Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 7 
The ultralow cigarettes are typically rated 1 mg of tar or less. Smokers of 
ultralow-yield cigarettes smoked on average a few more cigarettes per day 
than other smokers. This appears to be one way in which these smokers are 
compensating for lower nicotine yields. Of note, carbon monoxide levels ! 
were similar for all yields. Thiocyanate, nicotine, and cotinine levels were the 
same for smokers of cigarettes with nicotine yields of 0.20 mg and higher. 
Only in the ultralow group was there any reduction in nicotine exposure, 
about 30 percent. Thus, cotinine levels produced by smoking ultralow-yield 
cigarettes, instead of averaging 300 ng/mL, averaged about 200 ng/mL. 
Gori and Lynch (1983) presented similar findings in a larger group of smokers. 
Smokers of the low-yield cigarette brand had the same mean cotinine levels 
as smokers of all other cigarette brands. In contrast, smokers of ultralow-yield 
cigarettes had lower cotinine levels, averaging about 200 ng/mL. Note that 
200 ng/mL still corresponds to a daily intake of 16 mg of nicotine per day. i 
If the FTC yield of 0.1 mg nicotine per cigarette were correct, one would ' 
need to smoke 160 cigarettes per day to achieve an intake of 16 mg. These i 
smokers were not smoking 160 cigarettes per day. Thus, the FTC information 
on the ultralow-yield cigarette does not provide meaningful quantitative > 
information, although there may be a difference between the ultralow- and i 
higher yield cigarettes. fi 
I 
NICOTINE INTAKE Table 2 provides a summary of several studies of nicotine 
AND MACHINE- intake vs. machine-derived yields. These are studies that have i 
DETERMINED YIELD examined the relationship between FTC machine yield and [ 
nicotine intake measured either by cotinine concentrations or by nicotine j 
concentration. Rickert and Robinson (1981) reported plasma cotinine i 
concentrations vs. machine nicotine yield and found no relationship. 
Russell and coworkers (1980) studied 330 subjects and found a weak 
relationship between plasma nicotine concentration and yield. Benowitz 
and colleagues (1983b) studied 272 smokers interested in smoking cessation 
and found no significant relationship between plasma cotinine and yield. i 
Lbert and coworkers (1983) found a shallow relationship between plasma 
nicotine and yield. Gori and Lynch (1985) found a very shallow slope with t 
865 subjects but also found significant relationships because of the large j 
number of subjects. In a study by Benowitz and colleagues (1986b), cotinine I 
concentrations were virtually the same for any cigarette with a yield of *■ 
0.2 mg and more and were a third less for the ultralow cigarettes. In a study I 
by Russell and coworkers (1986), the 392 smokers studied showed a shallow ^ 
relationship between cotinine level and nicotine yield. Rosa and colleagues I 
(1992) found a shallow slope relating cotinine level vs. ITC yield, similar to '| 
that of other studies. However, when Rosa and coworkers (1992) combined I 
cigarettes per day times I'FC yield, they found a strong relationship, which ‘ 
they interpreted as supporting the utility of the machine test method. f 
In 298 Hispanics, Coultas and coworkers (1993) showed findings similar 
to those of the other studies. 
The Byrd and colleagues study (1995) was the only study with different ' 
results; thirty-three volunteers were asked to [)rovide 24-hour urine sam|)les 
in wfiich nicotine and metabolites were measured. I'he nicotine intake was 
102 
