Cigarette classification as a consumer message

Carboxyhemoglobin and thiocyanate as biomarkers of exposure to carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide in tobacco smoke

The determination of biomarkers in human body fluids is a useful tool, which allows the quantitative assessment of the exposure to chemicals or complex mixtures of chemicals and of early biological effects as a result of the exposure. Biomarkers require validation before their successful application in human studies. This review describes some general purposes of human biomonitoring and biomarkers including the requirements for validation. Risk assessment and harm reduction of smoking and tobacco products, respectively, is a very suitable field for the application of biomarkers. A brief historical review shows that the application of biomarkers of exposure and effect in human smoking goes back more than 150 years. Two 'classical' biomarkers of exposure to tobacco, namely carboxyhemoglobin (COHb and its equivalent carbon monoxide in exhalate, COex) and thiocyanate (SCN) in body fluids are discussed in terms of sources of exposure, metabolism, disposition kinetics and influencing host factors. Data on COHb/COex and SCN in nonsmokers and smokers as well as the power to discriminate between smokers and nonsmokers are presented. Both biomarkers are significantly correlated with the daily cigarette consumption. Smoking machine-derived yields of the precursors carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide were not correlated with COHb/COex and SCN, respectively. It is concluded that, while COHb/COex is a useful biomarker for assessing the smoke inhalation, preferably in controlled studies, the application of SCN in body fluids as a biomarker for smoking is limited, mainly due to the abundance of other sources for SCN.

Are self-reports of smoking rate biased? Evidence from the Second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

This study determined evidence for digit preference in self-reports of smoking in the Second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES II). Subjects were 4275 adult smokers. Self-reports of smoking showed a marked degree of digit preference, with the vast majority of smokers reporting in multiples of 10 cigarettes per day. When number per day was compared to an objective measure of smoking exposure (carboxyhemoglobin; n = 2070) the distribution was found to be significantly assymetrical. Analysis of the distribution of COHb and various levels of number per day indicates that the differences in distribution are not due to variability in COHb. Heavier smokers, Caucasians, and those with less education were more likely to report a digit preference than lighter smokers. African-Americans, and those with more education. Results suggest that self-reports of number of cigarettes per day may be biased towards round numbers (particularly 20 cigarettes per day). Implications for assessment of smoking behavior are discussed.

Mainstream and environmental tobacco smoke

Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is derived from cigarette smoldering and active smoker exhalation. Its composition displays broad quantitative differences and redistributions between gas and respirable suspended particulate (RSP) phases when compared with the mainstream smoke (MSS) that smokers puff. This is because of different generation conditions and because ETS is diluted and ages vastly more than MSS. Such differences prevent a direct comparison of MSS and ETS and their biologic activities. However, even assuming similarities on an equal mass basis, ETS-RSP inhaled doses are estimated to be between 10,000- and 100,000-fold less than estimated average MSS-RSP doses for active smokers. Differences in effective gas phase doses are expected to be of similar magnitude. Thus the average person exposed to ETS would retain an annual dose analogous to the active MSS smoking of considerably less than one cigarette dispersed over a 1-year period. By contrast, consistent epidemiologic data indicate that active smoking of some 4-5 cigarettes per day may not be associated with a significantly increased risk of lung cancer. Similar indications also obtain for cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. Since average doses of ETS to nonsmoking subjects in epidemiologic studies are several thousand times less than this reported intake level, the marginal relative risks of lung cancer and other diseases attributed to ETS in some epidemiologic studies are likely to be statistical artifacts, derived from unaccounted confounders and unavoidable bias.