Cigarette Filter Ventilation and Biomarkers—Letter

IntroductionLittle is known on whether cigarette filter-related knowledge or beliefs are associated with support for policies to reduce their environmental impact.MethodsA cross-sectional, population-based sample of US adults aged 18–64 years (n=2979) was used to evaluate filter-related knowledge and beliefs by smoking status using data collected between 24 October 2018 and 17 December 2018. Multivariate logistic regression models explored whether these knowledge and belief items were associated with support for two policies, a US$0.75 litter fee and a ban on sales of filtered cigarettes, controlling for demographic characteristics and smoking status.ResultsRegardless of smoking status, 71% did not know plastic was a cigarette filter component and 20% believed filters were biodegradable. Overall, 23% believed filters reduce health harms and 60% believed filters make it easier to smoke; 90% believed cigarette butts are harmful to the environment. Individuals believing cigarette butts harmed the environment were more likely to support a litter fee (adjusted OR (aOR)=2.33, 95% CI: 1.71 to 3.17). Individuals believing that filters are not biodegradable had higher odds of supporting a litter fee (OR=1.47, 95% CI: 1.15 to 1.88). Respondents believing that filters do not make cigarettes less harmful were more likely to support a litter fee (aOR=1.50, 95% CI: 1.20 to 1.88) and filter ban (aOR=2.03, 95% CI: 1.64 to 2.50). Belief that filters make it easier to smoke was associated with decreased support for a filter ban (aOR=0.69, 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.83).ConclusionsComprehensive efforts are needed to educate the public about the impact of cigarette filters in order to build support for effective tobacco product waste policy.

Download Full-text

Measuring Pressure Drop Under Non Ideal Conditions

Beiträge zur Tabakforschung International/Contributions to Tobacco Research ◽

10.2478/cttr-2013-0816 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 22 (1) ◽

pp. 6-12

Author(s):

M Austin

Keyword(s):

Pressure Drop ◽

Environmental Effects ◽

Task Force ◽

Measurement Procedure ◽

Measuring Instrument ◽

Atmospheric Conditions ◽

Measurement Instruments ◽

Cigarette Filter ◽

Calibration Methods ◽

Method Of Measurement

AbstractThe method of measurement of the pressure drop (PD) of cigarette filter rods and the draw resistance of cigarettes is defined in ISO 6565-2002 (1). This standard defines the calibration and use of a transfer standard to calibrate the measuring instrument and also defines the measurement procedure for cigarette and filter samples. The procedure described in the standard assumes that the measurement conditions are constant and that the sample is in equilibrium with the measurement environment.In 2001, the Cooperation Center for Scientific Research Relative to Tobacco (CORESTA) formed a Task Force to investigate the problems associated with the calibration of PD transfer standards that are caused, primarily, by environmental effects. The work of this task force has lead to the harmonisation of the calibration methods between supplier laboratories and to a method for compensation for the effects of atmospheric conditions. These together have considerably reduced the inter-laboratory differences and will eventually lead to a revision of the CORESTA Recommended Method and ISO 6565 Standard.During the work of this Task Force, it has become evident that further work will be necessary to deal with similar errors encountered during the calibration of PD measurement instruments and during the PD measurement of cigarette and filter rod samples. These errors occur in real measurement situations due to the problems in meeting the ISO 6565 conditions and other necessary requirements. This can give rise to errors in the indicated PD and can considerably degrade the confidence that can be placed in the results.This paper examines many of the practical problems in the measurement of PD and attempts to estimate the type and magnitude of the errors that might be experienced.

Download Full-text

Catalytic Cigarette Filter for Carbon Monoxide Reduction

Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association ◽

10.1080/00022470.1978.10470600 ◽

1978 ◽

Vol 28 (3) ◽

pp. 253-255

Author(s):

Donald R. Rowe ◽

William G. Lloyd

Keyword(s):

Carbon Monoxide ◽

Cigarette Filter ◽

Carbon Monoxide Reduction

Download Full-text

DETERMINATION OF POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN CIGARETTE FILTER TAR BY MEANS OF HOLLOW-FIBER LIQUID PHASE MICROEXTRACTION-HPLC-UV SYSTEM

Journal of Liquid Chromatography &amp Related Technologies ◽

10.1080/10826076.2012.673203 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 36 (5) ◽

pp. 628-647 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Ayla Demirci ◽

Erol Alver

Keyword(s):

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons ◽

Liquid Phase ◽

Aromatic Hydrocarbons ◽

Hollow Fiber ◽

Liquid Phase Microextraction ◽

Cigarette Filter ◽

Polycyclic Aromatic

Download Full-text

Scrapped cigarette filter and coconut coir filled polymer composite

Materials Today Proceedings ◽

10.1016/j.matpr.2020.07.439 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 33 ◽

pp. 4311-4317

Author(s):

R. Balaji ◽

Ashish Selokar ◽

Nilesh Ugemuge ◽

Viraj Modi ◽

Chirag Goyal

Keyword(s):

Polymer Composite ◽

Cigarette Filter ◽

Filled Polymer ◽

Coconut Coir

Download Full-text

Particulate Matter Emissions of Four Different Cigarette Types of One Popular Brand: Influence of Tobacco Strength and Additives

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ◽

10.3390/ijerph16020263 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 16 (2) ◽

pp. 263 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Markus Braun ◽

Friedemann Koger ◽

Doris Klingelhöfer ◽

Ruth Müller ◽

David Groneberg

Keyword(s):

Carbon Monoxide ◽

Particulate Matter ◽

Statistical Analysis ◽

Environmental Tobacco Smoke ◽

Tobacco Smoke ◽

Second Hand Smoke ◽

Cigarette Filter ◽

Particulate Matter Emissions ◽

Enclosed Space

The inhalation of particulate matter (PM) in second-hand smoke (SHS) is hazardous to health of smokers and non-smokers. Tobacco strength (amount of tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide) and different additives might have an effect on the amount of PM. This study aimed to investigate the influence of tobacco strength or additives on PM. Four cigarette types of the brand Marlboro with different strengths and with or without additives were analyzed in comparison to the 3R4F reference cigarette. SHS was generated by an automatic environmental tobacco smoke emitter (AETSE) in an enclosed space with a volume of 2.88 m³. PM concentrations (PM10, PM2.5, PM1) were measured with a laser aerosol spectrometer followed by statistical analysis. The two strongest Marlboro brands (Red and Red without additives) showed the highest PM concentrations of all tested cigarettes. The measured mean concentrations Cmean of PM10 increased up to 1458 µg/m³ for the Marlboro Red without additives (PM2.5: 1452 µg/m³, PM1: 1263 µg/m³). The similarly strong Marlboro Red showed very similar PM values. The second strongest type Marlboro Gold showed 36% (PM10, PM2.5) and 32% (PM1) lower values, respectively. The “lightest” type Marlboro Silver Blue showed 54% (PM10, PM2.5) or 50% (PM1) lower PM values. The results indicate that the lower the tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide amounts, as well as the longer the cigarette filter, the lower are the PM levels. An influence of additives could not be determined.

Download Full-text