Benzo[a]pyrene in the Mainstream Smoke of Little Cigars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little cigars are similar to cigarettes, with respect to dimensions, filters, and overall appearance. Some smokers also use little cigars as substitutes for cigarettes. Comparison of little cigars with cigarettes is relevant to understanding their respective public health impact. To understand their relative toxicities, mainstream smoke yields of benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P), a human carcinogen, were measured for 60 commercial little cigars. The little cigars were smoked on a linear smoking machine using the International Organization of Standardization (ISO) nonintense and Canadian Intense (CI) smoking regimens followed by analysis with a validated gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) method. The average analytical quantitative variability of the measured little cigar constituents was lower compared to previously tested commercial cigarettes (%RSD 9.6 vs 14.5, respectively). B[a]P yields ranged from 14.5–44.0 ng/cigar (ISO) and 24.0–65.7 ng/cigar (CI). The mean ISO yield is 25.5 ng/cigar versus the CI yield of 42.2 ng/cigar, which are 2.5- and 2-fold greater, respectively, than the corresponding mean cigarette yields. When normalized to tobacco weight, B[a]P yields of the little cigars are 1.5- (ISO) and 1.3- (CI) fold greater than cigarette yields. B[a]P smoke yields are known to correlate with tobacco weight. The little cigar B[a]P yield correlations to tobacco weight (CI R 2 = 0.35; ISO R 2 = 0.24) are similar to cigarette yield correlations (CI R 2 = 0.31; ISO R 2 = 0.21). Other physical properties (i.e., filter length, filter ventilation, and packing density) that may impact B[a]P smoke yields for the little cigars had very weak correlations. Except for cigarette packing density, cigars and cigarettes have similar correlations between B[a]P yields and physical design parameters. In summary, the little cigars, although physically similar to cigarettes, differ in smoke chemistry by generating higher B[a]P yields, even when normalized to tobacco weight.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".