Determination of Volatile Carbonyl

Compounds in Cigarette Smoke by LC-DAD

2005, 62, 631636

T.L. Wang1,2, H.W. Tong1, X.Y. Yan1, L.Q. Sheng3, J. Yang1,2, S.M. Liu1,&
1

Research Center of Tobacco and Health, University of Science and Technology of China, Meiling Road 121, Anhui Province, Hefei 230052,
China; E-Mail: liusm@ustc.edu.cn
2
Department of Chemistry, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China
3
Department of Chemistry, Fuyang Normal College, Fuyang 236041, China

Received: 4 August 2005 / Revised: 20 September 2005 / Accepted: 11 October 2005

Online publication: 5 December 2005

Abstract
An effective and rapid method, use of a 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH)-treated Cambridge filter and high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with diode-array detection
(DAD), has been used for determination of low-molecular-mass carbonyl compounds in cigarette smoke. Different chromatographic mobile phases were investigated and the optimized
mobile phase was a gradient prepared from wateracetonitriletetrahydrofuran (THF)isopropanol, 59:30:10:1 (v/v) (mixture A) and acetonitrilewater, 65:35 (v/v) (mixture B). Under
the optimized chromatographic conditions, the 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazones of formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde, acrolein, acetone, propionaldehyde, 2-butanone, and iso-butyraldehyde were
separated completely in an 18 min chromatographic run. The concentration of acid, which has
large effect on carbonyl-DNPH derivatization, was investigated by adding different volumes of
perchloric acid. The DNPH-treated Cambridge filter was convenient and effective compared
with conventional methods used to collect and derivatize the carbonyl compounds present in
cigarette smoke. Validation of the method showed it to be effective, precise, accurate, and
linear over the range of concentrations of analyzed.

Keywords
Column liquid chromatography
Carbonyl compounds
2,4-Dinitrophenylhydrazine
Cigarette smoke

Introduction
Many compounds have been isolated and
identied in cigarette smoke by use of
advanced analytical instrumentation. In
recent decades the presence of many toxic
chemicals, for example polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, N-nitrosamines [1],
and volatile aldehydes [2], has been
identied in cigarette smoke. In contrast
with benzo[a]pyrene and N-nitrosonorShort Communication
DOI: 10.1365/s10337-005-0675-8
0009-5893/05/12

nicotine, which require enzyme activation

to be toxic, reactive aldehydes such as
formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in smoke
are deposited directly in the blood after
inhalation, and consequently cause biological complications [3]. For example,
repeated inhalation of formaldehyde may
induce squamous cell carcinoma in the
nasal cavity of rats. Acetaldehyde can
also induce nasal carcinomas in experimental animals. Carbonyl compounds

are primary constituents of the vapor

phase of cigarette smoke. They arise
mainly from direct volatilization and
pyrolysis of cigarette thread during
combustion. Because the low-molecularmass carbonyl compounds stimulate the
sense organs and respiration system of
humans to dierent extents, they severely
aect public health. Characterization and
monitoring of these low-molecular-mass
carbonyl compounds is important in
reducing the harmful components in cigarettes and increasing smoking safety.
Some of the highly volatile or reactive
carbonyl compounds in cigarette smoke are
hard to analyze directly, and have featured
in few reports. Analysis of carbonyl compounds has always involved dierent
methods of derivatization after collection of
the smoke. Among the derivatization
reagents used, 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine
(DNPH) furnishes very stable derivatives
[47] and is widely applied. For determination of carbonyl-DNPH derivatives, several
analytical methods including capillary
electrophoresis (CE) [8], gas chromatography (GC) [911], and high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) [1216] have
been proposed in the literature. As far as we
are aware, however, there is no report of the
use of HPLC assay for complete separation
and accurate quantication of volatile carbonyl compounds in cigarette smoke. In
particular, isomeric C3 and C4 carbonylDNPH compounds, for example the
derivatives of acetone, propionaldehyde,
butanone, and butyraldehyde all of which
have similar retention times, were never
simultaneously separated.

Chromatographia 2005, 62, December (No. 11/12)

2005 Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn/GWV Fachverlage GmbH

631

In 1999 Sakuragawa et al. reported

use of a cartridge impregnated with
DNPH in combination with LCMS for
determination of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and acetone in indoor
air [12]. After collection of the carbonyl
compounds on cartridges the DNPH
derivatives were separated by LC and
identied by use of the mass detector.
The presence of propionaldehyde-DNPH
signicantly aected the accurate quantication of acetone, however, because
they had the same molecular mass and
almost the same retention time when
acetonitrilewater, 60:40 (v/v) was used as
mobile phase. Grosjean et al. [13] developed a new LCUVMS method for
analysis of carbonyl compounds as their
DNPH derivatives. The method involved
LC separation with an acetonitrilewater
gradient, and simultaneous and independent detection by ultraviolet spectroscopy
(DAD) and atmospheric pressure negative CIMS. Unfortunately, acroleinDNPH and acetone-DNPH could not be
separated, and were eluted as one peak.
Dai et al. [14] used methanolwater,
60:40 (v/v), as mobile phase for separation of ten carbonyl-DNPH derivatives.
Although all the compounds were observed within a 30-min window, baseline
resolution of acrolein-DNPH and
acetone-DNPH, and of butyraldehydeDNPH and butanone-DNPH, were not
satisfactory and propionaldehyde-DNPH
was not detected. Yu et al. [15] described
two systems for separation of eleven
carbonyl-DNPH
derivatives.
When
methanolwater was used, all the derivatives were separated except acroleinDNPH and propionaldehyde-DNPH.
Even when they used methanolacetonitrilewater, poor baseline resolution was
observed between acetone-DNPH and
propionaldehyde-DNPH and the analysis
time was as long as 45 min. Potter et al.
evaluated three kinds of columnMicra
NPS TAS, Micra NPS ODS1, and
LiChroSpher RP-18with dierent
gradient programs [16]. Although four
acetonitrilewater gradient elution programs were applied, separation of the
acetone, acrolein, and propionaldehyde
derivatives was not very good.
As discussed above, eective separation and determination of carbonyl
compounds are very important. In the
work discussed in this paper we used a
DNPH-treated lter for smoke collection
and HPLCDAD to determine the carbonyl compounds in cigarette smoke. A

632

new mobile phase prepared by mixing

wateracetonitriletetrahydrofuran (THF)
iso-propanol, 59:30:10:1 (v/v) (mixture A)
and acetonitrilewater, 65:35 (v/v) (mixture B) was used for the separation and
the results were satisfactory. All seven
carbonyl compound derivatives were
successfully separated and baseline resolution was achieved for the isomeric C3
(acetone, propionaldehyde) and C4
(2-butanone, iso-butyraldehyde) compounds. The eect of acid concentration
on DNPH derivatization of the carbonyl
compounds was also investigated. We
found that, because of steric hindrance,
acid concentrations aect dierent carbonyl compounds to dierent extents.
The smoke-collection and chromatographic conditions were optimized during
the experiments. The advantages of the
proposed method over other methods
are: baseline resolution of all the seven
compounds, a rapid chromatographic
run, very simple sample preparation, and
successful application for robust determination of carbonyl compounds in
cigarette smoke samples.

Experimental
Reagents and Materials
Acetonitrile, tetrahydrofuran (THF),
and iso-propanol were HPLC grade
from Tedia (USA). 2,4-Dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH) and 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazones of formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde, acetone, acrolein, propionaldehyde, 2-butanone, and iso-butyraldehyde of 99.99% purity were
purchased from Dikma (USA). All mobile phases (HPLC-grade solvents) were
ltered through a membrane (0.45 lm
pore size) and degassed with an Agilent
in-line degasser apparatus. Other chemicals and reagents (analytical grade) were
obtained from Shanghai No. 3 Chemical
Reagents Company (China).
The 92 mm diameter Cambridge
lters were from Phipps and Bird
(Richmond, VA, USA). Cigarette samples were supplied by Technology Center
of ChongQing Tobacco Industrial
Company, China.

HPLC Equipment
and Conditions
Chromatography was performed with
Agilent Technologies (Palo Alto, CA,

USA) series 1100 equipment including a

quaternary gradient pump (GP), a model
G1313A autosampler set at 10 lL, a
vacuum degasser, a thermostatted column oven held at 35 0.5
C, and a
diode-array UV detector. Automation of
the HPLCDAD system was controlled
by a HewlettPacked Vectra VE 6/350
computer system equipped with ChemStation software version A.06.03 in a
Windows 98 environment. Compounds
were separated on a 4.0 mm 250 mm
i.d., 5 lm particle size, Agilent Hypersil
ODS reversed-phase column.
The binary mobile phase gradient was
prepared from two solvent mixtures wateracetonitriletetrahydrofuran (THF)
iso-propanol, 59:30:10:1 (v/v) (mixture A)
and acetonitrilewater, 65:35 (v/v) (mixture B). The elution gradient (min/A%)
was: 0/100, 12/60, 17/40, and 20/100. The
ow rate was 1.2 mL min)1 and the
detection wavelength was 365 nm.

Filter Preparation and

Smoke Collection
A rapid and reliable approach using
DNPH-treated lters [11] was developed
for smoke collection. A solution of
DNPH was prepared from 150 mg
DNPH, 20 mL acetonitrile, and 20 lL
perchloric acid (70%, v/v). Two Cambridge lters (92 mm diameter) were then
immersed in the solution to coat them
with the DNPHacetonitrile solution.
The solvent was then evaporated in a
ventilated cabinet at room temperature
for approximately 30 min. The lters
were then ready for smoke collection. The
mass of DNPH on each lter was
approximately 75 mg. The DNPH-treated lters should be stored in a closed
container.
Two conditioned cigarettes were
smoked through two DNPH-treated lters
by means of a Borgwaldt RM20/CS rotary
smoking machine with a pu volume of
35 0.25 mL, a pu duration of
2 0.05 s, and an interval between pus
of 58 0.5 s during smoking. After
smoking, the lters remained in the holder
for approximately 3 min for complete
reaction. The two lters were then combined and extracted for 15 min with 70 mL
acetonitrile containing 2% (v/v) pyridine,
with mechanical shaking. Extracts were
ltered through a Millipore lter before
injection into the HPLC column.

Chromatographia 2005, 62, December (No. 11/12)

Short Communication

Results and Discussion

Optimization of
Chromatographic Conditions
Previous studies on the analysis of carbonyl-DNPH derivatives have generally
used acetonitrilewater or methanolwater mobile phases, and the results have
not been satisfactory. Compounds with
same number of carbon atoms had similar retention times and were dicult to
separate completely. Our primary goal
was to separate all of the seven carbonyl
compounds, so the mobile phases acetonitrilewater 35:65 (v/v) and methanol
water 60:40 (v/v)acetonitrilewater 60:40
(v/v) and 50:50 (v/v) were initially used in
our study. Resolution of the acrolein,
acetone, and propionaldehyde derivatives, and of the iso-butyraldehyde and
2-butanone derivatives, was poor, however, as reported in the literature. For this
reason we performed further work to select a new mobile phase.
It is known that slight alteration of
the amount of organic component in a
binary mobile phase can dramatically
aect the resolution. The benecial
modifying eect of tetrahydrofuran
(THF) with C18 columns has been
reported [17, 18]. Addition of a small
amount of THF to the mobile phase
was therefore investigated, because it
was expected to greatly improve the
separation eciency. The results proved
that THF not only reduced retention
times but also minimized peak tailing.
Because acetonitrile and THF were of
dierent polarity, iso-propanol was added to the mobile phase to improve the
mutual solubility of acetonitrile and
THF. The composition of the optimized
mobile phase was wateracetonitrile
tetrahydrofuran
(THF)iso-propanol,
59:30:10:1 (v/v) (mixture A). Although
use of mixture A enabled good separation of all seven carbonyl compound
derivatives, the peak shapes of 2-butanone-DNPH and iso-butyraldehydeDNPH were too wide. In these
circumstances use of a gradient can be
an ecient way of improving resolution, and a gradient was prepared from
mixture A and acetonitrilewater, 65:35
(v/v) (mixture B). The results showed
that compared with isocratic elution
gradient elution resulted in narrower
peaks and was preferable for separation
of carbonyl-DNPH compounds.

Short Communication

Fig. 1. Chromatogram obtained from a standard solution of carbonyl-DNPH derivatives. Peaks:

1 formaldehyde-DNPH, 2 acetaldehyde-DNPH, 3 acetone-DNPH , 4 acrolein-DNPH,
5 propionaldehyde-DNPH, 6 2-butanone-DNPH, 7 iso-butyraldehyde-DNPH. Column:
4.0 mm 250 mm i.d. C18, 5 lm particles. Compounds were eluted with a mobile phase gradient
prepared from wateracetonitriletetrahydrofuran (THF)iso-propanol, 59:30:10:1 (v/v) (mixture
A) and acetonitrilewater, 65:35 (v/v) (mixture B); the ow rate was 1.2 mL min)1 and the
detection wavelength 365 nm

Fig. 2. Chromatogram obtained from carbonyl-DNPH derivatives in cigarette smoke. Peaks:

1 formaldehyde-DNPH, 2 acetaldehyde-DNPH, 3 acetone-DNPH , 4 acrolein-DNPH,
5 propionaldehyde-DNPH, 6 2-butanone-DNPH, 7 iso-butyraldehyde-DNPH. HPLC conditions were as for Fig. 1

To improve separation eciency and

sensitivity, optimization of other chromatographic conditions was required.
Because the maximum absorption wavelength of the seven carbonyl-DNPH
derivatives was 365 nm, this was set as
the detection wavelength. Column temperatures between 30 and 40
C had little
eect on the separation except on retention times. We also investigated the eect
of dierent ow rates on separation eciency. Peak width and column pressure
increased with increasing ow rate but
retention times decreased. Taking all
these results into consideration a ow
rate of 1.2 mL min)1 was chosen. We
used 10 lL as the injection volume, because large injection volumes may result
in poor resolution.
With these chromatographic conditions, all seven carbonyl compound
derivatives were successfully separated

and determined, and baseline resolution

was achieved with reasonable retention
times and symmetrical peaks. Two typical
chromatograms obtained from a standard solution and from cigarette smoke
are shown in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively.

Effect of Acid Concentration

on Carbonyl-DNPH
Derivatization
It is well known that carbonyl-DNPH
derivatization is catalyzed by acid [13, 19,
20]. These literature reports refers to
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, propionaldehyde, and acetone only, however, are
not in complete agreement with each
other, and there has been no systemic
characterization of this eect. The acidcatalyzed reaction of a molecule of
DNPH with a carbonyl compound

Chromatographia 2005, 62, December (No. 11/12)

633

Table 1. Results from regression analysis of calibration plots, and LOD

Carbonyl
compound

Concentration
range (lg mL)1)

Regression equation
of calibration plot*

Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Acrolein
Propionaldehyde
2-butanone
iso-Butyraldehyde

0.4106.15
2.2934.3
0.4977.46
0.4666.99
0.4727.09
0.5488.23
0.5658.47

C
C
C
C
C
C
C

=
=
=
=
=
=
=

0.0034A
0.0045A
0.0057A
0.0052A
0.0069A
0.0087A
0.0072A

+
+
+
+
+
+
+

0.0420
0.2008
0.0790
0.0197
0.0340
0.0282
0.0161

Correlation
coecient

LOD
(ng mL)1)**

0.9999
0.9999
0.9998
0.9998
0.9999
0.9999
0.9999

4.3
27.7
6.5
2.5
6.7
8.4
7.0

*A = peak area of carbonyl-DNPH derivative; C = concentration of carbonyl compound

**Injection volume: 1 lL

Table 2. Results from comparison of two analytical methods for determination of carbonyl
compounds in cigarette smoke (lg/cigarette)
Carbonyl compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Acrolein
Propionaldehyde
2-butanone
iso-Butyraldehyde

Content (lg/cigarette)
DNPH-treated lter method
104.19
667.53
235.20
74.932
51.103
73.186
48.756

RD (%)
Impinger method*
101.85
631.32
223.63
71.936
52.834
73.902
50.006

2.24
5.42
4.91
4.32
3.38
0.97
2.56

*Two impingers were used

proceeds by a multi-step mechanism in

which the rate-limiting step is addition of
acid to the protonated carbonyl moiety;
dehydration to the hydrazones is then
rapid. The rate of the reaction has been
shown to be a function of several experimental
conditions,
including
the
concentrations of acid, carbonyl compound, and nucleophile. At high acid
concentrations the carbonyl group is
activated by the acid and at lower acid
concentrations, typically in basic solutions, more nucleophile is available but
the carbonyl group becomes less reactive.
In the work discussed in this paper, the
eect of acid concentration on the carbonyl-DNPH derivatization was studied.
Because the identity of the acid used does
not aect derivatization [13], HClO4 was
used as catalyst in our experiments. As
discussed above, a small amount of acid
was needed to promote the reaction between carbonyl compound and DNPH;
high acid concentrations might damage
the column stationary phase, however. It
was therefore necessary to select a suitable
acid concentration. Dierent volumes (10,
20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 lL) of HClO4 were
added to the derivative solutions. The
results showed the eect on 2-butanoneDNPH derivatization was very weak
when the volume of acid added was varied
from 10 to 100 lL there was no signicant

634

change in the results. For formaldehyde,

acetaldehyde, and acrolein the amounts of
derivatives formed were maximum when
the volume of acid added was 20 lL. For
amounts beyond this the amounts formed
remained constant, i.e. the concentration
of acid had less eect. For acetone, propionaldehyde, and iso-butyraldehyde,
however, a higher acid concentration was
benecial, because the amounts of derivatives formed increased slowly as the
volume of acid added was increased from
20 to 100 lL. Despite this, however, to
ensure accuracy and to protect the
column stationary phase and the glass ber of the Cambridge lters, 20 lL HClO4
was added throughout the rest of the
study. All the results proved that this
concentration ensured completion of the
reaction.
Obviously, acid concentration has a
dierent eect on the derivatization of
the seven carbonyl compounds; this is
expected because of steric hindrance of
the carbonyl group. The reaction also is
aected if the derivatization is performed under more rigorous conditions
(higher temperatures or longer time) but
this is not easy to achieve, and was not
the primary objective of our investigation. So other reaction conditions were
kept invariable during all the experiments.

Effect of the Number

of Cambridge Filters
on Collection Efficiency
In this study 92-mm DNPH-treated lters
were used to collect cigarette smoke. The
number of Cambridge lters will signicant aect the collection eciency. When
the eciency was tested using 1, 2, and 3
lters the results showed that for all the
carbonyl compounds except formaldehyde the collection eciency using one or
three lters was only 3060% that when
using two lters. This may be because of
characteristics of the cigarette smoke.
Because of the strong penetration factor
of the smoke, one lter is not suciently
thick for collection of enough sample. In
contrast, when three lters are used
resistance increases, reducing the yield of
cigarette smoke and thus the collection
eciency, and even changing the composition of the smoke. A good compromise between these two factors is
achieved when two lters are used, and
two lters were selected for smoke collection during the experiments.

Validation
of the Chromatographic
Method
The analytical method was evaluated to
prove its identication and quantication
capability.
Linearity and Limits of Detection (LOD)

The linearity of the method was examined

for each carbonyl compound. Because the
carbonyl compounds were always present
as a mixture in cigarette smoke, a mixed
solution of the seven standard carbonylDNPH derivatives was used. The
concentrations of the standards in this
solution were: formaldehyde 12.3 lg mL)1,
acetaldehyde
68.6 lg mL)1,
acetone
14.92 lg mL)1, acrolein 13.98 lg mL)1,
propionaldehyde 14.18 lg mL)1, 2-butanone 16.46 lg mL)1, and iso-butyraldehyde 16.94 lg mL)1. This mixture was
further diluted to six dierent concentrations to generate calibration graphs by
plotting peak area against concentration
of the standard. Linear least-squares
regression was used to calculate the slope
and correlation coecient. The results in
Table 1 indicate that good correlation
coecients were always obtained. The
limits of detection (LOD) at which the

Chromatographia 2005, 62, December (No. 11/12)

Short Communication

Table 3. Average amounts of the seven carbonyl compounds in smoke from thirteen cigarettes
Sample no.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Average content (lg/cigarette)

Formaldehyde

Acetaldehyde

Acetone

Acrolein

Propionaldehyde

2-Butone

iso-Butyraldehyde

118.62
87.67
77.95
92.17
102.56
98.60
104.32
120.52
104.19
123.16
101.85
118.27
121.45

664.86
674.73
661.55
575.67
545.36
618.13
560.38
610.00
667.53
594.17
553.45
585.60
629.46

241.53
249.26
235.54
145.74
115.70
162.10
160.03
224.58
235.20
201.43
223.63
183.68
234.50

73.57
72.67
67.08
45.65
35.77
52.60
56.11
75.66
74.93
66.76
69.24
54.13
71.93

52.85
53.18
52.68
46.75
43.32
48.11
44.61
47.70
51.10
46.11
44.35
45.33
53.83

81.92
87.82
74.56
39.02
28.07
43.26
44.45
68.27
73.18
53.46
77.69
53.37
73.90

56.34
64.38
47.45
36.34
33.45
38.60
38.36
44.00
48.75
37.94
49.94
41.22
50.00

compounds could be reliably quantied,

calculated as three times the standard
deviation,
ranged
from
2.5
to
27.7 ng mL)1.
Precision (RSD) and Recovery (Accuracy)

Under controlled conditions seven carbonyl compounds in mainstream smoke

from one cigarette sample were analyzed
ve times. Relative standard deviations
(RSD, %) for formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone, acrolein, propionaldehyde,
2-butanone, and iso-butyraldehyde were
2.43, 4.06, 4.63, 2.35, 3.72, 4.10, and 3.56,
respectively.
To study recovery, one smoke sample
solution was divided to four parts; one
had no standard solution added, the other
three were mixed with standard solution
in the approximate volume ratios 2:1, 1:1,
and 1:2. After thorough mixing these
solutions were injected to the HPLC column. When the results obtained from the
rst solution were compared with those
obtained from other three it was found
that recoveries of each carbonyl
compound were all between 99.8 and
102.5%, irrespective of concentration.
Solutions of the carbonyl-DNPH
derivatives were also found to be stable
and could be analyzed with good results
within three days of preparation. Also,
because of the possibility of contamination, the background of a blank sample
was recorded, preferably with each batch
of samples, and subtracted from all the
analytical results described above.

Robustness

Conditions including detection wavelength, ow rate, and column temperature were varied to establish the eect on
Short Communication

quantication and on the specicity of

the method. Detection wavelength was
adjusted 5 nm, ow rate was adjusted 0.1 mL min)1, and column
temperature was adjusted 5
C.
Baseline resolution and specicity were
always maintained. Peak shape for all
components was in good agreement with
those under nominal conditions and
changes in retention time or response reected any adjustments made.

Comparison of Two Analytical

Methods
Because the impinger method [21, 22],
using one or two impingers containing
DNPH solution, is conventionally accepted for smoke collection and determination in many disciplines, the
proposed DNPH-treated lter method
was validated by comparison with the
impinger method. As is apparent from
Table 2, the results obtained from the
two analytical methods were similar,
which proved there was good agreement
between them.

Application of the Method

Thirteen cigarette samples from China
were analyzed by use of this method. The
results obtained, listed in Table 3, revealed that dierent quantities of carbonyl compounds were obtained from
dierent varieties of cigarette. This may
by related to tobacco leaf quality, art and
craft of production, and materials added
to the cigarettes. The cigarettes had
common characteristics, however: acetaldehyde, acetone, and formaldehyde
were the most abundant carbonyl com-

pounds. Of these, acetaldehyde was the

most abundant low-molecular-mass carbonyl compound. Amounts of each carbonyl compound was almost in the same
range as those reported in the literature
[11, 21, 23].

Conclusions
The HPLC method presented here enables simultaneous analysis of seven carbonyl
compounds.
Mobile
phase
composition, gradient elution, and other
chromatographic conditions were optimized. Under these conditions baseline
resolution was achieved. Even isomeric
C3 and C4 carbonyl-DNPH derivatives,
which were barely separated by conventional RP mobile phases in previous
work, were successfully separated and
determined by the proposed method. In
addition, the overall retention time was
no more than 18 min. The acidity used
for carbonyl-DNPH derivatization was
also investigated.
We applied the method to the analysis
of thirteen cigarette samples from China.
The precision was good and detection
limits were low, conrming the utility of
the method for determination of carbonyl
compounds in cigarette smoke.
The method is rapid, accurate, and
robust and enables eective analysis of
carbonyl compounds in cigarette smoke.
It will also be of much interest to investigate use of the method for analysis of
dierent sample matrices.

Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the Technology Center of ChongQing Tobacco
Industrial Co. Ltd, China.

Chromatographia 2005, 62, December (No. 11/12)

635

References
1. Hecht SS, Chen CHB, McCoy GD,
Homann D (1986) J Am Chem Soc
101:125152
2. Otson R (1993) Analyst 18:12531259
3. Rau L (1991) Hypertension 90(Suppl
2A):13S18S
4. Coutrim MX, Nakamur LA, Collins (1993)
Chromatographia 37:185190
5. Fung K, Grosjean D (1981) Anal Chem
53:168171
6. Lehotay J, Halmo F (1994) J Liq Chromatogr 17(4):847854
7. Possanzini M, Palo V (1999) Chromatographia 49:161165
8. Zlotorzynska ED, Edward PC (1999)
J Chromatogr A 853:487496

636

9. Thomas MJ, Robison WR, Samuel M,

Forman HJ (1995) Free Radical Biol Med
18(3):553557
10. Miyake T, Shibamoto T (1995) J Chromatogr A 693:376381
11. Dong JZ, Moldoveanu SC (2004) J Chromatogr A 1027:2535
12. Sakuragawa, Yoneno Y, Inoue K, Okutani
Y (1999) J Chromatogr A 844:403408
13. Grosjean E, Green PG, Grosjean D (1999)
Anal Chem 71:18511861
14. Dai TY, Wei FS (1996) Res Environ Sci
(Chinese) 9:2933
15. Yu YB, Tan PG (2000) J Instrum Anal
(Chinese) 19:4346
16. Potter W, Lamotte S, Engelhardt H, Karst
U (1997) J Chromatogr A 786:4755

17. Rissler K (2004) Chromatographia 59:669

675
18. Kiss GY, Varga B, Puchony ZV, Gelencser
A, Krivacsy Z, Hlavay J (1999) Talanta
48:755762
19. Merlin KL, Bicking , Cooke WM (1988)
J Chromatogr 455:310315
20. Levart A, Veber M (2001) Chemosphere
44:701708
21. Houlgate PR, Dhingra KS, Nash JS, Evans
WH (1989) Analyst 114:355360
22. Hsu FS, Yang SS, Smetena I, Johnson LD,
Stagg DL (1999) 53rd Tobacco Science Res
Conf, p 34
23. Manseld CT, Hodge BT, Hege RB Jr,
Hamlin WC (1977) J Chromatogr Sci
15:301302

Chromatographia 2005, 62, December (No. 11/12)

Short Communication