Mouth level smoke exposure using analysis of filters from smoked cigarettes: A study of eight countries (original) (raw)
Related papers
Beiträge zur Tabakforschung / Contributions to Tobacco Research, 2014
Filter analysis methodology can be used to estimate smokers’ mouth level exposure (MLE) to ‘tar’ and nicotine from spent cigarette filters. Variation in smoking behaviour and cigarette design are known to have an impact on the range of ‘tar’ and nicotine MLE. Most ‘King Size’ (KS) cigarettes have a circumference of about 25 mm and are 83-84 mm long, with filters 20-27 mm in length. Recently, a slimmer format, described as a ‘King Size Superslim’ (KSSS), with a circumference of 17 mm, has become popular in several countries. Although several studies have estimated the MLE to ‘tar’ and nicotine of smokers of KS cigarettes, there have been no studies of KSSS smokers reported to date. KSSS cigarettes from Romania were chosen for this study with a single product to represent each 1, 4 and 7 mg machine-smoked ISO ‘tar’ yields. Since these products have filters containing activated carbon, comparisons were made with a single product at each ISO ‘tar’ level of KS cigarettes with both activa...
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
A forced switch to a lower ISO tar yield cigarette was used in a clinical study, conducted in Germany, that compared two methods of estimating exposure to cigarette smoke. Pre-and post-switch estimates of Mouth Level Exposure (MLE) to nicotine, 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK), pyrene and acrolein were obtained by chemical analysis of spent cigarette filters for nicotine content. Similarly, pre-and post-switch estimates of uptake of these smoke constituents were achieved by analysis of corresponding urinary biomarkers of exposure (BoE): total nicotine equivalents; total 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL); total 1-hydroxypyrene (1-OHP), and 3-hydroxypropyl-mercapturic acid (3-HPMA), plus the nicotine metabolite cotinine, in plasma and saliva. Three hundred healthy volunteers were recruited comprising 100 smokers of each of 9-10 and 4-6 mg ISO tar yield cigarettes and 50 smokers of 1-2 mg ISO tar yield cigarettes and 50 non-smokers. Fifty smokers of each of the 9-10 and 4-6 mg ISO tar yield cigarettes took part in the switching aspects of this study whilst the remaining smokers formed non-switching control groups who smoked their usual ISO tar yield cigarette throughout the study. After 5 days, all subjects were admitted into a clinic where baseline measures of MLE and BoE were obtained. The 10 mg switching group was then switched to the 4 mg ISO tar yield cigarette and the 4 mg ISO tar yield switching group switched to the 1 mg cigarette. Subjects returned home for 12 days, continuing to smoke the supplied cigarettes before being readmitted into the clinic where samples were collected for MLE and BoE analysis. Changes in daily exposure estimates were determined on a group and individual basis for both methods. The pre-to post-switch directional changes in MLEs and their corresponding BoEs were generally consistent and the MLE/BoE relationship maintained. Switching to a lower yield cigarette generally resulted in reductions in exposure with the resultant exposure level being similar to that seen in regular smokers of the lower yield cigarette.
Tobacco Control, 2004
Survey of nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide (CO) smoke deliveries from 77 cigarette brands purchased in 35 countries was conducted using a standardised machine smoking method. The goal of this study was to determine regional variations and differences in the tar, nicotine, and CO smoke yields of a cigarette brand manufactured by a leading transnational corporation and of non-US locally popular cigarette brands. Design: The majority of the cigarettes were purchased in each of the participating countries by delegate members of the World Health Organization and forwarded to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for analysis. Smoke deliveries were determined using a standardised smoking machine method and subsequent gravimetric and gas chromatography analysis. Results: The smoke deliveries varied widely. Mainstream smoke deliveries varied from 6.8 to 21.6 mg tar/ cigarette, 0.5 to 1.6 mg nicotine/cigarette, and 5.9 to 17.4 mg CO/cigarette. In addition to the smoke deliveries, the cigarettes were examined to determine physical parameters such as filter composition, length, and ventilation levels. Conclusion: Analysis of the smoke deliveries suggested that cigarettes from the Eastern Mediterranean, Southeast Asia, and Western Pacific WHO regions tended to have higher tar, nicotine, and CO smoke deliveries than did brands from the European, American, or African WHO regions surveyed.
Beiträge zur Tabakforschung / Contributions to Tobacco Research, 2014
Changes in exposure to cigarette smoke and smoking behavior were assessed in adult smokers participating in a multi-center, cross-sectional study who spontaneously switched to > 3 mg lower or higher machine measured ‘tar’ yield. Of 2,542 consenting smokers only 23 down-switchers (DWNSW) and 68 up-switchers (UPSW) met study eligibility criteria. Biomarkers of exposure (BOE) to selected smoke constituents were measured. Large variability was observed in the BOEs (e.g. CV% for nicotine equivalents (nicotine and five of its metabolites, NE) per day ranged from 59% to 78%). On average, DWNSW smoked two more cigarettes/day (+ 9%) that had ~ 5.9 mg lower ‘tar’ yield. Mean NE/day were 12.0 ± 6.2 mg/day compared to 13.9 ± 8.2 mg/day after down switching. Slightly lower levels of NE/cigarette (-8%), total NNAL/day and per cigarette were observed (-18% and -23%) in the DWNSW's. UPSW smoked two fewer cigarettes/day (-13%) with higher ‘tar’ yield (~ 8.4 mg higher ‘tar’). NE/day was 12.5 ±...
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 2011
In 2005, Human-Smoked (HS) tar and nicotine yields from commercial Canadian cigarettes were determined using a part filter analysis method to obtain estimates representative of human smoking behavior. In 2006, new cigarette designs were introduced to ensure compliance with the Canadian Low Ignition Propensity (LIP) regulations. It was not known how the changes in product design would affect HS yields. To assess the impact of the cigarette design modifications on HS yields, a further group of Canadian smokers was recruited for smoking the modified version of 10 products previously assessed. No differences in estimated HS tar yields were found between products following product modification. The HS nicotine yield was different for one product. In general, HS yields were higher than ISO machine yields while Canadian intense machine yields were more representative of the maximum HS yields. The same product ranking order was obtained for HS yields and the two machine yields but differences between the mean HS yields and ISO yields were smaller as the product ISO yields increased. Higher HS yields were measured when products were smoked by male smokers. The methodology used in this study showed the wide range of HS yields obtained by smokers as well as a good degree of stability in average HS yields just before and after the introduction of LIP regulations.
BMJ, 2004
Objective To assess the risk of lung cancer in smokers of medium tar filter cigarettes compared with smokers of low tar and very low tar filter cigarettes. Design Analysis of the association between the tar rating of the brand of cigarette smoked in 1982 and mortality from lung cancer over the next six years. Multivariate proportional hazards analyses used to assess hazard ratios, with adjustment for age at enrolment, race, educational level, marital status, blue collar employment, occupational exposure to asbestos, intake of vegetables, citrus fruits, and vitamins, and, in analyses of current and former smokers, for age when they started to smoke and number of cigarettes smoked per day. Setting Cancer prevention study II (CPS-II). Participants 364 239 men and 576 535 women, aged ≥ 30 years, who had either never smoked, were former smokers, or were currently smoking a specific brand of cigarette when they were enrolled in the cancer prevention study. Main outcome measure Death from primary cancer of the lung among participants who had never smoked, former smokers, smokers of very low tar (≤ 7 mg tar/cigarette) filter, low tar (8-14 mg) filter, high tar (≥ 22 mg) non-filter brands and medium tar conventional filter brands (15-21 mg). Results Irrespective of the tar level of their current brand, all current smokers had a far greater risk of lung cancer than people who had stopped smoking or had never smoked. Compared with smokers of medium tar (15-21 mg) filter cigarettes, risk was higher among men and women who smoked high tar (≥ 22 mg) non-filter brands (hazard ratio 1.44, 95% confidence interval 1.20 to 1.73, and 1.64, 1.26 to 2.15, respectively). There was no difference in risk among men who smoked brands rated as very low tar (1.17, 0.95 to 1.45) or low tar (1.02, 0.90 to 1.16) compared with those who smoked medium tar brands. The same was seen for women (0.98, 0.80 to 1.21, and 0.95, 0.82 to 1.11, respectively). Conclusion The increase in lung cancer risk is similar in people who smoke medium tar cigarettes (15-21 mg), low tar cigarettes (8-14 mg), or very low tar cigarettes (≤ 7 mg). Men and women who smoke non-filtered cigarettes with tar ratings ≥ 22 mg have an even higher risk of lung cancer.
Validation of Part-Filter Analysis to Estimate Smokers' Mouth Level Exposure to ‘Tar’ and Nicotine
Beiträge zur Tabakforschung / Contributions to Tobacco Research, 2015
SUMMARYPart-filter analysis is a method used to assess mouth level exposure (MLE) of cigarette smokers to mainstream smoke constituents. We assessed the robustness of part-filter analysis to compare MLE to nicotine and ‘tar’ between smoker populations and during calibration. Three groups of subjects smoked two batches of the same brand of 1-mg ISO tar yield Hungarian cigarettes three times each. Eighteen calibration curves were produced with three operators using three smoking machines. Within each batch of cigarettes, MLE did not differ significantly between the three smoker groups or after repeated smoking within groups. MLE was marginally higher for cigarettes from Batch 1 than Batch 2. No significant differences were found between the slopes and intercepts of the calibration curves produced using different smoking machines and operators. Part-filter analysis offers a repeatable means of estimating smokers' ‘tar’ and nicotine MLE in large-scale studies in their everyday smoki...
… Biomarkers & Prevention, 2009
Background-Cigarettes are being marketed with filters that differ in composition and design. The filters have different toxicant trapping efficiency and smoking stains reflect variations in smoking behavior. Presented herein are the results of a structured literature review that was performed to identify cigarette filter-based assays that may serve as proxies for mouth-level exposure and assessing smoking methods. Methods-A search of the published scientific literature and internal tobacco company documents from 1954 to 2009 was performed. Results-The literature search identified diverse schemes for assessing cigarette filters, including visual inspection and digital imaging of smoked-stained spent filters, and quantitative determinations for total particulate matter (TPM), nicotine, and solanesol. The results also showed that: (a) there is sufficient data to link filter-based chemical measures to standardized smoking machine-measured yields of tar and nicotine; (b) TPM eluted from filters or in chemical digest of filters can be used to estimate the efficiency of the filter for trapping smoke solids; (c) visual and digital inspection of spent filters are useful as indicators of variations in smoking behaviors; and (d) there is a correlation between solanesol and nicotine measured in filters and exposure biomarkers in smokers. Conclusions-The cigarette filter may prove useful in estimating smoking behaviors such as filter vent blocking and puffing intensity, and may have utility as proxy measures of mouth-level smoke exposure in clinical trials. Additional investigations are needed to compare the different proposed assay schemes and the assay results with measurements of human biomarker assays of smoke exposure.
In 1982 the American Cancer Society (ACS) enrolled over 1.2 million American men and women in a prospective mor tality study of cancer and other causes in relation to environmental and life-style factors. Biennial follow-up is planned through 1988. At the time of enrollment, 23.6% of the men and 20.0% of the women were current smokers of cigarettes. Compared with a simi lar ACS study of 1 million subjects enrolled 23 years earlier, among men the proportion of current smokers was halved and that of ex-smokers doubled, while among women the proportion of ever-smokers increased by 10% and that of ex-smokers quad rupled. Most smokers of filter cigarettes had smoked nonfiltered cigarettes earlier in life. The median year for switching to filters was 1964, the year of the first Surgeon General's report. More than one-third of male smokers' and one-half of female smokers' cur rent brands had tar yields below 12 mg; less than 9% of male smokers' and 4% of female smokers' current brands had tar yields of 20.2 mg or more (nonfilters). The study population differed in many respects from the general U.S. population ; the study popula tion had, for example, a much higher average educational level. Nevertheless, distributions of smoking habits changed a few per centage pOints after adjustment to the educational level of the general population.-JNCI 1986; 76 :1057-1063.
Lung Cancer Risk Is Proportional to Cigarette Tar Yield: Evidence from a Prospective Study
The age-adjusted risk for lung cancer among over 120,000 male current cigarette smokers in the American Cancer Society's 1959-1972 prospective study was analyzed according to tar yield and quantity smoked per day. At each quantity level, the risk increased with increasing tar yield, and at each tar level, the risk increased with numbers of cigarettes smoked daily. The risks in smokers of cigarettes with the lowest yields, however, far exceeded those of former smokers and nonsmokers. The excess lung cancer risk for current smokers was directly proportional to the estimated total milligrams of tar consumed daily: SMR = 100 + 1.731 x milligrams tar per day. Tar yields today are much lower than they were at the time of this study and presage an eventual reduction (but not elimination) of lung cancer risk for those who continue to smoke cigarettes, especially among lifetime smokers of low-tar cigarettes. 6