This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hammond, D. Articles by Hyland, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hammond, D. Articles by Hyland, A.

Smoking Topography, Brand Switching, and Nicotine Delivery: Results from an In vivo Study

¹ Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada and ² Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York

Requests for reprints: David Hammond, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1. Phone: 519-888-4567, ext. 3597; Fax: 519-746-8631. E-mail: dhammond{at}uwaterloo.ca

Objective: Exposure to toxins in tobacco smoke is influenced by how a cigarette is smoked. Cigarettes have been designed to allow for a range of puffing behavior and to provide different, nonlinear tar and nicotine yields in response to different puffing profiles. However, puffing behavior and its influence upon risk-exposure has yet to be assessed outside the laboratory, in smokers' natural environment.

Method: Fifty-nine adult smokers used a portable device to measure smoking topography over the course of three 1-week trials. Participants were asked to smoke their usual "regular yield" brand through the device for trial 1 and again, 6 weeks later, at trial 2. Half the subjects were then randomly assigned to switch to a "low-yield" brand for trial 3.

Results: The findings show a high degree of stability in puffing behavior within the same subject over time but considerable variability between smokers. Smokers who were switched to a "low-yield" cigarette increased their total smoke intake per cigarette by 40% (P = 0.007), with no significant change in their salivary cotinine levels. Cigarettes smoked per day and nicotine yield were only weakly associated with salivary cotinine levels; however, salivary cotinine was strongly associated with a composite measure that included cigarettes per day, brand elasticity, and puffing behavior (sr = 0.61, P < 0.001).

Conclusions: These findings provide strong evidence of behavioral compensation to low-yield cigarettes from in vivo measures of smoking behavior. The findings also show the importance of brand elasticity and smoking topography in predicting nicotine uptake and smoke exposure.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. M. Polzin, W. Wu, X. Yan, J. M. McCraw, S. Abdul-Salaam, A. D. Tavakoli, L. Zhang, D. L. Ashley, and C. H. Watson Estimating smokers' mouth-level exposure to select mainstream smoke constituents from discarded cigarette filter butts Nicotine Tob Res, July 1, 2009; 11(7): 868 - 874. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. P. Cosgrove, J. Batis, F. Bois, P. K. Maciejewski, I. Esterlis, T. Kloczynski, S. Stiklus, S. Krishnan-Sarin, S. O'Malley, E. Perry, et al. {beta}2-Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptor Availability During Acute and Prolonged Abstinence From Tobacco Smoking Arch Gen Psychiatry, June 1, 2009; 66(6): 666 - 676. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. I. Rennard Lessons from Multidisciplinary Cross-Fertilization: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Lung Cancer, and Heart Disease Proceedings of the ATS, December 1, 2008; 5(8): 865 - 868. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				V. W. Rees, G. F. Wayne, and G. N. Connolly Puffing Style and Human Exposure Minimally Altered by Switching to a Carbon-Filtered Cigarette Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., November 1, 2008; 17(11): 2995 - 3003. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L Shahab, R West, and A McNeill The feasibility of measuring puffing behaviour in roll-your-own cigarette smokers Tob. Control, September 1, 2008; 17(Suppl_1): i17 - i23. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R Borland, G T Fong, H-H Yong, K M Cummings, D Hammond, B King, M Siahpush, A McNeill, G Hastings, R J O'Connor, et al. What happened to smokers' beliefs about light cigarettes when "light/mild" brand descriptors were banned in the UK? Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey Tob. Control, August 1, 2008; 17(4): 256 - 262. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. N Connolly, H. R Alpert, G. F. Wayne, and H. Koh Trends in nicotine yield in smoke and its relationship with design characteristics among popular US cigarette brands, 1997 2005 Tob. Control, October 1, 2007; 16(5): e5 - e5. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. M. Cummings, A. Brown, and R. O'Connor The Cigarette Controversy Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., June 1, 2007; 16(6): 1070 - 1076. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W E Stephens Dependence of tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide yields on physical parameters: implications for exposure, emissions control and monitoring Tob. Control, June 1, 2007; 16(3): 170 - 176. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. F. Pankow, K. H. Watanabe, P. L. Toccalino, W. Luo, and D. F. Austin Calculated Cancer Risks for Conventional and "Potentially Reduced Exposure Product" Cigarettes Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., March 1, 2007; 16(3): 584 - 592. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Laugesen and J. Fowles Marlboro UltraSmooth: a potentially reduced exposure cigarette? Tob. Control, December 1, 2006; 15(6): 430 - 435. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. R. MunafU Harm reduction: lessons learned from tobacco control J Psychopharmacol, May 1, 2006; 20(3): 329 - 330. [PDF]