Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Nov 19;8(1):17028.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-35368-6.

The Characterization of Flavored Hookahs Aroma Profile and in Response to Heating as Analyzed via Headspace Solid-Phase Microextraction (SPME) and Chemometrics

Affiliations
Free PMC article

The Characterization of Flavored Hookahs Aroma Profile and in Response to Heating as Analyzed via Headspace Solid-Phase Microextraction (SPME) and Chemometrics

Mohamed A Farag et al. Sci Rep. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Flavors profiling in flavored hookah tobacco is an issue of increasing scrutiny for the health sector owing to its adverse effects on humans, especially being heated to produce smoke. This study aims at tackling the components involved in the flavored hookah tobacco from a chemical and biological point of view. Detecting individual flavor compounds, within a complex hookah tobacco matrix was accomplished using headspace solid phase microextraction (SPME). A total of 114 volatiles were identified in 13 flavored hookah tobacco products, with esters amounting for the major component up to 40%. Whereas oxygenated monoterpenes presented another major volatile class, contributing up to 23%, including (E)-anethole. Superheating flavored hookah tobacco at 190 °C resulted in the release of a mixture of phenol derivatives and polycyclic aromatic compounds that are indicative of coal tar, a major component produced during hookah tobacco usage with potential health hazards. This study provides the first comprehensive volatile profile of hookah tobacco products from different origins identifying chemical components involved in flavors. It is expected to serve as informative grounds for the better understanding of hookah tobacco production and usage. The information presented is also expected to raise awareness on the health risks of hookah tobacco smoking.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
What is in your flavored hookah tobacco?
Figure 2
Figure 2
SPME-GC-MS representative chromatogram of headspace volatiles collected from apple, green grape, guava, melon, watermelon, unflavored “Kas” hookah Egyptian (EG) specimens and cigarette after brought hot with charcoal at 50 °C for 10 minutes. The corresponding compound names for volatile peaks follow that listed in Supplementary Table S1. 1, Unknown acetal; 5, Caproic acid; 11, 2-Ethyl-1-hexanol; 12, Benzyl alcohol; 13, Unknown alcohol; 16, Tetradecamethylene glycol; 24, Cinnamaldehyde; 34, 2-Methylbutyl acetate; 37, Ethyl caproate; 43, Amyl valerate; 46, Ethylacetoacetate propyleneglycol ketal; 49, (E)-2-Hexenyl Butyrate; 52, Linalyl acetate; 57, (Z)-6-Nonenyl acetate; 59, Triacetin; 60, Benzyl butanoate; 63, (Z)-β-Hexenyl Caproate; 64, Hexyl caproate; 65, Cinnamyl butyrate isomer; 66, (E)-2-Hexenyl caproate; 68, Methyl methanthranilate; 71, Ethyl cinnamate; 77, Benzyl hexanoate; 79, Cinnamyl isobutyrate; 81, Hedione; 82, α-Amylcinnamaldehyde; 83, 2,3-Butanedione; 93, (±)-Solanone; 106, Nicotine; 110, Anethole; 112, Eugenol. Rt, Retention time.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Major volatile classes in different unflavored and flavored hookah tobacco products and Rothmans cigarette. (EG) Egyptian hookah tobacco, (EM) Emirates hookah tobacco.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Hierarchical clustering analysis (HCA) and principal component analysis (PCA) analyses of SPME extracted volatile. (A) HCA plot, (B) PCA score plot of PC1 vs. PC2 scores and (C) Loading plot for PC1 & PC2 contributing volatiles and their assignments. (EG) Egyptian hookah tobacco, (EM) Emirates hookah tobacco.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Principal component analysis (PCA) analyses of SPME extracted volatile collected on cold after exclusion of (E)-anethole peak abundance from data matrix. (A) PCA score plot of PC1 vs. PC2 scores. and (B) Loading plot for PC1 & PC2 contributing volatiles and their assignments. (EG) Egyptian flavours. (EM) Emirates flavours.
Figure 6
Figure 6
OPLS-DA score plot derived from modelling cigarette aroma versus hookah flavours (A) and cigarette aroma versus unflavoured “Kas” brand (C) each modelled one at a time. The respective S-plot (B,D) shows the covariance p[1] against the correlation p(cor)[1] of the variables of the discriminating component of the OPLS-DA model. Cut-off values of P < 0.05 were used; selected variables are highlighted in the S-plot with kovats index value and identifications are discussed in text.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Major volatile class percentile levels in different flavored hookah tobacco products heated at 190 °C.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Major classes of volatiles difference between the guava, watermelon, peach, mango and melon hookah specimens treated at 50 °C and 190 °C; (*P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01).

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 1 article

References

    1. Ramôa C. P., Eissenberg T., Sahingur S. E. Increasing popularity of waterpipe tobacco smoking and electronic cigarette use: Implications for oral healthcare. Journal of Periodontal Research. 2017;52(5):813–823. doi: 10.1111/jre.12458. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Paschke M, Hutzler C, Henkler F, Luch A. Toward the stereochemical identification of prohibited characterizing flavors in tobacco products: the case of strawberry flavor. Arch. Toxicol. 2015;89:1241–1255. doi: 10.1007/s00204-015-1558-x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Talhout R, et al. Hazardous compounds in tobacco smoke. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2011;8:613–628. doi: 10.3390/ijerph8020613. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bassett RA, Osterhoudt K, Brabazon T. Candy Flavorings in Tobacco. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014;370:2249–2250. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1403843. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bilano V, et al. Global trends and projections for tobacco use, 1990–2025: An analysis of smoking indicators from the WHO Comprehensive Information Systems for Tobacco Control. Lancet. 2015;385:966–976. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60264-1. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Substances

Feedback