Technical Report. CORESTA Reference Products

Transcription

1 Smokeless Tobacco Sub-Group Technical Report CORESTA Reference Products 2016 Analysis January 2017 Study Coordinator: John Bunch, Ph.D. American Snuff Company, USA Author and Sub-Group Coordinator: Karl Wagner, Ph.D. Altria Client Services LLC, USA Co-Author and Statistical Analysis: Michael Morton, Ph.D. Altria Client Services LLC, USA

2 Table of Contents 1. Summary Introduction Objective Organisation Participants Protocol Sample Shipment Within Laboratory Sample Preparation Sample Analysis and Data Reporting Data Raw Data Statistical Analysis Exclusion of Outliers Calculation of Repeatability (r) and Reproducibility (R) Calculation of Z-Scores Data Interpretations Recommendations APPENDIX A: Composition of the CRPs APPENDIX B: Raw Data Plots for 2016 WG4 Study APPENDIX C: Comparison of Repeatability and Reproducibility... 34

3 1. Summary In May 2016, the CORESTA Smokeless Tobacco Sub-Group (STS) initiated an interlaboratory study designed to characterize the four new CORESTA Reference Products (CRPs) manufactured in Nineteen laboratories participated in the study. The participating laboratories reported the levels of nicotine, ph, moisture (oven volatiles), tobacco specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), ammonia, and benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P) in the CRPs using CORESTA Recommended Methods (CRMs). Tabulated data are presented along with repeatability (r), reproducibility (R) and z-scores. The results of the 2016 study establish a starting point for future stability studies of the 2016 CRPs. 2. Introduction In November 2008, the STS was established by recommendation of the CORESTA Scientific Commission. In 2009, STS Working Group Three (WG3) cooperated to design and manufacture four CORESTA Reference Products (CRPs) referred to as CRP1, CRP2, CRP3, and CRP4. These products were intended as replacements for the Smokeless Tobacco Research Products: 2S3 (Moist Snuff), 1S2 (Dry Snuff) and 2S1 (Loose-leaf Chewing Tobacco), which were more than ten years old. The STS recommended monitoring the stability of the 2009 CRPs on an annual basis, by determining the levels of nicotine, ph, moisture (oven volatiles) and TSNAs using CRMs or draft CRMs 1. These studies were conducted through 2015 and demonstrated that the CRPs were stable when held at the recommended storage conditions of -20 C. In 2015 the supply of the 2009 CRPs decreased to the point that the STS decided to remanufacture the CRPs. Similar to the 2009 production, four CRPs were manufactured in 2016 and included Swedish snus pouch (CRP1.1), American-style loose moist snuff (CRP2.1), American-style loose dry snuff powder (CRP3.1), and American-style chopped loose-leaf chewing tobacco (CRP4.1). CRP4.1 was produced in a chopped format in 2016 to improve within package sample homogeneity as compared to the 2009 loose leaf format. Even though the 2016 CRPs included the four product styles that were produced in 2009, it was anticipated the chemistry would differ between the two productions considering different tobaccos were used and different manufacturers produced three of the reference products. The composition of the CRPs supplied by the manufacturers is provided in Appendix A. This report serves as the initial characterization of the 2016 CRPs by reporting the levels of nicotine, ph, moisture, TSNAs, ammonia and B[a]P using the applicable CRMs. The 2009 and 2016 CRPs are stored at -20 C and distributed by the North Carolina State University (NCSU) Tobacco Analytical Services Laboratory. 2.1 Objective The 2016 participating laboratories were to provide analytical results for nicotine, ph, moisture (oven volatiles), the four TSNAs (N-nitrosonornicotine (NNN), N-nitrosoanatabine (NAT), N-nitrosoanabasine (NAB) 4-(N-nitrosomethylamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK)), ammonia, and benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P). This work was conducted using the applicable CRMs referenced in Section 3. This study was conducted to support the characterization of the 2016 CRPs and to provide an assessment of inter-laboratory variability. Data were collected from the participating 1 STS Technical Report: CORESTA Reference Products 2010 Analysis, February STS-105-CTR 2016 Analysis of CRPs January /34

4 laboratories and statistically evaluated in basic conformance with the recommendations of ISO :1994 and ISO/TR 22971:2005. Additionally, z-scores were calculated as a measure of each laboratory s performance as compared to the results of other laboratories. 3. Organisation 3.1 Participants A list of the participating laboratories is provided in Table 1. Not all laboratories provided data for all analyses. The laboratories are listed in alphabetical order. Letter codes were assigned to each laboratory and do not correspond to the order in the table below. Table 1: List of Participating Laboratories Participating Laboratories Altria Client Services LLC, United States American Snuff Company, United States Enthalpy Analytical Richmond, United States Essentra Scientific Services, United Kingdom Fiedler & Lundgren, Sweden General Chemistry State Laboratory, Greece Global Laboratory Services, United States Imperial Tobacco Group, Seita, France ITC Limited, India ITG Brands, United States Japan Tobacco, Inc., Japan JTI-Ökolab, Austria Labstat International ULC, Canada Montepaz S.A., Uruguay R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, United States Swedish Match Northern Europe, Sweden Swedish Match, Owensboro, United States Swisher International, United States University of Kentucky, United States 3.2 Protocol Specific details from the protocol are described below Sample Shipment Laboratories were responsible for procuring each of the CRPs from NCSU immediately before starting the study. Laboratories were requested to store the samples at approximately 4 C upon receipt if the analyses would be conducted within one week or to store the samples at approximately 20 C if the analyses would be delayed. Laboratories were STS-105-CTR 2016 Analysis of CRPs January /34

5 requested to conduct the study in May through July and report data by July 22, The samples are identified in Table 2. CRP1.1 - Swedish style snus pouch Table 2: Sample Identification Product Type CRP2.1 - American-style loose moist snuff CRP3.1 - American-style loose dry snuff powder CRP4.1 - American-style chopped loose-leaf chewing tobacco Within Laboratory Sample Preparation The laboratories were directed to remove samples from the 20 C freezer and place the unopened samples in a refrigerator for a minimum of 24 hours to ensure water was fully equilibrated. Samples could then be removed from the refrigerator for a minimum of 2 hours prior to opening for analysis. Once samples were opened, the samples could be stored in a tightly sealed container and stored at approximately 4 C for up to one week. Handling requirements for the CRPs are described below: The snus pouch (CRP1.1) was to be cut into two halves and placed directly into the extraction vessel. Both the tobacco and pouch material were included in the analysis. The moist snuff (CRP2.1), dry snuff product (CRP3.1), and chopped loose-leaf (CRP4.1) did not require sample grinding and were to be analyzed as received Sample Analysis and Data Reporting The participating laboratories were instructed to conduct triplicate analyses for the following: nicotine, ph, moisture (oven volatiles), TSNAs, ammonia, and B[a]P. The laboratories were requested to use the current versions of the following CRMs: Nicotine: CRM N 62, Determination of Nicotine in Tobacco and Tobacco Products by Gas Chromatographic Analysis, February Either the methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) or n-hexane extraction may be used. The extraction method shall be specified in the data reporting sheet. ph: CRM N 69, Determination of ph in Smokeless Tobacco Products, June 2010 Moisture (oven volatiles): CRM N 76, Determination of Moisture Content (Oven Volatiles) of Smokeless Tobacco Products, April TSNAs: CRM N 72, Determination of Tobacco Specific Nitrosamines in Smokeless Tobacco Products by Liquid Chromatography - Tandem Mass Spectrometry, February Ammonia: CRM N 79, Determination of Ammonia in Tobacco and Tobacco Products by Ion Chromatographic Analysis, April B[a]P: CRM N 82, Determination of Benzo[a]pyrene in Tobacco Products by GC-MS, March Participating laboratories were requested to document any deviations from the protocol and the CRMs and submit the deviations with their results. As stated in the protocol, data submitted with significant deviations from the applicable CRM were excluded from the r&r STS-105-CTR 2016 Analysis of CRPs January /34

6 portion of the study, except for ammonia. All ammonia results were included in the statistical analysis due to the relatively small number of labs that submitted data without significant deviations from CRM N 79. Deviations reported by the laboratories are identified below as well as if the data were excluded from the study. Lab A: (1) The CRM was not followed for ammonia. Specifically, a non-suppressed, isocratic method was used with a different mobile phase. (2) The CRM was not followed for B[a]P; therefore, the data were excluded from the r&r portion of the study. Lab C: Minor deviations were reported for nicotine where 2N NaOH was used instead of 5N NaOH. Minor deviations were reported for B[a]P where the concentration of the internal standard in the standards and samples differed from that specified. Lab E: Minor deviations were reported for nicotine where 5 ml of extraction solution was used instead of 7 ml. Additionally, minor deviations in the GC temperature program were also noted. Lab G: Minor deviations were reported for TSNAs where two internal standards (d4- NNN and d4-nnk) were used instead of four. Deviations for ammonia were reported where unsuppressed conductivity detection was used, the extraction solution was 10mM MSA, not 0.025N H 2 SO 4, and the analytical column was an Ion Pac CS14. Lab H: Minor deviations were reported for nicotine where a different column than that specified in the CRM was used. Specifically, a CP-Wax 52 CB (Polyethylene glycol) (30 m 0.25 mm) was used instead of a 50 % phenyl methylpolysiloxane column (15 m 0.53 mm). Deviations for ammonia were reported where nonsuppressed conductivity was used instead of suppressed conductivity. Lab I: Minor deviations were reported for ammonia where 0.25 g of tobacco was extracted instead of 0.50 g. Minor deviations were reported for ph where the samples were left to stand for 1 hour in the dark post shaking prior to measuring ph. Lab K: Significant deviations were reported for ammonia where a method other than CRM N 79 was used. Lab N: Minor deviations were reported for ammonia where the calibration type used for ammonia was cubic with offset instead of quadratic. Lab O: The laboratory reported that the CRPs were stored at 4 ºC prior to analysis instead of the recommended temperature of -20 ºC. Lab Q: Significant deviations were reported for ammonia where a colorimetric method was used instead of CRM N 79. All test results were to be reported on an as-is basis with no correction for moisture content. The results were not to be rounded and ideally reported to at least one more digit than typically required. The study results and the comments were to be sent by to the study coordinators (John Bunch and Karl Wagner). STS-105-CTR 2016 Analysis of CRPs January /34

7 4. Data Raw The full data set for the study is listed in Table 3. The results are presented on an as-is basis, without correction for moisture. Each analysis includes three replicates. Not all laboratories provided data for all analyses. Raw data plots that include all replicates, without removal of outliers, are given in Appendix B. As mentioned above, data sets were removed from the r&r portion of the study due to significant deviations from the study protocol (except for ammonia) or if the data were identified as outlying data. Those data are included in Table 3, but were eliminated prior to the r&r analysis. Lab code Product Table 3: Full Data Set (results are presented on an as-is basis) Nicotine ph Moisture NNN NNK NAT NAB Ammonia B[a]P % % µg/g µg/g µg/g µg/g µg/g ng/g A CRP A CRP A CRP B CRP B CRP B CRP C CRP C CRP C CRP D CRP D CRP D CRP E CRP E CRP E CRP F CRP F CRP F CRP G CRP G CRP < < G CRP H CRP H CRP H CRP I CRP I CRP I CRP J CRP J CRP J CRP K CRP K CRP STS-105-CTR 2016 Analysis of CRPs January /34

8 Lab code Product Nicotine ph Moisture NNN NNK NAT NAB Ammonia B[a]P % % µg/g µg/g µg/g µg/g µg/g ng/g K CRP L CRP L CRP L CRP M CRP M CRP M CRP N CRP < N CRP < N CRP < O CRP O CRP O CRP P CRP P CRP P CRP Q CRP Q CRP Q CRP R CRP <LOQ <LOQ R CRP <LOQ <LOQ R CRP <LOQ <LOQ S CRP S CRP S CRP A CRP A CRP A CRP B CRP B CRP B CRP C CRP C CRP C CRP D CRP D CRP D CRP E CRP E CRP E CRP F CRP F CRP F CRP G CRP STS-105-CTR 2016 Analysis of CRPs January /34

9 Lab code Product Nicotine ph Moisture NNN NNK NAT NAB Ammonia B[a]P % % µg/g µg/g µg/g µg/g µg/g ng/g G CRP G CRP H CRP H CRP H CRP I CRP I CRP I CRP J CRP J CRP J CRP K CRP K CRP K CRP L CRP L CRP L CRP M CRP M CRP M CRP N CRP N CRP N CRP O CRP O CRP O CRP P CRP P CRP P CRP Q CRP Q CRP Q CRP R CRP R CRP R CRP S CRP S CRP S CRP A CRP A CRP A CRP B CRP B CRP B CRP STS-105-CTR 2016 Analysis of CRPs January /34

10 Lab code Product Nicotine ph Moisture NNN NNK NAT NAB Ammonia B[a]P % % µg/g µg/g µg/g µg/g µg/g ng/g C CRP C CRP C CRP D CRP D CRP D CRP E CRP E CRP E CRP F CRP F CRP F CRP G CRP G CRP G CRP H CRP H CRP H CRP I CRP I CRP I CRP J CRP J CRP J CRP K CRP K CRP K CRP L CRP L CRP L CRP M CRP M CRP M CRP N CRP N CRP N CRP O CRP O CRP O CRP P CRP P CRP P CRP Q CRP Q CRP STS-105-CTR 2016 Analysis of CRPs January /34

11 Lab code Product Nicotine ph Moisture NNN NNK NAT NAB Ammonia B[a]P % % µg/g µg/g µg/g µg/g µg/g ng/g Q CRP R CRP R CRP R CRP S CRP S CRP S CRP A CRP A CRP A CRP B CRP B CRP B CRP C CRP C CRP C CRP D CRP D CRP D CRP E CRP E CRP E CRP F CRP F CRP F CRP G CRP G CRP G CRP H CRP H CRP H CRP I CRP I CRP I CRP J CRP J CRP J CRP K CRP K CRP K CRP L CRP L CRP L CRP M CRP STS-105-CTR 2016 Analysis of CRPs January /34

12 Lab code Product Nicotine ph Moisture NNN NNK NAT NAB Ammonia B[a]P % % µg/g µg/g µg/g µg/g µg/g ng/g M CRP M CRP N CRP N CRP N CRP O CRP O CRP O CRP P CRP P CRP P CRP Q CRP Q CRP Q CRP R CRP R CRP R CRP S CRP S CRP S CRP The ( ) symbol indicates the laboratory did not submit data for that sample analysis. 5. Data Statistical Analysis The statistical analysis was conducted in basic conformance with ISO :1994 and ISO/TR 22971:2005. A summary of the results from outlier detection and the calculated results for repeatability (r) and reproducibility (R) are given below in sections 5.1 and 5.2, respectively. Even though ISO :1994 does not suggest calculation of z-scores, z-scores are presented in section 5.3 so that the participating laboratories would have an additional measure of their performance compared to their peers. Raw data plots that include all replicates, without removal of outliers, are shown in Appendix B. 5.1 Exclusion of Outliers Procedures outlined in ISO :1994 and ISO/TR 22971:2005 were generally used for the exclusion of outliers. An adaptation of Levene s Test was used for eliminating laboratories with overly large repeatability standard deviations and Grubbs Test was used to eliminate laboratories with outlying mean values. ISO 5725(2) also recommends the use of Mandel s h and k plots. Mandel s h statistic is the same as the statistic used in Grubbs Test. Similarly Mandel s k statistic, associated with within lab standard deviation, is statistically equivalent to the c-value calculated in Cochran s Test ( k n c ). However, the critical values associated with Mandel s h and k statistics do labs not make allowance for multiple testing and can therefore, give a false impression of statistical significance. Thus, Mandel s h and k statistics do not add fundamentally new information and may lead to incorrect conclusions. For those reasons, we do not include Mandel s h and k plots. STS-105-CTR 2016 Analysis of CRPs January /34

13 The intent of ISO :1994 is to eliminate outliers that exceed a 1% critical value. This was accomplished by an adaptation of Levene s Test. Levene s Test is preferable to Cochran s Test, which is recommended in ISO :1994, because of Cochran s Test s extreme sensitivity to deviations from normality. Grubbs Test and an adaptation of Levene s Test were applied at the standard nominal 1% significance level to determine outliers and the results are shown in Table 4. Levene s Test is mentioned in ISO/TR 22971:2005 as an alternative to Cochran s Test. However, Levene s Test does not directly apply without adaptation. For more details, see the footnote below. 2 Table 4: Outliers among 2016 Data Analyte Product Levene s Outlier Lab Grubbs Outlier Lab Nicotine CRP1.1 J Nicotine CRP3.1 J Nicotine CRP4.1 L Moisture CRP3.1 F Moisture CRP3.1 L NNN CRP1.1 F NNN CRP2.1 F NNN CRP4.1 F NAB CRP2.1 F NAB CRP4.1 J NAT CRP3.1 C B[a]P CRP1.1 G B[a]P CRP4.1 G The (-) symbol indicates an outlier was not detected. 5.2 Calculation of Repeatability (r) and Reproducibility (R) After removal of outlying data based on numerical data consistency methods (Grubbs Test and Levene s Test), the final repeatability and reproducibility limits (r & R) were calculated. The r & R results are shown in Table 5. The r & R results reflect both laboratory variability and product consistency. 2 Levene s Test is commonly used to determine if each of several subpopulations have the same variance. Since it was designed to test for overall differences, not to determine if the largest variance is significantly greater than the others, some adaptation is necessary to use the approach to eliminate laboratories whose within lab variation is too large. Levene s Test was adapted to this purpose by Morton, who presented the approach utilized in this report at the 2014 CORESTA Congress (Quebec, Canada, presentation ST28, October 14, 2014). Specifically, the approach taken here is a two-step process with a lab being eliminated as an outlier if both steps are statistically significant. First, Levene s Test was run at a nominal -level of Second a comparison of the largest variance to the remaining variances is carried out at a one-sided nominal level of =0.01/number of labs. Dividing by the number of labs is to account for multiple testing, since it is not known a priori which lab will have the largest variance. Simulation studies were carried out by Morton and presented at the 2014 CORESTA Congress and these results demonstrated that this process has an overall -level near 0.01 and is robust to deviations from normality. STS-105-CTR 2016 Analysis of CRPs January /34

14 Parameter Table 5: Repeatability (r) and Reproducibility (R) Limits Product N of Labs* Mean Repeatability Reproducibility r % r R % R Nicotine (%) CRP % % Nicotine (%) CRP % % Nicotine (%) CRP % % Nicotine (%) CRP % % ph CRP NA NA ph CRP NA NA ph CRP NA NA ph CRP NA NA Moisture (%) CRP % % Moisture (%) CRP % % Moisture (%) CRP % % Moisture (%) CRP % % NNN (µg/g) CRP % % NNN (µg/g) CRP % % NNN (µg/g) CRP % % NNN (µg/g) CRP % % NNK (µg/g) CRP % % NNK (µg/g) CRP % % NNK (µg/g) CRP % % NNK (µg/g) CRP % % NAT (µg/g) CRP % % NAT (µg/g) CRP % % NAT (µg/g) CRP % % NAT (µg/g) CRP % % NAB (µg/g) CRP % % NAB (µg/g) CRP % % NAB (µg/g) CRP % % NAB (µg/g) CRP % % Ammonia (µg/g) CRP % % Ammonia (µg/g) CRP % % Ammonia (µg/g) CRP % % Ammonia (µg/g) CRP % % B[a]P (ng/g) CRP % % B[a]P (ng/g) CRP % % B[a]P (ng/g) CRP % % B[a]P (ng/g) CRP % % *This is the number of laboratory data sets reported above the LOQ and after removal of outliers. NA = Since ph is not a proportional scale, it is not appropriate to calculate % r or % R. STS-105-CTR 2016 Analysis of CRPs January /34

15 5.3 Calculation of Z-Scores Although calculation of z-scores is not suggested in ISO :1994, z-scores were calculated so that the participating laboratories could compare their results to those of their peers. As mentioned above, data sets were removed from the r&r portion of the study due to significant deviations from the study protocol (except for ammonia) or if the data were identified as outlying data. Those data are included in the calculation of z-scores. The z-scores were calculated using methods suggested in ISO 13528: The calculations were based on Algorithm A given in Annex C of ISO 13528: It is expected that most of the z-scores should fall within the range of ±2, and that laboratories having values with z >3 should be treated as an action signal to investigate laboratory performance. Final summary tables of z-scores are presented in Tables 6a through 6e for the study. Table 6a: Z-Scores Nicotine ph Lab CRP1.1 CRP2.1 CRP3.1 CRP4.1 CRP1.1 CRP2.1 CRP3.1 CRP4.1 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S The ( ) symbol indicates the laboratory did not submit data for that sample analysis. STS-105-CTR 2016 Analysis of CRPs January /34

16 Table 6b: Z-Scores Moisture NNN Lab CRP1.1 CRP2.1 CRP3.1 CRP4.1 CRP1.1 CRP2.1 CRP3.1 CRP4.1 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S The ( ) symbol indicates the laboratory did not submit data for that sample analysis. STS-105-CTR 2016 Analysis of CRPs January /34

17 NNK Table 6c: Z-Scores Lab CRP1.1 CRP2.1 CRP3.1 CRP4.1 CRP1.1 CRP2.1 CRP3.1 CRP4.1 A B C D E F G # H I J K L M N O P Q R * S The ( ) symbol indicates the laboratory did not submit data for that sample analysis. The (#) symbol indicates one of the three replicate values was reported as less than the LOQ and was omitted. The (*) symbol indicates all three replicates were less than the LOQ. NAT STS-105-CTR 2016 Analysis of CRPs January /34

18 Table 6d: Z-Scores NAB Ammonia Lab CRP1.1 CRP2.1 CRP3.1 CRP4.1 CRP1.1 CRP2.1 CRP3.1 CRP4.1 A B C D E F G 0.12 # H I J K L M N * O P Q R * S The ( ) symbol indicates the laboratory did not submit data for that sample analysis. The (#) symbol indicates one of the three replicate values was reported as less than the LOQ and was omitted. The (*) symbol indicates all three replicates were less than the LOQ. STS-105-CTR 2016 Analysis of CRPs January /34

19 Table 6e: Z-Scores B[a]P Lab CRP1.1 CRP2.1 CRP3.1 CRP4.1 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S The ( ) symbol indicates the laboratory did not submit data for that sample analysis. 6. Data Interpretations The averages, percent repeatability, and percent reproducibility from this study are compared in Appendix C to the most recent WG4 study (2015) for nicotine, moisture, ph and TSNA and to the 2014 ammonia Technical Report and the 2016 B[a]P Technical Report. The comparisons of this year s study are made to the corresponding 2009 CRPs. It can be seen that the chemistry differs in many instances between the 2009 and 2016 CRP productions. This was anticipated considering different crop-year tobaccos were used and different manufacturers produced three of the reference products. Although many small differences exist between the two productions, notable differences include the following: B[a]P is significantly higher in CRP2.1 and CRP3.1 as compared to the corresponding 2009 CRPs Ammonia is significantly higher in CRP3.1 as compared to CRP3 We also noted several instances where variability from this year s study was greater from the previous studies. With B[a]P the difference seems to correlate with the significantly higher concentration of B[a]P in both CRP2.1 and CRP3.1. The levels of B[a]P in these CRPs far exceeds that from the 2015 B[a]P collaborative study, which is the basis for the CRM. At this time it is not clear why the variation is greater than previously seen. We also noted increased STS-105-CTR 2016 Analysis of CRPs January /34

20 variability for the TSNAs in CRP1.1 as compared the previous study. The concentrations of the TSNAs in CRP1.1 are extremely low and a plausible cause for this increased variability is that the concentrations are near the lower analytical working range for many laboratories. 7. Recommendations The results of this study suggest the 2016 CRPs are characteristic of the product styles and are suitable for use as reference products. This study will also serve as a baseline for future analyses. At the STS meeting held in Berlin, Germany October 9, 2016, the STS decided to conduct a follow-up collaborative study to investigate the increased reproducibility values seen in this study for B[a]P as compared to the 2015 B[a]P collaborative study. STS-105-CTR 2016 Analysis of CRPs January /34

21 APPENDIX A: Composition of the CRPs CRP1.1- Swedish Snus Manufactured in January 2016 CRP1.1 is a Swedish-style snus smokeless tobacco product that was produced without added flavorings, except for those required to produce a product that is characteristic of the style. The reference product is packaged in plastic cans that contain twenty four 1g pouches. The target product composition supplied by the manufacturer is given below: Component % (wwb) Air-cured tobacco 8.4 Air-cured stem 0.2 Sun-cured tobacco 5.4 Sun-cured stem 9.7 Flue-cured stem 12.8 Propylene glycol 2.2 Sodium carbonate 1.8 Sodium chloride 4.0 Water 51.4 Pouch paper 4.1 Total 100 wwb: wet weight basis The following parameters were determined at the time of manufacture: Parameter Value Moisture content 53.7 % ph 8.4 Nicotine content wwb: wet weight basis 0.8 % (wwb) STS-105-CTR 2016 Analysis of CRPs January /34

22 CRP2.1- Moist Snuff Manufactured in April 2016 CRP2.1 is an American-style loose moist snuff smokeless tobacco product that was produced without added flavorings, except for those required to produce a product that is characteristic of the style. The reference product is packaged in plastic cans that contain 34 grams of product. The target product composition supplied by the manufacturer is given below: Component % (wwb) Dark-fired tobacco 26.6 Air-cured tobacco 8.1 Burley Stem 3.8 Sodium carbonate 0.5 Sodium chloride 8.0 Water 53.0 Total 100 wwb: wet weight basis The following parameters were determined at the time of manufacture: Parameter Value Moisture content 53 % ph 7.7 Nicotine content wwb: wet weight basis 1.2 % (wwb) STS-105-CTR 2016 Analysis of CRPs January /34

23 CRP3.1- Dry Snuff Manufactured in April 2016 CRP3.1 is an American-style loose dry snuff smokeless tobacco product that was produced without added flavorings, except for those required to produce a product that is characteristic of the style. The reference product is packaged in plastic cans that contain 34 g of product. The target product composition supplied by the manufacturer is given below: Component % (wwb) Dark-fired tobacco 54.8 Burley Stem 33.6 Sodium carbonate 1.1 Sodium chloride 1.1 Ammonium carbonate 1.4 Water 8.0 Total 100 wwb: wet weight basis The following parameters were determined at the time of manufacture: Parameter Value Moisture content 8.1% ph 7.1 Nicotine content wwb: wet weight basis 1.7% (wwb) STS-105-CTR 2016 Analysis of CRPs January /34

24 CRP4.1- Chopped Loose-leaf Manufactured in January 2016 CRP4.1 is a chopped American-style loose-leaf smokeless tobacco product that was produced without added flavorings, except for those required to produce a product that is characteristic of the style. The reference product is packaged in plastic cans that contain 28g of product. The target product composition supplied by the manufacturer is given below: Component % (wwb) Air-cured tobacco 32.4 Air-cured stem 5.8 Sodium chloride 1.8 Sodium propionate 0.3 Glycerin 6.8 Sucrose 10.9 Dextrose 3.5 Maltose 1.6 Corn syrup solids 13.9 Water 23.0 Total 100 wwb: wet weight basis The following parameters were determined at the time of manufacture: Parameter Value Moisture content 23 % ph 6.2 Nicotine content wwb: wet weight basis 0.9 % (wwb) STS-105-CTR 2016 Analysis of CRPs January /34

25 APPENDIX B: Raw Data Plots for 2016 WG4 Study STS-105-CTR 2016 Analysis of CRPs January /34

26 STS-105-CTR 2016 Analysis of CRPs January /34

27 STS-105-CTR 2016 Analysis of CRPs January /34

28 STS-105-CTR 2016 Analysis of CRPs January /34

29 STS-105-CTR 2016 Analysis of CRPs January /34

30 STS-105-CTR 2016 Analysis of CRPs January /34

31 STS-105-CTR 2016 Analysis of CRPs January /34

32 STS-105-CTR 2016 Analysis of CRPs January /34

33 STS-105-CTR 2016 Analysis of CRPs January /34

34 APPENDIX C: Comparison of Repeatability and Reproducibility Parameter Product N of Labs* Current Study 1 Previous Studies 2 Current Study 1 Previous Studies 2 Current Study 1 Previous Studies 2 Mean Mean % r % r % R % R Nicotine (%) CRP % 12.30% 16.80% 21.50% Nicotine (%) CRP % 4.50% 24.80% 12.60% Nicotine (%) CRP % 2.30% 12.20% 10.30% Nicotine (%) CRP % 8.10% 13.10% 22.90% ph CRP NA NA NA NA ph CRP NA NA NA NA ph CRP NA NA NA NA ph CRP NA NA NA NA Moisture (%) CRP % 8.20% 3.40% 10.60% Moisture (%) CRP % 1.30% 1.40% 1.40% Moisture (%) CRP % 2.90% 10.10% 12.80% Moisture (%) CRP % 2.60% 8.90% 7.90% NNN (µg/g) CRP % 11.20% 35.80% 16.80% NNN (µg/g) CRP % 6.80% 25.80% 16.20% NNN (µg/g) CRP % 7.60% 27.30% 15.80% NNN (µg/g) CRP % 7.60% 21.80% 19.80% NNK (µg/g) CRP % 14.20% 56.60% 27.10% NNK (µg/g) CRP % 7.20% 25.50% 22.50% NNK (µg/g) CRP % 11.80% 22.60% 25.50% NNK (µg/g) CRP % 14.20% 33.10% 24.40% NAT (µg/g) CRP % 12.60% 50.70% 29.70% NAT (µg/g) CRP % 5.70% 21.00% 22.90% NAT (µg/g) CRP % 7.70% 20.20% 27.40% NAT (µg/g) CRP % 7.80% 23.80% 36.30% NAB (µg/g) CRP % 33.60% 63.20% 42.50% NAB (µg/g) CRP % 10.60% 25.40% 20.90% NAB (µg/g) CRP % 10.40% 28.00% 26.20% NAB (µg/g) CRP % 11.10% 37.90% 31.50% Ammonia (µg/g) Ammonia (µg/g) Ammonia (µg/g) Ammonia (µg/g) CRP % 11.90% 40.20% 55.60% CRP % 4.00% 36.50% 40.80% CRP % 3.10% 23.90% 18.20% CRP % 16.70% 30.50% 24.80% B[a]P (ng/g) CRP % 20% 81.10% 79% B[a]P (ng/g) CRP % 6% 50.80% 22% B[a]P (ng/g) CRP % 12% 48.70% 22% B[a]P (ng/g) CRP % 32% 65.20% 64% 1. The columns labelled Current Study include data from the current 2016 study for the 2016 CRPs. 2. The columns labelled Previous Studies includes data for the 2009 CRPs 3,4,5. 3 STS Technical Report: CORESTA Reference Products (Smokeless Tobacco) Analysis, December STS Technical report: Determination of Ammonia in Tobacco and Smokeless Tobacco Products, August STS Technical report: 2015 Collaborative Study on Benzo[a]pyrene in Tobacco Products, March STS-105-CTR 2016 Analysis of CRPs January /34