A Comprehensive Study on the Acidic Compounds in Gas and Particle Phases of Mainstream Cigarette Smoke
by
,
Xinbo Lu
1,2,†,
Hongfei Zhang
3,†,
Yifeng Cao
2,*,
Yongqiang Pang
3,
Guojun Zhou
1,
Hua Huang
1,
Jing Li
2,
Jian Jiang
1,* and
Qiwei Yang
2 1
China Tobacco Zhejiang Industrial Co., Ltd., Hangzhou 310024, China
2
Key Laboratory of Biomass Chemical Engineering of Ministry of Education, College of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
3
China National Tobacco Quality Supervision & Test Center, Zhengzhou 450001, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Processes 2023, 11(6), 1694; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11061694
Submission received: 25 April 2023
/
Revised: 26 May 2023
/
Accepted: 29 May 2023
/
Published: 1 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Extraction and Purification of Bioactive Compounds)
Abstract
:Acidic compounds constitute a group of chemicals present in mainstream cigarette smoke, among which organic acids contribute to flavoring. In order to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the constituents of acidic compounds in both the particulate and gaseous phases of the mainstream smoke of commercial cigarettes, and to delineate the difference between two types of cigarettes, the yields of acidic constituents from nine cigarettes of two commercial brands (L- and M-types) were collected and analyzed in detail by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS). The results identified and quantitatively analyzed 46 compounds, grouped according to the substituent groups. Compositional differences between the two cigarette types were evaluated with statistical approaches. Comparison between individual, grouped, and total acid contents, between the particulate and the gaseous phases, and between the commercial L- and M-type tobaccos were conducted and characterized by the p values obtained from Student’s t-test. Multivariate analysis was performed using principal component analysis (PCA) and orthogonal projections to latent structures discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) models to identify the acids that enable a reliable differentiation of the two types. Seventeen acidic compounds whose p < 0.05 and variable importance in projection (VIP) > 1 were identified as key components that could discriminate between the two groups of commercial cigarettes. This study may be beneficial for the development of non-combusted tobacco products, which could serve as alternatives to traditional cigarettes.
1. Introduction
In recent decades, a substantial body of evidence has emerged linking cigarette smoking to a range of significant health risks, including lung cancer, other forms of cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, liver disease, and coronary heart disease [1,2,3,4,5]. As a preventable cause of death worldwide, cigarette smoking is a matter of considerable public health concern. In addition to the harmful substances found in mainstream cigarette smoke, environmental tobacco smoke, which is composed of exhaled mainstream smoke and sidestream smoke, also contains known carcinogens and toxic compounds [6]. Nonsmokers who are exposed to environmental tobacco smoke over long periods are also at risk of developing lung cancer. In an effort to address these health concerns, alternative smokeless and non-combusted tobacco products, such as e-cigarettes and heat-not-burn devices, have been developed as potential substitutes for traditional cigarettes [7,8]. These products are expected to release fewer harmful chemicals as they do not undergo combustion, which is beneficial to cancer prevention [9,10,11,12].
Mainstream cigarette smoke (MCS) is an extremely complex aerosol composed of condensed liquid droplets (particulate phase) and a mixture of gases and volatile compounds (gaseous phase). Thousands of chemicals, including ketones, hydrocarbons, ethers, amides, carboxylic acids, alkaloids, and phenols, most of which are at trace level, have been identified in tobacco smoke [13,14,15]. In-depth characterization of the chemical composition of MCS is important for evaluating its impact on human health and developing strategies to reduce its harmful effects. However, complicated interactions between these compounds, such as synergistic, additive, or inhibitive effects, make it quite challenging. Knowledge of the characteristic chemical constituents of MCS profiling and the chemical basis of different tobacco types can also be used to determine the processes involved during smoking and the flavor descriptions of tobacco [16]. Flavoring and flavor-enhancing chemicals can be used in the development of non-combusted products [17]. Moreover, it is also critical to characterize both the particulate and gaseous phases separately due to their differing effects on smokers and non-smokers. The particulate phase is more strongly associated with health risks for smokers, whereas non-smokers are more impacted by constituents in the gas phase during passive smoking [18].
Acidic compounds comprise a group of chemicals in mainstream cigarette smoke and tobacco essential oil, of which organic acids contribute to the flavor of tobacco [19]. Despite their potential significance, acidic compounds in tobacco smoke and the differences between different tobacco types have received relatively little attention in the literature. Thus, the aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the constituents of acidic compounds in both the particulate and gaseous phases of mainstream cigarette smoke from commercial brands. The present investigation involved the collection of acidic constituent yields from nine cigarettes of two commercial brands, which were subsequently analyzed using gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Before GC-MS, derivatization of high-polarity and high-boiling-point compounds by trimethylsilylation was performed [20]. The present study offers an in-depth description of the acidic compounds that exist in mainstream cigarette smoke, thus enhancing our comprehension of the chemical constituents of tobacco smokes of two different types.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Materials
Nine commercial cigarettes, including five Virginia (L-type) and four blend types (M-type), were used in this study. They were all purchased from local stores in China. Characterization of the cigarette samples, including tobacco type, tar content, and nicotine content, of the samples are listed in Table 1. Standards of the organic acid listed in Table 2, N,O-bis(trimethylsilyl)trifluoroacetamide (BSTFA), phenethyl phenylacetate, and benzene-d6 were all purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany). The CX-572 (20/45 mesh) cartridge was purchased from Merck Inc. (St. Louis, MO, USA).
2.2. Methods
2.2.1. Sample Preparation
The cigarettes were equilibrated under conditions of 22 ± 1 °C, relative humidity 60 ± 3% for 48 h before smoking. Mainstream cigarette smoke was generated under an ISO machine smoking regimen [21] using a linear smoking machine (SM 450, Cerulean, Milton Keynes, UK). The particulate phase of the mainstream cigarette smoke was collected using 44 mm Cambridge filter pads and the gaseous phase was collected using a CX-572 cartridge with 300 mg of carbon molecular sieves. After smoking, the Cambridge filter pad was cut into two pieces and extracted with 6 mL CH2Cl2 containing 50 μL of internal standard solution (9.35 mg/mL benzene-d6 and 9.06 mg/mL phenethyl phenylacetate) under sonication for 30 min. After that, the liquid extract was filtered and analyzed. Adsorbent in the CX-572 cartridge was transferred into a 15-mL vial. After adding 4 mL CH2Cl2 (at a speed controlled at 1 mL/min) and 50 μL of mixed internal standard solution (9.35 mg/mL benzene-d6 and 9.06 mg/mL phenethyl acetate), the vial was shaken for 2 h and the liquid was collected afterwards.
2.2.2. Derivatization Procedures
Trimethylsilyl (TMS) derivation is routinely used in GC to increase the volatility and stability of the acidic compounds [22]. In this study, trimethylsilylation of the acidic compounds in the collected samples was performed using N,O-bis(trimethylsilyl)trifluoroacetamide (BSTFA) as the derivatizing agent prior to GC-MS analysis. The extract solution was filtered through a PTFE membrane with 0.45-µm pore size, 1 mL of which was transferred into a glass gas chromatography vial. Then, 100 µL of BSTFA was added to the vial, which was sealed and heated to 60 ± 1 °C for 40 min using a water bath to complete the derivatization. After that, the sample was cooled to room temperature and analyzed by GC-MS.
2.2.3. GC-MS Conditions
Analysis was carried out on an Agilent 7890B gas chromatography instrument coupled with an Agilent 5977C mass spectrometer (Agilent Technologies, Palo Alto, CA, USA). Separation was achieved with a J&W DB-5ms fused silica capillary column (60 m × 0.25 mm i.d., 1-μm film thickness) from Agilent Technologies, USA. High-purity helium was used as carrier gas and was maintained at 1 mL/min. The injection volume was 1 μL, and the split ratio was 10:1. The inlet temperature and the transfer line temperature were both set at 280 °C. The oven temperature program was as follows: the initial temperature was kept at 40 °C for 3 min, increased to 280 °C at a rate of 4 °C/min, and kept at 280 °C for 20 min. The spectrometer was operated in the electron ionization (EI) mode (70 eV). The scan range was set at 35–450 amu. The ionization source temperature was fixed at 280 °C. Data were collected under both the full scan and selected ion monitoring (SIM) modes. The identification of compounds was based on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 14 library (matching score > 70) and by comparison with standards. The slopes of the calibration curves for each of the acids are also provided in Table 2.
2.2.4. Multivariate Analysis
Multivariate analysis of principal component analysis (PCA) and orthogonal projections to latent structures discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) was performed using the Umetrics SIMC 14.1 software. Unsupervised PCA was firstly performed, followed by supervised OPLS-DA model. Differences between the L- and the M-groups were evaluated.
3. Results
3.1. Constituents of Acids in the Particulate and the Gaseous Phases
Representative total ion chromatograms of the TMS derivatives of acidic compounds in the particulate and gaseous phases of the mainstream cigarette smoke are shown in Figure 1, and the identified peaks are listed in Table 2, where a total number of 46 acidic compounds were identified.
Contents of the individual acids are listed in Tables S1 and S2 and presented in Figure 2. Major acids in the particulate phase are carboxylic acids with straight chains, while those in the gaseous phase are palmitic acid, octadecanoic acid, acetic acid, and formic acid (Figure 2a,b). A number of acids were identified in the particulate phase of iQOS, a commercial heated tobacco product. Acetic acid, palmitic acid, linolenic acid, propanoic acid, oleic acid, linoleic acid, 3-methylpentanoic acid, 3-methyl-2-furancarboxylic acid, 2-methylbutanoic acid, 3-methylbutanoic acid, and myristic acid, which were among the identified acids in this work, were also identified in the total particulate matter of iQOS and in cigarette smoke [23]. Moreover, octadecanoic acid, pentadecanoic acid, arachidic acid, (9Z,12Z)-18-hydroxy-9,12-octadecadienoic acid, palmitoleic acid, butanoic acid, behenic acid, 5-oxo-1-tetradecyl-3-pyrrolidinecarboxylic acid, lignoceric acid, stearidonic acid, and 3-methylpalmitic acid were identified in this work. In another work, acetic acid, formic acid, glycolic acid, lactic acid, and succinic acid were among the major acids in the mainstream and sidestream of four varieties of tobacco [20]. In contrast, formic acid, acetic acid, and levulinic acid were identified in e-cigarette aerosol by high-performance liquid chromatography–high-resolution mass spectrometry (HPLC-HRMS) [24]. Clearly, the acidic constituents of cigarette smoke are highly correlated with the tested samples. It is worth noticing that, given the fact that certain weak organic acids, including but not limited to citric acid, acetic acid, butyric acid, lactic acid, and 2-methyl butyric acid, are among the permitted additives and flavorings to tobacco products [25], their addition could also contribute to the acidic components in the tobacco smoke of the commercial samples.
3.2. Acid Contents
The total amount of acid compounds in both the particulate and the gaseous phases for all the samples are presented in Figure 3. All the acids were grouped according to the substituent groups on the alkyl chain. No significant difference in the gaseous phase (p = 0.0857) was found between the two groups (Figure 3b). Nevertheless, the high content of acids with straight or unsaturated chains is clear.
According to the chemical structure, the identified acids were categorized into eight groups, including carboxylate acid with straight alkyl chain, unsaturated acid, carboxylate acid with branched alkyl chain, phenols, acid with a hydroxyl/carbonyl substitution, alkyl chain of the acid bearing a furan ring, alkyl chain of the acid bearing a benzene substitution, and acid with more than one substituent group. In the particulate phase (Figure 3a), acids with a straight saturated or unsaturated alkyl chain dominate. For those in the gaseous phase, most have straight alkyl chains with lengths ranging from C1 to C20.
3.3. Acid Content Difference between the Particulate and the Gaseous Phases
Acids in the gaseous phase account for 7.6 ± 1.6% and 6.4 ± 2.6% of all those in the particulate and the gaseous phases for the L- and the M-type, respectively, whereas no significant difference was observed between the two types. Decreased acidity of tobacco emission has been reported to increase the amount of nicotine into blood [26]. In the mainstream smoke, >99% nicotine is in the particulate phase. Strong interaction between the acid compounds and the basic nicotine is expected, which hinders the emission of organic acids to the gaseous phase.
The ratio of individual acid content between the particulate and the gaseous phases of MCS was also calculated and presented in Figure 2c. Overall, organic acids with straight or branched alkyl chain, including those long-chain fatty acids, are relatively more abundant in the gaseous phase, as opposed to those acids bearing hydroxyl, furan, or phenol groups. As the boiling points of long-chain fatty acids are relatively high or equivalent to those preferably accumulating in the particulate phase, their distribution between the gaseous and the particulate phases are not simply dominated by their volatility. One possible explanation is that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), and phytosterols were found almost exclusively in the particulate phase [27], and hydrogen-bonding interactions between these compounds and acids with the above-mentioned hydroxyl, furan, and phenol groups are stronger than those with straight or branched alkyl groups.
3.4. Acid Content Difference between the L- and the M-Types
The content differences of individual acids and of each acid group between the L- and the M-types are labelled in Figure 2a (individual acid in the particulate phase), Figure 2b (individual acid in the gaseous phase), and Table 3 (acid groups). In the particulate phase, significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) between the L- and the M-types was observed for 26 acids, including 2-methyl-propionic acid, 2-methyl-butyric acid, 3-methyl-butyric acid, valeric acid, 3-methyl-pentanoic acid, 4-methyl-pentanoic acid, lactic acid, glycolic acid, 2-carbonyl-propionic acid, 3-hydroxy-propionic acid, and 3-hydroxy-butyric acid, etc. Among these acids, the contents of seven acids were found to be highly, significantly different (p ≤ 0.001). Most of these acids have a substituent group attached to the short alkyl chain. For the gaseous phase, the number was 12 (p ≤ 0.05) and two (p ≤ 0.001). Moreover, significant difference in acid content was observed for four acid groups identified in the particulate phase, while the number was two for the gaseous phase (Table 3). For total acid contents, no significant difference was observed between the M- and L-groups, in neither the particulate phase nor the gaseous phase. These results clearly show that the major difference between the L- and the M-types lies in the individual acid/acid groups of the particulate phase.
3.5. Multivariate Analysis
Multivariate analysis with PCA and OPLS-DA methods was performed on the basis of the 46 acids identified in the particulate phase to reduce data dimensionality. PCA results (Figure 4) clearly show clustered L- and the M-groups, confirming that there are differences underlying the acidic components of the two groups. The first two principal components accounted for 88.1% (R2X) of the total variance. As the first principal component (PC1) and the second one (PC2) account for 50.5% and 37.6% of the variance, respectively, they can represent the majority information of the cigarette samples. The cumulated predictive ability of the model Q2 (cum) 0.772 (>0.05) indicates the quality of the model.
Compared with the PCA model, the OPLS-DA approach is a powerful statistical modeling tool to discriminate between two groups [28,29]. The results in Figure 5a also demonstrate separation between the two groups. The R2X of the OPLS-DA was 0.798, indicating that 79.8% of the variation in the cigarette samples could be modeled by the selected components, while R2Y = 0.976 indicates that the model was well-fitted. Predictability Q2 = 0.905 is an indication of the good predictivity of the model. In addition, diagnostics such as permutation testing are of high importance to avoid overfitting. The intercept of the blue regression line of the Q2-points in Figure 5b is (0, −0.838), which strongly indicates that the model is valid. These results overall proved that a combination of the acid contents in the particulate phase with multivariate statistical analysis could effectively differentiate between the two types of cigarettes.
The variable importance in projection (VIP) scores reflect both the loading weights of each component and the variability of the response explained by this component. Information on the VIP of the acids is presented in Figure 5c and Table S3. In Figure 5c, the VIP plot is sorted from high to low, and the acids whose VIP is higher than one (an indication of ‘important’ variables) are colored in red, while those with VIP < 1.0 are in blue. A number of 24 acids, including 3-methyl-pentanoic acid, 2-methyl-butyric acid, 3-hydroxy-propionic acid, and 2-hydroxymethyl-butyric acid, were identified as main components in discriminating between the L- and the M-groups.
In general, variables with VIP > 1.0 and p < 0.05 are considered significant to contribute to the model and are identified as markers differentiating between the two groups [30]. The p values reflect the compositional difference of individual compound between groups, while the VIP value higher than one suggests that this compound contributes significantly to inter-group difference. These acids include 3-methyl-pentanoic acid, 2-methyl-butyric acid, 3-hydroxy-propionic acid, 2-hydroxymethyl-butyric acid, 3-methyl-butyric acid, glycolic acid, o-cresol, 2-isopropyl-3-carbonyl-butyric acid, 2-methyl-propionic acid, malic acid, p-cresol, linolenic acid, tetradecanoic acid, caproic acid, m-hydroxy-benzoic acid, eicosanic acid, and 3-methyl-2-furancarboxylic acid, in order of decreasing VIP values. These compounds could be useful for establishing fingerprints of the tobacco products.
4. Conclusions
A comprehensive investigation was conducted to determine the concentration of acidic compounds in both the particulate and gaseous phases of mainstream cigarette smoke. The study involved comparative analysis of two commercially available cigarette types, namely the L-type and M-type. A total of 46 acids were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively using GC-MS. The results indicated that the concentrations of acids in the gaseous phase were much lower than those in the particulate phase. Acids with straight or unsaturated chains were found to be more abundantly present in the gaseous phase, which could be attributed to their high volatility or weaker interaction with compounds in the particulate phase. Significant differences (p < 0.05) in acid content between the L- and M-types were observed for 26 acids in the particulate phase, and 12 in the gaseous phase. Multivariate statistical analysis using PCA and OPLS-DA models successfully differentiated between the two tobacco types. These findings may be instrumental in the development of non-combusted tobacco products.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/pr11061694/s1, Table S1: Contents of the identified acids in the particulate phase (μg/mg tar).; Table S2. Contents of the identified acids in the gaseous phase (μg/mg tar). Table S3: VIP values of individual acid.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, X.L., Y.C., G.Z., H.H., J.J. and Q.Y.; methodology, X.L., G.Z. and H.H.; data curation, X.L., H.Z., Y.C., Y.P. and J.L.; writing—original draft preparation, X.L. and Y.C.; writing—review and editing, Y.C., J.J. and Q.Y.; project administration, J.J. and Q.Y.; funding acquisition, Y.C., J.L. and Q.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by the Zhejiang University- China Tobacco Zhejiang Industrial Co., Ltd. Joint Laboratory, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Grant Number: 22178306, the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province, Grant Numbers: LR21B060002 and LGC22B050013, and the Research Funds of Institute of Zhejiang University, Quzhou, Grant Number: IZQ2022RCZX004.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding authors.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Kim, S.Y.; Sim, S.; Choi, H.G. Active, passive, and electronic cigarette smoking is associated with asthma in adolescents. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 17789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Loeb, L.A.; Emster, V.L.; Warner, K.E.; Abbotts, J.; Laszlo, J. Smoking and Lung Cancer: An Overview. Cancer Res. 1984, 44, 5940–5958. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Hjermann, I.; Holme, I.; Byre, K.V.; Leren, P. Effect of diet and smoking intervention on the incidence of coronary heart disease: Report from the Oslo Study Group of a randomised trial in healthy men. Lancet 1981, 318, 1303–1310. [Google Scholar]
- Fagerström, K. The Epidemiology of Smoking Health Consequences and Benefits of Cessation. Drugs 2002, 62, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Marti-Aguado, D.; Clemente-Sanchez, A.; Bataller, R. Cigarette smoking and liver diseases. J. Hepatol. 2022, 77, 191–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sopori, M. Effects of cigarette smoke on the immune system. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2002, 2, 372–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simonavicius, E.; McNeill, A.; Shahab, L.; Brose, L.S. Heat-not-burn tobacco products: A systematic literature review. Tob. Control 2019, 28, 582–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Connor, R.; Schneller, L.M.; Felicione, N.J.; Talhout, R.; Goniewicz, M.L.; Ashley, D.L. Evolution of tobacco products: Recent history and future directions. Tob. Control 2022, 31, 175–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- US Food and Drug Administration. Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents in Tobacco Products and Tobacco Smoke: Established List. Fed. Regist. 2012, 77, 20034–20037. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/rules-regulations-and-guidance/harmful-and-potentially-harmful-constituents-tobacco-products-and-tobacco-smoke-established-list (accessed on 20 March 2023).
- Margham, J.; McAdam, K.; Forster, M.; Liu, C.; Wright, C.; Mariner, D.; Proctor, C. Chemical Composition of Aerosol from an E-Cigarette: A Quantitative Comparison with Cigarette Smoke. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2016, 29, 1662–1678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uchiyama, S.; Noguchi, M.; Takagi, N.; Hayashida, H.; Inaba, Y.; Ogura, H.; Kunugita, N. Simple Determination of Gaseous and Particulate Compounds Generated from Heated Tobacco Products. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2018, 31, 585–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hecht, S.S.; Hatsukami, D.K. Smokeless tobacco and cigarette smoking: Chemical mechanisms and cancer prevention. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2022, 22, 143–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rodgman, A.; Perfetti, T.A. The Chemical Components of Tobacco and Tobacco Smoke; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Ji, H.; Jin, Z. Analysis of six aromatic amines in the mainstream smoke of tobacco products. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2022, 414, 4227–4234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guo, Q.; Qin, Y.; Pan, L.; Xie, F.; Liu, S.; Sun, X.; Wang, X.; Cai, J.; Zhao, X.; Liu, H. Accuracy improvement of determination of seven minor tobacco alkaloids in mainstream cigarette smoke using analyte protectants by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A 2022, 1684, 463537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaur, G.; Muthumalage, T.; Rahman, I. Mechanisms of toxicity and biomarkers of flavoring and flavor enhancing chemicals in emerging tobacco and non-tobacco products. Toxicol. Lett. 2018, 288, 143–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crooks, I.; Neilson, L.; Scott, K.; Reynolds, L.; Oke, T.; Forster, M.; Meredith, C.; McAdam, K.; Proctor, C. Evaluation of flavourings potentially used in a heated tobacco product: Chemical analysis, in vitro mutagenicity, genotoxicity, cytotoxicity and in vitro tumour promoting activity. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2018, 118, 940–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scherer, G.; Conze, C.; Meyerinck, L.v.; Sorsa, M.; Adlkofer, F. Importance of exposure to gaseous and particulate phase components of tobacco smoke in active and passive smokers. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 1990, 62, 459–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sakuma, H.; Kusama, M.; Munakata, S.; Ohsumi, T.; Sugawara, S. The Distribution of Cigarette Smoke Components between Mainstream and Sidestream Smoke I. Acidic Components. Beiträge Zur Tab. Int. 1983, 12, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karlonas, N.; Padarauskas, A.; Ramanavicius, A.; Ramanaviciene, A. Mixed-mode SPE for a multi-residue analysis of benzodiazepines in whole blood using rapid GC with negative-ion chemical ionization MS. J. Sep. Sci. 2013, 36, 1437–1445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISO 3308:2012; Routine Analytical Cigarette-Smoking Machine—Definitions and Standard Conditions. ISO: New York, NY, USA, 2012.
- Christou, C.; Gika, H.G.; Raikos, N.; Theodoridis, G. GC-MS analysis of organic acids in human urine in clinical settings: A study of derivatization and other analytical parameters. J. Chromatogr. B 2014, 964, 195–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bentley, M.C.; Almstetter, M.; Arndt, D.; Knorr, A.; Martin, E.; Pospisil, P.; Maeder, S. Comprehensive chemical characterization of the aerosol generated by a heated tobacco product by untargeted screening. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2020, 412, 2675–2685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, Y.; Burns, A.E.; Burke, G.J.P.; Poindexter, M.E.; Madl, A.K.; Pinkerton, K.E.; Nguyen, T.B. Application of High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry and a Theoretical Model to the Quantification of Multifunctional Carbonyls and Organic Acids in e-Cigarette Aerosol. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 5640–5650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Winnall, W.R. 12.6 Additives and Flavourings in Tobacco Products. In Tobacco in Australia: Facts and Issues; Greenhalgh, E.M., Scollo, M.M., Winstanley, M.H., Eds.; Cancer Council Victoria: Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 2022; Available online: https://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-12-tobacco-products/12-6-additives-and-flavourings-in-tobacco-products (accessed on 25 May 2023).
- Pankow, J.F.; Tavakoli, A.D.; Luo, W.; Isabelle, L.M. Percent free base nicotine in the tobacco smoke particulate matter of selected commercial and reference cigarettes. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2003, 16, 1014–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thielen, A.; Klus, H.; Muller, L. Tobacco smoke: Unraveling a controversial subject. Exp. Toxicol. Pathol. 2008, 60, 141–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pappalardo, L. Pomegranate fruit juice adulteration with apple juice: Detection by UV-visible spectroscopy combined with multivariate statistical analysis. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 5151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, C.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, M.; Qi, J.; Zhao, W.; Gu, J.; Guo, W.; Li, Y. Screening of specific quantitative peptides of beef by LC-MS/MS coupled with OPLS-DA. Food Chem. 2022, 387, 132932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, Q.; Meng, K.; Zheng, H.; Yu, H.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, X.; Lin, Z.; Xie, G. Metabolites comparison in post-fermentation stage of manual (mechanized) Chinese Huangjiu (yellow rice wine) based on GC-MS metabolomics. Food Chem. 2022, 14, 100324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Total ion chromatogram (TIC) of sample M2: the particulate phase (black color) and the gaseous phase (blue color).
Figure 1.
Total ion chromatogram (TIC) of sample M2: the particulate phase (black color) and the gaseous phase (blue color).
Figure 2.
Heat map showing concentrations of the identified acids (μg/mg tar) in the mainstream smoke of different cigarettes: (a) particulate phase, (b) gaseous phase, as well as (c) the ratios between the particulate and the gaseous phases. Acids and sample types are presented on the y- and x-axes, respectively. Contents of the acids (μg/mg tar in a cigarette) are presented in the logarithm form. Student’s t-test was performed to test whether the apparent differences between acid components of L- and M- types of tobacco were statistically significant (* p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001).
Figure 2.
Heat map showing concentrations of the identified acids (μg/mg tar) in the mainstream smoke of different cigarettes: (a) particulate phase, (b) gaseous phase, as well as (c) the ratios between the particulate and the gaseous phases. Acids and sample types are presented on the y- and x-axes, respectively. Contents of the acids (μg/mg tar in a cigarette) are presented in the logarithm form. Student’s t-test was performed to test whether the apparent differences between acid components of L- and M- types of tobacco were statistically significant (* p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001).
Figure 3.
Total acid contents in the (a) particulate and (b) gaseous phases of different cigarettes, grouped according to the substituent groups on the alkyl chain. The identified acids were categorized into eight groups according to the substituent groups. 1, carboxylate acid with straight alkyl chain; 2, unsaturated acid; 3, carboxylate acid with branched alkyl chain; 4, phenols; 5, acid with a hydroxyl/carbonyl substitution; 6, alkyl chain of the acid bearing a furan ring; 7, alkyl chain of the acid bearing a benzene substitution; and 8, acid with more than one kind of substituent group.
Figure 3.
Total acid contents in the (a) particulate and (b) gaseous phases of different cigarettes, grouped according to the substituent groups on the alkyl chain. The identified acids were categorized into eight groups according to the substituent groups. 1, carboxylate acid with straight alkyl chain; 2, unsaturated acid; 3, carboxylate acid with branched alkyl chain; 4, phenols; 5, acid with a hydroxyl/carbonyl substitution; 6, alkyl chain of the acid bearing a furan ring; 7, alkyl chain of the acid bearing a benzene substitution; and 8, acid with more than one kind of substituent group.
Figure 4.
PCA biplot diagram of acid components of the tested cigarette samples (N = 9): blue symbols, M-group; red symbols, L-group; green symbols, individual acid. Cigarette samples were divided into two clusters. The x- and y-axes represent the re-scaled scores and loadings of the first component (PC1) and the second one (PC2), respectively. 1, formic acid; 2, acetic acid; 3, acrylic acid; 4, propionic acid; 5, 2-methyl-propionic acid; 6, 2-methyl-butyric acid; 7, 2-ene-butyric acid; 8, 3-methyl-butyric acid; 9, valeric acid; 10, 2-methyl-2-ene-butyric acid; 11, 2-pentenoic acid; 12, 3-methyl-pentanoic acid; 13, 4-methyl-pentanoic acid; 14, phenol; 15, lactic acid; 16, caproic acid; 17, glycolic acid; 18, 2-carbonyl-propionic acid; 19, 2-hydroxy-butyric acid; 20, levulinic acid; 21, o-cresol; 22, 2-furancarboxylic acid; 23, 3-hydroxy-propionic acid; 24, p-cresol; 25, 3-hydroxy-butyric acid; 26, furanacetic acid; 27, 2-hydroxymethyl-butyric acid; 28, benzoic acid; 29, phenylacetic acid; 30, 3-methyl-2-furancarboxylic acid; 31, catechol; 32, 2,3-dihydroxy-propionic acid; 33, quinol/resorcinol; 34, 2-isopropyl-3-carbonyl-butyric acid; 35, malic acid; 36, 1,2,3-glycinol; 37, threonic acid; 38, m-hydroxy-benzoic acid; 39, vanillic acid; 40, tetradecanoic acid; 41, palmitic acid; 42, linoleic acid; 43, linolenic acid; 44, oleic acid; 45, octadecanoic acid; 46, eicosanic acid.
Figure 4.
PCA biplot diagram of acid components of the tested cigarette samples (N = 9): blue symbols, M-group; red symbols, L-group; green symbols, individual acid. Cigarette samples were divided into two clusters. The x- and y-axes represent the re-scaled scores and loadings of the first component (PC1) and the second one (PC2), respectively. 1, formic acid; 2, acetic acid; 3, acrylic acid; 4, propionic acid; 5, 2-methyl-propionic acid; 6, 2-methyl-butyric acid; 7, 2-ene-butyric acid; 8, 3-methyl-butyric acid; 9, valeric acid; 10, 2-methyl-2-ene-butyric acid; 11, 2-pentenoic acid; 12, 3-methyl-pentanoic acid; 13, 4-methyl-pentanoic acid; 14, phenol; 15, lactic acid; 16, caproic acid; 17, glycolic acid; 18, 2-carbonyl-propionic acid; 19, 2-hydroxy-butyric acid; 20, levulinic acid; 21, o-cresol; 22, 2-furancarboxylic acid; 23, 3-hydroxy-propionic acid; 24, p-cresol; 25, 3-hydroxy-butyric acid; 26, furanacetic acid; 27, 2-hydroxymethyl-butyric acid; 28, benzoic acid; 29, phenylacetic acid; 30, 3-methyl-2-furancarboxylic acid; 31, catechol; 32, 2,3-dihydroxy-propionic acid; 33, quinol/resorcinol; 34, 2-isopropyl-3-carbonyl-butyric acid; 35, malic acid; 36, 1,2,3-glycinol; 37, threonic acid; 38, m-hydroxy-benzoic acid; 39, vanillic acid; 40, tetradecanoic acid; 41, palmitic acid; 42, linoleic acid; 43, linolenic acid; 44, oleic acid; 45, octadecanoic acid; 46, eicosanic acid.
Figure 5.
The OPLS-DA model of the two-class separation: (a) the scatter plot of the scores t [1] vs. to [1], (b) the permutations plot, and (c) the variable importance of the projection (VIP) plot. Particulate phase. Intercepts of plots in (b): R2 = (0.0, 0.485), Q2 = (0.0, −0.838). In (c), 1, formic acid; 2, acetic acid; 3, acrylic acid; 4, propionic acid; 5, 2-methyl-propionic acid; 6, 2-methyl-butyric acid; 7, 2-ene-butyric acid; 8, 3-methyl-butyric acid; 9, valeric acid; 10, 2-methyl-2-ene-butyric acid; 11, 2-pentenoic acid; 12, 3-methyl-pentanoic acid; 13, 4-methyl-pentanoic acid; 14, phenol; 15, lactic acid; 16, caproic acid; 17, glycolic acid; 18, 2-carbonyl-propionic acid; 19, 2-hydroxy-butyric acid; 20, levulinic acid; 21, o-cresol; 22, 2-furancarboxylic acid; 23, 3-hydroxy-propionic acid; 24, p-cresol; 25, 3-hydroxy-butyric acid; 26, furanacetic acid; 27, 2-hydroxymethyl-butyric acid; 28, benzoic acid; 29, phenylacetic acid; 30, 3-methyl-2-furancarboxylic acid; 31, catechol; 32, 2,3-dihydroxy-propionic acid; 33, quinol/resorcinol; 34, 2-isopropyl-3-carbonyl-butyric acid; 35, malic acid; 36, 1,2,3-glycinol; 37, threonic acid; 38, m-hydroxy-benzoic acid; 39, vanillic acid; 40, tetradecanoic acid; 41, palmitic acid; 42, linoleic acid; 43, linolenic acid; 44, oleic acid; 45, octadecanoic acid; 46, eicosanic acid.
Figure 5.
The OPLS-DA model of the two-class separation: (a) the scatter plot of the scores t [1] vs. to [1], (b) the permutations plot, and (c) the variable importance of the projection (VIP) plot. Particulate phase. Intercepts of plots in (b): R2 = (0.0, 0.485), Q2 = (0.0, −0.838). In (c), 1, formic acid; 2, acetic acid; 3, acrylic acid; 4, propionic acid; 5, 2-methyl-propionic acid; 6, 2-methyl-butyric acid; 7, 2-ene-butyric acid; 8, 3-methyl-butyric acid; 9, valeric acid; 10, 2-methyl-2-ene-butyric acid; 11, 2-pentenoic acid; 12, 3-methyl-pentanoic acid; 13, 4-methyl-pentanoic acid; 14, phenol; 15, lactic acid; 16, caproic acid; 17, glycolic acid; 18, 2-carbonyl-propionic acid; 19, 2-hydroxy-butyric acid; 20, levulinic acid; 21, o-cresol; 22, 2-furancarboxylic acid; 23, 3-hydroxy-propionic acid; 24, p-cresol; 25, 3-hydroxy-butyric acid; 26, furanacetic acid; 27, 2-hydroxymethyl-butyric acid; 28, benzoic acid; 29, phenylacetic acid; 30, 3-methyl-2-furancarboxylic acid; 31, catechol; 32, 2,3-dihydroxy-propionic acid; 33, quinol/resorcinol; 34, 2-isopropyl-3-carbonyl-butyric acid; 35, malic acid; 36, 1,2,3-glycinol; 37, threonic acid; 38, m-hydroxy-benzoic acid; 39, vanillic acid; 40, tetradecanoic acid; 41, palmitic acid; 42, linoleic acid; 43, linolenic acid; 44, oleic acid; 45, octadecanoic acid; 46, eicosanic acid.
Table 1.
Characterization of nine commercial cigarette samples used in this study.
| Sample | Tobacco Type | TPM a (mg/cigarette) | Labelled Tar Content (mg/cigarette) | Measured Tar Content (mg/cigarette) | Water Content (mg/cigarette) | Nicotine Content (mg/cigarette) | CO (mg/cigarette) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L1 | Virginia | 13.38 | 10.0 | 10.81 | 1.66 | 0.90 | 9.93 |
| L2 | Virginia | 9.50 | 8.0 | 8.13 | 0.69 | 0.68 | 10.02 |
| L3 | Virginia | 13.78 | 11.0 | 11.43 | 1.41 | 0.95 | 10.94 |
| L4 | Virginia | 13.39 | 11.0 | 10.80 | 1.66 | 0.93 | 10.13 |
| L5 | Virginia | 14.80 | 11.0 | 12.12 | 1.68 | 1.00 | 11.61 |
| M1 | Blend | 11.08 | 10.0 | 9.13 | 1.15 | 0.81 | 10.07 |
| M2 | Blend | 10.57 | 10.0 | 8.86 | 1.00 | 0.71 | 10.02 |
| M3 | Blend | 8.67 | 8.0 | 7.04 | 0.97 | 0.66 | 8.03 |
| M4 | Blend | 9.99 | 8.0 | 8.34 | 0.91 | 0.74 | 9.27 |
a TPM, total particle matter.
Table 2.
Acidic components identified in the mainstream tobacco smoke.
| Retention Time/min | CAS Number of the TMS Compound | Compound | Formula | Quantitative Ion | Qualitative Ion | k a | Chemical Group b |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11.80 | 64-18-6 | Formic Acid | CH2O2 | 103 | 75 | 3.653 | 1 |
| 14.01 | 18147-36-9 | Acetic Acid | C2H4O2 | 117 | 75 | 3.078 | 1 |
| 17.05 | 13688-55-6 | Acrylic Acid | C3H4O2 | 129 | 75 | 0.03578 | 2 |
| 17.47 | 16844-98-7 | Propionic Acid | C3H6O2 | 131 | 75 | 2.541 | 1 |
| 21.17 | 16883-61-7 | 2-methylpropionic Acid | C4H8O2 | 145 | 117 | 1.998 | 3 |
| 22.88 | 55557-14-7 | 2-methylbutyric Acid | C5H10O2 | 159 | 117 | 0.03578 | 3 |
| 23.31 | 86254-80-0 | Crotonic Acid/2-butenoic Acid | C4H6O2 | 143 | 99 | 0.03578 | 2 |
| 23.39 | 55557-13-6 | Isovaleric Acid | C5H10O2 | 159 | 117 | 2.092 | 3 |
| 25.39 | 26429-16-3 | Valeric Acid | C5H10O2 | 159 | 177 | 1.952 | 2 |
| 26.78 | 55517-33-4 | 2-methyl-2-ene-butyric Acid | C5H8O2 | 157 | 83 | 1.501 | 8 |
| 27.68 | 88239-45-6 | 2-pentenoic Acid | C5H8O2 | 157 | 113 | 2.256 | 2 |
| 27.77 | 98983-20-1 | 3-methylpentanoic Acid | C6H12O2 | 173 | 117 | 1.744 | 3 |
| 28.09 | 35707 c | 4-methylpentanoic Acid | C6H12O2 | 173 | 131 | 1.729 | 3 |
| 28.68 | 1529-17-5 | Phenol | C6H6O | 166 | 151 | 1.737 | 4 |
| 28.80 | 17596-96-2 | Lactic Acid | C3H6O3 | 147 | 117 | 0.03578 | 5 |
| 29.49 | 14246-15-2 | Caproic Acid | C6H12O2 | 173 | 117 | 1.815 | 1 |
| 29.53 | 33581-77-0 | Glycolic Acid | C2H4O3 | 147 | 177 | 4.776 | 5 |
| 30.01 | 55887-51-9 | Pyruvic Acid | C3H4O3 | 147 | 217 | 3.671 | 5 |
| 31.63 | 55133-93-2 | 2-hydroxybutyric Acid | C4H8O3 | 131 | 147 | 2.522 | 5 |
| 31.91 | N/A | Levulinic Acid | C5H8O3 | 173 | 145 | 0.8642 | 5 |
| 32.00 | 1009-02-5 | o-cresol | C7H8O | 165 | 180 | 2.604 | 4 |
| 32.08 | 55887-53-1 | 2-furancarboxylic Acid | C5H4O3 | 125 | 169 | 2.612 | 6 |
| 32.41 | 55162-32-8 | 3-hydroxypropionic Acid | C3H6O3 | 147 | 219 | 0.03578 | 5 |
| 32.86 | 17902-32-8 | p-cresol | C7H8O | 165 | 180 | 4.457 | 4 |
| 32.95 | N/A | 3-hydroxy-butyric Acid | C4H8O3 | 147 | 191 | 3.552 | 5 |
| 34.94 | N/A | Furanacetic Acid | C6H6O3 | 198 | 154 | 0.03578 | 6 |
| 35.67 | N/A | 2-hydroxymethyl-butyric Acid | C5H10O3 | 147 | 247 | 0.03578 | 5 |
| 36.70 | 2078-12-8 | Benzoic Acid | C7H6O2 | 179 | 135 | 2.621 | 7 |
| 38.49 | N/A | Phenylacetic Acid | C8H8O2 | 164 | 193 | 0.03578 | 7 |
| 39.17 | 88964 c | 3-methyl-2-furancarboxylic Acid | C6H6O3 | 139 | 198 | 0.03578 | 6 |
| 39.23 | 5075-52-5 | Catechol | C6H6O2 | 254 | 239 | 1.763 | 4 |
| 39.56 | 38191-87-6 | Glyceric Acid | C3H6O4 | 189 | 292 | 0.3 | 8 |
| 42.31 | 2117-24-0 | Quinol/Resorcinol | C6H6O2 | 239 | 254 | 3.44 | 4 |
| 43.79 | 34084 c | 2-isopropyl-3-carbonyl-butyric Acid | C7H12O3 | 273 | 183 | 0.03578 | 8 |
| 45.12 | 65143-63-7 | Malic Acid | C4H6O5 | 147 | 233 | 0.9153 | 5 |
| 46.95 | 17864-23-2 | 1,2,3-glycinol | C6H6O3 | 239 | 342 | 3.895 | 4 |
| 47.41 | 38191-88-7 | Threonic Acid | C4H8O5 | 147 | 292 | 0.03578 | 5 |
| 47.83 | 3782-84-1 | m-hydroxy-benzoic Acid | C7H6O3 | 267 | 282 | 2.109 | 7 |
| 53.70 | N/A | Vanillic Acid | C8H8O4 | 297 | 312 | 0.9181 | 7 |
| 56.30 | 18603-17-3 | Tetradecanoic Acid/Myristic Acid | C14H28O2 | 285 | 285 | 0.4972 | 1 |
| 61.53 | 55520-89-3 | Palmitic Acid | C16H32O2 | 313 | 145 | 0.163 | 1 |
| 65.59 | 56259-07-5 | Linoleic Acid | C18H32O2 | 337 | 262 | 0.03578 | 2 |
| 65.74 | 97844-13-8 | Linolenic Acid | C18H30O2 | 335 | 108 | 0.03429 | 2 |
| 65.97 | 96851-47-7 | Oleic Acid | C18H34O2 | 339 | 117 | 0.06894 | 2 |
| 66.32 | 18748-91-9 | Octadecanoic Acid | C18H36O2 | 341 | 117 | 0.1029 | 1 |
| 70.72 | 55530-70-6 | Stearic Acid | C20H40O2 | 369 | 117 | 0.03 | 1 |
a. Slope of the calibration curve y = k*x, whereas y and x corresponding to the peak area and concentration of the compound, respectively. Correlation coefficients R2 for all the calibration curves are > 0.99. b. Chemical class: 1, carboxylate acid with straight alkyl chain; 2, unsaturated acid; 3, carboxylate acid with branched alkyl chain; 4, phenols; 5, acid with a hydroxyl/carbonyl substitution; 6, alkyl chain of the acid bearing a furan ring; 7, alkyl chain of the acid bearing a benzene substitution; 8, acid with more than one substituent group. c. CAS No. was not available, therefore NIST library ID was provided.
Table 3.
Differences in the grouped acids between cigarettes samples (L- vs. M-types).
| Chemical Group | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |
| Particulate Phase | * | *** | *** | ** | ||||
| Gaseous Phase | * | ** | ||||||
Note: * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Lu, X.; Zhang, H.; Cao, Y.; Pang, Y.; Zhou, G.; Huang, H.; Li, J.; Jiang, J.; Yang, Q. A Comprehensive Study on the Acidic Compounds in Gas and Particle Phases of Mainstream Cigarette Smoke. Processes 2023, 11, 1694. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11061694
AMA Style
Lu X, Zhang H, Cao Y, Pang Y, Zhou G, Huang H, Li J, Jiang J, Yang Q. A Comprehensive Study on the Acidic Compounds in Gas and Particle Phases of Mainstream Cigarette Smoke. Processes. 2023; 11(6):1694. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11061694
Chicago/Turabian StyleLu, Xinbo, Hongfei Zhang, Yifeng Cao, Yongqiang Pang, Guojun Zhou, Hua Huang, Jing Li, Jian Jiang, and Qiwei Yang. 2023. "A Comprehensive Study on the Acidic Compounds in Gas and Particle Phases of Mainstream Cigarette Smoke" Processes 11, no. 6: 1694. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11061694
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
