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~

-5- RESULTS A~ter each subject had smoked a cigarette, e reduced format paper tape ~ras made and read on a teletype. From these data the totals and averases o£ the smoking parameters were calculatRd. One £eBale subject abandoned the test after smoking 17 Reaa~m No. 1 cigarettes in an afternoon and evmain~. The ~ause for complaint was an unpleasant taste in the mouth, persistent irr£tatlou and lack of aatisfect£on. The results of the one cisarette smokmi by thls subject in the laboratory have not been included in the panel averase results. He substitutt panel member was recruited. The objective of this test was to measure the way in which these two low delivery cigarette brands ware smoked by human subjects. The lensth o£ the test and s~all panel size preclude further mean~naful separation Lute sub---Broups or periods of t~me, and consequently the data £rom all subjects (both males end females) and for both weeks 1 and 2 of the test have ba@n combined. To provide a reference point these results have been compared with the results of a survey (4). In this survey seven of the smokers Lu this test smoked BZNSON & ~C-v-~ K.S.P.T. while two smoked Embassy K.S.P.T. The results for all subjects were combined regardless og the fact that Kmbasey is of shorter lenKth. I~n the present study the effects 8t~ L~- approxi~at£on can he ignorld. The average results for the way these cisarettes were smoked are shows in Table 2. Graphical plots of the cusmlative values are sbmm in the Appendix, P£Suras 1-4. BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION c..r'!

Q. O BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION O~ O~

-6- AVERAGE SMOKING P~~S FOR ALL SUBJECTS AND ALL REPLICATES SMOKING ~F.HTSMA NO. 1! NOW AND BENSON & HEDGES 0R I~fB&SSY PsrmmeCer t n le Total Puff Volume Average Puff Volume Total Puff Duration &retaKe Puff DuraCfon Total Interval Between Puffs AveraKe Interval Between Puffs Total Time Alight Total of Pressure ~dings co Draw Puffs Average of Pressure lU~ad£ns8 , i, , |i (ml) (ml) (sec) (sec) (sec) (,ec) (see) (c~W.C. lsec) (,--,W.G./sac) (cmW.C.) Co Draw Puffs AveraKe LiC Draw Resistance Puff Number BuC¢ Length (me) Number of Ci6arettes Smoked per Day ~HicoC~Jae Alkaloids in Tip (ms) EsC£maCed Nicotine Alkaloids (ms) Delivery F£1craC£on Efficiency (Z) (S canderd Smokins) *Noc assured - subjects' own estimate. Reemnm No. I 580.2 59.9 26.08 2.69 299.8 34 • 5 334.3 276.4 28.5 10.6 9.7 31.6 25.9 0.83 0.18 82 Now 539.0 59.3 24.68 2.71 277.9 34.3 312.2 308.9 34.0 12.5 9.~L 32.1 27.7 O. 88 0.33 73 B. & H./Embassy 403.0 37.7 ~1.96 403.5 41.6 445. I 416.2 38.9 19.8 10.7 29.3 30-35* qB- o BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION c~

INDEX HAS INDICATED GAP IN BATES RANGE HERE

-7- DISCUSSION Apart from the subject who abandoned the test after smoking less than one pack of Reemtsm8 No. l cigarettes all the other subjects continued ~ to smoke the Reemtsma No. 1 and How cigarettes axcluslvely for e week each. Unsolicited co~me~ts made by the subjects may be eummarised as senerally unfavourable, particularly durln8 the first £ew days of Q smoking the low delivery c£Karettes. Both brands were criticlsed for lack of satisfaction, bu£1d up of persistent irrlntlon end streaks taste. All the smokers in this test usually smoke £1ue-cured tobacco ciK&rettes with nicotine and TPM levels at least 8/I tLmee hiKher than were o£fered £n th£8 test. The thanks to the Low del£ver7 German and America~ brands was therefore rather dramatlc. The number o£ adverse comments on the low delivery brands had reduced by the end o£ a week of mnokin8 them. This, however should not be ~nterpreced as /Jadicatln8 that the penel found them more acceptable, althoush co.writs that suKsested that some subjects ware "setti~K used to them" became more frequent. There were some observed abuses o£ the eiKarette desLKn. These took place outslda the behavioural Laboratory. It was observed that at least one subject learned that by plac£q the ciKarette £urther into the mouth, the vent£1at£on holes could be covered up and, mnolue deliveries increased. It was also noted that the linkers used to hold the c~arettes could he conveniently placed to cover up 8ome o£ the vent£1at£on holes. One subject was seen to cover the vent£1atlon holes with clear adhesive tape. AZI cisarettes smoked in the laboratory c~ BAT Co LTD - MINNE.gDTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

o BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION O',,

-8- were smoked through a holder which made the accidental or deliberate occlusion of the ventilation holes ~ore difficult. One subject was, however, observed to hold the c£Sarette in front of the holder and may have partLally blocked some of the ventilation porte. Reference to the individual lit draw resistance measurememts shove that any attempts to cover the ventilation holes wltb the fi~er8 were not ver~ successful. J A further observation, noted from the oscilloscope crates of individual puff profiles, was chat the LucLdmnee of double and multiple peaked puffs was much hiKher than has been observed previously. The peaks sometimes £e1£ to zero flow for between O.O2-1.98 eec before r£sin~ and fellies asain. The second part of the peak was 8enerally lareer than the first. The reason for this behavlou~al chanKe ~rLth very low delivery cilareCtes may be that the smoker puffs /~itially to increase the 8low and coml~etion temperature o£ the cigarette (in the smokersI tarm4nology; to 8ec it going) and uses the latter part og the puff Co draw smoke for inhalation. It £s also poss4bla that the smoker does not experience the sensation he expects from the draw, me mnotkr puff is taken very rapidly to add to the first. The averaKe results for all the sub, acts (Table 2) have be~ "~'".m~- as compared qrLth the survey results recorded some 3 years previously (4). Other studies at Southampton (5) have shown chat mmok£~ patterns are remarkably consistent ~ch time. The results show that the haman smokers used in this test have taken more than twice as much smoke (by volume) £rom Chase ciSeretfes as is taken by m machine operatiD4S under snndard condltlou8. This is BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION O',, C.m

V 7~ BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION r,o

-9- equivalent to about half as m.uch skein as was taken from the more usual brand ~or these smokers. The puff durat£ons we:e loneer from both the low delivery c/safe,tee and the volumes of the individual puffs were. on averaKe, higher when compared with the usual brand or ~r~th machine 8mokln8. The average intervals between puffs were about half that t~skon by machine and about 20X less than between puffs on usual brands. The pressures ned to draw the puffs were, however, less than those recorded when usual brands were smoked. This reduction An the d=av res£s~ance ks due to the ventilation and h£gher paptc poros£ty o£ the low delivery brands. ~n Keneral it may be summarised that the subjects smoked the low delivery brands more intensely than the usual brands, presumably in an . attmpt to draw B0re smoke and nicotlne. Even w~th th~s ~ncreesed £ntensity of smokinK the nwmber of puffs taken from the low delivery c£KareCtes was about one less than taken from the usual brand. This suKKests that the subjects "ran out of cigarette" - i.e. it had burned away before they had taken enov4h smoke from £t. Zt u~sht have been expected that the subjects would have taken more smoke from these c£Karettes than was in fact taken. &n increase Lu puff ntmabe~, puff volume and reduct£ou in interval between puffs and shorter butt lenKt~"~ could have been used. Zt is likely, however, that the low delivery cijaretts would become mort unpleasant to smoke at h/4Lher intensi~y due to 8 build up of irritation and added glavour components in the mouth. The tobacco in these Iow delivery brands is coarsely cut in . comparison w£th the usual U.E. flue-cured tobacco brands. As such a faster smoulder rate was to be expected. The increased puff volumes BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION 0% C.r)

.-..t o -- s, 7" ~c BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION O',,

-IO- taken by the subjects, in association with the higher smoulder rate has resulted in the lower number of puffs taken in smoking these cigarettes. As the subjects could not hope to equalise their nicotine intake from one of the low delivery brands with that from their usual~r~nd (unless they took •bout three to four litres of smoke, which i8 clearly impossible) it might b• expected that more cigarettes of the lower delivery brands would be smoked in a day. In £•Ct the number of cigarettes smok•d per day was s4milsr to numbers mmokmd during a * comparable panel test where the nicotin• deliveries were b•twee~ 8-18 times higher (6). The analysis o£ the Filter tips £or nicotine content suggested that smokers received •bout 0.2 mS of nlcot£ne alkaloids on ever•Ks from each cigarette smoked. This £s about twice •s much •s taken under standard smoking conditions. Since the filtration e££iciency depends on the velocity of smoke passing through the filter (7) and the £1ow rates used tO smoke the cigarettes by the subjects were higher than s~tndard conditions the d•livery of nicotine to the subjects was probably under- estimated. TC is allo of interest to compare the average total volume o£ smoke drawn from the lowest delivery cigarette J.u an earlier test (6)qmi~-q~se volumes drawn in this test. Zn the earlier test, for • c£garettePwith a machine smoked delivery of 1.O4 m8 nicotine, 625 ml of smoke were drawn in 12 puffs; equivalent to an average puff volume o£ 52 el. This compares wlth 540-580 ml of smoke taken in 9.1-9.7 pugfs in the present test, equivalent to an average pug£ volume o£ about 60 el. The elightD4~tcrease in average volume per pu££ seen when the low delivery cigarettes ware smoked may be due Co" the lover draw resistance of these cigarettes. BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION ....................... r,..m

INDEX HAS INDICATED GAP IN BATES RANGE HERE

-11- V Since the data from the two tests are comparable ic may be interpreted thaC clgareCCes with nicotine deliveries of less than 1.0 mE and highly ventilated filters were smoked ac maximuB £neenslty by Chase smokers. ~d~"~ Previous studies suggest that these smokers normally choose co smoke a brand which offers them a delivery of 1.5-2.O mE of nlcoCine in 10-12 puffs of 35-45 ml volume per puff. These findings may be relevant to the design of low delivery cigarettes. The smokers recruited for this study were unsrLlliuK to increase their smoking intensity beyond one puff par 30 seconds and the maximum average volume per puff is 50-~ el. PuffinE at more frequent intervals ks likely to upset the brea~hing pattern and cause discoafort or at least awareness of an increased rate and/or depth of inhalation and exhalation. Awareness of the breathing pattern is abnormal for most smokers. Because of liuL£tations arising from the usa of a small panel of subjects, recruited from laboratory staff at Southampton, it is difficult co extrapolate from the present study. However, the results suggest that few smokers will find very low delivery, cigarettes attractive. KEFERENCES lo 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. BAT Kal~rt No. ED. 1199-K, 28.4.75. BAT Report No. ED. 1OO7-K, 5.6.73. T.E.C. Kesearch Paper 11, 2nd Edition 1974. BAT Eaport So. ED. ll09-E, 7.6.74. qD-~ BAT Report No. ED.1252-R, 11.9.75. BAT Report No. ED.1409 Eestricted - To be issued. Overton, J. Ray, Be£tr]Jge zur Tabakforschung 7, (3), 117-120, 1973. BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

INDEX HAS INDICATED GAP IN BATES RANGE HERE

-12- APPENDIX Yi|~*0 1-A are of the cunulative values for the Puff Volu|t, Puff Duration, Interval be~waan Puffs and the Pressure used to draw the puffs. Cumulative values have been plotted as it is possible ~ this way to combine dana from all puffs, irrespective of the number of puffs taken by individual smokers on particular replicates. C~alative value graphJ are constructed by plottinS the avaraSe value for the first puff against puff number I, the addition of the avaraSe values fo~ the 0 first and second puffs against puff number 2 etc. BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

FIG, I RD. 1440 RESTRJCTEO CUMULATIVE PUFF VOLUME • CIGARETTE HOW • CIGARLrTTE tP.EMTSI~A NO.I • GIG~RE'rTE,~LH AND E.'qI~SSY mL 8oo "/SO 700 65O SSO 5OO 45O 4OO 350 &O0 &50 ISO IO0 50 O BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION <,-,"I

FI&. Z CUHULATIVE PUFF DURATION RI~ 1440 REITRIr.,TEE) BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION Lr~ O.,, L,M

t=16. S CUMULATIVE PUFF iNTERVAL ItS, 144D I~JTRIc'rlID BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

F1~.4 CUMUI.ATIVE PUFF I! BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION AID. I& 4o KE.,~'R ICTF..D PRESSURE • GIGAREI"I'E II CIGARETTE • CIG, ARE'I'TE EFtBAISY NOW REEIq'I'81.~ I~1 D&H IS -c:=,. c~