blood after use
cigarette	8-15mg?	2mg	?? molar
nictoine patch	20-40mg?	??	??
nictoine gum	20-40mg?	??	??
e-cigarette	5-7mg?	??	??

One reason why I am interested is to examine risk of nicotine poisoning. Some of these products are easier to eat quickly than others. I am interested in how much nicotine each contains, and also how efficiently each transfers nicotine during routine use. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the concept of a "single use/dose" does not work with e-cigs. As experience and research shows, vapers puff away until they achieve a level of nicotine that satisfies them, and all the various types are designed to last at the least several hours before refilling, and so a single refill equates to many cigarettes. The unit of the "puff" rears its head both in some research and e-cig packaging and marketing, but I don't think a "standard puff" has been defined. Also, I suspect that the range of nicotine levels in different (smoked) cigarettes is more than the ~100% you use. The good news about nicotine poisoning is that it makes you feel nauseous at an early stage, and likely to vomit if it gets more serious. Ingestion by mouth also tastes unpleasant and causes burning or stinging sensations. The PHE report (available on PDF) has a section on this. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Johnbod Thanks. I think what you said summarizes the information we have on this topic, and I am not sure what more could be said here or in the article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

corneal abrasion caused by nicotine?

@Mikael Häggström: Is (corneal) abrasion caused by nicotine poisoning in the source? I find it quite doubtful.--TMCk (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't reach the full source from here, so I removed that entry until it can be verified. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Mikael Häggström. Maybe "agitation" too should be checked while at it. The source is about calls to poison centers and thus I believe agitation is likely reported as an emotional response to being poisoned rather than as a direct effect of nicotine. What do you think?--TMCk (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The content was verified. The source says in Table 4 "Health effect" for the content in the list. Claiming it is an emotional response is engaging in original research. QuackGuru (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

In what context? I don't have access to the full source but would be much appreciated if you would e-mail me a copy.--TMCk (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

These are the "most common health effect in e-cigarette calls to U.S. poison centers" according to (PMID 27352081). Maybe I made a mistake. We could also include less common health effects. QuackGuru (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you please e-mail me the source? Many thanks in front.--TMCk (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

A copy can be requested at WP:REREQ. Corneal abrasion and other effects was caused by using e-liquid instead of an eye drop. There is also information about traditional cigarettes. QuackGuru (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)