Rosalie V Caruso1, Richard J O'Connor2, Mark J Travers1, Cristine D Delnevo3, W Edryd Stephens4. 1. Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY; 2. Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY; richard.oconnor@roswellpark.org. 3. Department of Health Education and Behavioral Science, School of Public Health, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ; 4. Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of St. Andrews, Fife, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: While U.S. cigarette consumption has declined, cigar use has steadily increased, for reasons including price compared to cigarettes and the availability of filtered varieties resembling cigarettes, and flavors that have been banned in cigarettes (excluding menthol). Little published data exists on the design characteristics of such cigars. METHODS: A variety of filtered cigar brands were tested for design characteristics such as whole cigar weight, ventilation, and per-cigar tobacco weight. Cigar sticks were then sent to the University of St. Andrews for metal concentration testing of As, Pb, Cr, Ni, and Cd. RESULTS: Large and small cigars were statistically different between cigar weight (p ≤ .001), per-cigar tobacco weight (p = .001), rod diameter (p = .006), and filter diameter (p = .012). The differences in mean ventilation (overall mean = 19.6%, min. = 0.84%, max. = 57.6%) across filtered cigar brands were found to be statistically significant (p = .031), and can be compared to the ventilation of the average of 2013 U.S. Marlboro Red, Gold, and Silver packs at 29% ventilation. There were no significant differences for metal concentrations between cigar types (p = .650), with Pb and As levels being similar to U.S. 2009 cigarette concentrations, Cd cigar levels being slightly higher, and Cr and Ni levels much lower than cigarette levels. CONCLUSIONS: With cigar use rising, and filtered cigars displaying substantial similarities to filtered cigarettes, more research on product characteristics is warranted. Future plans include testing tobacco alkaloid and more observation of cigar weight for tax bracket purposes.
INTRODUCTION: While U.S. cigarette consumption has declined, cigar use has steadily increased, for reasons including price compared to cigarettes and the availability of filtered varieties resembling cigarettes, and flavors that have been banned in cigarettes (excluding menthol). Little published data exists on the design characteristics of such cigars. METHODS: A variety of filtered cigar brands were tested for design characteristics such as whole cigar weight, ventilation, and per-cigar tobacco weight. Cigar sticks were then sent to the University of St. Andrews for metal concentration testing of As, Pb, Cr, Ni, and Cd. RESULTS: Large and small cigars were statistically different between cigar weight (p ≤ .001), per-cigar tobacco weight (p = .001), rod diameter (p = .006), and filter diameter (p = .012). The differences in mean ventilation (overall mean = 19.6%, min. = 0.84%, max. = 57.6%) across filtered cigar brands were found to be statistically significant (p = .031), and can be compared to the ventilation of the average of 2013 U.S. Marlboro Red, Gold, and Silver packs at 29% ventilation. There were no significant differences for metal concentrations between cigar types (p = .650), with Pb and As levels being similar to U.S. 2009 cigarette concentrations, Cd cigar levels being slightly higher, and Cr and Ni levels much lower than cigarette levels. CONCLUSIONS: With cigar use rising, and filtered cigars displaying substantial similarities to filtered cigarettes, more research on product characteristics is warranted. Future plans include testing tobacco alkaloid and more observation of cigar weight for tax bracket purposes.
Authors: Andrew A Strasser; Heather Orom; Kathy Z Tang; Rachel L Dumont; Joseph N Cappella; Lynn T Kozlowski Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2011-04-09 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Jennifer Cullen; Paul Mowery; Cristine Delnevo; Jane A Allen; Natasha Sokol; M Justin Byron; Amber Thornton-Bullock Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2011-08-18 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Richard J O'Connor; Rosalie V Caruso; Ron Borland; K Michael Cummings; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Brian V Fix; Bill King; David Hammond; Geoffrey T Fong Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2013-08-13 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Rosalie V Caruso; Richard J O'Connor; W Edryd Stephens; K Michael Cummings; Geoffrey T Fong Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2013-12-20 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Catherine G Corey; Brian A King; Blair N Coleman; Cristine D Delnevo; Corinne G Husten; Bridget K Ambrose; Benjamin J Apelberg Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2014-08-01 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Catherine G Corey; Enver Holder-Hayes; Anh B Nguyen; Cristine D Delnevo; Brian L Rostron; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Heather L Kimmel; Amber Koblitz; Elizabeth Lambert; Jennifer L Pearson; Eva Sharma; Cindy Tworek; Andrew J Hyland; Kevin P Conway; Bridget K Ambrose; Nicolette Borek Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2018-11-15 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Reema Goel; Neil Trushin; Samantha M Reilly; Zachary Bitzer; Joshua Muscat; Jonathan Foulds; John P Richie Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2018-09-04 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Cristine D Delnevo; Mary Hrywna; Daniel P Giovenco; Erin J Miller Lo; Richard J O'Connor Journal: Tob Control Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Andrea C Villanti; Lauren K Collins; Raymond S Niaura; Stacey Y Gagosian; David B Abrams Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2017-12-29 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Samantha M Reilly; Reema Goel; Zachary Bitzer; Ryan J Elias; Jonathan Foulds; Joshua Muscat; John P Richie Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2018-08-14 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Baojiang Chen; Kymberle L Sterling; Meagan A Bluestein; Arnold E Kuk; Melissa B Harrell; Cheryl L Perry; Adriana Pérez Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-12-09 Impact factor: 3.240