1. bookVolumen 31 (2022): Heft 2 (July 2022)
Zeitschriftendaten
License
Format
Zeitschrift
eISSN
2719-9509
Erstveröffentlichung
01 Jan 1992
Erscheinungsweise
4 Hefte pro Jahr
Sprachen
Englisch
Uneingeschränkter Zugang

HPHC Testing of Tobacco and Smoke to Examine Cigarette Temporal Variability

Online veröffentlicht: 15 Aug 2022
Volumen & Heft: Volumen 31 (2022) - Heft 2 (July 2022)
Seitenbereich: 112 - 126
Eingereicht: 19 Dec 2021
Akzeptiert: 24 May 2022
Zeitschriftendaten
License
Format
Zeitschrift
eISSN
2719-9509
Erstveröffentlichung
01 Jan 1992
Erscheinungsweise
4 Hefte pro Jahr
Sprachen
Englisch
INTRODUCTION

Smoking cigarettes is a cause of serious diseases in smokers; harmful and potentially harmful chemicals (HPHCs) have been identified by scientists and international regulatory bodies for product monitoring and regulatory testing (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). To make robust science-based decisions regarding tobacco and smoke HPHCs, a full understanding of the variability caused by either the analytical measurements or the product variability in these measurements is needed.

Analytical variability can occur due to complexity of matrices, instability or low HPHC concentrations, and changes in laboratory, operator, reference chemicals, or instrumentation over time. In addition, product variability may result from raw material variability. Tobacco, for example, is grown in different regions of the world under a variety of soil conditions, farming practices, and environmental conditions. Like testing, production variables include location, operator, and equipment. These factors can lead to variability in cigarette parameters such as ventilation and weight and potentially the levels of HPHCs found in tobacco and cigarette smoke.

There has been a great deal of collaborative research to understand and minimize analytical variability. For example, standardized smoke-collection techniques have been used in laboratories for many decades (10, 11, 12). While those standardized smoke-collection techniques do not represent individual human exposure nor consumer use of a product, they provide commonality of methodology for analytical purposes.

The Cooperation Centre for Scientific Research Relative to Tobacco (CORESTA) and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) working groups have focused on developing consensus standardized methods for the measurement of HPHCs in tobacco and smoke through collaborative studies among experienced laboratories (1314).

In those collaborative studies, product variability was minimized by using reference products and single manufacturing batches. While these studies provide invaluable insights into the repeatability and reproducibility of the smoke collection and short-term analytical variability within and between laboratories, they do not aid the understanding of product variability.

Most research related to product variability has been conducted by mining of historical data or by real-time HPHC testing of reference or commercial products in one or more laboratories (15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23).

For example, Hyodo explored the medium-term variability of HPHCs from 19 commercial cigarettes on the Japanese market (23). More recently, Oldham et al. reported the analytical variability of 96 HPHCs of select cigarettes in the U.S. market at two different timepoints (21). Eldridge et al. also explored how measured toxicant levels in commercial products varied over time (20). Tayyarah compared the variability of multiple batches of commercial products to repeat testing of a single batch of a reference product (24). In many of these studies, greater variability was found for low-level analytes which is consistent with the “Horwitz Trumpet” (2526). These studies also demonstrated that many constituent measurements have greater variability than the well-established measurements of “tar”, nicotine, and carbon monoxide (TNCO) (27). The results also showed increased variability between laboratories compared to within a single laboratory. As noted by Morton and Laffoon, the analytical variability over time, even within a single laboratory, is often greater than the manufacturing variability (22).

While these studies investigated how measured HPHC values change in commercial and reference cigarettes over time, they did not conduct all measurements concurrently in the same laboratories; product and analytical variability (e.g., different laboratories, operators, time of measurement) cannot be distinguished.

Thus, the purpose of this study was to develop a systematic understanding of product variability, as much as possible, without confounding with analytical variability (13). The study as reported here, included evaluation of 8 world-wide commercial cigarettes across a range of conventional designs. Variability was assessed over short-term (Phase 1: three batches manufactured within 1 week), medium-term (Phase 2: four batches manufactured quarterly for 1 year), and long-term (Phase 3: three batches manufactured yearly for 3 years) through testing of a range of conventional parameters and smoke and tobacco analytes. Specifically, HPHCs recommended or required by international regulatory bodies including World Health Organization (WHO) (9), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2), Health Canada (5), and the State Tobacco Monopoly Administration (STMA) of China (4) were tested. Besides their specific relevance to tobacco product testing, these analytes cover a range of yield (ng to mg), some are present in tobacco and/or smoke. In smoke, these constituents represent volatile, semi-volatile, and particulate phase analytes. Thus, it was expected that these may inform against various qualities of a tobacco product to aid our understanding of product variability. Several study design measures were included to minimize or account for analytical variabililty. For example, for each phase of the study, batches were collected over time but stored in cold storage and then tested together, and all testing for a given constituent was conducted concurrently in the same laboratory. To account for unknown or uncontrolled variables, a single batch of standard reference cigarette 3R4F was included and treated in the same manner as a study control for a comparison of the variability from repeat testing of a single batch (control) to variability from batch-to-batch testing of a product. Results, analysis, and implications of the study are reported herein.

METHODS
Study phases and batch designations

The study was conducted in three phases to evaluate short-term, medium-term, and long-term product variability (see Table 1). Results were not compared across products; the design was effectively eight parallel independent studies. For Phase 1 of the study, Batches A, B, and C were collected within 1 week of production. A larger sample size for Batch B was collected to include this batch in each phase of the study (B1, B2, B3). For Phase 2, Batches D, E, and F were collected approximately quarterly with Batch B, labeled B2, treated as the first quarter batch. For Phase 3, Batches G and H were collected annually with Batch B, labeled B3, treated as the first-year batch. Quantities of a single batch of 3R4F were collected, labelled, stored, and shipped similarly to the product batches. The choice of collection timing was based on trying to gradually incorporate expected and unknown production variables into the study. It was anticipated that ‘one-week’ would allow for varied shift, equipment, operator, and raw material changes such as cigarette paper bobbins or filter tow bales. Quarterly collections for one year (Phase 2), was expected to include these typical production variables and possibly grade changes or blend turn-over depending on a given manufacturer's undisclosed production practices. Collecting product across three years of production, was expected to magnify each of these and other likely production variables.

Study design and batch designations.

Batch designation Study phase A B1, B2, B3 a C D E F G H
Phase 1 Week 1 Week 1 Week 1
  Short-term shift 1 shift 2 shift 3
Phase 2 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1
  Medium-term quarter 1 quarter 2 quarter 3 quarter 4
Phase 3 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
  Long-term

B1, B2, and B3 are cigarettes from the same batch that were stored and shipped with each phase of the study. Batch designations were used for 3R4F data, but all cigarettes were from the same batch.

Choice of samples

The scope of the study was limited to commercial factory-made cigarettes in order to create ‘real-world’ information. Reference cigarettes (3R4F) were incorporated for comparison purposes. Considerations included: region of the world (United States, Europe, China); blend (American, Virginia, Dark Air Cured); non-intense “tar”-level (<1–20 mg/cigarette); and filter construction. Mentholated products were excluded due to complexity with cigarette conditioning. The first certified reference product for cigarettes, 1R6F, came available during the course of the study, and was added to the study for informational purposes.

While no attempt was made to control or influence raw material lots or manufacturing schedules, product volunteers agreed to provide a relatively high-production-volume product to avoid limited production runs and low raw material turn-over. Specific manufacturing information was not collected due to confidentiality considerations between different manufacturers.

Cigarette products

Two Virginia and six American blend commercial products were chosen to represent a range of design parameters (e.g., blend type and “tar” level, see Table 2). Virginia blends are typically all flue-cured tobaccos, often with no or limited added flavors. American blends typically contain flue-cured, Burley, and Oriental tobaccos with or without added flavors.

Sample descriptions.

Sample code Blend ~Non-intense “tar” Comment
1 American 10 mg
2 American 3 mg Charcoal filter
3 Virginia 10 mg
4 American 10 mg
5 a NA NA Withdrawn
6 American 14 mg
7 American 1 mg
8 Virginia 8 mg
9 American 7 mg
10 (3R4F) American 8 mg Single batch study reference
11 (1R6F) American 8 mg Informational

Withdrawn after Sample Code assignment but prior to testing.

Product collections were from typical commercial production runs with no additional controls imposed. Samples were collected according to the time schedule (Table 1) and stored at −20 °C prior to shipment to the testing labs. No significant design changes were noted for the study products during the course of the study.

One batch of 3R4F cigarettes was included as a study control to compare testing of multiple batches of production samples with repeat testing of a single batch of 3R4F cigarettes treated to the same study design parameters.

For data collation, the test samples were distinguished by Sample-Batch designations such as 1-B1 (corresponding to Batch B1 from product Sample 1).

Choice of measures

HPHCs tested were based on recommendations or requirements of regulatory bodies (World Health Organization, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Health Canada, Chinese State Tobacco Monopoly Administration).

Additional measures as indicators of analytical quality, such as total particulate matter (TPM), puff count, and conditioned cigarette weight, were reported as well. Physical measurements were included as indicators of cigarette production consistency.

This set of measures afforded the potential for trends analysis based on attributes such as matrix (leaf and smoke); constituent phase (particulate, semi-volatile, volatile); and relative level of constituent yield (ng, μg, mg).

Testing design

Testing volunteers were solicited from among industry laboratories with capabilities for TNCO and at least one constituent class in the test list. Laboratories were typically ISO 17025 accredited and it was recommended but not required for the laboratories to use published or standardized analytical methods.

All sample batches were shipped and tested concurrently within each phase of the study. For each constituent and each phase, a single lab tested all of the samples (n = 5). Five replicates provided approximately 80% power to detect a ratio of the sample-to-sample standard deviation to the replicate-to-replicate standard deviation of 1.32 or more which was deemed adequate power (28). Due to the large number of replicates for a given phase, testing was expected to take from several days to several weeks to complete. Therefore, replicates were interleaved to minimize the confounding of laboratory drift over the testing time with the manufacturing variation under study. Due to interleaving, repeat analyses were not required except in cases of fewer than 3 reportable results. Due to shipping complexities across multiple countries, not all product samples were received by all testing laboratories in Phase 3. In these cases, results are noted in the data tables as NCS (not calculated due to shipping).

The TNCO testing design varied from the other analytes of measure. Rather than one laboratory, all laboratories tested TNCO concurrent to testing of their assigned analyte class.

Study control measures

Certain study design features were put in place to minimize analytical variability. Batches were collected, held at −20 °C, and shipped together for testing to avoid temporal variability during testing. Except for TNCO, all samples were tested for a given method in a single laboratory at the same time to avoid lab-to-lab variability or within lab temporal variability. Replicates were interleaved to prevent bias in analysis due to analytical drift.

The laboratories reported key information such as TPM, puff count, and conditioned cigarette weight to assess the data for obvious anomalies that may be harder to discern in analyte results. TNCO was carried out in all the laboratories and provided additional insight into the testing variability of the products.

Unidentified or unknown contributors to analytical variability were naturally accounted for in the analysis through inclusion of repeat testing of a single production batch of 3R4F as a study control and through the repeat testing of the “B” batches in each study phase.

Physical parameters

Moisture, cigarette weight, tobacco weight, filter tip ventilation, circumference, length, paper permeability, and resistance to draw were measured using conventional equipment in common use in industry laboratories (29, 30, 31).

Tobacco testing methods

Tobacco was removed from the other cigarette components in preparation for analysis. As warranted, tobacco samples were oven-dried for consistent grinding; thus, analytes may be reported ‘as-is’ or on a dry-weight basis. Replicate analysis was conducted on separate-grind aliquots.

Nicotine: Ground tobacco was extracted using liquid/liquid extraction into organic solvent containing n-heptadecane as an internal standard followed by GC-FID analysis according to the “hexane method” for CRM 62 (32).

Ammonia: Ground tobacco was extracted using dilute acid. Filtered extracts were analyzed by IC (33).

Metals: Arsenic (LOQ 200 ng/g), cadmium (LOQ 300 ng/g); digested tobacco was analyzed by inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy (34).

Tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs): N-Nitrosonor-nicotine (NNN), 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK); ground tobacco was extracted using dilute ammonium acetate, extracts were analyzed by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectroscopy (LC-MS/MS) (35).

Smoking collection regimes

Mainstream smoke was generated under both ISO 3308 (non-intense) (10) and ISO 20778 (intense) (11) machine smoking regimes. Cigarettes were conditioned before smoking in accordance with ISO 3402 (36).

Cigarette smoke testing methods

“Tar”, nicotine, carbon monoxide (TNCO): Cigarettes were smoked onto glass filter pads which were subsequently extracted with alcohol, extracts were analyzed by GC-FID and GC-TCD. Carbon monoxide was analyzed by in-line gas trapping and NDIR (10, 11, 37, 38, 39, 40).

Ammonia: Cigarettes were smoked through glass filter pads with in-line impingers containing dilute acid. Pads were extracted with the impinger solvent. Extracts are analyzed by IC (4142).

Carbonyls: Acetaldehyde, acrolein, crotonaldehyde, formaldehyde; mainstream cigarette smoke was trapped in an impinger with an acidified 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH) solution. After smoking, trizma base was added to the combined solutions which were subsequently analyzed by UPLC-PDA (4344).

Hydrogen cyanide (HCN): Cigarettes were smoked onto glass fiber filter pads with in-line impingers containing 1 M NaOH (aq). The pads were extracted with 1 M NaOH by shaking for 2 min by hand. The pad extract and the impinger solution were analyzed separately by colorimetric detection using CFA (45).

Polyaromatic amines (PAAs): 4-Aminobiphenyl, 1-amino-naphthalene, 2-aminonaphthalene; cigarettes were smoked on to glass fiber filter pads. Pads were extracted with 100 mL of 5% HCl (aq) with 30 min of shaking on a wrist-action shaker. After a liquid/liquid extraction with dichloromethane and cyclohexane the extracts were brought to pH 11 with 50% NaOH (aq). Subsequently, the PAAs were extracted with hexane and derivatized with pentafluoropropionic acid anhydride with an overnight reaction at 5 °C. A clean-up with Florisil was followed by analysis by GC-MS (SIM) using deuterated internal standards D-7 2-amino-naphthalin and D-9 4-aminobiphenyl. The analytical column was a VF-5ms (30m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 μm). The oven temperature was programmed at 90 °C for 2 min, 12 °C/min to 220 °C, 20 °C/min to 280 °C for 15 min with helium 0.7 mL constant flow for carrier gas.

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs): Benzo[a]pyrene (BaP); cigarettes were smoked onto glass fiber filter pads which were subsequently extracted with methanol. Extracts were processed in a series of steps involving dilution, solvent exchange, and SPE. Processed extracts were analyzed by GC-MS (SIM) (4647).

Tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs): NNN, NNK; cigarettes were smoked onto glass filter pads subsequently extracted using dilute ammonium acetate. Extracts were analyzed by LC-MS/MS (48).

Volatile organic compounds (VOC): Acrylonitrile, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, isoprene, toluene; cigarettes were smoked onto a glass filter pad with in-line chilled, methanol-containing impingers. Pads were extracted with the impingers’ solution. Extracts were analyzed by GC-MS EI, full scan mode (4950).

Statistical analysis

Data were compared using one-way analysis of variance, except TNCO which was two-way including interactive effects. The different handling of TNCO was because multiple labs analyzed the samples for TNCO and only a single lab analyzed the samples for other HPHCs. Obvious outliers noted in the raw data supplement were excluded by visual inspection.

The range of the observed batch means for a set of timepoint batches was used to aid in the interpretation of whether the differences in batch values were of practical importance. Range=(maximumbatchmeanminimumbatchmean)/averageofmeansofallbatches {\rm{Range}} = \left({{\rm{maximum}}\,{\rm{batch}}\,{\rm{mean}} - \,{\rm{minimum}}\,{\rm{batch}}\,{\rm{mean}}} \right)/{\rm{average}}\,{\rm{of}}\,{\rm{means}}\,{\rm{of}}\,{\rm{all}}\,{\rm{batches}}

RESULTS

The percent differences (also called relative range) for time-points for a product (testing of multiple batches) or 3R4F (repeat testing of the same batch) were calculated. Example relative range data from each constituent class are shown in Table 3. Relative range results for all constituents and measures are provided in the Supplemental Material (Tables S1–S5). All raw analytical data may be obtained by contacting the CORESTA General Secretariat (https://www.coresta.org/contact).

Relative range (%) among time point for each product sample for select parameters and constituents.

Sample

Timepoint 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 3R4F
Physical parameters

Cigarette weight as-is (mg/cig) Short 0.8% 0.6% 0.2% 0.9% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.6% NCa
Medium 1.3%* 1.7%* 1.2%* 1.4%* NC 1.6%* 0.9%* 2.6%* 0.2%
Long 3.4%* 0.3% 0.4% 1.9%* 0.7% 3.2%* 3.8% 1.1% 0.4%
Filter tip ventilation (%) Short 3.4%* 6.0%* 0.1% 8.4%* 0.9% 19.7%* 1.3% 0.9% NC
Medium 1.8%* 8%* 0.4%* 8.2%* NC 27.1%* 5.5%* 5.0%* 2.4%
Long 10.4%* 8.6% 0.1% 9.0%* 2.8% 14.0%* 0.7% 1.2% 6.6%

Tobacco constituents

NNN (ng/g) Short 1.4% 7.4% 11.9% 3.1% 3.0% 6.5% 14.7%* 27.1%* 3.8%
Medium 41.9%* 31.4%* 51%* 14.6%* 29.4%* 34.5%* 30.5%* 81.5%* 2.8%
Long 34.0%* 31.5%* NCS b 2.3% 13.8%* 28.1%* NCS 57.2%* 3.2%
NNK (ng/g) Short 8.1% 24.7%* 8.1% 12.6%* 10.3% 2.0% 15.4%* 32.9%* 3.3%
Medium 62.1%* 53.5%* 47.4%* 7.5% 37.8%* 33.9%* 28.2%* 58.9%* 9.2%
Long 34.7%* 20.9% NCS 6.4% 36.0% 21.4% NCS 54.4% 8.9%*
Nicotine (μg/g) Short 2.2%* 1.0% 4.8%* 3.1%* 1.0% 4.8%* 2.1%* 3.9%* 0.4%
Medium 9.8%* 13.8%* 4.1%* 3.7%* 5.2%* 5.2%* 3.9%* 8.6%* 1.7%*
Long 8.3%* 5.6%* 14.0%* 2.5%* 2.8%* 4.4%* 0.3% 7.6%* 0.1%
Ammonia (μg/g) Short 6.7%* 7.5%* 9.4%* 6.7%* 1.5% 0.9% 34.4%* 12.8%* 3.1%
Medium 11.6%* 15.0%* 63.7%* 8.6%* 21.1%* 11.0%* 66.5%* 10.3%* 4.8%*
Long 12.5%* 2.1% NCS 24.6%* 10.6%* 10.4%* NCS 17.2%* 1.0%

Smoke constituent – Non-intense regime

Ammonia (μg/cig) Short 0.9% < LOQ 2.3% 8.3% 2.6% < LOQ 8.7% 2.1% 5.3%
Medium 18.8%* < LOQ 5.5% 5.0% 28.3%* < LOQ 17.7% 19.2% 6.0%
Long 14.7% 8.8% NCS 7.4% 21.5% < LOQ NCS 7.5% 9.2%
Acetaldehyde (μg/cig) Short 5.0% 9.5% 2.4% 6.5% 6.9%* 51.1%* 5.1% 7.4% 6.8%
Medium 11.3% 11.4% 6.5% 9.3%* 3.2% 67.3%* 3.9% 13.2%* 11.6%*
Long 12.4%* 7.0% 0.5% 5.7% 3.6% 21.6% 0.7% 2.5% 3.3%
Total HCN (μg/cig) Short 5.8% 8.5% 2.9% 15.9%* 17.9%* < LOQ 15.7%* 16.5% 4.5%
Medium 15.9%* 22.9% 8.0% 8.1% 9.4%* < LOQ 30.1%* 16.4%* 7.7%
Long 20.5%* 31.0% NCS 13.3% 15.3% < LOQ NCS 6.0% 12.1%
4-Aminobiphenyl (ng/cig) Short 3.2% 5.5%* 3.6% 2.8% 2.0% 17.6%* 4.9% 1.1% 4.5%
Medium 4.5% 2.4% 4.5% 6.5% 6.4%* 51.3%* 20.1%* 5.3% 5.4%
Long 7.4% 6.4% NCS 11.4%* 2.6% 16.9%* NCS 5.2% 3.9%
BaP (ng/cig) Short 2.2% 3.0% 1.7% 0.3% 1.9% 4.2% 2.2% 2.6% 1.1%
Medium 4.1% 3.6% 2.3% 4.0% 6.1%* 10.4% 2.2% 4.3% 1.6%
Long 8.1% 6.9% 3.9% NC 6.3% 29.9%* 7.5% 3.5% 1.7%
NNN (ng/cig) Short 13.4% 14.3%* 9.7% 4.0% 11.3% 27.1%* 15.6% 13.1% 2.9%
Medium 36.9%* 11.9% 21.9% 5.7% 8.4% 54.9%* 51.3%* 44.7%* 16.5%
Long 33.1%* 51.7%* NCS 0.7% 12.4% 25%* NCS 45.9%* 10.8%
NNK (ng/cig) Short 18.0% 14.1%* 8.2% 8.0% 9.9% 40.2%* 12.0% 26.8% 4.0%
Medium 44.6%* 31.7% 25.1% 11.6%* 17.6% 62.9%* 34.4% 36%* 12.6%
Long 28.1%* 47.7%* NCS 3.4% 12.2% 34.0% NCS 32.9%* 12.7%*
Benzene (μg/cig) Short 6.4% 16.2%* 2.8% 3.9% 2.9% 23%* 3.7% 4.4% 1.3%
Medium 13%* 19%* 6.2% 6.2% 7.7% 81.8%* 11.5%* 9.0% 10.6%*
Long 14.5%* 8.7%* NCS 0.3% 1.7% 28.1%* NCS 6.5% 4.1%

Smoke constituent - Intense regime

Ammonia (μg/cig) Short 10.6% 9.9% 0.8% 1.1% 7.2% 3.7% 13.4%* 5.9% 7.2%
Medium 19.0% 47.6% 22.8% 12.8% 30.5%* 7.3% 45.2%* 15.2% 14.1%
Long 1.6% 9%* NCS 1.9% 22.9%* 11.0% NCS 3.0% 7.7%
Acetaldehyde (μg/cig) Short 1.7% 2.6% 3.5% 3.3% 1.8% 2.7% 4.9% 3.0% 1.4%
Medium 2.7% 5.5% 6.0% 4.9% 8.9%* 6.7% 6.9% 4.7% 3.5%
Long 2.4% 3.8% 1.0% 2.9% 9.4%* 3.9% 10.8%* 0.5% 0.4%
Total HCN (μg/cig) Short 5.8% 5.2% 7.4% 1.4% 9.6% 4.2% 1.2% 13.6% 4.7%
Medium 6.1% 15.6%* 9.2% 2.9% 9.5% 8.9% 19.2%* 15.8%* 7.5%
Long 13.4%* 10.5%* NCS 10.8% 9.4% 4.7% NCS 13.0% 2.8%
4-Aminobiphenyl (ng/cig) Short 3.9% 3.2% 2.0% 4.8% 0.7% 0.4% 1.7% 4.7% 2.4%
Medium 10.9% 14.3%* 4.7% 4.1% 8.8%* 5.2% 17.3%* 5.1% 4.6%
Long 10.5% 9.2% NCS 6.8%* 13.7% 9.6%* NCS 4.9% 7.2%
BaP (ng/cig) Short 2.2% 2.9% 2.8% 2.1% 1.8% 0.4% 3.8% 3.1% 2.3%
Medium 3.7% 3.6% 7.2%* 2.1% 5.6% 2.5% 4.4% 7.3% 6.1%*
Long 5.4% 5.4% 2.5% NC 7.9% 2.5% 8.5% 5.5% 1.4%
NNN (ng/cig) Short 1.2% 17.3%* 19.2%* 18.9%* 5.3% 3.5% 10.5% 10.1% 4.3%
Medium 37.2%* 26.6%* 62.6%* 4.6% 20.9% 23.7%* 13.9% 52.9%* 10.3%
Long 22.9% 52.9%* NCS 5.5% 10.6% 30.5%* NCS 40.6%* 12.5%
NNK (ng/cig) Short 6.6% 2.3% 14.8% 9.2% 11.1% 15.8% 21.3%* 21.6%* 5.7%
Medium 34.5%* 41.8%* 18.7%* 8.5% 16.3% 25.8%* 33.6% 26.2%* 12.5%
Long 26.9% 49.5%* NCS 6.6% 25.4%* 11.8% NCS 26.6%* 12.0%
Benzene (μg/cig) Short 5.0% 2.3% 8.5% 3.4% 6.2% 4.7% 10.5%* 5.0% 2.3%
Medium 4.2% 5.0% 5.1% 3.9% 4.3% 4.7% 9.5%* 7.0% 2.4%
Long 3.7% 5.1% NCS 2.3% 1.5% 1.3% NCS 3.2% 4.9%

p < 0.05 (Statistically significantly different using ANOVA)

NC: not calculated due to not reported or < LOQ values;

NCS: not calculated due to shipping/receiving issues.

Instances of statistically significant differences (ANOVA, p < 0.05) are noted. For cases for which relative range was not calculated, the result is noted as “NC” for cases of not reported or < LOQ analytical results or “NCS” for cases of not tested due to shipping/receiving issues.

Physical parameters

The percent differences among the batch timepoints across the entire study, as displayed in Supplemental Table 1, ranged from 0.1% to 27.1% but were typically below 10%. Results for 3R4F ranged from 0.1% to 14.0% and were typically below 5%. Filter tip ventilation, resistance to draw (open/closed), and paper air permeability are shown to have the highest percent difference among the batch timepoints for the measurements. Several of the products had statistically significant differences for the timepoints.

Tobacco

Nicotine, ammonia, TSNAs, and trace metals were determined for tobacco samples. TNSAs were determined by the same testing laboratory that measured smoke TSNAs for matched analytical methodology.

Arsenic and cadmium levels were near or below the lower limits of quantitation for many of the samples which resulted in non-reportable values or artificially elevated percent differences. Thus, these analytes are not useful for the study objective and the variability calculations are not reported but rather are noted as not calculated (NC).

For NNN and NNK, many of the products appear to have batch-to-batch variability above the level shown by 3R4F (repeat testing of a single batch) with apparent trending based on study phase. NNN product variability averaged approximately 10%, 40%, and 28% for the products’ short-term, medium-term, and long-term comparisons, respectively.

Repeat testing variability for 3R4F for the same study phases was 3.8%, 2.8%, and 3.2%. Results for NNK followed a similar trend: products’ variability averaged approximately 14%, 41%, and 29% for the three study phases. 3R4F showed slightly greater repeat testing variability than for NNN at 3.3%, 9.2%, and 8.9%, respectively.

Tobacco nicotine differences were slightly greater for product batches (~ 3%) collected within one week compared to repeat testing of 3R4F (0.4%). Differences were slightly greater and were statistically significant for 1-year and 3-year studies at approximately 6.8% and 5.7% on average for products compared to 1.7% and 0.1% for 3R4F. The highest difference for tobacco nicotine noted among the timepoints was 14.0% for the Product 3 long-term difference.

Like TSNAs, the tobacco ammonia results were often quite different from one another in the medium and long-term batches. The Virginia blend cigarettes (Products 3 and 8) sometimes showed quite large percent differences (> 60%) because their levels were low; small changes could result in large percent differences. For the American blend cigarettes, short-term ammonia differences among batches were greater for most products than for 3R4F (3%). Most of the American blend products showed somewhat greater differences than 3R4F in both the medium and long-term (13% on average compared to < 5% for 3R4F).

Smoke

Mainstream smoke was collected using non-intense and intense smoking regimes for the determination of ammonia, BaP, carbonyls, PAAs, TSNAs, HCN, and VOCs. For each of these analyte classes, all testing was conducted in one laboratory and all samples for a given study phase were tested concurrently.

On average, across all products and all analytes, the product differences for non-intense smoking (15%) were greater than 3R4F repeat testing differences (7.2%). Intense results are similar; on average, sample differences over time are slightly greater than repeat testing of 3R4F. The differences between samples under the intense smoking regime were low except for TSNAs. This supports previous conclusions regarding ventilation's impact on variability for non-intense smoking (26). Results of particular interest are noted below.

Product 7 with high filter tip ventilation showed relatively larger differences for the non-intense regime (as high as 106.4%). This is a very low yielding product; several analytes were at or below method limits of quantitation (LOQ) and small differences resulted in large proportional differences.

Ammonia results for Product 3 and 8 (Virginia blend cigarettes) appear to show trending for study phases. For Product 8 intense regime, Phase 1 difference is 13.4% compared to 7.2% for 3R4F and Phase 2 is 45.2% compared to 14.1%. As with trace level tobacco metals, variability among the replicates is relatively high with some values at or below the method LOQ for non-intense regime results. Phase 3 testing for Product 8 was not completed due to product distribution issues. Product 6 ammonia differences also appear to trend up for medium- and long-term sampling compared to collecting all batches within a week. Ammonia is a naturally occurring constituent yet may also be an additive (e.g., processing aid) in tobacco and/or cigarette paper.

This is an unknown for the study samples since these types of manufacturing details were not disclosed. Thus, smoke ammonia variability may be influenced by natural and/or added content.

As with tobacco analysis, NNN and NNK yields for non-intense smoking showed statistically significant differences of modest size in many products for the short-term study (~ 15% compared to ~ 4% for repeated 3R4F) and relatively larger magnitudes of difference for the later phases (as much as 62.9% compared to ~ 13% for 3R4F). These compounds are known to be related to the tobacco levels of those HPHCs, and they are also known to vary widely in tobacco due to agricultural variation over time. This trend held for intense smoking as well.

Smoke – “Tar”, nicotine, and carbon monoxide

Unlike other smoke analytes, TNCO testing was conducted in all laboratories.

Batch-to-batch variability for each of the samples was low for each of the phases and all samples (~ 5%). Conversely, lab-to-lab variation was statistically significant in all but two comparisons across all TNCO samples, analytes, and regimes.

There are also potential interactive effects (e.g., Sample × lab) noted in the data. Table 4 shows the example of Product 2, non-intense CO yields for the Phase 3 batches. All batch-to-batch differences compared to lab-to-lab differences of these HPHCs are provided in the supplemental materials.

Product 2 CO yields from non-intense smoking for long-term variability testing as an illustration of interactive effects among laboratories and of the magnitude of differences that may be expected from testing multiple batches of the same product in different laboratories using standardized methodology.

Product 2 Non-intense CO (mg/cig)Phase 3 samples Product range Laboratory range

Batch % %
Lab B3 G H
1 4.41 4.11 4.64
4 3.85 3.70 3.87
5 3.56 3.64 3.48
6 4.70 4.59 4.87
7 3.92 3.75 4.44
8 4.00 3.75 4.43
9 3.62 3.16 3.92
10 3.53 3.70 3.50
11 4.14 4.02 4.66
Average 3.97 3.82 4.20 9.4 29.0
DISCUSSION
Influence of samples

There were no obvious variability trends in the data due to blend type (American or Virginia) except that Virgina blends tend to be low in ammonia (51) causing low or < LOQ values. High filter-tip ventilation primarily influenced analytical variability and the carbon filter additive affected VOC yields, but neither of these product design variables was observed as a major factor influencing batch-to-batch product variability.

Choice of measures

HPHCs tested were based on recommendations or requirements of regulatory bodies (World Health Organization, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Health Canada, Chinese State Tobacco Monopoly Administration). Additional measures as indicators of analytical quality, such as total particulate matter (TPM), puff count and conditioned cigarette weight, were reported as well. Physical measurements were included as indicators of cigarette production consistency.

This set of measures afforded the potential for trends analysis based on attributes such as matrix (leaf and smoke); constituent phase (particulate, semi-volatile, volatile); and relative level of constituent yield (ng, μg, mg).

As previously observed by Agnew-Heard et al., cigarettes with relatively high variability of physical parameters tended to show relatively greater variability for non-intense smoke yields (52). Constituents that transferred from leaf to smoke showed similar trends for batch-to-batch variability trending. Both leaf TSNAs and smoke TSNAs showed a greater batch-to-batch variability than repeat testing for 3R4F and showed greater differences among batches for the longer-term studies. This trend was also observed for ammonia and, to a lesser extent, nicotine. There were no obvious trends noted based on constituent phase or relative yield.

Statistical and practical differences

Our objective was to expand our understanding of commercial cigarette product variability in a more holistic manner. The use of statistical comparisons was employed to aid objectivity in our data analysis and in highlighting more complex trends such as the interactive effects noted for TNCO results. A review of Table 3 and Supplemental Table S1 will reveal that some batch differences that were statistically significantly different were extremely small and of little practical concern. For that reason, we included percent differences in addition to statistical significance to be able to judge whether the observed differences were meaningful from a practical perspective.

As an additional safeguard, we included the 3R4F reference product in the study. The testing design for the 3R4F was the same as for the commercial products so that we could ask the question for each set of analyses: “Is the difference observed for testing multiple batches of Product X greater than that observed from repeat testing of one batch of the reference?”. If not, even if relatively high, the difference observed is likely not due to product (batch) differences but more likely due to analytical variability.

Like 3R4F, B Batches were also single production batches that were repeat-tested. In this case, they were each made in the first week of production but were stored, shipped, and tested with each phase of the study, and hence are also a type of design-matched control for associated samples. Though not evaluated in this data analysis, one may be able to estimate temporal analytical variability for the study using the Batch B data and/or the 3R4F data from all of the phases.

Physical parameters

Basic physical parameters were included in the study to understand manufacturing consistency for the study samples. If cigarette weight were highly variable, for example, high smoking yield variability could well follow. Most of the parameters tested were similar in variability for the products to the variability observed for 3R4F repeat testing. Some examples of greater variability for filter tip ventilation were noted. In particular, Sample 7 with a carbon-containing filter of high ventilation (~ 80%), showed a percent difference in batches of 14–20% across the three phases compared to approximately 5% for each of the phases for 3R4F.

None of the measures appeared to show differences in magnitude based on study phases; short-term, medium-term and long-term variability were similar and low for all the parameters. This is an indicator of a high degree of manufacturing process control and likely relatively low product manufacturing variability. Cigarette weight, probably the most fundamental indicator of production variability, ranged from 0–4% difference between batches of products collected across 3 years of production.

Tobacco

One of the main reasons to divide the study into phases of < 1 week to as long as 3 years was an attempt to incorporate tobacco crop-year changes. Metals data did not support a trend analysis as they typically were near or below the method's lower LOQ. This highlights a real-world issue with reporting requirements for trace or < LOQ analytes. NNN and NNK yields, conversely, showed clear temporal batch-to-batch variability. Samples collected within 1 week, in some instances, had significant variation (27%), and even greater variation over longer periods (82% collected across 1 year's production). Repeat testing of 3R4F (3%, 4%) supports that the differences are product-related rather than analytically driven. Repeat testing of the product's Batch B further supports this and confirms consistency within a batch as illustrated in Figure 1 showing tobacco NNN for Product 9 and 3R4F across all batches. Interestingly, the data seem to indicate that medium-term variability is higher for NNN and NNK (~ 40% on average) than for long-term variability (~ 30% on average). It is possible that there is an in-common but unknown raw material or manufacturing variable that is influencing these results. Or, perhaps ~ 40% and ~ 30% are generally equivalent. Repeat testing of Sample B and of 3R4F confirmed that this is not an analytical artifact. A study conducted with additional timepoints may be warranted to better understand this trend.

Figure 1

Tobacco NNN for Product 9 across all batches compared to repeat testing results for 3R4F across the same timeframes. Shaded regions represent repeat testing of the same batch. A, B1, C are samples collected within 1 week of production. Samples B2, D, E, and F are samples collected quarterly for 1 year. Samples B3, G, and H are samples collected annually for 3 years. 3R4F was one batch collected, shipped, and tested like the production samples. Percent values displayed are the spread in timepoint replicate averaged values to show relative variability of batches within a study phase.

Smoke

Evaluation of puff count or TPM were included as indicators of consistency of smoking, regardless of constituent. An average of all puff counts across the study showed < 5% difference.

For constituent evaluation, data for combustion-generated HPHCs showed low relative percent differences for batch comparisons. See Figure 2 for Product 1 non-intense BaP results as an example. Sample variation for the study phases were of a similar magnitude as replicate variability and approximately 5% or less compared to < 2% for repeat testing of 3R4F with each phase. The results support that combustion byproducts are primarily influenced by amount of tobacco burned and cigarette design variables such as level and variability of filter tip ventilation.

Figure 2

Non-intense smoke BaP for product 1 across all batches compared to repeat testing results for 3R4F across the same timeframes. Shaded regions represent repeat testing of the same batch. A, B1, C are samples collected within 1 week of production. Samples B2, D, E, and F are samples collected quarterly for 1 year. Samples B3, G, and H are samples collected annually for 3 years. 3R4F was one batch collected, shipped, and tested like the production samples. Percent values displayed are the spread in timepoint replicate averaged values to show relative variability of batches within a study phase.

Conversely, tobacco-related compounds, such as NNN and NNK, tended to show larger differences in yields between batches collected over a longer period of time (1 year or 3 years) as compared to samples collected within 1 week. It follows that tobacco HPHCs vary naturally over time and thus vary in smoke over time. Tobacco HPHCs, whether tested in smoke or tobacco, show large temporal variability.

Smoke ammonia may result from a mix of sourcing from combustion and from transfer from tobacco (22), whereby products’ smoke ammonia yields had larger batch-to-batch differences for batches over longer periods but did not necessarily correlate as strongly between smoke and tobacco results as TSNAs depending on the product.

Smoke – “Tar”, nicotine, and carbon monoxide

TNCO was originally intended to provide more information about the samples and not to serve as a laboratory comparison. Our rationale was that all of the participating laboratories have full capability and years of experience with these standardized methodologies leading one to expect lab-to-lab variability to be low and therefore allow for additional data points for TNCO. However, the TNCO lab-to-lab variability was found to be much higher than batch-to-batch product variability and was shown to not trend with study phases.

A few potential implications show themselves in the take-aways from the TNCO analysis. First, this part of the study was conducted more like a typical interlaboratory study and shows a typical level of variability among the datasets. Second, different laboratories testing the same samples in the same timeframe showed a range in nicotine from, for example, 0.58 to 0.84 mg/cigarette for the same sample. This large of a spread in reporting is a caution against over interpretation of single-point results. Also, differences could be even larger for more variable or less well-established analyte classes. Additionally, more formal evaluation of TNCO on this scale would likely warrant sampling in compliance with ISO 8423 (53), which was considered to be overburdensome for this study due to the study size, and data analysis for tolerances in compliance with ISO 22305 (54).

Implications of the results

In this study, we purposely stored production samples to test them concurrently to minimize analytical variability. We also isolated testing to single laboratories except for TNCO. We found that the variability in the data was relatively low compared to studies for which products are controlled in order to study analytical variability. The one aspect of the study, TNCO testing, that was designed in a more typical manner, had more typical (i.e., higher) variability among the data sets. Thus, the primary implication of the results of the study is that analytical variability is likely the major contributor to the overall reporting variability in a typical study.

On the other hand, to facilitate on-going product testing for whatever the reason, production, product, and analytical variability often cannot be isolated in this way. Thus, in real-world testing product variability and analytical variability will remain confounded.

In evaluation of data sets from different laboratories, one must consider that all are subject to these same analytical variables and may use different analytical procedures.

While one is not able to eliminate analytical variability, reporting of the same control/reference samples across studies and between laboratories can aid evaluation of the data.

Study limitations

The number of samples of each product is limited and are not sufficient to provide good quantitative estimates of variability. For example, in order to ensure that the testing volumes were manageable, the formal sampling procedures outlined in ISO 8243 were not followed. Thus, the estimates of product differences should be regarded as illustrative rather than quantitative.

Due to the sheer size of the study, additional relevant study variables such as lab-to-lab variability for a given method and the impact of sample storage conditions were not included and cannot be assessed from the data. Additionally, a nested design would be more ideal from a statistical analysis perspective but too large to have been achievable.

The study design also does not allow for product-to-product comparisons. Effectively, the design created 8 independent studies conducted in parallel. Our initial discussions of the study design included production of a set of cigarettes designed specifically for the study to be produced by each manufacturer; to hold designs/recipes as constants. We decided against this, as a study of this design would just confirm how well a manufacturer could make cigarettes for which they have no experience and un-optimized equipment. That design would not have measured actual commercial cigarette variability.

Samples were not controlled for raw material and/or cigarette making equipment used. Product information such as blend composition or inventory practices were not disclosed. Thus, specific factors related to product variability, other than time of production, cannot be isolated.

Data analysis was limited to the direct scope of the study objectives. There may be other viable analysis questions and analysis tools applicable to the data set.

CONCLUSIONS

The design and results of this study provide better understanding of product variability independent of analytical variability. Physical parameters generally showed small differences across all batches for the 3 years of product collection. This indicates good manufacturing controls and good viability of the samples for the study.

Analytes, such as trace metals in tobacco, that are at or near method LOQ and/or with naturally high replicate variability provide little information to characterize a product or to understand product variability. Combustion-related analytes generally showed small batch-to-batch differences regardless of the time period, similar or slightly greater than repeat testing of 3R4F. However, tobacco-related analytes in cigarette smoke such as ammonia and TSNAs showed greater medium-term and long-term batch-to-batch differences than short-term (1 week) samples as might be expected for an agriculturally related product that may be impacted by the seasonal effects on a crop.

TNCO was the only test conducted by all participating laboratories. The original intention was to use this well-established method to gain further information on the batches. Instead, this additional testing served as a combined batch-to-batch and lab-to-lab comparison. It was determined that batch-to-batch TNCO differences (and repeated testing batch differences) were lower than lab-to-lab differences. This may indicate that for well-controlled product manufacturing, analytical factors (such as laboratory differences) are likely a much greater contributor for some constituent measures than the actual product-batch differences.

In a controlled study such as this, it is possible to isolate the product batch differences in a way that is not possible in routine product monitoring; samples are not typically stored for extended periods prior to testing, so that multiple batches can be tested simultaneously. Inclusion of physical parameter testing, laboratory quality control measures, and standardized study references across studies and laboratories are aids to minimize and understand the influence of analytical variability for increased product understanding.

IMPLICATIONS FOR TOBACCO REGULATION

Previous studies have provided invaluable insights into the repeatability and reproducibility of smoke collection and analytical variability within and between laboratories. Those studies have also investigated how measured constituent values change in commercial and reference cigarettes over time; (15, 17, 18, 22, 24) however, they did not conduct all measurements concurrently in the same laboratories. Thus, both commercial cigarette product and analytical variability (e.g., different laboratories, operators, time of measurement) are incorporated in the results. We described the first systematic evaluation of the inherent commercial cigarette product variability over short-term (1 week), medium-term (1 year), and long-term (3 years) periods of time while minimizing analytical variability. Regulatory implications include: a caution against data analysis for HPHCs at method limits, and against comparison of data sets between laboratories or across time without proper controls to allow for an understanding of inherent analytical variability.

Figure 1

Tobacco NNN for Product 9 across all batches compared to repeat testing results for 3R4F across the same timeframes. Shaded regions represent repeat testing of the same batch. A, B1, C are samples collected within 1 week of production. Samples B2, D, E, and F are samples collected quarterly for 1 year. Samples B3, G, and H are samples collected annually for 3 years. 3R4F was one batch collected, shipped, and tested like the production samples. Percent values displayed are the spread in timepoint replicate averaged values to show relative variability of batches within a study phase.
Tobacco NNN for Product 9 across all batches compared to repeat testing results for 3R4F across the same timeframes. Shaded regions represent repeat testing of the same batch. A, B1, C are samples collected within 1 week of production. Samples B2, D, E, and F are samples collected quarterly for 1 year. Samples B3, G, and H are samples collected annually for 3 years. 3R4F was one batch collected, shipped, and tested like the production samples. Percent values displayed are the spread in timepoint replicate averaged values to show relative variability of batches within a study phase.

Figure 2

Non-intense smoke BaP for product 1 across all batches compared to repeat testing results for 3R4F across the same timeframes. Shaded regions represent repeat testing of the same batch. A, B1, C are samples collected within 1 week of production. Samples B2, D, E, and F are samples collected quarterly for 1 year. Samples B3, G, and H are samples collected annually for 3 years. 3R4F was one batch collected, shipped, and tested like the production samples. Percent values displayed are the spread in timepoint replicate averaged values to show relative variability of batches within a study phase.
Non-intense smoke BaP for product 1 across all batches compared to repeat testing results for 3R4F across the same timeframes. Shaded regions represent repeat testing of the same batch. A, B1, C are samples collected within 1 week of production. Samples B2, D, E, and F are samples collected quarterly for 1 year. Samples B3, G, and H are samples collected annually for 3 years. 3R4F was one batch collected, shipped, and tested like the production samples. Percent values displayed are the spread in timepoint replicate averaged values to show relative variability of batches within a study phase.

Product 2 CO yields from non-intense smoking for long-term variability testing as an illustration of interactive effects among laboratories and of the magnitude of differences that may be expected from testing multiple batches of the same product in different laboratories using standardized methodology.

Product 2 Non-intense CO (mg/cig)Phase 3 samples Product range Laboratory range

Batch % %
Lab B3 G H
1 4.41 4.11 4.64
4 3.85 3.70 3.87
5 3.56 3.64 3.48
6 4.70 4.59 4.87
7 3.92 3.75 4.44
8 4.00 3.75 4.43
9 3.62 3.16 3.92
10 3.53 3.70 3.50
11 4.14 4.02 4.66
Average 3.97 3.82 4.20 9.4 29.0

Relative range (%) among time point for each product sample for select parameters and constituents.

Sample

Timepoint 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 3R4F
Physical parameters

Cigarette weight as-is (mg/cig) Short 0.8% 0.6% 0.2% 0.9% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.6% NCa
Medium 1.3%* 1.7%* 1.2%* 1.4%* NC 1.6%* 0.9%* 2.6%* 0.2%
Long 3.4%* 0.3% 0.4% 1.9%* 0.7% 3.2%* 3.8% 1.1% 0.4%
Filter tip ventilation (%) Short 3.4%* 6.0%* 0.1% 8.4%* 0.9% 19.7%* 1.3% 0.9% NC
Medium 1.8%* 8%* 0.4%* 8.2%* NC 27.1%* 5.5%* 5.0%* 2.4%
Long 10.4%* 8.6% 0.1% 9.0%* 2.8% 14.0%* 0.7% 1.2% 6.6%

Tobacco constituents

NNN (ng/g) Short 1.4% 7.4% 11.9% 3.1% 3.0% 6.5% 14.7%* 27.1%* 3.8%
Medium 41.9%* 31.4%* 51%* 14.6%* 29.4%* 34.5%* 30.5%* 81.5%* 2.8%
Long 34.0%* 31.5%* NCS b 2.3% 13.8%* 28.1%* NCS 57.2%* 3.2%
NNK (ng/g) Short 8.1% 24.7%* 8.1% 12.6%* 10.3% 2.0% 15.4%* 32.9%* 3.3%
Medium 62.1%* 53.5%* 47.4%* 7.5% 37.8%* 33.9%* 28.2%* 58.9%* 9.2%
Long 34.7%* 20.9% NCS 6.4% 36.0% 21.4% NCS 54.4% 8.9%*
Nicotine (μg/g) Short 2.2%* 1.0% 4.8%* 3.1%* 1.0% 4.8%* 2.1%* 3.9%* 0.4%
Medium 9.8%* 13.8%* 4.1%* 3.7%* 5.2%* 5.2%* 3.9%* 8.6%* 1.7%*
Long 8.3%* 5.6%* 14.0%* 2.5%* 2.8%* 4.4%* 0.3% 7.6%* 0.1%
Ammonia (μg/g) Short 6.7%* 7.5%* 9.4%* 6.7%* 1.5% 0.9% 34.4%* 12.8%* 3.1%
Medium 11.6%* 15.0%* 63.7%* 8.6%* 21.1%* 11.0%* 66.5%* 10.3%* 4.8%*
Long 12.5%* 2.1% NCS 24.6%* 10.6%* 10.4%* NCS 17.2%* 1.0%

Smoke constituent – Non-intense regime

Ammonia (μg/cig) Short 0.9% < LOQ 2.3% 8.3% 2.6% < LOQ 8.7% 2.1% 5.3%
Medium 18.8%* < LOQ 5.5% 5.0% 28.3%* < LOQ 17.7% 19.2% 6.0%
Long 14.7% 8.8% NCS 7.4% 21.5% < LOQ NCS 7.5% 9.2%
Acetaldehyde (μg/cig) Short 5.0% 9.5% 2.4% 6.5% 6.9%* 51.1%* 5.1% 7.4% 6.8%
Medium 11.3% 11.4% 6.5% 9.3%* 3.2% 67.3%* 3.9% 13.2%* 11.6%*
Long 12.4%* 7.0% 0.5% 5.7% 3.6% 21.6% 0.7% 2.5% 3.3%
Total HCN (μg/cig) Short 5.8% 8.5% 2.9% 15.9%* 17.9%* < LOQ 15.7%* 16.5% 4.5%
Medium 15.9%* 22.9% 8.0% 8.1% 9.4%* < LOQ 30.1%* 16.4%* 7.7%
Long 20.5%* 31.0% NCS 13.3% 15.3% < LOQ NCS 6.0% 12.1%
4-Aminobiphenyl (ng/cig) Short 3.2% 5.5%* 3.6% 2.8% 2.0% 17.6%* 4.9% 1.1% 4.5%
Medium 4.5% 2.4% 4.5% 6.5% 6.4%* 51.3%* 20.1%* 5.3% 5.4%
Long 7.4% 6.4% NCS 11.4%* 2.6% 16.9%* NCS 5.2% 3.9%
BaP (ng/cig) Short 2.2% 3.0% 1.7% 0.3% 1.9% 4.2% 2.2% 2.6% 1.1%
Medium 4.1% 3.6% 2.3% 4.0% 6.1%* 10.4% 2.2% 4.3% 1.6%
Long 8.1% 6.9% 3.9% NC 6.3% 29.9%* 7.5% 3.5% 1.7%
NNN (ng/cig) Short 13.4% 14.3%* 9.7% 4.0% 11.3% 27.1%* 15.6% 13.1% 2.9%
Medium 36.9%* 11.9% 21.9% 5.7% 8.4% 54.9%* 51.3%* 44.7%* 16.5%
Long 33.1%* 51.7%* NCS 0.7% 12.4% 25%* NCS 45.9%* 10.8%
NNK (ng/cig) Short 18.0% 14.1%* 8.2% 8.0% 9.9% 40.2%* 12.0% 26.8% 4.0%
Medium 44.6%* 31.7% 25.1% 11.6%* 17.6% 62.9%* 34.4% 36%* 12.6%
Long 28.1%* 47.7%* NCS 3.4% 12.2% 34.0% NCS 32.9%* 12.7%*
Benzene (μg/cig) Short 6.4% 16.2%* 2.8% 3.9% 2.9% 23%* 3.7% 4.4% 1.3%
Medium 13%* 19%* 6.2% 6.2% 7.7% 81.8%* 11.5%* 9.0% 10.6%*
Long 14.5%* 8.7%* NCS 0.3% 1.7% 28.1%* NCS 6.5% 4.1%

Smoke constituent - Intense regime

Ammonia (μg/cig) Short 10.6% 9.9% 0.8% 1.1% 7.2% 3.7% 13.4%* 5.9% 7.2%
Medium 19.0% 47.6% 22.8% 12.8% 30.5%* 7.3% 45.2%* 15.2% 14.1%
Long 1.6% 9%* NCS 1.9% 22.9%* 11.0% NCS 3.0% 7.7%
Acetaldehyde (μg/cig) Short 1.7% 2.6% 3.5% 3.3% 1.8% 2.7% 4.9% 3.0% 1.4%
Medium 2.7% 5.5% 6.0% 4.9% 8.9%* 6.7% 6.9% 4.7% 3.5%
Long 2.4% 3.8% 1.0% 2.9% 9.4%* 3.9% 10.8%* 0.5% 0.4%
Total HCN (μg/cig) Short 5.8% 5.2% 7.4% 1.4% 9.6% 4.2% 1.2% 13.6% 4.7%
Medium 6.1% 15.6%* 9.2% 2.9% 9.5% 8.9% 19.2%* 15.8%* 7.5%
Long 13.4%* 10.5%* NCS 10.8% 9.4% 4.7% NCS 13.0% 2.8%
4-Aminobiphenyl (ng/cig) Short 3.9% 3.2% 2.0% 4.8% 0.7% 0.4% 1.7% 4.7% 2.4%
Medium 10.9% 14.3%* 4.7% 4.1% 8.8%* 5.2% 17.3%* 5.1% 4.6%
Long 10.5% 9.2% NCS 6.8%* 13.7% 9.6%* NCS 4.9% 7.2%
BaP (ng/cig) Short 2.2% 2.9% 2.8% 2.1% 1.8% 0.4% 3.8% 3.1% 2.3%
Medium 3.7% 3.6% 7.2%* 2.1% 5.6% 2.5% 4.4% 7.3% 6.1%*
Long 5.4% 5.4% 2.5% NC 7.9% 2.5% 8.5% 5.5% 1.4%
NNN (ng/cig) Short 1.2% 17.3%* 19.2%* 18.9%* 5.3% 3.5% 10.5% 10.1% 4.3%
Medium 37.2%* 26.6%* 62.6%* 4.6% 20.9% 23.7%* 13.9% 52.9%* 10.3%
Long 22.9% 52.9%* NCS 5.5% 10.6% 30.5%* NCS 40.6%* 12.5%
NNK (ng/cig) Short 6.6% 2.3% 14.8% 9.2% 11.1% 15.8% 21.3%* 21.6%* 5.7%
Medium 34.5%* 41.8%* 18.7%* 8.5% 16.3% 25.8%* 33.6% 26.2%* 12.5%
Long 26.9% 49.5%* NCS 6.6% 25.4%* 11.8% NCS 26.6%* 12.0%
Benzene (μg/cig) Short 5.0% 2.3% 8.5% 3.4% 6.2% 4.7% 10.5%* 5.0% 2.3%
Medium 4.2% 5.0% 5.1% 3.9% 4.3% 4.7% 9.5%* 7.0% 2.4%
Long 3.7% 5.1% NCS 2.3% 1.5% 1.3% NCS 3.2% 4.9%

Study design and batch designations.

Batch designation Study phase A B1, B2, B3 a C D E F G H
Phase 1 Week 1 Week 1 Week 1
  Short-term shift 1 shift 2 shift 3
Phase 2 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1
  Medium-term quarter 1 quarter 2 quarter 3 quarter 4
Phase 3 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
  Long-term

Sample descriptions.

Sample code Blend ~Non-intense “tar” Comment
1 American 10 mg
2 American 3 mg Charcoal filter
3 Virginia 10 mg
4 American 10 mg
5 a NA NA Withdrawn
6 American 14 mg
7 American 1 mg
8 Virginia 8 mg
9 American 7 mg
10 (3R4F) American 8 mg Single batch study reference
11 (1R6F) American 8 mg Informational

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): The Health Consequences of Smoking: 50 Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General; HHS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, Atlanta, GA, 2014. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) The Health Consequences of Smoking: 50 Years of Progress A Report of the Surgeon General; HHS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health Atlanta, GA 2014 Search in Google Scholar

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA): Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents in Tobacco Products and Tobacco Smoke: Established List; FDA, Center for Tobacco Products, Silver Spring, MD, USA, April 2012. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/rules-regulations-and-guidance/harmful-and-potentially-harmful-constituents-tobacco-products-and-tobacco-smoke-established-list (accessed June 2022) U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents in Tobacco Products and Tobacco Smoke: Established List FDA, Center for Tobacco Products Silver Spring, MD, USA April 2012 Available at: https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/rules-regulations-and-guidance/harmful-and-potentially-harmful-constituents-tobacco-products-and-tobacco-smoke-established-list (accessed June 2022) Search in Google Scholar

Rodgman, A. and T.A. Perfetti: The Chemical Components of Tobacco and Tobacco Smoke; 2nd ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2013. RodgmanA. PerfettiT.A. The Chemical Components of Tobacco and Tobacco Smoke 2nd ed. CRC Press Boca Raton, FL, USA 2013 Search in Google Scholar

The State Council, The Peoples Republic of China: State Tobacco Monopoly Administration; Available at: https://english.www.gov.cn/state_council/2014/10/01/content_281474991089748.htm (accessed April 2022) The State Council, The Peoples Republic of China State Tobacco Monopoly Administration Available at: https://english.www.gov.cn/state_council/2014/10/01/content_281474991089748.htm (accessed April 2022) Search in Google Scholar

Health Canada: Tobacco Reporting Regulations; Health Canada, Minister of Health, 2000. Available at: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/SOR-2000-273.pdf (acessed June, 2022) Health Canada Tobacco Reporting Regulations Health Canada, Minister of Health 2000 Available at: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/SOR-2000-273.pdf (acessed June, 2022) Search in Google Scholar

Brazil National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA): Brazil Resolution RDC No. 90 of the Federal Sanitation Agency. Effective 27 December 2007. Ministério da Saúde, Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária, Brasil (ANVISA) [Brazil National Health Surveillance Agency]: RESOLUÇÃO DA DIRETORIA COLEGIADA - RDC Nº 90, DE 27 DE DEZEMBRO DE 2007. Dispõe sobre o registro de dados cadastrais dos produtos fumígenos derivados do tabaco [RESOLUTION OF THE COLLEGE COMMITTEE - RDC Nº 90, 27 December 2007. Provides for the registration of cadastral data of tobacco products.] Brazil National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) Brazil Resolution RDC No. 90 of the Federal Sanitation Agency Effective 27 December 2007. Ministério da Saúde, Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária, Brasil (ANVISA) [Brazil National Health Surveillance Agency]: RESOLUÇÃO DA DIRETORIA COLEGIADA - RDC Nº 90, DE 27 DE DEZEMBRO DE 2007. Dispõe sobre o registro de dados cadastrais dos produtos fumígenos derivados do tabaco [RESOLUTION OF THE COLLEGE COMMITTEE - RDC Nº 90, 27 December 2007. Provides for the registration of cadastral data of tobacco products.] Search in Google Scholar

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA): Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents in Tobacco Products and Tobacco Smoke; Established List; Federal Register Volume 77, Issue 64 (April 3, 2012) 20034–20037. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents in Tobacco Products and Tobacco Smoke; Established List Federal Register 77 64 April 3 2012 20034 20037 Search in Google Scholar

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA): Guidance for Industry. Reporting Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents in Tobacco Products and Tobacco Smoke Under Section 904(a)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; HHS, FDA, CTP, 2012. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/media/83375/download (accessed January, 2021) U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance for Industry. Reporting Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents in Tobacco Products and Tobacco Smoke Under Section 904(a)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act HHS, FDA, CTP, 2012 Available at: https://www.fda.gov/media/83375/download (accessed January, 2021) Search in Google Scholar

World Health Organization (WHO): The Scientific Basis of Tobacco Product Regulation: Second Report of a WHO Study Group (TobReg); Technical Report Series 951, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2008. World Health Organization (WHO) The Scientific Basis of Tobacco Product Regulation: Second Report of a WHO Study Group (TobReg) Technical Report Series 951, WHO Geneva, Switzerland 2008 Search in Google Scholar

International Organization for Standardization (ISO): ISO 3308:2012 Routine Analytical Cigarette-Smoking Machine – Definitions and Standard Conditions; ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2012. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/60404.html (accessed January, 2021) International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO 3308:2012 Routine Analytical Cigarette-Smoking Machine – Definitions and Standard Conditions ISO Geneva, Switzerland 2012 Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/60404.html (accessed January, 2021) Search in Google Scholar

International Organization for Standardization (ISO): ISO 20778:2018 Cigarettes – Routine Analytical Cigarette Smoking Machine – Definitions and Standard Conditions With an Intense Smoking Regime; ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/69065.html (accessed January, 2021) International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO 20778:2018 Cigarettes – Routine Analytical Cigarette Smoking Machine – Definitions and Standard Conditions With an Intense Smoking Regime ISO Geneva, Switzerland 2018 Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/69065.html (accessed January, 2021) Search in Google Scholar

Health Canada: Health Canada Test Method T-115. Determination of “Tar”, Nicotine and Carbon Monoxide in Mainstream Tobacco Smoke; Health Canada, 1999. Available at: https://healthycanadians.gc.ca/en/open-information/tobacco/t100/nicotine (accessed January, 2021) Health Canada Health Canada Test Method T-115. Determination of “Tar”, Nicotine and Carbon Monoxide in Mainstream Tobacco Smoke Health Canada 1999 Available at: https://healthycanadians.gc.ca/en/open-information/tobacco/t100/nicotine (accessed January, 2021) Search in Google Scholar

Cooperation Centre for Scientific Research Relative to Tobacco (CORESTA): https://www.coresta.org (accessed January, 2021) Cooperation Centre for Scientific Research Relative to Tobacco (CORESTA) https://www.coresta.org (accessed January, 2021) Search in Google Scholar

Purkis, S.W., M. Meger, and R.A. Wuttke: A Review of Current Smoke Constituent Measurement Activities and Aspects of Yield Variability; Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 62 (2012) 202–213. DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2011.10.006 PurkisS.W. MegerM. WuttkeR.A. A Review of Current Smoke Constituent Measurement Activities and Aspects of Yield Variability Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 62 2012 202 213 10.1016/j.yrtph.2011.10.00622019550 DOI öffnenSearch in Google Scholar

Rickert, W.S. and W. Wright: Stability of Yields of Canadian Mandated Analytes From the Kentucky Reference Cigarette 1R4F: A Time Series Analysis; Paper ST 26, presented at CORESTA Congress, New Orleans, USA, 22–27 September 2002. Available at: https://www.coresta.org/abstracts/stability-yields-canadian-mandated-analytes-kentucky-reference-cigarette-1r4f-time-series (accessed January, 2021) RickertW.S. WrightW. Stability of Yields of Canadian Mandated Analytes From the Kentucky Reference Cigarette 1R4F: A Time Series Analysis Paper ST 26, presented at CORESTA Congress New Orleans, USA 22–27 September 2002 Available at: https://www.coresta.org/abstracts/stability-yields-canadian-mandated-analytes-kentucky-reference-cigarette-1r4f-time-series (accessed January, 2021) Search in Google Scholar

Hyodo, T., O. Inoue, H. Katagirim, and A. Mikita: Long-Term Interlaboratory Comparisons of Selected Analytes in 2R4F Mainstream Smoke; Paper SS 07, presented at CORESTA Congress, Paris, France, 15–20 October 2006. Available at: https://www.coresta.org/abstracts/long-term-inter-laboratory-comparison-selected-smoke-analytes-2r4f-mainstream-smoke-2066 (accessed January, 2021) HyodoT. InoueO. KatagirimH. MikitaA. Long-Term Interlaboratory Comparisons of Selected Analytes in 2R4F Mainstream Smoke Paper SS 07, presented at CORESTA Congress Paris, France 15–20 October 2006 Available at: https://www.coresta.org/abstracts/long-term-inter-laboratory-comparison-selected-smoke-analytes-2r4f-mainstream-smoke-2066 (accessed January, 2021) Search in Google Scholar

Intorp, M., S. Purkis, M. Whittaker, and W. Wright: Determination of “Hoffmann Analytes” in Cigarette Mainstream Smoke. The Coresta 2006 Joint Experiment; Beitr. Tabakforsch. Int. 23 (2009) 161–202. DOI: 10.2478/cttr-2013-0859 IntorpM. PurkisS. WhittakerM. WrightW. Determination of “Hoffmann Analytes” in Cigarette Mainstream Smoke. The Coresta 2006 Joint Experiment Beitr. Tabakforsch. Int. 23 2009 161 202 10.2478/cttr-2013-0859 DOI öffnenSearch in Google Scholar

Teillet, B., X. Cahours, T. Verron, S. Colard, and S.W. Purkis: Comparison of Smoke Yield Data Collected From Different Laboratories; Beitr. Tabakforsch. Int. 25 (2014) 662–670. DOI: 10.2478/cttr-2013-0943 TeilletB. CahoursX. VerronT. ColardS. PurkisS.W. Comparison of Smoke Yield Data Collected From Different Laboratories Beitr. Tabakforsch. Int. 25 2014 662 670 10.2478/cttr-2013-0943 DOI öffnenSearch in Google Scholar

Purkis, S. and M. Intorp: Analysis of Reference Cigarette Smoke Yield Data From 21 Laboratories for 28 Selected Analytes as a Guide to Selection of New CORESTA Recommended Methods; Beitr. Tabakforsch. Int. 26 (2014) 57–73. DOI: 10.2478/cttr-2014-0010 PurkisS. IntorpM. Analysis of Reference Cigarette Smoke Yield Data From 21 Laboratories for 28 Selected Analytes as a Guide to Selection of New CORESTA Recommended Methods Beitr. Tabakforsch. Int. 26 2014 57 73 10.2478/cttr-2014-0010 DOI öffnenSearch in Google Scholar

Eldridge, A., T.R. Betson, M. Vinicius Gama, and K. McAdam: Variation in Tobacco and Mainstream Smoke Toxicant Yields From Selected Commercial Cigarette Products; Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 71 (2015) 409–427. DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.01.006 EldridgeA. BetsonT.R. Vinicius GamaM. McAdamK. Variation in Tobacco and Mainstream Smoke Toxicant Yields From Selected Commercial Cigarette Products Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 71 2015 409 427 10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.01.00625620723 DOI öffnenSearch in Google Scholar

Oldham, M.J., D.J. DeSoi, L.T. Rimmer, K.A. Wagner, and M.J. Morton: Insights From Analysis for Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents (HPHCs) in Tobacco Products; Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 70 (2014) 138–148. DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.06.017 OldhamM.J. DeSoiD.J. RimmerL.T. WagnerK.A. MortonM.J. Insights From Analysis for Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents (HPHCs) in Tobacco Products Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 70 2014 138 148 10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.06.01724973503 DOI öffnenSearch in Google Scholar

Morton, M.J. and S.W. Laffoon: Cigarette Smoke Chemistry Market Maps Under Massachusetts Department of Public Health Smoking Conditions; Regul Toxicol. Pharmacol. 51 (2008) 1–30. DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2008.03.001 MortonM.J. LaffoonS.W. Cigarette Smoke Chemistry Market Maps Under Massachusetts Department of Public Health Smoking Conditions Regul Toxicol. Pharmacol. 51 2008 1 30 10.1016/j.yrtph.2008.03.00118433960 DOI öffnenSearch in Google Scholar

Hyodo, T.: Selected Constituent Yield Variation in the Smoke of Commercial Cigarette Brands on the Japanese Market; Beitr. Tabakforsch. Int. 27 (2017) 208–223. DOI: 10.1515/cttr-2017-0022 HyodoT. Selected Constituent Yield Variation in the Smoke of Commercial Cigarette Brands on the Japanese Market Beitr. Tabakforsch. Int. 27 2017 208 223 10.1515/cttr-2017-0022 DOI öffnenSearch in Google Scholar

Tayyarah, R.: Multiple Point in Time Evaluation of Commercial and Reference Cigarette Products for Abbreviated HPHC Yield for Mainstream Smoke and Filler; Paper ST59, presented at CORESTA Smoke Science and Product Technology Joint Study Groups Meeting, Seville, Spain, 29 September – 3 October 2013. Available at: https://www.coresta.org/abstracts/multiple-point-time-evaluation-commercial-and-reference-cigarette-products-abbreviated (accessed January, 2021) TayyarahR. Multiple Point in Time Evaluation of Commercial and Reference Cigarette Products for Abbreviated HPHC Yield for Mainstream Smoke and Filler Paper ST59, presented at CORESTA Smoke Science and Product Technology Joint Study Groups Meeting Seville, Spain 29 September – 3 October 2013 Available at: https://www.coresta.org/abstracts/multiple-point-time-evaluation-commercial-and-reference-cigarette-products-abbreviated (accessed January, 2021) Search in Google Scholar

Horwitz, W.: Evaluation of Analytical Methods Used for Regulation of Foods and Drugs; Anal. Chem. 54 (1982) 67A–76A. DOI: 10.1021/ac00238a002 HorwitzW. Evaluation of Analytical Methods Used for Regulation of Foods and Drugs Anal. Chem. 54 1982 67A 76A 10.1021/ac00238a002 DOI öffnenSearch in Google Scholar

Wright, C.: Standardized Methods for the Regulation of Cigarette-Smoke Constituents; Trend Anal. Chem. 66 (2015) 118–127. DOI: 10.1016/j.trac.2014.11.011 WrightC. Standardized Methods for the Regulation of Cigarette-Smoke Constituents Trend Anal. Chem. 66 2015 118 127 10.1016/j.trac.2014.11.011 DOI öffnenSearch in Google Scholar

Purkis, S.W., L. Drake, M. Meger, and D.C. Mariner: A Review of the UK Methodology Used for Monitoring Cigarette Smoke Yields, Aspects of Analytical Data Variability and Their Impact on Current and Future Regulatory Compliance; Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 56 (2010) 365–373. DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2009.11.008 PurkisS.W. DrakeL. MegerM. MarinerD.C. A Review of the UK Methodology Used for Monitoring Cigarette Smoke Yields, Aspects of Analytical Data Variability and Their Impact on Current and Future Regulatory Compliance Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 56 2010 365 373 10.1016/j.yrtph.2009.11.00819962415 DOI öffnenSearch in Google Scholar

Murphy, K.R., B. Myors, and A. Wolach: Statistical Power Analysis: A Simple and General Model for Traditional and Modern Hypothesis Tests; 4th ed., Routledge, Oxford, UK, 2014. ISBN: 9781848725881 MurphyK.R. MyorsB. WolachA. Statistical Power Analysis: A Simple and General Model for Traditional and Modern Hypothesis Tests 4th ed. Routledge Oxford, UK 2014 ISBN: 9781848725881 10.4324/9781315773155 Search in Google Scholar

International Organization for Standardization (ISO): ISO 9512:2019 Cigarettes – Determination of Ventilation – Definitions and Measurement Principles; ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/73027.html (accessed April, 2022) International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO 9512:2019 Cigarettes – Determination of Ventilation – Definitions and Measurement Principles ISO Geneva, Switzerland 2019 Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/73027.html (accessed April, 2022) Search in Google Scholar

International Organization for Standardization (ISO): ISO 2971:2013 Cigarettes and Filter Rods – Determination of Nominal Diameter – Method Using a Non-Contact Optical Measuring Apparatus; ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2013. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/54738.html (accessed April, 2022) International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO 2971:2013 Cigarettes and Filter Rods – Determination of Nominal Diameter – Method Using a Non-Contact Optical Measuring Apparatus ISO Geneva, Switzerland 2013 Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/54738.html (accessed April, 2022) Search in Google Scholar

International Organization for Standardization (ISO): ISO 6565:2015 Tobacco and Tobacco Products – Draw Resistance of Cigarettes and Pressure Drop of Filter Rods – Standard Conditions and Measurement; ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/64265.html (accessed April, 2022) International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO 6565:2015 Tobacco and Tobacco Products – Draw Resistance of Cigarettes and Pressure Drop of Filter Rods – Standard Conditions and Measurement ISO Geneva, Switzerland 2015 Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/64265.html (accessed April, 2022) Search in Google Scholar

Cooperation Centre for Scientific Research Relative to Tobacco (CORESTA): CORESTA Recommended Method No. 62. Determination of Nicotine in Tobacco and Tobacco Products by Gas Chromatographic Analysis; (2021). Available at: https://www.coresta.org/sites/default/files/technical_documents/main/CRM_62-December2021.pdf (accessed May, 2022) Cooperation Centre for Scientific Research Relative to Tobacco (CORESTA) CORESTA Recommended Method No. 62. Determination of Nicotine in Tobacco and Tobacco Products by Gas Chromatographic Analysis 2021 Available at: https://www.coresta.org/sites/default/files/technical_documents/main/CRM_62-December2021.pdf (accessed May, 2022) Search in Google Scholar

International Organization for Standardization (ISO): ISO 21045:2018 Cigarettes – Tobacco and Tobacco Products – Determination of Ammonia – Method Using Ion Chromatographic Analysis; ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/69733.html (accessed April, 2022) International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO 21045:2018 Cigarettes – Tobacco and Tobacco Products – Determination of Ammonia – Method Using Ion Chromatographic Analysis ISO Geneva, Switzerland 2018 Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/69733.html (accessed April, 2022) Search in Google Scholar

Cooperation Centre for Scientific Research Relative to Tobacco (CORESTA): CORESTA Recommended Method No. 93. Determination of Selected Metals in Tobacco and Tobacco Products by ICP-MS; (2021). Available at: https://www.coresta.org/sites/default/files/technical_documents/main/CRM_62-December2021.pdf (accessed May, 2022) Cooperation Centre for Scientific Research Relative to Tobacco (CORESTA) CORESTA Recommended Method No. 93. Determination of Selected Metals in Tobacco and Tobacco Products by ICP-MS 2021 Available at: https://www.coresta.org/sites/default/files/technical_documents/main/CRM_62-December2021.pdf (accessed May, 2022) Search in Google Scholar

Cooperation Centre for Scientific Research Relative to Tobacco (CORESTA): CORESTA Recommended Method No. 72. Determination of Tobacco Specific Nitrosamines in Tobacco and Tobacco Products by Liquid Chromatography - Tandem Mass Spectrometry; (2017). Avalailable at: https://www.coresta.org/sites/default/files/technical_documents/main/CRM_72-July2017.pdf (accessed January, 2021) Cooperation Centre for Scientific Research Relative to Tobacco (CORESTA) CORESTA Recommended Method No. 72. Determination of Tobacco Specific Nitrosamines in Tobacco and Tobacco Products by Liquid Chromatography - Tandem Mass Spectrometry 2017 Avalailable at: https://www.coresta.org/sites/default/files/technical_documents/main/CRM_72-July2017.pdf (accessed January, 2021) Search in Google Scholar

International Organization for Standardization (ISO): ISO 3402:1999 Tobacco and Tobacco Products – Atmosphere for Conditioning and Testing; ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 1999. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/28324.html (accessed January, 2021) International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO 3402:1999 Tobacco and Tobacco Products – Atmosphere for Conditioning and Testing ISO Geneva, Switzerland 1999 Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/28324.html (accessed January, 2021) Search in Google Scholar

International Organization for Standardization (ISO): ISO 8454:2007 Cigarettes – Determination of Carbon Monoxide in the Vapor Phase of Cigarette Smoke – NDIR Method; 2007. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/41168.html (accessed January, 2021) International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO 8454:2007 Cigarettes – Determination of Carbon Monoxide in the Vapor Phase of Cigarette Smoke – NDIR Method 2007 Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/41168.html (accessed January, 2021) Search in Google Scholar

International Organization for Standardization (ISO): ISO 4387:2019 Cigarettes – Determination of Total and Nicotine-Free Dry Particulate Matter Using a Routine Analytical Smoking Machine; ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/76549.html (accessed January, 2021) International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO 4387:2019 Cigarettes – Determination of Total and Nicotine-Free Dry Particulate Matter Using a Routine Analytical Smoking Machine ISO Geneva, Switzerland 2019 Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/76549.html (accessed January, 2021) Search in Google Scholar

International Organization for Standardization (ISO): ISO 10362-1:2019 Cigarettes – Determination of Water in Total Particulate Matter From the Mainstream Smoke – Part 1: Gas-Chromatographic Method; ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. Avalailable at: https://www.iso.org/standard/72630.html (accessed January, 2021) International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO 10362-1:2019 Cigarettes – Determination of Water in Total Particulate Matter From the Mainstream Smoke – Part 1: Gas-Chromatographic Method ISO Geneva, Switzerland 2019 Avalailable at: https://www.iso.org/standard/72630.html (accessed January, 2021) Search in Google Scholar

International Organization for Standardization (ISO): ISO 10315.2013 Cigarettes – Determination of Nicotine in Smoke Condensates – Gas-Chromatographic Method; ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2013. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/56744.html (accessed January, 2021) International Organization for Standardization (ISO) SO 10315.2013 Cigarettes – Determination of Nicotine in Smoke Condensates – Gas-Chromatographic Method ISO Geneva, Switzerland 2013 Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/56744.html (accessed January, 2021) Search in Google Scholar

International Organization for Standardization (ISO): ISO 23919:2020 Cigarettes – Determination of Ammonia in Cigarette Mainstream Smoke Using Ion Chromatography; ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2020. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/77345.html (accessed April, 2022.) International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO 23919:2020 Cigarettes – Determination of Ammonia in Cigarette Mainstream Smoke Using Ion Chromatography ISO Geneva, Switzerland 2020 Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/77345.html (accessed April, 2022.) Search in Google Scholar

International Organization for Standardization (ISO): ISO 23920:2020 Cigarettes – Determination of Ammonia in Cigarette Mainstream Smoke With an Intense Smoking Regime Using Ion Chromatography. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2020. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/77346.html (accessed April, 2022.) International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO 23920:2020 Cigarettes – Determination of Ammonia in Cigarette Mainstream Smoke With an Intense Smoking Regime Using Ion Chromatography ISO Geneva, Switzerland 2020 Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/77346.html (accessed April, 2022.) Search in Google Scholar

International Organization for Standardization (ISO): ISO 21160:2018 Cigarettes – Determination of Selected Carbonyls in the Mainstream Smoke of Cigarettes – Method Using High Performance Liquid Chromatography; ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/69993.html (accessed April, 2022) International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO 21160:2018 Cigarettes – Determination of Selected Carbonyls in the Mainstream Smoke of Cigarettes – Method Using High Performance Liquid Chromatography ISO Geneva, Switzerland 2018 Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/69993.html (accessed April, 2022) Search in Google Scholar

International Organization for Standardization (ISO): ISO 23922:2020 Cigarettes – Determination of Selected Carbonyls in the Mainstream Smoke of Cigarettes With an Intense Smoking Regime – Method Using High Performance Liquid Chromatography; ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2020. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/77348.html (accessed April, 2022) International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO 23922:2020 Cigarettes – Determination of Selected Carbonyls in the Mainstream Smoke of Cigarettes With an Intense Smoking Regime – Method Using High Performance Liquid Chromatography ISO Geneva, Switzerland 2020 Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/77348.html (accessed April, 2022) Search in Google Scholar

Health Canada: Health Canada Test Method T-107. Determination of Hydrogen Cyanide in Mainstream Tobacco Smoke; Health Canada, 1999. Available at: https://health.canada.ca/apps/open-information/tobacco/100PDF/T-107E.PDF (accessed January, 2021) Health Canada Health Canada Test Method T-107. Determination of Hydrogen Cyanide in Mainstream Tobacco Smoke Health Canada 1999 Available at: https://health.canada.ca/apps/open-information/tobacco/100PDF/T-107E.PDF (accessed January, 2021) Search in Google Scholar

International Organization for Standardization (ISO): ISO 22634-1:2019 Cigarettes – Determination of Benzo[a]pyrene in Cigarette Mainstream Smoke Using GC/MS – Part 1: Method Using Methanol as Extraction Solvent; ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 1019. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/76379.html (accessed April, 2022) International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO 22634-1:2019 Cigarettes – Determination of Benzo[a]pyrene in Cigarette Mainstream Smoke Using GC/MS – Part 1: Method Using Methanol as Extraction Solvent ISO Geneva, Switzerland 1019 Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/76379.html (accessed April, 2022) Search in Google Scholar

International Organization for Standardization (ISO): ISO 23906-1:2020 Cigarettes – Determination of Benzo[a]pyrene in Cigarette Mainstream Smoke With an Intense Smoking Regime Using GC/MS – Part 1: Method Using Methanol as Extraction Solvent; ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2020. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/77343.html (accessed April, 2022) International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO 23906-1:2020 Cigarettes – Determination of Benzo[a]pyrene in Cigarette Mainstream Smoke With an Intense Smoking Regime Using GC/MS – Part 1: Method Using Methanol as Extraction Solvent ISO Geneva, Switzerland 2020 Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/77343.html (accessed April, 2022) Search in Google Scholar

Wagner, K.A., N.H. Finkel, J.E. Fossett, and I.G. Gillman: Development of a Quantitative Method for the Analysis of Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines in Mainstream Cigarette Smoke Using Isotope Dilution Liquid Chromatography/Electrospray Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry; Anal. Chem. 77 (2005) 1001–1006. DOI: 10.1021/ac048887v WagnerK.A. FinkelN.H. FossettJ.E. GillmanI.G. Development of a Quantitative Method for the Analysis of Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines in Mainstream Cigarette Smoke Using Isotope Dilution Liquid Chromatography/Electrospray Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry Anal. Chem. 77 2005 1001 1006 10.1021/ac048887v15858978 DOI öffnenSearch in Google Scholar

International Organization for Standardization (ISO): ISO 21330:2018 Cigarettes – Determination of Selected Volatile Organic Compounds in the Mainstream Smoke of Cigarettes – Method Using GC/MS; ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/70555.html (accessed April, 2022) International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO 21330:2018 Cigarettes – Determination of Selected Volatile Organic Compounds in the Mainstream Smoke of Cigarettes – Method Using GC/MS ISO Geneva, Switzerland 2018 Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/70555.html (accessed April, 2022) Search in Google Scholar

International Organization for Standardization ISO): ISO 23923:2020 Cigarettes – Determination of Selected Volatile Organic Compounds in the Mainstream Smoke of Cigarettes With an Intense Smoking Regime — Method Using GC/MS; ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2020. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/77349.html (accessed April, 2022) International Organization for Standardization ISO) ISO 23923:2020 Cigarettes – Determination of Selected Volatile Organic Compounds in the Mainstream Smoke of Cigarettes With an Intense Smoking Regime — Method Using GC/MS ISO Geneva, Switzerland 2020 Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/77349.html (accessed April, 2022) Search in Google Scholar

Seeman, J.I. and R.A. Carchman: The Possible Role of Ammonia Toxicity on the Exposure, Deposition, Retention, and the Bioavailability of Nicotine During Smoking; Food Chem. Tox. 46 (2008) 1863–1881. DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2008.02.021 SeemanJ.I. CarchmanR.A. The Possible Role of Ammonia Toxicity on the Exposure, Deposition, Retention, and the Bioavailability of Nicotine During Smoking Food Chem. Tox. 46 2008 1863 1881 10.1016/j.fct.2008.02.02118450355 DOI öffnenSearch in Google Scholar

Agnew-Heard, K.A., V.A. Lancaster; R. Bravo, C. Watson, M.J. Walters, and M.R. Holman: Multivariate Statistical Analysis of Cigarette Design Feature Influence on ISO TNCO Yields; Chem. Res. Toxicol. 29 (2016) 1051–1063. DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.6b00096 Agnew-HeardK.A. LancasterV.A. BravoR. WatsonC. WaltersM.J. HolmanM.R. Multivariate Statistical Analysis of Cigarette Design Feature Influence on ISO TNCO Yields Chem. Res. Toxicol. 29 2016 1051 1063 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.6b00096491650027222918 DOI öffnenSearch in Google Scholar

International Organization for Standardization (ISO): ISO 8243:2013 Cigarettes – Sampling; ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2013. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/60154.html (accessed April, 2022) International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO 8243:2013 Cigarettes – Sampling ISO Geneva, Switzerland 2013 Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/60154.html (accessed April, 2022) Search in Google Scholar

International Organization for Standardization (ISO): ISO 22305:2006 Cigarettes – Measurement of Nicotine-Free Dry Particulate matter, nicotine, water and carbon mon-oxide in cigarette smoke — Analysis of data from collaborative studies reporting relationships between repeatability, reproducibility and tolerances; ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/40863.html (accessed June 2022). International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO 22305:2006 Cigarettes – Measurement of Nicotine-Free Dry Particulate matter, nicotine, water and carbon mon-oxide in cigarette smoke — Analysis of data from collaborative studies reporting relationships between repeatability, reproducibility and tolerances ISO Geneva, Switzerland 2006 Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/40863.html (accessed June 2022). Search in Google Scholar

Empfohlene Artikel von Trend MD

Planen Sie Ihre Fernkonferenz mit Scienceendo