The UK Smoke Constituents Testing Study. Summary of Results and Comparison with Other Studies

Abstract

At the request of the UK Department of Health, samples of 25 commercial UK cigarette brands were provided to LGC Ltd a for smoke analysis. The brands reflected a high market share (58% in July 2001) and included a wide range of blend and product styles manufactured and imported into the UK.= 0.76), suggesting a minor role of other design features on constituents yield variability. This was confirmed by the application of multiple regression analysis to the data. A subset of five brands, retested at another laboratory, gave between-laboratory differences in mean constituent yields of as much as 2.5-fold. Consideration of these results, other likely sources of analytical variation in this study and a review of other studies, clearly indicates that any tolerance values to be associated with individual smoke constituent measurements will be greater than those for NFDPM, and in some cases, much greater. Consistent with the reported results from other large studies it is concluded that, under ISO smoking conditions, smoke constituent yields are largely predictable, if NFDPM and CO yields are known, for a standard cigarette. Given these observations and the likely limitations of analytical determination, the need for routine measurement of smoke constituent yields, other than NFDPM, nicotine or CO, on standard cigarettes, is questionable.

Variation in tobacco and mainstream smoke toxicant yields from selected commercial cigarette products

“…Repeated measures across more than one laboratory will increase the variability substantially (Gregg et al, 2004. Intorp et al, 2009.…”

“…The mean ± SD levels of toxicant emissions from these cigarette samples were generally consistent with previously reported levels (Gregg et al, 2004;Counts et al, 2005), and were used to determine the monthly variation (Table 3).…”

“…Several studies have reported levels of toxicants in both cigarette smoke and the tobacco blend (Health Canada, 2004;Gregg et al, 2004;Australian DOH, 2002). For example, comprehensive data on mainstream smoke constituents of contemporary cigarettes, based on standardised machine-smoking methods, have been compiled by both Borgerding et al (2000), who monitored 26 leading brands from the United States by FTC/ISO parameters for 44 constituents, and Counts et al (2005), who analysed smoke and cigarette tobacco filler blends from 48 commercial cigarettes from international markets, smoked across 3 regimes, for tar and 44 constituents.…”

“…For example, comprehensive data on mainstream smoke constituents of contemporary cigarettes, based on standardised machine-smoking methods, have been compiled by both Borgerding et al (2000), who monitored 26 leading brands from the United States by FTC/ISO parameters for 44 constituents, and Counts et al (2005), who analysed smoke and cigarette tobacco filler blends from 48 commercial cigarettes from international markets, smoked across 3 regimes, for tar and 44 constituents. However, the majority of data were compiled from a single sample of product (Borgerding et al, 2000;Counts et al, 2005;Gregg et al, 2004;Australian DOH, 2002), providing snapshots in time.…”

Empirical characterisation of ranges of mainstream smoke toxicant yields from contemporary cigarette products using quantile regression methodology

“…Of the many thousands of cigarette brands on sale globally, ISO Canada-2004. Unpublished data received upon request from TRR_RRRT@hc-sc.gc.ca) and from a small geographical area (UK (Gregg et al, 2004), Australia (Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, 2002) and Canada (Tobacco Control Programme, Health Canada. Constituents and emissions reported for cigarettes sold in Canada-2004.…”