Zeitschriften und Ausgaben

Volumen 31 (2022): Heft 2 (July 2022)

Volumen 31 (2022): Heft 1 (March 2022)

Volumen 30 (2021): Heft 4 (November 2021)

Volumen 30 (2021): Heft 3 (July 2021)

Volumen 30 (2021): Heft 2 (May 2021)

Volumen 30 (2021): Heft 1 (March 2021)

Volumen 29 (2020): Heft 3 (December 2020)

Volumen 29 (2020): Heft 2 (August 2020)

Volumen 29 (2020): Heft 1 (April 2020)

Volumen 28 (2019): Heft 7 (December 2019)

Volumen 28 (2019): Heft 6 (August 2019)

Volumen 28 (2019): Heft 5 (May 2019)

Volumen 28 (2018): Heft 4 (December 2018)

Volumen 28 (2018): Heft 3 (October 2018)

Volumen 28 (2018): Heft 2 (August 2018)

Volumen 28 (2018): Heft 1 (April 2018)

Volumen 27 (2017): Heft 8 (December 2017)

Volumen 27 (2017): Heft 7 (September 2017)

Volumen 27 (2017): Heft 6 (April 2017)

Volumen 27 (2017): Heft 5 (January 2017)

Volumen 27 (2016): Heft 4 (October 2016)

Volumen 27 (2016): Heft 3 (July 2016)

Volumen 27 (2016): Heft 2 (April 2016)

Volumen 27 (2016): Heft 1 (January 2016)

Volumen 26 (2015): Heft 7 (September 2015)

Volumen 26 (2015): Heft 6 (June 2015)

Volumen 26 (2015): Heft 5 (March 2015)

Volumen 26 (2014): Heft 4 (December 2014)

Volumen 26 (2014): Heft 3 (September 2014)

Volumen 26 (2014): Heft 2 (July 2014)

Volumen 26 (2014): Heft 1 (April 2014)

Volumen 25 (2013): Heft 8 (December 2013)

Volumen 25 (2013): Heft 7 (September 2013)

Volumen 25 (2013): Heft 6 (June 2013)

Volumen 25 (2013): Heft 5 (March 2013)

Volumen 25 (2012): Heft 4 (December 2012)

Volumen 25 (2012): Heft 3 (August 2012)

Volumen 25 (2012): Heft 2 (June 2012)

Volumen 25 (2012): Heft 1 (February 2012)

Volumen 24 (2011): Heft 6 (November 2011)

Volumen 24 (2011): Heft 5 (May 2011)

Volumen 24 (2011): Heft 4 (January 2011)

Volumen 24 (2010): Heft 3 (November 2010)

Volumen 24 (2010): Heft 2 (July 2010)

Volumen 24 (2010): Heft 1 (April 2010)

Volumen 23 (2009): Heft 6 (December 2009)

Volumen 23 (2009): Heft 5 (September 2009)

Volumen 23 (2009): Heft 4 (May 2009)

Volumen 23 (2008): Heft 3 (December 2008)

Volumen 23 (2008): Heft 2 (August 2008)

Volumen 23 (2008): Heft 1 (April 2008)

Volumen 22 (2007): Heft 5 (June 2007)

Volumen 22 (2007): Heft 4 (January 2007)

Volumen 22 (2006): Heft 3 (October 2006)

Volumen 22 (2006): Heft 2 (July 2006)

Volumen 22 (2006): Heft 1 (April 2006)

Volumen 21 (2005): Heft 8 (December 2005)

Volumen 21 (2005): Heft 7 (October 2005)

Volumen 21 (2005): Heft 6 (July 2005)

Volumen 21 (2005): Heft 5 (April 2005)

Volumen 21 (2004): Heft 4 (December 2004)

Volumen 21 (2004): Heft 3 (October 2004)

Volumen 21 (2004): Heft 2 (July 2004)

Volumen 21 (2004): Heft 1 (March 2004)

Volumen 20 (2003): Heft 8 (December 2003)

Volumen 20 (2003): Heft 7 (November 2003)

Volumen 20 (2003): Heft 6 (July 2003)

Volumen 20 (2003): Heft 5 (March 2003)

Volumen 20 (2002): Heft 4 (December 2002)

Volumen 20 (2002): Heft 3 (August 2002)

Volumen 20 (2002): Heft 2 (June 2002)

Volumen 20 (2002): Heft 1 (February 2002)

Volumen 19 (2001): Heft 7 (October 2001)

Volumen 19 (2001): Heft 6 (July 2001)

Volumen 19 (2001): Heft 5 (April 2001)

Volumen 19 (2001): Heft 4 (January 2001)

Volumen 19 (2000): Heft 3 (October 2000)

Volumen 19 (2000): Heft 2 (July 2000)

Volumen 19 (2000): Heft 1 (April 2000)

Volumen 18 (1999): Heft 6 (December 1999)

Volumen 18 (1999): Heft 5 (July 1999)

Volumen 18 (1999): Heft 4 (April 1999)

Volumen 18 (1998): Heft 3 (December 1998)

Volumen 18 (1998): Heft 2 (August 1998)

Volumen 18 (1998): Heft 1 (April 1998)

Volumen 17 (1997): Heft 3 (December 1997)

Volumen 17 (1997): Heft 2 (September 1997)

Volumen 17 (1996): Heft 1 (December 1996)

Volumen 16 (1995): Heft 4 (November 1995)

Volumen 16 (1995): Heft 3 (July 1995)

Volumen 16 (1994): Heft 2 (June 1994)

Volumen 16 (1994): Heft 1 (May 1994)

Volumen 15 (1992): Heft 3 (November 1992)

Volumen 15 (1992): Heft 2 (April 1992)

Volumen 15 (1991): Heft 1 (August 1991)

Volumen 14 (1990): Heft 6 (June 1990)

Volumen 14 (1989): Heft 5 (October 1989)

Volumen 14 (1989): Heft 4 (February 1989)

Volumen 14 (1989): Heft 3 (January 1989)

Volumen 14 (1988): Heft 2 (October 1988)

Volumen 14 (1987): Heft 1 (December 1987)

Volumen 13 (1986): Heft 5 (December 1986)

Volumen 13 (1986): Heft 4 (August 1986)

Volumen 13 (1986): Heft 3 (July 1986)

Volumen 13 (1985): Heft 2 (December 1985)

Volumen 13 (1985): Heft 1 (January 1985)

Volumen 12 (1984): Heft 5 (November 1984)

Volumen 12 (1984): Heft 4 (July 1984)

Volumen 12 (1984): Heft 3 (February 1984)

Volumen 12 (1983): Heft 2 (June 1983)

Volumen 12 (1983): Heft 1 (February 1983)

Volumen 11 (1982): Heft 5 (November 1982)

Volumen 11 (1982): Heft 4 (August 1982)

Volumen 11 (1982): Heft 3 (January 1982)

Volumen 11 (1981): Heft 2 (September 1981)

Volumen 11 (1981): Heft 1 (March 1981)

Volumen 10 (1980): Heft 3 (October 1980)

Volumen 10 (1980): Heft 2 (July 1980)

Volumen 10 (1979): Heft 1 (December 1979)

Volumen 9 (1978): Heft 5 (December 1978)

Volumen 9 (1978): Heft 4 (July 1978)

Volumen 9 (1977): Heft 3 (October 1977)

Volumen 9 (1977): Heft 2 (June 1977)

Volumen 9 (1977): Heft 1 (April 1977)

Volumen 8 (1976): Heft 7 (October 1976)

Volumen 8 (1976): Heft 6 (June 1976)

Volumen 8 (1976): Heft 5 (March 1976)

Volumen 8 (1975): Heft 4 (December 1975)

Volumen 8 (1975): Heft 3 (August 1975)

Volumen 8 (1975): Heft 2 (May 1975)

Volumen 8 (1975): Heft 1 (January 1975)

Volumen 7 (1974): Heft 5 (September 1974)

Volumen 7 (1974): Heft 4 (April 1974)

Volumen 7 (1973): Heft 3 (November 1973)

Volumen 7 (1973): Heft 2 (June 1973)

Volumen 7 (1973): Heft 1 (January 1973)

Volumen 6 (1972): Heft 5 (October 1972)

Volumen 6 (1972): Heft 4 (August 1972)

Volumen 6 (1972): Heft 3 (March 1972)

Volumen 6 (1971): Heft 2 (September 1971)

Volumen 6 (1971): Heft 1 (July 1971)

Volumen 5 (1970): Heft 6 (December 1970)

Volumen 5 (1970): Heft 5 (November 1970)

Volumen 5 (1970): Heft 4 (August 1970)

Volumen 5 (1969): Heft 3 (December 1969)

Volumen 5 (1969): Heft 2 (August 1969)

Volumen 5 (1969): Heft 1 (June 1969)

Volumen 4 (1968): Heft 7 (December 1968)

Volumen 4 (1968): Heft 6 (November 1968)

Volumen 4 (1968): Heft 5 (July 1968)

Volumen 4 (1968): Heft 4 (May 1968)

Volumen 4 (1968): Heft 3 (February 1968)

Volumen 4 (1967): Heft 2 (October 1967)

Volumen 4 (1967): Heft 1 (August 1967)

Volumen 3 (1966): Heft 9 (December 1966)

Volumen 3 (1966): Heft 8 (December 1966)

Volumen 3 (1966): Heft 7 (November 1966)

Volumen 3 (1966): Heft 6 (September 1966)

Volumen 3 (1966): Heft 5 (May 1966)

Volumen 3 (1965): Heft 4 (October 1965)

Volumen 3 (1965): Heft 3 (August 1965)

Volumen 3 (1965): Heft 2 (May 1965)

Volumen 3 (1965): Heft 1 (April 1965)

Volumen 2 (1964): Heft 7 (November 1964)

Volumen 2 (1964): Heft 6 (October 1964)

Volumen 2 (1964): Heft 5 (May 1964)

Volumen 2 (1964): Heft 4 (February 1964)

Volumen 2 (1963): Heft 3 (October 1963)

Volumen 2 (1963): Heft 2 (June 1963)

Volumen 2 (1963): Heft 1 (March 1963)

Volumen 1 (1962): Heft 10 (December 1962)

Volumen 1 (1962): Heft 9 (December 1962)

Volumen 1 (1962): Heft 8 (November 1962)

Volumen 1 (1962): Heft 7 (November 1962)

Volumen 1 (1962): Heft 6 (July 1962)

Volumen 1 (1962): Heft 5 (February 1962)

Volumen 1 (1961): Heft 4 (November 1961)

Volumen 1 (1961): Heft 3 (August 1961)

Volumen 1 (1961): Heft 2 (May 1961)

Volumen 1 (1961): Heft 1 (January 1961)

Zeitschriftendaten
Format
Zeitschrift
eISSN
2719-9509
Erstveröffentlichung
01 Jan 1992
Erscheinungsweise
4 Hefte pro Jahr
Sprachen
Englisch

Suche

Volumen 24 (2010): Heft 3 (November 2010)

Zeitschriftendaten
Format
Zeitschrift
eISSN
2719-9509
Erstveröffentlichung
01 Jan 1992
Erscheinungsweise
4 Hefte pro Jahr
Sprachen
Englisch

Suche

5 Artikel
Uneingeschränkter Zugang

Editors’ Note

Online veröffentlicht: 30 Dec 2014
Seitenbereich: 99 - 99

Zusammenfassung

Abstract

We would like to draw our readers‘ attention to the following three joint publications in this issue:

· HAHN and SCHAUB (page 100)

· ROEMER et al. (page 117)

· INTORP et al. (page 139)

The three papers are based on an initiative of the German regulative authorities who requested and initiated a research project to get more information concerning the influence of tobacco additives on the composition of cigarette mainstream smoke. Since up to now, most of the peer reviewed publications on the effects of additives originate from scientists based in the tobacco industry, in this case an independent regulative laboratory (Chemical and Veterinary Surveillance Agency Sigmaringen) was asked to evaluate the effects of the tobacco additives sucrose, cocoa powder and glycerol on the amounts of several selected compounds in cigarette mainstream smoke. The test cigarettes for these evaluations were manufactured in the pilot plant of BAT Germany and are described and characterized by HAHN and SCHAUB. This paper also contains the results of the regulatory laboratory on the effects of the three additives on mainstream smoke composition.

The influence of these additives on cigarette mainstream smoke was also evaluated by ROEMER et al. and INTORP et al. using the identical test cigarettes as studied by HAHN and SCHAUB. While INTORP et al. in their three laboratory study analyzed the same mainstream smoke component as HAHN and SCHAUB, ROEMER et al. studied the effects of these tobacco ingredients on the levels of 39 different components in mainstream smoke of the test cigarettes and also on different endpoints of some selected toxicological in vitro assays. The chemical analytical work necessary for this evaluation was done by Labstat International, an independent contract laboratory; the in vitro tests were done by the Philip Morris Research Laboratories, Cologne, Germany. The results obtained by the participating laboratories showed no overall significant effects of the tested additives on the levels of the selected smoke constituents and the biological activity.

Finally, we would like to inform our readers that Nicolas Baskevitch has decided to retire from the advisory board, being a member since 2006. We would like to thank him for his collaboration in improving the manuscripts submitted to the Journal.

Uneingeschränkter Zugang

Influence of Tobacco Additives on the Chemical Composition of Mainstream Smoke

Online veröffentlicht: 30 Dec 2014
Seitenbereich: 100 - 116

Zusammenfassung

Abstract

Additives used in tobacco product manufacturing are currently in the focus of public discussions with regard to potentially increased consumer health risks on account of certain additives. In addition, a few additives are suspected to enhance the addictiveness of tobacco products. In 2006, the German Federal Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BundesministeriumfuerErnaehrung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz, BMELV) commissioned a research project intended to provide support for the evaluation of additives and their influence on the composition and properties of cigarette mainstream smoke. In this paper the results of the study are reported. Different amounts of glycerol, cocoa powder and sucrose were added to the tobacco of two kinds of filter-ventilated King size test cigarettes with ‘tar’ levels of 6 mg and 10 mg per cigarette. The tobacco of the test cigarettes consisted of a commercially available blend made of Virginia, Burley and Oriental tobaccos. Machine smoking was performed according to the applicable ISO smoking regimen. Various smoke components, which are suspected to be harmful for health, were determined in mainstream smoke. Increasing levels of sucrose were correlated with an increase of the amount of formaldehyde but not of acetaldehyde in the mainstream smoke of the test cigarettes. In cigarettes with different levels of added glycerol no substantial change in smoke composition was observed. The addition of cocoa powder to tobacco resulted in a decrease of tobaccospecific N-nitrosamines in mainstream smoke. The results obtained in this study can be used as evidence for the toxicological evaluation aimed at approving or banning specific additives for tobacco product manufacturing.

Uneingeschränkter Zugang

The Addition of Cocoa, Glycerol, and Saccharose to the Tobacco of Cigarettes: Implications for Smoke Chemistry, In Vitro Cytotoxicity, Mutagenicity and Further Endpoints

Online veröffentlicht: 30 Dec 2014
Seitenbereich: 117 - 138

Zusammenfassung

Abstract

The cigarette ingredients cocoa powder, glycerol, and saccharose were investigated regarding their potential effect on the resulting mainstream smoke, i.e., smoke chemistry (Hoffmann analytes), mammalian cell cytotoxicity (Neutral Red Uptake assay), and bacterial mutagenicity (Ames assay). Each ingredient was added at three concentrations to the tobacco of a 6 mg and 10 mg ‘tar’ yield experimental American blend filter cigarette (obtained under ISO/FTC smoking regime). The lowest application concentration was equivalent to the normal approximate use level of the ingredients; the highest application level was up to 5-fold higher. The resulting data were compared with the respective control cigarettes without addition of the ingredients. The addition of cocoa powder did not lead to any consistent effects on the measured mainstream smoke analytes. Neither the in vitro cytotoxicity nor the in vitro mutagenicity was affected by cocoa addition. The addition of glycerol resulted in a decrease in the delivery of several smoke constituents (generally around 20%), e.g. aldehydes, phenolics, and N-nitrosamines. Water in the particulate phase (TPM) was distinctly increased (up to +150%). The cytotoxicity of the TPM was decreased (approx. !15%). Mutagenicity was not affected. Saccharose addition consistently increased formaldehyde delivery in smoke by up to 40% and decreased tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines by up to approximately 20%. The increase in formaldehyde is discussed in the context of the human smoker. The cytotoxicity was not affected by the addition of saccharose, while the mutagenicity of the TPM was decreased in tester strain TA98 with metabolic activation (!15%). The results are in agreement with currently available literature. Some investigations summarized in this publication are novel and have not yet been reported in the literature. Based on the total evidence, it can be concluded that the three ingredients added at their current use levels do not increase the inherent toxicity of the cigarette smoke.

Uneingeschränkter Zugang

Influence of Tobacco Additives on the Chemical Composition of Mainstream Smoke - Additional Analysis of Three Tobacco Industry Based Laboratories

Online veröffentlicht: 30 Dec 2014
Seitenbereich: 140 - 144

Zusammenfassung

Abstract

Three tobacco industry based laboratories determined selected mainstream components using their established in-house methods. Machine smoking was done according to the ISO smoking regime. The Test cigarettes smoked for this investigation were manufactured with different amounts of added glycerol, cocoa powder and sucrose. Variability between the three laboratories differed clearly for the analyzed smoke components. No overall effects due to the added ingredients on smoke components could be found. The high ‘tar’ products with the highest lodading of sucrose showed a slight increase in formaldehyde emissions among all three laboratories.

Uneingeschränkter Zugang

Analysis of Acrylonitrile and alpha-Methacrylonitrile in Vapor Phase of Mainstream Cigarette Smoke Using a Charcoal Trap for Collection

Online veröffentlicht: 30 Dec 2014
Seitenbereich: 145 - 156

Zusammenfassung

Abstract

A simple procedure for the collection of vapor phase (VP) of mainstream cigarette smoke for analysis has been developed. This procedure consists of collecting the VP on a commercial charcoal trap (ORBO™-32) followed by dissolution in acetone. The acetone extract can be analyzed by a gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) technique. A qualitative analysis of the collected VP has been performed for 3R4F Kentucky reference cigarette, allowing the identification of 138 compounds, some compounds being present in both VP and in particulate phase (PP) of cigarette smoke. A quantitative analysis method for acrylonitrile and α-methacrylonitrile (2-methyl-2-propenenitrile) was also developed, and the level of these compounds in 15 different cigarette brands was measured. Acrylonitrile quantitation was selected since this compound in smoke poses significant health related issues. α-Methacrylonitrile quantitation was selected due to the similar structure of this compound with acrylonitrile. The analyzed cigarettes were several Kentucky reference cigarettes including 1R5F, 2R4F, 3R4F, 2R1F, and 1R3F, several King Size (KS) commercial cigarettes from the US market including Basic Non Filter (NF), Basic Ultra Lights (UL), Newport, Marlboro (Red), Marlboro Menthol, Camel Filter, Camel Lights, Camel Ultra Lights, and two herbal cigarettes, Ecstasy and Dreams. The results for acrylonitrile were in very good agreement with data reported in the literature for 2R4F and 1R5F cigarettes. The levels of α-methacrylonitrile were not previously reported. The correlation between the levels of acrylonitrile and of α-methacrylonitrile with the (wet) total particulate matter (TPM) was evaluated. Although the levels of acrylonitrile and of α-methacrylonitrile in mainstream smoke depend on the TPM values, the correlation is not very strong, indicating that the nature of the cigarette blend and possible other factors in cigarette construction also influence their levels in smoke. The collection method used in this study allows the subsequent dissolution of VP in a much smaller volume of solvent compared to other methods that use impingers, allows the use of standard GC/MS autosamplers for liquid injection and simple addition of internal standards compared to the methods that use gas bags, and allows a simple and immediate collection of VP as it leaves the Cambridge filter pad. These characteristics represent significant advantages versus other methods commonly used for VP analysis.

5 Artikel
Uneingeschränkter Zugang

Editors’ Note

Online veröffentlicht: 30 Dec 2014
Seitenbereich: 99 - 99

Zusammenfassung

Abstract

We would like to draw our readers‘ attention to the following three joint publications in this issue:

· HAHN and SCHAUB (page 100)

· ROEMER et al. (page 117)

· INTORP et al. (page 139)

The three papers are based on an initiative of the German regulative authorities who requested and initiated a research project to get more information concerning the influence of tobacco additives on the composition of cigarette mainstream smoke. Since up to now, most of the peer reviewed publications on the effects of additives originate from scientists based in the tobacco industry, in this case an independent regulative laboratory (Chemical and Veterinary Surveillance Agency Sigmaringen) was asked to evaluate the effects of the tobacco additives sucrose, cocoa powder and glycerol on the amounts of several selected compounds in cigarette mainstream smoke. The test cigarettes for these evaluations were manufactured in the pilot plant of BAT Germany and are described and characterized by HAHN and SCHAUB. This paper also contains the results of the regulatory laboratory on the effects of the three additives on mainstream smoke composition.

The influence of these additives on cigarette mainstream smoke was also evaluated by ROEMER et al. and INTORP et al. using the identical test cigarettes as studied by HAHN and SCHAUB. While INTORP et al. in their three laboratory study analyzed the same mainstream smoke component as HAHN and SCHAUB, ROEMER et al. studied the effects of these tobacco ingredients on the levels of 39 different components in mainstream smoke of the test cigarettes and also on different endpoints of some selected toxicological in vitro assays. The chemical analytical work necessary for this evaluation was done by Labstat International, an independent contract laboratory; the in vitro tests were done by the Philip Morris Research Laboratories, Cologne, Germany. The results obtained by the participating laboratories showed no overall significant effects of the tested additives on the levels of the selected smoke constituents and the biological activity.

Finally, we would like to inform our readers that Nicolas Baskevitch has decided to retire from the advisory board, being a member since 2006. We would like to thank him for his collaboration in improving the manuscripts submitted to the Journal.

Uneingeschränkter Zugang

Influence of Tobacco Additives on the Chemical Composition of Mainstream Smoke

Online veröffentlicht: 30 Dec 2014
Seitenbereich: 100 - 116

Zusammenfassung

Abstract

Additives used in tobacco product manufacturing are currently in the focus of public discussions with regard to potentially increased consumer health risks on account of certain additives. In addition, a few additives are suspected to enhance the addictiveness of tobacco products. In 2006, the German Federal Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BundesministeriumfuerErnaehrung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz, BMELV) commissioned a research project intended to provide support for the evaluation of additives and their influence on the composition and properties of cigarette mainstream smoke. In this paper the results of the study are reported. Different amounts of glycerol, cocoa powder and sucrose were added to the tobacco of two kinds of filter-ventilated King size test cigarettes with ‘tar’ levels of 6 mg and 10 mg per cigarette. The tobacco of the test cigarettes consisted of a commercially available blend made of Virginia, Burley and Oriental tobaccos. Machine smoking was performed according to the applicable ISO smoking regimen. Various smoke components, which are suspected to be harmful for health, were determined in mainstream smoke. Increasing levels of sucrose were correlated with an increase of the amount of formaldehyde but not of acetaldehyde in the mainstream smoke of the test cigarettes. In cigarettes with different levels of added glycerol no substantial change in smoke composition was observed. The addition of cocoa powder to tobacco resulted in a decrease of tobaccospecific N-nitrosamines in mainstream smoke. The results obtained in this study can be used as evidence for the toxicological evaluation aimed at approving or banning specific additives for tobacco product manufacturing.

Uneingeschränkter Zugang

The Addition of Cocoa, Glycerol, and Saccharose to the Tobacco of Cigarettes: Implications for Smoke Chemistry, In Vitro Cytotoxicity, Mutagenicity and Further Endpoints

Online veröffentlicht: 30 Dec 2014
Seitenbereich: 117 - 138

Zusammenfassung

Abstract

The cigarette ingredients cocoa powder, glycerol, and saccharose were investigated regarding their potential effect on the resulting mainstream smoke, i.e., smoke chemistry (Hoffmann analytes), mammalian cell cytotoxicity (Neutral Red Uptake assay), and bacterial mutagenicity (Ames assay). Each ingredient was added at three concentrations to the tobacco of a 6 mg and 10 mg ‘tar’ yield experimental American blend filter cigarette (obtained under ISO/FTC smoking regime). The lowest application concentration was equivalent to the normal approximate use level of the ingredients; the highest application level was up to 5-fold higher. The resulting data were compared with the respective control cigarettes without addition of the ingredients. The addition of cocoa powder did not lead to any consistent effects on the measured mainstream smoke analytes. Neither the in vitro cytotoxicity nor the in vitro mutagenicity was affected by cocoa addition. The addition of glycerol resulted in a decrease in the delivery of several smoke constituents (generally around 20%), e.g. aldehydes, phenolics, and N-nitrosamines. Water in the particulate phase (TPM) was distinctly increased (up to +150%). The cytotoxicity of the TPM was decreased (approx. !15%). Mutagenicity was not affected. Saccharose addition consistently increased formaldehyde delivery in smoke by up to 40% and decreased tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines by up to approximately 20%. The increase in formaldehyde is discussed in the context of the human smoker. The cytotoxicity was not affected by the addition of saccharose, while the mutagenicity of the TPM was decreased in tester strain TA98 with metabolic activation (!15%). The results are in agreement with currently available literature. Some investigations summarized in this publication are novel and have not yet been reported in the literature. Based on the total evidence, it can be concluded that the three ingredients added at their current use levels do not increase the inherent toxicity of the cigarette smoke.

Uneingeschränkter Zugang

Influence of Tobacco Additives on the Chemical Composition of Mainstream Smoke - Additional Analysis of Three Tobacco Industry Based Laboratories

Online veröffentlicht: 30 Dec 2014
Seitenbereich: 140 - 144

Zusammenfassung

Abstract

Three tobacco industry based laboratories determined selected mainstream components using their established in-house methods. Machine smoking was done according to the ISO smoking regime. The Test cigarettes smoked for this investigation were manufactured with different amounts of added glycerol, cocoa powder and sucrose. Variability between the three laboratories differed clearly for the analyzed smoke components. No overall effects due to the added ingredients on smoke components could be found. The high ‘tar’ products with the highest lodading of sucrose showed a slight increase in formaldehyde emissions among all three laboratories.

Uneingeschränkter Zugang

Analysis of Acrylonitrile and alpha-Methacrylonitrile in Vapor Phase of Mainstream Cigarette Smoke Using a Charcoal Trap for Collection

Online veröffentlicht: 30 Dec 2014
Seitenbereich: 145 - 156

Zusammenfassung

Abstract

A simple procedure for the collection of vapor phase (VP) of mainstream cigarette smoke for analysis has been developed. This procedure consists of collecting the VP on a commercial charcoal trap (ORBO™-32) followed by dissolution in acetone. The acetone extract can be analyzed by a gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) technique. A qualitative analysis of the collected VP has been performed for 3R4F Kentucky reference cigarette, allowing the identification of 138 compounds, some compounds being present in both VP and in particulate phase (PP) of cigarette smoke. A quantitative analysis method for acrylonitrile and α-methacrylonitrile (2-methyl-2-propenenitrile) was also developed, and the level of these compounds in 15 different cigarette brands was measured. Acrylonitrile quantitation was selected since this compound in smoke poses significant health related issues. α-Methacrylonitrile quantitation was selected due to the similar structure of this compound with acrylonitrile. The analyzed cigarettes were several Kentucky reference cigarettes including 1R5F, 2R4F, 3R4F, 2R1F, and 1R3F, several King Size (KS) commercial cigarettes from the US market including Basic Non Filter (NF), Basic Ultra Lights (UL), Newport, Marlboro (Red), Marlboro Menthol, Camel Filter, Camel Lights, Camel Ultra Lights, and two herbal cigarettes, Ecstasy and Dreams. The results for acrylonitrile were in very good agreement with data reported in the literature for 2R4F and 1R5F cigarettes. The levels of α-methacrylonitrile were not previously reported. The correlation between the levels of acrylonitrile and of α-methacrylonitrile with the (wet) total particulate matter (TPM) was evaluated. Although the levels of acrylonitrile and of α-methacrylonitrile in mainstream smoke depend on the TPM values, the correlation is not very strong, indicating that the nature of the cigarette blend and possible other factors in cigarette construction also influence their levels in smoke. The collection method used in this study allows the subsequent dissolution of VP in a much smaller volume of solvent compared to other methods that use impingers, allows the use of standard GC/MS autosamplers for liquid injection and simple addition of internal standards compared to the methods that use gas bags, and allows a simple and immediate collection of VP as it leaves the Cambridge filter pad. These characteristics represent significant advantages versus other methods commonly used for VP analysis.

Planen Sie Ihre Fernkonferenz mit Scienceendo