Research conducted by the tobacco companies on smoke composition that contradict the conclusions of the MBS
| Company, year | Study | Finding (per cigarette unless noted) | Contradiction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brown and Williamson 195530 | Evaluated phenol in different kinds of tobacco | Burley tobacco 0.37 mg of phenol and 13.72 mg nicotine per litre Bright tobacco 0.508 mg phenol and 9.72 mg nicotine | Tobacco types have differences in phenol not predicted by nicotine |
| Brown and Williamson 197031 | Addition of urea to cigarettes | A Viceroy cigarette with 5% added urea had 2.06 mg nicotine, 23.1 mg tar and 279 µg acetaldehyde A Viceroy water treated control (no urea) had 1.98 mg nicotine, 24.4 mg tar and 509 µg acetaldehyde | Urea can be used to make aceltaldehyde not predicted by nicotine or tar |
| PM 197132 | Study of single blend cigarettes (eg, 100% burley) | Turkish tobacco 1.63 mg of nicotine 0.92 mg of acetaldehyde and −0.19 mg HCN Bright tobacco 3.07 mg of nicotine, 0.97 mg acetaldehyde and 0.22 mg HCN | Constituent levels not accurately predicted by nicotine |
| RJR 197333 | Comparing smoke chemistry to RJR and PM reconstituted tobacco | RJR reconstituted tobacco 0.59 mg, 810 µg acetaldehyde and 41.5 µg formaldehyde Marlboro reconstituted tobacco 2.2 mg nicotine, 840 µg acetaldehyde and 22.9 µg | Smoke composition not accurately predicted by nicotine for cigarettes with different kinds of reconstituted tobacco |
| PM 198134 | Discussing use of regression equation for predicting acrolein | PM scientists acknowledge an equation that includes phosphorous, sugar and scopeletin (a coumarin) is best for predicting acrolein levels | Equation including other ingredients besides nicotine are best for predicting smoke chemistry contradicts hypothesis they can be predicted from nicotine alone |
| PM 198335 | Fertiliser impact on 100% Burley cigarettes | Burley with special fertiliser (0.36–0.64 mg) NO and (1.57–3.88 mg) nicotine Burley normal fertiliser (0.10–0.14 mg/cig NO and 1.74–3.10 mg nicotine) | Presence of fertiliser results in differences in NO in ways not predicted by nicotine |
| RJR 198536 | Addition of a specific kind of salt (MENSA) to RJR brands | MENSA reduced formaldehyde by 25%, acrolein by 15% and other aldehydes by 17% with no significant impact on CO | Special salt on filter changes smoke chemistry in ways not predicted by CO |
| PM 198737 | Glycerol and/or propylene glycol added to filler of cigarette | Increase of 5.4% glycerol resulted in 50% increase of acrolein and 350% increase in formaldehyde sidestream smoke with no changes in co, nicotine or dry particulate matter | Glycerin and propylene glycol change sidestream smoke deliveries in way not predicted by CO, nicotine or tar |
| Lorillard 198938 | Evaluating the impact of urea on smoke chemistry | A Viceroy cigarette with 5% added urea had 2.06 mg nicotine, 23.1 mg tar and 279 µg acetaldehyde A Viceroy water treated control (no urea) had 1.98 mg nicotine, 24.4 mg tar and 509 µg acetaldehyde | Urea changes aceltaldehyde in ways not predicted by nicotine or tar |
| Lorillard 199239 | Evaluation of adding magnesium nitrate on smoke | Addition of 5% magnesium nitrate had 9 µg hydroquinone and 10 µg catechol compared to a control cigarette with 109 µg hydroquinone and 100 µg catechol with no changes in tar | Magnesium nitrate additives change smoke chemistry in ways not predicted by tar |
HCN, hydrogen cyanide; MBS, Massachusetts Benchmark Study; NO, nitric oxide; PM, Philip Morris; RJR, RJ Reynolds.