Smoking-related diseases can be attributed to the inhalation of many different toxins, including heavy metals, which have a host of detrimental health effects. The current study reports the levels of arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), nickel (Ni), and lead (Pb) in cigarettes obtained from adult smokers participating in the 2009 wave of the ITC United States Survey (N = 320). The mean As, Cd, Cr, Ni, and Pb levels were 0.17, 0.86, 2.35, 2.21, and 0.44 µg/g, respectively. There were some differences in metal concentrations of cigarette brands produced by different manufacturers, suggesting differences in the source of tobaccos used by different companies. For Ni, there were significant pairwise differences between Philip Morris U.S. (PMUSA) and R.J. Reynolds (RJR) brands (PMUSA higher; p < 0.001), PMUSA and other manufacturer (OM) brands (PMUSA higher; p < 0.001), and RJR and OM brands (RJR higher; p = 0.006). For Cr, RJR brands had higher levels than did OM brands (p = 0.02). Levels of As, Cd, and Pb did OPEN ACCESS Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11203 not differ significantly across manufacturer groups (p > 0.10). Because of the variety of toxic heavy metals in cigarette tobacco, and their numerous negative health effects, metal content in cigarette tobacco should be reduced.

introduction: Many governments around the world have banned the use of misleading cigarette descriptors such as "light" and "mild" because the cigarettes so labeled were found not to reduce smokers' health risks. However, underlying cigarette design features, which are retained in many brands, likely contribute to ongoing belief that these cigarettes are less harmful by producing perceptions of lightness/smoothness through lighter taste and reduced harshness and irritation.Methods: Participants (N = 320) were recruited from the International Tobacco Control U.S. Survey conducted in 2009 and 2010, when they answered questions about smoking behavior, attitudes and beliefs about tobacco products, and key mediators and moderators of tobacco use behaviors. Participants also submitted an unopened pack of their usual brand of cigarettes for analysis using established methods.results: Own-brand filter ventilation level (M 29%, range 0%-71%) was consistently associated with perceived lightness (p < .001) and smoothness (p = .005) of own brand. Those whose brand bore a light/mild label (55% of participants) were more likely to report their cigarettes were lighter [71.9% vs. 41.9%; χ 2 (2) = 38.1, p < .001] and smoother than other brands [75.5% vs. 68.7%; χ 2 (2) = 7.8, p = .020].Conclusion: Product design features, particularly filter ventilation, influence smokers' beliefs about product attributes such as lightness and smoothness, independent of package labels. Regulation of cigarette design features such as filter ventilation should be considered as a complement to removal of misleading terms in order to reduce smokers' misperceptions regarding product risks.

No abstract

With cigar use rising, and filtered cigars displaying substantial similarities to filtered cigarettes, more research on product characteristics is warranted. Future plans include testing tobacco alkaloid and more observation of cigar weight for tax bracket purposes.

SUMMARYObjectives-The public health burden of tobacco use is shifting to the developing world, and the tobacco industry may apply some of its successful marketing tactics, such as allaying health concerns with product modifications. This study used standard smoking machine tests to examine the extent to which the industry is introducing engineering features that reduce tar and nicotine to cigarettes sold in middle-and low-income countries.Study design-Multicountry observational study.Methods-Cigarettes from 10 different countries were purchased in 2005 and 2007 with low-, middle-and high-income countries identified using the World Bank's per-capita gross national income metric. Physical measurements of each brand were tested, and tobacco moisture and weight, paper porosity, filter ventilation and pressure drop were analysed. Tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide emission levels were determined for each brand using International Organization for Standardization and Canadian Intensive methods. Statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.