Abstract
Standardized topography protocols for testing cigarette emissions include the Federal Trade Commission/International Standard Organization (FTC/ISO), the Massachusetts Department of Health (MDPH), and Health Canada (HC). Data are lacking for how well these protocols represent actual use behavior. This study aims to compare puff protocol standards to actual use topography measured in natural environments across a range of cigarette brands. Current smokers between 18 and 65 years of age were recruited. Each participant was provided with a wPUM™ cigarette topography monitor and instructed to use the monitor with their usual brand cigarette ad libitum in their natural environment for one week. Monitors were tested for repeatability, and data were checked for quality and analyzed with the TAP™ topography analysis program. Data from n = 26 participants were analyzed. Puff flow rates ranged from 17.2 to 110.6 mL/s, with a mean (STD) of 40.4 (21.7) mL/s; durations from 0.7 to 3.1 s, with a mean (STD) of 1.5 ± 0.5 s; and volumes from 21.4 to 159.2 mL, with a mean (STD) of 54.9 (29.8) mL. Current topography standards were found to be insufficient to represent smoking across the wide range of real behaviors. These data suggest updated standards are needed such that emissions tests will provide meaningful risk assessments.
Highlights
Tobacco product emissions testing is carried out on mechanical puffing machines using specified topography parameters such as puff volume, puff duration, puff flow rate, and interpuff gap.Standardized topography parameters are needed to compare emission results across different products. there are protocols commonly used in scientific labs and industry, there are no well-accepted topography standards for combustible cigarettes, nor have any of the commonly used protocols been shown to represent realistic puffing
There are protocols commonly used in scientific labs and industry, there are no well-accepted topography standards for combustible cigarettes, nor have any of the commonly used protocols been shown to represent realistic puffing
Since we could not distinguish which sessions were marijuana and which were cigarettes, the topography from those two days was not included in that participant’s statistics; both sets of data are included in the Supplementary Materials
Summary
Tobacco product emissions testing is carried out on mechanical puffing machines using specified topography parameters such as puff volume, puff duration, puff flow rate, and interpuff gap.Standardized topography parameters are needed to compare emission results across different products. there are protocols commonly used in scientific labs and industry, there are no well-accepted topography standards for combustible cigarettes, nor have any of the commonly used protocols been shown to represent realistic puffing. Tobacco product emissions testing is carried out on mechanical puffing machines using specified topography parameters such as puff volume, puff duration, puff flow rate, and interpuff gap. Standardized topography parameters are needed to compare emission results across different products. There are protocols commonly used in scientific labs and industry, there are no well-accepted topography standards for combustible cigarettes, nor have any of the commonly used protocols been shown to represent realistic puffing. Since exposure to harmful and potentially harmful constituents depends heavily on the product and on smokers’ use behavior, a better understanding of how commonly used protocols reflect actual use behavior is needed. The FTC/ISO protocol was deemed obsolete in 2008 because it failed to represent the way smokers smoked their cigarettes [4]. Prior to 2008, many products were labeled as low yield because
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
