INTRODUCTION: A significant portion of the increased risk of cancer and respiratory disease from exposure to cigarette smoke is attributed to volatile organic compounds (VOCs). In this study, 21 VOCs were quantified in mainstream cigarette smoke from 50U.S. domestic brand varieties that included high market share brands and 2 Kentucky research cigarettes (3R4F and 1R5F). METHODS: Mainstream smoke was generated under ISO 3308 and Canadian Intense (CI) smoking protocols with linear smoking machines with a gas sampling bag collection followed by solid phase microextraction/gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (SPME/GC/MS) analysis. RESULTS: For both protocols, mainstream smoke VOC amounts among the different brand varieties were strongly correlated between the majority of the analytes. Overall, Pearson correlation (r) ranged from 0.68 to 0.99 for ISO and 0.36 to 0.95 for CI. However, monoaromatic compounds were found to increase disproportionately compared to unsaturated, nitro, and carbonyl compounds under the CI smoking protocol where filter ventilation is blocked. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, machine generated "vapor phase" amounts (µg/cigarette) are primarily attributed to smoking protocol (e.g., blocking of vent holes, puff volume, and puff duration) and filter ventilation. A possible cause for the disproportionate increase in monoaromatic compounds could be increased pyrolysis under low oxygen conditions associated with the CI protocol. IMPLICATIONS: This is the most comprehensive assessment of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in cigarette smoke to date, encompassing 21 toxic VOCs, 50 different cigarette brand varieties, and 2 different machine smoking protocols (ISO and CI). For most analytes relative proportions remain consistent among U.S. cigarette brand varieties regardless of smoking protocol, however the CI smoking protocol did cause up to a factor of 6 increase in the proportion of monoaromatic compounds. This study serves as a basis to assess VOC exposure as cigarette smoke is a principle source of overall population-level VOC exposure in the United States. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 2016. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.
INTRODUCTION: A significant portion of the increased risk of cancer and respiratory disease from exposure to cigarette smoke is attributed to volatile organic compounds (VOCs). In this study, 21 VOCs were quantified in mainstream cigarette smoke from 50U.S. domestic brand varieties that included high market share brands and 2 Kentucky research cigarettes (3R4F and 1R5F). METHODS: Mainstream smoke was generated under ISO 3308 and Canadian Intense (CI) smoking protocols with linear smoking machines with a gas sampling bag collection followed by solid phase microextraction/gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (SPME/GC/MS) analysis. RESULTS: For both protocols, mainstream smoke VOC amounts among the different brand varieties were strongly correlated between the majority of the analytes. Overall, Pearson correlation (r) ranged from 0.68 to 0.99 for ISO and 0.36 to 0.95 for CI. However, monoaromatic compounds were found to increase disproportionately compared to unsaturated, nitro, and carbonyl compounds under the CI smoking protocol where filter ventilation is blocked. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, machine generated "vapor phase" amounts (µg/cigarette) are primarily attributed to smoking protocol (e.g., blocking of vent holes, puff volume, and puff duration) and filter ventilation. A possible cause for the disproportionate increase in monoaromatic compounds could be increased pyrolysis under low oxygen conditions associated with the CI protocol. IMPLICATIONS: This is the most comprehensive assessment of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in cigarette smoke to date, encompassing 21 toxic VOCs, 50 different cigarette brand varieties, and 2 different machine smoking protocols (ISO and CI). For most analytes relative proportions remain consistent among U.S. cigarette brand varieties regardless of smoking protocol, however the CI smoking protocol did cause up to a factor of 6 increase in the proportion of monoaromatic compounds. This study serves as a basis to assess VOC exposure as cigarette smoke is a principle source of overall population-level VOC exposure in the United States. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 2016. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.
Authors: Iljana Mögel; Sven Baumann; Alexander Böhme; Tibor Kohajda; Martin von Bergen; Jan-Christoph Simon; Irina Lehmann Journal: Toxicology Date: 2011-07-27 Impact factor: 4.221
Authors: Xiaohui Xu; Natalie C Freeman; Amy B Dailey; Vito A Ilacqua; Greg D Kearney; Evelyn O Talbott Journal: Int J Occup Environ Health Date: 2009 Oct-Dec
Authors: David L Ashley; Michelle D Beeson; Diana R Johnson; Joan M McCraw; Patricia Richter; James L Pirkle; Terry F Pechacek; Siqing Song; Clifford H Watson Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Reema Goel; Zachary Bitzer; Samantha M Reilly; Neil Trushin; Jonathan Foulds; Joshua Muscat; Jason Liao; Ryan J Elias; John P Richie Journal: Chem Res Toxicol Date: 2017-03-20 Impact factor: 3.739
Authors: Yu-Ching Cheng; Carolyn M Reyes-Guzman; Carol H Christensen; Brian L Rostron; Kathryn C Edwards; Lanqing Wang; Jun Feng; Jeffery M Jarrett; Cynthia D Ward; Baoyun Xia; Heather L Kimmel; Kevin Conway; Carmine Leggett; Kristie Taylor; Charlie Lawrence; Ray Niaura; Mark J Travers; Andrew Hyland; Stephen S Hecht; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Maciej L Goniewicz; Nicolette Borek; Benjamin C Blount; Dana M van Bemmel Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-01-27 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Pritha Bagchi; Nathan Geldner; B Rey deCastro; Víctor R De Jesús; Sang Ki Park; Benjamin C Blount Journal: Environ Res Date: 2018-02-03 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Suzaynn F Schick; Benjamin C Blount; Peyton Jacob; Najat A Saliba; John T Bernert; Ahmad El Hellani; Peter Jatlow; R Steven Pappas; Lanqing Wang; Jonathan Foulds; Arunava Ghosh; Stephen S Hecht; John C Gomez; Jessica R Martin; Clementina Mesaros; Sanjay Srivastava; Gideon St Helen; Robert Tarran; Pawel K Lorkiewicz; Ian A Blair; Heather L Kimmel; Claire M Doerschuk; Neal L Benowitz; Aruni Bhatnagar Journal: Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 5.464
Authors: Samantha M Reilly; Reema Goel; Neil Trushin; Zachary T Bitzer; Ryan J Elias; Joshua Muscat; John P Richie Journal: Chem Res Toxicol Date: 2018-11-28 Impact factor: 3.739
Authors: Samantha M Reilly; Reema Goel; Neil Trushin; Ryan J Elias; Jonathan Foulds; Joshua Muscat; Jason Liao; John P Richie Journal: Food Chem Toxicol Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 6.023
Authors: Min-Ae Song; Neal L Benowitz; Micah Berman; Theodore M Brasky; K Michael Cummings; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Catalin Marian; Richard O'Connor; Vaughan W Rees; Casper Woroszylo; Peter G Shields Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Deepak Bhandari; Declan McCarthy; Chloe Biren; Cameron Movassaghi; Benjamin C Blount; Víctor R De Jesús Journal: J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 3.205
Authors: D M Chambers; C M Reese; L G Thornburg; E Sanchez; J P Rafson; B C Blount; J R E Ruhl; V R De Jesús Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Kimberly A Agnew-Heard; Vicki A Lancaster; Roberto Bravo; Clifford Watson; Matthew J Walters; Matthew R Holman Journal: Chem Res Toxicol Date: 2016-06-10 Impact factor: 3.739