Tob Control 1998;7:369-375 ( Winter )

Filter ventilation and nicotine content of tobacco in cigarettes from Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States

Lynn T Kozlowski^a, Nicholas Y Mehta^a, Christine T Sweeney^a, Stephen S Schwartz^a, George P Vogler^a, Martin J Jarvis^b, Robert J West^c

^a Department of Biobehavioral Health, Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA, ^b Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK, ^c Department of Psychology, St Georges Hospital Medical School, London

Correspondence to: Dr LT Kozlowski, Department of Biobehavioral Health, 315 Health and Human Development East, Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA; ltk1{at}psu.edu

OBJECTIVESThe purpose was to determine filter ventilation and the nicotine content of tobacco and their contribution to machine-smoked yields of cigarettes from the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.
METHODSNinety-two brands of cigarettes (32 American, 23 Canadian, and 37 British brands) were purchased at retail outlets in State College, Pennsylvania, United States, Toronto, Canada, and London, United Kingdom. A FIDUS FDT filter ventilation tester measured the percentage air-dilution from filter vents. High-pressure, liquid chromatography was used to measure the nicotine content of tobacco. Regression techniques were used to examine the contributions of tobacco nicotine content and filter ventilation to machine-smoked yields of tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide (CO).
RESULTSNinety-four per cent of the American brands, 91% of the Canadian brands, and 79% of British brands were ventilated. The total nicotine content of tobacco and percent nicotine (by weight of tobacco) averaged 10.2 mg (standard error of the mean (SEM) 0.25, range: 7.2 to 13.4) and 1.5% (SEM 0.03, range 1.2 to 2) in the United States, 13.5 mg (SEM 0.49, range: 8.0 to 18.3) and 1.8% (SEM 0.06, range: 1.0 to 2.4) in Canada, 12.5 mg (SEM 0.33, range: 9 to 17.5) and 1.7% (SEM 0.04, range: 1.3 to 2.4) in the United Kingdom. Multiple regression analyses showed that ventilation was by far the largest factor influencing machine-smoked yields of tar, nicotine, and CO.
CONCLUSIONFilter ventilation appears to be the predominant method for reducing machine-smoked yields of tar, nicotine, and CO in three countries. However, some brands contain about twice as much nicotine (total content or percent nicotine) as do others, indicating that tobacco types or blends and tobacco casings can be used to manipulate nicotine content and nicotine delivery of cigarettes.


Keywords: filter ventilation; nicotine content; cigarettes

---

© 1998 by Tobacco Control
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Benowitz, N. L., Dains, K. M., Hall, S. M., Stewart, S., Wilson, M., Dempsey, D., Jacob, P. III (2009). Progressive Commercial Cigarette Yield Reduction: Biochemical Exposure and Behavioral Assessment. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 18: 876-883 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• O'Connor, R J, Hammond, D, McNeill, A, King, B, Kozlowski, L T, Giovino, G A, Cummings, K M (2008). How do different cigarette design features influence the standard tar yields of popular cigarette brands sold in different countries?. Tobacco Control 17: i1-i5 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Hammond, D, O'Connor, R J (2008). Constituents in tobacco and smoke emissions from Canadian cigarettes. Tobacco Control 17: i24-i31 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Benowitz, N. L., Hall, S. M., Stewart, S., Wilson, M., Dempsey, D., Jacob, P. III (2007). Nicotine and Carcinogen Exposure with Smoking of Progressively Reduced Nicotine Content Cigarette. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 16: 2479-2485 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Connolly, G. N, Alpert, H. R, Wayne, G. F., Koh, H. (2007). Trends in nicotine yield in smoke and its relationship with design characteristics among popular US cigarette brands, 1997 2005. Tobacco Control 16: e5-e5 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Stephens, W E (2007). Dependence of tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide yields on physical parameters: implications for exposure, emissions control and monitoring. Tobacco Control 16: 170-176 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Kozlowski, L T, O'Connor, R J, Giovino, G A, Whetzel, C A, Pauly, J, Cummings, K M (2006). Maximum yields might improve public health--if filter vents were banned: a lesson from the history of vented filters. Tobacco Control 15: 262-266 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• O'Connor, R. J, Cummings, K M., Giovino, G. A, McNeill, A., Kozlowski, L. T (2006). How did UK cigarette makers reduce tar to 10 mg or less?. BMJ 332: 302-302 [Full Text]  
• Gill, J. S, O'May, F. (2006). People seem confused about sensible drinking messages. BMJ 332: 302-303 [Full Text]  
• Brooks, D. R., Austin, J. H.M., Heelan, R. T., Ginsberg, M. S., Shin, V., Olson, S. H., Muscat, J. E., Stellman, S. D. (2005). Influence of Type of Cigarette on Peripheral versus Central Lung Cancer. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 14: 576-581 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Hukkanen, J., Jacob, P. III, Benowitz, N. L. (2005). Metabolism and Disposition Kinetics of Nicotine. Pharmacol. Rev. 57: 79-115 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• O'Connor, R. J., Stitt, J. P., Kozlowski, L. T. (2005). A Digital Image Analysis System for Identifying Filter Vent Blocking on Ultralight Cigarettes. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 14: 533-537 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Calafat, A M, Polzin, G M, Saylor, J, Richter, P, Ashley, D L, Watson, C H (2004). Determination of tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide yields in the mainstream smoke of selected international cigarettes. Tobacco Control 13: 45-51 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Gray, N., Kozlowski, L. T. (2003). More on the regulation of tobacco smoke: how we got here and where next. Ann Oncol 14: 353-357 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Kozlowski, L T, O'Connor, R J (2002). Cigarette filter ventilation is a defective design because of misleading taste, bigger puffs, and blocked vents. Tobacco Control 11: i40-50 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Jarvis, M J (2001). Trends in sales weighted tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide yields of UK cigarettes. Thorax 56: 960-963 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Thun, M. J, Burns, D. M (2001). Health impact of ""reduced yield"" cigarettes: a critical assessment of the epidemiological evidence. Tobacco Control 10: i4-11 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Jarvis, M. J., Boreham, R., Primatesta, P., Feyerabend, C., Bryant, A. (2001). Nicotine Yield From Machine-Smoked Cigarettes and Nicotine Intakes in Smokers: Evidence From a Representative Population Survey. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 93: 134-138 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• WIGAND, J. S (1998). Cigarette testing methods, product design, and labelling: time to clean up the "negative baggage". Tobacco Control 7: 336-337 [Full Text]