ABSTRACT
A new-technology cigarette has been developed. While the new cigarette burns some tobacco, it does not use tobacco as the fuel to sustain combustion and provide heat to the cigarette. Rather, the new cigarette primarily heats tobacco thereby reducing products of smoke formation mechanisms such as tobacco combustion, tobacco pyrolysis and pyrosynthesis. The mainstream smoke composition from a cigarette based on the new design (TOB-HT) has been characterized in comparative chemical testing with two reference cigarettes using the FTC puffing regimen. Thermal properties, UV absorption characteristics, elemental composition and materials balance studies all suggest a simplified smoke aerosol. Twenty-five smoke constituents ("target compounds") identified by the scientific community as compounds that may contribute to the diseases statistically associated with smoking have also been measured. Mainstream smoke concentrations of most target compounds are significantly lower with the TOB-HT cigarette when compared with reference cigarettes in the ultra-light "tar" and light "tar" categories. Taken together, chemical analysis results suggest simplified TOB-HT smoke chemistry with marked reductions in specific chemicals reported to be biologically active.
Subject(s)
Nicotiana/chemistry , Plants, Toxic , Tobacco Smoke Pollution/analysis , Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry , Hot Temperature , Nicotine/analysis , Nitrosamines/analysis , Smoking , Tars/analysis , Tobacco Industry , Toxicity TestsABSTRACT
A new-technology cigarette has been developed. While the new cigarette burns some tobacco, it does not use tobacco as the fuel to sustain combustion and provide heat to the cigarette. Rather, the new cigarette primarily heats tobacco thereby reducing products of smoke formation mechanisms such as tobacco combustion, tobacco pyrolysis and pyrosynthesis. The mainstream smoke composition from a cigarette based on the new design (TOB-HT) has been characterized in comparative chemical testing with two reference cigarettes using the FTC puffing regimen. Thermal properties, UV absorption characteristics, elemental composition and materials balance studies all suggest a simplified smoke aerosol. Twenty-five smoke constituents ("target compounds") identified by the scientific community as compounds that may contribute to the diseases statistically associated with smoking have also been measured. Mainstream smoke concentrations of most target compounds are significantly lower with the TOB-HT cigarette when compared with reference cigarettes in the ultra-light "tar" and light "tar" categories. Taken together, chemical analysis results suggest simplified TOB-HT smoke chemistry with marked reductions in specific chemicals reported to be biologically active.
Subject(s)
Nicotiana/chemistry , Plants, Toxic , Tobacco Smoke Pollution/analysis , Hot Temperature , Nicotine/analysis , Nitrosamines/analysis , Smoking , Tars/analysis , Tobacco Industry , Toxicity TestsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To compare four analgesic regimens used in preparing patients for chest tube removal. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled multiple-group comparison. SETTING: Mid-atlantic university affiliated tertiary medical center. PATIENTS: 80 adult patients who underwent heart surgery and who had two mediastinal chest tubes. OUTCOME MEASURES: Subject's pain intensity rating on a 0 to 100 mm visual analog scale and subject's description of sensations blindly rated by six nurses. INTERVENTION: Before chest tube removal, subjects were medicated with either: (1) intravenous morphine sulfate (morphine), (2) intravenous morphine and subfascial angiocatheter lidocaine hydrochloride (lidocaine), (3) intravenous morphine and subfascial angiocatheter normal saline solution, or (4) subfascial angiocatheter lidocaine. RESULTS: Mean pain rating scores for groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 43.7 40.9, 36.4, and 38.1, respectively. Analysis of variance showed no significant difference between scores (p = 0.8948). The percentage of comments rated as "not bad at all" or "not bad" for groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 56%, 83%, 47% and 75%, respectively. Chi-square analysis showed a significant difference between ratings (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Blind ratings of subjects' descriptions of sensations suggest subfascial lidocaine may be useful in reducing discomfort during chest tube removal.
