Evaluation of the Tobacco Heating System 2.2. Part 2: Chemical composition, genotoxicity, cytotoxicity, and physical properties of the aerosol

The chemical composition, in vitro genotoxicity, and cytotoxicity of the mainstream aerosol from the Tobacco Heating System 2.2 (THS2.2) were compared with those of the mainstream smoke from the 3R4F reference cigarette. In contrast to the 3R4F, the tobacco plug in the THS2.2 is not burnt. The low o...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jean-Pierre Schaller, Daniela Keller, Laurent Poget, Pascal Pratte, Etienne Kaelin, Damian McHugh, Gianluca Cudazzo, Daniel Smart, Anthony R. Tricker, Lydia Gautier, Michel Yerly, Roger Reis Pires, Soazig Le Bouhellec, David Ghosh, Iris Hofer, Eva Garcia, Patrick Vanscheeuwijck, Serge Maeder
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Amaltea Medical Publishing House 2018-12-01
Series:Romanian Medical Journal
Subjects:
Online Access: https://revistemedicale.amaltea.ro/Romanian_MEDICAL_Journal/Revista_MEDICALA_ROMANA-2018-Nr.4/RMJ_2018_4_Art-16.pdf
id doaj-bf50851626a94b46922b5ba57ff23067
record_format Article
spelling doaj-bf50851626a94b46922b5ba57ff230672021-09-02T17:28:38ZengAmaltea Medical Publishing HouseRomanian Medical Journal1220-54782069-606X2018-12-01654Evaluation of the Tobacco Heating System 2.2. Part 2: Chemical composition, genotoxicity, cytotoxicity, and physical properties of the aerosolJean-Pierre SchallerDaniela KellerLaurent PogetPascal PratteEtienne KaelinDamian McHughGianluca CudazzoDaniel SmartAnthony R. TrickerLydia GautierMichel YerlyRoger Reis PiresSoazig Le BouhellecDavid GhoshIris HoferEva GarciaPatrick VanscheeuwijckSerge MaederThe chemical composition, in vitro genotoxicity, and cytotoxicity of the mainstream aerosol from the Tobacco Heating System 2.2 (THS2.2) were compared with those of the mainstream smoke from the 3R4F reference cigarette. In contrast to the 3R4F, the tobacco plug in the THS2.2 is not burnt. The low operating temperature of THS2.2 caused distinct shifts in the aerosol composition compared with 3R4F. This resulted in a reduction of more than 90% for the majority of the analyzed harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs), while the mass median aerodynamic diameter of the aerosol remained similar. A reduction of about 90% was also observed when comparing the cytotoxicity determined by the neutral red uptake assay and the mutagenic potency in the mouse lymphoma assay. The THS2.2 aerosol was not mutagenic in the Ames assay. The chemical composition of the THS2.2 aerosol was also evaluated under extreme climatic and puffing conditions. When generating the THS2.2 aerosol under “desert” or “tropical” conditions, the generation of HPHCs was not significantly modified. When using puffing regimens that were more intense than the standard Health Canada Intense (HCI) machinesmoking conditions, the HPHC yields remained lower than when smoking the 3R4F reference cigarette with the HCI regimen. https://revistemedicale.amaltea.ro/Romanian_MEDICAL_Journal/Revista_MEDICALA_ROMANA-2018-Nr.4/RMJ_2018_4_Art-16.pdf Tobacco heating systemHeat-not-burnModified risk tobacco productHarmful and potentially harmfulconstituentsHPHCAerosol chemistryMutagenicityCytotoxicity
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Jean-Pierre Schaller
Daniela Keller
Laurent Poget
Pascal Pratte
Etienne Kaelin
Damian McHugh
Gianluca Cudazzo
Daniel Smart
Anthony R. Tricker
Lydia Gautier
Michel Yerly
Roger Reis Pires
Soazig Le Bouhellec
David Ghosh
Iris Hofer
Eva Garcia
Patrick Vanscheeuwijck
Serge Maeder
spellingShingle Jean-Pierre Schaller
Daniela Keller
Laurent Poget
Pascal Pratte
Etienne Kaelin
Damian McHugh
Gianluca Cudazzo
Daniel Smart
Anthony R. Tricker
Lydia Gautier
Michel Yerly
Roger Reis Pires
Soazig Le Bouhellec
David Ghosh
Iris Hofer
Eva Garcia
Patrick Vanscheeuwijck
Serge Maeder
Evaluation of the Tobacco Heating System 2.2. Part 2: Chemical composition, genotoxicity, cytotoxicity, and physical properties of the aerosol
Romanian Medical Journal
Tobacco heating system
Heat-not-burn
Modified risk tobacco product
Harmful and potentially harmful
constituents
HPHC
Aerosol chemistry
Mutagenicity
Cytotoxicity
author_facet Jean-Pierre Schaller
Daniela Keller
Laurent Poget
Pascal Pratte
Etienne Kaelin
Damian McHugh
Gianluca Cudazzo
Daniel Smart
Anthony R. Tricker
Lydia Gautier
Michel Yerly
Roger Reis Pires
Soazig Le Bouhellec
David Ghosh
Iris Hofer
Eva Garcia
Patrick Vanscheeuwijck
Serge Maeder
author_sort Jean-Pierre Schaller
title Evaluation of the Tobacco Heating System 2.2. Part 2: Chemical composition, genotoxicity, cytotoxicity, and physical properties of the aerosol
title_short Evaluation of the Tobacco Heating System 2.2. Part 2: Chemical composition, genotoxicity, cytotoxicity, and physical properties of the aerosol
title_full Evaluation of the Tobacco Heating System 2.2. Part 2: Chemical composition, genotoxicity, cytotoxicity, and physical properties of the aerosol
title_fullStr Evaluation of the Tobacco Heating System 2.2. Part 2: Chemical composition, genotoxicity, cytotoxicity, and physical properties of the aerosol
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of the Tobacco Heating System 2.2. Part 2: Chemical composition, genotoxicity, cytotoxicity, and physical properties of the aerosol
title_sort evaluation of the tobacco heating system 2.2. part 2: chemical composition, genotoxicity, cytotoxicity, and physical properties of the aerosol
publisher Amaltea Medical Publishing House
series Romanian Medical Journal
issn 1220-5478
2069-606X
publishDate 2018-12-01
description The chemical composition, in vitro genotoxicity, and cytotoxicity of the mainstream aerosol from the Tobacco Heating System 2.2 (THS2.2) were compared with those of the mainstream smoke from the 3R4F reference cigarette. In contrast to the 3R4F, the tobacco plug in the THS2.2 is not burnt. The low operating temperature of THS2.2 caused distinct shifts in the aerosol composition compared with 3R4F. This resulted in a reduction of more than 90% for the majority of the analyzed harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs), while the mass median aerodynamic diameter of the aerosol remained similar. A reduction of about 90% was also observed when comparing the cytotoxicity determined by the neutral red uptake assay and the mutagenic potency in the mouse lymphoma assay. The THS2.2 aerosol was not mutagenic in the Ames assay. The chemical composition of the THS2.2 aerosol was also evaluated under extreme climatic and puffing conditions. When generating the THS2.2 aerosol under “desert” or “tropical” conditions, the generation of HPHCs was not significantly modified. When using puffing regimens that were more intense than the standard Health Canada Intense (HCI) machinesmoking conditions, the HPHC yields remained lower than when smoking the 3R4F reference cigarette with the HCI regimen.
topic Tobacco heating system
Heat-not-burn
Modified risk tobacco product
Harmful and potentially harmful
constituents
HPHC
Aerosol chemistry
Mutagenicity
Cytotoxicity
url https://revistemedicale.amaltea.ro/Romanian_MEDICAL_Journal/Revista_MEDICALA_ROMANA-2018-Nr.4/RMJ_2018_4_Art-16.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT jeanpierreschaller evaluationofthetobaccoheatingsystem22part2chemicalcompositiongenotoxicitycytotoxicityandphysicalpropertiesoftheaerosol
AT danielakeller evaluationofthetobaccoheatingsystem22part2chemicalcompositiongenotoxicitycytotoxicityandphysicalpropertiesoftheaerosol
AT laurentpoget evaluationofthetobaccoheatingsystem22part2chemicalcompositiongenotoxicitycytotoxicityandphysicalpropertiesoftheaerosol
AT pascalpratte evaluationofthetobaccoheatingsystem22part2chemicalcompositiongenotoxicitycytotoxicityandphysicalpropertiesoftheaerosol
AT etiennekaelin evaluationofthetobaccoheatingsystem22part2chemicalcompositiongenotoxicitycytotoxicityandphysicalpropertiesoftheaerosol
AT damianmchugh evaluationofthetobaccoheatingsystem22part2chemicalcompositiongenotoxicitycytotoxicityandphysicalpropertiesoftheaerosol
AT gianlucacudazzo evaluationofthetobaccoheatingsystem22part2chemicalcompositiongenotoxicitycytotoxicityandphysicalpropertiesoftheaerosol
AT danielsmart evaluationofthetobaccoheatingsystem22part2chemicalcompositiongenotoxicitycytotoxicityandphysicalpropertiesoftheaerosol
AT anthonyrtricker evaluationofthetobaccoheatingsystem22part2chemicalcompositiongenotoxicitycytotoxicityandphysicalpropertiesoftheaerosol
AT lydiagautier evaluationofthetobaccoheatingsystem22part2chemicalcompositiongenotoxicitycytotoxicityandphysicalpropertiesoftheaerosol
AT michelyerly evaluationofthetobaccoheatingsystem22part2chemicalcompositiongenotoxicitycytotoxicityandphysicalpropertiesoftheaerosol
AT rogerreispires evaluationofthetobaccoheatingsystem22part2chemicalcompositiongenotoxicitycytotoxicityandphysicalpropertiesoftheaerosol
AT soaziglebouhellec evaluationofthetobaccoheatingsystem22part2chemicalcompositiongenotoxicitycytotoxicityandphysicalpropertiesoftheaerosol
AT davidghosh evaluationofthetobaccoheatingsystem22part2chemicalcompositiongenotoxicitycytotoxicityandphysicalpropertiesoftheaerosol
AT irishofer evaluationofthetobaccoheatingsystem22part2chemicalcompositiongenotoxicitycytotoxicityandphysicalpropertiesoftheaerosol
AT evagarcia evaluationofthetobaccoheatingsystem22part2chemicalcompositiongenotoxicitycytotoxicityandphysicalpropertiesoftheaerosol
AT patrickvanscheeuwijck evaluationofthetobaccoheatingsystem22part2chemicalcompositiongenotoxicitycytotoxicityandphysicalpropertiesoftheaerosol
AT sergemaeder evaluationofthetobaccoheatingsystem22part2chemicalcompositiongenotoxicitycytotoxicityandphysicalpropertiesoftheaerosol
_version_ 1721172232230666240