A simple method for the parallel quantification of nicotine and major solvent components in electronic cigarette liquids and vaped aerosols

被引:18
作者
Dai, Jun [1 ]
Kim, Ki-Hyun [1 ]
Szulejko, Jan E. [1 ]
Jo, Sang-Hee [1 ]
机构
[1] Hanyang Univ, Dept Civil & Environm Engn, 222 Wangsimni Ro, Seoul 133791, South Korea
基金
新加坡国家研究基金会;
关键词
Propylene glycol; Vegetable glycerin; Nicotine; Liquid and aerosol samples; Electronic cigarette; CARBONYL-COMPOUNDS; INTERNAL STANDARD; SMOKE; VISCOSITY; GLYCEROL; VAPOR;
D O I
10.1016/j.microc.2017.02.029
中图分类号
O65 [分析化学];
学科分类号
070302 ; 081704 ;
摘要
An analytical method was developed for the parallel quantitation of nicotine (Nic) and two key solvents (propylene glycol (PG) and vegetable glycerin (VG)) in e-cigarette (EC) liquids before vaping and from aerosols after vaping. For analysis of the EC refill solutions, the samples were diluted by a factor of about 100 in methanol. The aerosol samples generated by a modified international puffing protocol were initially collected on Cambridge filter pads and extracted with methanol. Both types of samples were analyzed by a gas chromatography-flame ionization detector (GC-FID) together with the mass change tracking (MCT) procedure introduced in our earlier study. The recovery of all three target components (Nic/PG/VG) in both EC liquid and aerosol samples was assessed after spiking Nic at four different concentrations (2, 5,10, and 20 mg g(-1)) in the e-solutions (prepared in the laboratory at three different PG:VG mass ratios of 10:0, 5:5, and 0:10). The method recoveries of Nic, PG, and VG in the e-liquid samples were 96.0 +/- 1.0, 96.0 +/- 1.2, and 101.4 +/- 6.9%, respectively, while those in the aerosol samples were slightly lower at 94.7 +/- 5.6, 85.5 +/- 3.0, and 91.4 +/- 15.7%, respectively. The amounts of VG and Nic in the e-liquid had a significant influence on the emission factors of PG, VG, and Nic. The detection limit values (ng) were 036 (Nic), 0.72 (PG), and 8.15 (VG) for the liquid samples and 0.51 (Nic), 0.96 (PG), and 3.99 (VG) for the aerosol samples. Overall, this method was reliable enough to determine each target in both liquid and aerosol samples. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:237 / 245
页数:9
相关论文
共 34 条
[1]   Comparison of external and internal standard methods in pesticide residue determinations [J].
Anagnostopoulos, C ;
Miliadis, GE ;
Aplada-Sarlis, P ;
Ziogas, BN .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, 2006, 86 (1-2) :77-82
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2012, ATT EUR TOB
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2012, STANDARD OPERATING P
[4]   Review on quantitation methods for hazardous pollutants released by e-cigarette (EC) smoking [J].
Bansal, Vasudha ;
Kim, Ki-Hyun .
TRAC-TRENDS IN ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, 2016, 78 :120-133
[5]   Electronic Cigarettes A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association [J].
Bhatnagar, Aruni ;
Whitsel, Laurie P. ;
Ribisl, Kurt M. ;
Bullen, Chris ;
Chaloupka, Frank ;
Piano, Mariann R. ;
Robertson, Rose Marie ;
McAuley, Timothy ;
Goff, David ;
Benowitz, Neal .
CIRCULATION, 2014, 130 (16) :1418-1436
[6]   Review of fast pyrolysis of biomass and product upgrading [J].
Bridgwater, A. V. .
BIOMASS & BIOENERGY, 2012, 38 :68-94
[7]   First-versus second-generation electronic cigarettes: predictors of choice and effects on urge to smoke and withdrawal symptoms [J].
Dawkins, Lynne ;
Kimber, Catherine ;
Puwanesarasa, Yasothani ;
Soar, Kirstie .
ADDICTION, 2015, 110 (04) :669-677
[8]   'Vaping' profiles and preferences: an online survey of electronic cigarette users [J].
Dawkins, Lynne ;
Turner, John ;
Roberts, Amanda ;
Soar, Kirstie .
ADDICTION, 2013, 108 (06) :1115-1125
[9]   INTERNAL STANDARD VERSUS EXTERNAL STANDARD CALIBRATION: AN UNCERTAINTY CASE STUDY OF A LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY ANALYSIS [J].
de Oliveira, Elcio Cruz ;
Muller, Edson I. ;
Abad, Fernanda ;
Dallarosa, Juliana ;
Adriano, Cristine .
QUIMICA NOVA, 2010, 33 (04) :984-987
[10]   Doses of nicotine and lung carcinogens delivered to cigarette smokers [J].
Djordjevic, MV ;
Stellman, SD ;
Zang, E .
JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2000, 92 (02) :106-111