80 
 

Journal homepage: www.fia.usv.ro/fiajournal 
Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering,  

Ştefan cel Mare University of Suceava, Romania  
Volume XIII, Issue 1  – 2014, pag. 80  - 86   

 

 
 
 

HEAVY METALS IN TOBACCO 
 

*Sonia AMARIEI1, Cristina-Elena HRETCANU1, Gheorghe GUTT1, Alexandra AGACHI1 
 

1Faculty of Food Engineering, Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava, Romania 
gutts@fia.usv.ro  

*Corresponding author 
Received 25th February  2014, accepted 15th March 2014 

 
 
 

Abstract: Heavy metals in cigarettes were determined considering that the number of smokers of both 
sexes is growing. Besides air, water, food raw materials, foodstuff, dietary supplements, the human 
body can accumulate heavy metals from tobacco. Tobacco samples from Romanian and Ukrainian 
market were analyzed using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICPMS). The results 
showed that the Romanian samples have lower content of heavy metal than the Ukrainian samples. 
Tolerable weekly intake of cadmium was over in the case of two samples for minimum and maximum 
consumption and in the case of three samples for maximum consumption. 
 
Key words: tobacco,  heavy metals, risk assesment, tolerable weekly intake. 

 
 
 

1. Introduction 
 
It is estimated that the actual number of 
substances in tobacco varies between 2000 
and 3000,  half of them existing in tobacco 
and the remainder resulting from the 
conversion into chemical processes that 
occur from burning tobacco. Hundreds of 
additives to improve the taste, odor, flavor 
of different varieties of tobacco are added 
to these. Besides these substances 
carcinogen acting radioactive isotopes 
(Pb210, Po201, K30 etc.) have been found 
in tobacco. An important factor in heavy 
metal uptake is the soil composition.  The 
chemical composition of soil, pH, the 
humus content influenced Pb and Cd 
accumulation in leaves [1], [2], [3]. These 
elements were captured mainly by tobacco 
plants from  radioactive substances 
forming  the environment fund. The humus 
content influenced Pb and Cd 
accumulation in [1]. Industrial emissions, 

phosphate fertilizers containing cadmium 
[2], [3],  insecticides based on heavy 
metals or metallic compounds of cadmium, 
mercury, lead, arsenic constitutes a health 
hazard to the consumer [5], [6], [7].  
Cigarette smoking and tobacco chewing 
are a major source of cadmium exposure 
[8], [9]. 
 Cigarette smoke is a very dangerous 
source of poisoning with Cd for both active 
smokers and passive ones. To highlight the 
heavy metals content in cigarettes 14 
varieties of cigarettes, both Romanian and 
Ukrainian market, were analyzed. 
 
2. Matherials and methods 
 
2.1 Materials 
 
Tobacco samples are presented and coded 
in Table 1.                                                                                                                              
 
 



Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Stefan cel Mare University - Suceava  
Volume XIII, Issue 1 – 2014 

 
 

Sonia AMARIEI, Cristina-Elena HRETCANU, Gheorghe GUTT, Alexandra AGACHI, Heavy metals in tobacco, Issue 
1 - 2014, pag. 80 - 86  

81 
 

Table 1. 
Codification of samples 

 
Sample 

code  Sample cigarettes 
Country of 

origin 
1 Kent Nanotek Neo Romania 
2 Kent Nanotek Ukraine 
3 Kent 8 Romania 
4 Kent Clik Romania 
5 Winston Blue Romania 

6 Winston Balanced Blue Ukraine 

7 Φэct Ukraine 
8 Mallboro RED Romania 
9 Malboro Gold Romania 

10 Monte Carlo RED Ukraine 
11 Pall Mall Ukraine 

12 Pall Mall 3TEK Charcoal Filter Romania 

13 L&M Red Label Romania 
14 L&M Tune Slims Romania 

 
2.2 Sample preparation  
 
Sample preparation is carried out in 
accordance with the standard SR EN ISO 
14082:2003, Determination of trace 
elements by atomic absorption 
spectrometry after ashing. 
Moisture content of  tobacco samples was 
determined  by oven drying method. 
Ash content for each sample was 
determined by ashing in the furnace 
Nabertherm P330. Dissolving  of ash is 
carried out according to SR EN ISO 
14082:2003. 
Ash of cigarettes taken from each sample 
was dissolved in 5 ml of hydrochloric acid 
concentration of 6 mol / L, the acid is 
evaporated in a water bath, and the residue 
was dissolved in a volume of 10 ml of 
nitric acid 0.1 mol / l 
 
2.3 Reagents 
 
All solutions were prepared with reagent 
grade chemicals and ultra-pure water (18 
MΩ cm). Nitric acid and hydrochloric acid 
were purchased from Sigma Aldrich. 
 

2.4. Apparatus 
 
The analysis of samples was  performed 
with mass spectrometry inductively 
coupled plasma ICP-MS Agilent 
Technologies 7500 Series precisely to 10-12 
 
2.5 Calculation  of results 
 

Concentration (C) of the heavy 
metals in samples  is expressed in g/g 
sample and is calculated using the formula: 

C
m
V

a       (1) 

where: 
a - concentration value measured by 

the device, [ppb]; 
V - volume of acid   dissolving the 

sample [ml]; 
m - mass of sample mineralized, [g]. 
 

2.6 Assesment of risk  
 
The Estimated Daily Intake (EH s) was 
calculated for  heavy metals and compared 
with tolerable Daily Intake (TD / S). The 
data is based on the assumption that body 
weight is 60 kg: 
          EDI=(CxFDC)/BW               (2) 
where: 
C - the concentration of contaminant 
(µg/g),  
FDC - stand for tobbaco daily consumption 
(g/d)   
BW - the body weight (kg) [10].  
The current tolerable weekly intake (TWI) 
of 2.5 µg/kg body weight (b.w.) for 
cadmium is established by the Joint 
FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food 
Additives (JECFA) in 2010, and the 
CONTAM Panel of European Food Safety 
Authority EFSA reassessed  the TWI in 
2011 and concluded that the TWI of 2.5 
µg/kg b.w. is still appropriate. 
 
 
 



Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Stefan cel Mare University - Suceava  
Volume XIII, Issue 1 – 2014 

 
 

Sonia AMARIEI, Cristina-Elena HRETCANU, Gheorghe GUTT, Alexandra AGACHI, Heavy metals in tobacco, Issue 
1 - 2014, pag. 80 - 86  

82 
 

2.6. Statistical analysis 
 
All analyses were carried out in triplicates 
with replication. The mean and standard 
deviation of the data obtained were 
calculated. Principal component analysis 
(PCA) was used to aggregate variables 
obtained from the amount of heavy metals 
(corresponding to a daily consumption of 
minimum 10 and maximum 20 cigarettes 
per day) into a smaller number of 
orthogonal factors.  

 
Principal Component Analysis was carried 
out with the software Unscrambler X 10.1 
(Camo, Norway).  
 
3. Results and discussions 
 
Samples were always analyzed in 
triplicates. Ash content and moisture of the 
samples is shown in Figure 1.  

 

 
Fig. 1 Ash content and moisture of cigarettes samples 

 
 
Heavy metal analysis was performed using 
ICP-MS device. 
Taking into account the  masses of samples  
and using equation (1), the amount of 
heavy metals corresponding to a daily 
consumption of minimum 10 and 
maximum 20 cigarettes per day was 
calculated [8].  

As shown in Table 3, the content of the 
elements As, Pb, Hg is not exceeded even 
a consumption of 20 cigarettes per day, 
conclusions drawn also by other authors 
after analyzing a number of samples of 
tobacco [11-12].    

 
 
                 



Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Stefan cel Mare University - Suceava  
Volume XIII, Issue 1 – 2014 

 
 

Sonia AMARIEI, Cristina-Elena HRETCANU, Gheorghe GUTT, Alexandra AGACHI, Heavy metals in tobacco, Issue 
1 - 2014, pag. 80 - 86  

83 
 

                                                
 

Tabel 2 
Elemental concentrations of samples 

 

Sample 

Kent 
Nanotek 
Neo RO 

10/20 
cigarettes 

[ppb] 

Kent 
Nanotek RU 

10/20 
cigarettes 

[ppb] 

Kent 8 
10/20 

cigarettes 
[ppb] 

Kent Clik 
10/20 

cigarettes 
[ppb] 

Winsto n 
Blue RO 

10/20 
cigarettes 

[ppb] 

Winston 
Balanced 
Blue RU 

10/20 
cigarettes 

[ppb] 

Φэct RU 
10/20 

cigarettes 
[ppb] 

Mallboro 
RED 
10/20 

cigarettes 
[ppb] 

Malboro 
Go ld 
10/20 

cigarettes 
[ppb] 

Monte 
Carlo RED 

RU 
10/20 

cigarettes 
[ppb] 

Pall Mall 
RU 

10/20 
cigarettes 

[ppb] 

Pall Mall 
3TEK 

Charcoal 
Filte r RO 

10/20 
cigarettes 

[ppb] 

L&M Red 
Label 
10/20 

cigarettes 
[ppb] 

L&M Tune 
Slims 
10/20 

cigarettes 
[ppb] 

Li 7 
12.98943 / 

25.97887 

11.72699 / 

23.45398 

14.38711 / 

28.77422 

11.13898 / 

22.27796 

15.36353 / 

30.72706 

13.79028 / 

27.58055 

9.93768 / 

19.87535 

11.00166 / 

22.00332 

6.65879 / 

13.31757 

17.11050/ 

34.22100 

3.63803/ 

7.27606 

10.91738/ 

21.83477 

18.31804/ 

36.63608 

9.25871/ 

18.51742 

B 11 
14.17029 / 

28.34058 

7.94209/ 

15.88418 

7.81884/ 

15.63767 

8.14046/ 

16.28093 

10.88631/ 

21.77261 

8.71705/ 

17.43409 

5.93768/ 

11.87535 

6.33753/ 

12.67505 

5.96270/ 

11.92540 

8.20324/ 

16.40649 

16.65138/ 

33.30276 

4.80487/ 

9.60973 

13.17226/ 

26.34452 

3.16007/ 

6.32014 

Mg 24 
2639.32049/ 

5278.64098 

2428.12823/ 

4856.25646 

2223.97476/ 

4447.94953 

2022.57439/ 

4045.14879 

1662.9682/ 

3325.93656 

1727.00644/ 

3454.01289 

2350.14164/ 

4700.28329 

1986.70781/ 

3973.41562 

1174.1528/ 

2348.30575 

2422.20182/ 

4844.40363 

2113.52288/ 

4227.04576 

1899.64521/ 

3799.29042 

1479.84667/ 

2959.69334 

1585.94211/ 

3171.88423 

Al 27 
903.87404 / 

1807.74808 

1791.72699/ 

3583.45398 

750.67598/ 

1501.35196 

1124.50120/ 

2249.00239 

282.33912/ 

564.67824 

206.56122/ 

413.12244 

165.77904/ 

331.55807 

375.38571/ 

750.77142 

192.14605/ 

384.29209 

149.27048/ 

298.54097 

1219.09712/ 

2438.19423 

655.1444/ 

1310.28890 

471.94796/ 

943.89592 

378.47017/ 

756.94034 

K 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Ca 43 
11412.8858 / 

22825.77170 

10566.7011/ 

21133.40228 

9361.19874/ 

18722.3974 

7763.08289/ 

15526.1657 

6929.9047/ 

13859.8094 

8329.23257/ 

16658.4651 

8962.03966/ 

17924.07932 

7843.57940/ 

15687.1587 

4083.2676/ 

8166.53533 

8783.79757/ 

17567.59514 

6327.32090/ 

12654.64180 

6699.44247/ 

13398.88495 

4772.91207/ 

9545.82414 

5772.29770/ 

11544.59539 

Cr 53 
2.19598/ 

4.39196 

1.36505/ 

2.73009 

0.96890/ 

1.93781 

1.66458/ 

3.32915 

1.12257/ 

2.24514 

0.77329/ 

1.54657 

1.08782/ 

2.17564 

0.90197/ 

1.80394 

0.72235/ 

1.44471 

0.73462/ 

1.46924 

1.89544/ 

3.79089 

0.77040/ 

1.54080 

0.51109/ 

1.02219 

0.54637/ 

1.09273 

Mn 55 
113.09302/ 

226.18604 

98.42813/ 

196.85626 

78.40243/ 

156.80487 

73.64041/ 

147.28081 

89.53139/ 

179.06279 

41.69889/ 

83.39777 

98.11898/ 

196.23796 

88.52362/ 

177.04723 

37.54925/ 

75.09850 

90.38874/ 

180.77747 

81.10670/ 

162.21339 

62.43284/ 

124.86569 

52.95621/ 

105.91242 

46.64796/ 

93.29592 

Fe 56 
381.18914/ 

762.37829 

380.55843/ 

761.11686 

241.09959/ 

482.19919 

243.98586/ 

487.97173 

201.01814/ 

402.03629 

168.71705/ 

337.43409 

231.16147/ 

462.32295 

491.33634/ 

982.67268 

34.14762/ 

68.29525 

218.34507/ 

436.69013 

228.26862/ 

456.53725 

196.65484/ 

393.30968 

101.05703/ 

202.11407 

153.57354/ 

307.14708 

Co  59 
0.87632/ 

1.75264 

0.79214/ 

1.58428 

1.51307/ 

3.02614 

0.59628/ 

1.19257 

0.53909/ 

1.07819 

0.49561/ 

0.99121 

0.66062/ 

1.32125 

0.58509/ 

1.17019 

0.26661/ 

0.53323 

0.68666/ 

1.37333 

0.55335/ 

1.10670 

0.57070/ 

1.14141 

0.44488/ 

0.88977 

0.44743/ 

0.89486 

Ni 60 
3.02465/ 

6.04931 

1.98552/ 

3.97104 

3.67283/ 

7.34565 

1.77859/ 

3.55718 

1.90576/ 

3.81151 

1.47627/ 

2.95255 

1.88102/ 

3.76204 

1.49537/ 

2.99074 

0.99816/ 

1.99632 

2.10183/ 

4.20365 

1.89544/ 

3.79089 

1.78409/ 

3.56817 

0.99895/ 

1.99791 

1.12227/ 

2.24454 

Cu 63 
15.26828/ 

30.53657 

11.72699/ 

23.45398 

9.88058/ 

19.76115 

9.88485/ 

19.76970 

12.23078/ 

24.46156 

7.69772/ 

15.39543 

17.41643/ 

34.83286 

7.91597/ 

15.83195 

24.12661/ 

48.25322 

16.70238/ 

33.40475 

6.89901/ 

13.79802 

4.73391/ 

9.46782 

4.72761/ 

9.45522 

5.27171/ 

10.54341 

Zn 66 
24.03149/ 

48.06298 

19.85522/ 

39.71044 

17.57548/ 

35.15097 

16.64576/ 

33.29153 

15.14163/ 

30.28325 

11.24780/ 

22.49561 

17.67705/ 

35.35411 

17.32732/ 

34.65464 

11.29498/ 

22.58997 

13.87614/ 

27.75227 

14.87822/ 

29.75645 

12.77243/ 

25.54486 

9.98955/ 

19.97909 

9.30301/ 

18.60602 

Ga 69 
3.70831/ 

7.41661 

3.08170/ 

6.16339 

0.85624/ 

1.71248 

1.24273/ 

2.48546 

1.13562/ 

2.27124 

0.38664/ 

0.77329 

0.30595/ 

0.61190 

0.59340/ 

1.18680 

0.19701/ 

0.39401 

0.27548/ 

0.55096 

0.65220/ 

1.30439 

1.51039/ 

3.02078 

0.25555/ 

0.51109 

0.75310/ 

1.50620 

As 75 
0.60079/ 

1.20157 

0.49638/ 

0.99276 

0.63091/ 

1.26183 

0.51305/ 

1.02611 

0.36549/ 

0.73098 

0.60926/ 

1.21851 

0.70255/ 

1.40510 

0.65274/ 

1.30548 

0.28894/ 

0.57788 

0.78563/ 

1.57127 

0.59105/ 

1.18211 

0.49671 

0.99341 

0.34847/ 

0.69695 

0.36917/ 

0.73833 

Se 82 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Br 79 
22.58131/ 

45.16263 

14.68459/ 

29.36918 

8.90041/ 

17.80081 

13.56744/ 

27.13488 

10.44250/ 

20.88500 

16.28588/ 

32.57176 

13.48442/ 

26.96884 

7.35818/ 

14.71635 

1.97006/ 

3.94011 

6.12182/ 

12.24365 

8.15245/ 

16.30490 

9.02179/ 

18.04359 

3.02010/ 

6.04019 

3.54400/ 

7.08801 

Ag 107 
60078.7238/ 

120157.447 

37228.5418/ 

74457.0837 
- 

2280.2417/ 

4560.48341 
- - - 

7120.8165/ 

14241.6330 
- - - - - - 

Cd 111 
8701.05656/ 

17402.1131 

9720.78594/ 

19441.5718 

9689.0491/ 

19378.0982 

5472.5800/ 

10945.1601 

4568.5941/ 

9137.1883 

5858.2308/ 

11716.4616 

19943.3427/ 

39886.6855 

6883.4559/ 

13766.9119 

656.68505/ 

1313.37011 

10815.2229/ 

21630.44587 

7744.82829/ 

15489.65658 

3345.15966/ 

6690.31931 

3368.56778/ 

6737.13556 
- 

Sn 118 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Ce 140 
191257.509/ 

382515.019 

205418.821/ 

410837.642 

168228.93/ 

336457.863 

136039.22/ 

272078.440 

155749.90/ 

311499.804 

71845.342/ 

143690.685 

93280.4532/ 

186560.906 

129741.27/ 

259482.554 

43761.491/ 

87522.9839 

73788.3889/ 

147576.777 

152165.494/ 

304330.989 

100679.168/ 

201358.3375 

71227.78488/ 

142455.5697 

65445.95393/ 

130891.9078 

Pt 195 
0.00021/ 

0.00041 

0.00012/ 

0.00025 

0.00007/ 

0.00014 

0.00011/ 

0.00023 
0 0 0 

0.000024/ 

0.000047 
0 0 

0.00011/ 

0.00022 

0.000051/ 

0.000101 
0 0 

Au 197 
0.00056/ 

0.00112 

0.00141/ 

0.00281 

0.00025/ 

0.00050 

0.00025/ 

0.00050 

0.00035/ 

0.00070 

0.00009/ 

0.00019 

0.00008/ 

0.00016 

0.00017/ 

0.00033 

0.000066/ 

0.000131 

0.000031/ 

0.000061 

0.00036/ 

0.00071 

0.00002/ 

0.00004 

0.00028/ 

0.00056 

0.00028/ 

0.00056 

Hg 202 
0.00601/ 

0.01202 

0.00786/ 

0.01572 
- 

0.00160/ 

0.00319 

0.00026/ 

0.00052 

0.00269/ 

0.00539 
- - - - 

0.06950/ 

0.13900 

0.00030/ 

0.00061 
- 

0.03869/ 

0.07738 

Pb 208 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Bi 209 
0.05652/ 

0.11303 

0.01030/ 

0.02060 

0.01947/ 

0.03894 

0.00727/ 

0.01455 

0.00559/ 

0.01117 

0.00408/ 

0.00815 

0.00519/ 

0.01038 

0.00330/ 

0.00660 

0.00234/ 

0.00468 

0.00253/ 

0.00506 

0.01455/ 

0.02910 

0.00373/ 

0.00746 

0.00451/ 

0.00901 

0.00174/ 

0.00348 

U 235 
0.05179/ 

0.10358 

0.02482/ 

0.04964 

0.01915/ 

0.03831 

0.01938/ 

0.03876 

0.02741/ 

0.05482 

0.01640/ 

0.03281 

0.01700/ 

0.03399 

0.02492/ 

0.04985 

0.00867/ 

0.01734 

0.01530/ 

0.03061 

0.02446/ 

0.04891 

0.01723/ 

0.03447 

0.02672/ 

0.05343 

0.02215/ 

0.04430 

Per day levels were calculated considering a consumption of minimum 10 cigarettes and maximum  20  
cigarettes  

 



Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Stefan cel Mare University - Suceava  
Volume XIII, Issue 1 – 2014 

 
 

Sonia AMARIEI, Cristina-Elena HRETCANU, Gheorghe GUTT, Alexandra AGACHI, Heavy metals in tobacco, Issue 
1 - 2014, pag. 80 - 86  

84 
 

In contrast, the Cd content is exceeded in 
the case of three samples for a minimum 
consumption of 10 cigarettes per day, and 

the content is exceeded for five samples at 
a consumption of 20 cigarettes per day, 
figure 2.  

 

 
Fig. 2 Comparative analysis of the Cd content in Romanian and  Ukrainian cigarettes 

 
Principal Component Analysis was carried 
out according to the moisture content, ash 
and mineral concentrations in different 
samples of cigarettes. 
 

The scores of samples in the reduced space 
and the influence of chemical composition 
of the main component analysis  are 
presented in figure 3 and figure 4. 
 

 
PC-1 (65%)

-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3

P
C-
2
 
(2
6
%)

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2
Scores

1

2

3
4

5

6

7

8

9

10
11

12
13

14



Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Stefan cel Mare University - Suceava  
Volume XIII, Issue 1 – 2014 

 
 

Sonia AMARIEI, Cristina-Elena HRETCANU, Gheorghe GUTT, Alexandra AGACHI, Heavy metals in tobacco, Issue 
1 - 2014, pag. 80 - 86  

85 
 

Fig. 3 Principal Component Analysis in different samples of cigarettes, according to the moisture and ash 
 

This analysis identifies some kinds of 
cigarettes chemically similar. Principal 
Component Analysis was performed to 
assess the overall effect of chemical 
composition on the origin of cigarettes. 

Principal component 1 (PC1) explained 
65% of variance, while component (PC2) 
explains 26% of variation, the overall 
percentage of variation of the two main 
components being 91% (figure 4).  

  

 
Fig. 4 Principal Component Analysis in different samples of cigarettes, according to the mineral 

concentrations 
 
Component by PC1 distinguishes samples 
according to the  content in Ag, Bi, U235 
while PC2 component distinguished 
samples according to the content in As, Mn 
and Cd. The Hg and Al concentrations and 
proximity to the origin of the coordinates 
indicates that these parameters are not 
useful in the total variation. Component 
PC2 distinguishes types of cigarettes in 

two categories: on the left side there are  
Romanian cigarettes, while on the right 
side there are Ukrainian cigarettes. 
Cigarettes Kent Nanotek Neo Romania are 
in discordant note to the other Romanian 
cigarettes being placed close to the  
Ukrainian cigarettes because of  metal 
content. 

 
4. Conclusion 
 
The metals Cu, Ni, Cr, Se, Hg, Pb  were 
found to be neglijible. For cadmium, TWI 
was exceeded for Kent Clik cigarettes of 
2.52 times, at a rate of 10 cigarettes per 
day, and of 5.10 times at a consumption of 
20 cigarettes per day. In the case of  Φэct 
cigarettes, TWI has been exceeded of 1.86 
times at a consumption of 20 cigarettes per 
day. The penetration of  toxic elements in 

the body is influenced by the moisture 
content of tobacco [9]. In the case of a high 
tobacco moisture more and more water 
vapor are generated which allows a drive 
of several toxic substances to the mouth 
end of the cigarette. Smoking of the  last 
third of cigarette lead to increasing the  
ingestion of toxic substances from  its total 
content determined. 

 



Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Stefan cel Mare University - Suceava  
Volume XIII, Issue 1 – 2014 

 
 

Sonia AMARIEI, Cristina-Elena HRETCANU, Gheorghe GUTT, Alexandra AGACHI, Heavy metals in tobacco, Issue 
1 - 2014, pag. 80 - 86  

86 
 

 
5. References 
 
[1]. ZAPRJANOVA Penka, IVANOV Krasimir, 
ANGELOVA Violina, DOSPATLIEV Lilko, 
Relation between soil characteristics and heavy 
metal content in Virginia tobacco, World Congress 
of Soil Science, Soil Solutions for a Changing 
World, 1 – 6 August 2010, Brisbane, Australia. 
Published on DVD, 205-208 
[2]. PELIT Füsun Okçu, DEMIRDÖĞEN Ruken 
Esra, HENDEN Emür,  Investigation of heavy 
metal content of Turkish tobacco leaves, cigarette 
butt, ash, and smoke, Environ Monit Assess (2013) 
185:9471–9479 
[3]. ZHANG Y., YANG X.,  ZHANG S., TIAN 
Y.,  GUO W., The influence of humic acids on the 
accumulation of lead (Pb) and cadmium (Cd) in 
tobacco leaves grown in different soils, Journal of 
Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 2013, 13(1), 43-53 
[4]. LUGON-MOULIN N., RYAN L., DONINI 
P., ROSSI L., Cadmium content of phosphate 
fertilizers used for tobacco production, Agron. 
Sustain. Dev. 26 (2006), 151–155 
[5]. BECCALONI Eleonora, VANNI Fabiana, 
BECCALONI Massimiliano, CARERE Mario, 
Concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, lead and zinc 
in homegrown vegetables and fruits: Estimated 
intake by population in an industrialized area of 
Sardinia, Italy, Microchemical Journal 107, (2013) 
190–195 
[6]. MUSHARRAF Syed Ghulam, SHOAIB 
Muhammad, SIDDIQUI Amna Jabbar, NAJAM-
UL-HAQ Muhammad, AFTAB Ahmed, 
Quantitative analysis of some important metals and 
metalloids in tobacco products by inductively 
coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), 
Chemistry Central Journal, (2012)   

[7]. R.S. PAPPAS, S.B. STANFILL, C.H. 
WATSON,  D.L. ASHLEY, Analysis of Toxic 
Metals in Commercial Moist Snuff and Alaskan 
Iqmik , Journal of Analytical Toxicology, Vol. 32, 
May 2008, p.281-290  
[8]. ASHRAF Muhammad Waqar,  Levels of 
Heavy Metals in Popular Cigarette Brands and 
Exposure to These Metals via Smoking, The 
Scientific World Journal, (2012), Article 
ID 729430, p.1-5 
[9]. PRABHAKAR V, JAYAKRISHNAN G, 
NAIR SV, RANGANATHAN B,    Determination 
of trace metals, moisture, pH and assessment of 
potential toxicity of selected smokeless tobacco 
products, Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical 
Sciences, volume75, Issue 3, 9 (2013), 262-269 
[10]. YARED Beyene Yohannes, YOSHINORI 
Ikenaka, SHOUTA M.M. Nakayama, AKSORN 
Saengtiencha, KENSUKE Watanabe, MAYUMI 
Ishizuka,  Organochlorine pesticides and heavy 
metals in fish from Lake Awassa, Ethiopia: Insights 
from stable isotope analysis, Chemosphere 91 
(2013), 857–863 
[11]. LAZAREVIĆ Konstansa, NIKOLIĆ Dejan, 
STOŠIĆ Ljiljana, MILUTINOVIĆ Suzana, 
VIDENOVIĆ Jelena, BOGDANOVIĆ Dragan, 
Determination of lead and arsenic in tobacco and 
cigarettes: an important issue of public health, Cent 
Eur J Public Health (2012); 20 (1): 62–66 
[12]. DHAWARE Dhanashri, DESHPANDE Aditi, 
KHANDEKAR R.N., CHOWGULE Rohini, 
Determination of Toxic Metals in Indian  Smokeless 
Tobacco Products, The Scientific World, 9 (2009), 
1140–1147