Population characteristics and cigarette yield as determinants of smoke exposure

The contributions of cigarette yield, consumption, inhalation and puffing behaviour to the prediction of smoke exposure

“…With nicotine concentrations the CPD correlations are 0.38 for pre-smoking measures [17] and range between -0.33 and +0.10 for post-smoking values (median ~0.00) [10,12,25,28], and with cotinine concentrations the correlations are about 0.40 (range 0.34-0.54) [3,4,16,17,24]. The correlations obtained in the present study are consistent with those reported in the literature, except for post-smoking nicotine concentrations.…”

“…Sex, CPD -28% ; sex, CPD, nicotine yield -29% for CO measured independently of smoking (reference 20, n=713); CPD, CO yield, interpuff interval -36% for CO presmoking (reference 6, n=60); CPD, body weight -18% of CO postsmoking; CPD, body weight, years smoking -26% for nicotine post-smoking; CPD, body weight, nicotine yield 29% for cotinine (reference 4, n= 108); CPD, body weight -18% for CO and 28% for cotinine post-smoking; CPD, body weight, interval duration, years smoking -29% for nicotine post-smoking (reference 5, n=108). Overall, the explained variances correspond to those found in our study, except the low prediction of post-smoking nicotine in spite of a large set of predictors [4], and the high prediction of pre-smoking CO [6], perhaps due to the high correlation with interpuff interval (r = 0.41).…”

Randomized Trial of Reduced-Nicotine Standards for Cigarettes

“…Strong evidence suggests that smokers increase the number of cigarettes con sumed as nicotine availability is reduced, and vice versa (USDHHS 1988;Kaufman et al 1989;Palmer et al 1989;Stellman and Garfinkel 1989;Negri et al 1993;Thun et al 1997). In addition, lower nicotine delivery in the FTC test is associated with smoking a greater number of cigarettes (USDHHS 1988 compensatory effect has been confirmed in other stud ies (Benowitz et al 1983;Bridges et al 1990;Höfer et al 1991;Woodward and Tunstall-Pedoe 1992;Coultas et al 1993); only one published study found no such effect (Rosa et al 1992). In an abstract, Byrd and col leagues (1994) reported no compensatory effect, but their small study population may not have been rep resentative of all smokers; for instance, the nicotine intake seen among the group that smoked the ultra low-delivery cigarettes was smaller than that observed by others.…”

Reduced exposure evaluation of an Electrically Heated Cigarette Smoking System. Part 2: Smoke chemistry and in vitro toxicological evaluation using smoking regimens reflecting human puffing behavior

“…HPB conditions are used because no single machine-smoking protocol can reflect human puffing parameters (Bobak et al, 2000;Bridges et al, 1986Bridges et al, , 1990aGori and Lynch, 1985;Kolonen et al, 1991;Moody, 1980;Nil and Baettig, 1989;Woodman et al, 1987;Zacny and Stitzer, 1988). Because it is important to consider not only the average but also the variance in smoking behavior, a total of 25 HPB conditions, based on human smoking topography data and nicotine uptake distributions obtained in two clinical studies (Tricker et al, 2012a,c), were applied.…”