Post-puff respiration measures on smokers of different tar yield cigarettes

Figures & data

Table 1.  Studies of post-puff inhalation patterns with smokers of differing yield products.

Reference	Method	N	Study type	Results
Guillerm & Radziszeski, 1978	Impedance pneumography	8	Switch - 31 mg to 16 mg tar cigarettes	NSD IV
Rawbone et al., 1978	Mercury strain gauge	15	Own brand with middle tar and low tar smokers	NSD IV
Tobin & Sackner, 1982	RIP	10	Switch - high tar unfiltered (26 mg) to low tar filtered (4 mg)	NSD IV, IT
McBride et al., 1984	RIP + nasal pitot tube	9	3 way Switch – Own brand, low (0.55mg) & high (0.90 mg) nicotine at 8 mg tar	NSD IV, EV
Zacny et al., 1986	RIP	7	Switch med-high tar smokers to 1 mg tar; vents blocked 0, 50, & 100%, with & without orifice holder.	NSD IV. SD LET vents open < blocked. NSD IV, LET with holder.
Zacny & Stitzer, 1988	RIP	10	Switch – own brand + 4 differing nicotine brands	NSD IV, EV, LET
Woodson & Griffiths, 1992	RIP	17	Switch – own brand + own brand with differing filtration	SD IV ↓ with ↑ filtration
Robinson et al., 1992	RIP	5	Switch – same tar but change nicotine (0.6 versus 0.06 mg)	NSD IV, EV, IT ET lo nic > hi nic
Nil et al., 1986	Transthoracic impedance	117	Own brand and switch to 50% yield brand	Switch – NSD IV, EV, IV, EV Own – SD IV & EV ↑ as yield ↑
Hee et al., 1995	Inhalation index	108	Own brand	SD Inhalation index ↑ as yield ↓

RIP, Respiratory Inductive Plethysmography; NSD, no significant difference (p > 0.05); SD, significant difference (p ≤0.05); IV, inhalation volume; EV, exhalation volume; IT, inhalation time; ET, exhalation time; LET, lung exposure time.

Table 2.  Subject demographics and cigarette brand characteristics by tar band.

	ULL	ULH	LTS	FF	Total
Subjects
Number	15	20	20	19	74
Gender (M/F)	8/7	12/8	10/10	14/5	44/30
Height cm	173 (159–204)	174 (157–194)	174 (161–187)	177 (165–190)	175 (157–204)
Weight kg	77 (57–104)	75 (42–98)	78 (56–98)	77 (60–100)	77 (42–104)
Age	35 (21–54)	32 (21–47)	34 (21–64)	32 (21–53)	33 (21–64)
Menthol smokers	3	3	5	7	18
Brands
Menthol/non-menthol	2/5	3/6	4/8	4/6	13/25
Tar (mg/cig)	1.4 (0.7)	5.4 (0.5)	10.1 (0.9)	15.0 (1.7)	8.3 (5.1)
Nicotine (mg/cig)	0.15 (0.05)	0.46 (0.04)	0.77 (0.06)	1.07 (0.14)	0.64 (0.34)
CO (mg/cig)	1.9 (0.9)	6.8 (0.6)	11.6 (1.4)	13.9 (2.0)	8.9 (4.6)
Puffs/cig	7.6 (0.7)	8.0 (1.1)	7.9 (1.0)	8.2 (0.9)	7.9 (1.0)

Height, weight, and age are shown as the mean (range). Cigarette yields are shown as the mean (standard deviation) for the FTC smoking method.

Figure 1.  Respitrace pattern: tidal volume versus time (upper) with event marker (lower).

Table 3.  Mean (SD) post-puff respiratory measures by tar band and for all subjects combined.

	ANOVA p-value	ULL	ULH	LTS	FF	All
Volume (mL)
Inhalation	0.09	778 (240)^a,b	731 (290)^a	936 (280)^b	876 (270)^b	833 (279)
Exhalation	0.20	841 (259)^cd	799 (200)^c	976 (419)^cd	960 (285)^d	897 (308)
Resting tidal volume	0.15	443 (121)	482 (132)	555 (192)	509 (115)	500 (148)
Tidal ratio		^a	^a	^a	^a
Inhalation	0.51	1.84 (0.67)	1.56 (0.52)	1.78 (0.65)	1.75 (0.50)	1.73 (0.58)
Exhalation	0.65	1.97 (0.59)	1.75 (0.49)	1.82 (0.68)	1.94 (0.54)	1.86 (0.58)
Time (sec)		^a	^a	^a	^a
Inhalation	0.80	2.04 (1.92)	1.77 (0.81)	1.66 (0.77)	1.87 (1.07)	1.82 (1.16)
Exhalation	0.35	2.27 (0.98)	2.00 (0.52)	2.47 (1.04)	2.40 (0.85)	2.28 (0.87)
Total lung exposure	0.73	4.31 (2.22)	3.77 (0.95)	4.11 (1.44)	4.27 (1.76)	4.10 (1.59)
Other data
Puffs taken	0.09	12.0 (3.0)	13.0 (3.1)	11.9 (2.7)	10.6 (3.0)	11.9 (3.0)

ANOVA p-values are for effect of tar band. Measures with the same letter are not significantly different at the 95% confidence interval using Duncan’s multiple range test.

Figure 2. Mean inhalation volume per subject versus the FTC tar yield of their brand.

Figure 3. Mean inhalation tidal ratio per subject versus the FTC yield of their brand.

Figure 4. Mean lung exposure time per subject versus the FTC tar yield of their brand.

Guillerm R, Radziszeski E (1978). Analysis of smoking pattern including intake of carbon monoxide and influences of changes in cigarette design. In Smoking behaviour: Physiological and psychological influences, ed. RE Thornton, pp. 361–370. Edinburgh, Churchill Livingstone.

 Google Scholar

Rawbone RG, Murphy K, Tate ME, Kane SJ (1978). The analysis of smoking parameters: Inhalation and absorption of tobacco smoke in studies of human smoking behaviour. In, Smoking behaviour: Physiological and psychological influences, ed. RE Thornton, pp. 171–194. Edinburgh, Churchill Livingstone.

 Google Scholar

Tobin MJ, Sackner MA (1982). Monitoring smoking patterns of low and high tar cigarettes with inductive plethysmography. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 126(2), 258–262.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

McBride MJ, Guyatt AR, Kirkham AJ, Cumming G (1984). Assessment of smoking behaviour and ventilation with cigarettes of differing nicotine yields. Clin. Sci. (London) 67(6), 619–631.

 Google Scholar

Zacny JP, Stitzer ML, Yingling JE (1986). Cigarette filter vent blocking: Effects on smoking topography and carbon monoxide exposure. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 25(6), 1245–1252.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Zacny JP, Stitzer ML (1988). Cigarette brand-switching: Effects on smoke exposure and smoking behavior. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 246(2), 619–627.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Woodson PP, Griffiths RR (1992). Control of cigarette smoking topography: Smoke filtration and draw resistance. Behav. Pharmacol. 3(2), 99–111.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Robinson JH, Pritchard WS, Davis RA (1992). Psychopharmacological effects of smoking a cigarette with typical “tar” and carbon monoxide yields but minimal nicotine. Psychopharmacol. (Berlin) 108(4), 466–472.

 Google Scholar

Nil R, Buzzi R, Battig K (1986). Effects of different cigarette smoke yields on puffing and inhalation: Is the measurement of inhalation volumes relevant for smoke absorption? Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 24(3), 587–595.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Hee J, Callais F, Momas I, Laurent AM, Min S, Molinier P, Chastagnier M, Claude JR, Festy B (1995). Smokers’ behaviour and exposure according to cigarette yield and smoking experience. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 52(1), 195–203.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar