Next Article in Journal
A New Model Describing Copper Dose–Toxicity to Tomato and Bok Choy Growth in a Wide Range of Soils
Next Article in Special Issue
Estimating Ground-Level Concentrations of Multiple Air Pollutants and Their Health Impacts in the Huaihe River Basin in China
Previous Article in Journal
A Cross-Sectional Description of Parental Perceptions and Practices Related to Risky Play and Independent Mobility in Children: The New Zealand State of Play Survey
Previous Article in Special Issue
Influence of Particulate Matter during Seasonal Smog on Quality of Life and Lung Function in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 16
Issue 2
10.3390/ijerph16020263
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

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

by
Markus Braun
1,*,
Friedemann Koger
1,
Doris Klingelhöfer
1,
Ruth Müller
1,2 and
David A. Groneberg
1
1
Institute of Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Goethe University Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, D-60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
2
Medical Entomology, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Nationalestraat 155, B-2000 Antwerpen, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16(2), 263; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16020263
Submission received: 29 November 2018 / Revised: 10 January 2019 / Accepted: 15 January 2019 / Published: 17 January 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Air Pollution and Cardiopulmonary Health)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
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.

1. Introduction

Since the beginning of the 20th century tobacco consumption increased steadily worldwide. Approximately 1.1 billion people aged 15 or older are current smokers worldwide. Meanwhile, smoking is one of the most important avoidable causes of premature death in the world. By now, more than 7 million people are killed each year owing to tobacco use, whereby 890,000 of them are non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke (SHS) [1], also called environmental tobacco smoke.
SHS as a composite of exhaled smoke from the smoker and mostly side-stream smoke from the smoldering tobacco product [2,3] is the major risk factor for indoor air pollution [4] and one of the main causes of avoidable lung cancer [5]. SHS is also a major origin of airborne particulate matter (PM) [6]. The adverse health effects of PM, especially cardiovascular and respiratory diseases [7,8,9] increase in relation to PM exposure [10]. This applies also for human skin diseases [11], breast cancer mortality [12], and risk of ischemic stroke [13]. In addition, PM is more harmful to health of children and infants because of their smaller body weight. The dimension of the upper respiratory tract of infants is smaller than that of adults. Especially ultrafine particles (UFPs, particles < 100 nm) could be concentrated in the head region and translocate to the brain via the olfactory bulb [14].
PM as a mixture of differently sized liquid and solid particles varies in source and composition [15]. One possibility to classify PM is by the particle size and defines the deepness of the penetration in to the respiratory tract. The smaller the particles the deeper they penetrate and the more severely are the health effects [16,17]. Furthermore, smaller particles have a higher ability to adsorb toxic organic molecules and UFPs can penetrate through the blood and nervous system into the brain and diverse organs. It exists an inverse relationship between particle size and health hazard [18,19]. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) distinguishes between coarse inhalable particles ≤ 10 µm (PM10) and fine inhalable particles ≤ 2.5 µm (PM2.5). Moreover, the fraction of particles ≤ 1 µm is defined PM1 [20].
In previous studies different PM levels within different brands and types of cigarettes were detected [21,22,23]. The strength of tobacco products, the content of tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide and different additives like aromatics and humectant agents might influence the amount of PM [24]. Based on these findings a comparison of different types of cigarettes with various strengths and ingredients of one special brand seems to be reasonable and necessary. The focus on one single brand minimize interferences by, e.g., different production processes of different manufacturers.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Tobacco Products

The particle size fractions of PM10, PM2.5, and PM1 of four cigarette types of the brand Marlboro [25] were analyzed in comparison to the reference cigarette 3R4F developed by the Kentucky Research and Development Center (University of Kentucky, USA) [26]. The four cigarette types of Marlboro were as followed: Marlboro Silver Blue, Marlboro Gold, Marlboro Red, and Marlboro Red without additives. They differ among others in filter length and strength (content of tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide) shown in Table 1. For more detailed information about the ingredients of the Marlboro brands the reader is referred to the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture of Germany (Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft) [27] and Philip Morris USA [28].

2.2. Automatic Environmental Tobacco Smoke Emitter (AETSE)

Each 20 cigarettes of 4 Marlboro cigarette types and 20 reference cigarettes were smoked using an automatic environmental tobacco smoke emitter (AETSE). The measurement of PM10, PM2.5, and PM1 took place in a glass chamber with a volume of 2.88 m3 serving as an enclosed interior space. The AETSE, a smoke pump for medical research designed and engineered by Schimpf-Ing. Trondheim, Norway [29], is installed in this chamber and allows generating smoke of tobacco products in a reproducible way without exposing the investigator or test persons.

2.3. Smoking Protocol

A modified smoking protocol was used in accordance to the Tobacco Smoke Particles and Indoor Air Quality (ToPIQ) studies [30,31]. A 200 mL glass syringe moved back and forth via a linear actuator by a stepper motor imitates the smoking process. The glass syringe is connected with the mouthpiece of the tobacco product via a Nylon tube (IMI Norgren, Birmingham, UK). Thereby, mainstream smoke can sucked into the syringe and afterwards pressed back into the chamber. Two valves ensure that on suction the air flows exclusively through the tobacco product and on back flowing the smoke reach directly into the chamber without passing the tobacco product. A microcontroller adjusts the puff volume (40 mL), puff flow rate (13 mL/s), puff frequency (2/min), inter puff interval (24 s), and the amount of 9 puffs. The smoking protocol is subdivided in four different phases and starts with the pre-ignition phase with the blank measurement (5 min). Then the cigarette is lighted and smoked in the combustion phase (4 min 22 s), followed by the extinguishing of the cigarette and the post-combustion phase (5 min). Afterwards the chamber is ventilated for at least 5 min in the suction phase by using an industrial suction device before the next cycle starts.

2.4. Measurement Equipment

Via light scattering the PM concentrations are measured by a Grimm Portable Laser Aerosol Spectrometer (LAS) and Dust Monitor model 1.109 (Grimm Aerosol Technik, Ainring, Germany) [32,33]. The measuring point is located 35 cm beside the tobacco product at the same altitude. The mixture of exhaled mainstream smoke and side-stream smoke of the smoldering tobacco product is sucked in the LAS. To avoid blockage of the laser measuring chamber of the spectrometer by high particle concentrations a dilution of 1:10 with compressed air is necessary. Subsequently, the dilution ratio is considered in the data processing. The Grimm spectrometer detects airborne particles with a size from 0.25 µm to 32 µm in real-time. The LAS displays the measured results as particle count (L−1) and detailed dust mass fractions in 31 channels (µg/m3). Additionally, the data are displayed as inhalable, thoracic, and alveolic (µg/m3) according to European Standard EN 481 [34] and as PM10, PM2.5, and PM1 values (µg/m3) according to U.S. EPA [20]. Every six seconds the received data are recorded.

2.5. Data Processing

The collected data of the four Marlboro brands and the reference cigarette were statistically analyzed and compared. Therefore, the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) and the mean concentration (Cmean) of 20 cigarettes were calculated for each brand. In order to avoid overestimation of PM due to technical handling, the AUC of five randomly chosen cigarettes per brand were searched for so-called artificial peaks. In this study, the proportion of peaks was defined as acceptable if not exceeding the average AUC plateau by 22%. Peaks higher than 2% to 16% than average AUC plateaus were detected. Hence, all measurements were included in data analysis. All tested cigarette type samples passed the D’Agostino-Pearson Test for Gaussian normality (cut-off p = 0.05). Additionally, the data were tested for outliers with the ROUT method (Q = 1%). Here, no outlier was detected. Finally, all investigated tobacco products were tested for differences using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple comparisons test.

3. Results

The PM mean of all measured baseline values (clean air) is 0.6 µg/m3. For the reference cigarette the measured Cmean increases up to 921 µg/m³ (PM10), 918 µg/m³ (PM2.5), and 852 µg/m³ (PM1). The measured Cmean of PM10 increases up to 1458 µg/m³ (Marlboro Red without additives) and 668 µg/m³ (Marlboro Silver Blue) and in the case of PM2.5, 1452 µg/m³ and 667 µg/m³, respectively. For PM1 the values raise up to 1263 µg/m³ (Marlboro Red without additives) and 631 µg/m³ (Marlboro Silver Blue). The results of the AUC-PM values and the Cmean values are shown in Table 2. Additionally, Figure 1 shows the AUC PM values of all tested cigarette brands in a direct comparison. The distribution pattern of the PM fractions PM10–2.5, PM2.5–1, and PM1 is shown in Figure 2.
The main part of SHS is composed by PM1 fraction with 92.50% (reference cigarette 3), 94.46% (Marlboro Silver Blue), 92.17% (Marlboro Gold), 88.77% (Marlboro Red), and 86.63% (Marlboro Red without additives). The measurements of both Marlboro Red brands (with and without additives) show between 33% and 37% higher PM values (Cmean and AUC) than the values of the reference cigarette and 50% to 54% higher PM values than the Marlboro Silver Blue and 32% to 36% higher PM values than the Marlboro Gold, respectively. The PM levels of the Marlboro Gold brand are nearly the same as the values of the reference cigarette. In contrast, the Marlboro Silver Blue, the brand with the lowest tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide amount in this test field, shows 26% to 27% lower PM values compared to the values of the reference cigarette. Table 3 shows the significance grades of the comparisons of all tested tobacco products. Among the Marlboro brands, both types with higher tobacco strength (Marlboro red with and without additives) show a very high significant in comparison to the types with lower strength (Marlboro gold and Marlboro silver blue).
The PM data for Marlboro brands indicates that the lower the tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide amounts the lower are the PM levels. Moreover, in this study the tobacco product with additives shows no significant differences in PM amount to the tobacco product without additives and approximately identical tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide amount.

4. Discussion

Various studies conclude that the PM levels in smoking rooms and households increase in a hazardous way [35,36]. According to the WHO Air quality guidelines the daily average concentration should not exceed 25 µg/m3 PM2.5 [37]. Depending on the cigarette brand the PM concentrations in an enclosed space of 2.88 m³ (capacity of the measuring cabin) were 27- to 58-fold higher than WHO references and up to 1000-fold higher than the baseline values (smoke free air). This illustrates the massive PM burdens under the study conditions.
The U.S. EPA classifies compact cars with a total passenger and cargo volume of 2.832 m³ to 3.087 m³ [38]. This is a fundamentally important aspect of this study design, because the used measuring cabin has a comparable indoor volume and many people smoke in cars. The passive smoke with the contained particulate matter is not only hazardous for the health of smokers but also of passengers, which are often children. The used smoking regime is similar to conditions in a compact car with closed windows and no ventilation or air conditioning. Sendzik et al. [39] performed a study under five different in vivo conditions, in which the car owners smoked a single cigarette in their cars. The conditions were as followed: Closed windows and engine off, and each a 20-min drive with closed windows, all windows opened, with only driver’s window partially opened and all windows closed but with air conditioning. Their results are similar to our study results depending on the condition and ranged between 223 µg/m³ and more than 3800 µg/m³ PM2.5 (that means 9 to 152 fold higher than the WHO references).
In contrast to the above-mentioned in vivo study, the AETSE used in our study ensured reproducible results without exposure of any test person to the produced smoke and any health risks. It should be pointing out that the AETSE is not able to imitate exactly the human smoking behavior and SHS. The mainstream smoke that the smoker inhales will be humidified in the respiratory tract and due to hygroscopic growth the exhaled smoke particles are nearly 1.5-fold larger than the inhaled particles [40,41]. In addition, a differentiation between inhaled and exhaled mainstream smoke is not possible with the AETSE, but SHS consists only of about 15 % mainstream smoke and about 85 % side-stream smoke [42,43]. Hence, the measured PM emissions of the tobacco products are very similar to SHS, because the AETSE is able to imitate side-stream smoke as realistically as possible. Certainly, the used modified smoking protocol differs from other existing protocols like, e.g., the Standard operating procedure for intense smoking of cigarettes by the WHO [44] or the ISO standard for the machine smoking of cigarettes ISO/TR 17219 [45]. However, it must be mentioned that there is yet no “gold standard” for smoking regimes [46,47,48,49].
The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of cigarette strength and additives on PM amount in SHS. To avoid other influences like, e.g., different production processes of various manufacturers on PM emissions as far as possible, it seemed useful to investigate PM of different cigarette types of one brand, in this case the brand Marlboro. All tested Marlboro cigarettes had the same total length and diameter and the same filter length. The Marlboro cigarette type with the lowest tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide amounts (Silver Blue) showed the lowest measured PM values. The Marlboro brand with the second lowest tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide amounts (Gold) showed the second lowest measured PM values. The highest PM amounts showed with very similar measured values the two Marlboro Red types (with and without additives), that had the same tar and carbon monoxide amounts and similar nicotine amount. The measured results lead to the assumption that cigarettes with lower strength emit less PM than cigarettes with higher amounts of tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide.
The 3R4F reference cigarette had the same total length and diameter as the Marlboro brands, but the filter was with a length of 27 mm six millimeters longer than the filters of the Marlboro brands. Both Marlboro Red types with similar strength as the reference cigarette showed 33% to 37% higher PM values than the reference cigarette. The Marlboro Gold type with a lower strength than the reference cigarette showed PM values similar to the reference cigarette. The filters of all tested cigarette products were cellulose acetate filters without cavity and with triacetin as plasticizer [26,27]. Thus, and given that the filters have been similarly constructed, the PM data lead also to the assumption, that the longer the filter the lower are the PM amounts in SHS. In 2009 Shin et al. found more than 50% lower total particulate matter (TPM) and tar amounts in mainstream smoke of cigarettes with filter compared to cigarettes without filters [50]. TPM means airborne particulate matter with an upper size limit of 100 µm diameter and also includes PM10, PM2.5, and PM1 [51]. Even in 1965 Keith and Derrick showed a reduction of tar and nicotine amounts between 40% and 50% in filter cigarettes in relation to non-filter cigarettes [52].
As both Marlboro Red types (with and without additives) with similar tobacco strengths showed very similar PM levels an influence of the additive mixture in Marlboro Red with additives could not be verified. The few studies with respect to effects of additives to PM in tobacco smoke found contradictory results. Some previous studies showed analogical results regarding the influence of additives on PM amount in SHS. Wasel et al. ascertained no significant differences between cigarettes with and without additives [22]. They assumed rather an influence by filter length on PM amounts. Two investigations on cigarettes with and without the additive menthol, Gaworski et al. in 1997 [53] and Gerharz et al. in 2018 [54], found also no significant differences of amounts of PM. In contrast, the results of Rustemeier et al. showed an increase of 13–28% of PM of cigarettes with additives relative to cigarettes without additives [24]. They added 333 commonly used additives to the 1R4F reference cigarette and measured effects of ingredients. An analysis by Wertz et al. in 2011 of previously secret tobacco industry documents revealed that the documents were changed post hoc [55]. The originally statistically findings showed an additive-associated increase of TPM concentrations and toxicity in cigarette smoke with additives. Hence, it seems to be reasonable to investigate in further studies the influence of different additive mixtures in tobacco products on PM emission.
In this study, the major part of measured PM consisted of particles ≤ 1 µm. Keith and Derrick published in 1960 a study with similar results. They found that the most particles in tobacco smoke are sized between 0.1 µm and 1 µm with a peak between 0.2 µm and 0.25 µm [56]. Nazaroff and Klepeis described SHS as mostly 0.02 µm to 2 µm sized particles [57]. Particles of side-stream smoke were characterised with geometric mean diameters of 0.1 µm [58,59]. Manigrasso et al. measured mean particle diameters ranging from 0.1 µm to 0.14 µm in cigarette smoke due to a rapid coagulation of UFPs and phase changes to semi-volatile compounds. They found also that PM10 consists mainly of PM1 [60]. Haustein and Groneberg described side-stream-smoke with mean diameters of 0.5 µm [61]. It seems that there exists no common agreement on the peak size of tobacco smoke particles. Compared to this study, Protano et al. found very similar PM1 mean concentrations of 1544 µg/m3 while smoking a single cigarette, but almost no increase of the PM10–2.5 and PM2.5–1 fractions. They summed up that smoking of even one cigarette lead to very important air pollution also by UFPs [62]. The used LAS Grimm model 1.109 is able to detect particles with a minimum size of 0.25 µm and is common used in monitoring networks and in continuous measurement of PM [63]. This technical limitation resulted in a nonconformity with the definition of the U.S. EPA, where particles down to 0.1 µm are also included. Hence, to detect particles smaller than 0.25 µm a new measurement system would be essential. Subsequent investigations on UFPs in SHS are reasonable, as health effects of UFPs come more and more into focus [64].
The used Grimm model 1.109 measures PM including PM1 and semi-volatile fractions like, e.g., water, ammonium nitrate, and some organic compounds via light scattering in real time [65]. Because of this ability the LAS allows to detect the PM amount of each single tobacco product. By contrast, the U.S. EPA Federal Reference Methods (FRMs) for detection of PM often use 24 h sample collection followed by gravimetric measurement of collected PM. Another used FRM application is the real time measurement device Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) Monitor [65,66]. The protocols for measuring PM10 and PM2.5 in agreement to the European standard EN 12341 for determination of PM is also a gravimetric method [67]. The listed FRM with the Grimm model EDM 180 is a PM measuring method via light scattering [66]. Several studies confirm that the measurement results of a Grimm model 1.107, 1.108, or in this study the used model 1.109 are very similar to the results of a Grimm model EDM 180 or a TEOM Monitor or gravimetric methods [65,68]. In 2007, Fromme et al. described higher PM measuring results by gravimetric methods than by LAS but with high correlations of the rank order of the measuring values [69]. Provided that the method of measurement during a study will not be changed, the measured values of the used Grimm model 1.109 are valid and reliable.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, smoking of tobacco products leads to a massive increase of PM in enclosed spaces. This study showed also that the higher the amounts of tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide and probably the shorter the filters, the higher are the levels of PM in SHS. An influence of the additive mixture in the investigated Marlboro cigarette types could not be ascertained. It seems to be reasonable to verify the correlations of ingredients and filter length of tobacco products and the resulting PM in SHS.

Author Contributions

This article is part of the thesis of F.K., whereas M.B., D.K., R.M., and D.A.G. contributed significantly to the conception and design of the study. Moreover, F.K., M.B., R.M., and D.A.G. prepared the experiments, which were performed by F.K. F.K. and R.M. analyzed the data. The technical support was done by M.B. The manuscript was written by M.B. and critically reviewed by all authors. All authors have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Drope, J.; Schluger, N.W.; Cahn, Z.; Drope, J.; Hamill, S.; Islami, F.; Liber, A.; Nargis, N.; Stoklosa, M. The Tobacco Atlas (6th Edition). Available online: https://files.tobaccoatlas.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/TobaccoAtlas_6thEdition_LoRes.pdf (accessed on 27 March 2018).
  2. Juranic, B.; Rakosec, Z.; Jakab, J.; Miksic, S.; Vuletic, S.; Ivandic, M.; Blazevic, I. Prevalence, habits and personal attitudes towards smoking among health care professionals. J. Occup. Med. Toxicol. 2017, 12, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. U.S. Public Health Service. The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General-Executive Summary. 2014. Available online: https://www.Surgeongeneral.Gov/library/reports/50-years-of-progress/full-report.Pdf (accessed on 27 March 2018).
  4. DKFZ. Passivrauchen-Ein Unterschätztes Gesundheitsrisiko. Available online: https://www.dkfz.de/de/tabakkontrolle/download/Publikationen/RoteReihe/Passivrauchen_Band_5_2Auflage.pdf (accessed on 27 March 2018).
  5. Avino, P.; Scungio, M.; Stabile, L.; Cortellessa, G.; Buonanno, G.; Manigrasso, M. Second-hand aerosol from tobacco and electronic cigarettes: Evaluation of the smoker emission rates and doses and lung cancer risk of passive smokers and vapers. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 642, 137–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Van Deusen, A.; Hyland, A.; Travers, M.J.; Wang, C.; Higbee, C.; King, B.A.; Alford, T.; Cummings, K.M. Secondhand smoke and particulate matter exposure in the home. Nicotine Tob. Res. 2009, 11, 635–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Brunekreef, B.; Holgate, S.T. Air pollution and health. Lancet 2002, 360, 1233–1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Feleszko, W.; Zawadzka-Krajewska, A.; Matysiak, K.; Lewandowska, D.; Peradzynska, J.; Dinh, Q.T.; Hamelmann, E.; Groneberg, D.A.; Kulus, M. Parental tobacco smoking is associated with augmented IL-13 secretion in children with allergic asthma. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2006, 117, 97–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Chi, M.C.; Guo, S.E.; Hwang, S.L.; Chou, C.T.; Lin, C.M.; Lin, Y.C. Exposure to indoor particulate matter worsens the symptoms and acute exacerbations in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients of southwestern taiwan: A pilot study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 14, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Anderson, J.O.; Thundiyil, J.G.; Stolbach, A. Clearing the air: A review of the effects of particulate matter air pollution on human health. J. Med. Toxicol. 2012, 8, 166–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ngoc, L.T.N.; Park, D.; Lee, Y.; Lee, Y.C. Systematic review and meta-analysis of human skin diseases due to particulate matter. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tagliabue, G.; Borgini, A.; Tittarelli, A.; van Donkelaar, A.; Martin, R.V.; Bertoldi, M.; Fabiano, S.; Maghini, A.; Codazzi, T.; Scaburri, A.; et al. Atmospheric fine particulate matter and breast cancer mortality: A population-based cohort study. BMJ Open 2016, 6, e012580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zhang, C.; Meng, Q.; Zhang, X.; Wu, S.; Wang, S.; Chen, R.; Li, X. Role of astrocyte activation in fine particulate matter-enhancement of existing ischemic stroke in sprague-dawley male rats. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health A 2016, 79, 393–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Protano, C.; Manigrasso, M.; Avino, P.; Vitali, M. Second-hand smoke generated by combustion and electronic smoking devices used in real scenarios: Ultrafine particle pollution and age-related dose assessment. Environ. Int. 2017, 107, 190–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Pope, C.A., 3rd. Epidemiology of fine particulate air pollution and human health: Biologic mechanisms and who’s at risk? Environ. Health Perspect. 2000, 108 (Suppl. 4), 713–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Brown, J.S.; Gordon, T.; Price, O.; Asgharian, B. Thoracic and respirable particle definitions for human health risk assessment. Part. Fibre Toxicol. 2013, 10, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Kim, K.H.; Kabir, E.; Kabir, S. A review on the human health impact of airborne particulate matter. Environ. Int. 2015, 74, 136–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Donaldson, K.; Stone, V.; Clouter, A.; Renwick, L.; MacNee, W. Ultrafine particles. Occup. Environ. Med. 2001, 58, 211–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Manigrasso, M.; Natale, C.; Vitali, M.; Protano, C.; Avino, P. Pedestrians in traffic environments: Ultrafine particle respiratory doses. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Particulate Matter (pm) Pollution. 2017. Available online: https://www.Epa.Gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics#pm (accessed on 4 April 2018).
  21. Gerber, A.; Bigelow, A.; Schulze, M.; Groneberg, D.A. Brand cigarillos—A cheap and less harmful alternative to cigarettes? Particulate matter emissions suggest otherwise. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 428–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Wasel, J.; Boll, M.; Schulze, M.; Mueller, D.; Bundschuh, M.; Groneberg, D.A.; Gerber, A. Brand cigarillos: Low price but high particulate matter levels-is their favorable taxation in the european union justified? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 9141–9153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kant, N.; Muller, R.; Braun, M.; Gerber, A.; Groneberg, D. Particulate matter in second-hand smoke emitted from different cigarette sizes and types of the brand vogue mainly smoked by women. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rustemeier, K.; Stabbert, R.; Haussmann, H.J.; Roemer, E.; Carmines, E.L. Evaluation of the potential effects of ingredients added to cigarettes. Part 2: Chemical composition of mainstream smoke. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2002, 40, 93–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. PMI. Philip Morris International. 2018. Available online: https://www.Pmi.Com/ (accessed on 11 April 2018).
  26. UK University of Kentucky; Kentucky Tobacco Research and Development Center. 3r4f Preliminary Analysis. 2018. Available online: https://ctrp.Uky.Edu/resources/pdf/webdocs/3r4f%20preliminary%20analysis.Pdf (accessed on 11 April 2018).
  27. BMEL. Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft. Tabakzusatzstoffe. Marlboro. Available online: https://service.Bmel.De/tabakerzeugnisse/index2.Php?Site_key=153 (accessed on 27 August 2018).
  28. PM. Philip Morris USA, Our Products & Ingredients. 2018. Available online: http://www.Altria.Com/our-companies/philipmorrisusa/our-products-and-ingredients/pages/default.Aspx (accessed on 17 May 2018).
  29. Schimpf-Ing. Electronics Development. 2015. Available online: http://www.Schimpf-ing.No/index_e.Html (accessed on 12 April 2018).
  30. Mueller, D.; Uibel, S.; Braun, M.; Klingelhoefer, D.; Takemura, M.; Groneberg, D.A. Tobacco smoke particles and indoor air quality (topiq)—The protocol of a new study. J. Occup. Med. Toxicol. 2011, 6, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Gerber, A.; Hofen-Hohloch, A.V.; Schulze, J.; Groneberg, D.A. Tobacco smoke particles and indoor air quality (topiq-ii)—A modified study protocol and first results. J. Occup. Med. Toxicol. 2015, 10, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Grimm. Grimm Aerosol Technik Gmbh& co.Kg Ainring. Portable Laser Aerosolspectrometer and Dust Monitor Model 1.108/1.109 (Manual). 2010. Available online: http://wmo-gaw-wcc-aerosol-physics.Org/files/opc-grimm-model-1.108-and-1.109.Pdf (accessed on 17 May 2018).
  33. Grimm. Grimm Aerosol Technik Gmbh& co.Kg Ainring. Grimm Software Für Optical Particle Counter Tragbares Aerosolspektrometer 1.108/1.109. 2012. Available online: http://wiki.Grimm-aerosol.De/images/c/c6/m_d_labview_software_rev_2p1.Pdf (accessed on 17 May 2018).
  34. CEN. European Committee for Standardization: Workplace Atmospheres-Size Fraction Definitions for Measurement of Airborne Particles; Report No. Bs en 481:1993; British Standards Institute: London, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  35. Semple, S.; Apsley, A.; Azmina Ibrahim, T.; Turner, S.W.; Cherrie, J.W. Fine particulate matter concentrations in smoking households: Just how much secondhand smoke do you breathe in if you live with a smoker who smokes indoors? Tob. Control 2015, 24, e205–e211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Weitzman, M.; Yusufali, A.H.; Bali, F.; Vilcassim, M.J.R.; Gandhi, S.; Peltier, R.; Nadas, A.; Sherman, S.; Lee, L.; Hong, Z.; et al. Effects of hookah smoking on indoor air quality in homes. Tob. Control 2016, 26, 586–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. World Health Organization. Air Quality Guidelines for Particulate Matter, Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide. Global Update 2005. Summary of Risk Assessment. 2005. Available online: http://apps.Who.Int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/69477/who_sde_phe_oeh_06.02_eng.Pdf (accessed on 8 July 2018).
  38. EPA; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. Department of Energy (Doe). Fuel Economy Guide. 2018. Available online: https://www.Fueleconomy.Gov/feg/pdfs/guides/feg2018.Pdf (accessed on 18 July 2018).
  39. Sendzik, T.; Fong, G.T.; Travers, M.J.; Hyland, A. An experimental investigation of tobacco smoke pollution in cars. Nicotine Tob. Res. 2009, 11, 627–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. McGrath, C.; Warren, N.; Biggs, P.; McAughey, J. Real-time measurement of inhaled and exhaled cigarette smoke: Implications for dose. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2009, 151, 012018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Sahu, S.K.; Tiwari, M.; Bhangare, R.C.; Pandit, G.G. Particle size distribution of mainstream and exhaled cigarette smoke and predictive deposition in human respiratory tract. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2013, 13, 324–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Keil, U.; Prugger, C.; Heidrich, J. Passivrauchen. Public Health Forum 2016, 24, 84–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Nowak, D.; Raupach, T.; Radon, K.; Andreas, S. Passivrauchen als gesundheitsrisiko. Pneumologe 2008, 5, 386–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. World Health Organization. Who Toblabnet Official Method Sop 01. Standard Operating Procedure for Intense Smoking of Cigarettes. 2012. Available online: http://apps.Who.Int/iris/bitstream/10665/75261/1/9789241503891_eng.Pdf (accessed on 19 July 2018).
  45. International Organization for Standardization. Iso/tr 17219:2013(en). Review of Human Smoking Behaviour and Recommendations for a New ISO Standard for the Machine Smoking of Cigarettes. 2013. Available online: https://www.Iso.Org/obp/ui/#iso:Std:Iso:Tr:17219:En (accessed on 19 July 2018).
  46. Hammond, D.; Wiebel, F.; Kozlowski, L.T.; Borland, R.; Cummings, K.M.; O’Connor, R.J.; McNeill, A.; Connolly, G.N.; Arnott, D.; Fong, G.T. Revising the machine smoking regime for cigarette emissions: Implications for tobacco control policy. Tob. Control 2007, 16, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Liu, C.; McAdam, K.G.; Perfetti, T.A. Some recent topics in cigarette smoke science. Mini-Rev. Org. Chem. 2011, 8, 349–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Marian, C.; O’Connor, R.J.; Djordjevic, M.V.; Rees, V.W.; Hatsukami, D.K.; Shields, P.G. Reconciling human smoking behavior and machine smoking patterns: Implications for understanding smoking behavior and the impact on laboratory studies. Cancer Epidemiol. Prev. Biomark. 2009, 18, 3305–3320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Wright, C. Standardized methods for the regulation of cigarette-smoke constituents. TrAC Trend Anal. Chem. 2015, 66, 118–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Shin, H.J.; Sohn, H.O.; Han, J.H.; Park, C.H.; Lee, H.S.; Lee, D.W.; Hwang, K.J.; Hyun, H.C. Effect of cigarette filters on the chemical composition and in vitro biological activity of cigarette mainstream smoke. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2009, 47, 192–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Government of Canada. Environment and Natural Resources. Common Air Contaminents. Particulate Matter. 2013. Available online: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/air-pollution/pollutants/common-contaminants/particulate-matter.html (accessed on 28 August 2018).
  52. Keith, C.H.; Derrick, J.C. Cigarette filter efficiency as measured with a homogeneous solid aerosol. Tob. Sci. 1965, 9, 116–120. [Google Scholar]
  53. Gaworski, C.L.; Dozier, M.M.; Gerhart, J.M.; Rajendran, N.; Brennecke, L.H.; Aranyi, C.; Heck, J.D. 13-week inhalation toxicity study of menthol cigarette smoke. Food Chem. Toxicol. 1997, 35, 683–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gerharz, J.; Bendels, M.H.K.; Braun, M.; Klingelhofer, D.; Groneberg, D.A.; Mueller, R. Particulate matter emissions of different brands of mentholated cigarettes. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2018, 68, 608–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wertz, M.S.; Kyriss, T.; Paranjape, S.; Glantz, S.A. The toxic effects of cigarette additives. Philip morris’ project mix reconsidered: An analysis of documents released through litigation. PLoS Med. 2011, 8, e1001145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Keith, C.H.; Derrick, J.C. Measurement of the particle size distribution and concentration of cigarette smoke by the “conifuge”. J. Colloid Sci. 1960, 15, 340–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Nazaroff, W.W.; Klepeis, N.E. Indoor Environment: Airborne Particles and Settled Dust. Environmental Tobacco Smoke Particles; Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KG: Weinheim, Germany, 2003; pp. 245–274. [Google Scholar]
  58. Guerin, M.R.; Higgins, C.E.; Jenkins, R.A. Measuring environmental emissions from tobacco combustion—Sidestream cigarette-smoke literature-review. Atmos. Environ. 1987, 21, 291–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ueno, Y.; Peters, L.K. Size and generation rate of sidestream cigarette-smoke particles. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 1986, 5, 469–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Manigrasso, M.; Vitali, M.; Protano, C.; Avino, P. Temporal evolution of ultrafine particles and of alveolar deposited surface area from main indoor combustion and non-combustion sources in a model room. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 598, 1015–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Haustein, K.O.; Groneberg, D.A. Tabakabhängigkeit. Gesundheitliche Schäden Durch Das Rauchen; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  62. Protano, C.; Cattaruzza, M.S.; Osborn, J.F.; Vitali, M. Indoor particulate matter and secondhand smoke: Simulation of an exposure scenario. Annali di Igiene 2014, 26, 186–189. [Google Scholar]
  63. Burkart, J.; Steiner, G.; Reischl, G.; Moshammer, H.; Neuberger, M.; Hitzenberger, R. Characterizing the performance of two optical particle counters (grimm opc1.108 and opc1.109) under urban aerosol conditions. J. Aerosol Sci. 2010, 41, 953–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Ohlwein, S.; Hoffmann, B.; Kappeler, R.; Joss, M.; Künzli, N. Health Effects of Ultrafine Particles. Systematic Literature Search and the Potential Transferability of the Results to the German Setting. Available online: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/376/publikationen/uba_ufp_health_effects_haupt_final.pdf (accessed on 19 December 2018).
  65. Grimm, H.; Eatough, D.J. Aerosol measurement: The use of optical light scattering for the determination of particulate size distribution, and particulate mass, including the semi-volatile fraction. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2009, 59, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. United States Environmental Protection Agency. List of Designated Reference and Equivalent Methods. 16 June 2017. Available online: https://www3.Epa.Gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/criteria/amtic_list_june_2017_update_6-19-2017.Pdf (accessed on 7 August 2018).
  67. CEN. European Committee for Standardization. Cen/tc 264—Air Quality en 12341. Ambient Air—Standard Gravimetric Measurement Method for the Determination of the PM10 or PM2.5 Mass Concentration of Suspended Particulate Matter; British Standard Institute: London, UK, 2014; Available online: https://standards.Cen.Eu/dyn/www/f?P=204:110:0::::Fsp_project,fsp_org_id:29133,6245&cs=1dc6eb16dd302e384b46a7097aac67cb5 (accessed on 7 August 2018).
  68. Bolte, G.; Heitmann, D.; Kiranoglu, M.; Schierl, R.; Diemer, J.; Koerner, W.; Fromme, H. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in german restaurants, pubs and discotheques. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2008, 18, 262–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Fromme, H.; Twardella, D.; Dietrich, S.; Heitmann, D.; Schierl, R.; Liebl, B.; Ruden, H. Particulate matter in the indoor air of classrooms—Exploratory results from munich and surrounding area. Atmos. Environ. 2007, 41, 854–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 16 00263 g001 550
Figure 1. Comparative boxplot (min to max whiskers) of area under concentration–time curve (AUC)–PM of all tested cigarette brands. (a) AUC-PM10, (b) AUC-PM2.5, (c) AUC-PM1.
Figure 1. Comparative boxplot (min to max whiskers) of area under concentration–time curve (AUC)–PM of all tested cigarette brands. (a) AUC-PM10, (b) AUC-PM2.5, (c) AUC-PM1.
Ijerph 16 00263 g001
Ijerph 16 00263 g002 550
Figure 2. Distribution pattern of PM10–2.5, PM2.5–1, and PM1 of all investigated cigarettes.
Figure 2. Distribution pattern of PM10–2.5, PM2.5–1, and PM1 of all investigated cigarettes.
Ijerph 16 00263 g002
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the investigated cigarette types: The amounts of tar, nicotine, carbon monoxide, the presence of additives, and the dimensions of filter and cigarette are shown.
Table 1. Characteristics of the investigated cigarette types: The amounts of tar, nicotine, carbon monoxide, the presence of additives, and the dimensions of filter and cigarette are shown.
Ingredients & Dimensions3R4F Reference CigaretteMarlboro Silver BlueMarlboro GoldMarlboro RedMarlboro Red without Additives
Tar (mg)9.4461010
Nicotine (mg)0.730.40.50.80.9
Carbon monoxide (mg)12571010
Additivesyesyesyesyesno
Filter length (mm)2721212121
Filter diameter (mm)88888
Cigarette length (mm)8484848484
Table
Table 2. Area under concentration–time curve (AUC PM10, PM2.5 and PM1) and mean concentrations (Cmean PM10, PM2.5 and PM1) with standard deviation of all tested tobacco products.
Table 2. Area under concentration–time curve (AUC PM10, PM2.5 and PM1) and mean concentrations (Cmean PM10, PM2.5 and PM1) with standard deviation of all tested tobacco products.
3R4F Reference CigaretteMarlboro Silver BlueMarlboro GoldMarlboro RedMarlboro Red
w/o add.
AUC PM10 (µg·m−3·s−1)792,720 ± 152,480578,280 ± 193,768806,440 ± 157,9911234,440 ± 258,6901,256,570 ± 342,629
AUC PM2.5 (µg·m−3·s−1)790,730 ± 148,547577,440 ± 193,224804,940 ± 157,4261,230,380 ± 255,4261,251,390 ± 335,957
AUC PM1 (µg·m−3·s−1)733,960 ± 94,781546,230 ± 169,955742,580 ± 135,4931,093,950 ± 173,3911,088,220 ± 202,603
Cmean PM10 (µg·m−3)921 ± 176668 ± 223932 ± 1831443 ± 3071458 ± 397
Cmean PM2.5 (µg·m−3)918 ± 172667 ± 223930 ± 1821438 ± 3031452 ± 389
Cmean PM1 (µg·m−3)852 ± 109631 ± 196859 ± 1571281 ± 2151263 ± 238
Table
Table 3. Significance level of statistical Tukey’s multiple comparisons test of AUC (PM10, PM2.5 and PM1) for the tested cigarette brands (ns = non-significant, * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, **** = p < 0.0001).
Table 3. Significance level of statistical Tukey’s multiple comparisons test of AUC (PM10, PM2.5 and PM1) for the tested cigarette brands (ns = non-significant, * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, **** = p < 0.0001).
Paired Comparisons of Tobacco ProductsAUC PM10AUC PM2.5AUC PM1
3R4F vs. Marlboro red w/o add.************
3R4F vs. Marlboro red************
3R4F vs. Marlboro goldnsnsns
3R4F vs. Marlboro silver blue****
Marlboro red vs. Marlboro red w/o additivesnsnsns
Marlboro red vs. Marlboro gold************
Marlboro red vs. Marlboro silver blue************
Marlboro gold vs. Marlboro red w/o add.************
Marlboro gold vs. Marlboro silver blue****
Marlboro silver blue vs. Marlboro red w/o additives************

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Braun, M.; Koger, F.; Klingelhöfer, D.; Müller, R.; Groneberg, D.A. Particulate Matter Emissions of Four Different Cigarette Types of One Popular Brand: Influence of Tobacco Strength and Additives. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 263. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16020263

AMA Style

Braun M, Koger F, Klingelhöfer D, Müller R, Groneberg DA. 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. 2019; 16(2):263. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16020263

Chicago/Turabian Style

Braun, Markus, Friedemann Koger, Doris Klingelhöfer, Ruth Müller, and David A. Groneberg. 2019. "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 16, no. 2: 263. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16020263

APA Style

Braun, M., Koger, F., Klingelhöfer, D., Müller, R., & Groneberg, D. A. (2019). 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, 16(2), 263. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16020263

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop