A Comparative Ignition Propensity Study of Foreign and U.S. Cigarettes Using the NIST Cotton Duck Mockup Ignition Test Method
Source abstract
Abstract
Popular cigarette brands from the U.S. and four European coun tries were tested using the Mockup Ignition Test Method developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) under the 1990 Fire- Safe Cigarette Act. Only two cigarette brands showed a significant reduction in ignition propen sity by the mockup test. These brands represent the major portion of the Hun garian cigarette market, yet 40% of fire deaths in Hungary are attributed to careless smoking fires. Cigarettes from Austria and the Netherlands showed 100% ignitions in all tests, yet those countries have very low fire death rates and few deaths attributed to careless smoking fires. Most of the U.S. cigarettes exhibited ignition behavior similar to Austrian and Dutch cigarette brands, but a few showed less than 100% ignitions. Ignition test results of cigarettes from Hungary, Austria, and the Nether lands strongly suggest that "reduced" ignition propensity, as measured by the NIST test, does not necessarily translate into reduced fire risk, nor does "fail ure" of the test necessarily indicate an increased fire risk. Other studies have shown that the NIST test represents the ignition behavior of only a fraction of U.S. upholstery fabrics, and is therefore an incomplete test. Cultural habits, fire prevention and education programs, fire awareness, financial consider ations, and building design are factors to consider in evaluation of a country's fire situation.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Injury Epidemiology and Prevention · Traffic and Road Safety · Occupational Health and Performance
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Bowman Gray Technical Center Winston-Salem, NC 27102-1487
References (28)
Show source-provided references
1. McNeil/Lehrer Report. · 1988
2. Leichtman, A. · 1988
3. 10.1177/07349041900080040210.1177/073490419000800402 ↗
4. Schaenman, P.S. · 1982
5. E.F. Seits · 1985
6. Schaenman, P.S. · 1993
7. Lewis, L.S.
8. 10.6028/NIST.SP.851-210.6028/NIST.SP.851-2 ↗
9. Gann, R.G. · NIST Technical Note · 1988 · 1241
10. E. Braun · 1992
11. 10.1177/07349041950130020310.1177/073490419501300203 ↗
12. 10.1001/jama.1983.0333035004202410.1001/jama.1983.03330350042024 ↗
13. Howland, J. · Pub. Health Reports · 1987 · 102 · 475
14. 10.2105/AJPH.80.9.111610.2105/AJPH.80.9.1116 ↗
15. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a11619810.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116198 ↗
16. 10.1056/NEJM19920917327120710.1056/NEJM199209173271207 ↗
17. Harwood, B. · 1993
18. 1993
19. Brown, A. · 1994
20. Gann, R.G. · 1994
21. Moakley, J.J. · 1994
22. Orr, Bob. · 1994
23. Wallace, Mike. · 1994
24. 1993
25. 10.1177/07349041940120030410.1177/073490419401200304 ↗
26. 10.1177/07349041950130010410.1177/073490419501300104 ↗
27. Lewis, L.S. · J. Fire Sciences. · 1995
28. Rardin, R.L. · 1977