Filter Ventilation and Nicotine Content of Tobacco in Cigarettes from Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Tobacco Control 1998;7:369–375 369 Filter ventilation and nicotine content of tobacco in cigarettes from Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States Lynn T Kozlowski, Nicholas Y Mehta, Christine T Sweeney, Stephen S Schwartz, George P Vogler, Martin J Jarvis, Robert J West Abstract cigarette tobacco or how important filter venti- Objectives—The purpose was to deter- lation is to the manipulation of the tar and mine filter ventilation and the nicotine nicotine yields of cigarettes. Standard machine content of tobacco and their contribution tests for nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide to machine-smoked yields of cigarettes (CO) yields are very similar, though not identi- from the United States, Canada, and the cal, in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. United Kingdom.1 In each country 35 ml, 2 s Methods—Ninety-two brands of cigarettes puVs are taken on cigarettes once a minute (32 American, 23 Canadian, and 37 British until similar butt lengths are reached. Tests of brands) were purchased at retail outlets in the nicotine content of tobacco have not been State College, Pennsylvania, United conducted or reported as part of the oYcial States, Toronto, Canada, and London, tests of cigarettes. We know of only one United Kingdom. A FIDUS FDT filter peer-reviewed publication reporting the ventilation tester measured the percent- nicotine content of the tobacco from 15 popu- age air-dilution from filter vents. lar cigarette brands, but this publication did High-pressure, liquid chromatography not identify brand names.2 Filter vents can be was used to measure the nicotine content made up of a region on the filter that has high of tobacco. Regression techniques were porosity or discrete rings of holes around the used to examine the contributions of circumference of the filter and starting at about tobacco nicotine content and filter 11–15 mm from the smoker end of the ventilation to machine-smoked yields of cigarette. Often these vents can only be tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide (CO). detected if the filter covering is taken oV the Results—Ninety-four per cent of the filter, held up to a bright light, and viewed American brands, 91% of the Canadian through a magnifying glass. Percentage air brands, and 79% of British brands were dilution, or percentage filter ventilation, is ventilated. The total nicotine content of defined as the percentage of a standard puV tobacco and percent nicotine (by weight of (2 s duration, 35 ml) that is air taken into the tobacco) averaged 10.2 mg (standard error puV through filter vents. A cigarette with 0% of the mean (SEM) 0.25, range: 7.2 to 13.4) filter ventilation produces a puV undiluted by and 1.5% (SEM 0.03, range 1.2 to 2) in the filter vents. A cigarette with 80% filter ventila- United States, 13.5 mg (SEM 0.49, range: tion produces a puV that is 80% air from vents Department of 8.0 to 18.3) and 1.8% (SEM 0.06, range: 1.0 Biobehavioral Health, to 2.4) in Canada, 12.5 mg (SEM 0.33, and only 20% undiluted smoke. Penn State University, 3 4–8 range: 9 to 17.5) and 1.7% (SEM 0.04, Studies inside and outside the cigarette University Park, industry have found considerable evidence that Pennsylvania, USA range: 1.3 to 2.4) in the United Kingdom. L T Kozlowski Multiple regression analyses showed that (a) many smokers block filter vents with their N Y Mehta ventilation was by far the largest factor fingers or lips and (b) thereby can increase C T Sweeney their smoke exposure from these cigarettes. S S Schwartz influencing machine-smoked yields of tar, G P Vogler nicotine, and CO. Smokers have been found to be generally una- Conclusion—Filter ventilation appears to ware of the presence or function of vents, and Department of such smokers are in need of a warning about Epidemiology and be the predominant method for reducing 910 Public Health, machine-smoked yields of tar, nicotine, filter vents. In smoking machine tests, Rick- University College and CO in three countries. However, some ert and colleagues showed that vent-blocking London, London, UK on very low tar cigarettes was more important M J Jarvis brands contain about twice as much nico- tine (total content or percent nicotine) as to increasing tar, nicotine, or CO yields than 11 Department of do others, indicating that tobacco types or increasing puV volume or rate. When one is Psychology, St Georges blends and tobacco casings can be used to sucking mostly on air, more or bigger puVsdo Hospital Medical not get the smoker that much more smoke. School, London manipulate nicotine content and nicotine RJWest delivery of cigarettes. Here we report results of analyses for (Tobacco Control 1998;7:369–375) nicotine content of tobacco and filter Correspondence to: ventilation performed on samples of cigarettes Dr LT Kozlowski, Keywords: filter ventilation, nicotine content, cigarettes Department of Biobehavioral from three countries. This represents the first Health, 315 Health and Human Development East, scientific publication of such data from an Penn State University, Introduction international sample. Such information may be University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA; Outside of the cigarette industry, it is not valuable to a broad range of researchers and [email protected] widely known how much nicotine is in policy makers interested in the use and regula- 370 Kozlowski, Mehta, Sweeney, et al Table 1 Standard tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide yields (mg), total nicotine (mg), percent nicotine (mg), distance of closest vents from smoker endof cigarette (mm), and filter ventilation levels (%) for selected American cigarette brands Total nicotine Percent nicotine Closest vents Percent ventilation Brand* Tar (mg)† Nicotine (mg)† CO (mg)† (mg) (mg) (mm) (SEM) Carlton SP 1 0.1 2 8.7 1.7 15 77.6 (0.32) Carlton 100 HP 1 0.1 1 10.4 1.6 14.5 82.5 (0.29) Merit Ultima SP 1 0.1 3 9.6 2.0 11.0 64.4 (1.4) Carlton 100 SP 2 0.2 2 9.4 1.5 15.0 78.6 (0.48) Now 100 SP 2 0.2 3 10.9 1.8 12.5 66.3 (0.59) Merit UL SP 4 0.4 5 9.8 1.6 11.5 49.0 (0.54) Doral UL SP 5 0.4 6 7.6 1.2 13.0 56.7 (0.47) Benson & Hedges Deluxe UL 100 HP 5 0.5 7 11.0 1.6 12.0 52.6 (0.61) Virginia Slims UL 100 HP 5 0.5 6 10.4 1.6 12.0 55.6 (0.72) Cambridge UL 100 SP 5 0.4 7 11.5 1.5 12.5 53.1 (0.38) GPC UL SP 5 0.4 7 8.0 1.3 15.0 47.9 (0.67) Winston UL SP 6 0.5 8 9.7 1.6 13.0 48.1 (0.64) Merit HP 7 0.6 9 9.4 1.5 11.0 34.1 (0.71) Virginia Slim L 100 HP 8 0.7 9 9.4 1.4 12.0 39.7 (0.46) Doral L SP 8 0.6 10 8.3 1.4 12.5 18.9 (0.59) Winston L SP 9 0.7 11 10.3 1.5 12.0 24.8 (0.56) GPC L SP 9 0.6 11 7.2 1.2 15.0 23.7 (0.34) Newport L SP 9 0.7 11 11.4 1.7 14.0 21.8 (0.62) Red Kamel L HP§ 10 0.8 NA 11.4 1.7 12.5 20.2 (0.87) Marlboro L SP 10 0.8 11 10.6 1.6 12.0 22.5 (0.60) Basic L HP 10 0.7 12 9.1 1.4 12.0 11.1 (0.40) Camel L HP 10 0.8 12 10.3 1.5 12.0 22.3 (0.58) Kool Milds SP 11 0.8 11 10.9 1.7 15.0 25.4 (0.46) Marlboro Mediums 100 SP 12 0.9 13 11.2 1.5 12.5 19.1 (0.31) Doral FF SP 14 0.8 15 8.9 1.3 12.0 12.6 (0.27) Winston FF SP 14 1.0 14 10.5 1.5 15.0 11.7 (0.87) Virginia Slims FF 100 SP 15 1.1 13 11.7 1.6 12 19.9 (0.87) Kool Filter HP 16 1.1 14 13.0 1.9 v 0.0 Marlboro FF SP 16 1.1 14 10.9 1.5 12.5 10.2 (0.26) Newport FF HP 17 1.3 19 13.4 1.9 v 0.0 Red Kamel FF HP§ 17 1.3 NA 11.6 1.6 15.0 21.8 (0.99) Camel FF SP 17 1.1 20 9.5 1.3 14.5 5.1 (0.22) Mean (SE) 8.8 (0.90) 0.67 (0.06) 9.6 (0.87) 10.2 (0.25) 1.5 (0.03) 12.9 (0.25) 34.3 (4.2) *UL = Ultra light; L = Light; FF = full flavour; SP = soft pack; HP = hard pack; unless designated 100, brand is king-size. †Source: FTC yields from analyses on 1995 cigarettes in 1998; Federal Trade Commission. Tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide of the smoke of 1206 varieties of domestic cigarettes, 1998. §Tar and nicotine yields were attained from advertisements. CO values not available. NA = not available. tion of cigarettes.