Jump to:

Filter Ventilation and Design

THE EFFECT OF FILTER COVERAGE OF CIGARETTE VENTILATION HOLES UPON SMOKE DELIVERY

Date: 14 Feb 1983
Length: 28 pages
1003285669-1003285696
Jump To Images
snapshot_pm 1003285669-1003285696

Abstract

Reports on study to evaluate incidence of finger occlusion of filter ventilation holes during smoking, and impact of the occlusion on FTC tar delivery. Finds that holes were occluded during 41% of puffs taken, but that incidence of coverage was unrelated to FTC tar delivery. Reports that when holes were deliberately covered, mean tar delivery increase for each brand of cigarette did not exceed 0.5 milligrams. Includes data, references and handwritten notes and edits.

Fields

Type
Report
Chart/Graph/Table
Company
Philip Morris
Site
R10
Author
Dunn, W.L.
Houck, W.
Ryan, F.
Weinstein, C.
Weinstein, S.
Recipient
Mcdowell, W.
Named Person
Dunn, W.L.
Houck, W.
Koslowski
Nepomuceno, J.
Named Organization
Ftc, Federal Trade Commission
Neurocommunications Research Lab
Philip Morris Research & Development Center
Brand
Marlboro Red
Winston
Camel Filters
Marlboro Light
Merit
Salem Light
Camel Light
Vantage
Belair
Thesaurus Term
Filter Ventilation Holes
Tar Level
Industry Sponsored Research
Keyword
Finger Occlusion

Document Images

Text Control

Highlight Text:

OCR Text Alignment:

Image Control

Image Rotation:

Image Size:

Page 1: yku97e00
THE EFFECT OF FILTER COVERAGE OF CIGARETTE VENTILATION HOLES UPON SMOKE DELIVERY William L. Dunn, Ph.D.;1 Sidney Weinstein, Ph.D.;2 Willie Houck, B. Sc.;1 Frank Ryan, M.S.;1 Jos~ Nepomuceno, B.S.1 and Curt Weinstein, M.A.2 1Philip Morris Research and Development Center, Richmond, VA 2NeuroCommunicati'ons Research Labratory, Danbury, CT Correspondence and reprint requests to: William L. Dunn, Ph.D. Philip Morris Research and Development Center P. 0. Box 26563 Richmond, VA 23261
Page 2: yku97e00
The placement of fingers on cigarettes while smoking was recorded~t?)113 '~~ smokers by three concealed video cameras.~#e~smoked their usual brands (venti- + lati on type cigarettes) under in situ conditions. Three judges independently &Xfi^`b determined from analysis of slow motion playback of the video tapes that ~ 41% of the puffs taken, fingers overrode the band of holes for at least part of the puff. Finger coverage occurred during 24.1% of the summed puffing time for the mean cigarette. The incidence of coverage was unrelated to FTC tar delivery It was further determined from controlle6labora- tory studies that when fingers deliberately overlaid the band of holes, 43% to 60% of the hol!es were covered (representative brand means). FTC tar delivery increments resulting from such coverage were also determined. From these find- ings were calculated the net effects of the observed finger coverage upon FTC tar , deliveries of the representative brands. The FTC tar delii'very increases for the . mean cigarette of each brand studied which coulid be attributed to the observed /w0 incidence of finger coverage of the holes were i'n ~)_Kinstancel~r6 greater than IF- 0.5 milligrams.
Page 3: yku97e00
N which deliver less than <-~ `14 mg FTC tar embody some variant of the so-called "ventilated" filter. Minute holes penetrating the wrapper (tipping paper) of a conventional filter allow The Effect of Finger Coverage of Ventilation Holes a ir to be sucked into controlled amounts of ambient ~ ~ the cigarette to /erge with 4~ F .the mainstream smoke from the mout end of the cigarette. A smoke-control system W~~ L-I which combines the effect of the ventilation holes ww~w1 '~d1-' with the effect of the conven- n ~1 C- tional cellulose acetate filter affords the manufaturer an excellent means for liz reducing the typical 25 mg of FTC tar generated'by the burning coal to any de- sired delivery level within the 1-15 mg range. Kozlowski et al. O recently reported observations of smokers blocking VeN these ventilating holes with lips and fingers, Ufts:,-increasing the smoke delivery levels above the levels which would have been delivered had the holes not been 11or blocked. Seventeen of their 39 subjects (low-yield cigarette smoke5) were ob- served to block the holes "to some extent." Six of the 17 were blocking with their fingers.
Page 4: yku97e00
he.4 continuation of the inquiry now requires that ~~ further observations be made of smoking behavior in order to determine the prev - ~ ~ Ao„uA 1'ence and the extent of blockage during actual puffing time and" this #0 P` blockage incidence into ~ alteration in the amount of tar~and )del i vered ae to the smoker. Such is the purpose of the investigations we now report. The report is based upon two iri;dependent sets of observations. Neuro- Communications Research Laboratories conducted the behavioral investigations in which naive smokers were unobtrusively videotaped~for the purpose of recording the occurrence of hole coverage by the fingers. This study is reported' as Section I - Behavioral Observations. - The secon6 set of observations were carried'out in the Product Development Directorate of the Philip Morris Research & Development Center. These consisted of determinations of the extent of hole blockage when fingers override the band . of holes, and systematic smoke measurements which established the relationshp between incremental hole blockage and the resultant change in smoke delivery for a group of representative cigarette brands. This study is reported as Section II - Ventilation Hole Blockage and Smoke Dellivery. R . .. •~ a :. '.ti. ~ . ,„f,t C.-
Page 5: yku97e00
These two investigations are being reported together in order to integrate the results of each into a final statement - an extrapolation of observed hole blockage effects into calculated real world smoking effects (Section III - The Effect of Finger Coverage Upon Smoke Delivery).
Page 6: yku97e00
L #V Section I - Behavioral Observations Subjects (Ss) A total of 137 subjects were selected for participation in this study. They ~ ti ~ were recruited from the Danbury, Connecticut metropolitan area and environs by .I newspaper advertiisements,~~ouncements posted in local stores and the state college campus,~nd from NCRL's general subject pool. The recruitment copy made no reference to cigarette smoking, asking only for paid participation in adver- tising research. were screened'on initial tellephone contact by means of questions about their age and their consumption of coffee, soda pop and ciga- rettes. Anyone smoking less than a pack a day, those outside the age range of 18-55, and those who reported their regular cigarette brand to be other thani those brands with unfilled quotas at the time of interview were rejected'. v 5s were assigned to one of three groups in accordance with the FTC tar delivery level of their reported regular cigarette brand. Twenty-four selected SS "'s were subsequentlly rejected for the following reasons: a during test (12), smoked brand not listed (9), used e,. uwvMI.akU ~ record inadvertently destroyed A 3). The us~able d~i dqot smoke '~ n cigarette holder i) or video 113 Sf ~ sa+b3eE-bs were about divided among the three groups and the two genders in each group (:see Table _ for specific numbers). were about equalTyy equallyl represented 1 „ ~?' l ~ ~~I ; ~
Page 7: yku97e00
Procedure The participant arrived at NGRL to be greeted by a receptioniist and seated in a small waiting room where a sign was posted which read: "Please Do Not Smoke I I 5 0- Here." This was done to reduce the possiblity that ~ticaQaui would light a ~ all, s.w1" cigarette off-camera. The qualifications of t.`.c -#ee= were rechecked during i the $e&s-ion an&the subject-qualifying formiwas completed. Fhe-p4FtiQ-iperrt was led into a TV viewing room where the cameras were posi- 5~ Oe1D a`~,Bt~l A° ' --~ tioned as described'below: The pa~a~rt 'was'told to watchn&~ normally A SS dvne at home, and that smoking was allowed while watching TV. The s~ were also told that their responses to TV viewing would be monitored but no mention was made of video-recording. No ~d'eE-t asked questions regarding video- -KIC-'!r' recording prior to the completion of the testing session. If ^°~T asked le- e about the purpose of the study they were told that the investigators were ( -n . ~_ ~ l intereI-s_te"dn in TV viewing behaviors and responses to advertising. Itt,? `hr'~ A+4Y1 FwMN`3 .A X9&01I &ntP~t0 ad dA~ 2Dr\9 ~I ri CvnrPanbe& ,tUr~. CalwwPlLC~al~~¢~~~o:. ~p a~:a~c,4t ~~An~dhtrcaoy cotaining the butt and ashes of a previovusliy smokedicigarette was ~ . A g" placed next to the subject. If tJie~~ did not light a cigarette after several minutes, an experimenter~~nt,ered the room and asked ~ if 1gRat S L QwSwfn tu6.4 ~/ usual ly smoked while watching TV. If the 4ub3ee*--"M}+ "no," >:ko-e+rperimertter
Page 8: yku97e00
left the room and waited 5 to 10 minutes more before re-entering the room and asking i;he-5th4es4 questions about adverti sing. If t*&--ozbjer&t said "yes" but cigarettes wtW=Aizw, made available a pack,80-1 c,tP"t-+eS- o., ~g E P- qk I own brand. Upon completion of one cigarette tj;f-, WA `tomfL 74.e 9 Q1va~ e waited a few minute s, then re-entered the room afiO questionad taa- A Orbgae#_: None of the subjects were told to smoke or otherwise influenced to ~. ~ S smoke beyond the above descr ption. If asked "Do ~ a.$Dyl-~CQ 1~ZtO1,4iutiA Ots~ cuXLi E. ~ A~- you want me to smoke?" il r responded by saying, "As you wish." After the session eachza-4ee-t- signed a release form andApaid t4Qor-agreed fee by the receptionist. The cigarette butts were collected, labeled, and stored. Equipment Three video cameras were positioned to obtain a front, side and top view of each sVbjett-. Two of the cameras were placed outside the testing room concealed in a speaker enclosure (front view) and lighting fixture (top view). The side 49 view camera was placed on its side on a table in the testing roomn with other pieces of photographic and laboratory equipment that appeared to be in teporary 4-- storage. The top and side views were fix-focused on the . ~~,.:. .. WA" Zoo328ss'7s f-~- #}~ , _; .. :. . __...,:,.., ~. ,.
Page 9: yku97e00
0:_ stationary`armless chair. The front view of the sg6p~t was adjustable by # GdM&CACo„ ~ operator in the adjacent room. 2:ac~ &U;¢~yG4 o-v~ A'f.j,~ 4o ~..ca &Vn1 Vi &0 Me'r_L s~~,c~. , . ~ 0 ao 0 the video tapes. The tapes were played back at a speed that required 10.6 seconds of play-back time for the A passage of one second of real recorded time. Although the judges all viewed the tapes at the same time, they were visually isolated~rom each other by partition 4!~- : r panels, and procedural rules assure6independent judgements. The tapes could be stopped and segments rerun by an operator upon request. Judges were specifically instructed to record dubious instances of finger contact and hole coverage as actual finger contact and hole coverage events. Frequencies and durations of puffs, hole coverages with fingers~and finger . Ss contacts for all s=b4e-&ks were recorded by each of the judges. The durations eJkpA..a-lcff; ~ were recorded Ain play-back time, then converted to real time for reporting. The results of these analyses are reported in the form of two indices A , of finger hole coverage: 9W'Au^ I
Page 10: yku97e00
. The Incidence Index - This index is based upon straightforward frequency ' counts of the observed instances of finger coverage occurring on a puff-by-puff _ ;i.-..,....V',.. basis summed over the smoking of the entire cigarette, and is reported as a percentage of the total puffs taken on the cigarette. It is an inflated measure ~since finger coverage during any fractional part of a whole puff was recorded as ;,coverage for the total duration of that puff. ~OV A/ first appearance of co~1 flare-up to the cessation of co~l flare-up, or remval of A the cigarette from the lips, whichever occurred first. Puff durations were summed across the series of puffs to yield the total puff duration for the ciga- rette. When finger coverage occurred on a given puff, coverage duration was recorded for that portion of the puff duration during which the fingers were in CwfilatYhk1d)tc-"~ - contact with the cigarette. These puff-by-puff times were summed across the V series of puffs to yield the Duration Index, expressed as Oercentage of the total puff duration. The Duration Index - Puff.-duration is defined as the time interval from the

Text Control

Highlight Text:

OCR Text Alignment:

Image Control

Image Rotation:

Image Size: