Limitations in the characterisation of cigarette products using different machine smoking regimes.

It is recognised that no single machine smoking regime can represent the different behaviours of individual human smokers. It has been argued that the current ISO standard regime provides machine yields that are somewhat low for certain cigarette designs compared to human intake. Various cigarette machine smoking regimes have been proposed as options for regulatory use to provide data that reflect "average" or "maximum" yields as related to human intake. Some public health representatives have proposed that the intense regime mandated for testing in Canada with 100% of the ventilation holes in the cigarette filter blocked, should be used for product characterisation and that it is not necessary that it should reflect general human smoking behaviour. We believe that this is a flawed approach because our studies and those of other workers demonstrate that the conditions generated in the cigarette when using this intense machine smoking regime are extreme in comparison to the conditions found for regimes based more realistically on human smoking. In this paper, we provide data to show that smokers modify their smoking intensity over the course of smoking in response to changes in draw resistance, smoke concentrations and smoke temperatures. We compare changes in and interactions between these parameters during puffing when smoking cigarettes of different designs. Cigarettes were smoked using various machine smoking regimes previously proposed for smoke testing as well as a regime based on human smoking data from an 'in-house' study. Puffing parameters were derived from this study to represent the 'average smoker' under laboratory conditions and equivalent to the 90th percentile when the studied smokers smoked under natural conditions. Biomarker data from human uptake studies have shown that ventilation is an effective cigarette design tool to reduce total smoke constituent uptake in humans so demonstrating that any blocking of filter ventilation is far from 100%. Likewise, this current work also shows how smokers modify their smoking behaviour in ways not well reflected by the 100% ventilation blocking regime. It seems logical that any machine smoking regime chosen for future product regulation should reflect these findings for it to have valid public health relevance. In addition, it seems misguided to discourage product design features, such as ventilation, which clearly can provide products with reduced human smoke exposure, just to maintain the dogma, counter to the scientific evidence, that there must be a regulatory regime with 100% ventilation blocking.