Wool Cigarette Filters Part II: Modifications to Promote the Selective Removal of Biologically Active Vapour Phase Components

Open access

Abstract

Modified-wool cigarette filters have been evaluated for their efficiency in selectively retaining specific biologically active volatile and semivolatile smoke components. Filters containing chemically modified wools or wool treated with low-molecular-weight additives were ineffective. Polymeric additives reduced the cytotoxic level of cigarette smoke by varying degrees. Polyethylenimines were particularly effective additives and selectively removed portions of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, hydrogen cyanide, phenols and other weakly acidic compounds. Increasing the moisture content of the treated filters markedly improved their performance. The effectiveness of polyethyleniminetreated filters in removing volatile aldehydes was strongly dependent on the pH of the filter, most efficient removaI occurring at pH 6.0-6.2.

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

  • 1. LeudttenbergerC. and R. Leuchtenberger: Morphology of experimental respiratory carcinogenesis; United States Atomic Energy Commission1970 329.

  • 2. Thayer P. 5. and C. J. Kensler: Science146 (1.964) 642.

  • 3. Battista S. P. and C. }. Kensler: Arch. Environ.Health zo (1.970) 31.8.

  • 4. Dalhanm T. and A. Rosengren: Arch. Otolaryng. 93 (1.971.) 496.

  • 5. Wynder E. L. and D. Hoffmann: Tobacco and tobacco smoke Studies in experimental carcinogenesis; Academic Press N. Y.196; 253.

  • 6. Holt P. G. W. N. Bartholomaeus and D. Keast: Aust. J ex.p. Bioi. med. Sci. 52 (1.974) 21.1..

  • 7. Powell G. M. and G. M. Green: Biochem. Pharmacology 21. (1.972)1885.

  • 8. Benedict R. C. and R. L. Stedman: Experientia 24 (1.968)1205/ Tobacco Sci.13 (1.96g)166.

  • 9. Sdl.abort J. C.: J. South African Chem. Inst. zo (1.967)103.

  • 10. Bednarcyk N. E.: Tobacco smoke filters; Noyes Data Corporation New Jersey1972140.

  • 11. George T. W.: Selective removal of components of tobacco smoke by filtration; Nat. Cancer Inst. Monogr. z8 2371.968.

  • 12. Evans D. J. M. Lipson and R. J Mayfield: J. Text. Inst. 66 (1.975) 325.

  • 13. Comber R.: Chem. and Ind.1972 64.

  • 14. Hoffmann D. and E. L. Wynder: J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 48 (1.972)1855.

  • 15. Alexander P. D. Carter C. Earland and 0. E. Ford: Biochem. J. 48 (1.951.) 62.9.

  • 16. Sweetman B.J. and J.A. MacLaren: Aust. J. Chem. 19 (1.966) 2347.

  • 17. Lipson M. and J. B. Speakman: J Soc. Dyers and Colourists 65 (1.949) 390.

  • 18. Coresta standard method No.10 Information Bulletin1969-1- 2.4.

  • 19. Weiss W.: Arch. Environ. Health17 (1.968) 62. zo. Aldridge W. N.: Analyst 69 (1.944) 2.62..

  • 21. Altshuller A. P. D. L. Miller and S. F. Slera: Anal. Chem. 33 (1.961.) 621..

  • 22. Evans D. J. and R. J. Mayfield: Analyst1oo (1.975) 540 .

  • 23. Cohen; I. R. and A. P. Altshuller: Anal. Chem. 33 (1.C}61.) 726.

  • 24. Lorentzen G. and G. Neurath: Beitr. Tabakforsch. 2 (1.963) 73.

  • 25. Rothwell K. and C. A. Grant: Standard methods for the analysis of tobacco smoke; Tobacco Researdt Council Research Paper11. London 1972.

  • 26. Williamson J. T.: Bull. Inf. Coresta SpCcial1.974- 79.

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

Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 95 52 2
PDF Downloads 69 46 7