Investigating predictability of in vitro toxicological assessments of cigarettes: Analysis of 7years of regulatory submissions to Canadian regulatory authorities

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

Volumn 68, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 222-230

  Belushkin, M ^a   Piade J J ^a   Chapman, S ^b   Fazekas, G ^b  

^a PHILIP MORRIS PRODUCTS S A   (Switzerland)

^b Rothmans Benson and Hedges Inc   (Canada)

Author keywords

In vitro results; Prediction; Regulatory submissions; Smoke constituent yields

Indexed keywords

CIGARETTE SMOKE; TOBACCO SMOKE;

ARTICLE; CANADA; CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; CHEMICAL COMPOSITION; CONCENTRATION (PARAMETERS); CONTROLLED STUDY; CYTOTOXICITY; FILTER DESIGN; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MICRONUCLEUS TEST; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SMOKING; TOXICITY TESTING;

IN VITRO RESULTS; PREDICTION; REGULATORY SUBMISSIONS; SMOKE CONSTITUENT YIELDS;

CANADA; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOBACCO PRODUCTS; TOXICITY TESTS;

EID: 84892466553     PISSN: 02732300     EISSN: 10960295     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.12.009     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Babich H., Borenfreund E. Cytotoxic and morphological effects of phenylpropanolamine, caffeine, nicotine, and some of their metabolites studied in vitro. Toxicol. In Vitro 1992, 6:493-502.
2. Baker R.R., et al. An overview of the effects of tobacco ingredients on smoke chemistry and toxicity. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2004, 42:S53-S83.
3. Bombick D.W., et al. Evaluation of the genotoxic and cytotoxic potential of mainstream whole smoke and smoke condensate from a cigarette containing a novel carbon filter. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 1997, 39:11-17.
4. Bombick D.W., et al. Comparative cytotoxicity studies of smoke condensates from different types of cigarettes and tobaccos. Toxicol. In Vitro 1998, 12:241-249.
5. Borenfreund E., Puerner J.A. Toxicity determined in vitro by morphological alterations and neutral red absorption. Toxicol. Lett. 1985, 24:119-124.
6. Branton P., Bradley R. Effects of active carbon pore size distributions on adsorption of toxic organic compounds. Adsorption 2011, 17:293-301.
7. Brownawell A. The LSRO Report on Biological Effects Assessment in the Evaluation of Potential Reduced-Risk Tobacco Products 2007, Life Sciences Research Office, Bethesda, MA.
8. Browne C.L. Design of Cigarettes 1990, Hoechst Celanese.
9. Byrd D. The LSRO Report on Review of Ingredients Added to Cigarettes: Phase One: The Feasibility of Testing Ingredients Added to Cigarettes 2004, Life Sciences Research Office, Rockville, MD.
10. Carmines E.L. Evaluation of the potential effects of ingredients added to cigarettes. Part 1: cigarette design, testing approach, and review of results. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2002, 40:77-91.
11. Coggins C.R.E., Gaworski C.L. Could charcoal filtration of cigarette smoke reduce smoking-induced disease? A review of the literature. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2008, 50:359-365.
12. CORESTA In Vitro Toxicology Task Force, 2004. The rationale and strategy for conducting in vitro toxicology testing of tobacco smoke. Available from: <> (last accessed 06/11/2013). http://www.coresta.org/Reports/IVT_TF_Rationale-IVT-Testing-Tob.-Smoke_Report_Jun04.pdf.
13. CORESTA In Vitro Toxicology Task Force, 2007. Interlaboratory study of the in vitro toxicity of particulate matter from four cigarettes. Available from: (last accessed 19/09/2013), CORESTA. http://www.coresta.org/Reports/Reports.htm.
14. Countryman P.I., Heddle J.A. The production of micronuclei from chromosome aberrations in irradiated cultures of human lymphocytes. Mutat. Res. 1976, 41:321-332.
15. DeMarini D.M. Genotoxicity of tobacco smoke and tobacco smoke condensate. Mutation Res. 1983, 114:59-89.
16. DeMarini D.M., et al. Genotoxicity of 10 cigarette smoke condensates in four test systems: comparisons between assays and condensates. Mutation Res. 2008, 650:15-29.
17. Dempsey R., et al. Toxicological assessment of cigarette ingredients. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2011, 61:119-128.
18. Doolittle D.J., et al. Comparative studies on the genotoxic activity of mainstream smoke condensate from cigarettes which burn or only heat tobacco. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 1990, 15:93-105.
19. Fenech M. The in vitro micronucleus technique. Mutation Res. 2000, 455:81-95.
20. Gaworski C.L., et al. Effect of filtration by activated charcoal on the toxicological activity of cigarette mainstream smoke from experimental cigarettes. Inhalation Toxicol. 2009, 21:688-704.
21. Health Canada Tobacco reporting regulations (SOR/DORS/2000-273). Can. Gazette Part II 2000, 134:1761-1792.
22. Health Canada, 2004a. Official method T-501, bacterial reverse mutation assay for mainstream tobacco smoke.
23. Health Canada, 2004b. Official method T-502, neutral red uptake assay for mainstream tobacco smoke.
24. Health Canada, 2004c. Official method T-503, in vitro micronucleus assay for mainstream tobacco smoke.
25. Health Canada Cigarette ignition propensity regulations (SOR/2005-178). Can. Gazette Part II 2005, 139:1505-1522.
26. Health Canada Regulations amending the tobacco reporting regulations (SOR/DORS/2005-179). Can. Gazette Part II 2005, 139:1523-1526.
27. Health Canada Bill C-32 (Chapter 27). Can. Gazette III 2010, 32.
28. Health Canada, 1999. Determination of "tar", nicotine and carbon monoxide in mainstream tobacco smoke (Health Canada method T-115. Available from: <>, (last accessed 08/02/2013). http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/alt_formats/hecs-sesc/pdf/tobac-tabac/legislation/reg/indust/method/_main-principal/nicotine-eng.pdf.
29. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, ISO 4387: determination of total and nicotine-free dry particulate matter using routine analytical smoking machine, 1991.
30. Irwin, W.D.E., 1989. The effects of circumference on mainstream deliveries and composition: progress report 2. British American Tobacco Report No: RD.2135.
31. Johnson M.D., et al. Evaluation of in vitro assays for assessing the toxicity of cigarette smoke and smokeless tobacco. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2009, 18:3263-3304.
32. Kim B.S., Margolin B.H. Statistical methods for the Ames Salmonella assay: a review. Mutat. Res. 1999, 436:113-122.
33. Klaassen C.D., Eaton D.L. Principles of toxicology. Casarett Doull's Toxicol. 1991, 4:12-49.
34. Lee P.N., et al. Does use of flue-cured rather than blended cigarettes affect international variation in mortality from lung cancer and COPD?. Inhalation Toxicol. 2009, 21:404-430.
35. Maron D.M., Ames B.N. Revised methods for the Salmonella mutagenicity test. Mutat. Res. 1983, 113:173-215.
36. National Cancer Institute, Toward less hazardous cigarettes: Report No. 1. The first set of experimental cigarettes, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington DC., 1976.
37. Norman, A., 1999. Cigarette design and materials. Tobacco. Production, Chemistry and Technology. 353-387.
38. OECD, 1997. Test No. 471: Bacterial Reverse Mutation Test. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals/Section 4: Health Effects. OECD Publishing.
39. Oldham M.J., et al. Discriminatory power of standard toxicity assays used to evaluate ingredients added to cigarettes. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2012, 62:49-61.
40. Paschke T., et al. Effects of ingredients on cigarette smoke composition and biological activity: a literature overview. Beiträge zur Tabakforschung Int. 2002, 20:107-247.
41. Piadé J.J., et al. Formation of mainstream cigarette smoke constituents prioritized by the World Health Organization - Yield patterns observed in market surveys, clustering and inverse correlations. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2013, 55:329-347.
42. Purkis S.W., et al. The influence of cigarette designs and smoking regimes on vapour phase yields. Beitrage zur Tabakforschung Int. Contribut. Tobacco Res. 2010, 24:33-46.
43. Purkis S.W., et al. Limitations in the characterisation of cigarette products using different machine smoking regimes. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2010, 58:501-515.
44. Purkis S.W., et al. Some consequences of using cigarette machine smoking regimes with different intensities on smoke yields and their variability. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2011, 59:293-309.
45. Purkis S.W., et al. The fate of ingredients in and impact on cigarette smoke. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2011, 49:3238-3248.
46. Richter P.A., et al. Cytotoxicity of eight cigarette smoke condensates in three test systems: comparisons between assays and condensates. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2010, 58:428-436.
47. Rickert W.S., et al. Effect of smoking conditions and methods of collection on the mutagenicity and cytotoxicity of cigarette mainstream smoke. Toxicol. Sci. 2007, 96:285-293.
48. Rickert W.S., et al. Mutagenic, cytotoxic, and genotoxic properties of tobacco smoke produced by cigarillos available on the Canadian market. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2011, 61:199-209.
49. Roemer E., et al. Discrimination of cigarette mainstream smoke condensates with the Salmonella reverse mutation assay. Toxicol. Sci. 1998, 42:295.
50. Roemer E., et al. Chemical composition, cytotoxicity and mutagenicity of smoke from US commercial and reference cigarettes smoked under two sets of machine smoking conditions. Toxicology 2004, 195:31-52.
51. Roemer E., et al. Cytotoxicity, mutagenicity, and tumorigenicity of mainstream smoke from three reference cigarettes machine-smoked to the same yields of total particulate matter per cigarette. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2009, 47:1810-1818.
52. Roemer E., et al. Scientific assessment of the use of sugars as cigarette tobacco ingredients: a review of published and other publicly available studies. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 2012, 42:244-278.
53. Roeper W., et al. 'Hoffmann' analytes and cigarette smoke in vitro toxicity revisited-how do the data compare? 2004, CORESTA, Kyoto Congress.
54. SCHER/SCENIHR/SCCS, 2013. Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks/Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks/Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety, Addressing the New Challenges for Risk Assessment. Available from: <> (last accessed 06/11/2013). http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_131.pdf.
55. Schramke H., et al. The mouse lymphoma thymidine kinase assay for the assessment and comparison of the mutagenic activity of cigarette mainstream smoke particulate phase. Toxicology 2006, 227:193-210.
56. Seilkop S.K., et al. Identification of chemical components of combustion emissions that affect pro-atherosclerotic vascular responses in mice. Inhalation Toxicol. 2012, 24:270-287.
57. Siu M., et al. The analysis of mainstream smoke emissions of Canadian 'super slim' cigarettes. Tobacco Control 2013, 22:e10.
58. Tewes F.J., et al. Toxicological evaluation of an electrically heated cigarette. Part 3: genotoxicity and cytotoxicity of mainstream smoke. J. Appl. Toxicol. 2003, 23:341-348.
59. Thayer P.S., Kensler C.J. Cigarette smoke: charcoal filters reduce components that inhibit growth of cultured human cells. Science 1964, 146:642-644.
60. Tso T.C. Seed to Smoke 1999, Blackwell Science Ltd.
61. Vanparys P., et al. Application of in vitro cell transformation assays in regulatory toxicology for pharmaceuticals, chemicals, food products and cosmetics. Mutation Res. 2012, 744:111-116.
62. World Health Organization, 2008. The Scientific Basis of Tobacco Product Regulation. WHO Technical Report Series. 951.
63. Wright, W., Rickert, W.S., Stability of responses of Canadian mandated toxicological assays from the Kentucky reference cigarette 2R4F: a time series analysis. In: 61st Tobacco Science Research Conference, 22 - 27 September 2007, Charlotte, North Carolina, U.S.A, 2007.
64. Yauk C.L., et al. Genetic toxicology and toxicogenomic analysis of three cigarette smoke condensates in vitro reveals few differences among full-flavor, blonde, and light products. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 2012, 53:281-296.
65. Zenzen V., et al. Reduced exposure evaluation of an Electrically Heated Cigarette Smoking System. Part 2: smoke chemistry and in vitro toxicological evaluation using smoking regimens reflecting human puffing behavior. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2012, 64:S11-S34.