Tobacco Documents Online

NICOTINE BUTT STUDIES II~ODUCTION There is no ~nt~rely satisfactory way to determine how much smoke human bei~ actually tske into their mo~ths from ¢fgarettes. Th~ two m~st widely used methods differ greatly [n their experimental abproach, and each has its advantages and disadvanteg~s. Th~ ~im~lest a~d m~s~ L~tural m~thod is tu coll~t ~euh filt~rs fro~ Consumers who have smoked the clg~rettes ~der ~ormal eondi~ionm. By determfn~nE the smount of ~eot~e depomft~d on the filter, ~he amount ef smoke received by the consumer can be estimated. The advantage of this method is that it is totally no~invaslve and permits the ~moker ~o S~kc ~n his natural~euscr. The 1~m~ta~fo~ fs that th~s ~etho~, ~ei~E no~nvs~ve~ dne~ net measure the de~ree to which the filtratiom efficiency of a test brand may vary between sub~ects. While bu%~ studies cannot determine pr~cfsely how much "tar" and nic0tfne smokers recelve~ they can provfde an estimate cf the range ef component del~vmrfes grcm whfch relative comparisom~ betweem various brands can be made. The s~cc~id method r~qulres subjects £o slaoke in a la~oratDry sftu~tfon~ wi:h measuring ~eviees attached to th~ cigarette to dete~mfne the sfze, veloelty~ durat{on a~d frequency cf the puffs. The information recorded is then simulated on a smoMin~ machine to &a oD

allow actual smoke analyge~.~ This proeeduze is costly and requires s tremendous amoun~ Of time to c~fle~t information from enough smokers. More importantly, the artificiality of the laboratory sftuationmak~ the results obtained of ifmlt~d utility in providing conclusions nbo~t smoker intake ~n a normal settle. Nicotine retained on filters in the laboratory setting is frequently gs much as 40~ ~re~ter than in normal smoking situations. Neverthele~ laboratory ~xperi~ents ¢~n b~ useful in showing ~he wide range of possible htu~a~ smoking behavior and. in examiDin~ the effects of varfeu~ human smoking profiles on nicotine retained and "tar" delivered. Whoa human smoking is cazried out in a laboratory~ it is importnnt tha~ all the critical parameters of h~an s~okfng are measured. See W. Schulz & F. Seebofer, op. cir., at 259-260: D. E. Creighton aud ~. H. Lewis, "2he Effect of Smoking Pattern on Smoke Deliveries~" Smokin~ Beh~ior 301-[3. An ideal butt study would i~elude a non-invssive teehnlq~e to measure a smoker's normal smoking pattern for each test brand. This would include puff volume, puff duration, puff frequency and dilution ra~e. Next, cigarettes of that brand adjusted to ~he smoker's dilution rate would be smoked on a machine s~t £o d~plicate the h~man smoker's puff parameters. Usln~this protocol, the a~ount of nicotfne retained on the cigarette filters smcked by ~he human and by the m~chine should be the same~ ~s well as amounts of nicotine and "tar" delivered to the smo~e~, * See D. E. Creighton~ J. J. Noble ~ R. T. ~ewell~ "Instruments ~o ~eas~re, record ~d d~pli¢~te h~n smoking patterns~" Smcbl~ Behavior 277. - 2 ga s~

~owever, smoking ~ethodology has ~t advanced to the point of nonlavasive =easurement of ,rariables such as flow rates and filter effdclencies and an ideal butt study has yec tD be achieved. If these parameters are measured im a laboratory situation, the results have little relationship to normal htuvan smoking. EXPERIMENTAL PROTOCOL i~o large--scale s~udies, administered for Brown & Nflliamson bF Market Facts~ an independent Chicago-based marketing research firm, used regl~lar ~mokers of low or ultra low "haT'' delivery nonmenthol hrand~ as test subjects. Marke~ Facts representative~ placed on8 pack cf identified Barclay KS and one o~ Cambridge KS in the home o£ each partfcipaut~ wlth instruc~ione to smoke the cfgarettes d~ a normal mauler a~d to rotaln at leash 15 "spen~" butts from each brand in pla~c h~s. M~rket F~eL~ collected the b~tt~ after ~eve~] d~y~, paid each participau~ $I.00 and sent the butts to Brcw~ & Williamson for analysis. EighLy-[uur sulokers from Cincinnatl, Nashville, Daytun~ and Chattanooga completed the first ~tudy, during the last week of ~ov~mher, 1980. Ei~ht~-two smokers from Cincinnati, ~sas City~ Birmingham, and Tho~nwood (N.L) completed the second study t2e third week of December, 1980. Louisville consumer~ who c~gula~ly ~mo~d low dellve~y or "light~" brand~ participated ~n tw~ ~m~l~er studie~. In ~uly 19S0, 17 consmilers e~e to ~n independent cons~iler cesearch facility ~d took home, ui~ different nights~ one pack of identified C~rldge KS and one pack efa Barclay KS prototype (unidentified, in plain whito pack). cn ~0 ca - 3 -

The next day the ¢o~umers returned the speut butts in a plastic baM. During September 19~0~ 19 liSferc~t pan~llsts follow~6 the sam~ procedllre, but both brand~ were ilen~ffied. In both atl~ie~ participants wer~ asked to ~mDk~ i~ a norma- manner. A fifth s-~dy conducted in May 19Sl had 25 re~lar smokers of Bar,lay KS pick ~p, from a consumer research facil~tyln Lo~isville, t~o ~acks of identified Barclay K~. After ~mok~n~ them in a no~m~l ~a~ner ove~ the ~eMt two da~s~ £he participa~its returned their ~ent butts in plastic bag~. RESULTS AND DI~CUSSION The average retai~ed nicotine m~a~ured ~er filter i~ the~e f~v~ Brow~ & Wlll~amson studies are as follows: ~/mb~r of Participants Barclay KS Cambridge KS Larg~ Study I 8~ .87 .68 8a~ll Study I 17 .71 .65 Small Study 2 19 .82 .72 Barclay S~o~e~ Study 25 .72 -- Ave~ 0.77 ~.66 Thi= as the averase of all individual results and not averaging of ~ch ~t~dy. The range found for retained nleetlnm amon8 [ndivid~als is shown is Figure A. - & -

Figure A $~Y CF B&~ BUTT $~DIES 30 , - 2O tO 9 °t--q 0 + 0 .~. +2 .3 2O 15 .t~ .5 .6 .7 3t+ I 27 27 i I 21 t5 ] )J- ~---l~ .~J .9 I,O 1+I 1.2 1.3 l.~ 1.5 1.6 + G~ i+¸ 0 .t .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .; .8 .9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 11.5 mg Nie~tt~e Retalned/Ftlter (Human Smoktng)

Given ~h=se results, the key qu~stioI~ is wheLher ~Qnsum~rs get re1~ti~ely m~ grouter ~o~nt~ o~ "tar" from B~rclay th~n they do from C~mhridse. The b~tt studies s~ow more ~icotine is retained on a Barclay filter whezl ~uDk~d by a ~ll~t thmn when smoked by machi~e~ set at 8~a~6&rd Conditions. This disc~epa~y~ however~ is not n~ces~rily d~e £o oecluslon~ for it can mls~ be explafned by a smoker's larger o~ ~ore frequent puffs. Indeed, since there is coR~iderable evidence that s~okers often t~k~ l~r~er or mo~ fr~q~ p~ffs ~hi~es~ ~ is far m~e l~k~ly th~ lar~ and/or m~r~ frequent puffs are the determinative f~c~or~. TO determfn~ how human varlmbles might affec~ the amounts of ~icotine retRi~e~ ~d "~a~" del~ve~e8~ ~1~y was m~chi~e~s~Dked ~d~ ~hree different ~o~ditions~ i~r~er ~uff~ ~han ~he m~chi~ ~ta~dard~ mo~e frequent puffs, and p~tfa] ~ent~latf~ ~foc~age. The ~ollowi~ results wer~ obtained: Effect of Differen~ Smo~in~ Re~i~es on ~Icotine Retafned and Tar De1{v~r~8 f~r Barclay KS Cf~arette~ ~o. of Amo~Rt of Nico~ine Tar M~chi~e Smoking Conditions Puffs Smoke Ratalned Del~e~ed 38 ml puff every 60 s~conds 8.0 280 ml 0.50 1.0 35 mf puff every %8 seconds ii.0 388 ml 0.88 2.4 60 ml puff every 60 seconds 7.5 ~58 ml 0.91 3.1 38 ml po~ e~e~y 60 ~eond~ 7.8 273 ml 0.~4 ?i.~ (~ig~r~e diluti~ r~du~d to 60%) ~n - 6 -

T~.Lg, the average of 0.77 mg nientlne retained nn Bsra]~y butts ~ould be acccunted ~or by decreased dilution, larger puffs, ~d/or i~r~ f~equ~nt p~ff~ tham th~ n~chi~i~ sta~Ld~r~° IL ~uul~ al~u he concluded that the average 'It~" i~ betwee~ 2 m~ ~n~ ~ m~. Tn£~rpreta£J~ ~ btltt ~naly~ doe~ ~o~ have ~o b~ comp~e~ provided the varieties of human ~mokin~ behavior are considered and examined by ~achlne smoking. The mos~ widelF acknowledged dlfference~ ~etwee~ human be~ng~ ~d s~a~d~rd sm~kin~ m~chi~ procedures ~r~ pu~ slze and pu£f freq~enc.v. Many h~man hei~ t~ke larger and/er mo.~e frequent puff~ ~n cigarettes than machines do, (Surgeon General's Report, 1981, p. 185 an~ references elted therein, ) Both larger puffs and ~ore ~reque~t p~ffs ob~inusly produce ~r~ smoke. These l~ad to more nicotine deposited o~ the ~ilt~r ~d more deilvered "tar". While we cannot know h~%' ~ given humgn being actually smo~e6 the cigarettes whose ~u~$ we obtained1 we call tts~ ~a~hin~s t~ bracke~ the r~II~e of ,,tar,, deli~erle~ smo~e~ received. %~e~ these simple metho~ of measurement are ~pplied to ~eli~b~e retai~ed nicotine 4ata~ it is se~u t~at Barclay delivers l~vels of "tar" simil~r to Cambrldg~. T~k~g ~ambridgc first~ th~ ~ver~ge of 0.66 m~ ~i~otlne ~ou~d d~posiLed on Cambridge cigarette ~ilters ca~ b~ attributed ~o l~r~er and/or more frequent puffs or to partial occlusion of the ventilating perf3rations. If the participants £ook puffs of 50 to 60 ml~ or p~rtiall~ 5locked the ve~tliatlng pcr~er&~ioms, Q.66 mg nicotln@ ~o~Id equate £0 a 'Itar" delivery ~f abo~t ~ mg {o~ Cambridge KS. 7

For Barclay KS) an ~verage o[ 0.77 n~ nicotiue was fouud d~posit~d the Barclay f~l~er.~ Aa d~ussed above, data obtained ~rom maehine-smok~g ~arclay cigarettes with IRrg+-r puffs, more frequent puffs) and with ventilation +~ol~s partially blocked allows an estimate u£ "t~r" d~live~ies under different smoki1~ b~Imvlor~. AS sho%~ in Figure B below) the 0.77 mg nico~in~ r~talned cn Ba~claF KS filter equates to ~.0 mg "tar" if the te~t participants took standard sized puffs at ~0-60 second iut~rvals. If they took lar~er than s~andard s~zed (35 m~).puffs, 0.77 m~ nicotine zetained on the filter equates t~ Z.3 mg "tar". I~ cons~mers part~ally blocked ven~il~tlon, red.clog ~ilut~oal 0.77 ms nlcot£ue retained on Barclay KS filter equates to 3.5 m~ "tar". Fibre B \ Effec~ of Chaus£n~ Smoklr~ Cond£~ions on N~cotine Retained and ~'Tar" Delivered for B~rc]~¥ KS Mot) °'70.6 <r~'II~ ~~I~l'~' ~c~) = > l Z ~ • • ~ Becaus~ Lh~ Barclay tobacco bi~ld c~nta~ls I~ore nicotine th~n tl~ 0~mbz~dge blemd, more nicotine is £omm:l deposlt+~ on thQ ~cl+y O~

Thus, if Barclay and Cambridge smokers were ta~in~ larger puff~ when they smoked the cigarettes in these massive studies, then the "tar" 4ellveries of Barclay ~d Cambridge were not significantly different (X.1 mg an~ 2 mg respectively). There is no evidence that ccnsu~ers block the filter exit cha~nels when smokinB Barcl~y. A~ discussed above, there is much more cempellin~ evidence that averafe consmaers take larger and/or more frequent puffs trust smoking machines. A final point which is no= wltho~t inte~s~ arises from e~inimg the fifth study which u~od regular Barel~y st.ok~rs. While the dat~ h~e is small, the nine subjects who regularly smoked Barclay for three months or less deposited an average of 0.79 mf nicotine on their fillers. Th~ 16 Barclay snluk~rs who had us-~d the pruduut for five or six months deposited the lower average of 0.68 mE nicotine on their {~]k~rs. corresponding to i to 2 mg "tar". The e~planation f~ir th~ difference may be that a smoker who is acclimated to a lower delivery hr~d will eump~i*sat~ l~s th~L a sl~uk~r who has b~u smokh~ g[lat brand for only a short while. Because greater a~alytieal certainty is possible for higher "tar" eifarettes~ Brown & Williams0n also conducted h~tt studies of Barclay lOOs (3 li~f "tar*') aLd Cambridge lOOs (4 rug "tar"), u~i~g Luulsvill~ co~6tt~ers. Tho first study, fn Sept~er 1980, ~sed ~0 low delivery smokers w~o s~oked~ on consecutive d~y~ one a pack e~ch o~ Bsrclay lOOs and fsmbridge lOOs a~ their leisure. ~%e s~coad ~tudy, in August 1981, had Z5 Barclay lOOs smokers s~oke Barclay lOOs over two or three days at their lefsure. == -J - 9 -

Average nicotine deposlte6 on the Jilters is as follow~: Brand/Study AverageNicotine Retained (mg/elg) Barclay 1ODs (9/80) 0.48 (Advertised delivery, 3 m~ 1'tar") Barclay 100~ (8/8l) 0.&$ with ~arclay smckers Cambridge 100s (9/80) 1.14 (Advertised delivery 4 mg "tmr") It i~ worth ~ointlng out that the groateramount of nicotine retained sn the C~/~bridge IC0 filter Compared with the Barclay 10O is due to cigarette destgn dif~erences. Cambridge ID0 has a 71% filter efficiency and 54% vestilatlon rate. Barclay i00, ~ the other hand, has a 53~ filter efficiency an~ a 68~ ventllation rate. The Barclay 100s results are entirely consistent with either increased pnff-ng frequency or incressed pu[f VOl[~e, delivering "tar" in the 3 to 4 mg range as shown below: ~lachlne Puff Puff Retained Delivered DellvQred Nicotine Smoking Size Interval Nicotine Nicotine Tar Efficiency Conditlo~s (ec) (see) (ms) (mS) (mB) (%) Standard ~5 B0 0.39 B.34 2.5 53.Z More puffs 35 40 0.48 0.38 3,2 55°8 L~rger Puffs 50 60 0,&3 0.~7 4,3 ~7.9 The results indlcat@ that both Cz~abrldge 100 ~nd Barclay 100 ar~ smoked f~ a similar fa~hi0n by c0nstm~rs ar.d their relative "Lar" delfveries are as indicated By standard machine s~o~ing. 0~44K EFL/sek &n g .j - i0 -