458 



47J 



ing either the Test or Control cigarette. It should be 

 noted that the baseline level for the Control cigarette 

 is higher than the baseline level for the Test cigarette 

 for both the expired-air CO and %COHb measures. This 

 can be accounted for by the fact that the subjects ab- 

 stained from smokmg for 48 h prior to smoking the Test 

 cigarette and smoked the Control cigarette 10-12 min 

 after Hnishing the Test cigarette. For this reason, changes 

 from baseline for the expired-air CO and %COHb mea- 

 sures were used to compare the two cigarettes. 



Discussion 



Smoking both the Test and Control cigarettes resulted 

 in significant increases in plasma nicotine concentration 

 within 5 min of lighting. The maximum rise in plasma 

 nicotine concentration following smoking of the Control 

 cigarette was significantly greater than the maximum 

 change seen following smoking of the Test cigarette 

 (30.96 ng/ml versus 4.34 ng/ml; P<O.Oi). The difference 

 seen in this average maximum plasma nicotine rise was 

 proportional to the difference m FTC nicotine yields 

 for the two cigarettes (0.06 mg Test. 0.60 mg Control). 

 It should be pointed out, however, that increases m plas- 

 ma nicotine concentration were seen m all five subjects 

 following the smoking of the Test cigarette, indicating 

 that it was possible for a smoker to absorb some nicotine 

 from the smoke of this cigarette. The small amount ab- 

 sorbed was sufficient to produce a small percentage rise 

 in HR in all five subjects, but was not sufficient to pro- 

 duce significant changes in EEG magnitude. No changes 

 were observed in any of the physiological measures fol- 

 lowing sham-smoking an unlit cigarette. 



The sinular manner in which the two cigarettes were 

 smoked was somewhat surprising given the extremely 

 low levels of nicotine in the smoke of the Test cigarette 

 and the theory that mainstream smoke nicotine may pro- 

 vide an important cue for the puffing behaviors of smok- 

 ers (Rose et al. 1984). The smoking behaviors of the 

 subjects were essentially identical for both cigarettes. 

 The only significant difference in smoking behavior was 

 an increase in expiratory time for the Test cigarette. 

 Since the majority of the smoking behaviors were not 

 different for the two cigarettes, it is not known if the 

 difference in average expiratory time represents a physi- 

 ologically significant finding that could be replicated. 

 Although the smoking behaviors were neariy identical 

 for the two cigarettes used in the study, we would note 

 (anecdotally ; no formal questionnaire ratings were ob- 

 tained) that after the sessions nearly all the subjects 

 made a comment indicating that they could distinguish 

 a difference in the "strength" of the cigarettes they had 

 just smoked, with the first (Test) cigarette being noticea- 

 bly "weaker". 



Finally, the changes seen in the EEG power spectrum 

 following the smoking of the Control cigarette were simi- 

 lar to those reported previously (Pntchard 1991; Prit- 

 chard et al. 1991). These changes included an increase 

 in power in the beta2 band, an effect associated with 

 anxiety relief, and a decrease in power in the delta band. 



an effect associated with cortical activation. Anxiety re- 

 lief and improved mental alertness are two of the benefits 

 of smoking commonly reported by smokers as their rea- 

 son for smoking (see Gilbert 1979; Warburton 1988 a, 

 b; Warburton et al. 1988). Since the "tar" fractions of 

 these two cigarettes were apparently quite similar and 

 since the subjects apparently absorbed similar amounts 

 of particulate- and gas-phase components from both cig- 

 arettes (evidenced by the similar puffing and breathing 

 patterns and the similar changes in absorbed CO) we 

 conclude that the particulate fraction and gas phase of 

 cigarette smoke have little effect on the psychophysiolog- 

 ical responses seen following smoking. This indicates 

 that the beneficial effects of smoking on cognitive per- 

 formance (see Introduction) are a function of nicotine 

 absorbed from cigarette smoke upon inhalation. 



Acknowledgement. Figure 1 was reprinted with permission from: 

 Pntchard WS, Duke DW, Cobura CL, Robinson JH (1992) Non- 

 linear dynamical eleciroencephalographic analysis applied to nico- 

 tine psychopharmacology and Alzheimer's disease. In: LippieUo 

 PM, Collins AC, Gray JA, Robinson JH (eds) The biology of 

 nicotine: current research issues. Raven Press. New York, p 204. 



References 



Adikofer F, Thurau K (eds) (1991) Effects of nicotine on biological 

 systems. Birkhauser, Berlin 



Benowitz NL (1986) The human pharmacology of nicotine. In: 

 Chappell HD et al (eds) Research advances in alcohol and drug 

 problems, vol 9. Plenum Press, New York, pp 1-52 



Benowitz NL (1988) Toxicity of nicotine: Implications with regard 

 to nicotine replacement therapy. In: Pomerleau OF, Pomerleau 

 CS (eds) Nicotine replacement: a critical evaluation Progress 

 m clinical and biological research, vol 261. Liss, New York, 

 pp 187-218 



Bruning JL, Kintz BL (1987) CompuUtional handbook of slalis- 

 tics. Scott Forcsman and Company. Glenview, IL 



Creighlon DE, Noble MJ, Whewell RT (1978) Instruments to mea- 

 sure, record and duplicate human smoking patterns. In : Thorn- 

 ton RE (ed) Smoking behavior Churchill Livingstone, New 

 York, pp 277-288 



Davis RA (1986) The determination of nicotine and cotinine io 

 plasma. J Chromatogr Sci 24: 134-141 



Dube MF, Green CR (1982) Methods of collection of smoke for 

 analylical purposes. Recent Advances in Tobacco Science 8 : 42- 

 102 



Edwards JA, Wesnes K., Warburton DM, Gale A (1985) Evidence 

 of more rapid stimulus evaluation following cigareite smoking. 

 Addict Behav 10:113-126 



Gilbert DG (1979) Paradoxical tranquilizing and emotion-reducing 

 efTects of nicotine Psychol Bull 86:643-661 



Hindmarch 1. Kerr JS. Sherwood N (1990) Effects of nicotine gum 

 on psychomotor performance in smokers and non-smokers. 

 Psychopharmacology 104:113-119 



Klndmarch I, Kerr JS, Sherwood N (1991) The comparative psy- 

 chopharmacology of nicotine. In: Adikofer F, Thurau K (eds) 

 EITects of mcotine on biological systems. Birkhauser. Basel, 

 pp 509-519 



Kerr JS, Sherwood N, Hindmarch I (1991) Separale and combined 

 effects of the social drugs on psychomotor performance. Psy- 

 chopharmacology 104:113-119 



Knoii V (1991) Neuroelectnc correlates of smoking behavior. In: 

 Adikofer F, Thurau K (eds) Effects of nicotine on biological 

 systems. Birkhauser, Basel, pp 509-519 



