Tobacco Documents Online

sHor~,G nEHAVIOUR (:lOW DEL _1~____ C_TCAP~TTES) REPORT NO. ILD. 1/~0 RESTRICTED 10.1.1977 lap AUTHOR: O.E. C=e£ghco= ISSUED BY: R.E. Tho~-ntou PROJECT JOB NO: 13.O1.O9 DIS'm~UZ]:.ON" Dr. S.J. ;teen Copy ~o. 1, 2, 3 D=. Z.W. HuShes " " 4 I~. L&. Saz~o:d " " S, 6 K.H. Gibb, Esq. " " 7 g.S. Wade, Esq. " " 8, 9, 10 R.G. N£cholls, Esq. " " 11, 12 Herr H. Soccorf " " 13 Dr. F. Seehofer " " 14 A.J. ETuszTnski, Esq. " " 15 Dr. C.J.P. de Sique£ca" " 16 D~. D.C. Falcon " " 17 LibEat7 " " 18, 19 C01~N0: ~ -- L BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION k.,r'l

INDEX HAS INDICATED GAP IN BATES RANGE HERE

OEClCALI460-6 Group Research & Development Centre, British-american Tobacco Co. Led., SOUTHAMPTON. lOth January 1977 SMOKING BEHAVIOUR (LOW DELIVERY CIGARETTES) (report No. gD.l&&O Restricted) e SUMMAKY AND CONCLUSIONS Two very low delivery (1.0 u~ 1TM, 0.1 mE nlcoClne) cigarette brands, ReemCsma No. l from Germany and Now from the U.S.A. have been smoked by a panel of smokers recruited from the staff at, Croup R. & D. Centre, Southampton. Each brand was smoked exclusively for one week. MsasuremenCs show chat both low de1£vary brands were smoked ins similar way and wlch a much greater incensi~y than the subjects' usual brand (mean delivery 25mETPM, 1.6mEnicotine). Compared to machine smoking, on average about ~wice as much smoke was taken from each cigarette by the panel, in about half the time. Althoush the ~ntensi~y of smoking ind£yidual cisaEettes was increased, the number of clsarettes smoked per day was not markedly altered. ~ ~"~- BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

-2- BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION O,,, oo

-2- INTRODUCTION Low delivery cigarettes have been introduced into many of the world's more developed markets. Amongst the more recent introductions are ReemCsma No. 1 in Germany and Now from leynolds in the U.S.A. Both of chess brands offer very low deliveries-" (about 1 mE TPM and 0.1 ms nicotine), but have comparaClvely high flavour amplitudes. The high flavour ampllcude might make these cigarettes more acceptable to smokers experimenting wLth low delivery cigarettes than other low dellver~ brands, which offer very little sensation Co the smoker. Both Reemcsma No. 1 and Now achieve low delivery by a number of design features includins ventilation of the mouth section of the filter tip. Reemcsma No. 1 has a triple filter, "the mlddle section of which conCalns granules of carbon. Now has a filter w~th a rln8 of five embossed holes which run longitudinally and four rows of perforations. As these brands seem to offer some advantages over previous Iow delivery brands, it was decidod to measure the may in which these cigarettes were smoked by a panel of smokers, and to compare Chess results with those obcalned for the usual brand smoked. EXPE~L'~AL METHODS The Pan.el ~ ""% 41 The panel was selected from the staff of Group R. & D. Centre to contain five male and five female subjects. All subjects were wiehln the age ranks 18-35 years and had taken part in previous exper/ments in which smoking blhmviour had been recorded. m~ BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION (...m

INDEX HAS INDICATED GAP IN BATES RANGE HERE

-3- Experlmental Design Half of the •ubjectS smoked Kaemtsma No. 1 exclusively for •even days and were then changed Co emokLng Now exclusively for the next five days. The other half of the panel smoked Now for •even days andmqmre changed to Reemtsma No. 1 for the follov~ng five days. (The panel smoked the first brand during the weekend in the middle of the experiment durinS which t~me no measurements were made.) Each subject visited the behavioural laboratory on each of the five working days of the first week and the five working days of the ~cond week. On each visit to the laboratory the •ubject s~oked • cigarette of the appropriate brand. The way the cigarette was smoked was recorded by a 8mokins analyser (1) while the subject listened to cape recorded music in • controlled enviroumene room (2). After smoklnK, the butt length was measured and the filter t£p rm~ved from the butt and analysed for n£cocine alkaloids (3). The subjects were issued with as many cigarettes as they ChouKhc they might need, and a record kept of the clEar•ties issued. Subjects were asked to rmne~bar or estimate the number of ciKarettee they had S£ven away and the number left unmnolusd were recorded. The aver•St number of c£Karettas smoked per day was estimated from chest dace. m~ ..... The phys~al characteristics and analytlcal results for the " two elK•reCta brands when smoked by machine under standard conditions are shown in Table I which also concain8 some results for BENSON & HEDGES K.S.F.T. and Embaesy R.S.F.T. for reference. su~ BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

INDEX HAS INDICATED GAP IN BATES RANGE HERE

-4- TABLE 1 PHYSICAL D~ST.ONS AND ~YTICAL DATA FOR I~TSI~ NO. 1 AND NOW , m , (ms) Nicotine Alkaloids Del£ver7 (mS) Puff Numbe= Nicotine Alkalo£ds in Tip (mS) Filtration Efficiency (Z) Overall Cigarette Length (mm) Tobacco Rod Length (~wn) Filter Leu~th (ram) TippLng Pape~ LmaKth (~) FilCez" Construct:ion. T C M Venc£1aced Tor.al Puff Volume (machine) (ml) l N:f.coc:LnJ Alkaloids Del£very Reemt:mna No. 1 u iJ i i 1.3 0.06 7.2 0.28 82 83 58 25 29 10 m, paper 7 .m, carbon Kz:an-Zes 8 ,-,, C.A. Yes 2.52 a ,| m Emba say R.S°F.T. L9 1.3 i • ii 1.4 O. 14 6.7 o.J7 82 57 25 30.5 25,,-- C.A. with mmbomsed paCte.rn on mouth end Te$ 235 • B]CNS~ & ]UEDG~S K.S.F.T. 1.7 BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION qP'~ ¢,-m o,,,

t • O qb- BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION O~