Comparison of the impact of the Tobacco Heating System 2.2 and a cigarette on indoor air quality.

The impact of the Tobacco Heating System 2.2 (THS 2.2) on indoor air quality was evaluated in an environmentally controlled room using ventilation conditions recommended for simulating "Office", "Residential" and "Hospitality" environments and was compared with smoking a lit-end cigarette (Marlboro Gold) under identical experimental conditions. The concentrations of eighteen indoor air constituents (respirable suspended particles (RSP) < 2.5 µm in diameter), ultraviolet particulate matter (UVPM), fluorescent particulate matter (FPM), solanesol, 3-ethenylpyridine, nicotine, 1,3-butadiene, acrylonitrile, benzene, isoprene, toluene, acetaldehyde, acrolein, crotonaldehyde, formaldehyde, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and combined oxides of nitrogen) were measured. In simulations evaluating THS 2.2, the concentrations of most studied analytes did not exceed the background concentrations determined when non-smoking panelists were present in the environmentally controlled room under equivalent conditions. Only acetaldehyde and nicotine concentrations were increased above background concentrations in the "Office" (3.65 and 1.10 µg/m(3)), "Residential" (5.09 and 1.81 µg/m(3)) and "Hospitality" (1.40 and 0.66 µg/m(3)) simulations, respectively. Smoking Marlboro Gold resulted in greater increases in the concentrations of acetaldehyde (58.8, 83.8 and 33.1 µg/m(3)) and nicotine (34.7, 29.1 and 34.6 µg/m(3)) as well as all other measured indoor air constituents in the "Office", "Residential" and "Hospitality" simulations, respectively.

Validation of selected analytical methods using accuracy profiles to assess the impact of a Tobacco Heating System on indoor air quality.

Studies in environmentally controlled rooms have been used over the years to assess the impact of environmental tobacco smoke on indoor air quality. As new tobacco products are developed, it is important to determine their impact on air quality when used indoors. Before such an assessment can take place it is essential that the analytical methods used to assess indoor air quality are validated and shown to be fit for their intended purpose. Consequently, for this assessment, an environmentally controlled room was built and seven analytical methods, representing eighteen analytes, were validated. The validations were carried out with smoking machines using a matrix-based approach applying the accuracy profile procedure. The performances of the methods were compared for all three matrices under investigation: background air samples, the environmental aerosol of Tobacco Heating System THS 2.2, a heat-not-burn tobacco product developed by Philip Morris International, and the environmental tobacco smoke of a cigarette. The environmental aerosol generated by the THS 2.2 device did not have any appreciable impact on the performances of the methods. The comparison between the background and THS 2.2 environmental aerosol samples generated by smoking machines showed that only five compounds were higher when THS 2.2 was used in the environmentally controlled room. Regarding environmental tobacco smoke from cigarettes, the yields of all analytes were clearly above those obtained with the other two air sample types.