The cigarillos and LWCs tested
in this study represented a range of brand names that are available
in the U.S. market. This study was performed in two different time
periods. For the first study, one cigarillo and two LWCs were purchased
in Chesapeake, VA, shipped to an ISO 17025-accredited analytical laboratory
(Labstat Inc., Kitchener, Ontario) on September 19, 2016, and analyzed
in November 2016. For the second study, 10 cigarillos and five LWC
brands were purchased in Chesapeake, VA, shipped to the analytical
laboratory on September 22, 2017, and analyzed in November 2017. The
second study also analyzed two reference cigarettes (i.e., 3R4F, 1R6F)
that were purchased from the University of Kentucky (Lexington, KY).
The two reference cigarettes contain similar physical properties and
smoke chemistry.17 (link) The tobacco products
were kept in their original packaging under ambient conditions and
stored at room temperature prior to testing. All the test products
were conditioned and smoked under the environmental conditions specified
in ISO 3402 (1999) “Tobacco and tobacco products—Atmosphere
for conditioning and testing”, which states that tobacco products
are conditioned at 22 ± 1 °C and relative humidity 60 ±
3% and smoked at 22 ± 2 °C and relative humidity 60 ±
5%.
Mainstream tobacco smoke was collected using a linear smoking
machine fitted with an impinger containing 80 mL of 2,4-DNPH solution.
All reagents were analytical reagent grade, unless otherwise stated.
The derivatized solution was syringe-filtered and diluted with 1%
Trizma base aqueous acetonitrile solution. Additional solutions necessary
for the validation of the derivatization efficiency (e.g., calibration
solutions using formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, crotonaldehyde
chemical standards) and the analytical procedure were prepared from
commercially sourced acrolein with >99% purity.
in this study represented a range of brand names that are available
in the U.S. market. This study was performed in two different time
periods. For the first study, one cigarillo and two LWCs were purchased
in Chesapeake, VA, shipped to an ISO 17025-accredited analytical laboratory
(Labstat Inc., Kitchener, Ontario) on September 19, 2016, and analyzed
in November 2016. For the second study, 10 cigarillos and five LWC
brands were purchased in Chesapeake, VA, shipped to the analytical
laboratory on September 22, 2017, and analyzed in November 2017. The
second study also analyzed two reference cigarettes (i.e., 3R4F, 1R6F)
that were purchased from the University of Kentucky (Lexington, KY).
The two reference cigarettes contain similar physical properties and
smoke chemistry.17 (link) The tobacco products
were kept in their original packaging under ambient conditions and
stored at room temperature prior to testing. All the test products
were conditioned and smoked under the environmental conditions specified
in ISO 3402 (1999) “Tobacco and tobacco products—Atmosphere
for conditioning and testing”, which states that tobacco products
are conditioned at 22 ± 1 °C and relative humidity 60 ±
3% and smoked at 22 ± 2 °C and relative humidity 60 ±
5%.
Mainstream tobacco smoke was collected using a linear smoking
machine fitted with an impinger containing 80 mL of 2,4-DNPH solution.
All reagents were analytical reagent grade, unless otherwise stated.
The derivatized solution was syringe-filtered and diluted with 1%
Trizma base aqueous acetonitrile solution. Additional solutions necessary
for the validation of the derivatization efficiency (e.g., calibration
solutions using formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, crotonaldehyde
chemical standards) and the analytical procedure were prepared from
commercially sourced acrolein with >99% purity.
