Tobacco Documents Online

r AUG 2 ,t 3~3 ~ ~r l1TtCOPdfIDENTIAI Author: D.-E. Townsend, Division: Tobacco and 'Smoke Research Fundamental R&D R&DM, 1983,' No. 38 : No. of Pages: 28. Project No.: 7608 Smoke Formation and ransport Date: August 17, 1983 Notebook Pages: 341966-341974 Dated: May 18, 1983 to July 21, 1983 Previous Reports: None '. A COMPARISON OF PUFF-BY-PUFF DELIVERIES OF SOME COMMERCIAL BRANDS OBJECT: The objective of this research was to determine differences in puff-by-puff 'tar' and nicotine deliveries among commercial brands of similar FTC 'tar' (per cigarette) deliveries. ' StJI01ARY: 4 A knowledge of how cigarette properties influence puff-by-puff deliveries is essential in understanding the smoke formation and transport processes which occur within a burning cigarette. This knowledge is also important in the design of cigarettes to achieve specific performance objectives and in the interpretation of results from smoker perception studies. Puff-by-puff deliveries were measured for tw,en~-three commercial bran to document differences among brands of similar FTC 'tar' deliveries. It was found that, in general, Philifl Morris croducts exhibited lower Duff-bv-vuff icotinedeliver g@,5+_ an r p rRJR com.neti_ toL in spite of their generally oistures which are ex`pected to result in higher l4wer tobacgo-w_eihts and m _ puff-by-puff deliveries. The results also show that puff-by-puff deliveries can be substantially different among commercial brands of similar FTC 'tar' delivery. Puff-by-puff deliveries for True 85 were vastly different than other products of similar 'tar' deliveries due to an exceedingly fast smolder rate. STATUS: flcperiments are in progress to examine in more detail the differences which were observed between WINSTON KS and Marlboro. o ~ ~ v ~ w c3

.' r .: Z. HEMORMIDUMi .~.~....~~ Recent research iit the area of smoke formation and transport has included studies 'of 'ctgarette puff-by-puff deliveries (2,4,5,8). A knowledge of how cigarette properties imfluence puff-by-puff deliveries is essential in understanding processes which occur within a burning cigarette. For example, recent.investigations of nicotine transfer efficiencies to tiaainstream smoke have demoastrated'that",studies of per-cigarette deliveries lead to incorrect conclusions (8). ; A knowledge of how cigarette properties influence.puff-by-puff deliveries is also important in the design of cigarettes to achieve specific performance objectives and in the interpretation of results from smoker perception studies. The present study,of puff-by-puff deliveries of some commercial cigarette brands was undertaken to determine differences among cigarettes of similar FTC 'tar' (per cigarette) deliveriesi ted reasons for observed differences , s ussed briefly.j Some important cigarette parameters w c nfluenc vuff-b9-vuff deliveries are tobacco moisture (1.6). tobacco weiaht (2.5). tobacco nicotine, cigarette paper (2,8), air dilution and filtration levels 7) casing levels (8), and circumference (5). Since much informat on on cigarette parameter va ues s unava a le for non-RJR brands and since there are typically many differences among commercial brands, suspected reasons for puff-by-puff differences which are discussed below cannot be considered conclusive. Cigarettes wedre purchased from the Winston-Salem market and were conditioned at 24 C, 60X R.H. for 48 hours. Each sample was draft selected to fall within one standard deviation of both average "holes-closed" and "holes-open" drafts (measured at 17.5 cc/sec flow rate). Forty selected cigarettes of each sample were smoked on a Borgwald t smoking machine which was modified (3) for puff-by-puff delivery measurements. Air dilution levels for each cigarette sample were determined with an ITR Dilution Meter. Routine smoke analyses and static burn rate measurements were provided by the Analytical Services Division. The results of draft and air-dilution measurements along with some tobacco rod characteristics (obtained from the Competitive Brands Data Base) are presented in Table 1. The results of routine smoke analyses and static burn rate measurements are presented in Table 2, while the results of puff-by-puff delivery measurements are presented in Appendix A. Puff-by-puff 'tar' and nicotine deliveries for cigarettes of similar FTC 'tar' deliveries are compared in Figures 1-16. Inspection of the figures shows the following: Figures 1 and 2 show that the puff-by-puff 'tar' deliveries for WINSTON KS, Marlboro, and CAMEL,FILTER are virtually identical while the puff-by-puff nicotine delivery for Marlboro is substantially lower than that for WINSTON KS and somewhat lower than,that for CAMEL FILTER. Inspection of the data in Tables 1 and 2 shows that the three cigarettes have similar tobacco weights and nicotine levels. However, f,bP .t.ohAern me s+r lgvPt for Marlboro L si L_tdhl,j,g~Shf: s A~{~ ?~!+rn ratA {a somewhat lower. Rather than

/ r a d the observed lower deliveries, ne would expect hi her uf - e - differences. observatioas and provi~e information regarding•posaible reasons for observed noear. A more detailed comparison of WINSTON and Marlboro deliveries and physical/chemical prop rtl,es is in progress to.further_substantiate these er . ~.: . Moreover, if other cigarette pItrameters are similar, decreased moisture levels should result in a faster atatic burn rate. !ssaQuier the QhRer,.~t lower nicotine llaUvAsy-4,xe Puff-by-puff deliweries for WINSTON LT, CAMEL LT, and Marlboro Lt are presented in Figures 3;and 4. There are substantial differences in both puff-by-puff 'tar' and1 nicotine delivery. Xt appears that while Marlboro Lt shows the highest puff~by-puff 'tar' delivery, the puff-by-puff nicotine delivery is lower thanl,that for CAMEL LT and sYightly higher than that for WINSTON LT. Reasons f~r the io_er Mar bQra t* n..•Atine deliverv are not clear ~ 7-3 6"u' ~ b"~,. ~'3moisture,~and aicotiaet-and ia air-dilution level.~~It is noted,~however, that ' t~the Marlboro Lt tobacco moisture level is low relative to the R1R brands. G likely offset by the substantially different air-dilution levels (28 vs. 17%) and (expected) differec~ces in filtration efficiency. Involvement of the same (unknown) factors which result in lower nicotine deliveries for Marlboro and Marlboro Lt cannot be discounted, however. WINSTON UL and VANTAGE UL exhibit quite similar puff-by-puff deliveries (Figures 7 and 8) while';True delivers substantially higher levels of both 'tar' and nicotine. Th e exceptionally high static burn rate is likely the overwhelming factor determining the higher deliveries. VANTAGE 100 and Me4t 100 exhibit very similar puff-by-puff 'tar' and nicotine deliveries (Figures 9 and 10). The physical properties reported in Table 1 are quite similar. Figures 11 and 12 khow that the puff-by-puff 'tar' deliveries for WINSTON 100, Marlboro 100, and #3enson :bffiedges 100 are virtually the same, while the nicotine delivery for WINSTON 100 is considerably higher. The tobacco nicotine level is somew* higher for WINSTON 100 (compared to Marlboro 100), and the moisture level and tobacco weight are substantially higher. With our presently limited quantitative data, it.is not possible to predict which of these factors are most $mportant in determining nicotine deliveries. Figure 13 and 14 show that the 'tar' deliveries for MORE LT 100 AND Virginia Slims are identica]~,.Khile the nicotine deZivery of the latter is substantially lower. The data in Ta'ble s ow at Virg nia Slims as g er tobacco weight andr'lowei tobacco nicotine levels which could account for the observations. ~ A comparison of NO4 and Carlton shows that the latter exhibits significantly lower puff-by-puff nicotine delivery and slightly higher weiRht `both which sh_ould result in higher uff-b uff nicotine del ver es. Differences pu -by~pu a cotiti8"de ivery due tp these erences are data in Table 1 show tt}at.Mpxjt-has a lowe~_o_bacco mo sture level_and tobacco Merit and VANTAGEI'tar' deliveries are quite similar while the Merit puff-by-puff nicotine delivery is substantially,:lower (Figures 5 and 6). The , .

•< puff-by-puff 'tar' delivery (Figures 15,and 16). The data in Table l do not suggest reasons for the differences. 1 owe } It appgars that p on.err lower, 0 LMM _l.•1- t KK•B1t l~i!. DCr68DODO lI1 rande.., The results 1`1so : shosi . that puff-by-puff deliveries can. bs.. susantially differe~it 'a~oong, commercial b~andsa- of: siniilar^ FTC 'tar' (eg.;True'va. WINSTON:UL'; Figures`7 and, 8).; :, ..t , .. . . , ' . , . .. ,. .~~ . .. . .. .. David Submitted s August 5,%-1983 Completeds. I ~ /QF3 f ro sianuocript : caw Dr. H. J. Bluhm, Libr Dr. M. E. Stowe Dr. D. E. Townsend Mr: kt11&1d"= uess Mr. R. L. Willard Ms. M. R. Savoca Library (file) Cover Page Only: Dr. Dr. Dr. R. G. A. E. Morse R. Di Marco Rodgman Dr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Dr. D. H. Piehl B. V. Hardin J. D. Phillips D. K. Isbister C. E. Teague £: dDa deliverq ; E. Townsend (a46i) ID IF 9 'jl

;n Tobacco '-Tobacco: Net;Tobacc3o Moist3re Nicotine " . ' (x)_ (X).- . Weight(g)_- "WINSTON KS 14(2) 126(6) 140(7) '0:7695 '-Marlhoro 11(1) 135(8) 145(10) 0.7637 CAMEL FILTER 14(2) 108(6) 119(7) 10.7647 Kent 28(6) 99(5) 120(7) Merit 28(3) 133(6) 169(7) VANTAGE- -_-- - _ -1Y-" --13-9(8)_. .0.7028 Merit 100 29(4) 105(8) 128(7) 0.8015 VANTAGE 100 32(3) 136(8) 185(9) 0.8213 Benson & Hedges 11(2) 128(6) 142(6) Marlboro 100 12(5) 124(7) 136(9) 0.8479 WINSTON 100 19(3) 111(6) 130(7) 00'89~8 MORE 28(3) 170(8) 229(9) Virginia Slims 38(3) 125(8) 156(9) 0.7044 MORE LT 100 45(3) 117(9) 184(9) 0.64~9 True 46(5) 75(8) 121(10) WINSTON UL 52(3) 126(6) 185(7) 0.6152 VANTAGE tJL 53(4) 120(7) 180(8) . 0.6172 WINSTON LT 34(4) 126(8) 164(9) 0.7102 Marlboro Lt 16(2) 121(6) 143(8) 0.6833 CAMEL LT . 30(3) 133(8) 168(7) 0.6866 NOW 76(3) 138(6) 223(9) '0.5213 Carlton 76(4) 119(5) 224(10) 0.5225 Carlton 100 54(5) 139(7) 226(8) 0.6781 I Average of 50 measurements. Standard deviations 2 Flowrate - 17.5 cc/sec 3 Obtained from RJRT Competitive Brands Data Base 4 Data not available ti~61 L550S are in parentheses. 12.28 11.52 12.tO 12.14 1.90 _ 11.69 1.75 11.t0 1.72, 11.31 12.16" 11.49 11.~5 10.99•'` 1.97 11:•19 2.06 . 12.16 1.91. 11.50 1.80 11.88 1.95 11.53 2.17` 11.33 _ 2.15 12.03 2.01• .

WINSTON KS ``Marlboro CAMEL FILTER Kent . Merit VANTAGE ~ Merit 100 VANTAGE 100 Benson & Hedges 00 ~'%Marlboro 100 WINSTON 100 MORE Virginia Slims MORE LT 100 True WINSTON UL VANTAGE UL WINSTON LT -Marlboro Lt CAMEL LT NOW Carlton Carlton 100 Static'Burn Rate Puff;; FTC Tar Nicotine T min , mg min -Count .- . . H20 ' 4. 7 5.6 5.6 15.2 T4. 9 65.7 8.4 15.2 1.0) 1.22(.07) 60.9 8.7 ; '16.5(.6) 1.15(.04) 72.4 8.3 15.0(.9) 1.13(.07) 68.6 8.0 12.7(.6) 1.01(.06) 66.8 7.5 8.0(.4) 0.64(.02) 63.8 7.4 8.8(.4) 0.73(.01) 67.0 9.6 ' 9.9(.5) 0.82(.06) 69.7 9.4 9.5(.3) 0.83(.06) 61.1 9.7 ' 17.0(.4) 1.24(.06) 61.7 10.1 18.0(.8) 1.31(.04) 64.7 10.2 ` 17.4(.3) 1.42(.08) 41.9 13.2 19.2(.9) 1.50(.06) 60.9 9.1 8.5(.7) 0.69(.05) 61.0 9.2 8.5(.3)-;' 0.80(.04) 77.4 6.0,." 5.3(.7) 0.49(.04) 68.5 7.0- 5.0(.4) 0.45(.05) 62.5 8.1 5.4(.3) 0.52(.03) 64.3 8.2' 8.8(.4) 0.75(.01) 62.3 7.8 10.4(1.6) 0.79(.09) 65.7 7.9 9.1(.4) 0.81(.U6) 64.5 6.5 1.3(.1) 0.13(.06) 62.0 6.7 1.5(.3) 0.12(.04) 57.2 _ 8.6 5.5(.4) 0.50(.04) 0.9(.1) 5.2 15.3 ~5.7 ;4.9 14.8 15.0 ,4.4 ' 5.4 !5.3 17.4 ;6.0 15.5 5.1 I4.8 5. 3 , 6.7 6.5 15.8 1 Standard deviations are in parentheses. .9 :7); ~.6(.3) - 2.9(.5) 2.2(.3) 1.2(.2) 1.1(.2) 0.9(.2) 2.5(.5) .0(.4)• 2.4(.3) 2.9(.2) 0.8(.1) 0.9(.1) 0.6(.1) 0.4(.1) 0.4(.2) 1.0(.1) t1.4(.3)- 1.0(.2) -0- -0- 0.4(.1) I

FIGURE 1. PUFF-BY-PUFF 'TAR'°DELIVERY 4161 LSSOS 15 mg FTC 'Tar'/85mm Category'

FIGURE 2. PUFF-BY-PUFF NICOTINE DELIVERY 15 mg FTC 'Tar/85mm Category WINSTON KS Marlboro CAMEL FlITER Kent .18 .02 N1C0TINE (mg) .. 0 ( f ,_I _ t I I 0 ) 2 3 4 5 6 PUFF NUMBER LF6L ISSOS I . s

FIGURE 3. PUFF-BY-PUFF 'TAR' DELIVERY' 9 mg FTC 'Tar'/85mm Category I. WINSTON LT Marlboro LT CAMEL LT .~ _..._ _.. 1.8 'TAR' (mg) i ,.~ , i~.,.. =r 1.6 . 1.4 / / w 1.2 I . .8 .6 .4 w .2 0 0 1 f I I I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PUFF NUMBER 8£6L LSSOS 4 0 ..

FIGURE 4. PUFF-BY-PUFF NICOTINE DELIVERY 9 mg FTC 'Tar'/85mm Category I. WINSTON LT Marlboro LT CAMEL LT NICOTINE (mg) 14 . ,'. 1 .12 .1 .08 .06 .02 w ti .. t LI I I t L I a ~ 2 3 4 5 6 PUFF NUMBER 7 8 9 411 6EE1 tssos `