The origin of a nicotine detection method - authors reply.
Pendergrass-SM; Krake-AM; Jaycox-LB
Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 2001 Nov/Dec; 62(6):666-667
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the concerns raised by Dr. Michael Ogden. We would first like to acknowledge the contributions of Dr. Ogden to the existing methods published by the various international standard-setting organizations. We apologize for any slights to Dr. Ogden; this was not done with the intent to leave out the work by Ogden nor lessen his impact on the analysis of nicotine in the scientific community. The impetus for our research was to improve the sensitivity and reliability of NIOSH method 2544 and its subsequent application to various NIOSH health hazard evaluations (HHEs). Our goal was to develop a method that would not only be capable of measuring long-term exposures to low levels of nicotine (in support of a NIOSH study on airline cabins) but also be able to measure short-term, high concentrations of nicotine (in support of a study examining the use of nicotine as a fumigant in greenhouses). In reviewing the ASTM method D5075-90a (1990), we assumed that Dr. Ogden was the principal author since it was similar to the few publications on nicotine analysis bearing his name that we located. We felt that the ASTM method adequately referenced his work as most literature after this date was based upon collaborative studies. It should be noted that Dr. Ogden in ''Gas Chromatographic Determination of Nicotine in ETS: Collaborative Study'' (J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 72:6, 1989) stated that his method was a modification of NIOSH method S293, which had been replaced by NIOSH NMAM method 2544 in 1984.
Plants; Plant-substances; Fumigants; Fumes; Tobacco; Tobacco-smoke; Pesticides; Gas-chromatography; Gas-sampling; Air-sampling; Air-quality-measurement; Air-monitoring; Air-contamination
American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal