Design Criteria for Ventilated Filters

Parker, Joanne L.; Montgomery, Robert T.

doi:10.2478/cttr-2013-0462

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These brands achieve their lower tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide (CO) yields on smoking machines largely by means of air-dilution vents on the filters (Kozlowski & Pillitlcri, in press). These vents cause each puff to be diluted from about 11% to 90% with air, thereby reducing standard yields-the greater the dilution, the lower the standard yields of tar, nicotine, and CO (Parker & Montgomery, 1979). Some smokers knowingly or unknowingly block filter vents.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Blocking cigarette filter vents with lips more than doubles carbon monoxide intake from ultra-low tar cigarettes.

Kozlowski¹,

Sweeney²,

Pillitteri³

1996

Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Light and ultra-light cigarettes achieve their lower tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide (CO) yields on smoking machines largely by means of air-dilution vents on the filters. Previous research showed that blocking 0%, 50%, and 100% of the filter vents on a 1 mg tar cigarette with tape directly increased expired air CO levels. The present experiment extended this research by replicating the 0% blocked and 100% blocked conditions with the addition of a condition in which participants (N = 12) were asked to block vents with their lips. Mean CO boosts for the unblocked, lip-blocked, and tape-blocked conditions were 2.7 ppm (SE = 0.52), 6.7 ppm (SE = 1.0), and 12.9 ppm (SE = 2.2), respectively. Analyses suggested that lip blockade effectively blocked approximately 50% of the filter vents. Subjective ratings of cigarette strength, harshness, and heat increased significantly as degree of vent blocking increased. Cigarette smokers need to be warned about the presence of vents and the consequences of vent blocking.Given the pressures on nicotine-dependent smokers to reduce risks to their health, many have turned to lower yield, light cigarettes (about 6-15 nig tar by the Federal Trade Commission [FTC, 1994] method) and ultra-light cigarettes (about 1-5 mg tar; e.g., United States Department of Health and Human Services [US DHHS] 1981). These brands achieve their lower tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide (CO) yields on smoking machines largely by means of air-dilution vents on the filters (Kozlowski & Pillitlcri, in press). These vents cause each puff to be diluted from about 11% to 90% with air, thereby reducing standard yields-the greater the dilution, the lower the standard yields of tar, nicotine, and CO (Parker & Montgomery, 1979). Some smokers knowingly or unknowingly block filter vents. Kozlowski, Rickert, Pope, Robinson, and Frecker (1982) and Kozlowski, Heatherton, Frecker, and Nolle (1989) found that most smokers who block vents are either not aware of it or not aware of its consequences for tar and nicotine yields. Observational and interview studies have found that vent blocking is most easily done with the lips, although fingers can also be used to cover about half the vents at one time (Kozlowski et al., 1982). A few of our research participants have actually carried rolls of tape to cover the vents. We have also collected spent cigarette butts with a ring of lipstick stain on the vents or sometimes only a few millimeters beyond the vents near the filter overwrap, which holds the filter to the tobacco column.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Blocking cigarette filter vents with lips more than doubles carbon monoxide intake from ultra-low tar cigarettes.

Kozlowski¹,

Sweeney²,

Pillitteri³

1996

Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…otine-free dry smoke) condensate and carbon monoxide were determined for these cigarettes including the nonporous controls, and removal efficiencies for smoke and condensate were also measured by Parker and Montgomery (8). The pertinent data are summarized in Table 2.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Use of Pressure Drop Measurements for Estimating Ventilation and Paper Porosity

Keith

1979

Beiträge Zur Tabakforschung International/Contributions to Tobacco Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recent increase in the number and volume of ventilated cigarette brands has created a need for a simple, non-destructive means of measuring the degree of air dilution. Two techniques currently in use require the use of auxiliary equipment or specialized analyses. One of these is the sleeve method of Norman (1) which encloses the ventilation portion of the cigarette in a small chamber and measures the flow into this chamber while a puff or alternatively a constant flow is withdrawn from the cigarette. The degree of air dilution is thus estimated from the ratio of the volumetric flow rates. A second method is that described by Reynolds and Wheeler (2), which encloses the cigarette except for the burning coal in an atmosphere of argon. The amount of argon in the mainstream smoke provides a measure of the dilution. Since both of these techniques require enclosing the burning or unlit cigarette in a chamber and separating the diluting flow from the mainstream flow by means of seals, they can sometimes be difficult to use in routine measurements. A method which avoids these difficulties is to utilize the encapsulated and unencapsulated pressure drop of the unlit or lit cigarette to estimate the amount of air dilution. Since pressure drop and volumetric air flow are essentially directly proportional to each other in cigarette filters (3, 4), the difference between the encapsulated and unencapsulated pressure drop provides a measure of the degree of filter ventilation. This was recognized by Reif (5), who derived the appropriate equations for a ventilated filter. While it is known that pressure drop in a tobacco rod is only approximately proportional to flow, the non-linear effects are small enough so that pressure drops can also be used to estimate ventilation in this portion of the cigarette. Figure 1 illustrates the dilution processes occurring in a cigarette, and the various pressure drop measurements that can be used to estimate these. Each of these pressure drops can be conveniently measured using an accurate pressure drop machine, and a rubber sleeve encapsulator. For the measurements reported herein, a critical flow orifice pressure drop tester with an adjustable length rod encapsulator of Celanese design was used. The orifice was calibrated to a flow of 17.50 ± 0.15 mVs at 760 torr and• Presented, in part, at the Coruta Technology Study Group meeting held in Munich, Germany, in September 1977.

show abstract

“…39μπι (Carter and Hasegawa 1975). Ο αριθμός των σωματιδίων που παράγονται από τα τσιγάρα με διάτρητα φίλτρα, που επιτρέπουν την αραίωση του κυρίου ρεύματος με αέρα, είναι σημαντικά μικρότερος σε σύγκριση με τον καπνό των τσιγάρων χωρίς φίλτρο (Parker and Montgomery 1979).…”

Section: ε ισι-χάροunclassified

Καπνισμα Και Μαθητοκοσμος. Χρηση, Γνωσεις, Σταση

Φραγκιδησ¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Design Criteria for Ventilated Filters

Cited by 8 publications

References 6 publications

Blocking cigarette filter vents with lips more than doubles carbon monoxide intake from ultra-low tar cigarettes.

Blocking cigarette filter vents with lips more than doubles carbon monoxide intake from ultra-low tar cigarettes.

The Use of Pressure Drop Measurements for Estimating Ventilation and Paper Porosity

Καπνισμα Και Μαθητοκοσμος. Χρηση, Γνωσεις, Σταση

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About