Tobacco Documents Online

RE~~"CVED ~ C82-08896 ,e , SEP 2 L 14W PAUE N. GAUVIN / / To: . Dr. W. L. Dunn UWI oat.: August 26, 1982 F-w.: . J. G. Nepomuceno and W. G. Houck DRAFT DKAt I suajecta . THE EFFECTS OF VENT!ILATI©N HOLE BLOCKING ON CIGARETTE DELIVERY Introduction Ventilated filters have been used by the tobacco industry as an effective means of reducing the amount of "tar°delivered by a cigarette. However, a study published by Kozloveski, et al (1930) quest'ons the effectiveness of these ventilated filters in reducing tar delivery to the smoker based on smoking behavior they have observed in which 32 percent to 69 percent of the smokers blocked these dilution holies with fingers, lips, or tape. The objectives of this study are: (1) to establish experimental values correlating cigarette dilution as a function of the percentage of dilution holes covered, (2) to establish experimental values correlating delivered FT!C tar as.a function of the percentage of dilution holes covered', (3) to determine the percentage of dilution holes blocked by the fingers if the smokers DELIBERATELY held the cigarette with their fingers over the dilution holes, and (4) to determine the FTC tar increase as a result of the amount of hole blocking established in,(3) above. Experimental Methods Philip Morris brands with a variety of dilution types were selected for the study. For each of these brands, varying percentages of the dilution holes were carefully blocked with glue and the corresponding

1. i Page 2 DRAff Dr. W. L. Dunn _ August 26, 1982 DRAR 111) & I )f cigarette dilution levels were measured using a standard Philip Morris Digital Dilution Instrument (DDI). In addition, agaimby similarly blocking the dilution hcles with glue, the FTC tar deliveries were established over a range of dilution levels for each of these brands. Tar deliveries were deterriiined using a Philip Morris 20-port smoking machine and standard FTC smoking methodology. Forty cigarettes'were smoked at each dilution level for each brand. In order to determine the percentage of dilution holes covered by the smoker's two opposing fingers when deliberately positioned over the dilution holes, a panel of 31 smokers was convened. The fingers of each panelist were wetted with watercolors. Each panelist was then asked to hold eacKcigarette as they would normally hold a cigarette but with the wetted'fingers deliberately positioned over the marked-off area of the dilution holes. Assumir,g that the subject's fingers formed a perfect seal over the dilution holes within the entire stained area, the resulting watercolor prints were then carefully blocked with glue and the corresponding dilutions were recorded. Results and Discussion Cigarette dilution levels as a functi'on of percentage of dilution holes blocked are graphically illustrated in Figures 1a through 1i for a variety of Phil'ip Morris brands. As expected, the dilutionilevels decreased as the percentage of blocked holes increased,. FTC tar delivery levels as a function of the percentage of dilutilom holes blocked'are graphically presented in Figures 2a through 21. Again, as expected, tar deliveries increased as the percentage of blocked holes increased. 4

Page 3 ;~ T D W L D nn 1J11#1rT 1Jitri 1 r. .. u ;,~ 1\ 1\ / r- I August 26, 198" various cigarettes with their fingers over the dilution holes. Results show that The various levels of cigarette filter dilu:ion to which each panelist reduced each brand are tatiulated in iable 1. The data shows that the level to which the panel of 31 smokers reduced the cigarette dilutions was relati4ely consistent within eacKbrand as evidenced by the small standard dev. of the data with-in each brand from smoker to smoker. The average dil ution level to which each brand'was reduced was then use&in conjunction with Figures la throuyh li to determine the average percentage of dilution holes blocked by the fingers when the panelists deliberately held the this particular group of smokers blocked approximately 50% of the dilution holes by positioning the opposing fingers over the holes, rarging from 40% for Parliament Lights 100's with 1 row of Hauni laser perforations (10 holes) to 65% for Marlboro KS cigarettes with 4 4 mm band of Electric Spark PerforatioP (ESP). Using these values in~conjunction with Figures 2a through 21, the corresponding FTC tar deliveries are thus determined with and without finger blockage of dilution holes. These results are presented in Table 2. These numbers show that even when the opposing fingers are deliberately placed over the dilotion holes blocking approxi- mately 50% of the holes, the correspondi'ngiFTC tar delivery incrPases are relatively small. For the cigarettes with higher dilutici levels, the consequences of hole blockage become proportionally more signifi:•ant but are still relatively small. Reference L. T. Kozlowski, R. C. Frecker, V. Khouw, and Mw A. PopP,.-"The Misuse of 'Less-Hazardous' Cigarettes and its Detection: Hole Blocking of Venti- lation Filters," American Journal cf Public Health, 1980, Vol. 70, No. 11.

TABLE 1 REDUCTION OF FILTER DJLUiION DUE TO BLOCKING OF HOLES WITH FINGERS d Marlboro Parliament Cambridge Va. Sliws B&H Multifilter Merit Marlboro Ultra Lights Lights Cambridge Merit Bran KS 100's Box Lights 100 Menthol KS KS KS KS SP KS (Initial Unblocked Dilution) 10X -32. 95S 41s (23s) (55%) 25z (80%) (30%) Saioker fl 6 19 94 34 18 39 17 64 21 #2 3 5 95 27 14 35 14 53 11 #3 5 20 95 35 18 39 17 ^ 66 20 14 5 19 95 29 13 35 16 68 19 85 5 19 95 27 14 37 17 67 25 #6 3 11 92 25 8 39 14 55 16 #7 5 20 95 30 17 38 18 64 21 k 08 5 13 92 23 12 36 11 55 13 09 4 26 95 40 13 31 15 59 20 010 7 25 94 33 16 43 12 58 20 f11 4 24 93 17 11 38 18 54 11 #12 6 21 95 31 16 31 12 74 24 f13 5 12 94 29 15 40 18 61 14 014 7 28 88 30 15 40 14 67 20 #15 10 26 92 25 18 45 19 66 19 016 5 27 91 26 18 34 16 62 21 017 8 18 90 31 16 42 13 61 20 #18 7 25 92 28 18 43 18 65 18 119 9 25 93 26 18 37 20 68 17 I20 7 20 89 31 15 33 14 67 13 f21 10 14 89 31 12 29 9 66 17 122 7 19 92 27 16 42 11 63 15 #23 4 20 91 18 11 21 8 65 15 f24 8 18 91 37 19 35 15 68 20 f25 7 24 91 23 16 34 14 61 16 026 7 23 90 29 18 30 14 68 20 127 8 24 92 27 12 40 16 71 15 028 7 16 91 23 17 36 12 65 17 029 6 22 92 26 16 32 10 66 19 030 9 24 92 19 16 32 12 59 22 f31 7 15 90 32 14 36 14 68 21 Average 6 20 92 28 i5 36 14 64 18 S.D. 1.9 5.3 2.0 5.2 2.7 5.0 3.0 5.1 3.5 /~ ~ ~/''~ ~~...~~_~. ~._.~ -•.,.. _.,~_.._.:. . .. ..,~.........~.........,... .~

1 .p. TABLE 2 EFFECTS OF BLOCKING THE VENTILATION HOLES ON THE FTC TAR DELIVERIES OF PM CIGARETTES Brand Type of Perforation X Blockage L w/Fingers FTC Tar w[ ~o B1/ o m ci t. FTC Tar w/ (Blockage mg/ci t.) Marlboro KS Band of ESP' 65 16.3 16.6 B&H Multifilter Menthol KS ' 5 Rows Mechanical 52 12.7 13.7 I ParTiament Lights 10&'s 1 Row Hauni Laser (10 Holes) 40 10.4 11.5 Marlboro Lights KS 1 Row Mechanical 58 10.2 10.7 Virginia Slims Lights 100's 2 Rows Laser 46 9.8 10.3 Merit KS 2 Rows Laser 47 7.9 8.8 Merit Ultra Lights KS 2 Rows Laser 44 4.5 7.0 Cambridge KS Soft Pack 4 Rows Laser 50 1.0 2.5 Cambridge KS Box 8 Rows Laser 46 0.00 0.3 Avg. 50 lElectric Spark Perforation (ESP) ZAverages of 31 Smokers

2022250255 p E, 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 FIGURE la DILUTION AS A FUNCTION OF % HOLES BLOCKED MARLBORO KING SIZE ---------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- ----------- - ----- ------ +N 141 --- --------- - - - - - - - - - - - - t4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 PERCENTAGE OF DILUTION HOLES BLOCKED 80 90 100

2022250256 9 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 FIGURE lb DILUTION AS A FUNCTION OF % HOLES BLOCKED B&H MULTIFILTER MENTHOL KS - --------------- - ---------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------ - - -- ------- -------- -- --------------------- ------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------ -------- ----------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------------- ------------- ---- - --------- ----------------- --------------- ------------- - ------ - - - 0 " l 0 20 30 4 60 70 80 Sb- 1 0 PERCENTAGE OF DILUTION HOLES BLOCKED

Z022250257 9 30 ~ W /- J W W 15 ~- ~- W 10 0 FIGURE 1c DILUTION AS A FUNCTION OF X HOLES BLOCKED PARLIAMENT LIGHTS 100's ----- ----------- ------------ -------- - off -A I If - - ------ ---- -- - -------- -- 44 14 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 PERCENTAGE OF DILUTION HOLES BLOCKED 80 90 100

2022250258 30 20 10 0 FIGURE ld DILUTION AS A FUNCTION OF % HOLES BLOCKED MARLBORO LIGHTS KS - -------- ------ - --- lilt 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7C PERCENTAGE OF DILUTION HOLES BLOCKED 80 90 100 ~J

2022250259 FIGURE le DILUTION AS A FUNCTION OF X HOLES BLOCKED VIRGINIA SLIMS LIGHTS 100's i 60 .. " 20 10 0 9 ------- -------------- ------ - --- ---- ---- --- -- - - - - - - - - - - - ------ - -- - ---- fill ---- ------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 PERCENTAGE OF DILUTION HOLES BLOCKED . .;.z«„.~s. . . __ . . .. __ ,. ...«.,»~a.....r.en.~- 80 90 100