MUS, as sold in Tampa, Florida, contained an estimated 104 mg of coconut‐shell activated carbon in its 34 mm, 304 mg carbon‐on‐CA filter. Toxicity of emissions relative to those of 16 BC regular brands weighted by each disease group's attributable mortalityįraction of mortality attributable to disease group* Tar, which can vary in carcinogenicity, was not used to estimate RTE. 7 Not testing heavy metals (cadmium, arsenic, lead) and nitrosamines (NNN, (N‐nitrosonornicotine) and NNK (4‐(N‐nitrosomethylamino)‐1‐(3‐pyridyl)‐1‐butanone)) across BC brands 12 diminished overall RTE by a only a few percentage points, and as their testing was particularly expensive, they were omitted, leaving 11 toxicants to be tested, as listed in table 1 1.
MARLBORO FILTER PLUS ONE ISO
4, 6, 7 The selected 16 toxicants had previously accounted for 81% of the known carcinogenic relative toxic emissions (RTE), and over 99% of cardiovascular and of respiratory RTE in a low‐yield Holiday brand in ISO test mode. Toxicants known to be present in cigarette smoke and which had known cancer potency factors and reference exposure levels, were included, and observed emissions used to estimate cancer (CRI) and non‐cancer (NCRI) risk indices for each toxicant, and each test mode, as described.
4, 6 Californian Environmental Protection Agency databases, 4, 6 accessed in January 2006, listed carcinogens and toxicants recognised by the state of California. Toxicants were selected by toxicological risk assessment-method and limitations previously described. If the smoke machine found no reduction in emissions, however, the smoker's exposure to, and future harm from, those emissions would not be reduced. This study investigates whether MUS qualifies as a potential reduced exposure product (PREP), the first step to qualifying as a safer cigarette.
MARLBORO FILTER PLUS ONE TRIAL
We did not, however, test any human volunteers, or perform any switching study or clinical trial of MUS versus other brands. Emissions were incorporated into a single overall toxicity emissions score per brand for each test condition. The toxicants studied were those contributing most toxicity on risk assessment. Using two test conditions (ISO and Health Canada Intensive (HCI)) we compared MUS, Marlboro regular, Holiday regular, against a fourth, from 16 BC reference brands averaged. The research design relied on differences in smoke emissions according to brand and smoke machine test mode, to allow us to infer whether smokers, in switching from popular regular brands to MUS, would reduce overall exposure to smoke toxicants. If MUS was eventually sold in New Zealand and internationally, we wanted to know in advance how its emissions would compare with those of established popular brands (New Zealand Holiday and Marlboro, respectively). It was in other respects a conventional filter cigarette, carrying the Marlboro brand name and unlike previous attempts at safer cigarettes, might just become popular in its three test markets in the United States. Still seeking a cigarette with reduced emissions, we selected Marlboro UltraSmooth (MUS), with a combined CA and carbon filter. The token amount of carbon in the CA filter failed to reduce emissions compared with a CA filter brand of similar tar yield. 9 In 2002 we tested two variants of charcoal filter Mild Seven cigarettes, the world's top selling charcoal filter brand. If, however, VOCs are the dominant toxicants in smoke, then activated charcoal filters which adsorb gases on to their large surface area provide the best chance of lowering smoke toxicity.Ĭigarette company chemists had shown since 1965 that charcoal filters could reduce overall toxicity of cigarette smoke by up to 40% under ISO (International Organization for Standardization) conditions. The ability of smoke particulates, painted on mice, to induce cancer, led to the use of cellulose acetate (CA) filters, which could capture smoke particles by adhesion and let gases and volatiles pass through. When toxicities were combined on the basis of their share of cigarette deaths, VOCs provided up to four‐fifths of the potential emission toxicity. Using this method, and using published potencies and threshold values, we found VOCs contributed more toxicity than tar for carcinogens, respiratory and cardiovascular toxicants. Toxicological risk assessment approaches 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 emphasised volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and included non‐carcinogenic toxicants in assessing the overall total toxicity of smoke.
MARLBORO FILTER PLUS ONE FREE
Pryor 1 focused on free radicals as cancer initiators, but these are not routinely measured Hecht emphasised the importance of particulate matter, particularly for lung cancer. Consensus is lacking on which smoke chemicals cause most harm.
0 kommentar(er)
