Talk:Nicotine

The info-box doesn't identify the chiral center, nor is there any indication that it is, indeed chiral. The chemistry section has one paragraph with (+)-, (-)- nomenclature and the next with the preferred (R)-, (S)- nomenclature. Could someone clean this up? The chemistry section also describes it as a "colorless to yellow-brown, oily liquid" which is just awful. I suspect, it is, when pure, colorless, while commercial material undoubtedly contains contaminants (which, I presume, give it various discoloration). (Amines are notoriously difficult to keep pure, aromatic nitrogen compounds are photosensitive, so it isn't surprising that commercial products are off-color, even if originally pure and colorless.) The info-box claims a few physical properties. I question this. First because it isn't likely that the racemic mixture has the same physical properties as the pure (R) or (S) compounds, and second because of the enormous temperature range in which it is -supposedly- a liquid. I question the liquid range is 326 degrees C (586 F), and I'd expect the racemate to have slightly different range. Finally, it is really strange and atypical that the info-box doesn't have the IUPAC systematic name (or names depending on whether property belongs to a specific isomer or a blend of the isomers. It would be notable, if true, for the natural product to be racemic. Is this claim verified or does it rely on crude analysis without a chain of custody to show no tautomerization/racemization didn't occur during collection and analysis?174.130.71.156 (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I saw it wasn't using the (R)(S) nomenclature, and was, like, blergh.

Thanks for barging in. I think there's weight to these questions. I personally was more interested in the molecular and cell bio side of things, but I'll look into the chemistry later. I updated the chemistry section with them now producing a pretty pure synthetic nicotine enantiomer.

If someone has any more chemistry-related thoughts, it would be nice to get that input. Berkeleywho (talk) 04:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

"First because it isn't likely that the racemic mixture has the same physical properties as the pure (R) or (S) compounds".

By definition, the only difference between two isomers is optical activity (rotation of plane-polarized light) and interaction with other chiral substances. So by definition, stereoisomers have the same physical properties, which is why you see chemistry reference materials give properties just for one enantiomer. Isn't @Dmacks a chemist? Berkeleywho (talk) 05:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Nicotine does not produce significant withdrawals on its own (such as when people consume nicotine through vaporizers) to most people except those extremely liable for physical dependency. All sources that state that nicotine itself is highly addictive point back to the same incredibly flawed information, such as the Surgeon General's report from 1988. They claimed that nicotine was the primary addictive component because tobacco smokers experience withdrawals, and nicotine was the chemical that produced the high. This is, in many cases, the _ONLY_ citation you're going to find, or things point back to it that have also not shown isolated nicotine to be highly addictive.

The addictive qualities of _tobacco_ are caused by MAOIs and, in cigarettes, acetaldehyde (not added directly but formed when heated) and other additives. While Nicotine is dopaminergic, it's not incredibly so, nowhere near enough to be considered heavily addictive. The MAOIs on their own would already be addictive, but reinforce the nicotine as well.

If you aren't already liable to be addicted to nicotine, it is about on-par with caffeine in terms of addictive qualities. Yukenk (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I apologise I am drunk and was reading through the page, immediately made an account to write this, without reading the guidelines. Yukenk (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposing to close this discussion. QueenElizebethlll (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

No. Berkeleywho (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Nicotine salts are what strengthens the addiction potential, but nicotine itself is just as addicting. This is a very important discussion to be had because the page does not address this, and this needs to be clarified on the page. It's also a relatively delicate and complex difference between nicotine and nicotine salts.

Nicotine salts can feel more addictive compared to freebase nicotine, but it's not because the salts are inherently more addictive chemically. Rather, the key differences in how they are absorbed and how they interact with the body contribute to their stronger perceived effect.

Nicotine salts are often used in vaping liquids because they are more stable, have a smoother throat hit, and are easier to absorb into the body compared to freebase nicotine. Nicotine salts, like nicotine benzoate, are commonly used in nicotine products for a more rapid absorption and longer-lasting effect.

Reasons Nicotine Salts Can Feel More Addictive:

1. Faster Absorption:
   • Nicotine salts are more easily absorbed into the bloodstream compared to freebase nicotine. This is due to their increased stability and higher bioavailability. When vaping, nicotine salts can be absorbed more quickly in the lungs, leading to a faster onset of effects, such as a quicker "hit."
   • Freebase nicotine, on the other hand, has a higher pH (more alkaline), which can cause a harsher throat hit, and this can slow down the absorption process, making it less efficient.
2. Smoother Throat Hit:
   • Nicotine salts are less harsh on the throat because they are typically pH-adjusted to be less alkaline. This makes them easier to inhale, even at higher nicotine concentrations (e.g., 20-50mg/mL in e-liquids). The smoothness can lead users to take in more nicotine without discomfort.
   • This can result in higher nicotine consumption compared to freebase nicotine, which might be less comfortable at similar concentrations, especially for new users or those with sensitive throats.
3. Higher Nicotine Concentrations:
   • Due to the smoother throat hit and faster absorption, nicotine salts can be formulated at much higher concentrations (e.g., 30-50mg/mL), which increases the likelihood of nicotine buildup in the system.
   • Freebase nicotine is typically found in lower concentrations (often around 3-6mg/mL for most vaping products), and its harsher throat hit discourages the consumption of higher doses.
4. Sustained Nicotine Levels:
   • The quicker absorption of nicotine salts can lead to a rapid peak in blood nicotine levels, followed by a sustained level of nicotine in the bloodstream, leading to a more consistent effect over time.
   • This rapid increase in nicotine can mimic the sensations smokers often associate with traditional cigarettes, creating a stronger sense of craving or satisfaction, which can reinforce the addictive potential.

The main reason nicotine salts can feel more addictive is because of their efficiency in delivering nicotine in a form that is easier to inhale and faster to absorb. This means users can get a more intense effect quickly, which may increase the likelihood of addiction in the short term.

Nicotine salts may enhance the experience of addiction by allowing for more frequent or intense use, but the fundamental addiction mechanism comes from the nicotine itself, which is a highly addictive substance regardless of the form.

• • • • • • This actually has to do with another discussion on this Talk page about "Nicotine Replacement Therapy is not the same as Nicotine". You don't quit nicotine by using nicotine, that's just plain stupid to be written on any self-respecting world-facing Wikipedia page. You quit nicotine by varying its administration routes, dosage, dosage profile, and its forms (salt or freebase). I believe strongly this must be spelled out on the page. Berkeleywho (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

And it's not just vaping liquids that have nicotine salts, it's in fact all cigarette smoke that produces nicotine salts. In fact, most nicotine entering our bodies from smoking is in salt form because the burning tip of cigarettes is a chemical reactor with high temps volatilizing freebase nicotine, which then reacts with acidic species produced by the same high-temperature pyrolysis that breaks down tobacco components (e.g., sugars, cellulose). In fact, 90 to 98 % of nicotine in the hot smoke plume inhaled is in nicotine salt form. It makes the aerosol less harsh and more inhalable, among other things that have to do with the addictive potential increase of nicotine salts vs nicotine. Berkeleywho (talk) 08:19, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Seppi333@QuackGuru@HLHJ. Is it okay if I nominate this article as a GA? Nagol0929 (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Nagol0929, it would need a lot of work. It's not very readable, the selection of information is odd and liable to be very controversial, and there are gaps. I'm not unwilling to help, but it would be a couple weeks before I could do much work on it. HLHJ (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

This would be my first big content creation. Would you be willing to coach me? Nagol0929 (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd strongly suggest another topic for your first big content creation. This one will be controversial and generally a pain. Due to WP:systemic bias, there are plenty of important topics with no content. That said, I find content creation quite rewarding, and I'd encourage you to get into it. I'd be happy to help if you want coaching. HLHJ (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The page is looking better now. It's a lot better than it used to be some years ago. There's always room for improvement, but things are relatively balanced, relatively well grounded, I filled some critical gaps too. What's the benefit of being a Good Article anyway? Berkeleywho (talk) 04:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The first sentence of Genotoxicity should probably read "Nicotine causes DNA damage in several types of human cells in vitro ..."

From the 3 sources under Adverse Effects/Genotoxicity:

- Introduction mentions "freshly isolated single cells of human nasal epithelia and a permanent human bronchial cell line": https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378427411015578

- Title mentions in vitro: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24698733/

- Abstract mentions in vitro: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23200805/ Nathan Franke (talk) 05:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The in vitro DNA damage (comet assay) in human respiratory cells has been corroborated in vivo, particularly via e-cig models where nicotine is the primary alkaloid.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29378943/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35690412/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31591243/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304389421022147

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5020336/

Would you like to work on this? Berkeleywho (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

This page reads like a love letter to nicotine. Calling it a natural product is pure marketing. It is often synthesized (usually to skirt tobacco regulations) and it has serious effects on fetus and young brains. Nicotine dependence is a serious problem for the young as well. I have begun the process of vetting all these sources, and I suspect that there is a problem with WP:MEDRS. Primary studies should not be used, especially when it comes to a neurotoxic poison/insecticide. DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I have actually recently added info about synthetic nicotine to the page and its synthetic analogues. I don't see where it's referred to as a "natural product" in the sense that I think you imply. There's info on teratogenicy and adolescent development on the page. Updating sources is good, and I am doing that myself too, but some primary studies may be there while there are secondary reviews published already or whatnot. Berkeleywho (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Nicotine Replacement Therapy already has a page. However, here on the Nicotine page there seems to be a sleight of hand going on. By quoting the literature on NRT, this page makes claims that seem on the face of it to be about nicotine, but they are really about NRT and the placebo group is usually nicotine dependent people who are not getting NRT. In other words, comparing smokers to smokers. I'll be working on fixing this problem. DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

You are spot on about questioning the verbiage about NRTs. You don't quit nicotine by using nicotine, that's just plain stupid to be written on any self-respecting world-facing Wikipedia page. You quit nicotine by varying its administration routes, dosage, dosage profile, and its forms (salt or freebase). I believe strongly this must be spelled out on the page. Berkeleywho (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

But other than my earlier comment, it can be tricky to say NRT is not about nicotine because NRT's main active substance IS nicotine. So maybe you can explain what specifically you think is the problem? Berkeleywho (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I've already made the edits. DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:19, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh, just saw them. So great! This can be archived, then. Berkeleywho (talk) 04:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I got this message: "Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. DMacks"

Ok, I added information to the page based on a research article from Tobacco Science journal. I'm sorry, what can be more reliable than Tobacco Science journal that's stored on a website of Cooperation Centre for Scientific Research Relative to Tobacco? Better yet: What can be more primary source for main tobacco ingredient than Tobacco Science? Why is it that someone always deletes my additions to Nicotine page, even though eventually they still stay on the page after a ton of back and forth? Who is this DMacks shill?

Why is Tobacco Science journal not a reliable source? Berkeleywho (talk) 09:29, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Please read the WP:RS guideline carefully. You actually hit an important point yourself: see WP:PRIMARY. Surely there have been more studies and WP:SECONDARY reviews in the half-century of further research on the effects of tobacco smoke since that was published. The ref only appears to cover a theoretical analysis of nicotine by itself as a function of pH, not an actual analysis of the actual smoke matrix. WP:MEDRS advises us to be quite careful with sourcing of human-health-related material. Also, be sure to place content in a relevant place in the article. How does rate of absorption affect toxicity (again, need a secondary-ref for that logical connection specifically for nicotine), and why is this data-point of utmost value to merit being in the WP:LEAD without having more detail in the body? Separately, I urge you to read WP:CIVIL. I will ignore you until you withdraw your personal attack. DMacks (talk) 09:54, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not attacking anyone, you are twisting everything and shying away from any constructive conversation by choosing to ignore. Your job is not to ignore constructive contributions.

Why would anyone do basic research over again? It's not about any effects of anything. It's college level inorganic chemistry stuff. Basic research.

The paper shows that even if we assume saliva and mucus pH would buffer cigarette smoke to their pH values, you'd still have a higly significant fraction of nicotine absorbed be in protonated, salt form. So how do you suggest I build this information out on the page?

That's fine if you believe there should be more detail in the body for reference to this be in the lead. But this is material to state on the page if the page states such and such amount of nicotine is absorbed from smoking one average cigarette. Berkeleywho (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok, well, this topic can be archived. The page is now updated and looks good, I think. Berkeleywho (talk) 04:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Definitely improved. Thanks! DMacks (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Berkeleywho (talk) 04:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@Boghog Twice now you have put "naturally occurring" back in the lead. What does that phrase mean in this context to you? It is both synthesized and extracted from tobacco. What information are you intending to impart to the reader? DolyaIskrina (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

We need to find a replacement for the awkward construction "originally found primarily". As with most simple natural products, it is assumed that it can be synthesized. Moreover, the following sentence explicitly states that it is also produced synthetically. Finally, the vast majority of nicotine consumed by humans comes from natural sources, while synthetic nicotine represents a rapidly growing but still minor segment. Boghog (talk) 07:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

“Originally found exclusively” would be a more accurate, but still somewhat awkward phrasing. Nicotine has been synthesized by plants of the Nicotiana genus for tens of millions of years. It was first synthesized chemically in 1904 by Pictet and Rotschy. Prior to that, nicotine was produced exclusively by plants. Boghog (talk) 07:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I think "naturally occurring" must be entirely removed because "found primarily in plants" literally means it occurs naturally. Deleting "naturally occurring" reads like a charm. There's no reason to duplicate the same thing twice in the opening sentence. Berkeleywho (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

OK, I agree it is redundant so I remove it. Boghog (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Primarily now needs to move because right now it qualifies the wrong word. It's not primarily found, it's found in plants primarily of blah blah. Berkeleywho (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

In this construct, “primarily” is correctly placed. It modifies “found in plants of the nightshade family”, not “found” or “plants” alone, and it naturally means “found mostly in plants of the nightshade family.” So the critique, that “primarily” qualifies the wrong word, does not make sense here. The placement is both idiomatically and grammatically correct. Boghog (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

It looks much better to me. Thanks all. DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

"Nicotine is used addictively because its apparent anxiolytic effect is caused by the fact that it is actually anxiogenic." -> stated without source and later contradicted:

"This results in the release of neurotransmitters such as dopamine, acetylcholine, and norepinephrine, producing effects including increased alertness, reduced anxiety, and mild euphoria." ~2026-36162-0 (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Slothwizard Twice now you have removed the fact that nicotine is synthesized from the lead. Both times without explanation. What is your reason for doing this? DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

You need to provide sources. However, the problem is that the original research content you added to the lede is giving undue weight to those claims. Also, that nicotine is synthesized can be noted up top, but it's been presented 'backwards' - the original primary source and history of nicotine is its extraction from the tobacco plant, not its synthesis in the lab.

I realize you may be familiar with the wikilinked policies I've provided above, but they are pertinent here. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:26, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, we do not normal provide sources in the lead, especially for things that are sourced in the body and are also WP:SKYBLUE. It is not OR to say that nicotine is synthesized. But if really need a source? Ok, and here, and here. There is plenty of room to put this fact in the lead. Not mentioning it is actually the violation of WP:WEIGHT. It has been there for quite some time and there has been EW to remove it. Time to put it back. DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

My apologies - editor Slothwizard reverted back to a revision before yours and another editor's - the one that talked about nicotine being 'evacuated [...] through the bowels [...]' - the article doesn't discuss that at all, and that was the origin of my other comments. I'll strike my comments about OR and weight, they don't apply!

As far as the wording, I'd suggest the following: "Nicotine is an alkaloid found primarily in plants of the nightshade family, notably in tobacco and Duboisia hopwoodii; it is also produced synthetically." cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 01:09, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

That's reasonable wording for it, but since we are discussing it, I'd suggest cutting Duboisia hopwoodii. That seems a little off the beaten path for the lead. The vast majority of nicotine people will encounter will be synthesized or extracted from tobacco. DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. It's mentioned down in the 'natural occurrence' section which is where it belongs. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 05:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I propose to split this article, leaving most of it intact but with a parallel article Nicotine (chemical) or Nicotine(chemical)? focused on basic chemistry - how is it made synthetically, biosynthesis, reactions of nicotine. It would have a "ChemBox" of physical and chem data. The article is currently about 160kbytes, which is too long by the usual standards of Wikipedia. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

The 'readable prose' size is 6,599 words - under the '<8000 May need to be divided or trimmed [...]' and a bit more than the <6,000 Length alone does not justify division or trimming. [...]'. A split could be justified, but I think it would create only a relatively small sized destination article - using the most basic (and clumsy) method, it would be roughly 1,100 words. I suppose it would help - it would definitely bring it under the 6k threshold. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:34, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@Anastrophe: Agreed, puzzled, and grateful. Thanks. The goal is a content split. The chemists dont want to deal with the on-and-on (and not so great) report on the woes of nicotine. It would not be a size split. The remaining nicotine would remain large. One advantage to content splitting is that the new article can expand. For example, there is a lot of basic chem of nicotine that could be described. Finally and most deliciously, I am hoping to gain advice on how to be a cool splitter vs clumsy one. Yikes.--Smokefoot (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Ha, well, I'm no source of advice on that, never having created a new article or split an article in my two decades here. I've kept myself in a narrow lane of gnoming, grammar/syntax/construction-ism, reverting bandits I mean vandals, correcting misrepresentations of sources, and stuff like that. Your point is well taken on 'just the chemistry'. I briefly had a thought that sections of the article could be 'collapsed' - but that would never fly, both by policy/guideline and just general good practice. I support your proposal - but can't offer anything more useful than that, regrettably! cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:51, 27 April 2026 (UTC)