Tobacco Documents Online

---

r F I I F I I I i I I L U L L L L TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SU14iMARY II. INTRODUCTION. I I'I . P RQ CE DURE IV. DISCUSSION AND RESULTS V. CONCLUSIONS VI. TABLES AND GRAPHS Table 1 Cigarette Specifications Table 2 Comparative Analysis of Smoker Parameters Experimental 2 mg Versus Now Table 3 Comparative Analysis of Smoker Parameters Experimental 2 mg Versus Carlton 7& 3 4 7 8 9 10 Table 4 Simulator CommandlTape Data 11 Graph 1 Puff Volume Versus Cumulative Puff 12 Interval Graph 2 Puff Duration Versus Cumulative Puff 13 Interval Graph 3 Puff Average Flow Rate Versus Cumulative 14 Puff Interval Graph 4 Puff Maximum Flow Rate Versus Cumulative 15 Puff Interval Table 5 Puff-by-Puff TPM, Tar, Nicotine, and Water 16 Graph 5 TPM/Puff Versus Cumulative Puff Interval 17 Graph 6 Tar/Puff Versus Cumulative Puff Interval 18. Graph 7 Nicotine/Puff Versus Cumulative Puff 19 Inte rva l Graph 8 Water/Puff Versus Cumulative Puff Interval 20 VII. APPENDIX Appendix 1 Smoker Parameters, Average Values from Three Cigarettes Appendix 2 Statistical Analysis Average and Slope Data: 21 2 2' n,;

F F F r I I I I I- I- I F I L L L 1. I. SUMMARY This examination was conducted'to accumulate addi- tional information on smoker response to the design properties used in the development of ultra low delivery cigarettes, i.e., 2 mg and under. Three cigarettes were investigated; a PM 2 mg Experimental, R. J. Reynolds' Now and American's Carlton 70. Specific emphasis was placed on the comparisons of PM's Experimental to the two commercial products. The study smokers, by their response, showed suf- ficient differences in major parameters to conclude that PM's product was smokedidifferently compared to the competitive products. Principally, the differences recorded were greater average volume, maximum flow rate, and average flow rate on~ the commercial cigarettes. These responses were induced by higher dilution and lower RTD in the Now and Carlton versus the PM Experimental. From the Simulator smoking, lower deliveries were recordedion the 2 mg Experimental versus the Now. The 2 mg Experimental, as expected, had a higher d'elivery than the Carlton 70. L

F F F F I I i I I i L F L I L L 2. II. INTRODUCTION For this study, tree ultra low delivery cigarettes (2mg and~ under) were examined~, a 2 mg PM Experimental, R. J. Reynolds' Now and American's Carlton 70'. The data on the 2 mg Experimental are reported versus the two commercial products. Several specific objectives were set for in depth examination. 1. Smoker response relative to ultra low delivery cigarette design properties. 2. Evaluation of smoker response and delivery data on the 2'mg Experimental versus the Now and Carlt=7-0. 3. Correlation of al'1 data for potential use in new product development. I

I F I F I I I I- I ~ L L ( L 3. III. PROCEDURE Three ultra low delivery cigarettes (2 mg or less) ; two commercial products, Now and Carlton 7&, and a PM 2 mg Experimental were examined~in this study (Table 1). Smoking profile data were collected on seven~smokers with the Smoker Profile Recording, Units. Three cigarettes of each~ type were smoked by each smoker. Only three test cigarettes were smoked each day. Smoking was carried'out in the smoker's normal work area, and no restrictions were made on his usual smoking routine. The computer interpretation of each smoker's pro- file, as recorded~on the cassette tapes, was divided into six parameters; number of puffs, puff volume, puff duration, average and maximum puff flow rate, and puff interval. The average parameter data by brands, for each smoker, is given in~ Appendix 1. Tables 2 and 3 are comparisons of the smoker's individual parameters for the 2 mg~Experimental versus Now and Carlton 70. From these comparisons, trends in smoker parameters with response to the cigarettes were detected. From a statistical analysis of the smoker data, the response of the seven smokers to each~brand was calculated (Table 4 and' Graphs 1-4). This statistical data~ (Appendix 2) was used in the preparation of Simulator command tapes. Twenty cigarettes of each brand were smoked on the Simulator using, the command tape for each brand to determine the puff-by-puff TPM, Tar, Nicotine and Water. Results are shown in Table 5 and' Graphs 5-8.

4. I F r I F I 1.. L L I L L IV. DISCUSSION AND RESULTS A. 2 mg Experimental Versus Now Comparative Analysis From an examination of the smoker parameters in Table 2, it is obvious that the two cigarettes were smoked differently. Gross trends are noted in smoker response on several parameters; 100% of the smokers took larger puff volumes, and 86% showed greater maximum and average flow rates on the Now. Seventy-one percent took a greater number of puffs on the Now. No significant difference was noted in the puff duration and puff interval. The lower RTD and higher dilution on the Now (4.3" RTD and 68'%' dilution~) versus the 2' mg Experimental (6.3" RTD and 50% dilution) are believed to be the cause of the increased flow rates and subsequent higher volume on the Now. Statistical Analysis On averaging the seven smokers results, by brands, the numerical data obtained duplicated the comparative analysis findings. The puff volume was 18% greater; maximum flow rate was 23% higher; and the average flow rate was 17% higher on the Now. The averaging of the data resultedlin nine puffs on the 2 mg Experimental and ten!puffs on the Now. Simulator Delivery Data As a result of higher dilution, the Now with, 10 puffs produced only slightly higher TPM and tar than the 2 mg Experimental with nine puffs. A significantly larger difference was noted'in the nicotine and water d'elivery on the Now. Deliveries andpercent differences are shown below. -K:'.., ' ..- .n ,%.'1:: ak f

r I F F U I I I I L ~ L 5. 2 mg Experimental Now %' Difference TPM, mg 12.3 13.2 7 TAR, mg 10.4 10~.5 1 Nicotine, mg 0.57 0.76 33 Water, mg 1.3 2.0 46 B. 2 mg Experimental Versus Carlton 70 Comparative Analysis Examination of the cigarette specifications in Table 1 resulted in the conclusion that these cigarettes would be smoked'differenttly. The data in the comparative analysis (Table 3) proves this conclusion to be valid. One hundred percent of the smokers recorded greater puff volumes, larger maximum flow rates and average flow rates on the highly diluted, low RTD Carlton 70. Eighty-six percent of the smokers took more puffs on the Carlton 70 than on the 2 mg Experimental. No significant difference was seen in~the puff duration and puff interval. Statistical Analysis The average of the seven smokers data by statistical analysis resulted in numerical values consistent with the comparative analysis findings. Th~e Carlton 70 showed 28% larger puff volumes, 37% higher maximum flow rates and 31% higher average flow rates. Averaging resulted in eleven puffs on the Carlton 70 and nine puffs,on the 2 mg Experimental. Simulator Delivery Data N With knowledge of the FTC tar on these cigarettes, O (Table 1), it was not unexpected that the 2 mg Experimental was ~ higher in delivery than the Carlton 70. The specific delivery W values for the Carlton 70 with eleven puffs and the 2 mg Ex- perimental with nine puffs are as shown below.

U F I U F i t I-- I I I L 6. 2 mg Carlton $ Experimental 70 Difference TPM, mg 12.3 5.8 52.8 TAR, mg 10.3 ~ 5.3 48.5 Nicotine, mg 0.57 0.48 15.8 Water, mg 1.3 .05 96.0

7. r ! L i i I L L I I i ~ V. CONCLUS ION!S A. 2' mg Experimental Versus Now 1. Large differences were noted in the smokers' parameter data indicating that the two cigarettes were smoked differently. 2. The statistical analysis data, average of the smokers' data by brand, showed 18% larger volume, 23% higher maximumiflow rate, and 17% higher average flow rate on the Now. These differences are attributed~to lower RTD and higher dilution on the Now. 3. From the Simulator smoking, higher delivery values on the Now of 7% TPM1, 33% nicotine, and,46% water were recorded. No differences in tar delivery were noted. Al- though the Now had the higher puff volume, the delivery dif- ferences between the two cigarettes were minimized due to the higher dilution on the Niow. B. 2 mg Experimental Versus Carlton 70 1. All of the smokers responded'ito the Carlton:70 with larger puff volumes, higher maximum flow rates and higher average flow rates. These definite trends in smoker response show that the cigarettes were smoked differently. 2. The Carlton 7-0 had a 28% larger volume andmaxi- mum flow rate, and 37% larger average flow rate. The higher dilution and lower RTD noted in the Carlton 70 are known, to produce these types of responses from smokers. 3. The Simulator delivery data, as expected, was higher on the 2 mg Experimental than on the Carlton 70. The percent differences in delivery for nine puffs on the 2' mg versus eleven puffs on the Carlton,70 were 52.8 TPM, 48.5 tar, 15.8 nicotine, and 96 water.

I I I U F I I I I I R . I I ~ ~ ~ 8. TABLE 1 CIGARETTE SPE'CIFICATIMS' Smoke Butt Length, mm FTC Tar, mg/cigt. Nicotine,- mg/cigt. Puffs/cigt. Exp. Now Carlton 2 mg 85' 701 33 33 33 2.1 1.41 0.3 0.29' 0.21 0.09 6.9 6.9 6.2 Filtration Eff., % 73 72 63 Filler Rod TPM, mg/cigt. 22.0 --- Cigarette Total RTD, in. of H20 6.3' 4.3 4.3 S tatic Burn. Time, min. 5.4 7.4 Length, mm 84.4 82.7 69.9 Circumference, mm 25.0 25.1 24.8 Paper Additive type CIT CIT CIT Porosity, sec. 12 13 11 Filter Type CA CA CA RTD, in. of H20 4.0 3.8 Length, mm 25 24.9 24.9 Weight, g 0.18' 0.18' Fiber denier 2.1 1.6 1.8 Fiber shape Y Y Tipping paper length,, mm 25 30 30 Dilution, %' 50 68 84, Filler Total alkaloids, % 1.79 1.73 Total reducing sugars, % 8.4 8.4 Wt. of tob., g .526 0.50 0.57 Rod Density, g/cc 0.173 01.261 Reconstituted Tob., % 17 16 2'5 Expanded Tob., % 5 0 50 None Expanded Stems, % None None None Q ~ ~ L