Zeszyty czasopisma

Tom 32 (2023): Zeszyt 3 (July 2023)

Tom 32 (2023): Zeszyt 2 (May 2023)

Tom 32 (2023): Zeszyt 1 (March 2023)

Tom 31 (2022): Zeszyt 3 (November 2022)

Tom 31 (2022): Zeszyt 2 (July 2022)

Tom 31 (2022): Zeszyt 1 (March 2022)

Tom 30 (2021): Zeszyt 4 (November 2021)

Tom 30 (2021): Zeszyt 3 (July 2021)

Tom 30 (2021): Zeszyt 2 (May 2021)

Tom 30 (2021): Zeszyt 1 (March 2021)

Tom 29 (2020): Zeszyt 3 (December 2020)

Tom 29 (2020): Zeszyt 2 (August 2020)

Tom 29 (2020): Zeszyt 1 (April 2020)

Tom 28 (2019): Zeszyt 7 (December 2019)

Tom 28 (2019): Zeszyt 6 (August 2019)

Tom 28 (2019): Zeszyt 5 (May 2019)

Tom 28 (2018): Zeszyt 4 (December 2018)

Tom 28 (2018): Zeszyt 3 (October 2018)

Tom 28 (2018): Zeszyt 2 (August 2018)

Tom 28 (2018): Zeszyt 1 (April 2018)

Tom 27 (2017): Zeszyt 8 (December 2017)

Tom 27 (2017): Zeszyt 7 (September 2017)

Tom 27 (2017): Zeszyt 6 (April 2017)

Tom 27 (2017): Zeszyt 5 (January 2017)

Tom 27 (2016): Zeszyt 4 (October 2016)

Tom 27 (2016): Zeszyt 3 (July 2016)

Tom 27 (2016): Zeszyt 2 (April 2016)

Tom 27 (2016): Zeszyt 1 (January 2016)

Tom 26 (2015): Zeszyt 7 (September 2015)

Tom 26 (2015): Zeszyt 6 (June 2015)

Tom 26 (2015): Zeszyt 5 (March 2015)

Tom 26 (2015): Zeszyt 4 (January 2015)

Tom 26 (2014): Zeszyt 3 (September 2014)

Tom 26 (2014): Zeszyt 2 (July 2014)

Tom 26 (2014): Zeszyt 1 (April 2014)

Tom 25 (2013): Zeszyt 8 (December 2013)

Tom 25 (2013): Zeszyt 7 (September 2013)

Tom 25 (2013): Zeszyt 6 (June 2013)

Tom 25 (2013): Zeszyt 5 (March 2013)

Tom 25 (2012): Zeszyt 4 (December 2012)

Tom 25 (2012): Zeszyt 3 (August 2012)

Tom 25 (2012): Zeszyt 2 (June 2012)

Tom 25 (2012): Zeszyt 1 (February 2012)

Tom 24 (2011): Zeszyt 6 (November 2011)

Tom 24 (2011): Zeszyt 5 (May 2011)

Tom 24 (2011): Zeszyt 4 (January 2011)

Tom 24 (2010): Zeszyt 3 (November 2010)

Tom 24 (2010): Zeszyt 2 (July 2010)

Tom 24 (2010): Zeszyt 1 (April 2010)

Tom 23 (2009): Zeszyt 6 (December 2009)

Tom 23 (2009): Zeszyt 5 (September 2009)

Tom 23 (2009): Zeszyt 4 (May 2009)

Tom 23 (2008): Zeszyt 3 (December 2008)

Tom 23 (2008): Zeszyt 2 (August 2008)

Tom 23 (2008): Zeszyt 1 (April 2008)

Tom 22 (2007): Zeszyt 5 (June 2007)

Tom 22 (2007): Zeszyt 4 (January 2007)

Tom 22 (2006): Zeszyt 3 (October 2006)

Tom 22 (2006): Zeszyt 2 (July 2006)

Tom 22 (2006): Zeszyt 1 (April 2006)

Tom 21 (2005): Zeszyt 8 (December 2005)

Tom 21 (2005): Zeszyt 7 (October 2005)

Tom 21 (2005): Zeszyt 6 (July 2005)

Tom 21 (2005): Zeszyt 5 (April 2005)

Tom 21 (2004): Zeszyt 4 (December 2004)

Tom 21 (2004): Zeszyt 3 (October 2004)

Tom 21 (2004): Zeszyt 2 (July 2004)

Tom 21 (2004): Zeszyt 1 (March 2004)

Tom 20 (2003): Zeszyt 8 (December 2003)

Tom 20 (2003): Zeszyt 7 (November 2003)

Tom 20 (2003): Zeszyt 6 (July 2003)

Tom 20 (2003): Zeszyt 5 (March 2003)

Tom 20 (2002): Zeszyt 4 (December 2002)

Tom 20 (2002): Zeszyt 3 (August 2002)

Tom 20 (2002): Zeszyt 2 (June 2002)

Tom 20 (2002): Zeszyt 1 (February 2002)

Tom 19 (2001): Zeszyt 7 (October 2001)

Tom 19 (2001): Zeszyt 6 (July 2001)

Tom 19 (2001): Zeszyt 5 (April 2001)

Tom 19 (2001): Zeszyt 4 (January 2001)

Tom 19 (2000): Zeszyt 3 (October 2000)

Tom 19 (2000): Zeszyt 2 (July 2000)

Tom 19 (2000): Zeszyt 1 (April 2000)

Tom 18 (1999): Zeszyt 6 (December 1999)

Tom 18 (1999): Zeszyt 5 (July 1999)

Tom 18 (1999): Zeszyt 4 (April 1999)

Tom 18 (1998): Zeszyt 3 (December 1998)

Tom 18 (1998): Zeszyt 2 (August 1998)

Tom 18 (1998): Zeszyt 1 (April 1998)

Tom 17 (1997): Zeszyt 3 (December 1997)

Tom 17 (1997): Zeszyt 2 (September 1997)

Tom 17 (1996): Zeszyt 1 (December 1996)

Tom 16 (1995): Zeszyt 4 (November 1995)

Tom 16 (1995): Zeszyt 3 (July 1995)

Tom 16 (1994): Zeszyt 2 (June 1994)

Tom 16 (1994): Zeszyt 1 (May 1994)

Tom 15 (1992): Zeszyt 3 (November 1992)

Tom 15 (1992): Zeszyt 2 (April 1992)

Tom 15 (1991): Zeszyt 1 (August 1991)

Tom 14 (1990): Zeszyt 6 (June 1990)

Tom 14 (1989): Zeszyt 5 (October 1989)

Tom 14 (1989): Zeszyt 4 (February 1989)

Tom 14 (1989): Zeszyt 3 (January 1989)

Tom 14 (1988): Zeszyt 2 (October 1988)

Tom 14 (1987): Zeszyt 1 (December 1987)

Tom 13 (1986): Zeszyt 5 (December 1986)

Tom 13 (1986): Zeszyt 4 (August 1986)

Tom 13 (1986): Zeszyt 3 (July 1986)

Tom 13 (1985): Zeszyt 2 (December 1985)

Tom 13 (1985): Zeszyt 1 (January 1985)

Tom 12 (1984): Zeszyt 5 (November 1984)

Tom 12 (1984): Zeszyt 4 (July 1984)

Tom 12 (1984): Zeszyt 3 (February 1984)

Tom 12 (1983): Zeszyt 2 (June 1983)

Tom 12 (1983): Zeszyt 1 (February 1983)

Tom 11 (1982): Zeszyt 5 (November 1982)

Tom 11 (1982): Zeszyt 4 (August 1982)

Tom 11 (1982): Zeszyt 3 (January 1982)

Tom 11 (1981): Zeszyt 2 (September 1981)

Tom 11 (1981): Zeszyt 1 (March 1981)

Tom 10 (1980): Zeszyt 3 (October 1980)

Tom 10 (1980): Zeszyt 2 (July 1980)

Tom 10 (1979): Zeszyt 1 (December 1979)

Tom 9 (1978): Zeszyt 5 (December 1978)

Tom 9 (1978): Zeszyt 4 (July 1978)

Tom 9 (1977): Zeszyt 3 (October 1977)

Tom 9 (1977): Zeszyt 2 (June 1977)

Tom 9 (1977): Zeszyt 1 (April 1977)

Tom 8 (1976): Zeszyt 7 (October 1976)

Tom 8 (1976): Zeszyt 6 (June 1976)

Tom 8 (1976): Zeszyt 5 (March 1976)

Tom 8 (1975): Zeszyt 4 (December 1975)

Tom 8 (1975): Zeszyt 3 (August 1975)

Tom 8 (1975): Zeszyt 2 (May 1975)

Tom 8 (1975): Zeszyt 1 (January 1975)

Tom 7 (1974): Zeszyt 5 (September 1974)

Tom 7 (1974): Zeszyt 4 (April 1974)

Tom 7 (1973): Zeszyt 3 (November 1973)

Tom 7 (1973): Zeszyt 2 (June 1973)

Tom 7 (1973): Zeszyt 1 (January 1973)

Tom 6 (1972): Zeszyt 5 (October 1972)

Tom 6 (1972): Zeszyt 4 (August 1972)

Tom 6 (1972): Zeszyt 3 (March 1972)

Tom 6 (1971): Zeszyt 2 (September 1971)

Tom 6 (1971): Zeszyt 1 (July 1971)

Tom 5 (1970): Zeszyt 6 (December 1970)

Tom 5 (1970): Zeszyt 5 (November 1970)

Tom 5 (1970): Zeszyt 4 (August 1970)

Tom 5 (1969): Zeszyt 3 (December 1969)

Tom 5 (1969): Zeszyt 2 (August 1969)

Tom 5 (1969): Zeszyt 1 (June 1969)

Tom 4 (1968): Zeszyt 7 (December 1968)

Tom 4 (1968): Zeszyt 6 (November 1968)

Tom 4 (1968): Zeszyt 5 (July 1968)

Tom 4 (1968): Zeszyt 4 (May 1968)

Tom 4 (1968): Zeszyt 3 (February 1968)

Tom 4 (1967): Zeszyt 2 (October 1967)

Tom 4 (1967): Zeszyt 1 (August 1967)

Tom 3 (1966): Zeszyt 9 (December 1966)

Tom 3 (1966): Zeszyt 8 (December 1966)

Tom 3 (1966): Zeszyt 7 (November 1966)

Tom 3 (1966): Zeszyt 6 (September 1966)

Tom 3 (1966): Zeszyt 5 (May 1966)

Tom 3 (1965): Zeszyt 4 (October 1965)

Tom 3 (1965): Zeszyt 3 (August 1965)

Tom 3 (1965): Zeszyt 2 (May 1965)

Tom 3 (1965): Zeszyt 1 (April 1965)

Tom 2 (1964): Zeszyt 7 (November 1964)

Tom 2 (1964): Zeszyt 6 (October 1964)

Tom 2 (1964): Zeszyt 5 (May 1964)

Tom 2 (1964): Zeszyt 4 (February 1964)

Tom 2 (1963): Zeszyt 3 (October 1963)

Tom 2 (1963): Zeszyt 2 (June 1963)

Tom 2 (1963): Zeszyt 1 (March 1963)

Tom 1 (1962): Zeszyt 10 (December 1962)

Tom 1 (1962): Zeszyt 9 (December 1962)

Tom 1 (1962): Zeszyt 8 (November 1962)

Tom 1 (1962): Zeszyt 7 (November 1962)

Tom 1 (1962): Zeszyt 6 (July 1962)

Tom 1 (1962): Zeszyt 5 (February 1962)

Tom 1 (1961): Zeszyt 4 (November 1961)

Tom 1 (1961): Zeszyt 3 (August 1961)

Tom 1 (1961): Zeszyt 2 (May 1961)

Tom 1 (1961): Zeszyt 1 (January 1961)

Informacje o czasopiśmie
Format
Czasopismo
eISSN
2719-9509
Pierwsze wydanie
01 Jan 1992
Częstotliwość wydawania
4 razy w roku
Języki
Angielski

Wyszukiwanie

Tom 20 (2002): Zeszyt 2 (June 2002)

Informacje o czasopiśmie
Format
Czasopismo
eISSN
2719-9509
Pierwsze wydanie
01 Jan 1992
Częstotliwość wydawania
4 razy w roku
Języki
Angielski

Wyszukiwanie

0 Artykułów
Otwarty dostęp

Biochemical Changes in β-Cryptogein-Elicited Tobacco: A possible Basis of Acquired Resistance

Data publikacji: 30 Dec 2014
Zakres stron: 53 - 59

Abstrakt

Abstract

β-Cryptogein, a proteinaceous elicitor from the phytopathogenic fungus Phytophthoracryptogea, is known to induce leaf necrosis in tobacco and non-specific resistance (expressed in the perinecrotic leaf area) against a wide range of tobacco pathogens. To reveal mechanisms underlying the acquired resistance, biochemical changes in leaves of β-cryptogein-elicited tobacco were followed three, five and ten days after elicitation. The activities of peroxidase, β-1,3-glucanase and β-glucosidase, as well as the patterns of acidic pathogenesis-related (PR)-proteins were determined. The protected part (perinecrotic area) and the non-protected part (distant extra-perinecrotic area) of leaves of β-cryptogein-stem treated tobacco (cv. Xanthin.c.) were analyzed. Leaves of water-stem treated tobacco served as controls. It was shown that in the protected leaf part β-cryptogein caused significant metabolic shifts early after elicitation, persisting during the whole period studied. An important increase of peroxidase and β-1,3-glucanase activity was recorded. PR-protein components appeared that were absent in the controls. There were negligible changes in β-glucosidase activity. In the non-protected leaf part late and non-significant changes occurred. Taking into account the antimicrobial, regulatory and structure-modifying properties of the biochemical components studied, it may be admitted that β-cryptogein elicited the development of a hostile environment, i.e. a potential for plant resistance against subsequent pathogen invasion.

Otwarty dostęp

Handling and Curing Characteristics of Cut-Strip Tobacco. Part 2: Effect of Yellowing Time and Drying Potential

Data publikacji: 30 Dec 2014
Zakres stron: 61 - 67

Abstrakt

Abstract

This paper presents Part 2 of a study on comparative handling and curing characteristics of cut-strip vs. whole leaf tobacco. Part 1 considered the effect of leaf size (cut-strip size vs. whole leaf), packing density and mode of leaf orientation on cured leaf chemistry and leaf quality; whereas, the present study considers further the effect of leaf form, two yellowing times and two drying potentials during yellowing. Results showed that leaf chemistry and quality were quite similar for cut-strip (15.2 × 22.9 cm) and whole leaf. Insignificant differences were noted for cured leaf starch and sugars, although slightly lower levels of alkaloids (significant at the 0.01 level) were observed for cut strip. Curing treatments significantly affected leaf chemistry. Increased yellowing time resulted in lower levels of starch and higher levels of sugar. Sugars were also higher for tobacco yellowed under the higher drying potential. The two forms of leaf responded similarly to different curing schedules (i.e. no interaction of leaf form with schedule). Also, government grade and price data were essentially unaffected by leaf form or curing schedule over the range of variables tested. Cured leaf starch was abnormally high on the average for both leaf forms. Interestingly, starch levels were lower when intact tobacco was bulk-cured in racks rather than box cured (6.35% vs. 9.02%). Since curing schedules were similar, air velocity in the two curing methods might be a factor. Also the cured leaf starch content was about 56% lower for tobacco produced at the Oxford Tobacco Research Station (in a secondary study) than at the Central Crops Research Station. It is postulated that carbohydrate and nitrogen metabolism during growth and maturation might be affected by excess rainfall events and/or nitrogen availability, with subsequent effects on starch-to-sugar conversion during curing.

Otwarty dostęp

Sidestream Smoke Collection Using a Harmonised Linear Smoking Machine

Data publikacji: 30 Dec 2014
Zakres stron: 69 - 76

Abstrakt

Abstract

The collection of sidestream smoke (SSS) using the “BAT fishtail chimney” method became the accepted standard, but following the harmonisation of linear and rotary smoking machines it is no longer possible to observe all parameters of the method as published. A prerequisite of any SSS collection method is that mainstream smoke (MSS) yields should not be affected. Additionally all the standard features and parameters of normal MSS collection should as far as possible remain unchanged. The previously published method and current harmonised MSS collection are not compatible mainly due to the significant increase in air-flow rate over the cigarettes that is now necessary. This study describes the use of a modified chimney that incorporates an airtight insert causing a reduction in aperture size leading to a local increase in airflow over the cigarette. The method optimises SSS collection whilst maintaining full compliance with the current International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) Standards for MSS collection.

Otwarty dostęp

Studies on the control of broomrape (Orobancheramosa L.) in Virginia tobacco (Nicotianatabacum L.)

Data publikacji: 30 Dec 2014
Zakres stron: 77 - 81

Abstrakt

Abstract

During 1997 and 1998, in the province of Perugia (Umbria, central Italy), four field experimental trials were carried out to study the control of broomrape (OrobancheramosaL.) in Virginia tobacco. In 1997, maleic hydrazide (2040 mL ha-1), flumetralin (1200 mL ha-1), n-decanol (10720 mL ha-1), glyphosate (180-324 mL ha-1) and rimsulfuron (12.5-25 g ha-1) were tested on the variety K 394. In the second year, maleic hydrazide (2040 mL ha-1), n-decanol (10720 mL ha-1) and butralin (2160 mL ha-1) were utilised in the same variety. Furthermore, a field experiment was performed to assess the susceptibility of different untopped Virginia tobacco varieties to broomrape. The presence of the weed was recorded as the number of the aboveground broomrape plants per m2 and after harvest dry weight was determined. Maleic hydrazide proved to be highly effective against the parasitic weed when used at the early flowering stage of the crop, reducing by 95% and 73%, on average, the number of broomrape plants with respect to the untreated control, respectively in 1997 and 1998. Rimsulfuron, used 55 days after transplanting, had a satisfactory activity against broomrape (reduction of 50-70%). A double treatment with glyphosate caused a reduction of 100% of broomrape but it significantly depressed tobacco yield. Flumetralin, n-decanol and butralin did not show any control of broomrape. The variety BC 60 FB was found to be highly resistant to the weed with an average of 85% reduction in broomrape plants compared to the other varieties in the experiment.

Otwarty dostęp

Some Studies of the Effects of Additives on Cigarette Mainstream Smoke Properties. I. Flavorants

Data publikacji: 30 Dec 2014
Zakres stron: 83 - 103

Abstrakt

Abstract

Examination of extensive laboratory data collected during the past four decades, particularly considerable unpublished data generated between the mid-1950s and the late 1970s, indicates that none of the materials used as flavorants on smoking tobacco products, particularly cigarettes marketed by a US manufacturer, imparts any significant adverse chemical or biological properties to the mainstream smoke (MSS) from flavorant-treated tobacco, a conclusion reached by Doull et al. (1) in their assessment of available information on nearly 600 ingredients variously used as cigarette tobacco additives in the US Tobacco Industry. In a more recent detailed assessment of the chemical and biological properties reported in the published literature for the MSS from cigarettes fabricated with tobacco with or without one or more additives, Paschke et al. (2) reached a similar conclusion; namely, that in general, no significant increase in the biological activity (carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and cytotoxicity) of tobacco was reported from cigarettes containing added ingredients. Many flavorful tobacco additives listed by Doull et al. are structurally identical with or similar to highly polar, volatile components identified in the aqueous alcohol-soluble portion of cigarette MSS and tobacco. In the late 1950s, nearly two decades before the precise nature of the aqueous alcohol-soluble components of tobacco was defined, it was determined that their addition to cigarette tobacco produced no significant increase in the cigarette MSS of either the total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) content or the benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P) content, MSS components of considerable interest at that time.

0 Artykułów
Otwarty dostęp

Biochemical Changes in β-Cryptogein-Elicited Tobacco: A possible Basis of Acquired Resistance

Data publikacji: 30 Dec 2014
Zakres stron: 53 - 59

Abstrakt

Abstract

β-Cryptogein, a proteinaceous elicitor from the phytopathogenic fungus Phytophthoracryptogea, is known to induce leaf necrosis in tobacco and non-specific resistance (expressed in the perinecrotic leaf area) against a wide range of tobacco pathogens. To reveal mechanisms underlying the acquired resistance, biochemical changes in leaves of β-cryptogein-elicited tobacco were followed three, five and ten days after elicitation. The activities of peroxidase, β-1,3-glucanase and β-glucosidase, as well as the patterns of acidic pathogenesis-related (PR)-proteins were determined. The protected part (perinecrotic area) and the non-protected part (distant extra-perinecrotic area) of leaves of β-cryptogein-stem treated tobacco (cv. Xanthin.c.) were analyzed. Leaves of water-stem treated tobacco served as controls. It was shown that in the protected leaf part β-cryptogein caused significant metabolic shifts early after elicitation, persisting during the whole period studied. An important increase of peroxidase and β-1,3-glucanase activity was recorded. PR-protein components appeared that were absent in the controls. There were negligible changes in β-glucosidase activity. In the non-protected leaf part late and non-significant changes occurred. Taking into account the antimicrobial, regulatory and structure-modifying properties of the biochemical components studied, it may be admitted that β-cryptogein elicited the development of a hostile environment, i.e. a potential for plant resistance against subsequent pathogen invasion.

Otwarty dostęp

Handling and Curing Characteristics of Cut-Strip Tobacco. Part 2: Effect of Yellowing Time and Drying Potential

Data publikacji: 30 Dec 2014
Zakres stron: 61 - 67

Abstrakt

Abstract

This paper presents Part 2 of a study on comparative handling and curing characteristics of cut-strip vs. whole leaf tobacco. Part 1 considered the effect of leaf size (cut-strip size vs. whole leaf), packing density and mode of leaf orientation on cured leaf chemistry and leaf quality; whereas, the present study considers further the effect of leaf form, two yellowing times and two drying potentials during yellowing. Results showed that leaf chemistry and quality were quite similar for cut-strip (15.2 × 22.9 cm) and whole leaf. Insignificant differences were noted for cured leaf starch and sugars, although slightly lower levels of alkaloids (significant at the 0.01 level) were observed for cut strip. Curing treatments significantly affected leaf chemistry. Increased yellowing time resulted in lower levels of starch and higher levels of sugar. Sugars were also higher for tobacco yellowed under the higher drying potential. The two forms of leaf responded similarly to different curing schedules (i.e. no interaction of leaf form with schedule). Also, government grade and price data were essentially unaffected by leaf form or curing schedule over the range of variables tested. Cured leaf starch was abnormally high on the average for both leaf forms. Interestingly, starch levels were lower when intact tobacco was bulk-cured in racks rather than box cured (6.35% vs. 9.02%). Since curing schedules were similar, air velocity in the two curing methods might be a factor. Also the cured leaf starch content was about 56% lower for tobacco produced at the Oxford Tobacco Research Station (in a secondary study) than at the Central Crops Research Station. It is postulated that carbohydrate and nitrogen metabolism during growth and maturation might be affected by excess rainfall events and/or nitrogen availability, with subsequent effects on starch-to-sugar conversion during curing.

Otwarty dostęp

Sidestream Smoke Collection Using a Harmonised Linear Smoking Machine

Data publikacji: 30 Dec 2014
Zakres stron: 69 - 76

Abstrakt

Abstract

The collection of sidestream smoke (SSS) using the “BAT fishtail chimney” method became the accepted standard, but following the harmonisation of linear and rotary smoking machines it is no longer possible to observe all parameters of the method as published. A prerequisite of any SSS collection method is that mainstream smoke (MSS) yields should not be affected. Additionally all the standard features and parameters of normal MSS collection should as far as possible remain unchanged. The previously published method and current harmonised MSS collection are not compatible mainly due to the significant increase in air-flow rate over the cigarettes that is now necessary. This study describes the use of a modified chimney that incorporates an airtight insert causing a reduction in aperture size leading to a local increase in airflow over the cigarette. The method optimises SSS collection whilst maintaining full compliance with the current International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) Standards for MSS collection.

Otwarty dostęp

Studies on the control of broomrape (Orobancheramosa L.) in Virginia tobacco (Nicotianatabacum L.)

Data publikacji: 30 Dec 2014
Zakres stron: 77 - 81

Abstrakt

Abstract

During 1997 and 1998, in the province of Perugia (Umbria, central Italy), four field experimental trials were carried out to study the control of broomrape (OrobancheramosaL.) in Virginia tobacco. In 1997, maleic hydrazide (2040 mL ha-1), flumetralin (1200 mL ha-1), n-decanol (10720 mL ha-1), glyphosate (180-324 mL ha-1) and rimsulfuron (12.5-25 g ha-1) were tested on the variety K 394. In the second year, maleic hydrazide (2040 mL ha-1), n-decanol (10720 mL ha-1) and butralin (2160 mL ha-1) were utilised in the same variety. Furthermore, a field experiment was performed to assess the susceptibility of different untopped Virginia tobacco varieties to broomrape. The presence of the weed was recorded as the number of the aboveground broomrape plants per m2 and after harvest dry weight was determined. Maleic hydrazide proved to be highly effective against the parasitic weed when used at the early flowering stage of the crop, reducing by 95% and 73%, on average, the number of broomrape plants with respect to the untreated control, respectively in 1997 and 1998. Rimsulfuron, used 55 days after transplanting, had a satisfactory activity against broomrape (reduction of 50-70%). A double treatment with glyphosate caused a reduction of 100% of broomrape but it significantly depressed tobacco yield. Flumetralin, n-decanol and butralin did not show any control of broomrape. The variety BC 60 FB was found to be highly resistant to the weed with an average of 85% reduction in broomrape plants compared to the other varieties in the experiment.

Otwarty dostęp

Some Studies of the Effects of Additives on Cigarette Mainstream Smoke Properties. I. Flavorants

Data publikacji: 30 Dec 2014
Zakres stron: 83 - 103

Abstrakt

Abstract

Examination of extensive laboratory data collected during the past four decades, particularly considerable unpublished data generated between the mid-1950s and the late 1970s, indicates that none of the materials used as flavorants on smoking tobacco products, particularly cigarettes marketed by a US manufacturer, imparts any significant adverse chemical or biological properties to the mainstream smoke (MSS) from flavorant-treated tobacco, a conclusion reached by Doull et al. (1) in their assessment of available information on nearly 600 ingredients variously used as cigarette tobacco additives in the US Tobacco Industry. In a more recent detailed assessment of the chemical and biological properties reported in the published literature for the MSS from cigarettes fabricated with tobacco with or without one or more additives, Paschke et al. (2) reached a similar conclusion; namely, that in general, no significant increase in the biological activity (carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and cytotoxicity) of tobacco was reported from cigarettes containing added ingredients. Many flavorful tobacco additives listed by Doull et al. are structurally identical with or similar to highly polar, volatile components identified in the aqueous alcohol-soluble portion of cigarette MSS and tobacco. In the late 1950s, nearly two decades before the precise nature of the aqueous alcohol-soluble components of tobacco was defined, it was determined that their addition to cigarette tobacco produced no significant increase in the cigarette MSS of either the total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) content or the benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P) content, MSS components of considerable interest at that time.