ArticlesEffect of Filter Vent Blocking on Carbon Monoxide Exposure From Selected Lower Tar Cigarette Brands
Section snippets
Participants
Twelve cigarette smokers (six women and six men) were recruited through announcements posted on University bulletin boards and a television advertisement on a government education access channel. The average participant was 22 years old (range 19–33, SD = 4.0), smoked 22 cigarettes per day (range 15–30, SD = 5.3), and had been smoking regularly for 6.1 years (range 4–20, SD = 4.4). Two participants reported their usual brand as being Marlboro Full Flavor®, four Marlboro Lights, one Marlboro
Biological Exposure Measure
Baseline CO levels (i.e., expired-air CO scores at the start of each session, prior to smoking any cigarettes) ranged from 3.0 ppm to 49.0 ppm for the 12 participants (mean = 22.0; SD = 13.9).
Figure 1 shows the mean CO boosts with standard errors for both brands under both blocking conditions. Mean CO boosts were 2.0 ppm (SE = 0.57), 3.7 ppm (SE = 0.49), 6.1 ppm (SE = 0.84), and 5.9 ppm (SE = 0.79) for the unblocked Nows, blocked Nows, unblocked Marlboro Lights, and blocked Marlboro Lights,
Study 1: discussion
These results obtained under ad lib smoking conditions are very similar to those previously obtained under controlled smoking conditions. Blocking approximately half the filter vents with fingers on the Ultra-light cigarette brand Now led to almost a doubling (an 85% increase) of exposure to CO. In a previous study using the same vent blocking manipulation (i.e., finger blocking) a 93% increase in CO exposure due to vent blocking was observed for participants also smoking the brand Now (19).
Study 2
The purpose of Study 2 was to examine using additional cigarette brands the effects of vent blocking on smoke exposure, cigarette characteristics, and puff number under ad lib smoking conditions. Brands of varying ventilation levels and standard tar yields were used, allowing for a more specific examination of the influence of degree of filter ventilation on the effects of vent blocking. We wanted to examine whether brands within the Ultra-light tar yield category behave similarly with respect
Participants
Twelve female cigarette smokers were recruited through newspaper advertisements, fliers posted on University bulletin boards, and a television advertisement on a government education access channel. The average participant was 23 years old (range 18–50, SD = 9.0), smoked 20 cigarettes per day (range 15–35, SD = 6.0), and had been smoking regularly for 6.7 years (range 3–30, SD = 7.4). Seven participants reported their usual brand as being Marlboro Lights, two Camel Lights, two Parliament
Biological Exposure Measure
Average baseline CO levels (i.e., expired-air CO score at the start of each session, prior to smoking any cigarettes) were 7.7 ppm (SD = 3.9) for session 1 , 8.3 ppm (SD = 4.6) for session 2, 8.0 ppm (SD = 3.6) for session 3, and 7.0 ppm (SD = 3.6) for session 4.
Figure 2 shows the mean CO boosts with standard errors for all four brands of cigarettes under both blocking conditions.
Mean CO boosts were 1.8 ppm (SE = 0.41) and 6.1 ppm (SE = 0.86) for unblocked and blocked Carltons, respectively;
Study 2: discussion
When the filter vents on the 83% ventilated brand Carlton were not blocked, it was difficult for the smokers in this study to attain high CO yields, no matter how intensively they smoked these cigarettes. On average, CO exposure levels from this brand were 1.8 ppm when filter vents were not blocked. By covering the filter vents, however, this same brand produced CO levels of 6.1 ppm, more than tripling participants’ exposure to CO.
Somewhat smaller, though still statistically significant, was
General discussion
To date, six different brands of ventilated-filter cigarettes have been studied for the effects of behavioral vent blocking. Degree of filter ventilation, rather than its designation as “Ultra-light” or “Light,” appears to determine whether a brand is susceptible to increased CO yields as a result of vent blocking (although there is a high correlation between standard yields and percentage filter ventilation). Although blocking the filter vents of brands with ventilation levels of at least 66%
References (21)
- et al.
Smoker’s misperceptions of light and ultra-light cigarettes may keep them smoking
Am. J. Prevent. Med.
(1998) - et al.
Self-selected blocking of vents on low-yield cigarettes
Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.
(1989) - et al.
Misuse of “light” cigarettes by means of vent blocking
J. Subst. Abuse
(1994) - et al.
A comparison of the yields of tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide of 36 brands of Canadian cigarettes tested under three conditions
Prevent. Med.
(1983) - et al.
Cigarette filter vent blockingEffects on smoking topography and carbon monoxide exposure
Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.
(1986) - et al.
Filter ventilation—Has there been a “cover-up”?
Recent Adv. Tobacco Sci.
(1997) - et al.
Reduced tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide exposure while smoking ultralow but now low yield cigarettes
JAMA
(1986) Filter ventilation levels in selected U.S. cigarettes—1997
MMWR
(1997)- Federal Trade Commission Report.: Tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide of the smoke of 1249 varieties of domestic...
- et al.
Attitudes, knowledge, and beliefs about low-yield cigarettes among adolescents and adults
Cited by (22)
Cigarette filter ventilation, smoking topography, and subjective effects: A mediational analysis
2022, Drug and Alcohol DependenceCitation Excerpt :Another means of compensating is vent blocking. Studies have shown that the degree to which a brand is ventilated determines whether it is susceptible to increased carbon monoxide yields because of vent blocking (i.e., removing ventilation) (Strasser et al., 2005; Sweeney et al., 1999). Furthermore, studies show that although greater filter ventilation results in lower machine-determined nicotine and tar yields, because of compensatory smoking, the extent of exposure to toxicants is similar across cigarette ventilation levels (Carroll et al., 2021).
Tobacco harm reduction: Past history, current controversies and a proposed approach for the future
2020, Preventive MedicineCitation Excerpt :Smokers were able to alter their smoking behavior, engaging in “compensatory” smoking. Compensatory smoking involves achieving higher levels of exposure than reflected by the tar/nicotine yields of the cigarette by smoking more intensely, blocking the ventilation holes and also by increasing the number of cigarettes smoked (National Cancer Institute, 2001; Sweeney and Kozlowski, 1998; Sweeney et al., 1999; Scherer, 1999; Hammond et al., 2005). As a consequence, the reduction in health risk was not proportional to the reduction in machine yields (Cheah and Hatsukami, n.d.).
The effect of filter vent blocking and smoking topography on carbon monoxide levels in smokers
2005, Pharmacology Biochemistry and BehaviorPlacebo cigarettes in a spaced smoking paradigm
2005, Pharmacology Biochemistry and BehaviorMassachusetts' advertising against light cigarettes appears to change beliefs and behavior
2000, American Journal of Preventive Medicine