4.7 Article

Determination of tobacco smoking influence on volatile organic compounds constituent by indoor tobacco smoking simulation experiment

Journal

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
Volume 37, Issue 24, Pages 3365-3374

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S1352-2310(03)00354-6

Keywords

environmental tobacco smoke; volatile organic compounds; ETS marker; 2,5-dimethylfuran

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Tobacco smoking simulation experiment was conducted in a test room under different conditions such as cigarette brands, smoking number, and post-smoke decay in forced ventilation or in closed indoor environments. Thirty-seven chemical species were targeted and monitored, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) markers. The results indicate that benzene, d-limonene, styrene, m-ethyltoluene and 1,2,4/1,3,5-trimethylbenzene are correlated well with ETS markers, but toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene are not evidently correlated with ETS markers because there are some potential indoor sources of these compounds. 2,5-dimethylfuran is considered to be a better ETS market due to the relative stability in different cigarette brands and a good relationship with other ETS markers. The VOCs concentrations emitted by tobacco smoking were linearly associated with the number of cigarettes consumed, and different behaviors were observed in closed indoor environment, of which ETS markers, d-limonene, styrene, trimethylbenzene, etc. decayed fast, whereas benzene, toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene, etc. decayed slowly and even increased in primary periods of the decay; hence ETS exposure in closed environments is believed to be more dangerous. VOCs concentrations and the relative percentage constituent of ETS markers of different brand cigarettes emissions vary largely, but the relative percentage constituent of ETS markers for the same brand cigarette emissions is similar. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available