Tobacco Documents Online

PROJECT FLEECE - AN EXAHINATZON OF R.J. REYNOLDS' BRANDS REPORT NO. RD. 1422 RESTRICTED 20.10. 1976 AUTHOR: E.A. Ccell£n ISSUED BT: D.J. Wood PROJECT JOB NO: 33.O4.01 DISTRIBUTION: Dr. S.J. Green Dr. I~.W. Hughes Dr. R.A. Sanford E.M. Gibb, Esq. E.S. Wade, Esq. R.G. Nicholls, Esq. HezT H. Socc:o~'f Dr. F. Seehofer A.J. Kz~szynski, Esq. Dr. C.J.P. de Sique:Lra Dr. D.C. 1felt.on Library Copy No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 We my 9 " " 10, 11 " " 12 " " 13, 14, 15 " " 1(5, 17 " " 18 " " 19 " " 20 " " 21 " " 22 " " 23, 24 COPY NO: BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION o',, 0%

P..ACILKIt Group Kesearch & Development Centre, British-American Tobacco Co. Ltd., SOUTB~TON. 20th October, 1976 PROJECT FLEECE - AN EXAHIlqATZON OF . R.J. REYNOLDS' BRANDS (Report No. RD.1422 Eestricced) L 1. StTMMAEY Ten versions of R.J. Reynolds international brands of =he U.S. blended type have been examined; the study was confined to Winston and Camel Filter, and included U.S.A. versions. Existing information on Marlboro (U.S.A.) and VICEROY (U.S.A.) has been included to enable some inter-company comparisons to be made. Taken together, ~he results rank the blends in terms of decreasing flue-cured character in the order:- Winston ~ VICEROY (U.S.A.) • Camel > Marlboro (U.S.A.). Host of the blends contain PRT-eype rec0nscicuced tobacco and puffed tobacco. The chemistry of the reconstituted tobacco is unusual in some respects, and this may be responsible for an inc=ease in the proportion of nicoClne which ks extractable and • decrease in formaldehyde delivery. Zn these respects, these tobaccos resmmbte Phillp Morris PCL-cype reconstituted tobacco ~ their effects. • e3molds appear to pay less attention to uniformiC7 in nicotine dellvery chart do Philip Mocrls; on the other hand, the Reynolds BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION o r,,j o'-- m CD

-2- produces show more unigormlCy in filter Criacetiu content mad deliveries of carbon monoxide and nitric oxide. The level of O/WP volatile c4~:po~nds is cons£stenCly low ~n Reynolds produces. Both ~Ids and Philip Morr£s appear to exercise strict control over total ciKaxetta pressure drop, which shows llUCle varlmnlon in spite of wide variation in other phTsical par~ne~ers. f~ BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION c2~ P'O w m

-3- \ 2. IST~ODUCT ION Exminacions of Marlboro (1) and ocher international blended brands from Philip Harris Inc. (2) have alras~:ly beam conducted. These examinations have revealed some aspects of the product consCructlon scracssy adopt~d by one of our major competitors for international brands. In particular, iC was shown Chat cerceln desiln features of the products examined were held consr~lnc, vh~lst considerable latitude yes permitted in ocher azeas. For examples wh/Isc cisarecce pressure drop and smoke u/racine delivery were relatively uniform, blend type and reconstituted tobacco usase varied widely. ~ny Of chest findinls run counter to B.A.T international brand practice. For example, B.A.T normally aims co r~ailor leaks dlliveries to the nicotine requirements of particular markets. Ic is therefore of interest to examine the practices o£ a chlrd major manufacturer. The present report, therefore, is concerned with an assessment of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. international brands. The eXlmination has been ClnCred on Winston LSF/KSF end Camel KSF. l~our s~lel Of each brsnd (in addition co the U.S.A. versions) have been dra~n from world-wide sources (in the c.8le of Winston) and European sources (in the case of Camel). Three of these Winston samples - from Honk Konj, Kuwait and Spain- are described on the packaK£nj as 'Made in U.S.A. '. The Maxlcan version is described as domestic in manufacturlnK teEms. The German and Swiss Camel packaKins indlcaca domestic manufacture. The Dutch version does not specify source, but the French version is ~abelled 'Made An Germany'. BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION l O r',o

-4- Dace for VICEROY and Harlboro (U.S.A. versions) have been dz=~n from the earlier report (2) and are presented in the tables for comparison. The results (and a discussion of them) are presented in the same format as was adopted for the earlier reports (I, 2] in this series, namely :- 3. 4. 5. 6. o PHYSICAL ~ASUREMENTS BLEND ANALYSIS SMOr~ ~UIE~r S SUKJECT£VE ASSESSMENTS. Further conclusions, drawn from taking the results as a whole, are presented in Section 7. 3. PHYSICAL MEASU~S (Table I) Cigarette lengths, weights and pressure drops, together with measurements of paper porosity and tobacco rod circumference and density, are Listed £n Table. 1. Filter criacet£n concenCs are also listed in the c&bls. With the excepclon o£ Wlnscon (Mexico), all cigarette pressure drops lle wichln a narrow band (103-118 mm W.G.). Winston (Mexico) had a lower pressure drop (98 mm W.G.). This tight control over cilaretCe pressure drop has been achieved in spite of considerable variation in tobacco rod pressure drop (43-66 mm W.G.) and tobacco densLty (247-280 mK.cm-3) • However, when tobacco rod pressure drop is low, filter pressure drop is relatively high. A S/~L£1ar degree of control over tots1 pressure drop vas noted in the case of Philip F~rris brands (1, 2). BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION w O w (..a.,,I

-5- / The Mexican version of Winston (the only version mxam£nmd for which U.S.A. manu£acture is Rot claimed) is anomalous in several respects. In addition co low Coral prmssurm drop, Ch£s cisareCte was low in paper poros£ty (74WTU £n comparison ~iCh 179-4S3T~"U for rsmainins brands) and hish in tobacco density (287 ms. cm.-3 in compar£son~th 2A7-280 mS.cm.-3 for ramainlnS brands). A11 versions o£ Winston except the Mexican vers£on (i.e. all smmples stated co be manufactured in the U.S.A.) are broadly similar in physlcal respects. The nect level 0£ cr£acetln applled to the £ilcar (slnsle secClon cellulose a~etate tow throushout) was also maintained wLthin a rmlatively tight specification. Levels within the ranle 5.5-7.5Z ~ere noted, although West C~Drman Camel had a sisni£icanCly higher content (11.1Z). There are other sisnificant d£££erencea becwmen French and German versions o£ Camel (both stated Co bm mmnufacCured in WesC Germany), notably pap@r porosity. 4. 3LEND ANALYSIS ~.1 Nicotine and SuRars (Table 2) The n£cocine contents of the blends lie in the rsmKe 1.AO-1.80Z after exclusion of the Mexican brand. The ranse is chere£ore similar Co thmt established £or Philip Horris brands (1.54-1.74Z) a£Cmr exclusion o£ the ArSentlne brmgds (2).- Lo~lr u£cotlne contents are 8enerally noted in Central and South A~nerlcm; in addlcion to Winston (Hmxico) at 1.10g and the £our Philip Morris Arsentina brands (1.01-1.49Z), ~rlboro (Brazil) was also low ~n blend nlcoCine content (1.ooz) (~). BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION C'~ k..,~

-6- The level of reducing sugars in the Winston blends is, on average, higher than in the Camel blends. This may imply greater inclusions of elf-cured :obacco Ln Camel with respect to W~nston, or the use of riper flue-cured tobaccos of lower sugar content in Camel. Whilst Winston and VICEROY are similar in reducing sugar content (9-11Z), the lower content of Camel (8-10Z) is marginal vhan compared wlth the 8igniflc~ntly lower level in Marlboro (~6Z). Little difference beaten Camel and Marlboro is noted on a total susar basis, however; this" implies the use of invert sugars (fructose and glucose) in the Camel casing formulations in contrast no the cane sugar (sucrose) casing implied for Marlboro. Zndeed, the difference bemoan reducing and total sugars is unusuaZly mmall for all the versions of Camel end Winston exmnined. 4.2 Liquorice end Cocoa (Table 2) The levels of the ~Jo flavour casings liquorice (4) and cocoa (5) have been measured. The methods adopted assume 2.2Z cheobromine in cocoa and 5.0Z Slycyrrhizin in liquorice; it must be remsmbar~ when examining the resulta that the level of active principals can vary widely with souzce. Nevertheless the results obtained imply hiKh levels of application of liquorice and cocoa by R.J. Reynolds on both brands. This can be contrasted ~,£th the high level of llquorice and moderate level of cocoa used by Philip Hot-rls and with the moderate levels of both liquorice and cocoa used by Brown & Willia~son. Alteruatlvely, At can be argued that Reynolds use sources of liquorice and cocoa with h£sh proportions of the active prLuc£pals. BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION ¢..~m r,,o o',,.

-7- The implled level o~ llquorice is slgn£f£cancly lover on Winston (Mexico). 4.3 Reconstituted and Puffed Tobaccos (Table 3) In the examination of.Philip Morris brands (2), the level of reconstituted tobacco in the blend varied widely (O-25Z). A similar desree of variation has been noted in the prasanc examination of Reynolds brands (0-.-23Z). However, a coherent pattern of reconstituted tobacco usage could be discerned. All samples of W£nscon (except Mexican) contained the same proportion (19-20Z) of PRT-t-ype reconstituted tobacco, and no PCL-cype reconstituted tobacco. In contrast, all samples of Camel (except Swiss) contained PRT-~ype tobacco, but in total amounts varying from IO-23Z. The Swiss version of Camel, in addition to PRT-cype also contained 5Z PCL-~/pe reconstituted. The PRT-t:ype in ~inston versions and the predominant PET-type in Camel were visually sLmilaz i.e. both dark in colour. The C~-el PCL-uype was also dark in coLour. All of theme macar£als therefore resemble Philip Morris reconstituted tobaccos in colour which mugsests preparation from predominantly air-cured tobaccos. In contrast, the ~or PRT-type, present in Cml, was light in coLour, suEEestlng fLue-cured tobacco origins. Thus the principal type of rec=nstituted tobacco in use in Reynolds brands ks PRT-type; Philip Morris, in contrast:, use princlpally PCL- type. Of the nine brands from Central and South America examined in this and the previous report, only two (Philip Morris brands from Panama) BAT Co LTD - MINNF_.SOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION m 0 Cr',, CF',,

-8- have concalned reconstituted tobacco. All other brands examined do not contain reconstituted tobacco. The level of puffed tobacco has been determined by floatation on n-hexane. Again, the content is ~elatival7 constant (10-13Z) in Winston (exceptlng the Mexican version) but more variable in the ~1 samples (O-lOt). Neither Winston (Mexico) nor Camel (West Germany) contained puffed tobaccos; nor did VICEEOY (U.S.A.). Marlboro (U.S.A.) conCalned a small amount (5Z) of puffed tobacco. Increasln6 levels of puffed tobacco in the blend are senerally reflected by decreased tobacco densities (Fisura I). Zt is intarastinS to note chat Marlboro, VIGEOY and several versions of Canal are lower in density than would be expected from the trend 14ha whilst several versions of Winston are hishar in density chat exptcCtd. SuperimpoainK on this pattern the normal pattern of var£aCion of density with blend type implies greater air-cured content in the Marlboro, VICEROY and Camel blends than in the Winston blends. 4.4 Blend chemistry (Table 4) The blend chloride level was Kenerally h£Kher in the Camel versions than in the Winston versions. VICEROY ~d Marlboro were intarmed£ate in content. Withln the Winston series, the Mexican version has ~he hiKhest chloride content. This may reflect the use of local ~obaccos; • similar result was noted for the ArKent~ne brands in the aurve7 of Philip Morris brands (2). Within the Camel ser~es, the European versions have hishar chloride contents tlamn the U.S.A. version; a similar explanation is possible. All five samples manufactured ~n the U.S.A.i.e. W~nston (U.S.A., Hone KonK, Kuwait and Spain) and Camel (U.S.A.)have similar bland chloride contents (0.58-O.62Z). BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION O O',, ,,.,.,,.a

-9- The level o£ mmnon£a nitrogen in the blend is hisher An the Camel versions then in the Winston versions. Since mmnonia nitrogen level is generally higher and reducing sugar content generally lower in air-cured than in flue-cured tobaccos, a plot of these blend components can show gradations in blend type (Figure 2). On this basis, the air-cured content of the blends can be ranked An the order Marlboro (U.S,A.) > Camel (U.S.A. and Europe) • VICEROY (U.S.A.) • Winston (world=ide). Ic must be remembered, however, that m considerable proportion of the ammonia nitrogen in Marlboro (U.S.A.) and other Philip Morris brands £s due co the'addition of dia"~oniumphosphata Co the PCL-zTpe reconstituted tobacco. The phosphorus content of the blends was very constant at 0.24-0.26X with the exception of Winston (Mexico) at O.32X. The Mexicanverslon of Winston else contained an unusually low level of ~n~8 nitrosen. Samples of PI~ and PCL-type reconstltuned tobaccos from the blends were also analysed. These materials contained relatively high levels of chloride, partlcularly the Camel PET-type tobacco. The high chloride content could conceivably be inherent to the tobacco, since some grades of u.s. flue-cured tobacco can have chloride contents in excess of IZ; alternatively, it Is possible Chac• chloride may have been •dded, perhaps to control burn rate. The ammonia nitrogen content (O.OI-O.04Z) and phosphorus content (approximately O.3Z) of the FET-cype from Winston and Camel is much lower than the ~nia nitrogen (0.9-1.2Z) and phosphorus (l.A-l. TX) content of the PCL ~ Philip Morris brands. Consequently, it is thought that no m~non£um salts or phosphates have been added to the PgT-C3rpe, and the high ~nla n/trogan content of BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION O O~ r',o o",, co

-10- - o t;he Camel blends may therefore reflect hasher air-cured content of the lamina porClon. Rowever, mmaoni~ salts may have been leached from tobaccos dur~ns the paper-type reconstltution process, and consequently it cannot be inferred from t;he low a~-mcmia nlt;rosen content o£ the reconstituted material chat it is flue-cured in orlK~n. 5. $~OKE ~.AS~NTS 5.1 Part;iculate Phase Deliveries (Table 5) The TPH and nicotine deliveries lie vlt;hLn the rs~nKes 20-28 mK and 1.0-1.5 mg respectively. These ranse8 are very similar Co those previously est;ablished (2) for Philip Morris brands, namely, 18-26 mE and 1.O-1.6 mK. However, whereas Philip Morris brands were 8enerally sunilar in t;erms of delivery per puff (2.6-2.9 ~ ~H/puff and 0.I&-O.17 mE nicotine/p-ff) the same yes not; true of the Reynolds brands (2.1-3.0 q TPM/puf£ and 0.10-0.17 mg nicotine/puff). The low nicotine delivery of Winston (Mexico) is in line v£Ch the blend measurements; however, the hiKher TPM and nicotine deliveries of Winston (HONK F~nK, F~aic, Spaln) wlch respect; to Winston (U.S.A.) cannoc be accounted for, since all four cisarat;ces vere sim£1ar physically and blends were similar in chem£stry and construction. Ou the ocher hand, the relatively low TPM delivery of Camel (Holland and West Germany) is due to ~he b/Kh paper porosity used; smoke ~/cocine has been ma£nCained in Holland by the use of e h~sher n~cotine blend. The proportion of nLcoClne whlch is extract;able lles in t;he ranie 18-28Z. Hizhest values are not;ed for Camel (U.S.A. and France) whilst; an unusually low value was noted for Camel (Wast Germany). The proportion of extractable nicotine may be related to the reconstituted tobacco BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION m

-II- content or even the puffed tobacco content of the blend (Yisure 3); in the Philip Morris survey the proportion was hisher for PCL-type containln8 brands end this may reflect the addition of s predominantly elf-cured reconstLtuted material to the blend, or be related to the addition of chemicals. 5.2 Vapour Phase Deliveries (Table 6) The delivery of carbon monoxide (14.6-18.2 mE) is remarkably steady, considering the rmaKe of paper porosities employed. Winston (Mexico) is outside this reuse (23.3 IS) but in this case the delivery can be at least partly accounted for by the very low paper porosity (74 WTU) used. The delivery of s~nonia is in Keneral elishtly hi6her for Camel versions than for Winston versions; the delivery reflects the ammonia nitrogen content of cbe blend (Fisure &). The delivery of formaldehyde - s suspected irritant in ciBaretce smoke - was found in the previous study of Philip Morris brands (2) to be related inversely no reconstituted tobacco content, specifically PCL-type. Since no relationship with PET-type was found, the diammonium phosphate present on the PCL-type may have been responsible for reduced formaldehyde delivery. Zn the present study of ReDolds brands, formaldehyde delive~ declined with increased proportions of either PCL or PET types in the blend (Fisure 5). For French, Swiss and German versions of Camil, the deliveries were even lower than anEiclpated on this basis. Consequently, if the effect is due to the presence of added chemical(s) e.K. chlorides on the PET-type reconstituted tobacco, a Steerer quantitymay have been added to the reconstituted tobaccos in chess three counnries. BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION D C CT- m,C C

-12- \ Previous studies on amelioration have shown (6, 7) that ammonium chloride and diaunonium phosphate are parnicularly effective in reducinE formaldehyde delivery and subjective irritation levels. In the Philip Morris survey (2) a plot of s~-onia and formaldehyde smoke deliveries 'mapped' Che brands in the same fashion as reducing sulars/a:~onia ninroEan blend contents. A similmz finding is obtained in nhm present study (Fiance 6), the map again reflecting blend type and reconstituted tobacco effects. The position of VICEROY with respect no the ocher brands has however chanted. Two consciCuenns of Che vapour phase scan, aceCon£crile and 2,5-dimethylfuran, have been extracted from the dana and plotted (FiEure 7). Dana is also included for three European air-cur~ ciSaretues and three European flue--cured cigarettes. The three mlr-cured clearances deliver hish levels of acatonltrile and low levels of 2,5-dlmethylfuran; the reverse is true for the flue-cured ciKaretces. The Reynolds brands are contained within Chess extremes, but 8 partial separation is obtained which supports prmvious data; ~,e. versions of Camel are ~enerally closer to the a/r-anted extreme whilst Winston versions tend more towards the flue-cured llne. Some deEree of overlap is stain apparent, /~dlcaning chat the blend tTpe difference Is not marked. 5.3 011/Water Partition Analysis (O/WP) (Table 7) O/WP analysis was cazTied out on the plain tobacco rods (SI) as well as the complete cisaretces ($2). The relative contributions of tobacco blend and filter characteristics to O/WP ch~acry can thus be determined. "The dana obtained was 'normalised' and 'chenically Srouped' - in this way the smoke quality of the cigarettes can be BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION O", k.,,'-I r.,o

-13- intercompared on the basis of various chemical classes in smoke for which caste and flavour attributes have been tentatively assiEned (8). Fyridines and C~clic Aldeh~des (Figure fl) SI and S2 daze has bee~ pleiad, toKether with reference SI data for e 1OOZ flue-cured (PLAYERS ex Holland) and • leer air-cured (St. Michel ex Holland) =iEarette. The unf£1terea smoke from the flue-cured oisarecte is low in pyzid£nes and hieh in cyclic aldehydes; the reverse is true for the air-cured cigarette. The reynolds branas (SI data) lie between these two extremes, as does VZCEEOY. Marlboro lies above the li~e; the pyridlnes enhancement is due Co the addition of diammonium phosphate (2). Zn seneral, the various versions of Camel lie closer than the WlnsCon versions to the elf-cured marker and Co Marlboro, whLlst the Winston versions lie c~oser to the flue-cured marker and VICEROY. A elm/far b=and pattern emerses in the $2 dace, supportinE the earlimr conclusions concerning the blends. The proportion of ~ cyclic aldehydes is much lower than the proportion; this reduction is caused by filter plasticlser. It is interesting to note that, on the SI basis, Camel (West Germany) contained the highest level of cyclic aldehydes. The unusually hish level of triacetin in this filter has resulted however in 1:he lowest S2 cyclic aldehydes. On the basis of S2 pyr£d£nes/cycl£c aldehydes data, Camel (U.S.A. and France) ere seed matches co Marlboro (U.S.A.). BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

-14- /-- Volatile Carbon~ls and Nicotine (Figure 9) These are the dlmens~ons adopted in a recant examination of U.S.A. brands (9). It is noted that the U.S.A. brands (S2 data) show the same disposition on these axes as in the earlier study. VICEROY smoke conCalns the h£shest proportion of volatile cmrbonyls; Camel the lowest. Both S] and S2 data demonstrate thac the level of volatile carbonyls in smoke is significantly lower in the Reynolds brands than in VICEROY and Marlboro (U.S.A. versions). On the basis of this dace, Marlboro and Camel are not matched. The remaining Eeynolds brands lie between Winston (U.S.A.) and Camel (U.S.A.) in a random manner; for example, Camel (West Germany) resembles Winston (U.S.A.) whilst Winston (Spain) resembles Camel (U.S.A.). The resemblance in terms of these chemical groups is apparent on both S1 and S2 bases sines acetate filters and plaetic£sers show no selective effects on these O/~P constituents. Zndividual PTridinss In the exmmination of Philip Morris brands (2) the level of peak 41 was shown to be much enhanced by nhe presence of dlm~onium phosphate; in the present study, the hiKher leve~s of ~nia nitrosan in the versions of Camel than ~n the versions of Winston, have resultad in an enhancement of this .peak (Fisure I0). (This peak has hitherto been assisted the identity 2,5-dimethylpyridine; recent work using a nitrogen deT.ector suggests the presence of a pyrazlne in this peak, and this may be the predominating component.) A resemblance is asain noted between Winston versions and VICEROY (U.S.A.), whilst Camel versions are intermediate asain between Winston versions and Marlboro (U.S.&.). The anhancemenc in peak 41 can be caused by chemical addition (as in Marlboro) BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION C

-15- or through the use of hish a.~onia nitrogen a~r-cured tobaccos (as in Geuloises). Burley nips contain a high level of a~onla nitrosen, and could explain the Camel characteristics. The use of dLammonium phosphate on Philip Morris PC'L-type reconstLtuted tobacco was shown (2) to result in an enhancment in peak At wlth respect to peak 47. (The recent work using both f.iod, and nitrogen detec¢or systems may m11ow this to be interpreted as an increase in pyrazine/pyridine ratio.) ~ Figure II, it can be seen that versions of Winston and VZCEEOY (low ammonia nitrogen) have similar 41/47 ratios whilst Camel and Marlboro (high ~onia nitrogen) hate a hither ratio. High a~nonia nitrogen content results in an Incrlase in both peaks 41 and 47, but the increase in peak 41 is the greater. In contrast (Figure IO] the propornion of peak 53 (3-vinyl pyrldine) is llttle affected by the b~end J,mmonia nitrogen level, and it has been conjectured (2, lO) that this pyridine results from pyrolysis of nicotine. Non-Tobacco Constituents Menthol (peak 6A) was not detected in other than zrace quantities on any of the brands; on the other hand, a coumarin peak (peak I02) was noted on three versions of Camel (Swiss, Dutch and French) and a miler amount on one version of WLnston (Mexican). 6. SUBJECTIVE ASSESSPENTS 6.1 ~pact and Zrr£tatlon (Table 8) The level of impact was highest for the ~ U.S.A. products; the remalninE versions of Winston and Camel had slightly mower impacts with the exception of Wins=on (Mexico) which had a significantly lower impact. BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION m O (..j'l r'O

-16- The level of irritation yea slightly lower for Camel than Winston. Since Winston (Mexico) showed similar levels of irritation to other versions of Winston, thle brand had a 8isnificantly hiKher irzltation:&mpac= ratio. Impact scores did not co=relate well with either extractable nicotine delivery per puff or O/WP nicotine delivery per puff. The hiKh impact score of Winston (U.S.A.) cannot be explained by the smoke chemistry data. The high irritation:impact ratio of Winston (Mexico) may, howewer, be explicable from the smoke cheuListr7 data. This brand delivered vary low amounue of extractable and O/WP nicotine per puff (related uo impact) but high levels of formaldehyde (possibly related to irritation). 6.2 Flavour Profile (Table 9) The brands were assessed with respect to their U.S.A. counterparCs; the assessment wee direcc£onal. The basic conclusion is chat differences between these brands, in flavour profile terms, are Im~ll. ExamininK the non-U.S.A, versions of Winston it can be noted tha~ increased scores for 'flue-cured', 'musty' and 'burnt' are Kenezally obtained with respect Co the U.S.&. vers~8ome increase in 'air--cured' characuer is also noted. On the oth~ hand, 'blended' and 'roasted, toasted' characters have declined in some ~nscances. The overall flavour ampllcude is the same in each case, including the U.S.A. version. An almost identical pattern is obtained in the case of CameZ; increases in 'flue-cured' score and decreases in 'roasted, toasted' charecuer (with respect co the U.S.A. version) beLtS parr/cule=ly notable. Again, the overall flavour amplitude was identical for all five versions BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION m 0 Cm.

-17- of the brand. The tflue-cured' and 'roasted, toasted' scores are explicable in terms of blend au~onia nitroKen content, since both U.5.A. versions are the most elf-cured on this basis. 6.3 Pack Aroma Whi£st similar flavour elements are used in all varsions of Winston and Camel, the balance between the elements seems to vary more than was the case with Philip Morris brands (2) or versions of Marlboro (i). For example, Camel (U.S.A.) has hiKh carlmll =haracter, Winston (Mexico) has low spice character and Winston (Spain) has a hLKhar emphasis on fruit. The "followinE comments relate to the individual brands; comparative cou~ents referring to the U.S.A. version. Winston. (U.S.A.) - Moderate/hash pack aroma amplitude. Spice (cinnamon/mace type) and herbaceous with liKhc fruit and caramel aspects toKethar with a maple nuance. Little contribution from toasted and cocoa characters. Low Burley character, less heav£1y cased than traditional 'U.S.-blended'. Some green notes detected, more typical of Virslnia types. Winston (Mexico) - S/JnLla~ or slightly Kreater amplitude than U.S.A. version. Fruit/caramel aspects are more apparent, whilst spice/herbaceous aspects contribute less. More Burley notes than the U.S.A. version with sums l~Sen and musty overtones. A cloy~nl balsamic mouth 'feel' was x~ted on lmokinK, possibly due to ethTl cinnamate. W~nston (Honk KOnE) - SLmilar or 81ilh~ly Ir~ster ampILtude than U.S.A. version. AlthouEh spice/herbaceous ollments are present, stabley notes and a more cocoa backEround were detected. The product is more typical of traditional 'U.S.-b~ended' products. BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION r,,o

-18- Winston (F~wait) - Slightly Steerer amplitude than U.S.A. vers£on. Spice and herbaceous elements are again more apparent; fruit aspect is less apparent and of lower pitch. Caramel note was less apparent due to increased spice element. Winston (Spain) - Sllghtly lower amplitude than U.S.A. version J A high fruit amplitude was noted on some packets. Lass spice but more herbaceous elements of a tobacco compatible type were detected. Caramel notes ware detected. Camel (U.S.A.) - Hodexate pack aroma amplitude. Ven£11ic/caramel character w~h fruit, nut, herbaceous and l£$ht spice nuances. Little or no cocoa aspects and some evidence of a low level of pepperm~nn. Camel (France) - Lower amplitude than U.S.A.. Similar character to the Dutch product (see below) althoush el~ghtly lo~er pitch; this may be a reflection of the blend. No flavour note of the st&ble type was detected. Camel.(Sw.ltserland) - Sim£1ar 8mplltude to U.S.A. A£so s~lar £n character to ~he Dutch product (see below) but nora Burley-llke character with stish~ly stable-like aspect reduclng aroma pitch. Spice and venill£c/caramellic elements were not as apparent with respect to Dutch and U.S.A. versions. C~mel (HoLland) - Fosslbly Ereater In a~pLitude than U.S.A. vers£on. Vanillic components are Less noticeable whilst fruit character is of higher pitch. Spice/herbaceous elements were more detectable, herbaceous elements heine of the flours, 8enet type. The overall impression was of • more tobacco compat£ble character with leas interest notes. BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION O",.

-19- Camel (West Germany~- Creater ampli:ude than U.S.A, version. Less c&za:el aspect than UoS.&., but more than other v~re£ons. Here £rui¢ and spice aspects were noted than e~l othe= versions, the spice element beinK reminiscent o£ SinKer. A ~nt note was detected initially. 7 • CONCLUSIONS The analyses per£o~d rank the brands ('In tezms og blend aiz~-cured content) in the sequence:- Marlboro (U.S.A.) > Camel > VTCZ~0Y (U.S.A.) • W~neton. Produc~ features co~n to the Reynolds brands examined ~ ~h~s report ares- (a) FAlter lenKth and triaceti~ content (with the exception of Camel ex Vest Germany). (b) Overall cigarette pressure drop. (c) Use of l£quo~cice and cocoa in casings. (d) Use of P~T-type in blends (with the ~cep~.on o~ W~nston ex Mexico). (e) The percenteSe of Pwr-type in Wlnltou blends (all stated to be ~an~actuzed in U.S.A.). (£) Use o£ puf£ed tobaccos (~W~_l~ the e~eeption8 of Winston ex Hexlco end Camel am West Gez~any). (g) Delivery of carbon monoxide and n£r~£c oxlde. (h) Low delivery of 0/WF volatile cazbonyls, (i) I, eveL o£ subjective i~z£t&t£on. Level of flavouz mnpl£tude. BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

-20- Product features which vary are:-- (k) Cigarette paper porosity. (I) The percentage of PET-type in Camel blends. (m) Blend n£cotine content. (n) TPM and nicotine deliveries. (o) Formaldehyde deliveries. (p) 0/WP nicotine deliveries. (q) Level Of subjecEive impact. (r) F'ack aroma. Thus Reynolds appear Co pay less attention to nicotine dellvery uniformity than do Philip Morris, and more varianion in pack aroma was detected. On the other hand, both companies ixercise strict control over total cisareCce p:essure drop and both use liquorlce and cocoa throughout the brands examined. The Reynolds products show more uniformlcy in ceres of f£1te= triacetin content (with one exception) and carbon monoxide and nitric oxide deliveries, than did the Philip Morris produccs examined previously. Both companies achieve an increase 4n the proportion of nicotine which is excraccable and a decrease in formaldehyde delivery throush the use of :econstiEuce4 and/or puffed tobacco; these materials are either air--cured in origin or achieve their effect throush the chemlcals added durlng processing. BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION r',,o O",

-21- e 1. 2.. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. R~;F~I~NCES B.A.T KeporC No. RD.1154-R, 5.11.74. B.A.T Repo=c No. RD.1362 ReacrLccedp 3.5.76. B.A.T Keport No. ED.1312 R~str£cted, 19.1.76. B. & W. Raport 14o. 75-12, 19.6.75. B.A.T Report: No. L.&72-1~, 9.1.75. B.A.T Keport 14o. RD. 1223-R, 16.6.75. B.A.T Keport No. RD.792-R, 26.5.71. B. & W. Report: No. 74-10, 28.3.74. B. & W. l~eport No. 76-7, 1.4.76. B.A.T Kepart No. RD.1263-R, 26.9.75. BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION c~

" / ) 3> N o I Z Z 3> @ > g b" Z -21- TABLE ! PHYSICAL HEASUILEHRNT$ Brand t Viuton U (U.S.A.) e4 Vtusrou KS (~xLeo) 83 Winston IS (lloq ICon|) 84 VLnston ~ (KsmoLt) 84 gLnatoa 1,8 (Spain) 79 Carat U (..s.x.) e4 Cmmt U (lrrmtee) 85 Camel ICS (SvLtserlend) 85 Camel KS (Holland) 85 CMmL KS (Vest Germany) 84 Vl~tOY I(S (U.S.k.) 83 Harlboro KS (U.S.A,) 84 Let~t h (am) • f 63 21 64 19 64 2O 63 21 6O 19 54 2O 55 20 65 2O 55 20 53 2L 62 21 63 21 Vetshr (Is) c t i r 25,0 970 810 25.0 1070 910 24,9 960 78O 24.6 980 810 24.8 960 000 25.0 960 800 24,9 990 830 24.9 1020 86o 25.! 1050 9OO 25.1 1050 880 24.9 1040 860 25.L LO00 810 t : total, • : rod, f : filter, c : c/rcuu~erence. *TE~. Tobacco (t~p) (art) m,, i 155 120 258 158 128 287 176 136 267 156 124 256 156 115 272 158 118 251 160 138 1 2.~9 L58 122 267 156 118 275 174 130 280 180 166 280 198 152 256 Pressure Drop (cm W.O.) ' Porosity t r f i i !10 55 58 98 47 49 111 54 63 103 47 58 115 59 56 114 59 58 116 58 61 118 6G 51 115 59 55 113 4,3 71 102 38 62 112 43 59 YLlter (91111) TriscetLn(% nett) 218 5.6 74 7.5 250 5.3 207 6.2 312 7.4 179 5.7 262 5.6 275 5,5 453 6.2 436 11.1 229 3.4* 225 5.0 1 9 9G01

-23- Brand Winston KS Winston KS Winston KS Winston KS Winston LS (u.s.A.> (~axico) (~onS ~onS) C~wa£c) CSp&/~) Camel Camel Camel Cmuel i~ (U.S.A.) • S (Fcance) (Swiczar laud) LS (HoZ~and) F,S (West Germany) Determined TABLE 2 BLEND NICOT~qEr SUGARS AND 1.77 1 • 10 1.59 1.65 1.80 1.80 1.46 1 • 40 1.70 I. 52 I. 82 1.71 on dry vtijht baaia. Keduc~n8 SuBars 11.3 10.8 10.6 9.5 8.3 9.1 8.1 8.4 9.7 9.5 10.7 6.2 CASINGS Total SuKar8 (z) 1.2.4 12.6 11.9 11.7 9.4 10.7 9.7 9.4 11.3 11.5 13.3 1I ./, C0c08 (z) 1.52 1.01 1.27 1.48 1.13 O. 56 0.99 1.18 i • 20 1.4A O. 44 0.45 1.31 O.35 1.O8 1.48 1.54 0.75 O.88 1.O7 0.98 1.19 0.36 1.29 BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION O", Cr~ p,,,..-

-24- TABLE 3 BLEND CONSTPJ3CTZON B=and W£nscon KS (U.S.A.) W£nscon KS (Mex£co) W£uscou KS (ilonl; Eong) W£nscou KS (Ir, uv&£c) W£nscon LS (Spa£u) Came1 KS (U.S.A.) Camel KS (France) Camel KS (S~czarZand) Camel KS (ltollaod) Camel KS (.mac Gt:aa~7) vxc, z~oY KS (U. S.A. ) Haclbos:o KS (U. S.&.) PET-type Kecons tiCuced (z) ,i 20 O 19 19 20 21 , 2* 15 , 5* 11 , O 9 , 5* 6 , 4" 8 3 l:'CL-l:ype Kecc~sticul~ed (z) 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 5 0 o 0 14 Pu££ed Tobacco (z) 13 O 11 12 10 lO 5 7 4 O O 5 Dece~lnined on wet: we£shc baals. *TWo v£sually d£st£ncc types of PII~. BAT Co LTD - MINNF_,SOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION O',, r',o

-25- TABLE A BLEND CHEMISTRY Brand W£nscou KS (U. 8.A. ) WlnsCou KS (Mexico) W£nsCon KS (HonS Kong) Wlnscon KS (KuwalC) Winston LS (Spain) Camel KS (U.S.A.) Camel KS (France) Carnal KS (Switzerland) Camel KS (Holland) Camel KS (West Germany) VICEBDY KS (U. S.A. ) Marlboro KS (U.S.A.) PET-type ex Winston PET-cTpe A ex Camel PET-type B ex Camel PCL-cype ex Camel ?CL-cypt ex Philip Morcis bcands PEI-cype ex PhLlip Morris brands 0.61 0.89 0.61 0.58 0.61 0.62 0.93 0.82 0.79 0.89 0.77 0.78 0.86 1.26 1.24 ND ND ND A=m=~£a NiCrosen (z) 0.O66 0.O28 0.O41 0.O36 0 .O66 0.164 0.111 0.093 0.O78 0.087 0.016 0.011 0.038 0.O14 RD ND ND : noc determined. Decermlned on dry weishC basis. Phosphorus (z) 0.24 0.32 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.44 0.28 ND 0.29 ND 1.55 0.26 BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION O O',, O',.

TABLE 5 li| P~zc~ rm~ ~ZLZvEe, ZzS Brand Winston KS (U.S.A.) Winsl:on KS (Hexico) Winston KS (Honk KozlK) Wins con KS (Kuwait) Winston L$ (Spain) Camel KS (U.S.A.) Camel KS (France) Camel KS (Sw£t:zerland) Camel KS (Holland) Camel KS CWesc Germany) v~cEaoY KS (u. S.A.) Marlboro KS (U.S.A.) TPM (mS) 20.6 27.8 27.0 24.1 26.4 24.1 22. I 25.0 22.8 20.2 ~ico-'£ne (uS) 1.08 1 .O3 1.28 1.28 1.44 1.41 1.12 i. 15 1.29 1.O3 Ext=ictable Rico=ine (mS) 0.28 0.24 O. 28 0.33 0.36 0.39 0.30 0.27 0.31 0.19 O. 34 0.41 8.0 i0.4 8.9 8.0 8.8 8.6 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.6 H £c:ot:t,ne 19.1 27.0 21.1 18.8 18.3 17.1 19.7 21.7 17.7 19.6 16.6 18.4 BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION m 0"% Q.J-I

-27- TABI~ 6 VAPOUR PJA~ DELrVKRIXS f \ CO Bx'm:~l. (rag) Winston KS (U.S.A.) 18.2 Winston KS (Hexlco) 23.3 Winston KS CHonS KonS)17.9 Winston KS (Kuwait) 17.9 Winston LS CSpa£n) 17.9 Camel KS CU.S.A.) 17.5 Camel KS CYrance) 16.3 Camel KS CSwitzerland)16.9 Cmnel KS (i~11and) 14.6 Camel KS (Wes~ Germany) 16.1 • VZCKROY KS CU. S.A. ) 16.3 .4arlboro KS (U.S.A.) 18.7 A.U. - Arbitrary uzuits. .~l:=eto- NO ~3 RCR0 nltrile (.s) (.s) C.s) ~.u.) I 246 $3 30 A5 203 51 68 54 225 45 34 A4 209 5i 30 A7 213 48 38 55 192 54 23 63 234 59 3 54 248 55 15 52 195 56 36 42 192 43 15 46 255 44 50 ~3 245 70 25 48 A~=~o ieln Proplon- aldehyde (A.u.) (A.u.) 27 49 25 45 19 38 20 59 3O 31 27 20 19 34 17 42 37 36 35 39 60 34 21 21 2,5-d£- methyl furan (A.u.) 22 24 18 28 52 21 21 15 22 23 20 20 BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION i C O",

3::&rid D&I:~ Acycl£c Ald~des mJ 4, Z2, 27 Cyclic ~4~ydms i|l i 52, 57, 60 Acy¢lic Ke:ones ZZ, 14, 15, 16, 55 ii 30, 31, 44, ; 46, 50, 58, E 65, 82 Wins=on ES 1.4 10.4 9.1 t6.? (U. S.A. ) 2.8 4.7 15.9 Z3.3 ;~ns:on ES 1.1 10.1 7.6 18.7 (.~x.ico) 2.1 4.2 13.1 15.1 l;£nscon KS 1.2 10.4 7.8 16.1 (Eong Eonl) 2.1 4.8 13.2 14.1 W£us¢onKS 1.3 8.6 7.5 16.5 (Ruwa£c) 2.4 4.9 I3.4 14.3 W£ns:on LS 1.3 10.9 6.7 16.6 (Sp&£=) 2.2 4.3 12.2 12.8 Camel ES 1.2 9.0 7.4 16.4 (U.S.A.) 2.0 3.4 12.0 12.7 Ca=el KS 1.1 8.2 6.3 13.4 (¥r--,ce) 2.2 4.2 11.8 14.5 Ca=el ES 1.2 9.7 7.6 16.4 ($v£==e:land) 2.3 3.6 12.6 13.1 Carnal ES 1. I 10.0 7.3 16.3 (ltollaud) 1.9 4.4 ll. 5 13.3 Ca:el ES 1.4 11.2 8.1 16.8 (Was: Gez~sny) 3.0 2.8 15.4 11.6 VZCZROY KS 1.4 10.7 ZX. 2 16.5 (U.S.A.) 2.6 3.6 21.2 12.1 Hat lbo:o ES 1.4 9.8 10.1 L5.7 (U.S.A.) 2.8 3.1 19.5 11.9 BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

-29- TABLE 8 ZMPACT AND I2EZTATZON Brand Winscon KS (U.S.A.) W£nstonKS (Mex£co) W£mscou ItS (lionz RonS) Winston KS (KumwaiC) Winston LS (Sp&in) Csmal KS (U. S.A. ) Camel KS {France) Camel KS {Switzerland) Camel KS {~oII~) Camel KS (Welt Germany) VICER0¥ KS (U.S.A.) Marlboro KS (U.S.A.) Hole 4.7 4.5 ~.3 4.2 4.7 4.3 4.5 4.& 4.5 Irr£cacion Mouth 4.0 4.3 4.1 4.1 3.9 4.0 4.2 3.9 3.9 3.8 im Throat 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.2 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.7 ~act 5.0 3.2 4.5 3.8 3.8 4.6 4.2 4.0 4.0 3.9 BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION J Lrl r,,o cr..,

F~ o -H ! Z Z © N F~ © © Z -]o- TABLE 9 FLAVOUR PItOYlLE Flavour 8rnd Amplitude Clsss I Flue- Turkish Air- Blended Green Cured Cured Grassy , . ÷ (?) • m 4' ÷ m 4. • m • Class II Husty 4. ÷ ÷ Class III Roasted Burnt Toasted • - 4. - ÷ Camel KS (France) Camel KS (Svltzerland) • Camel KS (Holland) • gOw • • • • ~, • - + (1) - ÷ Camel KS (~st Germany) • + " • = • • +, •, - indicate more, mime, lese, respectively, of characteristic, than U.S.A. version of brand. Clams II earthy and dirty characters vere not detected Ln any brands. The Turkish and air-cured notes were not clearly separated in the Camel versions end In Winston (Hong Kong). R + (!) 1 £9 c 9S01

EFFECT OF FfG. I PUFFED TOBACCO "ro ~ACr.~ DENSITY (mS. =m-3) RD 147-2 RESTRICTED ON DEN,51TY 280, \ 21111~ i i i i | 0 l 4. G 8 I0 PU I~'E.D TOBACCO C/~) BAT Co LTD - MINNF_,SOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION + WINSTON + WI NErON , I 12 14 L,T'I c~ Lr'l P,j cr~ E::>

riG. 2 AMMONIA NITROGEN AND REDUCING SUGARS ~LEI~oI~mUClN~ SUQAR~ IZ I0 8 G 4 0 o VICEROY C~'I BLEND AM~ON~^ Nrr=OQ=N°:z (~,) BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION FE:). 14.22 RESTRICTED o~ ¢,.J~ r'.,~)

FI G, 3 RD. 1422 RESTRIC,TED EXTRACTABLE NICOTINE AND BLEND COHPOSITION ~cAP1EL~ SMOKE EXTRACTABLE NICOTINr ,30 25 Z¢) 15 I0 • • HARL6OR0 PUFFED TOBACCO VICEROY O II 0 I0 REOON~I~ OR Purr~ TOE.,,CC0 (70 m BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION RE:CON51"ITUTED TOSACC, O O ! ¢ ~0 30 ~LEND~ C (.j- CP Lr P~_ r~j

FIG. 4 RD.1422 RESTRICTED AMHONIA DELIVERY AND BLEND AMMONIA NITROGEN HAI~..15ORD 60 40. 0 I I I 0-1 0.2 0-3 ~LEND AMHONIA NITROGEN (~/o) ZO BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION c" c~

FIG. 5 RD. 1422 RESTRJCTED FORI~LDEHYDE DELIVERY AND RECONSI'ITUTED TO~IAC~O X CAMEL + WINSTON FORHALDEHYDE IN SHOKIE: 40 I0 0 O ., I IO 20 RECON,STITUTED TOB~I4CCO BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION ,N m~_wo (%) !

FI GI. G RD. 1422 RESTRICTED AMMONIA AND FORMALDEHYDE IN SMOKE AHMONIA IN SMOKE 7O 6O 50 X OPIARLBORO CAMEL x X x 40 30 ~0 I0 X I I I I 0 I0 ?..0 3O 40 FORMALDEHYDE IN Efl'tOKE BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION 0 VICEROY I I 6O 4- I 7O C~

FI G. 7 RD. 1422 RE.,STR.ICTED VAPOUR PHASE SCAN: ACETONITRILE AND i ACETONITRJLE IN SMOKE (AR DITRARY UN rl'5) 1.0 AIR- CURED g, 5 - DIHETHYLFURAN • AIR-CURED 0 FLUE- CURED X CAHEL "1" WINSTON 0.8 0.6 0-4 o-z II ! 0"2 0-4 2,5- DIHETHYLF'URAN IN ,,~HOKIE BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

F'I Q. 8 F~. 1422 RJ~TRICTED O/W'P : PYPJDINE$ AND CYCLIC ALDEHYDE,5 PYRIDINES (% IN SCAN) ZO 18 IG 14 IZ fo 8 6 4 ! 0 Z o MARLBORO I,oo AIR.- CURED oX X 1 ,.,,m.ap_#~ i ^~,'L(w.G) OVICEKOY I I I I I I $z IS! I !, I ! I I ,,, ! 4. 6 15 IO IZ 14. 16 CYCLIC ALDEHYDES (~ IN SCAN) m r,j'l O~ ,.j=,. BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

FIG. 9 RD. 1422 RE, ST/~ICTED ~WP: VOL ATI LE CARBONYL.5 AND NIOOTINE ,,,,, ACYCLI C ALDEHYDF..~ AND KE: "r'o N F...5 (% IN SCAN) Z4 Zo 18 IG 14 12 I0 8 6 4 2 I o ~. BATCo LTD - o VICEROY o MARLBORO +WINSTON (u~.^) x oVICEROY ~" 0 MARLBORO + + x x -I- x t- ÷ WINSTON (U.8.A.~ "~ SZ X $o "~-. + } } C, AMEL (US.A) + x I I I I 4 G 8 I0 I~ N,Go'r,NE (% ,N S N). MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION I 14 X CAMEL I 16 Cu.s~) c~z) oo

EFFECT OF FIG. 10 t~LEND AMMONIA NITROGEN ON RD. 1422 RESTRICTED PEAKS 4~ AND 53 PEAK5 41 AND 53 (% ,N s 5cAN) P-.5 2.0 1.5 I'O O 0-5 + VI C EROY CX .4- + + -I- PEAK, 53 X X X X O VI GE ROY I O.I BLEND X APIMONIA ! O.Z. NITROGEN (7.) BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION PEAK 41 NARL~:)R0 0 HARLBOR.O 0.,.3 (../1 r,,,j O~

FiG. tl O/gv'P. PEAKS 41 AND ,4.,7 RD. 1427_ RESTRICTED PEAK 41 (% iN S, SCAN) CAHEL X 5TON JL L/'I Cr-,