Tobacco Documents Online

-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',,