October, ’23] 
PARROTT & MACLEOD:TOBACCO DUST 
425 
The Nicotine Content and Physical Properties of Tobacco Dust 
In the Virginia Station Bulletin 208, Ellett and Grisson state “that the 
nicotine content of tobacco varies greatly, depending upon many factors. 
The fertility of the soil and the kind of soil both have influence. In 
curing, the temperature is often allowed to run too high and nicotine 
is lost by volatilization. To ascertain the amount of nicotine, chemical 
analysis is required.” The nicotine content of Virginia tobacco is as 
follows: Stems, 0.48 to 0.60 percent; sweepings, 0.73 to 0.88 percent; 
N. L. Orinoco, 5.35 to 5.62 percent; olive, 3.63 percent; light, 2.9 
percent; smoker, 2.30 percent; wrapper, 3.05 percent; cutter, 3.46 
percent; dark, 2.83 percent; medium smoker, 3.76 percent; and common 
smoker 2.47 percent. “Stems had less nicotine content than leaves and 
dark varieties of tobacco, as Narrow-Leaf Orinoco and Burley, had 
higher ratios of nicotine than bright or flue-cured types.” 
There is, apparently no standard for tobacco dust either with respect 
to nicotine content or physical condition. In comparison with the 
foregoing figures, it is interesting to note that analysis of various lots of 
tobacco dust purchased in the State of New York showed considerable 
variation in nicotine, as follows: Sample 1, 0.88 percent nicotine; 
Sample 2,0.58 percent; Sample 3,0.50 percent; Sample 4, 0.95 percent; 
Sample 5, 0.98 percent; and Sample 6, 1.00 percent. 
A few grades of tobacco dust purchased during the past summer 
were quite fine, but the larger number of samples contained a consider¬ 
able amount of coai se material. Most preparations consisted of fine and 
coarse particles in varying proportions. A common constituent of 
tobacco was clay or dirt or other cheap adulterant substance or filler. 
In our experiments we used a tobacco dust which was guaranteed to 
contain 1 percent nicotine. The physical properties of this tobacco 
dust were as follows:Less than 50-mesh screen, 18 percent; 50-mesh, 27 
percent; 100-mesh, 1 percent; 150-mesh, 10 percent; and 200-mesh, 44 
percent. 
To obtain larger amounts than were available of the more finely 
pulverized material, the tobacco dust was ground for six hours or more 
in a ball machine. This is not an entirely satisfactory outfit for the 
purpose because of the large amount of time required for grinding and its 
failure to pulverize completely all the coarse particles. Regrinding, 
even with this machine, did improve greatly the physical properties of 
comxnon grades of tobacco dust. This is shown by comparing the fore¬ 
going figures relative to untreated tobacco dust with the accompanying 
analysis of a sample which was subjected to grinding for several hours:-— 
