Characterization of Cigarette Tobacco by Direct Electrospray Ionization−Ion Trap Mass Spectrometry (ESI-ITMS) Analysis of the Aqueous ExtractA Novel and Simple Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In support of the efforts to combat smuggling, as well as illegal sale and distribution of cigarettes, an analytical approach for the characterization of tobacco has been proposed and evaluated. It involves aqueous extraction of the filler tobaccos followed by direct analysis of the extracts by electrospray ionization-ion trap mass spectrometry (ESI-ITMS) in the negative mode. Typically, the deprotonated ions, [M - H](-), of organic acids (malic, citric, caffeic, quinic acid) and polyphenols (chlorogenic acid, rutin, scopoletin) were detected. MS/MS spectra of the ion at m/z 191, which is the [M - H](-) of quinic acid, citric acid, and scopoletin, and a fragment ion of chlorogenic acid were acquired. Significant differences in the MS and MS/MS spectra were observed between counterfeit samples and the corresponding authentic brand name cigarettes. Analysis of 25 commercial cigarettes showed that straight Virginia blends were readily distinguished from the blended products containing different tobacco types (Virginia, burley, and Oriental). The former exhibited consistently higher relative abundances of m/z 353 (chlorogenic acid) to m/z 133 (malic acid) in the MS spectra (0.9-1.2 vs 0.4-0.6) and higher intensity ratios of m/z 176 (scopoletin) to m/z 173 (0.4-0.8 vs 0.1-0.3) and of m/z 127 (quinic acid) to m/z 173 (0.7-1.0 vs 0.3-0.5) in the MS/MS spectra. Evidence is presented to demonstrate that the spectral differences were related not only to the tobacco type (Virginia, burley and Oriental) but also to the tobacco part (stem, lamina) used in the manufacture of the cigarettes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".