Determination of Carbonyl Compounds in Exhaled Cigarette Smoke

Open access

Abstract

This paper presents the findings on a quantitative evaluation of carbonyl levels in exhaled cigarette smoke from human subjects. The cigarettes evaluated include products with 5.0 mg ‘tar’, 10.6 mg ‘tar’ and 16.2 mg ‘tar’, where ‘tar’ is defined as the weight of total wet particulate matter (TPM) minus the weight of nicotine and water, and the cigarettes are smoked following U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recommendations. The measured levels of carbonyls in the exhaled smoke were compared with calculated yields of carbonyls in the inhaled smoke and a retention efficiency was obtained. The number of human subjects included a total of ten smokers for the 10.6 mg ‘tar’, five for the 16.2 mg ‘tar’, and five for the 5.0 mg ‘tar’ product, each subject smoking three cigarettes. The analyzed carbonyl compounds included several aldehydes (formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, propionaldehyde, crotonaldehyde and n-butyraldehyde), and two ketones (acetone and 2-butanone). The smoke collection from the human subjects was vacuum assisted. Exhaled smoke was collected on Cambridge pads pretreated with a solution of dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH) followed by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) analysis of the dinitrophenylhydrazones of the carbonyl compounds. The cigarette butts from the smokers were collected and analyzed for nicotine. The nicotine levels for the cigarette butts from the smokers were used to calculate the level of carbonyls in the inhaled smoke, based on calibration curves. These were generated separately by analyzing the carbonyls in smoke and the nicotine in the cigarette butts obtained by machine smoking under different puffing regimes. The comparison of the level of carbonyl compounds in exhaled smoke with that from the inhaled smoke showed high retention of all the carbonyls. The retention of aldehydes was above 95% for all three different ‘tar’ levels cigarettes. The ketones were retained with a slightly lower efficiency. Acetone was retained in the range of 90% to 95%. The retention for 2-butanone showed a larger scatter compared to other results but it also appeared to be slightly less absorbed than the aldehydes, with an average retention around 95%. The retention of acetaldehyde and acetone by human smokers was previously reported in literature and the findings from this study are in very good agreement with these result.

1. Grob, K.: Zur Gaschromatographie des Cigaretten-rauches: 1. Teil: Eine Methode zur Routine-Analyse der Gas-Dampf-Phase [Gas chromatography in tobacco smoke of cigarettes. Part 1. A method for routine analysis of gas phase]; Beitr. Tabakforsch. 1 (1962) 285–290.

2. Grob, K.: Zur Gaschromatographie des Cigaretten-rauches: 2. Teil: Verfeinerte Trennung mit Hilfe von Kapillarkolonnen [Gas chromatography in tobacco smoke of cigarettes. Part 2. Refined resolution by use of Golay column]; Beitr. Tabakforsch. 1 (1962) 315–323.

3. Hoffmann, D. and I. Hoffmann: Tobacco smoke components; Beitr. Tabakforsch. Int. 18 (1998) 49–52.

4. Manning, D.L., M.P. Maskarinec, R.A. Jenkins, and A.H. Marshall: High performance liquid chromatographic determination of selected gas phase carbonyls in tobacco smoke; J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 66 (1983) 8–12.

5. Arista Laboratories, Standard Operating Procedure T-005: The Determination of carbonyls and aldehydes in mainstream and sidestream smoke. Version 1; July 20, 2001.

6. Dong, J.-Z. and S.C. Moldoveanu: Gas chroma-tography-mass spectrometry of carbonyl compounds in cigarette mainstream smoke after derivatization with 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine; J. Chromatogr. A 1027 (2004) 25–33.

7. Chen, P.X. and S.C. Moldoveanu: Mainstream smoke chemical analyses for 2R4F Kentucky reference cigarette; Beitr. Tabakforsch. Int. 20 (2003) 448–458.

8. Risner, C.H. and P. Martin: Quantitation of form-aldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acetone in sidestream cigarette smoke by high-performance liquid chroma-tography; J. Chromatogr. Sci. 32 (1994) 76–82.

9. Lehmann, K.B.: Untersuchungen im Rauche des Tabaks [Investigation of the smoke from tobacco]; Münchener med. Wochenschrift LV (1908) 723–725.

10. Dalhamn, T., M.-L. Edfors, and R. Rylander: Mouth absorption of various compounds in cigarette smoke; Arch. Environ. Health 16 (1968) 831–835.

11. Dalhamn, T., M.-L. Edfors, and R. Rylander: Retention of cigarette smoke components in human lungs; Arch. Environ. Health 17 (1968) 746–748.

12. Laskowski, K.: Components of tobacco smoke and their absorption in the respiratory system of the smoker; Rocz. Pa½stw. Zak. Hig. [Ann. Natl. Inst. Hyg.] 2 (1951) 139–160.

13. Baker, R.R. and M. Dixon: The retention of tobacco smoke constituents in the human respiratory tract; Inhalat. Toxicol. 18 (2006) 255–294.

14. Pillsbury, H.C., C.C. Bright, K.J. O'Connor, and F.H. Irish: ‘Tar’ and nicotine in cigarette smoke; J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 52, (1969) 458–462.

15. Lunn, G. and L.C. Hellwig: Handbook of deriva-tization reactions for HPLC, Wiley, New York, 1998, pp. 211–223, and pp. 1230–1238.

16. Moldoveanu, S.C. and V. David, Sample preparation in chromatography, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2002, pp. 724–739.

17. Wang, T, L., H.W. Tong, X.Y. Yan, L.Q. Sheng, J. Yang, and S.M. Liu: Determination of volatile carbonyl compounds in cigarette smoke by LC-DAD; Chromatographia 62 (2005) 631–636.

18. Baker, R.R.: Smoke chemistry, in Tobacco production, chemistry and technology, edited by Davis, D.L. and M.T. Nielsen, Blackwell Science, Oxford, Chap. 12, 1999, pp 398–439.

19. Connoly, G.N. and H. Saxner: Memorandum; The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Exec. Office of Health and Human Services, 19 August 1997.

20. Armitage, A.K., M. Dixon, B.E. Frost, D.C. Mariner, and N.M. Sinclair: The effect of inhalation volume and breath-hold duration on the retention of nicotine and solanesol in the human respiratory tract and on subsequent plasma nicotine concentrations during cigarette smoking; Beitr. Tabakforsch. Int. 21 (2004) 240–249.

21. St. Charles, F.K.: A robust method for determining consumer smoked cigarette yields from filter analytical data; 55th Tobacco Science Research Con-ference, Program Booklet and Abstracts, Vol. 55, Paper No. 92, 2001, pp. 73–74.

22. Bodnar, J.A., T.J. Collins, S.M. DeBusk, and M.F. Borgerding: Estimation of ‘tar’ and nicotine yields from individual cigarettes based on filter analysis after smoking; 58th Tobacco Science Research Conference, Program Booklet and Abstracts, Vol.58, Paper No. 8, 2004, p 25.

23. Moldoveanu, S.C. and K.F. St. Charles: Differences in the chemical composition of particulate phase of inhaled and exhaled cigarette smoke; Beitr. Tabak-forsch. Int. 22 (2007) 290–302.

24. Veith, G.D., K. J. Macek, S. R., Petrocelli, S.R., and J. Carrol: An evaluation of using partition coefficients and water solubility to estimate bioconcentration factors for organic chemicals in fish. Aquat. Toxicol. (1980) 116–129.

25. Mariner D., M. McEwan, K. St. Charles, G. Krautter, and S. Appleton: Dose response relationship for urinary biomarkers of selected tobacco smoke con-stituents, 58th Tobacco Science Research Conference, Program Booklet and Abstracts, Vol.58, Paper 56, 2004, p. 55.

26. International Program on Chemical Safety, INCHEM, http://www.inchem.org.

Journal Information


CiteScore 2017: 0.63

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.309
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.403

Cited By

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 105 105 19
PDF Downloads 27 27 5