Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 items

  • Author: Andrew Harrison x
Clear All Modify Search


The present study evaluated the in vitro extraction of benzo[a]pyrene (BaP) from moist snuff into water and into artificial saliva. A similar, previous study evaluated the levels of BaP that remained in the moist snuff after the extraction but did not measure the levels of BaP in the water or saliva extract. The previous study showed that the remaining levels of BaP in the solid material were between 96.3% and 109.6% relative to the initial level of BaP, when the snuff was washed with water and between 99.4% and 108.3% from the initial level of BaP, when the snuff was washed with both saliva and water. Nine moist snuff samples (eight being the same brands as evaluated in the previous study) were analyzed in the present study. Several improvements were made compared to the previous study regarding the extraction conditions. The extraction was performed for 1 h at 37 °C, using a mechanical agitator.

The previous study used a commercially available artificial saliva which had an adjusted pH but did not contain enzymes or salts. This saliva was replaced with complete artificial saliva containing salts, mucin and enzymes. The results indicated that the level of BaP extracted in 100 mL water from 5 g of moist snuff at 37 °C ranged between 1.0% and 1.7% of the initial level present in tobacco. For artificial saliva, the extracted level of BaP was between 2% and 3.9% from the initial level, depending on the moist snuff brand. Although the BaP level extracted from the moist snuff with artificial saliva remained very low, the surfactant character of artificial saliva increased BaP extraction relative to water by a factor of approximately two. This study supports the previous reported finding that the vast majority of BaP in moist snuff is not extracted in water or artificial saliva. [Beitr. Tabakforsch. Int. 29 (2020) 21–26]


A reliable and sensitive method for the measurement of the level of diacetyl (2,3-butanedione) and acetylpropionyl (2,3-pentanedione) in the aerosol (both the particles and the suspending gas) of electronic smoking devices (e-cigarettes) has been developed. The method uses a gas chromatographic separation on a Carbowax type column with the measurement of the analytes on a triplequadrupole mass spectrometer working in positive MRM mode. The method has been validated using standard requirements regarding selectivity, sensitivity, recovery, accuracy, and repeatability. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) for the method was determined to be 0.41 ng/mL for diacetyl and 0.21 ng/mL for acetylpropionyl as measured for standards. These values translate to an LOQ of 0.082 ng/puff for diacetyl and 0.042 ng/puff for acetylpropionyl as measured for an e-cigarette with 50 puffs placed in 10 mL acetone. The samples analyzed included collected aerosols from several e-cigarettes, and a number of liquids used in electronic cigarettes (e-liquids). 3R4F Kentucky reference cigarette was also analyzed for evaluating the accuracy of the procedure, with good agreement with data from the literature. Diacetyl and acetylpropionyl were distributed in both particulate phase and also in vapor phase. The levels of diacetyl and acetylpropionyl in particulate phase collected from 3R4F cigarettes were found to represent only about 22% for diacetyl and only 31% for acetylpropionyl, while the vapor phase for diacetyl represented 78% and for acetylpropionyl 69% of the total analyte. The levels of diacetyl and acetylpropionyl in the aerosols of most electronic smoking devices were found to be very low, with a few exceptions. The analysis of the two analytes in several e-liquids available on the market showed a very large range of levels. Some of the e-liquids from the market are likely to have diacetyl and/or acetylpropionyl intentionally added.


The aim of this study was to assess the concurrent validity of the Optojump™ system (Microgate, Bolzano, Italy) versus a force platform in the estimation of temporal and reactive strength measures. In two separate investigations, twenty physically active males performed double-leg and single-leg drop jumps from a box height of 0.3 m and a 10 s vertical bilateral hopping test. Contact time, flight time and total time (the sum of contact and flight time) were concurrently assessed during single and double-leg drop jumps and during hopping. Jump height, the reactive strength index and the reactive strength ratio were also calculated from contact time and flight time. Despite intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for all variables being close to 1 (ICC > 0.975), a significant overestimation was found in contact time (0.005 ± 0.002 s) and underestimations in flight time (0.005 ± 0.003 s), the reactive strength index (0.04 ± 0.02 m·s-1) and the reactive strength ratio (0.07 ± 0.04). Overestimations in contact time and underestimations in flight time were attributed to the physical design of the Optojump™ system as the transmitter and receiver units were positioned 0.003 m above the floor level. The Optojump™ demonstrated excellent overall temporal validity with no differences found between systems for total time. Coaches are advised to be consistent with the instrumentation used to assess athletes, however, in the case of comparison between reactive strength values collected with the Optojump™ and values collected with a force platform, regression equations are provided.