Rivista e Edizione

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Volume 26 (2014): Edizione 4 (December 2014)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Volume 5 (1970): Edizione 5 (November 1970)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Volume 4 (1968): Edizione 4 (May 1968)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Volume 3 (1965): Edizione 3 (August 1965)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Volume 2 (1963): Edizione 2 (June 1963)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Volume 1 (1961): Edizione 1 (January 1961)

Dettagli della rivista
Formato
Rivista
eISSN
2719-9509
Pubblicato per la prima volta
01 Jan 1992
Periodo di pubblicazione
4 volte all'anno
Lingue
Inglese

Cerca

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

Dettagli della rivista
Formato
Rivista
eISSN
2719-9509
Pubblicato per la prima volta
01 Jan 1992
Periodo di pubblicazione
4 volte all'anno
Lingue
Inglese

Cerca

5 Articoli
Accesso libero

Characterization of Virginia Tobaccos by Chemometric Methods

Pubblicato online: 30 Dec 2014
Pagine: 1 - 6

Astratto

Abstract

Leaf samples of different flue-cured Virginia tobacco varieties were analyzed and compared to a standard, the typical American Virginia cultivar K 326. Plants were grown in the Plovdiv region, Bulgaria, under conditions appropriate for Virginia varieties. The tobaccos were characterized by means of high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) of polyphenols and capillary gas chromatography (CGC) of the neutral volatiles of essential oils, as well as by a sensory evaluation of color and aroma. All cultivars examined contained twelve polyphenol components in their HPLC profiles and differed only in quantitative aspects. Both qualitative and quantitative variations between the CGC profiles of essential oils of the cultivars were observed. The chromatographic profiles of polyphenols and essential oils were compared by the pattern recognition method (PRM) and used for calculating the similarity indexes (Is,%) of the samples to the standard Virginia variety K 326. The chemometric data obtained are completely compatible with sensory evaluation of color and aroma. Based on the results obtained the tobaccos may be distinguished as: typical full-flavored Virginia - aromatic (Virginia 330); typical full-flavored Virginia - less aromatic (Virginia 0454); non-typical (filler type) Virginia (Virginia 42). The possibilities of the PRM for objective evaluation of color and aroma of Virginia tobaccos were demonstrated.

Accesso libero

Handling and Curing Characteristics of Cut-Strip Tobacco. Part 1: Effect of Strip-Size, Packing Density and Mode of Orientation

Pubblicato online: 30 Dec 2014
Pagine: 7 - 13

Astratto

Abstract

Previous work has demonstrated potential handling and curing efficiencies in the use of cut-strip tobacco. The present work considers further the effect of cut-strip size, packing density and mode of orientation on cured leaf chemistry (starch, reducing sugars, and total alkaloids) and leaf quality. Results showed that cured leaf chemistry of 15.2 × 22.9 cm cut-strip more closely matched properties of whole leaf than pieces 15.2 × 15.2 cm or smaller. Starch contents were significantly higher for the smaller cut-strip sizes, perhaps due to edge drying effects, while alkaloids were significantly lower. Within the range of 194 to 292 kg/m, packing density had little effect on leaf chemistry, with the exception that reducing sugars were slightly lower for the higher packing densities. This could be due to a longer time for the drying front to move through the more tightly packed tobacco, and hence more respiratory loss of sugars. Government grades and average market prices of cured strips were essentially unaffected over the range of strip sizes or packing densities tested. Based on airflow resistance measurements and observed drying characteristics, vertical orientation of strips was far superior to horizontal orientation, both with vertical airflow through the tobacco. The higher packing density reduced specific energy use (kWh/kg green tobacco) by as much as 22%, indicating potential energy savings for cut-strip over whole leaf curing.

Accesso libero

Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) for the Control of Insect Pests in Stored Tobacco: A Review

Pubblicato online: 30 Dec 2014
Pagine: 15 - 22

Astratto

Abstract

Among the insect species causing infestations and serious damages to stored commodities, the cigarette beetle, Lasiodermaserricorne (F.) and the tobacco moth, Ephestiaelutella (Hübner) are the major pests of both raw and manufactured tobacco. Post-harvest tobacco control is achieved through sanitation, insect monitoring, and fumigation with phosphine. However, insect resistance to phosphine and control failures have been reported, and increasing regulatory pressure is being exerted on fumigants. Biological control agents such as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) appear to be environmentally sound and potentially viable alternatives to chemical control. Bt is a bacterium that produces insecticidal crystal proteins during the sporulation phase and has been, for more than 40 years, the microorganism of choice for the biocontrol of phytophagous insect pests. It produces insecticidal crystal proteins that display specific activity against certain orders of insects and become active upon ingestion by the insect. Our laboratory has conducted extensive research and worldwide surveys to evaluate the presence of Bt in stored tobacco and has confirmed previous findings indicating that Bt may be considered part of the naturally occurring phylloplanemicroflora. Several Bt strains were isolated from tobacco and characterized by DNA and protein profiling. The insecticidal activity of selected strains and of two commercial products against the larvae of L. serricorne was determined by diet incorporation assays. Moreover, the stability of Bt spores and crystal proteins on cured tobacco leaves was assessed over a storage period of time of 30 months. Cigarette prototypes were made with Bt-treated tobacco. Standard cigarette and smoke evaluations did not show any significant difference between the test and control cigarettes. Although the tested Bt strains and products did not yield satisfactory levels of mortality at the required times and doses, the experimental results summarized in the present review indicate that B. thuringiensishas potential for the control of the cigarette beetle. The integration of conventional control approaches with novel systems based on biological agents with different modes of action should offer new avenues for the effective management of stored tobacco pests in line with integrated pest management (IPM) concepts.

Accesso libero

The Development and Significance of Standards for Smoking-Machine Methodology

Pubblicato online: 30 Dec 2014
Pagine: 23 - 41

Astratto

Abstract

Bialous and Yach have recently published an article in Tobacco Control in which they claim that all smoking-machine standards stem from a method developed unilaterally by the tobacco industry within the Cooperation Centre for Scientific Research Relative to Tobacco (CORESTA). Using a few highly selective quotations from internal tobacco company memos, they allege, inter alia, that the tobacco industry has changed the method to suit its own needs, that because humans do not smoke like machines the standards are of little value, and that the tobacco industry has unjustifiably made health claims about low “tar” cigarettes. The objectives of this paper are to review the development of smoking-machine methodology and standards, involvement of relative parties, outline the significance of the results and explore the validity of Bialous and Yach's claims. The large volume of published scientific information on the subject together with other information in the public domain has been consulted. When this information is taken into account it becomes obvious that the very narrow and restricted literature base of Bialous and Yach's analysis has resulted in them, perhaps inadvertedly, making factual errors, drawing wrong conclusions and writing inaccurate statements on many aspects of the subject. The first smoking-machine standard was specified by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), a federal government agency in the USA, in 1966. The CORESTA Recommended Method, similar in many aspects to that of the FTC, was developed in the late 1960s and published in 1969. Small differences in the butt lengths, smoke collection and analytical procedures in methods used in various countries including Germany, Canada and the UK, developed later, resulted in about a 10% difference in smoke “tar” yields. These differences in methodology were harmonised in a common International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) Standard Method in 1991, after a considerable amount of interlaboratory comparisons of the developing methodology had been undertaken by CORESTA. As acknowledged by Bialous and Yach, the purpose of the standards is to determine the “tar”, nicotine and carbon monoxide content of cigarette smoke when the cigarette is smoked under precisely defined conditions, and hence to allow a comparison of the yields from different cigarettes when smoked under identical conditions. Such yields are not predictive of the yields humans obtain when smoking, nor were they ever expected to be so, since no two smokers smoke exactly the same nor does a smoker smoke a cigarette the same way on every occasion. This purpose has been stated consistently many times, originally by the FTC in 1967 and subsequently in the scientific literature, published by the tobacco industry and health/regulatory authorities, over the last 35 years. From the 1950s onwards numerous public health scientists have advocated that lower “tar” cigarettes should be developed on the grounds that they may reduce to some extent the risks of smoking, while at the same time advocating that the best way to avoid risks is not to smoke. Some health authorities have have used the standard machine-smoking yields to set limits on “tar” as a way of reducing the health impact of cigarette use. The tobacco industry has co-operated with these health authorities by developing cigarettes with lower “tar” but has also followed public health advice by not advertising lower “tar” cigarettes as safe cigarettes. The available evidence, taken as a whole, indicates that compensation by smokers who switch from a high to a low “tar” cigarette is partial in the short term, and that such smokers do obtain a reduction in smoke component uptake.

Accesso libero

Catalytic Reduction of NO and NOx Content in Tobacco Smoke

Pubblicato online: 30 Dec 2014
Pagine: 43 - 49

Astratto

Abstract

In order to reduce the nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen oxides (NO) content in mainstream tobacco smoke, a new class of catalyst based on Cu-ZSM-5 zeolite has been synthesized. The effectiveness of the new catalyst (degree of reduction and specific catalytic ability) was tested both by adding Cu-ZSM-5 zeolite directly to the tobacco blend and by addition to the filter. We have determined that adding the catalyst to the tobacco blend does not cause any changes in the physical, chemical or organoleptic properties of the cigarette blend. But, the addition reduces the yield of nitrogen oxides while having no influence on nicotine and “tar” content in the tobacco smoke of the modified blend. The catalyst addition increases the static burning rate (SBR). The changes in the quantity of NO and NOmay be explained by changes in burning conditions due to the increase of Oobtained from catalytic degradation of NO and NO, and adsorptive and diffusive properties of the catalyst. The changes in mainstream smoke analytes are also given on a puff-by-puff basis.

5 Articoli
Accesso libero

Characterization of Virginia Tobaccos by Chemometric Methods

Pubblicato online: 30 Dec 2014
Pagine: 1 - 6

Astratto

Abstract

Leaf samples of different flue-cured Virginia tobacco varieties were analyzed and compared to a standard, the typical American Virginia cultivar K 326. Plants were grown in the Plovdiv region, Bulgaria, under conditions appropriate for Virginia varieties. The tobaccos were characterized by means of high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) of polyphenols and capillary gas chromatography (CGC) of the neutral volatiles of essential oils, as well as by a sensory evaluation of color and aroma. All cultivars examined contained twelve polyphenol components in their HPLC profiles and differed only in quantitative aspects. Both qualitative and quantitative variations between the CGC profiles of essential oils of the cultivars were observed. The chromatographic profiles of polyphenols and essential oils were compared by the pattern recognition method (PRM) and used for calculating the similarity indexes (Is,%) of the samples to the standard Virginia variety K 326. The chemometric data obtained are completely compatible with sensory evaluation of color and aroma. Based on the results obtained the tobaccos may be distinguished as: typical full-flavored Virginia - aromatic (Virginia 330); typical full-flavored Virginia - less aromatic (Virginia 0454); non-typical (filler type) Virginia (Virginia 42). The possibilities of the PRM for objective evaluation of color and aroma of Virginia tobaccos were demonstrated.

Accesso libero

Handling and Curing Characteristics of Cut-Strip Tobacco. Part 1: Effect of Strip-Size, Packing Density and Mode of Orientation

Pubblicato online: 30 Dec 2014
Pagine: 7 - 13

Astratto

Abstract

Previous work has demonstrated potential handling and curing efficiencies in the use of cut-strip tobacco. The present work considers further the effect of cut-strip size, packing density and mode of orientation on cured leaf chemistry (starch, reducing sugars, and total alkaloids) and leaf quality. Results showed that cured leaf chemistry of 15.2 × 22.9 cm cut-strip more closely matched properties of whole leaf than pieces 15.2 × 15.2 cm or smaller. Starch contents were significantly higher for the smaller cut-strip sizes, perhaps due to edge drying effects, while alkaloids were significantly lower. Within the range of 194 to 292 kg/m, packing density had little effect on leaf chemistry, with the exception that reducing sugars were slightly lower for the higher packing densities. This could be due to a longer time for the drying front to move through the more tightly packed tobacco, and hence more respiratory loss of sugars. Government grades and average market prices of cured strips were essentially unaffected over the range of strip sizes or packing densities tested. Based on airflow resistance measurements and observed drying characteristics, vertical orientation of strips was far superior to horizontal orientation, both with vertical airflow through the tobacco. The higher packing density reduced specific energy use (kWh/kg green tobacco) by as much as 22%, indicating potential energy savings for cut-strip over whole leaf curing.

Accesso libero

Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) for the Control of Insect Pests in Stored Tobacco: A Review

Pubblicato online: 30 Dec 2014
Pagine: 15 - 22

Astratto

Abstract

Among the insect species causing infestations and serious damages to stored commodities, the cigarette beetle, Lasiodermaserricorne (F.) and the tobacco moth, Ephestiaelutella (Hübner) are the major pests of both raw and manufactured tobacco. Post-harvest tobacco control is achieved through sanitation, insect monitoring, and fumigation with phosphine. However, insect resistance to phosphine and control failures have been reported, and increasing regulatory pressure is being exerted on fumigants. Biological control agents such as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) appear to be environmentally sound and potentially viable alternatives to chemical control. Bt is a bacterium that produces insecticidal crystal proteins during the sporulation phase and has been, for more than 40 years, the microorganism of choice for the biocontrol of phytophagous insect pests. It produces insecticidal crystal proteins that display specific activity against certain orders of insects and become active upon ingestion by the insect. Our laboratory has conducted extensive research and worldwide surveys to evaluate the presence of Bt in stored tobacco and has confirmed previous findings indicating that Bt may be considered part of the naturally occurring phylloplanemicroflora. Several Bt strains were isolated from tobacco and characterized by DNA and protein profiling. The insecticidal activity of selected strains and of two commercial products against the larvae of L. serricorne was determined by diet incorporation assays. Moreover, the stability of Bt spores and crystal proteins on cured tobacco leaves was assessed over a storage period of time of 30 months. Cigarette prototypes were made with Bt-treated tobacco. Standard cigarette and smoke evaluations did not show any significant difference between the test and control cigarettes. Although the tested Bt strains and products did not yield satisfactory levels of mortality at the required times and doses, the experimental results summarized in the present review indicate that B. thuringiensishas potential for the control of the cigarette beetle. The integration of conventional control approaches with novel systems based on biological agents with different modes of action should offer new avenues for the effective management of stored tobacco pests in line with integrated pest management (IPM) concepts.

Accesso libero

The Development and Significance of Standards for Smoking-Machine Methodology

Pubblicato online: 30 Dec 2014
Pagine: 23 - 41

Astratto

Abstract

Bialous and Yach have recently published an article in Tobacco Control in which they claim that all smoking-machine standards stem from a method developed unilaterally by the tobacco industry within the Cooperation Centre for Scientific Research Relative to Tobacco (CORESTA). Using a few highly selective quotations from internal tobacco company memos, they allege, inter alia, that the tobacco industry has changed the method to suit its own needs, that because humans do not smoke like machines the standards are of little value, and that the tobacco industry has unjustifiably made health claims about low “tar” cigarettes. The objectives of this paper are to review the development of smoking-machine methodology and standards, involvement of relative parties, outline the significance of the results and explore the validity of Bialous and Yach's claims. The large volume of published scientific information on the subject together with other information in the public domain has been consulted. When this information is taken into account it becomes obvious that the very narrow and restricted literature base of Bialous and Yach's analysis has resulted in them, perhaps inadvertedly, making factual errors, drawing wrong conclusions and writing inaccurate statements on many aspects of the subject. The first smoking-machine standard was specified by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), a federal government agency in the USA, in 1966. The CORESTA Recommended Method, similar in many aspects to that of the FTC, was developed in the late 1960s and published in 1969. Small differences in the butt lengths, smoke collection and analytical procedures in methods used in various countries including Germany, Canada and the UK, developed later, resulted in about a 10% difference in smoke “tar” yields. These differences in methodology were harmonised in a common International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) Standard Method in 1991, after a considerable amount of interlaboratory comparisons of the developing methodology had been undertaken by CORESTA. As acknowledged by Bialous and Yach, the purpose of the standards is to determine the “tar”, nicotine and carbon monoxide content of cigarette smoke when the cigarette is smoked under precisely defined conditions, and hence to allow a comparison of the yields from different cigarettes when smoked under identical conditions. Such yields are not predictive of the yields humans obtain when smoking, nor were they ever expected to be so, since no two smokers smoke exactly the same nor does a smoker smoke a cigarette the same way on every occasion. This purpose has been stated consistently many times, originally by the FTC in 1967 and subsequently in the scientific literature, published by the tobacco industry and health/regulatory authorities, over the last 35 years. From the 1950s onwards numerous public health scientists have advocated that lower “tar” cigarettes should be developed on the grounds that they may reduce to some extent the risks of smoking, while at the same time advocating that the best way to avoid risks is not to smoke. Some health authorities have have used the standard machine-smoking yields to set limits on “tar” as a way of reducing the health impact of cigarette use. The tobacco industry has co-operated with these health authorities by developing cigarettes with lower “tar” but has also followed public health advice by not advertising lower “tar” cigarettes as safe cigarettes. The available evidence, taken as a whole, indicates that compensation by smokers who switch from a high to a low “tar” cigarette is partial in the short term, and that such smokers do obtain a reduction in smoke component uptake.

Accesso libero

Catalytic Reduction of NO and NOx Content in Tobacco Smoke

Pubblicato online: 30 Dec 2014
Pagine: 43 - 49

Astratto

Abstract

In order to reduce the nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen oxides (NO) content in mainstream tobacco smoke, a new class of catalyst based on Cu-ZSM-5 zeolite has been synthesized. The effectiveness of the new catalyst (degree of reduction and specific catalytic ability) was tested both by adding Cu-ZSM-5 zeolite directly to the tobacco blend and by addition to the filter. We have determined that adding the catalyst to the tobacco blend does not cause any changes in the physical, chemical or organoleptic properties of the cigarette blend. But, the addition reduces the yield of nitrogen oxides while having no influence on nicotine and “tar” content in the tobacco smoke of the modified blend. The catalyst addition increases the static burning rate (SBR). The changes in the quantity of NO and NOmay be explained by changes in burning conditions due to the increase of Oobtained from catalytic degradation of NO and NO, and adsorptive and diffusive properties of the catalyst. The changes in mainstream smoke analytes are also given on a puff-by-puff basis.

Pianifica la tua conferenza remota con Sciendo