Cargando…
Particulate Matter Emissions of Four Different Cigarette Types of One Popular Brand: Influence of Tobacco Strength and Additives
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 t...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6352107/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30658514 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16020263 |
_version_ | 1783390751863865344 |
---|---|
author | Braun, Markus Koger, Friedemann Klingelhöfer, Doris Müller, Ruth Groneberg, David A. |
author_facet | Braun, Markus Koger, Friedemann Klingelhöfer, Doris Müller, Ruth Groneberg, David A. |
author_sort | Braun, Markus |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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 (PM(10), PM(2.5), PM(1)) 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 PM(10) increased up to 1458 µg/m³ for the Marlboro Red without additives (PM(2.5): 1452 µg/m³, PM(1): 1263 µg/m³). The similarly strong Marlboro Red showed very similar PM values. The second strongest type Marlboro Gold showed 36% (PM(10), PM(2.5)) and 32% (PM(1)) lower values, respectively. The “lightest” type Marlboro Silver Blue showed 54% (PM(10), PM(2.5)) or 50% (PM(1)) 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6352107 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-63521072019-02-01 Particulate Matter Emissions of Four Different Cigarette Types of One Popular Brand: Influence of Tobacco Strength and Additives Braun, Markus Koger, Friedemann Klingelhöfer, Doris Müller, Ruth Groneberg, David A. Int J Environ Res Public Health Article 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 (PM(10), PM(2.5), PM(1)) 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 PM(10) increased up to 1458 µg/m³ for the Marlboro Red without additives (PM(2.5): 1452 µg/m³, PM(1): 1263 µg/m³). The similarly strong Marlboro Red showed very similar PM values. The second strongest type Marlboro Gold showed 36% (PM(10), PM(2.5)) and 32% (PM(1)) lower values, respectively. The “lightest” type Marlboro Silver Blue showed 54% (PM(10), PM(2.5)) or 50% (PM(1)) 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. MDPI 2019-01-17 2019-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6352107/ /pubmed/30658514 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16020263 Text en © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Braun, Markus Koger, Friedemann Klingelhöfer, Doris Müller, Ruth Groneberg, David A. Particulate Matter Emissions of Four Different Cigarette Types of One Popular Brand: Influence of Tobacco Strength and Additives |
title | Particulate Matter Emissions of Four Different Cigarette Types of One Popular Brand: Influence of Tobacco Strength and Additives |
title_full | Particulate Matter Emissions of Four Different Cigarette Types of One Popular Brand: Influence of Tobacco Strength and Additives |
title_fullStr | Particulate Matter Emissions of Four Different Cigarette Types of One Popular Brand: Influence of Tobacco Strength and Additives |
title_full_unstemmed | Particulate Matter Emissions of Four Different Cigarette Types of One Popular Brand: Influence of Tobacco Strength and Additives |
title_short | Particulate Matter Emissions of Four Different Cigarette Types of One Popular Brand: Influence of Tobacco Strength and Additives |
title_sort | particulate matter emissions of four different cigarette types of one popular brand: influence of tobacco strength and additives |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6352107/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30658514 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16020263 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT braunmarkus particulatematteremissionsoffourdifferentcigarettetypesofonepopularbrandinfluenceoftobaccostrengthandadditives AT kogerfriedemann particulatematteremissionsoffourdifferentcigarettetypesofonepopularbrandinfluenceoftobaccostrengthandadditives AT klingelhoferdoris particulatematteremissionsoffourdifferentcigarettetypesofonepopularbrandinfluenceoftobaccostrengthandadditives AT mullerruth particulatematteremissionsoffourdifferentcigarettetypesofonepopularbrandinfluenceoftobaccostrengthandadditives AT gronebergdavida particulatematteremissionsoffourdifferentcigarettetypesofonepopularbrandinfluenceoftobaccostrengthandadditives |