Journal & Issues

Volume 32 (2023): Issue 3 (July 2023)

Volume 32 (2023): Issue 2 (May 2023)

Volume 32 (2023): Issue 1 (March 2023)

Volume 31 (2022): Issue 3 (November 2022)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Volume 26 (2015): Issue 4 (January 2015)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Volume 5 (1970): Issue 5 (November 1970)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Volume 4 (1968): Issue 4 (May 1968)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Volume 3 (1965): Issue 3 (August 1965)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Volume 2 (1963): Issue 2 (June 1963)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Volume 1 (1961): Issue 1 (January 1961)

Journal Details
Format
Journal
eISSN
2719-9509
First Published
01 Jan 1992
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English

Search

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

Journal Details
Format
Journal
eISSN
2719-9509
First Published
01 Jan 1992
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English

Search

0 Articles
Open Access

Determination of Carbonyl Compounds in Cigarette Mainstream Smoke. The CORESTA 2010 Collaborative Study and Recommended Method

Published Online: 30 Dec 2014
Page range: 361 - 374

Abstract

Abstract

A recommended method has been developed and published by CORESTA, applicable to the quantification of selected carbonyl compounds (acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, acetone, acrolein, methyl ethyl ketone, crotonaldehyde, propionaldehyde and butyraldehyde) in cigarette mainstream smoke. The method involved smoke collection in impinger traps, derivatisation of carbonyls with 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH), separation of carbonyl hydrazones by reversed phase high performance liquid chromatography and detection by ultra violet or diode array.

At the start of the process it was determined that most laboratories participating in the CORESTA Special Analytes Sub-Group (SASG) used a similar method involving such derivatisation and so this was chosen as the basis of the recommended method. Initial joint experiments, specific experiments by single laboratories and ongoing discussions addressed some methodological aspects that needed to be considered before moving to a recommended method.

As a first step, a joint experiment by 17 laboratories was carried out in 2009-2010 that investigated three features of the methodology on two reference cigarettes (3R4F and CM6) considered most important by SASG members. These were the volume of the impinger solution (25 or 35 mL); the type of mineral acid (perchloric or phosphoric) used to initiate the derivatisation and the time of derivatisation (5 or 30 min) before terminating the reaction with TrizmaTM base. Overall, it was concluded that these studied parameters in the methodology seemed to have little effect on the overall yield data, compared to the underlying variability among laboratories. The 25 mL impinger solutions appeared to give somewhat higher yields, although not with statistically significant differences, than those obtained when using 35 mL solutions.

Some laboratories volunteered to carry out other investigations, for example, to confirm the identity of both the Eand Z-isomeric acetaldehyde hydrazone peaks within the chromatogram of smoke carbonyls and to investigate methodology factors influencing the hydrazoneisomerisation.

The CORESTA recommended method (CRM) was produced through a final collaborative experiment involving 15 laboratories from 11 countries using 7 linear and 8 rotary smoking machines. Some notes are included in the CRM to inform other laboratories that might wish to adopt the method, concerning the main features that need to be well controlled to provide data as robust as possible and to provide similar repeatability and reproducibility data.

Statistical evaluations were made according to ISO 5725 recommendations and are included. As expected from previous work on other smoke components, the levels of reproducibility of carbonyl yields among laboratories are much greater than the levels found for “tar”, nicotine and carbon monoxide and given in the equivalent ISO standards. When expressing the reproducibility (R) value as a percentage of the mean yield among-laboratories and across all of the studied products, values ranged from 67-125% for formaldehyde; from 24-55% for acetaldehyde; from 41-108% for acetone; from 45-73% for acrolein; 31-75% for propionaldehyde; from 63-140% for crotonaldehyde; from 62-90% for 2-butanone and from 42-58% for butyraldehyde. The lowest “tar” yielding product gave the most variable data. These levels are generally in line with those determined for selected volatiles.

Open Access

Arsenic Speciation in Tobacco and Cigarette Smoke

Published Online: 30 Dec 2014
Page range: 375 - 380

Abstract

Abstract

Arsenic is one of the metals found in cured tobacco and mainstream cigarette smoke. Levels of arsenic in modern filtered cigarette smoke range from sub-ppm to a few tens of ppms. To enable accurate smoke toxicity assessment on arsenic in cigarette smoke, it is desirable to establish its chemical forms in addition to total quantities because different arsenic compounds possess different toxicological potentials.

Progress has been made on measuring the arsenic speciation in tobacco and mainstream cigarette smoke by using a combination of synchrotron-based X-ray absorption spectroscopy and high-performance liquid chromatography- inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (HPLC-ICP-MS). In this paper, we describe the experimental procedures developed together with the main findings. A transient redox transformation between As(V) and As(III) was confirmed in freshly generated mainstream smoke. Potential areas for future research are highlighted in order to further our understanding of the speciation mechanism for arsenic in tobacco products.

Open Access

Effect of Sugar Content on Acetaldehyde Yield in Cigarette Smoke

Published Online: 30 Dec 2014
Page range: 381 - 395

Abstract

Abstract

The relationship between cigarette blend sugar and acetaldehyde formed in its smoke is a matter of current regulatory interest. This paper provides a re-analysis of data from 83 European commercial cigarettes studied in the 1970s and more modern data on sugar levels and acetaldehyde yields from a series of 97 European commercial cigarettes containing both inherent sugar and in other cases inherent and added sugar. It also provides data from 65 experimental cigarette products made from single curing grades of tobacco, having a wide range of inherent sugar levels but no added sugar.

This study has shown that there is no relationship between acetaldehyde yields and blend sugar content even if a multivariate analysis is carried out taking into account Nicotine Free Dry Particulate Matter (NFDPM) as a co-factor. Such analyses should take into consideration each of the known contributory factors in order to avoid misleading conclusions.

No distinction was found between the mainstream acetaldehyde yields from dark air-cured, flue-cured or US blended style cigarettes irrespective of their sugar content after taking account of differences in NFDPM yields. Similarly, no distinction was found between mainstream acetaldehyde yields of cigarettes made from single grades of either flue-cured, sun-cured or air-cured tobaccos with no sugar added.

This work supports the conclusion that structural material in the tobacco plant is the main source of acetaldehyde in mainstream smoke after combustion during cigarette smoking.

Open Access

Formation of Dihydroxybenzenes in Cigarette Smoke. Part 1. Contribution from Chlorogenic Acid and Rutin

Published Online: 30 Dec 2014
Page range: 396 - 408

Abstract

Abstract

Catechol and alkylcatechols are known co-carcinogens present in cigarette smoke. Hydroquinone, although nongenotoxic, can form a metabolite with nephrotoxic properties and is a potential human carcinogen. The formation of dihydroxybenzenes during smoking originates with the pyrolysis of several precursors from tobacco. These include cellulose, chlorogenic acid, rutin, etc. The present study attempts to quantitate the contribution of chlorogenic acid and rutin to the formation of dihydroxybenzenes and of some alkyldihydroxybenzenes. Also it estimates the contribution to the formation of dihydroxybenzenes from other potential precursors including glucose, fructose, sucrose, cellulose, pectin, starch, and lignin. The study was done in three parts: 1. pyrolytic evaluation of the amount of dihydroxybenzenes in smoke generated from isolated potential precursors; 2. analysis of smoke from cigarettes made from a variety of tobaccos (14 single grades) and two blended cigarettes, followed by correlations of dihydroxybenzenes yield with the tobacco content of various suspected precursors; 3. addition of chlorogenic acid or rutin to several tobaccos followed by the smoking of the spiked cigarettes and measurement of dihydroxybenzenes yield increase. The study shows that for a variety of singlegrade cigarettes and for two blended cigarettes (one being the 2R4F Kentucky reference), the contribution of chlorogenic acid and of rutin to the formation of catechol and hydroquinone in smoke depends on the blend. For the 2R4F cigarette, the contribution from chlorogenic acid is 8.7% for catechol, and 7.7% for hydroquinone (for ISO smoking protocol). For the same cigarette, the contribution from rutin is 3.7% for catechol and 5.1% for hydroquinone. The results of the study are in agreement with a previously reported finding indicating that chlorogenic acid contributes about 13% to the catechol formation in smoke for the 1R1 Kentucky reference cigarette. The study results suggest that other components in tobacco, besides chlorogenic acid, rutin, glucose, fructose, sucrose, cellulose, pectin, starch, and lignin are major contributors to the formation of catechol and hydroquinone in cigarette smoke.

0 Articles
Open Access

Determination of Carbonyl Compounds in Cigarette Mainstream Smoke. The CORESTA 2010 Collaborative Study and Recommended Method

Published Online: 30 Dec 2014
Page range: 361 - 374

Abstract

Abstract

A recommended method has been developed and published by CORESTA, applicable to the quantification of selected carbonyl compounds (acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, acetone, acrolein, methyl ethyl ketone, crotonaldehyde, propionaldehyde and butyraldehyde) in cigarette mainstream smoke. The method involved smoke collection in impinger traps, derivatisation of carbonyls with 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH), separation of carbonyl hydrazones by reversed phase high performance liquid chromatography and detection by ultra violet or diode array.

At the start of the process it was determined that most laboratories participating in the CORESTA Special Analytes Sub-Group (SASG) used a similar method involving such derivatisation and so this was chosen as the basis of the recommended method. Initial joint experiments, specific experiments by single laboratories and ongoing discussions addressed some methodological aspects that needed to be considered before moving to a recommended method.

As a first step, a joint experiment by 17 laboratories was carried out in 2009-2010 that investigated three features of the methodology on two reference cigarettes (3R4F and CM6) considered most important by SASG members. These were the volume of the impinger solution (25 or 35 mL); the type of mineral acid (perchloric or phosphoric) used to initiate the derivatisation and the time of derivatisation (5 or 30 min) before terminating the reaction with TrizmaTM base. Overall, it was concluded that these studied parameters in the methodology seemed to have little effect on the overall yield data, compared to the underlying variability among laboratories. The 25 mL impinger solutions appeared to give somewhat higher yields, although not with statistically significant differences, than those obtained when using 35 mL solutions.

Some laboratories volunteered to carry out other investigations, for example, to confirm the identity of both the Eand Z-isomeric acetaldehyde hydrazone peaks within the chromatogram of smoke carbonyls and to investigate methodology factors influencing the hydrazoneisomerisation.

The CORESTA recommended method (CRM) was produced through a final collaborative experiment involving 15 laboratories from 11 countries using 7 linear and 8 rotary smoking machines. Some notes are included in the CRM to inform other laboratories that might wish to adopt the method, concerning the main features that need to be well controlled to provide data as robust as possible and to provide similar repeatability and reproducibility data.

Statistical evaluations were made according to ISO 5725 recommendations and are included. As expected from previous work on other smoke components, the levels of reproducibility of carbonyl yields among laboratories are much greater than the levels found for “tar”, nicotine and carbon monoxide and given in the equivalent ISO standards. When expressing the reproducibility (R) value as a percentage of the mean yield among-laboratories and across all of the studied products, values ranged from 67-125% for formaldehyde; from 24-55% for acetaldehyde; from 41-108% for acetone; from 45-73% for acrolein; 31-75% for propionaldehyde; from 63-140% for crotonaldehyde; from 62-90% for 2-butanone and from 42-58% for butyraldehyde. The lowest “tar” yielding product gave the most variable data. These levels are generally in line with those determined for selected volatiles.

Open Access

Arsenic Speciation in Tobacco and Cigarette Smoke

Published Online: 30 Dec 2014
Page range: 375 - 380

Abstract

Abstract

Arsenic is one of the metals found in cured tobacco and mainstream cigarette smoke. Levels of arsenic in modern filtered cigarette smoke range from sub-ppm to a few tens of ppms. To enable accurate smoke toxicity assessment on arsenic in cigarette smoke, it is desirable to establish its chemical forms in addition to total quantities because different arsenic compounds possess different toxicological potentials.

Progress has been made on measuring the arsenic speciation in tobacco and mainstream cigarette smoke by using a combination of synchrotron-based X-ray absorption spectroscopy and high-performance liquid chromatography- inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (HPLC-ICP-MS). In this paper, we describe the experimental procedures developed together with the main findings. A transient redox transformation between As(V) and As(III) was confirmed in freshly generated mainstream smoke. Potential areas for future research are highlighted in order to further our understanding of the speciation mechanism for arsenic in tobacco products.

Open Access

Effect of Sugar Content on Acetaldehyde Yield in Cigarette Smoke

Published Online: 30 Dec 2014
Page range: 381 - 395

Abstract

Abstract

The relationship between cigarette blend sugar and acetaldehyde formed in its smoke is a matter of current regulatory interest. This paper provides a re-analysis of data from 83 European commercial cigarettes studied in the 1970s and more modern data on sugar levels and acetaldehyde yields from a series of 97 European commercial cigarettes containing both inherent sugar and in other cases inherent and added sugar. It also provides data from 65 experimental cigarette products made from single curing grades of tobacco, having a wide range of inherent sugar levels but no added sugar.

This study has shown that there is no relationship between acetaldehyde yields and blend sugar content even if a multivariate analysis is carried out taking into account Nicotine Free Dry Particulate Matter (NFDPM) as a co-factor. Such analyses should take into consideration each of the known contributory factors in order to avoid misleading conclusions.

No distinction was found between the mainstream acetaldehyde yields from dark air-cured, flue-cured or US blended style cigarettes irrespective of their sugar content after taking account of differences in NFDPM yields. Similarly, no distinction was found between mainstream acetaldehyde yields of cigarettes made from single grades of either flue-cured, sun-cured or air-cured tobaccos with no sugar added.

This work supports the conclusion that structural material in the tobacco plant is the main source of acetaldehyde in mainstream smoke after combustion during cigarette smoking.

Open Access

Formation of Dihydroxybenzenes in Cigarette Smoke. Part 1. Contribution from Chlorogenic Acid and Rutin

Published Online: 30 Dec 2014
Page range: 396 - 408

Abstract

Abstract

Catechol and alkylcatechols are known co-carcinogens present in cigarette smoke. Hydroquinone, although nongenotoxic, can form a metabolite with nephrotoxic properties and is a potential human carcinogen. The formation of dihydroxybenzenes during smoking originates with the pyrolysis of several precursors from tobacco. These include cellulose, chlorogenic acid, rutin, etc. The present study attempts to quantitate the contribution of chlorogenic acid and rutin to the formation of dihydroxybenzenes and of some alkyldihydroxybenzenes. Also it estimates the contribution to the formation of dihydroxybenzenes from other potential precursors including glucose, fructose, sucrose, cellulose, pectin, starch, and lignin. The study was done in three parts: 1. pyrolytic evaluation of the amount of dihydroxybenzenes in smoke generated from isolated potential precursors; 2. analysis of smoke from cigarettes made from a variety of tobaccos (14 single grades) and two blended cigarettes, followed by correlations of dihydroxybenzenes yield with the tobacco content of various suspected precursors; 3. addition of chlorogenic acid or rutin to several tobaccos followed by the smoking of the spiked cigarettes and measurement of dihydroxybenzenes yield increase. The study shows that for a variety of singlegrade cigarettes and for two blended cigarettes (one being the 2R4F Kentucky reference), the contribution of chlorogenic acid and of rutin to the formation of catechol and hydroquinone in smoke depends on the blend. For the 2R4F cigarette, the contribution from chlorogenic acid is 8.7% for catechol, and 7.7% for hydroquinone (for ISO smoking protocol). For the same cigarette, the contribution from rutin is 3.7% for catechol and 5.1% for hydroquinone. The results of the study are in agreement with a previously reported finding indicating that chlorogenic acid contributes about 13% to the catechol formation in smoke for the 1R1 Kentucky reference cigarette. The study results suggest that other components in tobacco, besides chlorogenic acid, rutin, glucose, fructose, sucrose, cellulose, pectin, starch, and lignin are major contributors to the formation of catechol and hydroquinone in cigarette smoke.