Reports on problems with experiment to compare delivered smoke solids in ventilated versus unventilated cigarettes. Notes that control cigarettes were not consistently constructed, thus resulting in differences in draw resistence, and therefore, final data on smoke solids reduction. Concludes that data do not accurately represent ventilated effect. Includes data.
Page 1: tvz84e00
( y I_ -:
'c1 T - °~ +T'-. ?r' iT'
Mr, J. E. Lircoln Deccmber 3, 1958
R. B. Sel3gman
ConsixAer Test 3amples= 14X va. MR~ PX va. PR
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
Dr. C. V. Kace
Page 2: tvz84e00
Mr. J. E. Lincoln
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
~~ This is to be differentiated from resistance to draw. In
-~ this, only the air passage through the paper is measured.
Page 3: tvz84e00
br. R. N. DuPuis
Decenber 3, 1958
GAS PFIASB ANALYSIS* ON Ct?NS*= TEST SAMPLES
% Reduction % Reduction
in MX due to in MX due to
(per puff) (Per ci3t.+!*)
onstituent % Reduction
in PX due to
(per puff )
. % Reduction
in PX due to
Carbon dioxide .._.
MethW~ chloride 23 11
Isoprene 25 13
Benzene 27 17
~ A percentage reduction of less than 10% should not be
considered as beirg significant.
~!t Cigarettes smoked to a 25 mm butt length.