This article was downloaded by:[Canadian Research Knowledge Network] On: 7 February 2008 Access Details: [subscription number 770885181] Publisher: Informa Healthcare Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Nicotine & Tobacco Research Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713439766 Digital image analysis of cigarette filter staining to estimate smoke exposure Richard J. O'Connor a; Lynn T. Kozlowski b; David Hammond c; Tammy T. Vance a; Joseph P. Stitt d; K. Michael Cummings a a Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY b Department of Biobehavioral Health, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA c Department of Health Studies, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada d Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA

Online Publication Date: 01 August 2007 To cite this Article: O'Connor, Richard J., Kozlowski, Lynn T., Hammond, David, Vance, Tammy T., Stitt, Joseph P. and Cummings, K. Michael (2007) 'Digital image analysis of cigarette filter staining to estimate smoke exposure', Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 9:8, 865 - 871 To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/14622200701485026 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14622200701485026

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 16:52 7 February 2008 O:10.1080/14622200701485026 DOI: 25 -al [email protected] E-mail: 1265; SN16-23pitIS 4994 online 1469-994X print/ISSN 1462-2203 ISSN Streets, Carlton Population and and Elm Tel.: USA. Institute, Prevention 14263, Cancer NY Cancer Buffalo, Park of Roswell Division Sciences, Behavior, Health University, Stitt, State PA. P. Pennsylvania Park, Joseph University Laboratory, Canada; Research Waterloo, Applied Ph.D., Waterloo, Health Ph.D., of Kozlowski, of Department University Ph.D., T. University, Hammond, Studies, David State Lynn PA; Pennsylvania Park, NY; Michael Health, University Biobehavioral K. Buffalo, of B.S., Roswell Institute, Department Behavior, Vance, Cancer Health T. of Park Department Tammy M.P.H., Ph.D., Ph.D., Cummings, O’Connor, J. Richard to of ways different Institute, risk explored Cancer have therefore, (National Researchers and, the 2001). smoking smoke to from exposure tobacco disease smoking of in of measures years toxins crude the only and of represent daily number the smoked that cigarette cigarettes each in smoke exists people variation Americans how and Sufficient Health million 2004). Services, of the 47 Human Department in (U.S. nearly smoking mortality with currently and States, pre- morbidity single United of greatest cause the ventable remains smoking Cigarette Introduction a as serve can butts cigarette spent accounting volume. of when accounting smoke analysis cotinine image volume, total salivary digital smoke of of that predictor total measure suggest significant data to proxy a These related reliable was day. center significantly volume per that smoked smoke were showed cigarettes Estimated interaction scoring for variation. their components their the and principal of smoking 73% A staining, those ( for waves. tar among stability across edge 95% acceptable measures staining, of study than showed topography tar index topography more smoking system) smoking unobtrusive of of (CIELAB a inexpensive, stability reliability in scores an basic participants color test–retest 53 provide Mean showed by also brand. image Imaging smoked may own Digital butts analyzed. and cigarette cigarettes. and 1,124 blocking smoke imaged of vent has individuals were total research filter how A Previous the identify exposure. about smoke. and smoke to tobacco information daily overall used in provide smoked toxins been can cigarettes the has of filters to analysis number exposure cigarette the of spent measures that that crude cigarette shown only each represent smoke smoking people of how years in exists variation Sufficient 2006 July 19 accepted 2006; April 21 Received Vance, T. Cummings Tammy Michael Hammond, K. David Stitt, Kozlowski, P. T. Joseph Lynn O’Connor, J. Richard to staining exposure filter smoke cigarette estimate of analysis image Digital Research Tobacco & Nicotine orsodne ihr .OCno,P.. eatetof Department Ph.D., O’Connor, J. Richard Correspondence: + 76 4-57 Fax: 845-4517; (716) 1 oue9 ubr8(uut20)865–871 2007) (August 8 Number 9, Volume # 07SceyfrRsac nNctn n Tobacco and Nicotine on Research for Society 2007 + 76 845- (716) 1 oietf lcigo iyarhlsi h itrwhile filter the in holes or air 2004) tiny of Ashley, blocking Mariner, (Dixon, & identify to & Polzin, Jamart, cigarette McCraw, Appleton, & Watson, Krautter, a Prignot 2005; Charles, 2005; on St. Charles, 2005; puffed St. & smokers Shepperd, Re- differences how subtle 1982). characterize in to tips Robinson, employed filter be cigarette might used & Kozl- how explored 2000; Pope, have searchers Victoria, (e.g., Rickert, & intensity owski, in Lethu, varies Chaouat, that a Husset, makes stain an filter color (Kozlowski, cigarette how a distinctive in smoked retained about ‘‘tar’’ been The 1981). has filter information the cigarette useful matter, individual particulate provide smoke may the of makes portion cost high population-based large-scale their for research. mea- smokes, asking impractical these one simply them Although much over 2005). improvements how al., represent et sures Benowitz Hecht Hyland, (e.g., & Cummings, 2005; Fong, behavior Hammond, 2005; puffing al., et computer- of and biomarkers measures of ized use people the as different such how smoke, in variation characterize better ie htcgrteflesta significant a trap filters cigarette that Given . 6)ars as aalln the paralleling days, across .60) Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 16:52 7 February 2008 h es ihig n onigeupetaeas are equipment mounting and lighting, (Intel Washington). lens, Redmond, The Inc., M (Microsoft operat- system Professional ing Pentium XP pro- Windows the GHz 1.7 running a cessor California) notebook Clara, with Latitude Santa Corporation, Dell IEEE-1394 equipped a via computer to connected (FireWire) was interface camera The pixels. by ( ratings color well such correlated that and between smokers West, reported .97 Devitt, (1984) number. to of Jarvis puff correlation smokers and a ratings cigarette; by human the showed on used method taken was puffs this of that number a the scale proposed estimate (1982) color colleagues visual and Kozlowski new. blocking 2005). vent al., of accurate et absence 95% (O’Connor or than presence the more detecting blocked is in method were this to holes smokers; stain air by tar cigarette the of whether whereas measurement analysis determine image One inspection, digital techniques. uses visual system chemical on & use rely of others Stitt, Some systems 2005). Jamart, O’Connor, these & Prignot 2004; 2005; Kozlowski, (O’Connor, smoking 866 ok a sd iharslto f1024 of resolution a New with York, Sony used, New was A USA, modifications. York) (Sony minor camera several DFW-X710 al., with et was (O’Connor study 2005), previously present described the that to in similar used protocol imaging The capture Image Method avail- were data puffing which to (cotinine), able. exposure for cigarette, (2005) smoke cigarettes the of using al. biomarkers from as et drawn well the as volume O’Connor extend smoke to by measure sought described We topography 2005). system smoking al., of et study (Hammond field a from obtained smoking machine in changes to (redness-greenness) intensity. styrene. sensitive channel and a* most NNK, the was tar, that total noted see constitu- nicotine, They smoke system; as to color such detail) ents more CIELAB for the 1994). section Method (using al., filter related et color have Rickert also stain (2004) grayness; lightness colleagues stain and of Rickert by degree predicted the best study, (i.e., was one tar In of 2004). amount 1994; Kaiserman, & Kaiserman, Wright, & been Rickert, have Robinson, also (Rickert, filters on by examined collected trapped or matter pads Cambridge particulate from spectrometry filters. spent in measured nicotine neeti itrsann oass xouei not is exposure assess to staining filter in Interest h rsn td xmndcgrtebutts cigarette examined study present The reflectance via color stain of measures Objective IIA MG NLSSO IAET ITRSTAINING FILTER CIGARETTE OF ANALYSIS IMAGE DIGITAL r , 8)wt eesof levels with .88) 6 768 neednl fteohr eg,wiei perceived is L* white all (e.g., change when others of can the which terms values of of in independently each negative described (L*a*b*), measures is and three color A ‘‘blueness’’ ‘‘yellowness.’’ indicate b* positive values whereas ‘‘redness’’ ‘‘greenness,’’ indicate values values negative and a* positive lightness, high (b*: channel xr id gtr . gnctn S yield), ISO nicotine the mg 0.4 (Matinee of tar, brand half mg 4 cigarette 3, Mild, ‘‘lower-yield’’ Extra Wave immediately a For week smoke ( the 2. 2. participants during Wave Wave during occurred later, following weeks 3 6 (means and, Wave 1 brands) cigarettes across Wave yields of ISO during nicotine mg brand 1.0 the Participants tar, mg usual 10.7 days. through their consecutive smoked cigarettes/day five Baltimore, for 5 participants Technologies, Maryland) a wave, (Plowshare least over each CReSSMicro at waves for partici- 1-week and smoked 59 three period, study, in 2-month this switching In participated brand 2005). pants and al., behaviors field et a (Hammond smoking from of obtained were study filters cigarette Smoked study Source color these a 2003). (Brainard, of as color in relatively each changes quantify developed to small attempt in an was in system, changes difference CIELAB assess channels. to important green-red a (a*: 0–100), on channel (L*: measured lightness is dimensions: Color three 2003). of (Brainard, model vision opponent-process the color on based device-independent space a color is CIELAB using formulas. values standard space on color Commission L*a*b* values (CIE) International Illumination’s blue) the For green, to (2005). (red, converted al. were RGB et analyses, O’Connor present by the described as masks 1024 768 from to reduced 768 were files image butt Captured analysis and processing Image above quality. described image affect changes negatively Inc., followed. the not were did suggested (2005) (Microsoft work al. Pilot et Editor O’Connor by procedures described calibration Photo using The captured Washington). were Redmond, Windows Images box. the black the encasing a than in rather the system light, reduce ambient the to of darkroom influence photographic with fashioned were a Images was in aluminum. (2005), than captured holder rather al. fiberglass cigarette of out the et that O’Connor exception in described 5 6 0 n a* and 100 2 6 iesadpoesduigcentered using processed and pixels 768 n 2 2 to 128 5 2 to 128 7 eernol eetdto selected randomly were 27) + 2) ihL ausindicate values L* High 128). 5 + 2) n yellow-blue a and 128), b* 5 ) hrfr,i is it Therefore, 0). 6 5 Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 16:52 7 February 2008 hra af( half whereas ti oo crswt vrg esrso smoking of measures average average of with association scores the color Our assess stain data. to available was the goal scores on overall we based staining individual data, and each topography for topography specific average topo- to not calculated could linked butts and have specific examined butt not link each within did for as scores well we graphy as Because 3 wave. and 2 each waves across 2, rating) Case using 1981, single scores Fleiss, & staining (Shrout of correlations intraclass reliability the examined We analyses Data the in freezer back zip-top placed a and in wave, together bag participant ID, placed subject then each and and denoting and day, code and for ash blade a of with butts razor labeled free were Prepared image, a was debris. clean with a rod of other assure end removed tobacco to mouth was the discarded the of filter section recorded, 1-mm the a were and removed, butt the wave. each at of subject range per a assessed with cigarette 3, butts 1,124 Wave 10–25 at and participants 2, 53 from Wave butts at butts participants cigarette 1,142 54 of from analysis resulted and procedure processing This the selection. selected in for basis were a as butts color apparent, instructed technicians was with When randomly, choice preferentially. crushed, clear selected (very were no damaged participant, torn) or given seriously burned, a not were for filters butts butts selection of those number for ‘‘CReSS’’ large available a was only When imaging. for then butts selected brand) ‘‘free’’ collected, no (own If 2 week). were waves brand-switching in (the the day 3 with and using each smoked from not smoked CReSS) (i.e., butts the (i.e., ‘‘free’’ two butts and CReSS), ‘‘CReSS’’ the of two butt image first day, for the included selected Because subsample was The subsample bag. analysis. a across waves, zip-top butts three 7,000 a the than more in generated placed participants of day and and number collection, ID participant’s foil, the aluminum an with in with marked wrapped CReSS an were the butts the with with Collected day smoked ‘‘O.’’ during the not smoked of those and cigarette they ‘‘X,’’ first that the marking days wave, the from butts Waterloo Institute. of Cancer Park University Roswell human the and received from elsewhere study approval available The subjects 2005). are al., methodology et (Hammond study Labstat the by descriptions of Detailed chromatography Canada). Ontario, gas (Kitchener, using measured brand. o l ut,tettllnt n itrlnt of length filter and length total the butts, all For cigarette used collect to asked were Participants biomarker, exposure the was cotinine Salivary n 5 6 otne osoeterusual their smoke to continued 26) 2 20 u freezer. C not ouestain use to oo crst rdc oa ufvlm Tbe2). (Table model regression volume linear multiple puff a total examined we predict First, to an scores easier color as 2004). for (O’Connor, b*ratio blocking hole allowed examined vent of also which indicator We correlation volume, positive interpretation. its smoke as and well Rickert with by as work (2004), the given colleagues levels, a* of ( utility correlated the cigarettes, less from was drawn b* whereas volume smoke total average nbvraeaayi,tecne *( L* center ( the analysis, bivariate In volume puff and scores Color the waves, only. 3 across Wave .88. reliability examined to analyses strong .63 remaining the from ranged of reliabilities Because 3 b*ratio to Wave .73 and and from .83, ranged reliabilities a*center, 2 Wave (L*center, [edge/center]). in of interest measures still the but greatest for lower, particularly range, were acceptable that Here, the scores wave. all reliability each for saw within basis we days individual across an examined on butts channel scores of color found stability each the (data on we examined .92 then to We Here, shown). .90 not time. from ranging over correlations (i.e., intraclass consistent waves is both were at measure brand scores subjects group, own those control color their for 3 smoked and whether who 2 waves examined between consistent first We reliability score Color scores, of ranges as the well for as wave. values channels, by b* score and color a*, mean L*, the reports 1 Table scores color Mean Results collection. sample of time and age, controlling sex, models for regression linear in salivary levels estimate cotinine scores to used color total be could whether of derivatives their examined proxy and also our color We as flow. & affect taking smoke are would filter (Kozlowski we turn, of which pass in darkness, area This, might 2002). total smoke O’Connor, the which and through efficiency will vents filter filter staining blocking affect of because type considered latter be The must staining. edge and central components principal correlations, Pearson and analysis. using modeling, exposure) regression measure smoke standard gold of a as (considered topography r 5 eepoe eea pin oass h blt of ability the assess to options several explored We omdlttlpf oue ecniee both considered we volume, puff total model To 7)aeaesoe eehgl orltdwith correlated highly were scores average .75) n IOIE&TBCORESEARCH TOBACCO & NICOTINE 5 6,t sals hte h basic the whether establish to 26), r 5 4) eexplored We .49). r 52 7)ada* and .71) 867 Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 16:52 7 February 2008 ieyrltdt h eue apesz resulting size sample reduced the most is to in This related significant. difference likely statistically no not interaction were make the terms models low- both to in the though appeared and interpretation, 2, own-brand Model brand, volume. for yield puff models total separate in with variance the of 71% scores. component the ‘‘center’’ of multiplying and by deviation created ‘‘edge’’ standard was a term and interaction method to 0 An 1. of similar regression mean are a these with the scores, 2001); using Fidell, & output (Tabachnick were scores oe ( 1 Model oe bsic ( 2b—switch Model oe aonbad( brand 2a—own Model opnn etrdtecne crsadwas and scores center (loadings ‘‘center’’ the labeled featured component oe ( 3 Model *rto07(.2 .–. . 00)040904(.4 0.2–0.8 3.1–17.8 (0.04) 0.4 (0.76) 8.7 0.4–0.9 6.8–18.8 (0.03) 0.7 (0.61) 14.5 0.4–0.9 7.5–21.2 (0.02) 0.7 (0.44) 15.2 ratio b* edge b* al 2. Table that (loadings thus first ‘‘edge’’ components and labeled The scores was edge two variance. L*a*b* the the to featured of component 88.6% edge in (L*a*b* explained divided scores together color center) six the and that showed tion 3). (Model regressors as scores component and the scores edge used and center principal all on vented a analysis performed components heavily determine we Third, than cigarettes. to low-yield equations require respectively), prediction cigarettes vented different 2b, lightly full-flavor, and participantswhether switch 2a and (Models control for ran we models interac- Second, 3. separate their Wave at and participants all b*ratio, for run tion, a*center, with 1) (Model 1. Table 868 *eg 63(.2 578. 72(.7 118. 40(.9 72.1–90.6 17.3–22.8 (0.79) 62.9–79.4 84.0 (0.29) 20.9 (0.70) 71.1–86.1 70.7 18.8–23.8 (0.67) 64.2–76.8 77.2 (0.24) 21.5 65.7–83.9 (0.71) 71.1 17.0–23.9 (0.55) 0.04 63.3–81.0 (0.52) 76.3 (0.20) 21.7 (0.13) 1.7 (0.52) 71.2 edge a* edge L* center b* center a* center L* ‘‘Center’’ *rto01 5 0 . ,2 .04 23 1, 4.6 .09 .55 .01 0.17 1.86 Interaction ratio b* center a* *rto02 1 0 . ,4 .008 47 1, 7.6 .06 0.63 .14 0.27 ‘‘Edge’’ ‘‘Center’’ 1.44 Interaction ratio b* center a* *rto02 3 0 .41 1.85 21 1, 0.04 .00 .30 .002 0.25 1.21 Interaction ratio b* center a* oe a h otsrihfrad explaining straightforward, most the was 1 Model rnia opnnsaayi ihvrmxrota- varimax with analysis components Principal IIA MG NLSSO IAET ITRSTAINING FILTER CIGARETTE OF ANALYSIS IMAGE DIGITAL R R oprsn ftremdl sn oo crst rdc oa ufvolume. puff total predict to scores color using models three of Comparisons scores. (edge/center) b*ratio and scores L*a*b* edge and center for ranges and mean, the of error standard Mean, 6 2 2 5 5 ‘‘edge’’ .73) .71) R 2 5 en( Mean R .72) 2 5 ae2( 2 Wave .63) SE ag en( Mean Range ) 5 5 .209) Component 0.72–0.98). n .009) h second the 0.90–0.98); 5 2 2 2 2 2 Beta 4 ae3(w rn)( brand) (own 3 Wave 54) .1.1.4661 6.01 46 1, 6.6 .04 .01 0.21 .3.6.6391 2.06 22 1, 3.9 .06 .06 1.23 .2.0 0 091 6.002 46 1, 10.9 0.46 .07 .002 0.82 .8.7.2131 0.27 20 1, 1.3 .02 .27 0.38 2 2 .–. . 02)054021(0.20) 2.1 0.5–4.0 (0.20) 1.8 0.8–1.4 0.3–4.3 p , , , value 01.23. ,47 1, 33.5 .22 .001 .001 .001 2 . (0.09) 0.1 Z SE ersinmdl opeitslvr oiielevels cotinine volume salivary ran predict puff we to analysis, estimated models image regression of color from utility derived measures the examine To intake cotinine Estimating validity: Predictive visible. the is around pattern the clear spread of a is line, illustration regression there an Although 3 shown). as Model relationship. volume, not from measured volume (data puff versus volumes estimated plots puff 1 similar Figure measured were models the estimated three all to for models’ means puff and three measured volume, with (.84–.85) All highly correlated analysis. values for total their of output indicator as an the well as in color volume. as puff considerations stain staining, of important assessment tar are center interaction, both that and suggests pattern finding similar This edge 1. A Model for model. of seen the was percentage by interaction the explained the increased variance and significantly scores both edge term of addition the that data. preferable. color be orthogonal, may the are 3 all scores Model ‘‘edge’’ using and of ‘‘center’’ (73%) advantage Because variance the more had slightly and compo- explained using scores, 3, Model nent analysis. groupwise the from ag en( Mean Range ) rdce oa ufvlmsfrec oe were model each for volumes puff total Predicted of Analysis D R 2 2 1.0–0.6 n 5 6 ae3(wth ( (switch) 3 Wave 26) R sur hnefrMdl3showed 3 Model for change -square Fdfp 2 . (0.08) 0.6 SE Range ) 2 2 n 1.5–0.7 0.0–4.3 5 , value 27) .001 Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 16:52 7 February 2008 CPD apecleto ie01 2 .1.402 1 .3.11 0.23 .16 0.20 .14 0.21 .23 0.15 time collection Sample Age Sex ufvolume Puff iaetsdy(CPD) Cigarettes/day ufvlms n hi neato,cnrligfrsx g,adsml olcintime. collection sample and age, sex, for controlling interaction, their and volumes, puff 3. Table prediction affected they how subsequent determine in to volume regressions measured for above substituted described were 1–3 Models from volumes Predicted significant highly the a R Adding in .02. resulted was the measures time topography and of sex, This age, The 39% just collection. including cotinine. sample approximately in of their for variance time accounted and and controlling model cigarette, age, cotinine, sex, per salivary for predict volume to puff interaction per total smoked day, cigarettes CReSS-measured correlated used themselves model ( not levels cotinine were salivary with the scores natural-log normalize Color a to used data. (ng/ml) we cotinine of models, transformation these For 3). (Table example. 1. Figure sur hneo .37; of change -square 6 ufvlm .0.0 .8.408 0 .3.04 0.73 .06 0.85 .04 0.88 .001 1.20 volume puff ierrgesospeitn aiayctnn ntrllgtasom rmmaue retmtdcgrte/a,total cigarettes/day, estimated or measured from transform) log (natural cotinine salivary predicting regressions Linear rdce oa ufvlm essmaue oa ufvlm.Mdl3drvdetmtsaesona an as shown are estimates 3—derived Model volume. puff total measured versus volume puff total Predicted 2 2 2 2 Beta .2.500 5 .8.600 .56 .58 0.08 0.08 .56 .55 0.08 0.09 .55 .54 0.09 0.09 .35 .74 0.12 0.04 .5.001 1.05 .9.12 0.39 esrdMdl1Mdl2Mdl3 Model 2 Model 1 Model Measured ( R R r F , sur o h model the for -square 2 3 41) (3, 5 1) h ‘‘measured’’ The .10). 3)( .39) p value 5 8.3, p , 2 2 eap Beta .1.04 0.71 .4.29 0.34 .001. R 2 5 2)( .22) rmteHmode l 20)fedsuyof study field (2005) imaged were al. switching brand et to and behaviors Hammond of smoking butts retained utility the cigarette butts the Cigarette from spent intake. assess smoke of total to estimate analysis out image set digital study present The Discussion ( model the time–only collection adding age, and the sex, over models, improvements significant to these again .21–.22, led statistical of estimates maintained all effects topography the In 2, interaction significance. Model the of in exception same term the the in with were and, effects directions all but 22%), approximately fcotinine. of value 2 2 R eap Beta .2.04 0.72 .2.35 0.32 sur ausdopdsgiiaty(to significantly dropped values -square IOIE&TBCORESEARCH TOBACCO & NICOTINE R 2 5 2)( .21) value R sur hne of changes -square 2 2 eap Beta .3.04 0.63 .9.46 0.19 p -values R 2 5 .22) value , .05). 869 Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 16:52 7 February 2008 etn imreso aigpriiat smoke participants having for or col- ideal which biomarkers be for lecting would studies, butts epidemiological larger-scale cigarette metabolism. of in are variability Assessment biomarkers interindividual to Additionally, to vulnerable subject shipping. are and in conditions, damage tempera- storage to and sensitive more ture differing are have invasiveness, which of samples, levels blood or urine, smoker’s of collection saliva, a small the of require approximation a Biomarkers good behavior. typical a Only get day) to unobtrusively. the needed across is five done (perhaps is butts be cigarette butts of sample can cigarette The analyzing it system directly. that a toxicants to of blood various utility and main to urine, exposure saliva, biomarkers in assess and measured behavior, readily puffing are CReSSMicro measure as to such devices exist that given desirable, total or the estimate cigarette cigarettes. to from tool spent drawn a volume metabolism. of as smoke promise analysis nicotine shows image butts as digital such Overall, factors, other individual unmeasured of to difference those related likely with is consistent and studies is in per (22%– finding small cigarettes This relatively variance was 39%). volume, interaction of their by and day, amount only have explained The scores cotinine color validity. of the place predictive suggesting in predicting cotinine, equations used salivary regression be in could volume measured and volumes measured conditions. different under collected samples information of color also and are the ( scores edge standardized Component of image. both the all from for extracted using score staining summary center a providing the advantage the of volume, offer to may scores color components model of principal a relationship choosing the for represent As to drawn. of puffs indicator an of as human number darkness the used color with which stain judge (1982), consistent to al. raters is et finding Kozlowski of This those blocking. even hole from filter, resulting vent changes the darkness) efficiency through filter stain for drawn controlling in volume reflected total (as the and filter the tar is between in relationship deposits strategies underlying the modeling of indicative different This across estimates. volume consistency of significant derivation a the make in to difference principal not or seemed cigarettes, scores vented components regressions heavily we separate and Whether lightly regression, for linear volume. simple smoke a total used was predict blocking CReSSMicro, vent to for the useful account by to color b*ratio measured the adding and as of volume, level ( smoke cotinine channel highly and a* correlated images topography average smoking The levels. to related and 870 n ih s h uhasse ol euseful be would system a such why ask might One with well correlated volumes smoke Estimated IIA MG NLSSO IAET ITRSTAINING FILTER CIGARETTE OF ANALYSIS IMAGE DIGITAL M 5 0, SD 5 ) aiiaigcomparisons facilitating 1), . 7)wt vrg total average with .70) Acknowledgments ongoing. are method’s applicability the broader evaluate and studies. to reliability studies population-based assess validation to in Further way reliable topography may and smoking filters quick, cigarette inexpensive, spent an be of analysis image Digital Conclusions the and types. brands are examine across filter system will they across the work of applicability that metric future broader and be in common Ongoing advantage a not studies. an providing may offer standardized, components cotinine, principal may regard, salivary scores estimated this or In to necessarily volume, generalizable. puff volume not equation to the puff scores may Similarly, color the brands. results relating in other brands the to of generalize study, number limited present a we that only Because typical patterns. examined suggesting of staining approximation and good, behavior good smoking a were be would of waves averages use reliability within However, the not scores participants. necessitating were for butts, scores data not average specific CReSS to were behavior. system linkable puffing imaging collected some an assess of to butts utility to the subject evaluate the to are designed First, here described limitations. findings The Limitations impractical expensive. be would prohibitively puffing or record to device a using eit . et .J,&Jri,M 18) etfrassigtar/ assessing March). (2005, for F. Test Charles, St. (1984). & J., M. Shepperd, M., Jarvis, Dixon, & J., R. West, G., Devitt, amn,D,Fn,G . umns .M,&Hln,A (2005). A. Hyland, & M., K. Cummings, T., G. Fong, D., Hammond, difference color and appearance Color (2003). H. D. Brainard, L., Wang, M., Wilson, T., J. Bernert, 3rd., P., Jacob, L., N. Benowitz, References and Florida. Nicotine Orlando, on Research 2006, for 16–18, Society February the part of Tobacco, in meeting presented annual Brasky were 12th data Ted the Canadian Johnson These at thank imaging. the cigarette authors Wood with and The assistance Institute, for Initiative. Robert Research Cancer the Control National Tobacco U.S. Canada, of American the Cancer the Division Health Foundation, by Park the supported Society, was Roswell from collection Cancer Sciences, data funds original Population internal The Institute. and by Prevention supported Cancer was work This ioieyields. nicotine Elsevier. U.K.: Oxford, edition). mkn oorpy rn wthn,adnctn delivery: nicotine and switching, brand topography, Republic. Smoking Czech Prague, Tobacco, and Nicotine on yields Research nicotine for and tar estimating smokers for to methods analysis filter cigarette (Ed.), Shevell K. S. In: specification. cigarettes. during ‘‘light’’ exposure to Carcinogen Prevention and regular (2005). Biomarkers, from Epidemiology, D. switching Dempsey, short-term & F., Allen, btatpeetda h nulmeigo h Society the of meeting annual the at presented Abstract . mrcnJunlo ulcHealth Public of Journal American h cec fcolor of science The , 14 1376–1383. , , 74 391. , aiainof Validation Cancer (2nd . Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 16:52 7 February 2008 ’onr .J,Sit .P,&Kzosi .T 20) iia image digital A (2005). T. L. Kozlowski, & P., J. Stitt, J., R. O’Connor, (2004). J. R. O’Connor, (2001). Institute. Cancer National olwk,L . ikr,W . oe .A,&Rbno,J C. J. Robinson, & A., M. Pope, S., W. Rickert, T., L. Kozlowski, olwk,L . ’onr .J 20) iaet itrventilation filter Cigarette (2002). J. R. O’Connor, & T., L. Kozlowski, olwk,L .(91.Apiain fsm hsclidctr of indicators physical some of Applications (1981). T. L. Kozlowski, ust . hoa,V,Ltu . itra .(2000). R. Victoria, & T., Lethu, V., Chaouat, M., Husset, eh,S . upy .E,Crel,S . i . esn . e C., Le, J., Jensen, S., Li, G., S. Carmella, E., S. Murphy, S., S. Hecht, nlsssse o dniyn itrvn lcigo ultra-light on blocking vent filter identifying cigarettes. for tar system low analysis on vents filter of blocking behavioral cigarettes assessing for National methods Services, Human nicotine Bethesda, and Author. and No.13). Health, Health of of tar Monograph Institutes Department of Control U.S. yields Tobacco MD: machine-measured and low (Smoking with cigarettes 18) oo-acigtcnqefrmntrn tar/nicotine monitoring for smokers. technique to color-matching yields A (1982). sadfciedsg eas fmsedn at,bge uf,and puffs, bigger taste, misleading of vents. because blocked design defective a is 533–537. iaet smoking. cigarette eConsummateurs de Guodrons. Nuancier le Premiere: cigarettes. ultralight Prevention lung and and of light, Biomarkers, uptake regular, Epidemiology, Similar Cancer of (2005). smokers K. D. by Hatsukami, carcinogens & M., A. Joseph, eut rma nvv study. vivo Prevention in and an from Results otrldsetto,Pnslai tt University. State Pennsylvania dissertation, Doctoral . acrEieilg,Boakr,adPrevention and Biomarkers, Epidemiology, Cancer , oac Control Tobacco 14 1370–1375. , , mrcnJunlo ulcHealth Public of Journal American ditv Behaviors Addictive 358 36–40. , eieetadapiaino unobtrusive of application and Refinement , Peir hdso tar.] of Shades [Premier: acrEieilg,Biomarkers, Epidemiology, Cancer 11 ik soitdwt smoking with associated Risks Spl ) i40–i50. 1), (Suppl. , 6 213–219. , , 14 , 693–698. , 72 0Millions 60 597–599. , , 14 Ne , asn .H,MCa,J,Pli,G . sly .L (2004). L. D. Ashley, & M., G. Polzin, J., McCraw, H., C. Watson, (2004). Services. Human and Health of Department U.S. aahik .G,&Fdl,L .(2001). S. L. Fidell, & G., B. Tabachnick, (2005, D. Mariner, & S., Appleton, G., in Uses Krautter, correlations: F., Intraclass Charles, (1979). L. St. J. Fleiss, & E., P. Shrout, 3– October (2004, J. M. (1994). Kaiserman, & J. G., W. M. Wright, S., W. Kaiserman, Rickert, & C., J. Robinson, S., tobacco W. from learnt Rickert, be can What (2005). J. Jamart, & J., J. Prignot, eeomn famto oass iaet mk intake. smoke cigarette assess to method Technology and Science a Environmental of Promotion, Development Health and Health. Prevention and Smoking Disease on Office Chronic National Prevention, general for and surgeon Control Center Disease the for of Centers report Author, GA: A smoking: of consequences Bacon. & Allyn Boston: edition). (4th nulmeigo h oit o eerho ioieand Nicotine on Research for Society Republic. the Czech Prague, of Tobacco, analysis meeting metabolites annual nicotine with analysis March). analytes reliability. rater Hoffman assessing Japan. selected Kyoto, to Congress, CORESTA exposure 2004 the level at Presented mouth of predictor scales 7). colour of estimating NC. Greensboro, production to Conference, the reference Research Chemists’ and specific Tobacco ETS setting. with quantifying colour hospital yields, ‘‘tar’’ realistic of Quantitation a Diseases in Lung and study Tuberculosis of Journal observational International An butts? esrdcgrtefle oor(ILB fe mkn sa as smoking after (CIELAB) colour filter cigarette Measured oprsno ua ioieds siae rmfilter from estimates dose nicotine human of comparison A IOIE&TBCORESEARCH TOBACCO & NICOTINE scooia Bulletin Psychological , sn utvraestatistics multivariate Using 38 248–253. , btatpeetdat presented Abstract . , 86(2) , 420–428. , 9 h health The 210–215. , Atlanta, . 48th . 871 . .