High levels of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in 20 brands of Chinese cigarettes

Abstract

Tar and nicotine levels have been made to conform to EU standards as of 1 July 2004, but data on tobacco-derived carcinogenic compounds, such as PAH, in Chinese cigarettes are lacking in the literature. Levels of tar, nicotine, carbon monoxide and PAH were measured in 20 cigarette brands purchased in China between 2003 and 2004. Higher nicotine and tar levels were found in Chinese cigarettes than in European brands just 3 months before the above deadline; carcinogenic PAH levels were about 1.5 fold higher than in European cigarettes, but analysed singly, the mean value of benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P) and dibenzo(a,h)anthracene (DBA), the most potent carcinogenic PAH yields, were 2.4 and 4.4 fold higher, respectively. Tar levels were well correlated with carcinogenic PAH (r = 0.53, P < 0.01), thus providing an easily measurable parameter for ranking various cigarette brands in developing countries where more sophisticated techniques might not be feasible for lack of funds and expertise.

Parent, Alkylated, and Sulfur/Oxygen-Containing Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Mainstream Smoke from 13 Brands of Chinese Cigarettes

“…These TPM levels were similar to that of 15.5 ± 3.0 mg cig −1 reported by Akpan et al 4 for 20 brands of Chinese cigarettes and close to those for some custom-made blended cigarettes (8.61−11.01 mg cig dominated the total parent PAHs, with shares ranging from 46% to 74%, followed by MP-PAHs (18−40%) and HP-PAHs (7−14%). This dominance of LP-PAHs over MP-and HPPAHs in MS of cigarettes was also observed in many previous studies.…”

“…As a consequence, the BaP equivalent concentration (BaP eq ) is typically calculated by using BaP as a reference congener and summing up the potencies of individual carcinogenic PAHs with their relative potency factors (RPFs , Table S2) obtained from USEPA. 32 The carcinogenic potencies of individual PAHs and their contributions to the BaP eq in the present study are listed in Table 3 in comparison with those in several Chinese, 4 United States, 5,16 Canadian, 7 and European cigarette brands. 33 The BaP eq values for the 13 commercial cigarettes ranged from 3.6 to 120.2 ng cig −1 , with an average of 71.7 ng cig −1 , comparable to the calculated values from Akpan et al, 4 Roemer et al, 5 Moir et al, 7 Ding et al, 16 and Lodovici et al 33 BaP eq levels seemed to be higher in flue-cured cigarettes (70.0−120.2 ng cig −1 ) than in blended ones (3.6−52.5 ng cig 33 It was noteworthy that the carcinogenic potency of the cigarette smoke was likely to be underestimated in this study because only a handful of PAHs were taken into account and to a lesser extent, only particle-phase concentrations were measured.…”

“…China is the world's leading tobacco producer and has a third of the world's tobacco consumers. 4 However, most of the published researches focused on PAHs in reference cigarettes and/or commercial cigarette brands outside of China. Only a few studies are available for cigarettes smoke PAHs in China, 4,17,18 and the target compounds were still limited within the 16 priority PAHs.…”

“…To our best knowledge, only one study published in English reported 9 priority PAHs and other harmful chemicals in 20 brands of Chinese cigarettes. 4 In this study, we measured the levels of 56 PAHs, including 31 parent, 18 alkylated, and 7 S/O PAHs in the MS particulates from 13 popular Chinese cigarette brands so as to complement these deficiencies. PAH levels in reference cigarettes were also measured for comparison with previous studies.…”

Antimutagenic Effects of Tannic Acid on Somatic and Germ Cells of Rats

“…Main sources of BaP and also PAHs in the environment are residential heating, industrial plants and cigarette smoke (Akpan et al, 2006). Hepatotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, and hematologic alterations were among the major pathologies of BaP (Jung et al, 2010;Tarantini et al, 2009).…”