Validation of Methods for Determining Consumer Smoked Cigarette Yields from Cigarette Filter Analysis

Open access

Abstract

Methods based on the analyses of cigarette filters have been used to estimate ‘tar’ and nicotine yields to smokers. These methods rely on the measurement of filtration efficiencies (FEs). However FEs may be influenced by both cigarette design features e.g., type of filter and levels of filter ventilation, and human smoking behaviour factors such as puff flow-rates and cigarette butt lengths. Two filter analysis methods are considered in our study. One is based on the analysis of whole filters using average values of FEs obtained from a range of machine smoking regimes. The other, a ‘part filter’ method, analyses a 10 mm section from the mouth end of the filter where the FE remains relatively constant irrespective of puff flow rates and butt lengths. Human puffing behaviour records were obtained from 10 smokers, each smoking six commercial cigarettes ranging from 1 mg to 12 mg ‘tar’ yields [International Standard (ISO) values]. These records were used to drive a human smoke duplicator and the resulting ‘tar’ and nicotine yields obtained from duplication were compared with the estimates obtained from ‘whole’ and ‘part filter’ analysis. The results indicated that whilst both filter methods gave good correlations with nicotine and ‘tar’ yields obtained from smoke duplication, the ‘part filter’ method was less susceptible to the effect of nicotine condensation and changes in FEs and hence gave a more accurate assessment of yields than the ‘whole filter’ method.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Federal Trade Commission. FTC to begin cigarette testing: News Release of the Federal Trade Commission 1 August 1967 Washington DC.

  • 2. Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health: Fourth report of the Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health; Her Majesty's Stationary Office London 1988.

  • 3. US Department of Health and Human Services: The Health Consequences of Smoking: Nicotine Addiction; Public Health Services Washington DC 1988.

  • 4. National Institute of Health: Monograph 7. The FTC cigarette test method for determining tar nicotine and carbon monoxide yields of US cigarettes; Report of the USDHHS NIH Bethesda MD 1996.

  • 5. Federal Trade Commission: FTC proposes new method for testing amounts of tar nicotine and carbon mon-oxide in cigarettes; News Release of the Federal Trade Commission 9 September 1997 Washington DC.

  • 6. Bates C. A. McNeil M. Jarvis and N. Gray: The future of tobacco product regulation and labelling in Europe: implication for the forthcoming European Union Directive; Tobacco Control 8 (1999) 225–235.

  • 7. Wilkenfeld J. J. Henningfield J. Slade D. Burns and J. Pinney: It's time for a change: cigarette smokers deserve meaningful information about their cigarettes; J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 92 (2000) 90–92.

  • 8. World Health Organisation: Monograph: Advancing knowledge on regulating tobacco products: World Health Organization Geneva 2001.

  • 9. Ashton H. and D.W. Watson: Puffing frequency and nicotine intake in cigarette smokers; Brit. Med. J. 3 (1970) 679–681.

  • 10. Forbes W.F. J.C. Robinson J.A. Hanley and H.N. Colburn: Studies on the nicotine exposure of indivi-dual smokers. I. Changes in mouth level exposure to nicotine on switching to lower nicotine cigarettes; Int. J. Addict. 11 (1976) 933–950.

  • 11. Russell M.A. S.R. Sutton R. Iyer C. Feyerabend and C.J. Vessey: Long term switching to low-tar low-nicotine cigarettes; Br. J. Addict. 77 (1982) 145–158.

  • 12. Rawbone R.G: Switching to low tar cigarettes: Are the tar league tables relevant; Thorax 39 (1984) 657–662.

  • 13. Baker R.R. M. Dixon and C. Hill: The incidence and consequences of filter vent blocking amongst British smokers; Beitr. Tabakforsch. Int. 18 (1998) 71–83.

  • 14. Watson C. J. McCraw J. G. Polzin and D. Ashley: Development of a method to assess cigarette smoke intake; Environ. Sci. Technol. 38 (2004) 248–253.

  • 15. Duke M.G.:Predicting the efficiency of cigarette filters; Filtration and Separation (1986) 358–366.

  • 16. Norman V. A.M. Ihrig R.A. Shoffner and M.S. Ireland: The effect of tip dilution on the filtration efficiency of upstream and downstream segments of cigarette filters; Beitr. Tabakforsch. Int. 12 (1984) 178–185.

  • 17. St. Charles F.K.: A robust method for determining consumer smoked cigarette yields from filter analytical data; Paper presented at the 55th Tob. Sci. Res. Conf. Greensboro NC 2001 Program Booklet and Abstracts No. 92.

  • 18. Creighton D.E. M.J. Noble and R.T. Whewell: Instruments to measure record and duplicate human smoking patterns; in: Smoking Behaviour edited by R.E. Thornton Churchill-Livingstone Edinburgh London New York 1978 pp. 289–300.

  • 19. ISO 3308: Routine analytical cigarette smoking machine – Definition and standard conditions: International Organization for Standardization Geneva 2000.

  • 20. ISO 4387: Cigarettes – Determination of total and nicotine free dry particulate matter using a routine analytical smoking machine; International Organization for Standardization Geneva 2000.

  • 21. ISO 10362-1: Cigarettes – Determination of water in smoke condensates – Part 1: Gas-chromatographic method; International Organization for Standardization Geneva 1999.

  • 22. ISO 10315: Methods for chemical analysis of tobacco and tobacco products. Determination of nicotine in smoke condensate of cigarettes (gas-chromatographic method); International Organization for Standardization Geneva 1991.

  • 23. CORESTA Recommended Method 9 1989: Deter-mination of nicotine in cigarette filters by gas chroma-tography analysis: Cooperation Centre for Scientific Research Relative to Tobacco Paris www.coresta.org/ Recommended Methods/CRM_09.pdf

  • 24. Sloan C.H. and J.G. Curran: Spectrophotometric determination of filtration of cigarette filters; Tob. Sci. 25 (1981) 57–60.

  • 25. Bland J.M. and D.G. Altman: Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method; Brit. Med. J. 310 (1995) 170.

  • 26. Dwyer R.W. and S.G. Abel: The Efficiencies of cellulose acetate filters; Beitr. Tabakforsch. Int. 13 (1986) 243–253.

  • 27. Townsend D.E.: The effects of tobacco moisture on the removal of cigarette smoke by the tobacco rod; Paper presented at 37th Tob. Chem. Res. Conf. Washington DC 1983 Program Booklet and Abstracts No. 31.

  • 28. Hopkins R. L.E. Wood and N.M. Sinclair: Evaluation of methods to estimate cigarette smoke uptake; Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 36 (1984) 788–795.

  • 29. Sweeney C.T. and L.T. Kozlowski: Blocking filter vents increases carbon monoxide levels from ultra light but not light cigarettes; Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 59 (1998) 767–773.

  • 30. Sweeney C.T. L.T. Kozlowski and P. Parsa: Effect of filter vent blocking on carbon monoxide exposure from selected lower tar cigarette brands; Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 63 (1999) 167–173.

  • 31. Zacny J. P. M.I. Stitzer and J.E. Yingling: Cigarette filter vent blocking: Effects on smoking topography and carbon monoxide exposure; Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 25 (1986) 1245–1252.

  • 32. Reeves N. M. Dixon N. Ayya D. Hilton and F.K St. Charles: Measurement of puffing behaviour in lights and ultra lights smokers with ventilation holes partially and fully blocked; Proceedings of the CORESTA Smoke and Technology Groups Joint Meeting Hamburg Germany September 1997 pp. 62–70.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


CiteScore 2018: 0.69

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.295
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.491

Cited By
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 193 97 12
PDF Downloads 99 64 6