Desorption efficiency and holding capacity of acid-treated filters for nicotine sampling in vape shops.

IF 1.8 4区医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Annals Of Work Exposures and Health Pub Date : 2024-10-25 DOI:10.1093/annweh/wxae080

Toluwanimi M Oni, Sanjeewa Gamagedara, Evan L Floyd

{"title":"Desorption efficiency and holding capacity of acid-treated filters for nicotine sampling in vape shops.","authors":"Toluwanimi M Oni, Sanjeewa Gamagedara, Evan L Floyd","doi":"10.1093/annweh/wxae080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Efficient sampling materials are essential for assessing nicotine levels in vape shops and other settings where nicotine exposures may exist. Two different treatments of Whatman glass fiber type A (GF/A) filters (sodium bisulfate treated and citric acid treated) were evaluated for nicotine capture, desorption efficiency, and holding capacity using Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS). The Filters were treated with 0.8 mL of 0.1 M sodium bisulfate or citric acid solution and oven-dried (80 °C) for 30 min. Nicotine was desorbed off the filters using a modified analytical method. The average nicotine desorption efficiency for sodium bisulfate-treated GF/A filters (98.4%) was significantly higher than that of citric acid-treated GF/A filters (60.9%) over a range of 1-100 µg nicotine. Sodium bisulfate-treated and citric acid-treated GF/A filters experienced a 10% nicotine breakthrough after being dosed with about 550 and 2,750 µg of nicotine, respectively compared to 75 µg for untreated GF/A filters. Citric acid-treated GF/A filters had a much greater nicotine-holding capacity, but nicotine desorption from citric acid-treated GF/A filters was below the recommended criteria. Therefore, we recommend that sodium bisulfate-treated GF/A filters are employed for sample of nicotine with the GC-MS method.</p>","PeriodicalId":8362,"journal":{"name":"Annals Of Work Exposures and Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals Of Work Exposures and Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxae080","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Efficient sampling materials are essential for assessing nicotine levels in vape shops and other settings where nicotine exposures may exist. Two different treatments of Whatman glass fiber type A (GF/A) filters (sodium bisulfate treated and citric acid treated) were evaluated for nicotine capture, desorption efficiency, and holding capacity using Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS). The Filters were treated with 0.8 mL of 0.1 M sodium bisulfate or citric acid solution and oven-dried (80 °C) for 30 min. Nicotine was desorbed off the filters using a modified analytical method. The average nicotine desorption efficiency for sodium bisulfate-treated GF/A filters (98.4%) was significantly higher than that of citric acid-treated GF/A filters (60.9%) over a range of 1-100 µg nicotine. Sodium bisulfate-treated and citric acid-treated GF/A filters experienced a 10% nicotine breakthrough after being dosed with about 550 and 2,750 µg of nicotine, respectively compared to 75 µg for untreated GF/A filters. Citric acid-treated GF/A filters had a much greater nicotine-holding capacity, but nicotine desorption from citric acid-treated GF/A filters was below the recommended criteria. Therefore, we recommend that sodium bisulfate-treated GF/A filters are employed for sample of nicotine with the GC-MS method.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

用于 Vape 商店尼古丁采样的酸处理过滤器的解吸效率和保持能力。

高效的取样材料对于评估吸食店和其他可能存在尼古丁暴露的环境中的尼古丁含量至关重要。我们使用气相色谱-质谱法（GC-MS）对 Whatman A 型玻璃纤维（GF/A）过滤器的两种不同处理方法（硫酸氢钠处理法和柠檬酸处理法）进行了尼古丁捕获、解吸效率和保持能力的评估。滤纸经 0.8 mL 0.1 M 硫酸氢钠或柠檬酸溶液处理后，在 80 °C 下烘干 30 分钟。使用改进的分析方法对过滤器上的尼古丁进行解吸。在 1-100 µg 尼古丁的范围内，硫酸氢钠处理过的 GF/A 过滤器的尼古丁平均解吸效率（98.4%）明显高于柠檬酸处理过的 GF/A 过滤器（60.9%）。经硫酸氢钠处理和柠檬酸处理的 GF/A 过滤器在分别摄入约 550 微克和 2,750 微克尼古丁后，尼古丁突破率为 10%，而未经处理的 GF/A 过滤器的尼古丁突破率仅为 75 微克。柠檬酸处理过的 GF/A 过滤器具有更大的尼古丁保持能力，但柠檬酸处理过的 GF/A 过滤器的尼古丁解吸能力低于推荐标准。因此，我们建议使用硫酸氢钠处理过的 GF/A 过滤器，用气相色谱-质谱法采集尼古丁样本。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Annals Of Work Exposures and Health Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

CiteScore

4.60

自引率

19.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： About the Journal Annals of Work Exposures and Health is dedicated to presenting advances in exposure science supporting the recognition, quantification, and control of exposures at work, and epidemiological studies on their effects on human health and well-being. A key question we apply to submission is, "Is this paper going to help readers better understand, quantify, and control conditions at work that adversely or positively affect health and well-being?" We are interested in high quality scientific research addressing: the quantification of work exposures, including chemical, biological, physical, biomechanical, and psychosocial, and the elements of work organization giving rise to such exposures; the relationship between these exposures and the acute and chronic health consequences for those exposed and their families and communities; populations at special risk of work-related exposures including women, under-represented minorities, immigrants, and other vulnerable groups such as temporary, contingent and informal sector workers; the effectiveness of interventions addressing exposure and risk including production technologies, work process engineering, and personal protective systems; policies and management approaches to reduce risk and improve health and well-being among workers, their families or communities; methodologies and mechanisms that underlie the quantification and/or control of exposure and risk. There is heavy pressure on space in the journal, and the above interests mean that we do not usually publish papers that simply report local conditions without generalizable results. We are also unlikely to publish reports on human health and well-being without information on the work exposure characteristics giving rise to the effects. We particularly welcome contributions from scientists based in, or addressing conditions in, developing economies that fall within the above scope.