Journal & Issues

Volume 32 (2023): Issue 3 (July 2023)

Volume 32 (2023): Issue 2 (May 2023)

Volume 32 (2023): Issue 1 (March 2023)

Volume 31 (2022): Issue 3 (November 2022)

Volume 31 (2022): Issue 2 (July 2022)

Volume 31 (2022): Issue 1 (March 2022)

Volume 30 (2021): Issue 4 (November 2021)

Volume 30 (2021): Issue 3 (July 2021)

Volume 30 (2021): Issue 2 (May 2021)

Volume 30 (2021): Issue 1 (March 2021)

Volume 29 (2020): Issue 3 (December 2020)

Volume 29 (2020): Issue 2 (August 2020)

Volume 29 (2020): Issue 1 (April 2020)

Volume 28 (2019): Issue 7 (December 2019)

Volume 28 (2019): Issue 6 (August 2019)

Volume 28 (2019): Issue 5 (May 2019)

Volume 28 (2018): Issue 4 (December 2018)

Volume 28 (2018): Issue 3 (October 2018)

Volume 28 (2018): Issue 2 (August 2018)

Volume 28 (2018): Issue 1 (April 2018)

Volume 27 (2017): Issue 8 (December 2017)

Volume 27 (2017): Issue 7 (September 2017)

Volume 27 (2017): Issue 6 (April 2017)

Volume 27 (2017): Issue 5 (January 2017)

Volume 27 (2016): Issue 4 (October 2016)

Volume 27 (2016): Issue 3 (July 2016)

Volume 27 (2016): Issue 2 (April 2016)

Volume 27 (2016): Issue 1 (January 2016)

Volume 26 (2015): Issue 7 (September 2015)

Volume 26 (2015): Issue 6 (June 2015)

Volume 26 (2015): Issue 5 (March 2015)

Volume 26 (2015): Issue 4 (January 2015)

Volume 26 (2014): Issue 3 (September 2014)

Volume 26 (2014): Issue 2 (July 2014)

Volume 26 (2014): Issue 1 (April 2014)

Volume 25 (2013): Issue 8 (December 2013)

Volume 25 (2013): Issue 7 (September 2013)

Volume 25 (2013): Issue 6 (June 2013)

Volume 25 (2013): Issue 5 (March 2013)

Volume 25 (2012): Issue 4 (December 2012)

Volume 25 (2012): Issue 3 (August 2012)

Volume 25 (2012): Issue 2 (June 2012)

Volume 25 (2012): Issue 1 (February 2012)

Volume 24 (2011): Issue 6 (November 2011)

Volume 24 (2011): Issue 5 (May 2011)

Volume 24 (2011): Issue 4 (January 2011)

Volume 24 (2010): Issue 3 (November 2010)

Volume 24 (2010): Issue 2 (July 2010)

Volume 24 (2010): Issue 1 (April 2010)

Volume 23 (2009): Issue 6 (December 2009)

Volume 23 (2009): Issue 5 (September 2009)

Volume 23 (2009): Issue 4 (May 2009)

Volume 23 (2008): Issue 3 (December 2008)

Volume 23 (2008): Issue 2 (August 2008)

Volume 23 (2008): Issue 1 (April 2008)

Volume 22 (2007): Issue 5 (June 2007)

Volume 22 (2007): Issue 4 (January 2007)

Volume 22 (2006): Issue 3 (October 2006)

Volume 22 (2006): Issue 2 (July 2006)

Volume 22 (2006): Issue 1 (April 2006)

Volume 21 (2005): Issue 8 (December 2005)

Volume 21 (2005): Issue 7 (October 2005)

Volume 21 (2005): Issue 6 (July 2005)

Volume 21 (2005): Issue 5 (April 2005)

Volume 21 (2004): Issue 4 (December 2004)

Volume 21 (2004): Issue 3 (October 2004)

Volume 21 (2004): Issue 2 (July 2004)

Volume 21 (2004): Issue 1 (March 2004)

Volume 20 (2003): Issue 8 (December 2003)

Volume 20 (2003): Issue 7 (November 2003)

Volume 20 (2003): Issue 6 (July 2003)

Volume 20 (2003): Issue 5 (March 2003)

Volume 20 (2002): Issue 4 (December 2002)

Volume 20 (2002): Issue 3 (August 2002)

Volume 20 (2002): Issue 2 (June 2002)

Volume 20 (2002): Issue 1 (February 2002)

Volume 19 (2001): Issue 7 (October 2001)

Volume 19 (2001): Issue 6 (July 2001)

Volume 19 (2001): Issue 5 (April 2001)

Volume 19 (2001): Issue 4 (January 2001)

Volume 19 (2000): Issue 3 (October 2000)

Volume 19 (2000): Issue 2 (July 2000)

Volume 19 (2000): Issue 1 (April 2000)

Volume 18 (1999): Issue 6 (December 1999)

Volume 18 (1999): Issue 5 (July 1999)

Volume 18 (1999): Issue 4 (April 1999)

Volume 18 (1998): Issue 3 (December 1998)

Volume 18 (1998): Issue 2 (August 1998)

Volume 18 (1998): Issue 1 (April 1998)

Volume 17 (1997): Issue 3 (December 1997)

Volume 17 (1997): Issue 2 (September 1997)

Volume 17 (1996): Issue 1 (December 1996)

Volume 16 (1995): Issue 4 (November 1995)

Volume 16 (1995): Issue 3 (July 1995)

Volume 16 (1994): Issue 2 (June 1994)

Volume 16 (1994): Issue 1 (May 1994)

Volume 15 (1992): Issue 3 (November 1992)

Volume 15 (1992): Issue 2 (April 1992)

Volume 15 (1991): Issue 1 (August 1991)

Volume 14 (1990): Issue 6 (June 1990)

Volume 14 (1989): Issue 5 (October 1989)

Volume 14 (1989): Issue 4 (February 1989)

Volume 14 (1989): Issue 3 (January 1989)

Volume 14 (1988): Issue 2 (October 1988)

Volume 14 (1987): Issue 1 (December 1987)

Volume 13 (1986): Issue 5 (December 1986)

Volume 13 (1986): Issue 4 (August 1986)

Volume 13 (1986): Issue 3 (July 1986)

Volume 13 (1985): Issue 2 (December 1985)

Volume 13 (1985): Issue 1 (January 1985)

Volume 12 (1984): Issue 5 (November 1984)

Volume 12 (1984): Issue 4 (July 1984)

Volume 12 (1984): Issue 3 (February 1984)

Volume 12 (1983): Issue 2 (June 1983)

Volume 12 (1983): Issue 1 (February 1983)

Volume 11 (1982): Issue 5 (November 1982)

Volume 11 (1982): Issue 4 (August 1982)

Volume 11 (1982): Issue 3 (January 1982)

Volume 11 (1981): Issue 2 (September 1981)

Volume 11 (1981): Issue 1 (March 1981)

Volume 10 (1980): Issue 3 (October 1980)

Volume 10 (1980): Issue 2 (July 1980)

Volume 10 (1979): Issue 1 (December 1979)

Volume 9 (1978): Issue 5 (December 1978)

Volume 9 (1978): Issue 4 (July 1978)

Volume 9 (1977): Issue 3 (October 1977)

Volume 9 (1977): Issue 2 (June 1977)

Volume 9 (1977): Issue 1 (April 1977)

Volume 8 (1976): Issue 7 (October 1976)

Volume 8 (1976): Issue 6 (June 1976)

Volume 8 (1976): Issue 5 (March 1976)

Volume 8 (1975): Issue 4 (December 1975)

Volume 8 (1975): Issue 3 (August 1975)

Volume 8 (1975): Issue 2 (May 1975)

Volume 8 (1975): Issue 1 (January 1975)

Volume 7 (1974): Issue 5 (September 1974)

Volume 7 (1974): Issue 4 (April 1974)

Volume 7 (1973): Issue 3 (November 1973)

Volume 7 (1973): Issue 2 (June 1973)

Volume 7 (1973): Issue 1 (January 1973)

Volume 6 (1972): Issue 5 (October 1972)

Volume 6 (1972): Issue 4 (August 1972)

Volume 6 (1972): Issue 3 (March 1972)

Volume 6 (1971): Issue 2 (September 1971)

Volume 6 (1971): Issue 1 (July 1971)

Volume 5 (1970): Issue 6 (December 1970)

Volume 5 (1970): Issue 5 (November 1970)

Volume 5 (1970): Issue 4 (August 1970)

Volume 5 (1969): Issue 3 (December 1969)

Volume 5 (1969): Issue 2 (August 1969)

Volume 5 (1969): Issue 1 (June 1969)

Volume 4 (1968): Issue 7 (December 1968)

Volume 4 (1968): Issue 6 (November 1968)

Volume 4 (1968): Issue 5 (July 1968)

Volume 4 (1968): Issue 4 (May 1968)

Volume 4 (1968): Issue 3 (February 1968)

Volume 4 (1967): Issue 2 (October 1967)

Volume 4 (1967): Issue 1 (August 1967)

Volume 3 (1966): Issue 9 (December 1966)

Volume 3 (1966): Issue 8 (December 1966)

Volume 3 (1966): Issue 7 (November 1966)

Volume 3 (1966): Issue 6 (September 1966)

Volume 3 (1966): Issue 5 (May 1966)

Volume 3 (1965): Issue 4 (October 1965)

Volume 3 (1965): Issue 3 (August 1965)

Volume 3 (1965): Issue 2 (May 1965)

Volume 3 (1965): Issue 1 (April 1965)

Volume 2 (1964): Issue 7 (November 1964)

Volume 2 (1964): Issue 6 (October 1964)

Volume 2 (1964): Issue 5 (May 1964)

Volume 2 (1964): Issue 4 (February 1964)

Volume 2 (1963): Issue 3 (October 1963)

Volume 2 (1963): Issue 2 (June 1963)

Volume 2 (1963): Issue 1 (March 1963)

Volume 1 (1962): Issue 10 (December 1962)

Volume 1 (1962): Issue 9 (December 1962)

Volume 1 (1962): Issue 8 (November 1962)

Volume 1 (1962): Issue 7 (November 1962)

Volume 1 (1962): Issue 6 (July 1962)

Volume 1 (1962): Issue 5 (February 1962)

Volume 1 (1961): Issue 4 (November 1961)

Volume 1 (1961): Issue 3 (August 1961)

Volume 1 (1961): Issue 2 (May 1961)

Volume 1 (1961): Issue 1 (January 1961)

Journal Details
Format
Journal
eISSN
2719-9509
First Published
01 Jan 1992
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English

Search

Volume 27 (2016): Issue 2 (April 2016)

Journal Details
Format
Journal
eISSN
2719-9509
First Published
01 Jan 1992
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English

Search

0 Articles
Open Access

Editors’ Note

Published Online: 18 May 2016
Page range: 39 - 39

Abstract

Open Access

Influence of Type and Amount of Carbon in Cigarette Filters on Smokers’ Mouth Level Exposure to “Tar”, Nicotine, 1,3-Butadiene, Benzene, Toluene, Isoprene, and Acrylonitrile

Published Online: 18 May 2016
Page range: 40 - 53

Abstract

Summary

Activated carbons are effective adsorbents for many volatile organic compounds and are used in cigarette filters to remove selected smoke toxicants. Polymer-derived carbon is more effective in removing many vapour phase toxicants found in cigarette smoke than coconut-shell-derived carbon. We compared mouth-level exposure to “tar”, nicotine and five vapour phase constituents (1,3- butadiene, benzene, toluene, isoprene, acrylonitrile) in two groups of Romanian smokers of 4-mg or 8-mg International Organization for Standardization (ISO) “tar” bands. Test cigarettes with 4 and 8 mg ISO “tar” were manufactured for the study with two target levels of polymer-derived carbon (30 mg and 56 mg), along with control cigarettes containing a target level of 56 mg of coconut-shell-derived carbon in both “tar” bands. No significant differences were found between mouth-level exposure to “tar” or nicotine yields obtained from control and test products (p > 0.05) in either ISO “tar” band. Mouth-level exposure to each of the five vapour phase constituents was significantly lower from the test products with polymer-derived carbon (p < 0.0001) than from control cigarettes with coconut-shell-derived carbon, by an average of 25% with 30 mg polymer-derived carbon and around 50% with 56 mg. [Beitr. Tabakforsch. Int. 27 (2016) 40-53]

Keywords

  • Carbon
  • smokers
  • mouth-level exposure
  • nicotine
  • filter tip
Open Access

Nicotine Analysis in Several Non-Tobacco Plant Materials

Published Online: 18 May 2016
Page range: 54 - 59

Abstract

Summary

Present study describes the determination of nicotine in various plant samples with a low content of this compound. Nicotine is found naturally in plants from the Solanaceae family. The plants from Nicotiana genus contain large levels of nicotine. However, only low levels are present in plants from Solanum genus including potato, tomato, eggplant, and from Capsicum genus, which are used as food. Because the levels of nicotine in these materials are in the range of parts per billion, the measurements are difficult and the results are very different from study to study. The present study evaluated the level of nicotine in a number of plants (fruits, roots, leaves, tubers) from Solanaceae family (not including Nicotiana genus) and from several other vegetables commonly used as food. The analysis consisted of the treatment of plant material with an aqueous solution 5% NaOH at 70°C for 30 min, followed by extraction with TBME containing d3-nicotine as an internal standard. The TBME organic layer was analyzed on a 7890B/7000C GC-MS/MS system with a 30 m × 0.25 mm, 0.25 μm film CAM column. The MS/MS system worked in MRM positive ionization mode monitoring the transition 162 - 84 for nicotine and 165 - 87 for d3-nicotine. Particular attention was given to the preservation of the intact levels of nicotine in the plant material. The plant material was analyzed as is, without drying and with minimal exposure to contaminations. Separately, the moisture of the plant material was measured in order to report the nicotine level on a dry-basis. Levels of nicotine around 180 ng/g dry material were obtained for tomatoes and eggplant (fruit) and lower levels were obtained for green pepper and potato. Similar levels to that in the tomato fruit were detected in tomato leaves. Materials from other plant families also showed traces of nicotine. [Beitr. Tabakforsch. Int. 27 (2016) 54-59]

Keywords

  • Nicotine
  • Solanaceae
  • Tomato
  • Eggplant
Open Access

A Simultaneous Analytical Method to Profile Non-Volatile Components with Low Polarity Elucidating Differences Between Tobacco Leaves Using Atmospheric Pressure Chemical Ionization Mass Spectrometry Detection

Published Online: 18 May 2016
Page range: 60 - 74

Abstract

Summary

A comprehensive analytical method using liquid chromatography atmospheric pressure chemical ionization mass spectrometry detector (LC/APCI-MSD) was developed to determine key non-volatile components with low polarity elucidating holistic difference among tobacco leaves. Nonaqueous reversed-phase chromatography (NARPC) using organic solvent ensured simultaneous separation of various components with low polarity in tobacco resin. Application of full-scan mode to APCI-MSD hyphenated with NARPC enabled simultaneous detection of numerous intense product ions given by APCI interface. Parameters for data processing to filter, feature and align peaks were adjusted in order to strike a balance between comprehensiveness and reproducibility in analysis. 63 types of components such as solanesols, chlorophylls, phytosterols, triacylglycerols, solanachromene and others were determined on total ion chromatograms according to authentic components, wavelength spectrum and mass spectrum. The whole area of identified entities among the ones detected on total ion chromatogram reached to over 60% and major entities among those identified showed favorable linearity of determination coefficient of over 0.99. The developed method and data processing procedure were therefore considered feasible for subsequent multivariate analysis. Data matrix consisting of a number of entities was then subjected to principal component analysis (PCA) and hierarchical clustering analysis. Cultivars of tobacco leaves were distributed far from each cultivar on PCA score plot and each cluster seemed to be characterized by identified non-volatile components with low polarity. While fluecured Virginia (FCV) was loaded by solanachromene, phytosterol esters and triacylglycerols, free phytosterols and chlorophylls loaded Burley (BLY) and Oriental (ORI) respectively. Consequently the whole methodology consisting of comprehensive method and data processing procedure proved useful to determine key-components among cultivars of tobacco leaves, and was expected to additionally expand coverage that metabolomics study has ensured. [Beitr. Tabakforsch. Int. 27 (2016) 60-73]

Open Access

Cross-Sectional Relations Between Slim Cigarettes and Smoking Prevalence

Published Online: 18 May 2016
Page range: 75 - 99

Abstract

Summary

Slim cigarettes were defined in the 2012 draft European Union-Tobacco Product Directive (EU-TPD) as cigarettes with a diameter of less than 7.5mm. Allegations that slim cigarettes may negatively impact tobacco control efforts led the European Commission to propose a ban on them in 2012, which was ultimately rejected. This study investigated whether there is any association between slim cigarettes and smoking prevalence rates, in order to see if these allegations are justified. Data was compiled on the market share of slim cigarettes and smoking prevalence rates from the years 2012, 2006 and 1996. The core 2012 sample (once data limitations were accounted for) consisted of 95 countries. Raw correlations between market shares of slim cigarettes and smoking prevalence rates were first examined, followed by multivariate cross-country regressions where various factors were controlled for. This was done for overall smoking prevalence, as well as for male and female prevalence separately.

Although raw correlations between the slim cigarette market share and smoking prevalence were sometimes positive and statistically significant, this result disappeared in all cases except for one when potential confounding factors were fully controlled for. The correlation between slim cigarette market share and smoking prevalence remained significant only for males in 2012 at levels of statistical significance of 10% or above when cultural and socio-economic factors were fully controlled for. Importantly, for females no positive statistically significant correlations between the slim cigarette market share and smoking prevalence were found for any year. The cross-country variation in smoking prevalence was substantially explained by a number of regional and cultural dummies, as well as socio-economic factors.

This study has found no indication that a higher market share of slim cigarettes was associated with greater smoking prevalence among females, and has failed to find a strong indication among males, once confounding factors were controlled for. [Beitr. Tabakforsch. Int. 27 (2016) 75-99]

0 Articles
Open Access

Editors’ Note

Published Online: 18 May 2016
Page range: 39 - 39

Abstract

Open Access

Influence of Type and Amount of Carbon in Cigarette Filters on Smokers’ Mouth Level Exposure to “Tar”, Nicotine, 1,3-Butadiene, Benzene, Toluene, Isoprene, and Acrylonitrile

Published Online: 18 May 2016
Page range: 40 - 53

Abstract

Summary

Activated carbons are effective adsorbents for many volatile organic compounds and are used in cigarette filters to remove selected smoke toxicants. Polymer-derived carbon is more effective in removing many vapour phase toxicants found in cigarette smoke than coconut-shell-derived carbon. We compared mouth-level exposure to “tar”, nicotine and five vapour phase constituents (1,3- butadiene, benzene, toluene, isoprene, acrylonitrile) in two groups of Romanian smokers of 4-mg or 8-mg International Organization for Standardization (ISO) “tar” bands. Test cigarettes with 4 and 8 mg ISO “tar” were manufactured for the study with two target levels of polymer-derived carbon (30 mg and 56 mg), along with control cigarettes containing a target level of 56 mg of coconut-shell-derived carbon in both “tar” bands. No significant differences were found between mouth-level exposure to “tar” or nicotine yields obtained from control and test products (p > 0.05) in either ISO “tar” band. Mouth-level exposure to each of the five vapour phase constituents was significantly lower from the test products with polymer-derived carbon (p < 0.0001) than from control cigarettes with coconut-shell-derived carbon, by an average of 25% with 30 mg polymer-derived carbon and around 50% with 56 mg. [Beitr. Tabakforsch. Int. 27 (2016) 40-53]

Keywords

  • Carbon
  • smokers
  • mouth-level exposure
  • nicotine
  • filter tip
Open Access

Nicotine Analysis in Several Non-Tobacco Plant Materials

Published Online: 18 May 2016
Page range: 54 - 59

Abstract

Summary

Present study describes the determination of nicotine in various plant samples with a low content of this compound. Nicotine is found naturally in plants from the Solanaceae family. The plants from Nicotiana genus contain large levels of nicotine. However, only low levels are present in plants from Solanum genus including potato, tomato, eggplant, and from Capsicum genus, which are used as food. Because the levels of nicotine in these materials are in the range of parts per billion, the measurements are difficult and the results are very different from study to study. The present study evaluated the level of nicotine in a number of plants (fruits, roots, leaves, tubers) from Solanaceae family (not including Nicotiana genus) and from several other vegetables commonly used as food. The analysis consisted of the treatment of plant material with an aqueous solution 5% NaOH at 70°C for 30 min, followed by extraction with TBME containing d3-nicotine as an internal standard. The TBME organic layer was analyzed on a 7890B/7000C GC-MS/MS system with a 30 m × 0.25 mm, 0.25 μm film CAM column. The MS/MS system worked in MRM positive ionization mode monitoring the transition 162 - 84 for nicotine and 165 - 87 for d3-nicotine. Particular attention was given to the preservation of the intact levels of nicotine in the plant material. The plant material was analyzed as is, without drying and with minimal exposure to contaminations. Separately, the moisture of the plant material was measured in order to report the nicotine level on a dry-basis. Levels of nicotine around 180 ng/g dry material were obtained for tomatoes and eggplant (fruit) and lower levels were obtained for green pepper and potato. Similar levels to that in the tomato fruit were detected in tomato leaves. Materials from other plant families also showed traces of nicotine. [Beitr. Tabakforsch. Int. 27 (2016) 54-59]

Keywords

  • Nicotine
  • Solanaceae
  • Tomato
  • Eggplant
Open Access

A Simultaneous Analytical Method to Profile Non-Volatile Components with Low Polarity Elucidating Differences Between Tobacco Leaves Using Atmospheric Pressure Chemical Ionization Mass Spectrometry Detection

Published Online: 18 May 2016
Page range: 60 - 74

Abstract

Summary

A comprehensive analytical method using liquid chromatography atmospheric pressure chemical ionization mass spectrometry detector (LC/APCI-MSD) was developed to determine key non-volatile components with low polarity elucidating holistic difference among tobacco leaves. Nonaqueous reversed-phase chromatography (NARPC) using organic solvent ensured simultaneous separation of various components with low polarity in tobacco resin. Application of full-scan mode to APCI-MSD hyphenated with NARPC enabled simultaneous detection of numerous intense product ions given by APCI interface. Parameters for data processing to filter, feature and align peaks were adjusted in order to strike a balance between comprehensiveness and reproducibility in analysis. 63 types of components such as solanesols, chlorophylls, phytosterols, triacylglycerols, solanachromene and others were determined on total ion chromatograms according to authentic components, wavelength spectrum and mass spectrum. The whole area of identified entities among the ones detected on total ion chromatogram reached to over 60% and major entities among those identified showed favorable linearity of determination coefficient of over 0.99. The developed method and data processing procedure were therefore considered feasible for subsequent multivariate analysis. Data matrix consisting of a number of entities was then subjected to principal component analysis (PCA) and hierarchical clustering analysis. Cultivars of tobacco leaves were distributed far from each cultivar on PCA score plot and each cluster seemed to be characterized by identified non-volatile components with low polarity. While fluecured Virginia (FCV) was loaded by solanachromene, phytosterol esters and triacylglycerols, free phytosterols and chlorophylls loaded Burley (BLY) and Oriental (ORI) respectively. Consequently the whole methodology consisting of comprehensive method and data processing procedure proved useful to determine key-components among cultivars of tobacco leaves, and was expected to additionally expand coverage that metabolomics study has ensured. [Beitr. Tabakforsch. Int. 27 (2016) 60-73]

Open Access

Cross-Sectional Relations Between Slim Cigarettes and Smoking Prevalence

Published Online: 18 May 2016
Page range: 75 - 99

Abstract

Summary

Slim cigarettes were defined in the 2012 draft European Union-Tobacco Product Directive (EU-TPD) as cigarettes with a diameter of less than 7.5mm. Allegations that slim cigarettes may negatively impact tobacco control efforts led the European Commission to propose a ban on them in 2012, which was ultimately rejected. This study investigated whether there is any association between slim cigarettes and smoking prevalence rates, in order to see if these allegations are justified. Data was compiled on the market share of slim cigarettes and smoking prevalence rates from the years 2012, 2006 and 1996. The core 2012 sample (once data limitations were accounted for) consisted of 95 countries. Raw correlations between market shares of slim cigarettes and smoking prevalence rates were first examined, followed by multivariate cross-country regressions where various factors were controlled for. This was done for overall smoking prevalence, as well as for male and female prevalence separately.

Although raw correlations between the slim cigarette market share and smoking prevalence were sometimes positive and statistically significant, this result disappeared in all cases except for one when potential confounding factors were fully controlled for. The correlation between slim cigarette market share and smoking prevalence remained significant only for males in 2012 at levels of statistical significance of 10% or above when cultural and socio-economic factors were fully controlled for. Importantly, for females no positive statistically significant correlations between the slim cigarette market share and smoking prevalence were found for any year. The cross-country variation in smoking prevalence was substantially explained by a number of regional and cultural dummies, as well as socio-economic factors.

This study has found no indication that a higher market share of slim cigarettes was associated with greater smoking prevalence among females, and has failed to find a strong indication among males, once confounding factors were controlled for. [Beitr. Tabakforsch. Int. 27 (2016) 75-99]