Tobacco Documents Online

PHILIP MORRIS CONFIDENTIAL PHILIP M ORRIS U, R ESEA R C H CEi; TE.R CHARGE N0- & TITLE: 1600 - Smoker Psychology , TYPE REPORT: ®X ANNUAL (DSSMIANNUAL ~ DA'•~: July 9„ 1976 ;0 REPORT TITLE: AN(dUr1L REPORT ACCESS ION NO. %0-1J9 COPY NO. I SSUED T(7' 0000013630 (D COMPLETION 0 SPECIA PERIOD Ct3VERED: Aug., 1974 - July, 1975 BEHAVICRAL RESEARCH B ~ Jones APPROVED BY D I STR I Bill I4N : O H. Wakeham 17- Daylor J. Osmalov W. Claflin R. F. W. T. R. Seligman Resnik Gannon Osdene Thomson H. W. B. W. 0. Daniel Johnson Kosakowski Kuhn Lowitz F. J. W. R. J. Will Wickham Dunn Fagan Hind W. R. H. C. A. Farone Ikeda Merritt Li11y Palmer P. Eichorn L. Meyer T. Laszlo 160 0 - 6 ~ K. Burns W. Mutter R. Carpenter Cen tral File ~ Ind exer ~ ~ ~ KEYWORDS: Deprivation, Aggressive Behavior, Low Delivery Cig,arettes, ~ Nicotine ?ntake, Smoker Personality, Arousal, Nicotine/Tar Ratios, ~ Inhalation, Smoke Impact, Design Cigarette Papers ~ This document belongs to Ph lip Morris U.S.A. It cannot be photocopied. It cannot be transferred to a colleague. 1t muvt be returned to R&D's Central File as soon as you have no further use for it.

C 0 [" P L E T E D w 0 R K- SMOKE INHALATION iI (C. Levy and P. Martin) In our laborai~bry there has been a continuing interest in th? topic of titration or regulation by smokers. The concept of regu- lation implies that smokers, when given products of varying tar and and nicotine deliveries to smokt;!, will alter their smoking behavior in such a fashion as to obtain constant amounts of tar and/or nico- tine. Obviously there are a number of different strategies which - the smnkers might use to achieve this constancy. They might alter: 1) the number of cigarettes smoked, 2) the number of puffs per ciga- rette, 3) the size of the puffs, 4) depth of inhalation, 5) smoke retention time in the lungs. Previous investigations both here at PM and in other laboratories have not convincingly demonstrated r:gulatiort when the first three measures mentioned above were the dependent variables. Therefore, it was felt that a study of smoke inhalatlon might provide additional useful information in support of the regulation hypothesis. An earlier study of smoke inhalation by Dun~-, and Martin using twelve R&D employees as subjects found that approximately a liter of air was inspired when inhaling a puff of smoke, with 50% being inhaled through the nose. The importance of this study was that it demonstrated the feasibility of studying smoke inhalation in the laboratory. Tne purpose of the present investigation was to measure puff volumes and the volumes of air inhaled when cigaret'tes of varying tar and nicotine deliveries were smoked. Seven R&C employees smoked three different brands of cigarettes over a three-week period. All subjects smoked Marlboro 80's (17.4 -ng tar, 1.04 mg nicotine) the first week, followed by Pall Mall (26.8 mg tar, 1.63 mg nicotine) and Timer (9 mg tar, 0.7 mg nicotine) in counterbalanced order. The subjects smoked only the cigarettes oiv + - It cannot be transferrad to a coileeflue. ied annot be hotoco M i U S A It h Ph . p orr s . . . c p ~ This documont bolonga to o n e I Ih~ra~~ s n~or}~~to Rd@ ~~~ny~ ~~e t~obQ~ k~ f a~ e~ ~dqeuseftrtie i n t h e i n h a l a t i o apparitus. ... ~~~

2 Puff volumes were measured using a Smoking Profile Recorder Inhalation volumes wern measured by having the subject take a puff on the cigarette and then place his face in a rubber mask and inhale. During inhalation, room air was drawn into the mask's h nose and mouth cavities through two separate channels. Transducers in each channel were used to measure the flow of air which was recorded on a Beckman Dynograph recorder. Mean puff volumes are shown in Table 1. Data analysis showed that mean puff volumes did not differ across cigarettes. A significant trials effect can be attributed to a significant decrease in mean puff volume from trial 1 to trial 4 when subjects were smok- ing Pall Mall. The fact that Pall Mall has a low RTD (2.6 in. of H20) probably explains the high mean puff volume on trial 1, assuming the subjects initially applied a relatively constant pressure drop to all three types of cigarettes. The decrease in mean puff volume across trials could be an attempt by the smokers to regulate the amount of tar and nicotine taken in, or alternatively it could merely reflect a desire to take in approximately 50 ml of smoke irrespective of the tar and nicotine content of that smoke. Further research is planned to examine this phenomenon in more detail. Mean total volumes of air inhaled and mean nose/mouth ratios are shown in Table 2. No significant differences across trials or cigarettes were observed. In general the subjects took 50 cc puffs and inhaled approximately 1 liter of air with about twice as much air coming through the mouth as through the nose. The number of puffs per cigarette were not analyzed since the puff counts of the three cigarettes differed. In summary, the puff volumes and inhalation volumes did not differ across cigarettes, with the exception of the Pall Mall puff volumes discussed above. These data suggest that our R&D employee smokers do not change their pattern of inhalation (nos!~/mouth ratio) ( This document belongb to Phil p Morris U.S.A. It cannot be photocopied. It cannot be transferred to a colleague. It rnust be returned to R&D's Central Fiie as soon as you have no further use for it.

3 or depth of inhalation when smoking markedly different cigarettes. It is important to note that we used a very small sample and that a larger sample might have yielded signif'icant differences. 3ince we did have our subjects save their butts, we counted the number smoked each day. For the five subjects giving us usable data, we did see a trend in the direction predicted by a regulation hypothesis. Mean number smoked: Marlboro = 27.2, Timer (Merit) ~ 29.95, Pall Mall = 23.75. However, these differences are not statistically significant. TABLE i Mean Puff Volumes (ml) Timer Ma~^1 borc Pal l Mai 1 1 52.7 51.0 57.0 2 53.4 52.5 54.1 Trial 3 52.3 51 .6 54.6 4 51,4 50.5 50.8 X 52.5 51.4 54.1 TABLE 2 Mean Total Volume Inhaled and Mean Nose/Mouth Ratios Timer Marlboro Pall Mall Total Nose/Mouth Total Nose/Mouth Total Nose/Mouth 1 1154 .70 1089 .59 1039 .76 2 1214 .73 1071 .65 999 .76 Trial 3 1112 .66 1081 .63 1085 .81 4 1079 .66 1085 .66 1077 .77 1139 .69 1081 .64 1050 Q .77 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I This do cument belongs to - -- - -- _-- Philip Morris U.S.A, It cannot be photocopied. It cannot be transferred to a colleague. ~ It must be returned to R&D 's Central File as soon as you ha ve no further u se for it. ~

, 4 SMOKE INHALATION III (C. Levy and R. Lieser) In our previous study of smoke inhalation we found that inhala- tion did not vary with the tar and nicotine delivery of the cigarettes smoked. We felt that there were three shortcomings to the previous study: 1) A subject was required to take a puff on the cigarette, hold it in his mouth, and place his face in the mask before inhaling. This procedure artificially broke up the act of smoking. 2) The cigarettes differed in RTD and puff count as well as in tar and nicotine delivery. 3) We had a small sample size. The purpose of the present study was to again measure puff volumes and inhalation volumes when products of differing deliveries were smoked. However, before conducting the present study we made major modifications in the apparatus. With the new apparatus, a subject placed his face in the mask, pulled the cigarette toward him and took a puff, released the cigarette and inhaled. This sequence more closely approximates "naturai" smoking. Eleven R&D employees smoked two different experinental ciga- rettes in a counterbalanced order over a two-week period. These two cigarettes while differing in tar and nicotine delivery (18 mg tar, 1.13 mg nicotine vs. 13.3 mg tar, .88 mg nicotine) had approximately equal puff counts (9.4 vs. 9.9) and RTD's (5.5 vs. 5.1). As before, the subjects smoked only the experimen•i:al ciga- rettes while participating in the study. Once daily the subjects reported to the lab, one hour smoke deprived, to smoke in thn inhalation apparatus. Puff volumes and inhalation volumes were measured as in the previous study. However, in order to accommodate a larger group of subjects we relaxed our standards for mask fitting. We no longer excluded subjects with moustaches and did not require a sealed separation of nose and mouth cavities. Therefore, inhala-. tion volumes are reported only in terms of total volumes and not broken down into nose and mouth volumes. I This document belongs to Phil p Morris U.S.A. It cannot be photocopied. It cannot be transferred to a colleague. It must be returned to R&D's Central File as soon as you have no further use for it.

Mean number of puffs, puff volumes and inhalation volumes for the two cigarettes are shown in Table 3. Statistical analyses of the data revpaled no significanc differences across trials or cigarettes. One small finding of interest is that on trial 1 subjects took significantly more ~uffs (about 1 extra puff) on the 13 mg cigarette. This differ_,Ice does not hold up on subsequent trials, however. In summary, once again we found that puff volumes and inhalation volumes were qu4:te similar for two different ciga- rettes. The mean puff volumes and mean total inhalation volumes were smaller in this study than in the previous study of smoke inhalation. This difference could be the result of our apparatus modifications, or perhaps it reflects the variability among our R&D smokers. Why have we not found any significant differences in puff volumes or inhalation volumes when our subjects smoke cigarettes with different tar and nicotine deliveries? There are several factors which may help us to understand our findings: 1) Our eligible subject pool is fairly small because our subjects' faces must fit into one of our masks. It is difficult to find significant differences with small samples. 2) Our inhalation measurements are highly obtrusive. Our subjects are made acutely aware of their inhalation behavior while smoking in the lab. We feel that the nature of our apparatus may lead to consistent inhalations by dutiful subjects. 3) Our subjects are generally one hour smoke deprived when they smoke in the inhalation apparatus. Originally it was our hypothesis that smoke deprivation would act to enhance the subjects' attempts to regulate tar and nicotine uptake. However, deprivation pcssibly produced a"ceiling" effect thus obscuring any attempts to regulate. / This document belongs to Philip Morris U.S.A. It cannot be photocopied. It cannot be transferred to a colleaflue. It must be returned to R&D's Central File as soon as you have no further use for it.

4) In an effort to hold puff counts and P,TD's constant acrosL cigarettes, we have been forced to use experimental cigarettes with tar and nicotine deliveries which do not vary as much as we would like, thus minimizing the chances that we will s~_-e differences across cigarettes. It is our opinion that a more unobtrusive measurement technique, which is appropriate for use with a larger nu,ber of subjects is highly desirable. WE would like for puffing and inhalation behavior to be relatively unaffected by our measurements. Under those circum- stances we can best test our regulation hypothesis. TABLE 3 Mean Number of Puffs, Puff Volumes, and Inhaled Volumes Cigt. #1 (18 mg) Cigt. #2 (13.3 mg) T No. Puffs X Puff Vol. X Inhaled Vol. X No. -Piiff s X Puff Vo1. X Inhaled Vol. 1 8.5 37.9 691.2 10 39.3 811.1 Tr~a1 2 9.4 39.3 763.5 8.7 40.8 805.1 3 8.8 40.2 738.2 8.8 4G.2. 719.1 ~ 8.9 39.1 731.0 9.2 40.1 778.4 MANIPULATING SMOKE IMPACT IN VERY LOW (Less than 8 mg Tar) JELIVERY CIGARETTES - Accession No. 76-038 (8. Jones) The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the rela:iya influences of ~iend (standard Marlboro blend vs. 50% burley blend) burley spray (100p vs. 50%), and filter system (cellulose acetate ('CX) filter plus high dilution vs. paper/CA filter with zero dilution) on subjective acceptability and smoke imF~ct of cigarettes in the 5 to 7 mg tar range. This work was carried out in collaboration qith New Product Development. This document belongs to Philip Morris U.S.A, It cannot be photocopied. It cannot be transferred to a colleague. !t must be returned to R&D's Central Fiie as soon as you have no further use for it.

~ .c.~1vs:~ 7 Eight experimental cigarettes and a Marlboro control were rated in ter-s of acceptability and impact by 227 RP3 smokers. The multiple monadic testing procedure was used and a definition of impact was included on the ballot. The results indicate that decreasing the burley spray to 50% o,` the normal amount increases impact and does not affec:t acceptability. Also, of the experimental cigarettes tested, it seems that either 50% burley blend cigarette with a CA filter or a Marlboro blend ciga- rette with a paper/CA filter would provide the optima'i combination of high acceptability and high impact. In view of the practical problems involved in making paper/CA filters, it seems that a 5i)lv burley blend cigarette with a CA filter would be the best model. Five of the experimental cigarettes were not significantly different from the Marlboro control in acceotability. These findings would have been more impressive had the sample size been larger; b'ut rievertheless, they are encouraging in view of the very low delivery of the experimental cigarette~. SUBJECTIVE HARSHNESS AND THE ISH (B. Jones) We have completed some work with Dr. Helmut Gaisch in r.hich his ISH (index of cysteine consumpti. on) was correlated with.subjectivQ harshness ratings for twelve experimental cigarettes A variety of cigarettes were selected, includjng ;o,~e that were expected to be a difficult test of his method. The hypothesized'po5it've cor-elation between the ISH and subjective harshness was not found. This finding can be explained by the inclusion of three cigarettes with varying percentages of synthetic tobaccos and a 100% burley cigarette with a carbon filter. Dr. Gaisch subsequently informed us that the ISH tends to be indicative of harshness only within a particular type of tobacco. DESIGN CIGARETTE PAPERS (B. Jones) In a,;oint program with'New Product Development, we are working on designs for cigarette papers. Four SEF booth tests have been This document belongs to Philip Morris U.S.A. It cannot be photocopied. It cannot be transferred to a colleague. It must be returned to R&D's Central File as soon as you have no further use tor it.

8 conducted to date. Two colors (brown and green) and two lengths (100 mm and 120 mm) were tested using standard methodological procedures. Naan daily number of respondents was 71. Althot;gh the sample was small and not representative, several findi,igs are of interest. Two of the cigarettes stood out from the others such that a majority of the panelists ranked one of those two cigarettes as the one they liked best. There were marked sex difr"er- ences in mean rankings, with men giving their most favorable rankirgs to simple line designs and females preferring more flowery designs. In addition, approximately 75/00 of the respondents felt there would be a market for cigarettes with designs on the papers and over half would consider buying such cigarettes themselves. We are now planning a study in which ballots ~,;ith drawing~7 of many different cigarettes with designs on the papers will be inserted in several National POIL tests. NICOTINE/TAR RATIO (B. Jones and W. Dunn) Over the past five years there have been eight studies on this subject, the most recent three having been reported out during the past year. We are pleased to have been joined by the Development people of the Brand Development Project in a collaborative quest for the optimum ratio, to the extent that the reports of the two most recent studies (Accession #75-191 & 76-093) were issued as joint efforts. The conclusions drawn from this series are: 1) Increase in the N/T ratio yields a linearly related increase in subjective strength. 2) A modest increase in the N/T ratio (.10) improves the subjective acceptability of the smoke of a 10 mg cigarette for regular filter smokers. 3) The simple addition of a nicotine salt to the ~'iend of Timer N z zne ' i iis ocument bclongb to hilip Morris U.S.A, Itcannot be photocopied. It cannot be transferred to a colleattue. 5rIt"'gidd t§ n~Mh'I biI3 ts sdoie'S Yqr} {~r4ve rT91fP-rrKeruu3~.'foriits a c c ept a b i 1 i t y f~ r regular filter smokers and makes it less acceptable to health filter smokers,

I N P R 0 G R E S S. o . At l ppm neither behavior appeared to be affected. ,'HE INFLUENCE OF NICOTINE ON AGGRESSION IN THE BETTA SPLENDENS (P. Martin .~nd W. Dunn) In cats, monkeys and rats, the systemic administration of nicotine has resulted in a reduction in aggressivity with no dis- cernible effect upon general activity level. This study is an attempt to determine if the same effect can be achieved i;i the Betta SplAndens, a conspicuously aggressive fish. Initiated ez!riy in 1975, we had anticipated a relatively simple, short-term study. Diseases and other aquaria problems have impeded our progress. We have also had to replace the colony several times since a given fish is usable for only several trials. At 10 ppm the subject went into a state of flaccid torpor, with loss of orienting reflexes. At 5 ppm the effect was less marked but both general activity level and the intensity of aggressive display were reduced. We are now preparing the colony for observation at the 3 ppm level. REGULATOR IUENTIFICATION PROGRAM (C. Levy and R. Lieser) We hypothesize that people smoke for different reasons, and that some people smoke to obtain nicotine or some other physiologically active substance in the smoke. We also hypothesize that those people who smoke `or nicotine seek to obtain a r2latively constant amount of nicotine from their cigarettes; that Is, they regulate. The present investigation is an effort to identify those individuals who are nicotine regulators among our smoking student This document belongs to Philip Morr+s U.S.A. It cannot be photocopied. It cannot be transferred to a colleague. It must be returned to R&Q's Central File as soon as you have no further use for it. I t I