Samera H Hamad1, Nathan M Johnson2, Margaret E Tefft3, Marielle C Brinkman4, Sydney M Gordon5, Pamela I Clark6, Stephanie S Buehler7. 1. Postdoctoral Researcher, Tobacco Center of Regulatory Science, University of Maryland School of Public Health, College Park, MD. 2. Technician, Battelle Public Health Center for Tobacco Research, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH. 3. Researcher, Battelle Public Health Center for Tobacco Research, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH. 4. Senior Research Scientist, Battelle Public Health Center for Tobacco Research, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH. 5. Research Leader, Battelle Public Health Center for Tobacco Research, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH. 6. Research Professor, Tobacco Center of Regulatory Science, University of Maryland School of Public Health, College Park, MD. 7. Principle Research Scientist, Battelle Public Health Center for Tobacco Research, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to characterize physical properties and semivolatile harmful and potentially harmful constituent yields in the mainstream smoke (MSS) of 4 popular little cigars compared to the 3R4F reference cigarette. METHODS: We used the ISO and Canadian Intense Regimen protocols to generate MSS for Cheyenne (Full Flavor and Menthol) and Swisher Sweets (Original and Sweet Cherry) little cigars; and the 3R4F. We examined physical properties such as length, tobacco filler mass, pressure drop, and ventilation for each product. Nicotine, benzo[a]pyrene, and tobacco-specific nitrosamine (TSNA) yields were determined in the MSS. RESULTS: Little cigars were longer (~15mm), contained more tobacco filler (100-200 mg), and had a higher pressure drop (~1.3X) compared to the 3R4F. Ventilation holes were found only on the filter paper of the 3R4F. Nicotine transmitted to the MSS was similar for all products under the intense smoking protocol. The highest yields of TSNAs and benzo(a)pyrene were measured for the little cigars. CONCLUSIONS: Little cigars may deliver similar levels of nicotine but higher levels of carcinogens to the MSS compared to cigarettes. Thus, previous reports on the toxicity of tobacco smoke based on cigarettes might not apply to little cigar products.
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to characterize physical properties and semivolatile harmful and potentially harmful constituent yields in the mainstream smoke (MSS) of 4 popular little cigars compared to the 3R4F reference cigarette. METHODS: We used the ISO and Canadian Intense Regimen protocols to generate MSS for Cheyenne (Full Flavor and Menthol) and Swisher Sweets (Original and Sweet Cherry) little cigars; and the 3R4F. We examined physical properties such as length, tobacco filler mass, pressure drop, and ventilation for each product. Nicotine, benzo[a]pyrene, and tobacco-specific nitrosamine (TSNA) yields were determined in the MSS. RESULTS: Little cigars were longer (~15mm), contained more tobacco filler (100-200 mg), and had a higher pressure drop (~1.3X) compared to the 3R4F. Ventilation holes were found only on the filter paper of the 3R4F. Nicotine transmitted to the MSS was similar for all products under the intense smoking protocol. The highest yields of TSNAs and benzo(a)pyrene were measured for the little cigars. CONCLUSIONS: Little cigars may deliver similar levels of nicotine but higher levels of carcinogens to the MSS compared to cigarettes. Thus, previous reports on the toxicity of tobacco smoke based on cigarettes might not apply to little cigar products.
Entities:
Keywords:
3R4F cigarette; little cigar; tobacco harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs); tobacco physical properties
Authors: Yan S Ding; Xizheng J Yan; Ram B Jain; Eugene Lopp; Ameer Tavakoli; Gregory M Polzin; Stephen B Stanfill; David L Ashley; Clifford H Watson Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2006-02-15 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Theodore P Klupinski; Erich D Strozier; David A Friedenberg; Marielle C Brinkman; Sydney M Gordon; Pamela I Clark Journal: Chem Res Toxicol Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 3.739
Authors: Cindy M Chang; Brian L Rostron; Joanne T Chang; Catherine G Corey; Heather L Kimmel; Connie S Sosnoff; Maciej L Goniewicz; Kathryn C Edwards; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Yuesong Wang; Arseima Y Del Valle-Pinero; Maocheng Yang; Mark J Travers; Stephen Arnstein; Kristie Taylor; Kevin Conway; Bridget K Ambrose; Nicolette Borek; Andrew Hyland; Lanqing Wang; Benjamin C Blount; Dana M van Bemmel Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-02-07 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Samera H Hamad; Stephanie A Montgomery; Jeremy M Simon; Brittany M Bowman; Kyle B Spainhower; Ryan M Murphy; Erik S Knudsen; Suzanne E Fenton; Scott H Randell; Jeremiah R Holt; D Neil Hayes; Agnieszka K Witkiewicz; Trudy G Oliver; M Ben Major; Bernard E Weissman Journal: Oncogene Date: 2022-05-16 Impact factor: 8.756
Authors: Catherine C Osborn; Jessica P Suratkal; Stephanie N Pike Moore; Sarah Koopman Gonzalez; Kymberle L Sterling; Amanda J Quisenberry; Elizabeth G Klein; Erika S Trapl Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-13 Impact factor: 4.614