Table 2

Cancer risk of broad types of smokeless tobacco products for which comparable data is available

Smokeless tobacco typeMedian pHCategoryMedian concentration (ng/g) and cancer risk estimates*
TSNABaPeqCadmiumLeadTotal
Swedish snus (n=2)7.4Level23093.68980238
Risk estimate1.2×10E−39.0×10E−81.7×10E−41.8×10E−81.4×10E−3
Low-moisture snuff (n=6)9.5Level202534320659
Risk estimate1.1×10E−38.2×10E−75.4×10E−54.8×10E−81.2×10E−3
US-style chewing tobacco (n=2)5.4Level2013BDL503333
Risk estimate1.1×10E−38.5×10E−52.5×10E−81.2×10E−4
Indian chew (Manikchand Gutka)8.3Level797276BDLNQ
Risk estimate4.3×10E−48.8×10E−6
US loose moist snuff (n=15)7.5Level11675140933340
Risk estimate6.4×10E−33.4×10E−61.6×10E−42.5×10E−86.6×10E−3
US pouch moist snuff (n=4)7.6Level11667701018394
Risk estimate6.4×10E−31.7×10E−61.9×10E−42.9×10E−86.6×10E−3
Medicinal Nicotine gum (Nicorette)9.3LevelBDL1.72NQNQ
Risk estimate3.6×10E−93.6×10E−9
  • * Based on data from Rickert et al.14 and the constituent reduced percentage transfer assumptions (sensitivity analysis).

  • Contains areca nut for which the carcinogen data is not provided, so that the risk estimate is likely to be grossly underestimated.

  • BaP, benzo(a)pyrene; BDL, below detection limit; NQ, below the limit of quantification; TSNA, tobacco specific nitrosamine.