Tobacco Documents Online

( y I_ -: :1k , 'c1 T - °~ +T'-. •?r' iT' Mr, J. E. Lircoln Deccmber 3, 1958 R. B. Sel3gman Ventilate$ t;igarettes ConsixAer Test 3amples= 14X va. MR~ PX va. PR L Since your visit we have obtained information c3n both ventilated samp3.es MX and PX) coapared to the non-ventilated controls (MR and PR . Ventilation was carried out using three (3) krd.ves of ©.40~ inch thicloness on both MX and PX. By-pass measurements (Table 1) demonatrated that aome degree of ventilation was ach3.eved by these knives. This was evidenced by the gas phage reduction figures (see Table 2). However, the reduction in delivered smoke solids apparently due to Yentil.ation was onl.y e11ght; 0.7 mgfci~t. in the P-types and 1.4 mg/cigt. Sn tha )i-typee. I said apparent].y" because differenees in the resistance to draw of the filter plug and ~ifferences in available smoke soLids complicated this picture. By etudying the data (Tab3.e 1) you wi11 see that the plug on M1C had a higher resistance to draw than the plug on lh"R. Thls sarved to accentuate the ventilation-effect, ar.d the smoke solid$ reduction due to ventilation alone becar.e obsctn^ed. The situation, although reverscd, is as confusing in the P-series; here the PX-plug had a lower reeistance to draw than the PR- plug . Also, the available smoke solids in MR vs, MX and PR vs. PX were different. Thi9 throws an additior.al shro1x3 over the effects of the ventilation. This emghasizear the importance of havirg properly construated control cigarettes ahich are identical in all respects except in that variable being teste.'d. a so emphasizes the need for adequate testing of the eonsumer samples prior to distribution. Taste panel teats on MX vs ,, ; MR demonstrated that signifi- cant differences could not be detected« Because of these findings we fee3 the samp7.ea (MX vs. MR, PX vs. PR ) do not truly represent the ventilated e#'fect. ln addition, we cannot recommend specifScat3ons for ventilation at this time becatxae manufacturing processe5 have not been stabilized. We are performing experiments with the various mfldels of ventilated cigarettes obtained €rom the Manufacturing Department and hop® to be able to make a recamnendation soon. cc 1 X3r. . R. N. DuPi]18 vr.L.S.He. Dr. C. V. Kace

Mr. J. E. Lincoln Table 1 © December 3: 1958 ANALYTICAL DATA ON CONSMSR TEST SAMPLES Analysis MR MX* PR PX} Available Smoke SoZids, ®g/cigt. 22.2 20.1 22.2 20.4 Delivered Smoke Solids, mgfcist. 12.3 10.9 12.8 12.1 Smoke Nic otine, tiWcist. 0.98 0.93 1.15 1.1 Total Resistance to 17rax, inches of water 4.2 4.1 4.7 4.2 ' Plug Resistance to praw, inches of water 2.3 2.6 2.7 2.5 ' Bypass**, inches of water 0.13 0.33 0.08 0.4 }Ventilated using three knives of 0.004" thickness 7 _: ~~ This is to be differentiated from resistance to draw. In -~ this, only the air passage through the paper is measured.

br. R. N. DuPuis •3r Table2 Decenber 3, 1958 GAS PFIASB ANALYSIS* ON Ct?NS*= TEST SAMPLES Constituent Carbon dioxide Methyl chloride Isoprer.e Benzene Toluene % Reduction % Reduction in MX due to in MX due to Ventilation Ventilation (per puff) (Per ci3t.+!*) ...____.. 20 18 20 i3 i8 13 30 26 onstituent % Reduction in PX due to Ventilation (per puff ) . . % Reduction in PX due to Ventilation (per cigt**) Carbon dioxide .._. _ ._.~_. 20 7 MethW~ chloride 23 11 Isoprene 25 13 Benzene 27 17 Toluene 40 ~ A percentage reduction of less than 10% should not be considered as beirg significant. ~!t Cigarettes smoked to a 25 mm butt length.