СЕЛСКОСТОПАНСКА АКАДЕМИЯ - СОФИЯ

ИНСТИТУТ ПО ТЮТЮНА И ТЮТЮНЕВИТЕ ИЗДЕЛИЯ –МАРКОВО

4108 Марково, Директор: 032/ 67 23 64; Факс:032/ 69 51 56; е-mail: itti_markovo@abv.bg; www.ttpi-bg.com
ЮБИЛЕЙНА МЕЖДУНАРОДНА НАУЧНА КОНФЕРЕНЦИЯ
„70 ГОДИНИ ИНСТИТУТ ПО ТЮТЮНА И ТЮТЮНЕВИТЕ ИЗДЕЛИЯ“

COMPARISON OF TAR, NICOTINE AND CARBON MONOXIDE FROM SLIM

CIGARETTES WITH DIFFERENT DEGREE OF FILTER VENTS BLOCKING
Marija Srbinoska1, Stefka Kirkova2, Vesna Radojičić3, Nermina Đulančić4
1
University St.Kliment Ohridski-Bitola, Scientific Tobacco Institute, 7500 Prilep,
Republic of Macedonia
srbinoska.marija2014@gmail.com
2
Tobacco and Tobacco Products Institute, 4108 Plovdiv-Markovo, Republic of Bulgaria
stkirkova@abv.bg
3
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Agriculture, 11080 Belgrade, Republic of Serbia
mntabacco@agrif.bg.ac.rs
4
University of Sarajevo, Faculty of Agriculture and Food Science, 71000 Sarajevo, Bosnia and
Herzegovina
ndulancic@yahoo.com

SUMMARY
“Light” cigarettes achieve their lower tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide yields in mainstream
smoke mainly with the air-dilution vents on the filters. The objective of this study was to determine the
effect of different degrees of filter vents blocking (0%, 50% and 100%) on tar, nicotine, and carbon
monoxide yields on six commercial brands of slim cigarettes. The concentrations of tar (as NFDPM),
nicotine and carbon monoxide in mainstream smoke of cigarettes are measured using ISO standards 4387,
3400, 10362-2, and 8454 and according ISO smoking protocol.
Tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide yields show strong positive correlations with degree of filter
vents blocking in all tested cigarettes. By blocking of the filter vent holes of 100% the nicotine and carbon
monoxide concentration directly increased in the mainstream smoke of cigarettes.
Key words: slim cigarettes, nicotine, carbon monoxide, filter vents; blocking

Introduction
Trends towards lower tar cigarettes brands worldwide are likely in response to consumers’
growing awareness of the negative health effects of smoking of cigarettes. Smokers revealed
beliefs that slim and “light“or “low tar “cigarettes are less harmful that full flavoured cigarettes.
Slims cigarettes design has reduced tobacco weight and smaller rod dimension, a longer and
more efficient filter, filter ventilation and high permeability paper. The combination of these
design elements results in tar and nicotine yields that are less than regular cigarettes [1, 2].
 The efficiency of the filter rod can be optimized by setting up the intersection, the length
and deniers of the fibbers, as well as by varying the length and diameter, the pressure drop, and
the ventilation of a filter rod [2,3].
Filter ventilation is the dominant design feature of the modern cigarette that determines
yields of tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide (TNCO), but other factors including burn rate,
amount of tobacco and paper porosity also contribute. It has been known that ventilated cigarettes
have a possibility to achieve major reductions in all smoke components, including those in the
gas phase, and that filter ventilation is a practical tool for controlling smoke deliveries. The term
filter ventilation in this case describes the supply of diluting air to the mainstream smoke via the
vent holes of the filter [4, 5].
The widely used method for manufacturing vented filters is pre-perforated tipping paper
combined with and porous plug wrap of specific porosities. Highly porous plug wrap papers are
used as a filtration material (i.e.,filter tow and plasticizer) in the production of filter-ventilated
cigarettes [1,6].
Ventilated filters are now common on cigarettes sold in the Europe, USA, Canada, and the
Republic of Macedonia, and that fact indicate that ventilation has a major effect on tar, nicotine,
and carbon monoxide yields.
Several studies have found that many smokers intentionally or unintentionally block filter
vents on light cigarettes with their fingers or lips and thereby can increase their smoke exposure
from these cigarettes. Smokers may also defeat ventilation by taking larger, more frequent puffs
or smoking to a shorter butt length to compensate for the smoke yields of lower tar cigarettes [7].
The objective of this study was to determine the effect of different degrees of filter vents
blocking (0%, 50% and 100%) on tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide yields on six commercial
brands of slim cigarettes.

Materials and methods

Six brands of slim cigarettes were purchased at retail outlets in Macedonia. The brands A
and B contain 6 mg/cig tar; 0.6 mg/cig nicotine and 6 mg/cig carbon monoxide. The TNCO
yields in brands C and D were 5 mg/0.5 mg/4 mg, and E and F contain 4 mg/0.4 mg/3 mg.
In all cigarette brands the filter vents were made up of a region on the filter as two discrete
rings of holes around the circumference of the filter and starting at about 11–15 mm from the
filter end. The tipping paper was removed from each filter, and measurements of its length and
the presence of vent holes were performed using a transparent ruler and a light box.
For the 100%, blocking of the ventilation holes a 4 mm wide cellophane tape were wrapped
around the entire circumference of the both filter rings, and the rest of the filter is not changed.
For the 50%, blocking of the vent holes a 4 mm wide cellophane tape were wrapped around
the entire circumference of the proximate ring to filter end.
Prior to the analysis of physical parameters and chemical composition, the cigarettes were
conditioned during 48 h in the chamber for conditioning (Borgwaldt GmbH, Germany) at a
temperature of 22°C and are relative humidity of 60%, in accordance with the ISO 3402[8]. After
that, they were smoked on the Borgwaldt RM 20/CSR (Borgwaldt GmbH, Germany).The
environmental conditions for smoking were set by ISO 3308[9], and ISO regimen (35-ml puff
volume, a 60-s puff interval, 2-s puff duration).
The tar content was determined according to ISO 4387, nicotine content according to ISO
10315, and the carbon monoxide by ISO 8454[10, 11, 12]. For the purposes of the analysis, 20
cigarettes were taken from each sample, whereas all the analyses were conducted in six
repetitions and average value are considered.

Results and discussion

Cigarette design plays a major role in determining tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide
(TNCO) yields in tests using machine smoking. Slims cigarettes achieve their lower tar, nicotine,
and carbon monoxide (CO) yields mainly by air-dilution vents on the filters. Ventilation holes
appear as a ring of tiny perforations that circle the filter end of the cigarette.
This design feature allows air to enter the holes when a puff is taken, dilutes the
mainstream smoke coming from the mouth end reduces the amount of nicotine, and carbon
monoxide.
Filter ventilation is successful in lowering TNCO yields when cigarettes are smoked by
machines for testing, but many smokers partially or completely blocking the holes and increasing
their smoke exposure from each cigarette.
Our research showed that cigarette with 0% blocking of the vent holes produces a puff fully
diluted by filter vents. All cigarettes tested showed that the content of nicotine, tar and CO are
close to the declared on packaging and within confidential intervals for these parameters
according to ISO 8243.

By blocking the proximate ring to filter end (50% blocking of the vent holes) the cigarettes
produces a puff that is 50% air from vents and 50% undiluted smoke. When we have 50%
blocking holes on A and B cigarettes the nicotine contributes with increasing yields of average
0.14 mg, C and D cigarettes have an average of 0.12 mg, and when it come to the E and F
cigarettes the nicotine content is 0.22 mg (Figure 1).
By blocking the both filter rings (100% blocking of the vent holes) the cigarettes produces
a puff that is 100% undiluted smoke, then nicotine content increases on A and B cigarettes to
average 0.20 mg nicotine, C and D have an average of 0.17 mg, and E and F cigarettes nicotine
content is 0.35 mg.

Average tar yield in A, B, C and D cigarettes increased 1.70 mg, compared to 1.83 mg in E
and F cigarettes with 50% vents blocking. If the filter vents are 100% blocked tar content
increases on A and B cigarettes to average 3.65 mg, C and D have an average of 2.97 mg, and E
and F cigarettes tar content is 3.37 mg (Figure 2).

The average carbon monoxide yield with 50% vents blocking in E and F cigarettes shown
highest content (3.0 mg) and the lowest carbon monoxide content have cigarettes A and B (1.03
mg). Under 100% vents blocking in E and F cigarettes shown highest content (4.5 mg) and the
lowest carbon monoxide content have cigarettes A and B (2.8 mg) (Figure 3).
Our results demonstrate that smokers of slim cigarettes can achieve the same exposures
from these cigarettes as do smokers of full flavoured cigarettes if they block filter vents. Vent
blocking of slim cigarettes is associated with higher concentrations of nicotine and carbon
monoxide in mainstream smoke.

Conclusions
Blocking 50% of filter vents increased standard tar yields in investigated cigarettes from
1.70 mg to 1.83 mg tar, and nicotine from 0.12 mg to 0.22 mg.
If the filter vents are 100% blocked, tar content increases to average 3.65 mg in cigarettes
with TNCO 6 mg/ 0.6 mg/6 mg and the nicotine content in cigarettes E and F (4 mg/0.4 mg/3
mg) reaches to 0.35 mg.
Under 100% vents blocking the E and F cigarettes (4 mg/0.4 mg/3 mg) shown highest
content (4.5 mg) and the lowest carbon monoxide content have cigarettes A and B with TNCO 6
mg/0.6 mg/6 mg (2.8 mg).
Vent blocking of slim cigarettes is associated with higher concentrations of nicotine and
carbon monoxide in mainstream cigarette smoke.
Cigarette smokers need to be warned about the presence of vent holes on filter and the
consequences of intentional blocking of vent holes.

Literature
1.Norman, A., 1999, Cigarette design and materials. In: Davis DL, Nielsen MT (eds)
Tobacco production, chemistry, and technology, Malden, MA: Blackwell Science. p. 353-387
2.Browne, C L., 1990,The design of cigarettes. 3rd ed. Hoechst Celanese
3.Kirkova S., 2004, Studies on the influence of some factors in lowering the levels of
nicotine, tar and carbon monoxide in cigarette smoke 15 th National Conference with
International Participation & Quality for better life “2004”, 113-118
4.Stephens, W. E., 2007, Dependence of tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide yields on
physical parameters: implications for exposure, emissions control and monitoring, Tobacco
Control 16, p.170–176
5.Baker, R.R., 1999, Smoke chemistry. In: Davis DL, Nielsen MT (eds) Tobacco
production, chemistry and technology, Oxford: Blackwell Science. p. 398-439
6.O’Connor, R. J., Hammond, D., McNeill, A., King, B., Kozlowski, L.T., Giovino, G. A.,
K. M Cummings, 2008, How do different cigarette design features influencethe standard tar
yields of popular cigarette brands sold in different countries?, Tob. Control,17, p.i1-i5
7.Kozlowski, L., Todd, T. I., Heatherton, F., Frecker, C., E.Nolte, 1989, Self-Selected
Blocking of Ventson Low-Yield Cigarettes, Pharmacology Biochemistry & Behavior, Vol. 33, p.
815-819
8.ISO Standard 3402:1999. Tobacco and tobacco products -Atmosphere for conditioning
and testing.
9.ISO Standard 3308:2000. Routine analytical cigarette-smoking machine-Definitions and
standard conditions.
 10.ISO Standard 8454:2007. Cigarettes - determination of carbon monoxide in the vapour
phase of cigarette smoke - NDIR method.
11.ISO 4387: 2000. Cigarettes-Determination of total and nicotine-free dry particulate
matter using a routine analytical smoking machines
12.ISO 10315:2000. Cigarettes - Determination of nicotine in smoke condensates – Gas
Chromatographic method