Long-chain alkanes as markers of tobacco smoke impact on the environment

The impact of tobacco smoking on the environment is still far from be understood, despite the smoke exhausts have been extensively investigated and hundreds of chemicals have been identified both in its vapors and particulates. Indeed, a number of substances (including nicotine and its family, alkanes, PAHs, and mono-aromatic hydrocarbons) have been in turn proposed as markers of tobacco smoke (TS), and characterized in artificial chambers as well as in interiors directly or indirectly subjected to smokers’ action. Nevertheless, the approach has overall addressed to identify new substances or follow the patterns of these toxicants, e.g. the percentages of nicotine released in vapor phase or really inhaled. Apart from these “hot spots of tobacco”, no attempt has been made to assess the whole impact of smoking on the environment. Indeed, most TS components are volatile or semi-volatile and are not persistent in the atmosphere. The only exception until now is the use of nicotelline, a minor component of tobacco exhaust, to assess the contribution of TS to PM10 in the air [1]. Thanks to chemical characterization of organic fraction of a number of suspended particulates collected in interiors variously exposed to tobacco smoke (namely a frequent smoker home, no smoker homes, hospitals, and universities) as well at open air, we could draw a “tobacco smoke impact index” (TSI%), suitable to estimate the percentage of tobacco smoke in suspended particulate and deposition dust. For this purpose, we used the composition pattern of long-chain n-alkanes (nC28÷nC34) and the respective iso- and anteiso- congeners. In fact, TS exhausts show typical high percentages of iso- odd-C and anteiso- even-C homologues. Our preliminary results were analyzed in the light of scientific literature, which confirmed the suitability of our approach [2, 3]. TSI% seemed to fit fine in the case of low percentages of TS in aerosols and dusts (e.g., in no smoker homes and public premises), but unfit in locations lived by frequent smokers, where classical markers like nicotine probably provide better results. [1] N.J. Aquilina, C.M. Havel, P. Cheung, R.M. Harrison, K.F. Ho, N.L. Benowitz, P. Jacob III, Environ. Int., 2021, 150, 106417. [2] D.J. Eatough, L.D. Hansen, E.A. Lewis, Environ. Technol., 1990, 11, 1071-1085. [3] I.G. Kavouras, N. Stratigakis, E.G. Stephanou, Environ. Sci. Technol., 1998, 32, 1369-1377