Revista y Edición

Volumen 31 (2022): Edición 2 (July 2022)

Volumen 31 (2022): Edición 1 (March 2022)

Volumen 30 (2021): Edición 4 (November 2021)

Volumen 30 (2021): Edición 3 (July 2021)

Volumen 30 (2021): Edición 2 (May 2021)

Volumen 30 (2021): Edición 1 (March 2021)

Volumen 29 (2020): Edición 3 (December 2020)

Volumen 29 (2020): Edición 2 (August 2020)

Volumen 29 (2020): Edición 1 (April 2020)

Volumen 28 (2019): Edición 7 (December 2019)

Volumen 28 (2019): Edición 6 (August 2019)

Volumen 28 (2019): Edición 5 (May 2019)

Volumen 28 (2018): Edición 4 (December 2018)

Volumen 28 (2018): Edición 3 (October 2018)

Volumen 28 (2018): Edición 2 (August 2018)

Volumen 28 (2018): Edición 1 (April 2018)

Volumen 27 (2017): Edición 8 (December 2017)

Volumen 27 (2017): Edición 7 (September 2017)

Volumen 27 (2017): Edición 6 (April 2017)

Volumen 27 (2017): Edición 5 (January 2017)

Volumen 27 (2016): Edición 4 (October 2016)

Volumen 27 (2016): Edición 3 (July 2016)

Volumen 27 (2016): Edición 2 (April 2016)

Volumen 27 (2016): Edición 1 (January 2016)

Volumen 26 (2015): Edición 7 (September 2015)

Volumen 26 (2015): Edición 6 (June 2015)

Volumen 26 (2015): Edición 5 (March 2015)

Volumen 26 (2014): Edición 4 (December 2014)

Volumen 26 (2014): Edición 3 (September 2014)

Volumen 26 (2014): Edición 2 (July 2014)

Volumen 26 (2014): Edición 1 (April 2014)

Volumen 25 (2013): Edición 8 (December 2013)

Volumen 25 (2013): Edición 7 (September 2013)

Volumen 25 (2013): Edición 6 (June 2013)

Volumen 25 (2013): Edición 5 (March 2013)

Volumen 25 (2012): Edición 4 (December 2012)

Volumen 25 (2012): Edición 3 (August 2012)

Volumen 25 (2012): Edición 2 (June 2012)

Volumen 25 (2012): Edición 1 (February 2012)

Volumen 24 (2011): Edición 6 (November 2011)

Volumen 24 (2011): Edición 5 (May 2011)

Volumen 24 (2011): Edición 4 (January 2011)

Volumen 24 (2010): Edición 3 (November 2010)

Volumen 24 (2010): Edición 2 (July 2010)

Volumen 24 (2010): Edición 1 (April 2010)

Volumen 23 (2009): Edición 6 (December 2009)

Volumen 23 (2009): Edición 5 (September 2009)

Volumen 23 (2009): Edición 4 (May 2009)

Volumen 23 (2008): Edición 3 (December 2008)

Volumen 23 (2008): Edición 2 (August 2008)

Volumen 23 (2008): Edición 1 (April 2008)

Volumen 22 (2007): Edición 5 (June 2007)

Volumen 22 (2007): Edición 4 (January 2007)

Volumen 22 (2006): Edición 3 (October 2006)

Volumen 22 (2006): Edición 2 (July 2006)

Volumen 22 (2006): Edición 1 (April 2006)

Volumen 21 (2005): Edición 8 (December 2005)

Volumen 21 (2005): Edición 7 (October 2005)

Volumen 21 (2005): Edición 6 (July 2005)

Volumen 21 (2005): Edición 5 (April 2005)

Volumen 21 (2004): Edición 4 (December 2004)

Volumen 21 (2004): Edición 3 (October 2004)

Volumen 21 (2004): Edición 2 (July 2004)

Volumen 21 (2004): Edición 1 (March 2004)

Volumen 20 (2003): Edición 8 (December 2003)

Volumen 20 (2003): Edición 7 (November 2003)

Volumen 20 (2003): Edición 6 (July 2003)

Volumen 20 (2003): Edición 5 (March 2003)

Volumen 20 (2002): Edición 4 (December 2002)

Volumen 20 (2002): Edición 3 (August 2002)

Volumen 20 (2002): Edición 2 (June 2002)

Volumen 20 (2002): Edición 1 (February 2002)

Volumen 19 (2001): Edición 7 (October 2001)

Volumen 19 (2001): Edición 6 (July 2001)

Volumen 19 (2001): Edición 5 (April 2001)

Volumen 19 (2001): Edición 4 (January 2001)

Volumen 19 (2000): Edición 3 (October 2000)

Volumen 19 (2000): Edición 2 (July 2000)

Volumen 19 (2000): Edición 1 (April 2000)

Volumen 18 (1999): Edición 6 (December 1999)

Volumen 18 (1999): Edición 5 (July 1999)

Volumen 18 (1999): Edición 4 (April 1999)

Volumen 18 (1998): Edición 3 (December 1998)

Volumen 18 (1998): Edición 2 (August 1998)

Volumen 18 (1998): Edición 1 (April 1998)

Volumen 17 (1997): Edición 3 (December 1997)

Volumen 17 (1997): Edición 2 (September 1997)

Volumen 17 (1996): Edición 1 (December 1996)

Volumen 16 (1995): Edición 4 (November 1995)

Volumen 16 (1995): Edición 3 (July 1995)

Volumen 16 (1994): Edición 2 (June 1994)

Volumen 16 (1994): Edición 1 (May 1994)

Volumen 15 (1992): Edición 3 (November 1992)

Volumen 15 (1992): Edición 2 (April 1992)

Volumen 15 (1991): Edición 1 (August 1991)

Volumen 14 (1990): Edición 6 (June 1990)

Volumen 14 (1989): Edición 5 (October 1989)

Volumen 14 (1989): Edición 4 (February 1989)

Volumen 14 (1989): Edición 3 (January 1989)

Volumen 14 (1988): Edición 2 (October 1988)

Volumen 14 (1987): Edición 1 (December 1987)

Volumen 13 (1986): Edición 5 (December 1986)

Volumen 13 (1986): Edición 4 (August 1986)

Volumen 13 (1986): Edición 3 (July 1986)

Volumen 13 (1985): Edición 2 (December 1985)

Volumen 13 (1985): Edición 1 (January 1985)

Volumen 12 (1984): Edición 5 (November 1984)

Volumen 12 (1984): Edición 4 (July 1984)

Volumen 12 (1984): Edición 3 (February 1984)

Volumen 12 (1983): Edición 2 (June 1983)

Volumen 12 (1983): Edición 1 (February 1983)

Volumen 11 (1982): Edición 5 (November 1982)

Volumen 11 (1982): Edición 4 (August 1982)

Volumen 11 (1982): Edición 3 (January 1982)

Volumen 11 (1981): Edición 2 (September 1981)

Volumen 11 (1981): Edición 1 (March 1981)

Volumen 10 (1980): Edición 3 (October 1980)

Volumen 10 (1980): Edición 2 (July 1980)

Volumen 10 (1979): Edición 1 (December 1979)

Volumen 9 (1978): Edición 5 (December 1978)

Volumen 9 (1978): Edición 4 (July 1978)

Volumen 9 (1977): Edición 3 (October 1977)

Volumen 9 (1977): Edición 2 (June 1977)

Volumen 9 (1977): Edición 1 (April 1977)

Volumen 8 (1976): Edición 7 (October 1976)

Volumen 8 (1976): Edición 6 (June 1976)

Volumen 8 (1976): Edición 5 (March 1976)

Volumen 8 (1975): Edición 4 (December 1975)

Volumen 8 (1975): Edición 3 (August 1975)

Volumen 8 (1975): Edición 2 (May 1975)

Volumen 8 (1975): Edición 1 (January 1975)

Volumen 7 (1974): Edición 5 (September 1974)

Volumen 7 (1974): Edición 4 (April 1974)

Volumen 7 (1973): Edición 3 (November 1973)

Volumen 7 (1973): Edición 2 (June 1973)

Volumen 7 (1973): Edición 1 (January 1973)

Volumen 6 (1972): Edición 5 (October 1972)

Volumen 6 (1972): Edición 4 (August 1972)

Volumen 6 (1972): Edición 3 (March 1972)

Volumen 6 (1971): Edición 2 (September 1971)

Volumen 6 (1971): Edición 1 (July 1971)

Volumen 5 (1970): Edición 6 (December 1970)

Volumen 5 (1970): Edición 5 (November 1970)

Volumen 5 (1970): Edición 4 (August 1970)

Volumen 5 (1969): Edición 3 (December 1969)

Volumen 5 (1969): Edición 2 (August 1969)

Volumen 5 (1969): Edición 1 (June 1969)

Volumen 4 (1968): Edición 7 (December 1968)

Volumen 4 (1968): Edición 6 (November 1968)

Volumen 4 (1968): Edición 5 (July 1968)

Volumen 4 (1968): Edición 4 (May 1968)

Volumen 4 (1968): Edición 3 (February 1968)

Volumen 4 (1967): Edición 2 (October 1967)

Volumen 4 (1967): Edición 1 (August 1967)

Volumen 3 (1966): Edición 9 (December 1966)

Volumen 3 (1966): Edición 8 (December 1966)

Volumen 3 (1966): Edición 7 (November 1966)

Volumen 3 (1966): Edición 6 (September 1966)

Volumen 3 (1966): Edición 5 (May 1966)

Volumen 3 (1965): Edición 4 (October 1965)

Volumen 3 (1965): Edición 3 (August 1965)

Volumen 3 (1965): Edición 2 (May 1965)

Volumen 3 (1965): Edición 1 (April 1965)

Volumen 2 (1964): Edición 7 (November 1964)

Volumen 2 (1964): Edición 6 (October 1964)

Volumen 2 (1964): Edición 5 (May 1964)

Volumen 2 (1964): Edición 4 (February 1964)

Volumen 2 (1963): Edición 3 (October 1963)

Volumen 2 (1963): Edición 2 (June 1963)

Volumen 2 (1963): Edición 1 (March 1963)

Volumen 1 (1962): Edición 10 (December 1962)

Volumen 1 (1962): Edición 9 (December 1962)

Volumen 1 (1962): Edición 8 (November 1962)

Volumen 1 (1962): Edición 7 (November 1962)

Volumen 1 (1962): Edición 6 (July 1962)

Volumen 1 (1962): Edición 5 (February 1962)

Volumen 1 (1961): Edición 4 (November 1961)

Volumen 1 (1961): Edición 3 (August 1961)

Volumen 1 (1961): Edición 2 (May 1961)

Volumen 1 (1961): Edición 1 (January 1961)

Detalles de la revista
Formato
Revista
eISSN
2719-9509
Publicado por primera vez
01 Jan 1992
Periodo de publicación
4 veces al año
Idiomas
Inglés

Buscar

Volumen 20 (2003): Edición 8 (December 2003)

Detalles de la revista
Formato
Revista
eISSN
2719-9509
Publicado por primera vez
01 Jan 1992
Periodo de publicación
4 veces al año
Idiomas
Inglés

Buscar

1 Artículos
Acceso abierto

Toxic Chemicals in Cigarette Mainstream Smoke - Hazard and Hoopla

Publicado en línea: 30 Dec 2014
Páginas: 481 - 545

Resumen

Abstract

These are curious times. The Canadian government has passed legislation that requires cigarette manufacturers to routinely test and publish the amounts of 44 toxic substances in cigarette mainstream smoke (MSS). Following in the footsteps of their northern neighbor, various US legislators and regulators are considering modifications to their cigarette testing and reporting programs that will also list toxicants in MSS. Across the Atlantic Ocean, the European Commission has passed a directive that may also follow the North American lead for public disclosure of MSS toxic chemicals for each brand of cigarette sold in the marketplace. United Kingdom authorities have also expressed their intention to follow this mandate.

It is difficult to understand the motivation and value of these existing or potentially forthcoming legislative actions. Although there is nearly total agreement among the world's scientists that cigarette smoking is a health hazard, few are bold enough to say with credibility which smoke chemicals or classes of chemicals are responsible for the adverse effects. Therefore, if the specialists are unable to interpret the smoke toxicant data, how is the general public to use their newfound knowledge?

The posting of smoke chemical toxicant data is also problematic for the Tobacco Industry for several reasons. First, no standard analytical methods exist for most suspected toxicants. Second, the listing of smoke toxicant yields may ignite a 21st Century version of the ‘tar’ wars in the USA during the 1960s; we have already seen evidence of such competition beginning in the US. Third, and most important of all, no one knows whether or not reducing the yield of one or more publicized MSS toxicant will result in a ‘less hazardous’ cigarette.

Assuming that the current situation is approximately as described above, the authors of this paper critically examined the existing lists of MSS toxicants. They discarded chemicals that are no longer relevant, e.g., DDT, N-nitrosodiethanolamine, added known smoke constituents that are glaringly absent, e.g., dioxins, and replaced the existing 1950-60s era nonfiltered cigarette MSS yields with those more representative of the present-day marketplace. Data for the Kentucky reference 1R4F cigarette smoked under standardized smoking conditions, i.e., those established by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), are used as a surrogate for the modern-day cigarette whenever possible.

A list of smoke toxicants and their approximate concentrations in today's cigarettes is nearly useless without an appropriate ranking of their relative toxicity. Unfortunately, the toxicological data for ranking importance are available for fewer than 5% of the approximately 4800 reported smoke constituents. Although neither of this paper's authors presumes to be a toxicologist, we cite in our discussion several published attempts at ranking smoke toxicants. Specifically, ranking by US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) permissible workplace exposure levels, use of US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicity criteria supplemented with California EPA criteria, and use of the Human Exposure - Rodent Potential methodology and database developed by AMES et al. when data are available. There appears to be a wide divergence in the permissible exposures allowable in the workplace and those advocated by environmental regulators. Thus, it is expected that rankings such as those presented herein will ultimately form the basis of MSS toxic chemical prioritization for either attempts at reduction by product developers or development of standardized analytical methods.

This review of MSS toxicants also explores the limitations of toxicological evaluations. The toxicity data used in the above ranking are derived wholly from studies of pure compounds. It is highly improbable that extrapolation of bioassay results determined on an individual compound to that compound when it is a component of a mixture as complex as cigarette MSS is valid. For example, several decades of research involving numerous investigators reported that the benzo[a]pyrene (BaP) content of cigarette smoke condensate (CSC) accounts for only a few percent of the tumor-bearing animals in the skin-painting bioassay. Subsequently they asserted that the tumorigenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in CSC could account for no more than 3 to 4% of the tumor-bearing animals. Inclusion of promoters, e.g., phenols, raises the level to about 5%. However, several of the same investigators recently claimed that BaP is one of two smoke components responsible for lung cancer in cigarette smokers.

While much is written about the hundred or so toxic components in cigarette smoke, little is published about the numerous nontoxic smoke components that have been shown in various bioassays to counteract the effects of the toxic ones. In some cases the inhibiting components are also listed as toxic, e.g., nicotine inhibits the mutagenicity of N-nitrosodimethylamine; the promoter phenol inhibits the tumorigenicity of BaP; the weakly tumorigenic benz[a]anthracene negates the potent tumorigenicity of BaP. On a one-to-one molar basis, many bicyclic, tricyclic, and tetracyclic nontumorigenic PAHs counteract the tumorigenicity of BaP and dibenz[a,h]anthracene.

To further illustrate this murky toxicological situation, the history and current knowledge of the importance of tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) to the hazards of smoking is reviewed. In brief, these compounds were discovered in tobacco products and found to transfer to MSS (and sidestream smoke). Toxicological evaluations on the pure compounds demonstrated that they are potent carcinogens. Some public health scientists believed that if the levels of TSNAs could be reduced or lowered in MSS, then this would lead to a ‘less hazardous’ cigarette. Once given this assignment, agronomists discovered that at least for flue-cured tobaccos, the levels of TSNAs can be greatly reduced through the use of indirect heating in the curing barns. This was wonderful news. However, toxicologists soon conducted experiments comparing the toxicity of MSS from flue-cured cigarettes containing high and ultra-low concentrations of TSNAs. It must have been a surprise to these investigators when they could find no significant difference between the toxicities of the two smokes.

Some public health scientists have asserted that the reduction of the per cigarette ‘tar’ delivery below 15 mg/cig does not reduce the risk from smoking because of the hazard resulting from the higher levels of additives used to maintain consumer acceptability. Although no data in support of this assertion have ever been offered, much data generated during the past decade contradict the assertion. Ingredient addition at the usual level or at levels several times greater than normal does produce some minor changes in the smoke chemistry, but these changes do not result in any adverse biological response as measured in various bioassays to determine mutagenicity, tumorigenicity, etc.

From our review of the literature gathered to prepare this paper, we have come to several conclusions. These include the following:

1. It is possible to prepare a list of the known toxicants in MSS and to prioritize some of them based upon existing biological data. However, for more than 95% of the known constituents in MSS, there are no biological data.

2. Even if there were biological data for most MSS components, extrapolation of this pure-compound knowledge to the biological properties of a mixture containing them is beyond our scientific ability.

3. At our current state of scientific knowledge, no one will ever be able to legitimately claim the development of a ‘less hazardous’ cigarette based solely on the reduction of known toxic chemicals in MSS.

4. The approach of reducing ‘tar’ yields of cigarettes appears in retrospect to be the most practical means of producing a ‘less hazardous’ cigarette, because when product developers reduce ‘tar', both the known and unknown toxicants are reduced.

5. The ranked toxicants in MSS contain both gas-phase and semi-volatile constituents that appear to be important determinants of toxicity. Some of these constituents, e.g., N-nitrosodimethylamine, phenols, are reduced by triacetin-plasticized cellulose acetate filters. These filters also reduce ‘tar'. Additionally, it is well known that charcoal-containing filters have a high efficiency for removing carbonyl compounds from MSS. Development of more consumer-acceptable products that reduce gas-phase toxicants appears to be another route to a ‘less hazardous’ cigarette.

1 Artículos
Acceso abierto

Toxic Chemicals in Cigarette Mainstream Smoke - Hazard and Hoopla

Publicado en línea: 30 Dec 2014
Páginas: 481 - 545

Resumen

Abstract

These are curious times. The Canadian government has passed legislation that requires cigarette manufacturers to routinely test and publish the amounts of 44 toxic substances in cigarette mainstream smoke (MSS). Following in the footsteps of their northern neighbor, various US legislators and regulators are considering modifications to their cigarette testing and reporting programs that will also list toxicants in MSS. Across the Atlantic Ocean, the European Commission has passed a directive that may also follow the North American lead for public disclosure of MSS toxic chemicals for each brand of cigarette sold in the marketplace. United Kingdom authorities have also expressed their intention to follow this mandate.

It is difficult to understand the motivation and value of these existing or potentially forthcoming legislative actions. Although there is nearly total agreement among the world's scientists that cigarette smoking is a health hazard, few are bold enough to say with credibility which smoke chemicals or classes of chemicals are responsible for the adverse effects. Therefore, if the specialists are unable to interpret the smoke toxicant data, how is the general public to use their newfound knowledge?

The posting of smoke chemical toxicant data is also problematic for the Tobacco Industry for several reasons. First, no standard analytical methods exist for most suspected toxicants. Second, the listing of smoke toxicant yields may ignite a 21st Century version of the ‘tar’ wars in the USA during the 1960s; we have already seen evidence of such competition beginning in the US. Third, and most important of all, no one knows whether or not reducing the yield of one or more publicized MSS toxicant will result in a ‘less hazardous’ cigarette.

Assuming that the current situation is approximately as described above, the authors of this paper critically examined the existing lists of MSS toxicants. They discarded chemicals that are no longer relevant, e.g., DDT, N-nitrosodiethanolamine, added known smoke constituents that are glaringly absent, e.g., dioxins, and replaced the existing 1950-60s era nonfiltered cigarette MSS yields with those more representative of the present-day marketplace. Data for the Kentucky reference 1R4F cigarette smoked under standardized smoking conditions, i.e., those established by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), are used as a surrogate for the modern-day cigarette whenever possible.

A list of smoke toxicants and their approximate concentrations in today's cigarettes is nearly useless without an appropriate ranking of their relative toxicity. Unfortunately, the toxicological data for ranking importance are available for fewer than 5% of the approximately 4800 reported smoke constituents. Although neither of this paper's authors presumes to be a toxicologist, we cite in our discussion several published attempts at ranking smoke toxicants. Specifically, ranking by US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) permissible workplace exposure levels, use of US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicity criteria supplemented with California EPA criteria, and use of the Human Exposure - Rodent Potential methodology and database developed by AMES et al. when data are available. There appears to be a wide divergence in the permissible exposures allowable in the workplace and those advocated by environmental regulators. Thus, it is expected that rankings such as those presented herein will ultimately form the basis of MSS toxic chemical prioritization for either attempts at reduction by product developers or development of standardized analytical methods.

This review of MSS toxicants also explores the limitations of toxicological evaluations. The toxicity data used in the above ranking are derived wholly from studies of pure compounds. It is highly improbable that extrapolation of bioassay results determined on an individual compound to that compound when it is a component of a mixture as complex as cigarette MSS is valid. For example, several decades of research involving numerous investigators reported that the benzo[a]pyrene (BaP) content of cigarette smoke condensate (CSC) accounts for only a few percent of the tumor-bearing animals in the skin-painting bioassay. Subsequently they asserted that the tumorigenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in CSC could account for no more than 3 to 4% of the tumor-bearing animals. Inclusion of promoters, e.g., phenols, raises the level to about 5%. However, several of the same investigators recently claimed that BaP is one of two smoke components responsible for lung cancer in cigarette smokers.

While much is written about the hundred or so toxic components in cigarette smoke, little is published about the numerous nontoxic smoke components that have been shown in various bioassays to counteract the effects of the toxic ones. In some cases the inhibiting components are also listed as toxic, e.g., nicotine inhibits the mutagenicity of N-nitrosodimethylamine; the promoter phenol inhibits the tumorigenicity of BaP; the weakly tumorigenic benz[a]anthracene negates the potent tumorigenicity of BaP. On a one-to-one molar basis, many bicyclic, tricyclic, and tetracyclic nontumorigenic PAHs counteract the tumorigenicity of BaP and dibenz[a,h]anthracene.

To further illustrate this murky toxicological situation, the history and current knowledge of the importance of tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) to the hazards of smoking is reviewed. In brief, these compounds were discovered in tobacco products and found to transfer to MSS (and sidestream smoke). Toxicological evaluations on the pure compounds demonstrated that they are potent carcinogens. Some public health scientists believed that if the levels of TSNAs could be reduced or lowered in MSS, then this would lead to a ‘less hazardous’ cigarette. Once given this assignment, agronomists discovered that at least for flue-cured tobaccos, the levels of TSNAs can be greatly reduced through the use of indirect heating in the curing barns. This was wonderful news. However, toxicologists soon conducted experiments comparing the toxicity of MSS from flue-cured cigarettes containing high and ultra-low concentrations of TSNAs. It must have been a surprise to these investigators when they could find no significant difference between the toxicities of the two smokes.

Some public health scientists have asserted that the reduction of the per cigarette ‘tar’ delivery below 15 mg/cig does not reduce the risk from smoking because of the hazard resulting from the higher levels of additives used to maintain consumer acceptability. Although no data in support of this assertion have ever been offered, much data generated during the past decade contradict the assertion. Ingredient addition at the usual level or at levels several times greater than normal does produce some minor changes in the smoke chemistry, but these changes do not result in any adverse biological response as measured in various bioassays to determine mutagenicity, tumorigenicity, etc.

From our review of the literature gathered to prepare this paper, we have come to several conclusions. These include the following:

1. It is possible to prepare a list of the known toxicants in MSS and to prioritize some of them based upon existing biological data. However, for more than 95% of the known constituents in MSS, there are no biological data.

2. Even if there were biological data for most MSS components, extrapolation of this pure-compound knowledge to the biological properties of a mixture containing them is beyond our scientific ability.

3. At our current state of scientific knowledge, no one will ever be able to legitimately claim the development of a ‘less hazardous’ cigarette based solely on the reduction of known toxic chemicals in MSS.

4. The approach of reducing ‘tar’ yields of cigarettes appears in retrospect to be the most practical means of producing a ‘less hazardous’ cigarette, because when product developers reduce ‘tar', both the known and unknown toxicants are reduced.

5. The ranked toxicants in MSS contain both gas-phase and semi-volatile constituents that appear to be important determinants of toxicity. Some of these constituents, e.g., N-nitrosodimethylamine, phenols, are reduced by triacetin-plasticized cellulose acetate filters. These filters also reduce ‘tar'. Additionally, it is well known that charcoal-containing filters have a high efficiency for removing carbonyl compounds from MSS. Development of more consumer-acceptable products that reduce gas-phase toxicants appears to be another route to a ‘less hazardous’ cigarette.

Planifique su conferencia remota con Sciendo