Magazine et Edition

Volume 31 (2022): Edition 2 (July 2022)

Volume 31 (2022): Edition 1 (March 2022)

Volume 30 (2021): Edition 4 (November 2021)

Volume 30 (2021): Edition 3 (July 2021)

Volume 30 (2021): Edition 2 (May 2021)

Volume 30 (2021): Edition 1 (March 2021)

Volume 29 (2020): Edition 3 (December 2020)

Volume 29 (2020): Edition 2 (August 2020)

Volume 29 (2020): Edition 1 (April 2020)

Volume 28 (2019): Edition 7 (December 2019)

Volume 28 (2019): Edition 6 (August 2019)

Volume 28 (2019): Edition 5 (May 2019)

Volume 28 (2018): Edition 4 (December 2018)

Volume 28 (2018): Edition 3 (October 2018)

Volume 28 (2018): Edition 2 (August 2018)

Volume 28 (2018): Edition 1 (April 2018)

Volume 27 (2017): Edition 8 (December 2017)

Volume 27 (2017): Edition 7 (September 2017)

Volume 27 (2017): Edition 6 (April 2017)

Volume 27 (2017): Edition 5 (January 2017)

Volume 27 (2016): Edition 4 (October 2016)

Volume 27 (2016): Edition 3 (July 2016)

Volume 27 (2016): Edition 2 (April 2016)

Volume 27 (2016): Edition 1 (January 2016)

Volume 26 (2015): Edition 7 (September 2015)

Volume 26 (2015): Edition 6 (June 2015)

Volume 26 (2015): Edition 5 (March 2015)

Volume 26 (2014): Edition 4 (December 2014)

Volume 26 (2014): Edition 3 (September 2014)

Volume 26 (2014): Edition 2 (July 2014)

Volume 26 (2014): Edition 1 (April 2014)

Volume 25 (2013): Edition 8 (December 2013)

Volume 25 (2013): Edition 7 (September 2013)

Volume 25 (2013): Edition 6 (June 2013)

Volume 25 (2013): Edition 5 (March 2013)

Volume 25 (2012): Edition 4 (December 2012)

Volume 25 (2012): Edition 3 (August 2012)

Volume 25 (2012): Edition 2 (June 2012)

Volume 25 (2012): Edition 1 (February 2012)

Volume 24 (2011): Edition 6 (November 2011)

Volume 24 (2011): Edition 5 (May 2011)

Volume 24 (2011): Edition 4 (January 2011)

Volume 24 (2010): Edition 3 (November 2010)

Volume 24 (2010): Edition 2 (July 2010)

Volume 24 (2010): Edition 1 (April 2010)

Volume 23 (2009): Edition 6 (December 2009)

Volume 23 (2009): Edition 5 (September 2009)

Volume 23 (2009): Edition 4 (May 2009)

Volume 23 (2008): Edition 3 (December 2008)

Volume 23 (2008): Edition 2 (August 2008)

Volume 23 (2008): Edition 1 (April 2008)

Volume 22 (2007): Edition 5 (June 2007)

Volume 22 (2007): Edition 4 (January 2007)

Volume 22 (2006): Edition 3 (October 2006)

Volume 22 (2006): Edition 2 (July 2006)

Volume 22 (2006): Edition 1 (April 2006)

Volume 21 (2005): Edition 8 (December 2005)

Volume 21 (2005): Edition 7 (October 2005)

Volume 21 (2005): Edition 6 (July 2005)

Volume 21 (2005): Edition 5 (April 2005)

Volume 21 (2004): Edition 4 (December 2004)

Volume 21 (2004): Edition 3 (October 2004)

Volume 21 (2004): Edition 2 (July 2004)

Volume 21 (2004): Edition 1 (March 2004)

Volume 20 (2003): Edition 8 (December 2003)

Volume 20 (2003): Edition 7 (November 2003)

Volume 20 (2003): Edition 6 (July 2003)

Volume 20 (2003): Edition 5 (March 2003)

Volume 20 (2002): Edition 4 (December 2002)

Volume 20 (2002): Edition 3 (August 2002)

Volume 20 (2002): Edition 2 (June 2002)

Volume 20 (2002): Edition 1 (February 2002)

Volume 19 (2001): Edition 7 (October 2001)

Volume 19 (2001): Edition 6 (July 2001)

Volume 19 (2001): Edition 5 (April 2001)

Volume 19 (2001): Edition 4 (January 2001)

Volume 19 (2000): Edition 3 (October 2000)

Volume 19 (2000): Edition 2 (July 2000)

Volume 19 (2000): Edition 1 (April 2000)

Volume 18 (1999): Edition 6 (December 1999)

Volume 18 (1999): Edition 5 (July 1999)

Volume 18 (1999): Edition 4 (April 1999)

Volume 18 (1998): Edition 3 (December 1998)

Volume 18 (1998): Edition 2 (August 1998)

Volume 18 (1998): Edition 1 (April 1998)

Volume 17 (1997): Edition 3 (December 1997)

Volume 17 (1997): Edition 2 (September 1997)

Volume 17 (1996): Edition 1 (December 1996)

Volume 16 (1995): Edition 4 (November 1995)

Volume 16 (1995): Edition 3 (July 1995)

Volume 16 (1994): Edition 2 (June 1994)

Volume 16 (1994): Edition 1 (May 1994)

Volume 15 (1992): Edition 3 (November 1992)

Volume 15 (1992): Edition 2 (April 1992)

Volume 15 (1991): Edition 1 (August 1991)

Volume 14 (1990): Edition 6 (June 1990)

Volume 14 (1989): Edition 5 (October 1989)

Volume 14 (1989): Edition 4 (February 1989)

Volume 14 (1989): Edition 3 (January 1989)

Volume 14 (1988): Edition 2 (October 1988)

Volume 14 (1987): Edition 1 (December 1987)

Volume 13 (1986): Edition 5 (December 1986)

Volume 13 (1986): Edition 4 (August 1986)

Volume 13 (1986): Edition 3 (July 1986)

Volume 13 (1985): Edition 2 (December 1985)

Volume 13 (1985): Edition 1 (January 1985)

Volume 12 (1984): Edition 5 (November 1984)

Volume 12 (1984): Edition 4 (July 1984)

Volume 12 (1984): Edition 3 (February 1984)

Volume 12 (1983): Edition 2 (June 1983)

Volume 12 (1983): Edition 1 (February 1983)

Volume 11 (1982): Edition 5 (November 1982)

Volume 11 (1982): Edition 4 (August 1982)

Volume 11 (1982): Edition 3 (January 1982)

Volume 11 (1981): Edition 2 (September 1981)

Volume 11 (1981): Edition 1 (March 1981)

Volume 10 (1980): Edition 3 (October 1980)

Volume 10 (1980): Edition 2 (July 1980)

Volume 10 (1979): Edition 1 (December 1979)

Volume 9 (1978): Edition 5 (December 1978)

Volume 9 (1978): Edition 4 (July 1978)

Volume 9 (1977): Edition 3 (October 1977)

Volume 9 (1977): Edition 2 (June 1977)

Volume 9 (1977): Edition 1 (April 1977)

Volume 8 (1976): Edition 7 (October 1976)

Volume 8 (1976): Edition 6 (June 1976)

Volume 8 (1976): Edition 5 (March 1976)

Volume 8 (1975): Edition 4 (December 1975)

Volume 8 (1975): Edition 3 (August 1975)

Volume 8 (1975): Edition 2 (May 1975)

Volume 8 (1975): Edition 1 (January 1975)

Volume 7 (1974): Edition 5 (September 1974)

Volume 7 (1974): Edition 4 (April 1974)

Volume 7 (1973): Edition 3 (November 1973)

Volume 7 (1973): Edition 2 (June 1973)

Volume 7 (1973): Edition 1 (January 1973)

Volume 6 (1972): Edition 5 (October 1972)

Volume 6 (1972): Edition 4 (August 1972)

Volume 6 (1972): Edition 3 (March 1972)

Volume 6 (1971): Edition 2 (September 1971)

Volume 6 (1971): Edition 1 (July 1971)

Volume 5 (1970): Edition 6 (December 1970)

Volume 5 (1970): Edition 5 (November 1970)

Volume 5 (1970): Edition 4 (August 1970)

Volume 5 (1969): Edition 3 (December 1969)

Volume 5 (1969): Edition 2 (August 1969)

Volume 5 (1969): Edition 1 (June 1969)

Volume 4 (1968): Edition 7 (December 1968)

Volume 4 (1968): Edition 6 (November 1968)

Volume 4 (1968): Edition 5 (July 1968)

Volume 4 (1968): Edition 4 (May 1968)

Volume 4 (1968): Edition 3 (February 1968)

Volume 4 (1967): Edition 2 (October 1967)

Volume 4 (1967): Edition 1 (August 1967)

Volume 3 (1966): Edition 9 (December 1966)

Volume 3 (1966): Edition 8 (December 1966)

Volume 3 (1966): Edition 7 (November 1966)

Volume 3 (1966): Edition 6 (September 1966)

Volume 3 (1966): Edition 5 (May 1966)

Volume 3 (1965): Edition 4 (October 1965)

Volume 3 (1965): Edition 3 (August 1965)

Volume 3 (1965): Edition 2 (May 1965)

Volume 3 (1965): Edition 1 (April 1965)

Volume 2 (1964): Edition 7 (November 1964)

Volume 2 (1964): Edition 6 (October 1964)

Volume 2 (1964): Edition 5 (May 1964)

Volume 2 (1964): Edition 4 (February 1964)

Volume 2 (1963): Edition 3 (October 1963)

Volume 2 (1963): Edition 2 (June 1963)

Volume 2 (1963): Edition 1 (March 1963)

Volume 1 (1962): Edition 10 (December 1962)

Volume 1 (1962): Edition 9 (December 1962)

Volume 1 (1962): Edition 8 (November 1962)

Volume 1 (1962): Edition 7 (November 1962)

Volume 1 (1962): Edition 6 (July 1962)

Volume 1 (1962): Edition 5 (February 1962)

Volume 1 (1961): Edition 4 (November 1961)

Volume 1 (1961): Edition 3 (August 1961)

Volume 1 (1961): Edition 2 (May 1961)

Volume 1 (1961): Edition 1 (January 1961)

Détails du magazine
Format
Magazine
eISSN
2719-9509
Première publication
01 Jan 1992
Période de publication
4 fois par an
Langues
Anglais

Chercher

Volume 19 (2001): Edition 5 (April 2001)

Détails du magazine
Format
Magazine
eISSN
2719-9509
Première publication
01 Jan 1992
Période de publication
4 fois par an
Langues
Anglais

Chercher

4 Articles
Accès libre

Determination of the Transfer Efficiency of d-Nicotine to Mainstream Smoke

Publié en ligne: 30 Dec 2014
Pages: 237 - 244

Résumé

Abstract

Experiments were conducted to independently determine the mainstream smoke transfer efficiency of d-nicotine and l-nicotine. Two types of cigarettes (University of Kentucky 2R1 reference cigarette and a cigarette prepared from reconstituted sheet material, TS1) were employed in the study. A chiral-gas chromatography-selected ion monitoring-mass selective detection analysis was used to separate and determine d- and l-nicotine. The two types of cigarettes were injected with varying levels of d- or l-nicotine (0-20 mg). The tobacco was removed from the nicotine-injected cigarettes and analyzed for total nicotine and d- and l-nicotine. The cigarettes were smoked under FTC (Federal Trade Commission) conditions, and the Cambridge pad extracts were analyzed for total nicotine and d- and l-nicotine. The total nicotine transfer efficiency and the transfer efficiencies of d- and l-nicotine were determined. Nicotine transfer efficiency is dependent on the type of tobacco employed in a blend and the configuration of the cigarette. As a result, the total nicotine transfer efficiency for the 2R1 cigarettes was different than for the TS1 cigarettes. Likewise, the independently measured transfer efficiencies for d- and l-nicotine were different between the two cigarettes. The transfer efficiencies of d- and l-nicotine were not found to be different within a cigarette type. The average transfer efficiency for d-nicotine in a 2R1 cigarette was determined to be 19.25%. The average transfer efficiency for l-nicotine in a 2R1 cigarette was 16.05%. The average transfer efficiency for d-nicotine in a TS1 cigarette was 10.15% and 10.65% for l-nicotine. These differences between d- and l-nicotine were determined not to be statistically significant and are of no practical consequence.

Accès libre

Heat Emission from a Burning Cigarette

Publié en ligne: 30 Dec 2014
Pages: 245 - 249

Résumé

Abstract

We investigated the relationship between the smoldering burn rate and the heat transfer from a burning cigarette by measuring the heat emitted by radiation and convection, separately. The net heat generated and the net heat emitted by a burning cigarette did not vary with a change of the cigarette smoldering burn rate. The total heat emitted from a statically burning cigarette was about 50% of the total combustion heat. About 50% of the heat emitted was released as radiation heat. The smoldering burn rate did not affect the total amount of heat emitted nor the ratio of radiated heat to convected heat.

Accès libre

Determination of Nicotine in Tobacco: Collaborative Study

Publié en ligne: 30 Dec 2014
Pages: 251 - 265

Résumé

Abstract

An international collaborative study was performed to compare several analytical methods for the determination of nicotine in tobacco that are in current use around the world. Five nicotine methods were evaluated and compared, specifically methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) extraction with capillary-column gas chromatography (GC), n-hexane extraction with capillary-column GC, n-hexane extraction with packed-column GC, methanol/ammonia extraction with capillary-column GC, and aqueous extraction with continuous flow analyzer (CFA) colorimetry. A total of 37 laboratories participated in the study, with between 9 and 18 laboratories submitting data per nicotine method. Repeatability, reproducibility, and mean nicotine statistics were calculated and compared for each method. Results for reproducibility (%) and mean nicotine difference (%, relative to the mean of the three capillary-GC methods), respectively, for each method are as follows: MTBE method (2.5%, -1.40%), hexane-capillary (4.5%, +0.06%), methanol/ammonia (3.7%, +1.34%), CFA (4.4%, +4.08%), and hexane-packed (5.8%, +4.14%). Pair-wise group comparison tests with simultaneous 95% confidence intervals were used to compare the sample nicotine values between any two given methods. Eight of the ten pair-wise comparisons were statistically different at 95% confidence, the two statistically indistinguishable pair-wise comparisons being CFA vs. hexane-packed and hexane-capillary vs. methanol/ammonia. The results of this collaborative study will be useful toward the goal of standardizing on a reference method for nicotine analysis in tobacco and tobacco products.

Accès libre

Determination of Mercury in Mainstream Cigarette Smoke by Conventional and Amalgamation Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption Spectrometry

Publié en ligne: 30 Dec 2014
Pages: 267 - 276

Résumé

Abstract

A method for differentiation of gas- and particulate-phase mercury in mainstream cigarette smoke was developed using electrostatic precipitation (EP) as the trap for the particulate phase and impingers containing acidic potassium permanganate solution as the trap for the gas-phase portion. The mercury collected from the gas phase was analyzed by conventional cold vapor atomic absorption spectrometry (CVAAS) and the particulate phase was analyzed by gold amalgamation CVAAS. Cigarettes were smoked under two smoking regimes, FTC (35-mL puff volume, 2 s puff duration and one puff every 60 s) and an alternative (45-mL puff volume, 2 s puff duration, one puff every 30 s and 50% of any ventilation holes blocked) currently recommended by the Massachusetts Department of Health. For the 1R4F reference cigarette smoked under the FTC smoking regime, the mercury found in the particulate phase was less than 0.2 ng/cig, compared with 4.9 ng/cig in the gas phase. By changing smoking parameters, the mercury concentration in mainstream smoke was found to change proportional to the delivery of cigarette smoke condensate (CSC) for the same type of cigarette. However, the mercury level for different types of cigarettes smoked under the same smoking parameters had no linear relationship with CSC delivery. Spiked recovery was 98% AA± 8% for gas-phase mercury and 97% AA± 2% for the particulate phase. These results indicate that the analytical method developed is suitable for the determination of mercury in mainstream smoke. For routine analytical work in a smoking laboratory, only the gas phase needs to be analyzed for determination of mercury in mainstream smoke because the amount of mercury in the particulate phase is negligible.

4 Articles
Accès libre

Determination of the Transfer Efficiency of d-Nicotine to Mainstream Smoke

Publié en ligne: 30 Dec 2014
Pages: 237 - 244

Résumé

Abstract

Experiments were conducted to independently determine the mainstream smoke transfer efficiency of d-nicotine and l-nicotine. Two types of cigarettes (University of Kentucky 2R1 reference cigarette and a cigarette prepared from reconstituted sheet material, TS1) were employed in the study. A chiral-gas chromatography-selected ion monitoring-mass selective detection analysis was used to separate and determine d- and l-nicotine. The two types of cigarettes were injected with varying levels of d- or l-nicotine (0-20 mg). The tobacco was removed from the nicotine-injected cigarettes and analyzed for total nicotine and d- and l-nicotine. The cigarettes were smoked under FTC (Federal Trade Commission) conditions, and the Cambridge pad extracts were analyzed for total nicotine and d- and l-nicotine. The total nicotine transfer efficiency and the transfer efficiencies of d- and l-nicotine were determined. Nicotine transfer efficiency is dependent on the type of tobacco employed in a blend and the configuration of the cigarette. As a result, the total nicotine transfer efficiency for the 2R1 cigarettes was different than for the TS1 cigarettes. Likewise, the independently measured transfer efficiencies for d- and l-nicotine were different between the two cigarettes. The transfer efficiencies of d- and l-nicotine were not found to be different within a cigarette type. The average transfer efficiency for d-nicotine in a 2R1 cigarette was determined to be 19.25%. The average transfer efficiency for l-nicotine in a 2R1 cigarette was 16.05%. The average transfer efficiency for d-nicotine in a TS1 cigarette was 10.15% and 10.65% for l-nicotine. These differences between d- and l-nicotine were determined not to be statistically significant and are of no practical consequence.

Accès libre

Heat Emission from a Burning Cigarette

Publié en ligne: 30 Dec 2014
Pages: 245 - 249

Résumé

Abstract

We investigated the relationship between the smoldering burn rate and the heat transfer from a burning cigarette by measuring the heat emitted by radiation and convection, separately. The net heat generated and the net heat emitted by a burning cigarette did not vary with a change of the cigarette smoldering burn rate. The total heat emitted from a statically burning cigarette was about 50% of the total combustion heat. About 50% of the heat emitted was released as radiation heat. The smoldering burn rate did not affect the total amount of heat emitted nor the ratio of radiated heat to convected heat.

Accès libre

Determination of Nicotine in Tobacco: Collaborative Study

Publié en ligne: 30 Dec 2014
Pages: 251 - 265

Résumé

Abstract

An international collaborative study was performed to compare several analytical methods for the determination of nicotine in tobacco that are in current use around the world. Five nicotine methods were evaluated and compared, specifically methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) extraction with capillary-column gas chromatography (GC), n-hexane extraction with capillary-column GC, n-hexane extraction with packed-column GC, methanol/ammonia extraction with capillary-column GC, and aqueous extraction with continuous flow analyzer (CFA) colorimetry. A total of 37 laboratories participated in the study, with between 9 and 18 laboratories submitting data per nicotine method. Repeatability, reproducibility, and mean nicotine statistics were calculated and compared for each method. Results for reproducibility (%) and mean nicotine difference (%, relative to the mean of the three capillary-GC methods), respectively, for each method are as follows: MTBE method (2.5%, -1.40%), hexane-capillary (4.5%, +0.06%), methanol/ammonia (3.7%, +1.34%), CFA (4.4%, +4.08%), and hexane-packed (5.8%, +4.14%). Pair-wise group comparison tests with simultaneous 95% confidence intervals were used to compare the sample nicotine values between any two given methods. Eight of the ten pair-wise comparisons were statistically different at 95% confidence, the two statistically indistinguishable pair-wise comparisons being CFA vs. hexane-packed and hexane-capillary vs. methanol/ammonia. The results of this collaborative study will be useful toward the goal of standardizing on a reference method for nicotine analysis in tobacco and tobacco products.

Accès libre

Determination of Mercury in Mainstream Cigarette Smoke by Conventional and Amalgamation Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption Spectrometry

Publié en ligne: 30 Dec 2014
Pages: 267 - 276

Résumé

Abstract

A method for differentiation of gas- and particulate-phase mercury in mainstream cigarette smoke was developed using electrostatic precipitation (EP) as the trap for the particulate phase and impingers containing acidic potassium permanganate solution as the trap for the gas-phase portion. The mercury collected from the gas phase was analyzed by conventional cold vapor atomic absorption spectrometry (CVAAS) and the particulate phase was analyzed by gold amalgamation CVAAS. Cigarettes were smoked under two smoking regimes, FTC (35-mL puff volume, 2 s puff duration and one puff every 60 s) and an alternative (45-mL puff volume, 2 s puff duration, one puff every 30 s and 50% of any ventilation holes blocked) currently recommended by the Massachusetts Department of Health. For the 1R4F reference cigarette smoked under the FTC smoking regime, the mercury found in the particulate phase was less than 0.2 ng/cig, compared with 4.9 ng/cig in the gas phase. By changing smoking parameters, the mercury concentration in mainstream smoke was found to change proportional to the delivery of cigarette smoke condensate (CSC) for the same type of cigarette. However, the mercury level for different types of cigarettes smoked under the same smoking parameters had no linear relationship with CSC delivery. Spiked recovery was 98% AA± 8% for gas-phase mercury and 97% AA± 2% for the particulate phase. These results indicate that the analytical method developed is suitable for the determination of mercury in mainstream smoke. For routine analytical work in a smoking laboratory, only the gas phase needs to be analyzed for determination of mercury in mainstream smoke because the amount of mercury in the particulate phase is negligible.

Planifiez votre conférence à distance avec Sciendo