Xiangyu Li1, Yanbo Luo2, Xingyi Jiang3, Hongfei Zhang4, Fengpeng Zhu4, Shaodong Hu5, Hongwei Hou6, Qingyuan Hu7, Yongqiang Pang8. 1. Department of Environmental Science and Technology, School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China. 2. Department of Analytical Chemistry, College of Chemistry and Molecular Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei, China. 3. Department of Biotechnology, School of International Education, Henan University of Technology, Zhengzhou, Henan, China. 4. Department of Tobacco Chemistry, School Of Food Science and Engineering, Zhengzhou University of Light Industry, Zhengzhou, Henan, China. 5. Department of polymer science and engineer, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. 6. Department of Inorganic Chemistry, Chemistry, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, China. 7. Department of Optics, Anhui Institute of Optics and Fine Mechanics, The Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hefei, Anhui, China. 8. Department of Analytical Chemistry, Chemistry, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, China.
Abstract
Introduction: Tobacco Heating System 2.2 (THS 2.2, marketed as iQOS) is a heat-not-burn (HNB) tobacco product that has been successfully introduced to global markets. Despite its expanding market, few independent and systematic researches into THS 2.2 have been carried out to date. Methods: We tested a comprehensive list of total particulate matter (TPM), water, tar, nicotine, propylene glycol, glycerin, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, aromatic amines, hydrogen cyanide, ammonia, N-nitrosamines, phenol, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon under both ISO and HCI regimes. We also simulated pyrolysis of THS 2.2 heating sticks and made comparisons with conventional cigarette tobacco fillers using comprehensive gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC × GC-MS) to determine whether the specially designed ingredients help reduce harmful constituents. Results: Other than some carbonyls, ammonia, and N-nitrosoanabasine (NAB), the delivered releases from THS 2.2 were at least 80% lower than those from 3R4F. Tar and nicotine remained almost the same as 3R4F. Interestingly, the normalized yield of THS 2.2 to 3R4F under the HCI regime was lower than that under the ISO regime. Conclusions: THS 2.2 delivered fewer harmful constituents than the conventional cigarette 3R4F. Simulated pyrolysis results showed that the lower temperature instead of specially designed ingredients contributed to the distinct shift. In particular, if smoking machines are involved to evaluate the HNB products, smoking regimes of heat-not-burn tobacco products should be carefully chosen. Implications: To our knowledge, few independent studies of HNB products have been published. In this paper, a comprehensive list of chemical releases was tested systematically and compared to those from 3R4F. Although THS 2.2 generates lower levels of harmful constituents, the nicotine and tar levels were almost identical to 3R4F.The results should be discussed carefully in the future when assessing the dual-use with other conventional cigarettes, nicotine dependence of HNB products, etc. This study also suggests that regulatory agencies should pay attention to the smoking regimes that are adopted to evaluate HNB tobacco products.
Introduction: Tobacco Heating System 2.2 (THS 2.2, marketed as iQOS) is a heat-not-burn (HNB) tobacco product that has been successfully introduced to global markets. Despite its expanding market, few independent and systematic researches into THS 2.2 have been carried out to date. Methods: We tested a comprehensive list of total particulate matter (TPM), water, tar, nicotine, propylene glycol, glycerin, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, aromatic amines, hydrogen cyanide, ammonia, N-nitrosamines, phenol, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon under both ISO and HCI regimes. We also simulated pyrolysis of THS 2.2 heating sticks and made comparisons with conventional cigarette tobacco fillers using comprehensive gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC × GC-MS) to determine whether the specially designed ingredients help reduce harmful constituents. Results: Other than some carbonyls, ammonia, and N-nitrosoanabasine (NAB), the delivered releases from THS 2.2 were at least 80% lower than those from 3R4F. Tar and nicotine remained almost the same as 3R4F. Interestingly, the normalized yield of THS 2.2 to 3R4F under the HCI regime was lower than that under the ISO regime. Conclusions: THS 2.2 delivered fewer harmful constituents than the conventional cigarette 3R4F. Simulated pyrolysis results showed that the lower temperature instead of specially designed ingredients contributed to the distinct shift. In particular, if smoking machines are involved to evaluate the HNB products, smoking regimes of heat-not-burn tobacco products should be carefully chosen. Implications: To our knowledge, few independent studies of HNB products have been published. In this paper, a comprehensive list of chemical releases was tested systematically and compared to those from 3R4F. Although THS 2.2 generates lower levels of harmful constituents, the nicotine and tar levels were almost identical to 3R4F.The results should be discussed carefully in the future when assessing the dual-use with other conventional cigarettes, nicotine dependence of HNB products, etc. This study also suggests that regulatory agencies should pay attention to the smoking regimes that are adopted to evaluate HNB tobacco products.
Authors: Rola Salman; Soha Talih; Rachel El-Hage; Christina Haddad; Nareg Karaoghlanian; Ahmad El-Hellani; Najat A Saliba; Alan Shihadeh Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-08-19 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Zongshuan Duan; Daisy Le; Annie C Ciceron; Ruth Dickey-Chasins; Christina N Wysota; Yael Bar-Zeev; Hagai Levine; Lorien C Abroms; Katelyn F Romm; Carla J Berg Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2022-09-23
Authors: Michael S Dunbar; Rachana Seelam; Joan S Tucker; Anthony Rodriguez; Regina A Shih; Elizabeth J D'Amico Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-12-12 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Amy L Nyman; Scott R Weaver; Lucy Popova; Terry Frank Pechacek; Jidong Huang; David L Ashley; Michael P Eriksen Journal: Tob Control Date: 2018-08-29 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Nadja Mallock; Lisa Böss; Robert Burk; Martin Danziger; Tanja Welsch; Harald Hahn; Hai-Linh Trieu; Jürgen Hahn; Elke Pieper; Frank Henkler-Stephani; Christoph Hutzler; Andreas Luch Journal: Arch Toxicol Date: 2018-05-05 Impact factor: 5.153