Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30286588›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health and toxicology2018

Comparison of volatile organic compounds between cigarette smoke condensate (CSC) and extract (CSE) samples.

Yong-Hyun Kim, Young-Ji An, Seongwon Jo, Sang-Hyub Lee, Sang Jin Lee, Seong-Jin Choi, Kyuhong Lee

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health and toxicology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. DifferentialACS ES&T air · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Transcriptional Response ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2021
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yong-Hyun KimJeonbuk Department of Inhalation Research, Korea Institute of Toxicology, Jeongeup 56212, Republic of Korea.
Young-Ji AnDepartment of Toxicology Evaluation, Konyang University, Daejeon 35365 Republic of Korea.
Seongwon JoJeonbuk Department of Inhalation Research, Korea Institute of Toxicology, Jeongeup 56212, Republic of Korea.
Sang-Hyub LeeJeonbuk Department of Inhalation Research, Korea Institute of Toxicology, Jeongeup 56212, Republic of Korea.
Sang Jin LeeNational Center for Efficacy Evaluation of Respiratory Disease Product, Korea Institute of Toxicology, Jeongeup 56212, Republic of Korea.
Seong-Jin ChoiJeonbuk Department of Inhalation Research, Korea Institute of Toxicology, Jeongeup 56212, Republic of Korea.
Kyuhong LeeHuman and Environmental Toxicology, University of Science and Technology, Daejeon 34113, Republic of Korea.
Korea Institute of Toxicology · KRKonyang University · KR

Funding

Ministry of Food and Drug Safety 14182MFDS977
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cigarette smoke is a major risk factor for several diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases. The toxicity of the cigarette smoke can be determined in vitro. The cytotoxicity test of the cigarette smoke is commonly conducted using the cigarette smoke condensate (CSC) and cigarette smoke extract (CSE). The CSC and CSE methods are well known for sampling of the particles and water-soluble compounds in the cigarette smoke, respectively. In this study, the CSC and CSE were analyzed by using a gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) system equipped with a wax column for separation of the volatile organic compounds. The cytotoxic effect of the CSC and CSE were evaluated thoroughly by comparing the analytical results of the CSC and CSE samples. The total concentration of the volatile organic compounds detected in the CSC sample was similar to that in the CSE sample based on the peak area. Except for the dimethyl sulfoxide solvent, nicotine had the highest concentration in the CSC sample, while acetonitrile had the highest concentration in the CSE sample. The compositions were as follows: (1) CSC sample: 55.8% nicotine, 18.0% nicotyrine, 3.20% 1,2,3-propanetriol, triacetate, 1.28% ethyl chloride, 1.22% phenol, etc. and (2) CSE sample: 18.7% acetonitrile, 18.0% acetone, 12.5% 2-hydroxy-2-methyl-propanenitrile, 8.98% nicotine, 5.86% nicotyrine, etc. In this manner, to accurately examine the cytotoxicity of the cigarette smoke using CSC or CSE, the components and their concentrations in the CSC and CSE samples should be considered.

Indexed as

cigarette smoke condensate (CSC)cigarette smoke extract (CSE)gas chromatography –mass spectrometry (GC-MS)volatile organic compound (VOC)

Identifiers

PMID30286588
PMCPMC6182245
OpenAlexW2893116292

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.