Tobacco Documents Online

i'¸ • , BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORPORATION RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ENGINEERING INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE TO : Mr. E. E. Kohnhorst (4) CC : Dr. J. N. Jewell Mr. T. F. Riehl Mr. R. T. Lewis Mr. D. L. Gordon Dr. H. G. Bryant Dr. W. H. Deines Dr. R. R. Johnson Mr. D. A. Halverstadt Mr. H. S. Porenski FROM: DATE: Mr. M. L. Reynolds October 28, 1983 SUBJECT: ARIES REASSESSMENT - STATUS AS OF 10/26/280 SUMMARY Radical Cigarette Designs Low porosity and Hallmark patterned papers flatten delivery profiles. Duolite in the mouthpiece improves smoke quality. Variable tobacco rod densities do not help, although a tobacco filter does. Or ganglqptic Profiling Work completed. Current ARIES design has irritation/taste imbalance. New test planned with tobacco filter. Smoking Behavior Work completed. Smokers take bigger, higher velocity puffs on ARIES. Smaller puffs on Camel. Smoke Chemistry Plans agreed with GR&DC and results promised by December i. Alternate Mouthpieces Three show some promise. In addition to the tobacco filter, two have built in programming to reduce deliveries in later puffs. Mold Finalization Thirty-two cavity on schedule for December i. Assembly machine trial on November I. O C~ I¢

:, / . i!~¸ , ~ii¸ ' :/ ( C~_~arette Assembl~ Mechanical and electrlcal changes defined for Max S. hand for "no-banding" trials. Adhesives on Detailed reports from project managers and staff are attached. overall review will be December 2. MLR/vr 0584k Attachments Next i: k O G~ O O 20 - 2-

r DETAILED REPORTS Radical Cigarette Designs (DAH/ HSP) ARIES delivers more tar and nicotine in later puffs than does a conventionally-filtered cigarette. This is because a tobacco column delivers increasing tar and nicotine in later puffs due to loss of paper ventilation and tobacco bed filtration. A cellulose acetate filter increases in filtration efficiency as the coal approaches the filter reducing the net effect of increased delivery by the tobacco column. Several potential methods of reducing the tar delivery profile of ARIES have been suggested. A summary of these methods and their effectiveness is as follows: Method Effect Tobacco density profile Low + High Elevates first puff strength - later puffs slightly stronger than ARIES. High + Low Ineffective - little change from current. Paper porosity Low porosity increases strength of initial puffs. Couple with increased tip ventilation for improved profile. Longer lasting blend Slight reduction in profile. ,/ "Hallmark" pattern in last half Virtually duplicated Marlboro Lights delivery profile. I~olite Minor change (reduction) in profile probably due to filtration. Reported large subjective change. Low nicotine blends Over-dried or DIET results in fast-burning high delivery tobacco. Need to couple with CODEVAC to properly affect profile. CODEVAC Slight reduction with blends tried to date. © C~ tJ tO C~

¢ I • ! S_usy~arY The most promising avenues for reduced tar delivery profile are: 1. Low porosity paper 2. "Hallmark" patterned paper treatment 3. Duolite-containing filter/mouthpiece. Other methods offer less benefit and are much more difficult to implement. 0 G~ ¢) (.> tO Cg> - 2 -

Q .Organo_leptic Profiling" Camel Plain and the Effects of Ventilation~ A RIES--~_~ Filtratign__t and Filtration/Ventilation (WHD) A pilot test among Dupont smokers of full flavor filter and plain end cigarettes suggests that ARIES-I smoke is most similar to that from a ventilated plain end cigarette. However, it does differ from the ventilated plain and even more so from the other cigarettes tested in having more irritation, less tobacco taste, and/or more irritation per amount of tobacco taste. Product maps from the two groups of smokers appear in Figures 1 and 2. Further, results from acceptability rating indicate the smokers of filter cigarettes liked filtered (ventilated or unventilated) smoke better than that from ARIES or plain end (ventilated or unventilated); plain end smokers liked unventilated plain end smoke most and ARIES least. See Figure 3 for results from this experimental test procedure. Judgments were based only on the first third of each cigarette. Details are appended. Subsequent discussions with panelists showed that plain cigarette smokers perceive filters as reducing taste, filter cigarette smokers perceive filters as reducing harshness. - 3 - ~0

il ....... Q/l,!o~k/I/~_tc.~ p • i|. II ® F ~.~. ~.-~>~<~

tV'm~ • .a''¸ ', i Q (9 ~d,,,

I"-'-_....,l'- V l ..... _[J~. .3 ,.j .q ca

~ir ! j Test Details APPENDIX Regular smokers of full flavor filter cigarettes (10) and plain end cigarettes (8) evaluated the following six cigarettes in a pilot study: Expected - Description Construction P_D Vent. Tar Unfiltered/unventilated/ Camel Plain plain end 2.5 -- 18.5 Unfiltered/ventilated/ plain end Camel Plain + j l.7 ventilation 37 11 Unfiltered/ventilated/ ARIES I Filtered/ventilated/ ARIES appearance Filtered/ventilated/ conventional CA appearance Filtered/unventilated/ conventional CA appearance Camel Plain + ventilated ARIES I mouthpiece Camel Plain + 4.3 ventilated CA filter + short ARIES mouth end cap i Camel Plain + "" 4.8 '~ ventilated CA filter J Camel Plain + J 4.3 unventilated .... CA filter 1.5 57 I0 22 10-11 I~ 14 16.5 Participants were asked to focus ~ on smoke properties and to ignore any visual, tactile,, and draw differences. They were also permitted only to smoke the first third of each cigarette. First, they made replicate ratings of each cigarette for impact, irritation, tobacco taste, bitterness, "taste/irritation balance," aftertaste, and similarity to "what they are used to". In the second phase of testing, they rated the acceptability of each cigarette, again based on smoke properties. Results Figure A-I shows attribute rating results from the two groups of smokers. Bitterness is deleted because it failed to differentiate cigarettes. 0 G~ 0 C~ t¢ t¢ -4-

Figures ] and 2, noted earlier, are product maps derived from the average ratings for impact, irritation, tobacco taste, aftertaste, and irritation/taste balance; the maps are factor score plots. Figure 3 shows how the two groups rated acceptability of the six cigarettes. Ca 0 G~ 0 t~ - 5 -