Tobacco Documents Online

f Our Re£~IMI46M ° Mr. M.L. Reynolds, ..- , Brown & Wiliiamson Tobacco Corporation, P.O. Box 35090, . . Louisville, Kentucky 40232, U.S.A. ;....°~r.. • • 15thJune, 1988 Deaf La;IC*, I was asked sometime ago :o comment on the draft paper submitted by Professor Cain to B.&W. relating to the Capri study he umdertook for you earlier taxis year. For your information, a copy of my originat views ate em¢Iosed. As a result of this, Alan Heard asked me to elaborate further oa one of the poin~ (No. 2) of this note. Essentially, my comments arose from looking at Table VII from Cain's drafter paper (whicl~ is also appended). By emamirdng the dif:f~tnces in prtxtuct types in terms of both the weights bm'nt and analytes me.astmut, a pattern should emerge m terms flint the % weight saving of Capri relative to the other products should be reflected in the % reductions of the analytcs momtored for (this is expressed in the table below). ,% REDUCTIONS BETWEEN PRODUCT TYPES Parameter "Weight Burnt CO Hydrocarbons NO, Particles (I) Particles (2) DoralLights - Ca.p.ri % Doral Liglus 34 23 39 0 11 *-3 Marlboro-Capri % Marlboro 36 26 41 14 19 14 VirginiaSlims - Capri % VirginiaSlims 34 2O 24 8 13 16 * NOTE: -re indicates Capri is higher than Dotal I../ghtsf C3 0 (.ra d~ BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

This spread of remits is somewhat largo and b probably du¢ in part to the malytical difficulties associated with EI'S Cain then gem on in the paper to discuss on the basis of Table VII that Cagd has the kighest ETS particulate (TSP) potential per gram of product burnt, and this is true for scnm cf the other analytes as well (This fact is supported by our own sidemtam ETS studies). I lowever, on balance within the paper, I feel that to try and put the whole subject into context, it would be advisable for someone to commettt on the variability of the data that can be derived from Table VIL point out that Capri produces the lowest absolute ETS leveLs and discu~ the ~ part/~ate (TSP) imtemia!" of Capri and tim other products. • -..:.....~. t-. X~:. 't : ~ :e~_'t?t~.!~"~i.. ~:::.t."~' : " '" I trust these vitws wiU heIp peoples thinking towards this pape~ by Cain. if you have any f'mther ~, please do not hesitate to contact me. I remain. Yours sincerely, P.D. ~IlCS. c.c. Mr. A.L Heard N.O.O. Dr. T. Hirji Dr. R. Binns Mr. ff.A. Lake O O iX.) "',4 O', ¢..n BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

..~ ° TO REF BAT [U.K.andExport] Limited RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTFIt smrrl~M~Cm Hr. R. P. Ferris Mr. A. L. Heard PDC/MM/46M FROM DATE P. D. Case 19th April, 1988 f" ,,..o COMMENTS ON THE PAPER BY PROFESSOR W. CAZN:- PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL MEASURES OF ETS FOR FOUR BRANDS OF CIGARETTES Further to my involvement with the Ca~orl exercise under-taken by R&D in 19B7 and discussions with Professor Cain in January 1988, I have been requested by R. P. Ferris to comment on the above paper. Basically, I feel some of the data Incorporated In the paper can be used but its current format does give rise to r~orne concerns. Essentially, the concerns reduce to a very simple argument i.e. do we work on a cigarette basis (in which Capri wins hands down) or should the discussion relate to a tobacco weight burnt basis, in which case, Capri dos not necessarily win! The paper currently works In both area~ The major areas of Interest are listed below:- 1. The statement, "It would aDpeaJ" then that to a first approximation amount of tobacco burned can predict the odour and irritation of ETS irrespective of whether the tobacco comes from a conventional, slim, or ultrasiim cigarette* needs to be eliminated. This statement Is almost in direct contradiction to earlier comments relating to "the departure from paraJlelism caused by Marlboro" I.e. comments made in dose response relationship terms. EssentiaJJy, I feel Professor Cain is claiming slmillar dose response curves for the 4 cigarette types (can he be so bold when only two points on the dos~ response curve exist for each product l:ype)? Examination of figures 27 to 45 does not fully support this. Additionally, in many of these figures for an equal cluantlty of tobacco burnt or an equal C~ concentration Capri often produces the highest objective score! This can of course, be counter-argued by saying one has to burn 15 Ca~ori cigarettes to generate this dose rather than 10 of the other product types, hence showing the potential advantage to Capr~. My G Lrl U1 P~J C~ G~ _.° BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

o. • '.":i point Is why bother getting Into an aJ'gumentJcounter arguement like this In the first place 1.¢ Keep it on a per cigarette basis in the first instencei 2. In the .objective data, the X weight saving results of Capri relative to the other products, Is not reflected in the ~; reductions of the indlviduaJ components monitored in ETS. 3= Table 6 Is of some concern. On going from smoking 10 cigarettes to 15 cigarettes, the CO concentration should increase by a factor of 1.5; apart from two of the examples, the concentration rises by more than 1.5. 4. Professor Cain in the discussion and flnaJ two pages of text Illustrates that Capri has the highest ETS Tar potential per gram of tobacco burnt. This is true, bearing In mind point 2 above, and would be extended to other analytes. This is true from our own data but does It need pointing out? AddltlonaJly, Cain states Capri Is the slowest burning product, without evidence to suppor~ this, and in SBR terms, this Is not the case. 5. Returning to the subjective attributes, figures ? to 10 show Increases in subjective Intensity for various parameters assessed. No comment Is made as to whether this has any bearing onthe order In which the paneJiists make the assessments of these parameters. 61 Finally, part of the process Involving Professor Cain was to establish if results on the same products examined in R&D translate across to his laboratory. Thus we are not helped very much by R&D examining Marlboro Box a 79ram product in detail and Cain examining an 85ram Marlboroi In summary, I do not wish to appear to being negatively disposed towards this paper, the finding on Capri having the lowest subjective and objective results are correct and need to be highlighted. However, some of the other factors currently incorporated within the paper if published, could be potentially turned agaJnst Cain (and hence us) by other parties. Consequently, I feel we need Initially to rationailse the~e concepts amongst ourselves before deciding on the next phase of the operatJon which should involve further discussions, with Professor Cain, who we clearly do not wa~t to antagonise. Before discussion with Cain, we need to have addressed s couple of questions internally: (1) Do we actively encourage Cain to change some of the format of the paper, bearing in mind we have a "hands off" policy towards third party consultants? 0 0 Q;I r~O C~ BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

• .o- (Z) P. D. Case • , ...~...;,~ ~ -.. Cain is starting to underst~und the weight argument towards sidestream reduction and Is elucidating such in this p&oer. To help him in this, should we be more open In our findings in relation to weight end sidestreaan yields, and hence suggest to him, there is no need for him to 9o into this ¢letaJ| in his paper? : • J . :. . . ~T' w - d -t; : . ~'~ • :., o ' ['"": c.c, Dr. R. Binns Dr. T. Hirji Hr. J.A. Luke °'" b O C) U7 --,.j O~ Co BATCo document for Legal Services Health Canada 20 May 1999

°. • ,°, ," ,. ,~:.-. ~ ~i• Table VII. Comparison of Brands Brand: Capri ..: •... • " ~. -:°-°4 . • Doral Lights i Marlboro Va Slims Lights n= 4 3 Burned (g) 4.86±0.16 7.31+0.16 4 7.55±0.O8 3 7.36+_0.64 Gases: Dec Feb Dec Feb n- 2 2 1 " 2 CO (ppm ±0.3) 4.3 4.2 5.8 5.4 HC (ppm .+. 1.0) 4.7 3.5 7.1 6.2 NOx (ppm ±0.01) 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 Nicotine (ug/m3) 74±7 est 89±4 Dec Feb Dec Feb 2 2 1 2 6.0 5.5 7.7 6.2 0.15 0.13 73±6 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.3 0.13 0.13 89±7 Particles: n,= 4 3 TSP (ug/m3,Dec) 872±32 976±0 (ug/m3,Feb) 1078+25 1047±114 (ug/g-m3,Dec} 184±5 133 (ug/g-m3,Feb) 217±3 155±1 4 1077±167 1250±71 143±5 166±2 : 3 1 ooo±I 1278±91 144 169±1 0 0 ~n ,43 .. .,. • .. • , • ;" _ BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

-DRAFT- Psychophysical and Physical Measures of ETS for Four Brands of Cigarettes Submitted by William S. Cain, Ph.D. Pierce Lab / Yale University 290 Congress Avenue New Haven, CT 06519 Submitted to Dr. William H. Deines B&W B & W Tower Louisville, KY 40202 Date April 7, 1988 i s• O O Lr~ Lrl Po BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

,3 Part 1: Psychophysicai Measurements INTRODUC~ON The purpose was to chart odor and irritation from ETS produced by cigarettes that varied in diameter: two of conventional diameter, one of slim diameter, and one of ultraslim diameter. METHOD .~: Thirty-five subjects, 18 males and 17 females, participated in four sessions each, one for each of four brands Average age equalled 28 (SD = 8.1). Twenty percent smoked. The majority had sewed in similar experiments previously. On any of the eight days of testing, approximately half the subjects participated. ~: Brands studied were Capri (97 mm length, 17 mm circumference), Doral Lights (85 ram, 24.5 ram), Marlboro (85 ram, 24.5 ram), and Virginia Slims Lights (98 ram, 23 ram), all nonmenthol. The cigarettes were maintained in unopened packs under normal room conditions, temperature of 21 C and relative humidity of 30 to 40 %. Packs of a given brand were opened as needed on the day of smoking (one brand per day) and the contents distributed into aluminum foil packets in the following fashion: two packets of 10 cigarettes and two of 15 cigarettes. The quantities per packet represented hourly amounts to be smoked during four-hr test sessions: 10 cig per hr for the first and second hours and 15 per hr for the third and fourth hours. The appropriate aluminum-foil packet was delivered to the smokers at the beginning of each hour. After it was smoked, a cigarette was extinguished by being placed into a scintillation vial which was then sealed. (The vial also served as ashtray.) The collection procedure permitted weighing and measurement of butts for subsequent correlation between level of sensory effect and amount of tobacco consumed. ~: Smoking took place in a 1200-cu if, aluminum environmental chamber. Relevant parameters were as follows: temperature, 22 C; relative humidity, 36% (SD=6); recirculation rate, O U'l "~1 j~ BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

.o 95 air changes per hr (ach); and ventilation rate, 2.5 ach. Temperature, dew point, and carbon monoxide concentration were monitored throughout a session. ~: ETS was generated by three or four smokers. These persons smoked in serial order, i.e., person A smoked a cigarette, then person B smoked a cigarette, etc. On any given day, the smokers smoked onJy one brand. Table 1 displays the order of brands smoked across days. Table 1: Schedule of Sessions Date Brand Date Brand December 28 Marlboro January 4 DoraI Lights December 29 Doral Lights January 5 Marlboro December 30 Capri January 6 Va Slims Lights December 31 Va Slims Lights January 7 Capri The smoking procedure remained the same from day to .day, except for brand smoked. During the first two hours, the smokers smoked a total of 10 cig per hour. A new cigarette was [it every 6 min and was smoked for 6 min. Hence, one cigarette was being smoked at any given time. Because the smokers had considerable prior experience with such a regimen, they followed it with ease and smoked the cigarettes comfortably, neither very fast nor very slow. During the first hour, carbon monoxide rose to a more-or-less steady level. During the second hour, level remained approximately steady and the first set of psychophysical judgmnents were collected. During the third and fourth hours, the smokers increased the smoking rate to 15 per hr. This regimen required a new cigarette to be lit every 4 rain and to remain lit for approximately 6 rain. After the first four rain, there were, therefore, alternating 2-rain periods of one cigarette being smoked and two cigarettes being smoked. The third hour was used to approach a steady level of carbon monoxide. Psychophysical judgments were collected during the fourth hour. ====,b O O U-1 U-1 p,,.) "--4 u'l BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

Before beginning their psychophysical judgments, subjects were grouped into threes for their visits into the chamber. A trio would enter for a 3-rain period. At t = 0, 1, 2, and 3 rain, they filled in judgment sheets of the sort shown in Fig. 1. The sheets requested judgments of both the intensity and the acceptability of eye, nose, and throat irritation, and of odor. The sheets also elicited a judgment of overall acceptability. After three minutes in the chamber, one trio would leave and be replaced by the next. The entire group would complete a round of judgments in 20 rain. There were three such rounds per hr in the second and fourth hours of the session. Hence, each individual occupied the chamber for a total of 9 min per hr. Data Analysis: Perceived intensity was derived from graphic ratings by measuring the distance in rnm from the top (zero) end of the scale. Corresponding judgments of an attribute within a round, e.g., judgments at t = 0, were treated as replicates and hence averaged across subjects. For reference in interpretation, we note that the tics marks on the graphic rating scale occurred at 13-ram intervals (see Fig. 1). Therefore, averages of 13-ram would represent 'slight,' whereas those of 26 would represent 'moderate,' and those of 39 'strong .' Acceptability scores are expressed in terms of the fraction of subjects dissatisfied. The measure offers the most direct way to compare the acceptability results with perceived intensity. RESULTS Intensity of irritation and odor increased significantly from a smoking rate of 10 to a rate of 15 cig per hr (Figs. 2 to 5). (Tables 2 to 5 display ANOVAs relevant to the data in Figs. 2 to 5.) For three of the brands, the increase occurred in more-or-less parallel fashion. Marlboro, however, exhibited a more dramatic increase than the others. Whereas its intensity fell among that of the other brancs at the smoking rate of 10 cig per hr, it climbed above the others at 15 cig per hr. The departure from paralellism caused by Marlboro presumably accounts for statistically significant or near- significant brand-by-smoking rate interactions for the three of the four sensory attributes. The brands also differed significantly in the magnitude of their sensory effects irrespective of smoking rate. The pattern 0 O "-.4 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

Figure 2 2O 18 - 16 12 10 EYE i l tOlhow 151hour rate -,- I~=1 v.~ u k~ m m m M m g~ @ mm m~ u 8 L km 0.5" 0.4¸ 0.3¸ .2' 0.I EYE i j lO/hour 15/ho~r rate -~ l:)oua -~ v.slieu G c~ c21 (.n r~o BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

Table 2 RNOVR Summanj Tabia for:. £YE-CRT FILE ot' df S~ of Ilean F p Qo'iotim Squats Squ~e Subjects 33 19389.810 587.579 a 3 451.931 150.610 2.342 .0"778 Error 9g 53~.7 t5 64.300 b ~ 2171. 126 21"71. 126 56.659 .0000 Error 33 1264.529 38.319 Ob 3 312. g~2 104.3';? I.~5 .204g Error gg 6636.485 57.03~ .~. 1.00 .62 0 (,J'l "-4 Co BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

Figure 3 24" 22~ e 2o = 16 14 12 THROAT i i 10/hour 151hour rate m m t~ m I= i=o L_ 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.I THROAT i | lO/hou~ ~.5/hcur rate -,-]:)==I c~ -o- V.Sbns CD CD ~n ~n r~ -.,4 ,,Q BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

• o Se,.r~__ of" Ua'-iat Jc~ ,S~jects Q b ab Table 3 RMnUR £ummsry Tab|R fan THRI]RT-CRT FILl;: dl" ~ of ~ F p Squores Squre 33 29594.647 896.807 3 559.552 219.884 2.810 .0434 g9 "T~45.545 ?8.238 t 2287.520 22~. 520 54.522 .O00O 3:3 1382.015 4 t.8"~ :3 5,3:2.261 177.420 2.230 .0894 gg "?875. t84 "Tg. ~5"7 .60 1.00 .52 t C::) 0 --.,j Co C::> BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

i .~. • , ,. Figure 4 C w 34 32 30 2B 26 24 22 20 NOSE i i 101hour 151hour rate V.$1bra 0.8" ,~ o.7- = 0.6- 0.5- "~ 04- Ill I,. ira, 0.3 NOSE -,- I~ml "~" V.~ lO/hour 15/hour rate C~ 0 r~o -,q o~ BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

of t~riati~ Subjects Q b ~x~ror ab Error Table 4 RNOUR ~wmmarlJ Tabla fan Nn£E-CRT FILE df Sum of ~ F P 3:3 2~m06-4"~ "~. 4~ 3 2'8Q0 - 4"~X? ~.4~q5 15.8213 . O(X3Q g9 6038.722 60.99"7 1 21395.513 2095.513 28.747 .O0(X) 33 2405.511 72.894 3 3048.444 1015. 148 15.354 .0000 9~ 6551."~ fi5. 180 .64 1.00 .86 C~ C::) C.rl (3"! .,.,j Co BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

, \. , Figure 5 36 - 32 " 28 24 2O ODOR a a lO/hour 15/hour tale % -'- D0~ -t Cap~ -'- V.S]~ 0.8- ODOR _" o.~, 0.6- 0.5 0.4- , ! IO[hour 1S/hour rate -*- Do~ 0 0 O~ BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

' Table 5 ~.~ ANGUR £umma~J Tabla for:. J~B~R-CRT FILl;: ~qour=~__ of df ' ~ of ~ F p U~imtion Squa-ts Squ=-e Subj ec~J~ 33 18047.312 545.988 a 3 4400..~8 I4~.~3 22.0"~ .0000 Etw-oe 9g ~.~ fl6,451 b I 1366.355 I366.356 16.461 .0003 33 2'739. 181 . B3. 005 alp 3 4504.222 tTI01.407 16.g15 .0000 ~-ror 99 8787.57g 88.'K~ . ",'2 1.00 J 0 0 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

¥isure 6 m l w m o o u o L. 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 OVERALL == lO/hour 15/hour rate -,- Din1 -t C=~ V.Slbns C~ C~ U'l U~ r~ Co BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

among brands varied somewhat with attribute (cf. eye vs nose irritation). Nevertheless, one trend stood out; the ultraslim brand" Capri consistently fell below the others at both rates of smoking. Within a brand, the attributes of eye irritation and throat irritation consistently had approximately the same intensity, whereas nose irritation and odor had higher intensity. This pattern held true across brands, even though the absolute differed (see Figs. 7 to10). The averages shown in the figures fail to depict the dynamic nature of the irritation and odor responses. Figure 11 displays eye irritation from Capri and Doral over the 3-rain periods of judging when the smoking rate equalled 10 cig per hr. Two trends emerged: 1) irritation increased over the 3 min of exposure, and 2) irritation increased from round to round with the larger increase occurring from the first to the second round. Figures 12 through 16 reveal that the same trend held for Marlboro and Virginia Slims and for nose and throat irritation as well as for eye irritation. C~or intensity showed less of a tendency to increase over the 3 rain of exposure, but still tended to increase from round to round (F~Gs. 17 and 18). ..; What held for the smoking rate of 10 ¢ig per hr also generally held for the rate of 15 cig per hr, though somewhat less uniformly (Figs. 19 to 26). The data at 15 cig per hr departed from monotonicity more frequently, but still encouraged the conclusion that irritation and odor increased over time both within and between rounds. The increases in irritation and odor during and between rounds of judging most likely represented the action of two processes, one sensory and one physical. The tendency for irritation to increase over time during continuous exposures to low level irritants is well established as a property of the common chemical sense (Cometto- Muniz and Cain, 1984; Cain et al., 1986; Cain etal., 1987). We can accordingly attribute the increases during a round to this process. The finding that increases in odor were less prominent and systematic reinforces such a conclusion. The increases across rounds, however, may require a physical explanation. Although we had anticipated that the gaseous constituents would have reached steady state after an hour, small increases generally continued to occur thereafter. Such increases, despite their small size, may have led to the round-to-round increments in o 0 ,...,q co BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

Figure 7 ::@ C i 40- CAPRI 3O 2O 10 Imj~ 0 lO/hour 15/bout rate C~ O (.n r~ .,,,j co ",,,1 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

! Figure 8 Zn w w m~ mm 0" ~0 2O I0 DORAL lO/hou?' " t5/hot~" rate i~j't ia=~ O O U1 r~ co BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

Figure 9 mm (D m~ 4O 30 20 10 0 MARLBORO 151h(.,~ rate Ilye t~ tiler o un u'l co BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

Figure 10 W ! e~ e.. 40- VIRGINIA 5L[H5 30 2O 10 !~ t~t I O/h0ur " 151h0ur rate N 0 C~ r~ o BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

Figure ii 15- 14" 12~ = 11 I0 EYE - Capri I 0 clg/hr J I 0 1 I I 2 3 tlme (rain) • -~ ~2 t, 18- 16" .= 10 EYE- Dora1 10 clg/hr . -. i i i 0 1 2 3 time (mln) • .~ x~ll • .*- z0.~2 0 Q -,,4 m BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

F£Eura 12 18 16 ~4 "= ~2. I0 8 0 EYE - Marlboro 10 clglhr ! l i 1 2 3 tlme (mln) • ~ mun41 "*" :maK1, 2 -t zourNi 8 16 15 12 11 EYE- Vlrglnla Slims 10 cig/hr 0 | i ; 1 2 3 tlme (mln) • -~ ~ur~ 1 -'.- zoO2 • 4- zoO:! C) O I",,.1 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

Figure 13 16" 15 m 12 1I 10 THROAT -Caprt I 0 clg/hr -,- mur~l 2 I • I I 0 1 2 3 Ume (rntn) 16 15 =a 13 o 12 II 10 THROAT - Dotal l 0 cig/hr | i I 0 I 2 3 tlrne (mln) -.- ~mur,~ 2 C) C.n U~ -.j '.0 L~ BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

¥i~ure 14 20" 18- ~m 16" 14~ i0 8 0 THROAT - Marlboro I 0 ctg/hr 1 i i t 2 3 time (rain) I w I¢ ¢: 17 16 15' 14 13 12 0 THROAT - Virginia Slims 10 clg/hr / - i 4 1 2 time (rain) ~-¢- ~mll • "- ~2 ! 3 :- C> C:> U'I U'I P~ J~ BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

F~gure 15 25 24 23 --'= 22' - 20 19 18 NOSE - Capri I 0 clg/hr J 4 ,(3 I i I 0 I 2 3 tlme (mln) -'- =m~i2 "* :wr~.:S 28 ~ NOSE - Dotal 10 clg/hr " | = 20 16, . , , , 0 I 2 3 time (mln) -o :oumt 1 -'- :wnd2 t" :m(l :) • o C~ (2) t.n Lrl ,.0 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

Fisure 16 28 NOSE - Marlboro 10 cig/hr = 20,~ 18" 16 , , , 0 1 2 3 tlme (rain) -.- =.~12 NOSE- Virginia Slims tO ctglhr 28 24' " ..e- ~I _¢ -.- =mcl2 22'-- a~ 20 , , , 0 1 2 3 : time (min) 0 0 P~ ~o cT, BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

Figure 17 281 ODOR - Capri iO clg/hr 1 26 2s " 1 • 24 -~ 23 22 ~ --~ 21 , , - ", 0 1 2 3 tlme (min) ~. ~r~l "" ~2 ~" ~3 32 3O = 28 i = 26 c I = 24 22 2O ODOR - Dotal lO cig/hr ff -O J t -t zw~O J b Z 3 time (rain] o o (.n BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

(.) \p ri~ure 18 ODOR - Marlboro 10 ctg/hr 3 0 L ,,, i 28 == 26 24 _= 22 2o 0 1 2 3 time (rain) • "- ~2 31 3O 29~ - 28 m = 27 e~ l= -- 26' 2S 24 0 ODOR - Virginia Slims 10 clg/hr .- ~'-- . "4- ~xt2 1 2 3 time (rain) 0 0 cJ-I f',o BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

¥1gu=e 19 18" 17' ". ~o. 14 0 EYE - Capri 15 clglhr ~2 I I I 1 2 3 tlme (mln) 24- 22 = = 20, -= ~8, 16 0 EYE- Dotal 15 cig/hr zo~ll ~3 i o I 1 2 3 time (rain) .re=a= c~ L21 LTI BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

Figure 20 EYE - Harlboro 15 clg/hr ¢= q~ W ¢= I) e~ w 20 10 1 2 time (rnln) 2=1- 22¸ £ 20 _= 16 14 EYE - Virginia Slims 15 cig/hr -' $ t t -- I 2 3 tfrne (rnin) 0 tJ'1 r,,,3 (30 o o BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

¥£Sure 21 20" 19 = 17 16 THROAT - Capri 15 clg/hr -,- zoun4 2 1 2 3 Lime (mln) 26" 25 24 23 22 --= 21 20 19 THROAT - Dor-dl 15 ctg/hr 0 1 2 3 . Lime (rain) o o BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

Y£suce 22 28 26 24 ¢ m ¢ i THROAT - Marlboro !5 cig/hr 22' 18 15 0 1 2 tlme (mln) S n~dl | 3 24, 22' ~ 2(? .Q = 18 THROAT -Vtrgtnla 5|tms 15 cig/hr 6 i ~ i 0 1 2 3 time (rain) 0 CD po 0 po BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

¢2\, Figu=e 23 33~, NOSE - Capri 15 clg/hr I\ 32 ~ 3T -= 30 29 0 I 2 3 time (rnln) 36" 34" "~ 32 " 30 28 0 NOSE - Dotal 15 clglhr 2 b I ! I 2 3 .. tlme (mln) 0 rsJ Co 0 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

Ftsure 24 38 m m 32 lg • 30 28 NOSE - Marlboro i S ctg/hr o 6 i " ! • i 0 1 2 3 time (rain) "4" ~xa~12 NOSE- Virginia Slims 15 cl9/hr 36 34 ~ 32 28 ~ N~t~ 0 1 2 3 " time (mln) 0 0 t~ co 0 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

34 33 32 - 31 30 0 Figure 25 ODOR - Capri 15 cig/hr / -,- ===<t 2 1 2 3 time (rnln) ==l ira= ¢n == c 37 36 35 34 33 32 ODOR - Dora] 15 clg/hr b -o ~ll -,- ==~42 -t =euect ~ "I' ' ' J ! I 2 3 tlme (mln) o o BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

/q Figure 26 m W I 60 50 4O 30 ODOR - Marlboro [5 ctg/hr ..._....o- / i 0 1 2 3 time (rain) "~ ~2 ~7 36 • " 35 m I . 34 c I ~3 32 ODOR - VtrglnIa 5]lms 15 cig/hr i 1 • 0 I 2 3 tlrne (rain) C~ 0 (Do 0 O~ BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

! intensity. Table 6 displays the carbon monoxide levels for the three rounds of judgments within an hour. The |ikelihood that an increase in vapor phase constituents may have led to the increments in sensory judgments was decided by the finding that odor intensity for each brand varied monotonically with carbon monoxide level between rounds as well as between smoking rotes (Rg. 27). (We use carbon monoxide here as a surrogate for whatever vapor phase constituents may in fact cause the odor.) The explanation invoked in this instance derives in a sense from exclusion, i.e., from the absence of another reason why odor in particular might rise progessively for judgments spaced 20 rain apart. A telling feature is that the odor of Doral Lights actually decreased across rounds and so did carbon monoxide level. This translates into a positive association in Fig. 27. Table 6: Carbon Monoxde Concentration (ppm) Brand Cig/hr Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Capri 10 2.3 2.9 3.0 1 5 4.1 4.4 4.4 "r Doral Lights 1 0 3.8 3.8 - 4.0 1 5 6.5 6.3 6.1 Marlboro 1 0 4.1 4.1 4.3 1 5 6.7 6.8 • 6.9 Va Slims Lights 1 0 3.8 4.1 4.4 1 5 6.9 6.9 7.3 The. rise in intensity across rounds has relevance to a search for the best correlate of odor and irritation across brands. As Table 2 revealed, the brands differed in the amount, of carbon monoxide generated, with Capri the lowest. Hence, we could expect some association between carbon monoxide concentration and intensity. Although present ~t .all three rounds of judging, the association was relatively in the first round, but then improved considerably. Figures 28 to 31 reveal this progressive trend for carbon monoxide to associate closely with intensity. The judgment depicted here is that at 3 rain, but judgments at other times yielded the same result. Figures 32 to 36 revea! that what held true for intensity generally held for acceptability. Grams of tobacco smoked offered yet another C~ O Go C~ -.,,j BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

Figure 27 50" _.= _= ~o 20 2 Odor vs. CO, Round by Round • | " I • L ' , . I • ! 3 4 5 6 7 '8 CO (ppm) 0 0 r~ co o oo BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

m c w 25 20 IS I0 ¥18ure 28 EYE (round I) 2 3 4 5 6 7 CO (ppm) -*-D~ m w m m era6 m M m m 30 EYE (round 2) 25 ~n 15 ~0 ..... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. CO (ppm) EYE (roung 3) 25 2o 15 10 , - , • , , , 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CO (ppm) -e- ]=l~.e~et0 -'- D=~ -*- D==I O (.rl r~ co o BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

m C Q) m 3O 25 0, ~5 10 2 Fi&u=e 29 THROAT (round I) 3 ,4 5 6 7 8 CO (ppm) -- I:~d ~- V,S]~r~ m w O e~ m 3O 25 2O 15 10, 2 THROAT (round 2) " i " | • L • ~ " 3 4 5 6 7 8 CO (ppm) m m 3O 25 20 15 10 2 THROAT (round 3) | , # - ~ • i - i " # 3 4 5 6 7 8 CO (ppm) -,- Do~ I- CAp= V.SlI.. 0 r~ 01 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

0" 35 i11 W 30 25 20 Figure 30 NOSE (round !) i " | - s " 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CO (ppm) "~ V.SI~ 40" 35 ,ll = 30 =I all C Ill 25 20 2 NOSE (round 2) i • l • i • i " i, "' "i 3 4 5 6 7 6 CO (ppm] == llJ ¢ llm ~5¸ 25 NOSE (round 3) - i - b i " i" i 2 "3 4, 5 6 7 8 CO (ppm) -.- D=ll -t- C~l=i V.51i~ 0 C:> U'I U'I t'O GO BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

o_. ODOR (round !) 2 3 CO (.ppm] • P ODOR (round 2) • i • L ~0 "-- ' 5 6 2 3 4 CO (ppm~ b ? B ODOR (round 3) .:I. f .- =4----~_ ,. ~---6 "; 8 2 3 ~ CO (ppm] 0 0 r,o oo r,3 BATCO document for Legal Services" Health Canada 20 May 1999

O~ m mi F:I.$ure 32 EYE (round 1) 2 i • t , i - ii - i 3 4 5 6 7 CO (ppm) -e. IduII~ ..,.~ l 8 ,,j I m m G IO i I: o w u II L ti 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.1 " 2 EYE (round 2) l - i • '1 - i • i " i 3 4 5 6 7 8 CO (ppm) - EYE (rouncI 3) . ~ Q.4" = t_ q~ " i • i - i ¢ - i , 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CO (ppm) ..,.~ -,,- V.~ c) cz) r,J oo (j4 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

I IB b,= w l0 W C w I=J tJ I= L 0.6- 0.5- 0.4 Figure 33 THROAT (round !) O2 2 i - i~" I " ~" i 3 4 5 6 7 CO (ppm) -a- Id~.IIx~ V.~ I 8 II llI @I I oil I@ @@ el i f= O I ail u I L [LS" ~4 O3 02. Ill 2 THROAT (round 2) l • i " | ' l - l " I 3 4 5 6 7 B CO (ppm) ~6 ii b,, = 05 I 0.4 = 113 u ~ k,, nl THROAT (round 3) ~ - i T L - i • 8 - i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CO (ppm) ~ l~u2w~ V.~ C) c) un r~J co BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

/ "?. "??/ 119 "D W m 118 w m 117 I11 -- 116 115 u o 11.4 L Figure 34 N05E (round I) - i - 1 " i " i " J 3 4 5 6 7 C0 (ppm) "~" V.SI%., u 8 '~ o.71 ~, . ,~ 0.6" ~as- .~ . © 0.4" L 03 2 NOSE (round 2) i - i • i - i - i • a 3 4 5 6 7 8 CO (ppm) ..,.. ~ • .=- e,~ • .o.v.51b~ 0.9° m m ¢I I e 0.7 f~ - 0.6 w IJ © 114 &,, tm NOSE (round 3) • ! - i • a . ! - i' : 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CO (ppm) "4" Cap= -~ V.SI~ 0 CD t~ Co t.n BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

O Ill ql gl Ill Ig C mi Ill Q 6 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6' 03 F:l.Zure 35 ODOR {round I) 3 4 5 6 7 CO (ppm) i 8 ~9 0.7" '~ g aS- © 0.4 L 113 2 ODOR (round 2) l ' ! • i - i • i. i 3 4 5 6 7 8 CO (ppm) 0.9 ilm I18 W mira © R7 m - 0.6 m u m R4 6 O.3 ODOR (round 3) I ] " I ' j 1 I " [ -- I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CO (ppm) "*" D~I "~ Cap= CD O U'l r~ c~ o', BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

"O m i w m W w 0.9 0~ E7 O.5 G == -- 0.4 ¢J © 113 L O2 2 Figure 36 OVERALL (round !) ! - i • ! - I - I• I 3 4 5 6 7 8 CO (ppm) • "=- M=]J=.= -.-5==/ • 4. ~.~ 0.7" '= 0.5 I= • == -- 0.4 u c 03 L_ O2. 2 OVERALL (round 2) $ - | • ~ • ! - I- ~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 CO (ppm) • e- M=z.l~x=, • .-- Dt=~ • ~- t'.P= ""~ V. S~3~u m II W l0 o u L O.g¸ 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.3" 0.2 2 OVERALL (round 3) 3 4 5 6 7 8 CO (ppm) -.- D==/ O O (j-t P~ co "'-d BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

~m (~ correlate of intensity. Figures 37 to 45 illustrate its virtue, which falls only slightly below that of carbon monoxide. It would appear then that to a first approximation amount of tobacco burned can predict the odor and irritation of ETS irrespective of whether the tobacco comes from a conventional, slim, or ultrslim cigarettes. 4" 0 0 (.Ft (j-t P~ CO Co BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

25 = ~: 2o .= 15 I0 4 5 6 7 tobacco (gms) -,- D==I D 8 30 ", 25o .= 20- dim 15 10 3 EYE (round 2) • J " I " L ' ~ " 4 5 6 7 tobacco (gms) -~ ]6=]~rz= "- D==/ m 8 30- 25 = 20 .= 15 EYE (round 3) 10 " " & • I " t " 6 • I 3 4 5 6 7 8 tobacco (gins) --Din/ CA~ o o (.,,,'n Lrl I',,..) ,,.0 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

Figure 38 ' THROAT (round I) 20 15 I0 3 4 5 6 7 8 tobacco (gms) 30 25 = r= 20 .,=. = I5 10 THROAT (round 2) • 6 ' i • I • I • 3 4 5 5 7 8 tobacco (gins) -*- Dc=/ -t C=~ 30 25 = 20 .= _= 15 10 THROAT (round 3) l - ! - i ' ~ - I 3 4 5 6 7 8 tobacco (gins) -~. ~x~ -.- Dml " V'=t:i~ SZ~r= ===.=b C) 0 U~ Co 0 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

°t 35 == m 30 s ¢ 25 2O Figure 39 NOSE (round !) 3 4 5 5 7 tobacco (gms) -*-De=/ 40 55 = 30 25 20 NOSE (round 2) 1 t * I " L r 4 5 6 7 tobacco (gins) 35¸ 30 _c 25 NOSE (round 3) 0 t • i • l . ~ • i 3 4 5 6 7 8 tobacco (gins) -.- 9=¢t CD C) tyl i-,3 CO I-,o BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

6O 5O = 4o 30 2O Flgure 40 ODOR (round 1) 3 4 5 6 7 tobacco (gms) -*- D==I -tC=~ 6 8 60 5O .= =4o i 30 2O ODOR (round 2) jJ 1 ' z, - i • o " , " 3 4 5 6 7 tobacco (gms) 60" 50' ~40, = 30 ODOR Cround 3) 20 ' I " ! " u " I " o 3 4 5 6 7 8 tobacco (gms) t- Ca~ -.- '¢~i~ SU= U'I U'1 r~J oo r,J r~J BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

F£sure 41 0.6 EYE (round I) ~ -~- ~ 0.5 ~c~ " 0.4 0.3 0.2 ~" 0.1 ..... , 3 4 5 6 7 8 tobacco (gins) 0.6- : 0.5- _w 0.4- 0.3" ~ 0.2- 0. I 3 EYE (round 2)~ L | ' i " i' ' • I 4 5 6 7 8 tobacco (gins) --D==I 0.6 o.5 = 0.4 w o.3 0.2 O L Ok. 0.1 3 EYE (round 3) | " ~ - l - i • | 4 5 6 7 8 tobacco (gins) -,- Din1 0 u~ P~ co Do t~ BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

Figure 42 0.6 o.s = 0.4- 0.~ -t ~ o.2 0.1 THROAT(round I) ~ -=- C.~ • -,- 'v"~i~ S:E~ • l • |~ - i 4 5 6 7 8 tobacco (gins) 0.6 0.s = 0.4. w '~ 0.3' u 0.2 m L 0.1 THROAT (round 2) • i " i ' i " l " 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 tobacco (gins) --9==/ °ly THROAT (round 3) = 0.5 _= 0.4 ¢ 0.3 ¢1 i 0.2 B L 0.1 " i " | • ! ' I " I 3 4 5 6 7 8 tobacco' (gins) o 0 Mr1 r,o co r,o BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

FiSure 43 0.8 0.7~ ,= 0.6 =: 0.s ~. o.4 0.3 3 NOSE (round 1 ) • i - i , I " # " 4 5 5 7 tobacco (gms) -,,- ~ ..,,. v-:l~r,~ ~ms i 8 0.9" 0.8" =' 0.7' Q m ~ 0.6 = 0.5~ a 0.4" i., NOSE (round 2) O~ , . i - | • 1 • i • | 3 4 5 6 7 8 tobacco (gins) L 0.3 3 4 5 6 7 8 tobacco (gins) C,l.i 0 o co r,o- BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

Figure 44 0.9- : 0.8 qm \ _w 0.7~ -~ 0.6" ~0.5' ~ 0.4- 0.3 3 ODOR (round 1) ' "'i 4 5 6 7 8 tobacco (gins) -,- D=~ -P C,~ 0.9 0.8 == o.7: -~ 0.6 O.s ODOR [round 2) u 0,4' o L n-< • , - , . , - , • , v,~,, 3 4 5 6 7 8 tobacco (gins) -*- Dcd 0"9t ODOR (round 3) ~ ~= 0.8t ~ * " 0.7 ~ 0.6 = - • , - , • , • , 3 4 5 6 7 8 tobacco (gins) o o BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

Figure 45 , 1 0.9~ 0.6~ o.s~ 0.4~ 0.3 L %. 0.2 3 OVERALL (round !) "~ t " i * L " i - i 4 5 6 7 8 tobacco (gins) 0.9 -. 0.8 m 0.7 0.6 '= 0.5 : 0.4 © 0.3" i,. 0.2 3 OVERALL (round 2) • i • i - | ' I • I 4 5 6 7 8 tobacco (gins) -,- D==/ CL~ 0,9- OVERALL (round 3) 0.8- = 0,72 8 0.6 "= 0.5 0.4 a 0.3 rim 0, " " I * 3 7 '! " i " l n 4 5 6 8 tobacco (gins) --9==1 o 0 U"l U'l co P,o "',4 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

(~- Part 2: Physical Measurements INTRODUCTION This section reports emissions of selected smoke components from four brands of cigarettes: Capri, Marlboro (85 ram), Dotal Lights (85 mm), and Virginia Slims Lights. Fourteen tests (Table I) were conducted during December 1987 and February/March 1988. Concentrations of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, gas phase nicotine, particle size distribution, visibility, and particle mass were determined. Table ]. Tests Assessing Emissions from Four Brands of Cigarettes Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 8:00-10:30 11:00-13:30 14:00-16:30 12/22/87 Marlboro Doral Lights Capri 12/23/87 Marlboro .. Va Slims Lights Capri 2/27/88 2/28/88 2/29188 3/01/88 Set 1 Set 2 9:00-11:30 12:30-15:00 Va Slims Lights Dotal Lights Capri Marlboro Dotal Lights Mariboro Va Slims Lights Capri METHOD Four cartons of each brand were provided by B&W. Upon ardval, the cartons were stored as shipped. In February, the remaining cigarettes were placed inside a thermocooler over dishes of distilled water saturated with sodium bromide to maintain relative humidity at 60%. Temperature of the chamber equalled 22 C. Relative humidity ranged from 30-37%. Ventilation rate, typically 2.4 + 0.2 air changes per hour (ach), was measured at the beginning and end of the day via decay of injected carbon dioxide. Thorough mixing was maintained with a recircufation rate of 67 or 95 ach. A test session lasted 2.5 hr. C3 C~ un r,,.) co r,o co BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

Tobacco smoke was typically generated by three smokers per session. Five different persons participated in one or another session. Cigarettes were lit with a butane lighter and extinguished in scintillation vials. Cigarettes were smoked at a rate of 1 cig/6 rain (10 per hr). Temperature, relative humidity, and gas concentrations (Table 11) were recorded throughout the experiment on a multichannel Omega recorder. Particle size distributions were measured (Table II) before the experiment and twice during steady state for 10-rain periods. Instruments were calibrated before and after each set of experiments. Instrument inlet filters and operating parameters were checked daily. Table If. Monitoring Instruments Instrument Method Carbon Dioxide Beckman LB-2 ~ NDIR 2 % Carbon Monoxide Monitor Lab 8310 NDIR 10 ppm Hydrocarbons Bendix FIB 10 or 20 ppm Nitrogen Oxides Monitor Lab 8840 Chemilumin. 0.5 ppm Particles Monitored Instrument Method : 0.003-1.0 um TSI 3010 E]ectromobility Analyzer 0.3-20urn HIACIRoyco 4100 w/1200 sensor Optical Particle Counter 0.1-0.8um MRI 1591 Integrating Nephelometer The mass of total suspended particEes (TSP) in the air at steady- state was determined gravimetrically. Gas-phase nicotine and particles were collected simultaneously by drawing air. through a filter cassette at1.7 L/rain for 90 rain. Three sampling systems were operated at locations 1, 2, and 3 shown in Figure 1. A filter cassette consisted of a 37-mm assembly (Millipore M00003700) containing a Teflon-coated glass fiber filter (Pallflex TX401120WW, 37ram) to collect particles, a support pad (Millipore AP10037X), a spacer, then a tandem treated filter (Pallftex TX40H120WW soaked in 4% NaHSO4 - 40% ethanol, then dried) to collect gas-phase nicotine, and finally another support pad. The assembled cassettes O 0 PJ co p,o BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

0 Z J ,C .:--~-.~i--'~=~~.~_~--~ii~i~:~:;~;~÷..=:-~:.~!~::~:i~:~:-~:!~!i~i~ii=~i~!~÷~ k" ":"-- ~=~:----;'--;~:~"~-----'~'~':-'~'~ ..... • ........................................ ::'7:";":'::-:7..:':~_-. :-.::.":..'7":L:':_:'.':..7.: i 1 . ~__~__--~:. ~_=__~ ---- ............... 1=__ ..................... .~..~: ~---~.-_~"~ :_-:_ _--~_ .~.~_- ~ _ o(..,'-'t Co C,,,.l 0 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

t,~ 4 (hi! were mounted mid-height in the chamber. The pumps vented back into the chamber. Filters were weighed immediately before and after aerosol collection. Weights were stable after collection, neither increasing or decreasing in weight with time. Typical masses were 100 to 200 ug. Filters were stored folded, wrapped in foil, inside specimen containers in a freezer for shipment to Dr. S. K. Hammond of the University of Massachusetts for analysis. RESULTS Tests were conducted on 6 days; two in December and four in February and March. Between these two periods, certain alterations (repairs) were made to the air handling system of the chamber. Intervening analysis of the December data prompted three changes in the February/March protocol: 1) only two experiments were performed per day in order to avoid peak traffic periods since oOtside vehicle emissions affected chamber levels of CO, NOx and HC; 2) time between experiments was tengthened to one hour in order to determine mid-day background concentrations of CO, NOx, and HC; and 3) tobacco was stored at 60% relative humidity. Tables III through VI display the results brand by brand. Table VII offers a comparison of brands. O E:3 (jr1 u'l r,J co L~ BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

,7 Table Ill. Capri 12/22 12/23 2/28 3101 Smokers (first initials) R, M, C R, M, C R,M,S R,C,W Chamber relative humidity (%) 35 36 30 31 ventilation (ach) 2.53 2_48 2.33 2.23 recirculation (ach) 95 95 67 67 Tobacco Mass Burned (g) 4.67 ,.. 4.84 Gases (normalized to 2.5 ach) C02 (%) 0.08 0.08 CO (ppm) 4.0 4.5 NOx (ppm) 0.11 0.12 HC (ppm) 4.6 4.7 Nicotine (ug/m3) 524-8 74-z.7 23:22 1.42 4.94 4.97 Particles (normalized to 2.5 ach) OPC (% <1.5 urn) 92-96 Nephelometer 2.4-3.1 TSP (ug/m3) 8404-26 . 0.08 0.08 4.3 4.1 0.12 0.12 2.9 4.1 74-81 68-78 42-55 2.8-3.8 3.6-4.5 3.6-5.8 9034-3 1064-~15 10914-20 (ug/g-m3) avg Feb:Dec 180 187 215 219 184~5 !2174-3 1.18 ===l=b P~ (30 po BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

Table IV. Doral Lights 12/22 2/27 2/29 Smokers (first initials) R,M,C R,M,K R,S,W Chamber relative humidity (%) 35 32 37 vellti]ation (ach) 2.5+0.1 2.33 2.24 recirculation (ach) 95 67 67 Tobacco Mass Burned (g) 7.35 Gases (normalized to 2.5 ach) CO2 (%) 0.08 CO (ppm) 6.0 NOx (ppm) 0.12 HC (ppm) 7.1 Nicotine (ug/m3) 63+4 7.14 7.45 0.08 0.08 5.5 "5.3 0.12 0.12 6.0 6.4 52-66 3.3-4.4 3.5-5.2 932+19 1161~1 8" Particles (normalized to 2.5 ach) OPC (% <1.5 urn) 87-96 Nephelometer 2.5-3.5 TSP (ug/m3) 976±0* * 11=2 (ug/g-m3) 133 154 156 avg 133 155+1 Feb:Dec 1.17 O O U'l L~ (30 L~4 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

Table V. Marlboro 12/22 1 2/23 2f28 2/29 Smokers (first initials) R, M, C R, M, C R,M,S R,S,W .. Chamber relative humidity (%) 35 36 30 37 ventilation (ach) 2.54.0.1 2.48 2.24 2.20 recirculation (ach) 95 95 67 67 Tobacco Mass Burned (g) 7.61 7.46 Gases (normalized to 2.5 ach) CO2 (%) 0.08 0.08 CO (ppm) 6.0 6.0 NOx (ppm) 0.14 0.15 HC (ppm) 6.7 <8.7 Nicotine (ug/m3) 51+2 734.6 23:22 1.42 7.63 7.50 Particles (normalized to 2.5 ach) OPC (% • 1.5 urn) 92-95 Nephelometer 3.2-4.5 TSP (ug/m3) 1061±15 0.08 0.08 5.5 5.5 0.13 0.12 6.1 6.3 " (ug/g-m:3) avg Feb:Dec 69-74 59-73 29-39 3.6-4.1 3.7-5.2 4.7-5.8 10924.166 1194~71 1305+3 139 146 157 174 1424.4 '1684-1 2 1.16 ,,,i== O O (jn f',o co L.,4 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

Table VI. Virginia Slims Lights 12/23 2/27 3/01 Smokers (first initials) R,M,C R,M,K R,W Chamber relative humidity (%) 36 32 31 ventilation (ach) 2.5+0.1 2.35 2.20 recirculation (ach) 95 67 67 Tobacco Mass Burned (g) 6.92 Gases (normalized to 2.5 ach) co2 (%) o.o8 CO (ppm) 5.1 NOx (ppm) 0.13 HC (ppm) 5.5 Nicotine (ug/m3) 89±7 7.05 8.09 0.08 0.08 5.6 5.3 0.13 0.13 5.1 5.5 75-76 27-34 3.8-4.5 4.2-5.2 1187±64 1368±1 0 Particles (normalized to 2.5 ach) OPC (% <1.5 urn) 74-91 Nephelometer 3.0-4.4 TSP (ug]m3) 1000±1 (ug/g-m3) 144 168 169 avg 144 169~-1 Feb:Dec 1.17 =.==,8 O LT1 (3o BATCo document for Legal Services " Health Canada 20 May 1999

%':• • ,. ~.:,.-...- : • • °. ". " :I.'Q- "5. " Table Vll. BrEtd: Comparison of Brands ..... • r ' • . -. . . ., - .... :. , ..:..._.~ .: .... ~.~..:_ ~.,~.'-~,,~'~ . . '";'" :"':T' ': • Capri Dor~l gh .Marlboro 4 3 4 Burned (g) 4.86±Q.16 7.31±0.16 7.55+0.08 Va Slims Lights 3 7.36:f.0.6 4 Gases: CO (ppm ~ 0.3) HC (ppm + 1.0) NOx (ppm ± 0.01} Nicotine (ug/m3) Dec Feb Dec Feb Dec Feb Dec Feb • 2 2 1 " 2 2 2 1 2 4.3 4.2 5.8 5.4 6.0 5.5 5.4 5.4 4.7 3.5 7.1 6.2 7~ 6.2 5.5 5.3 0.12 0.12 0.120.12 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.13 74+7 e~89~4 73~ 89~ Particles: 4 TSP (ug/m3,Dec) 872+32 (ug/m3,Feb) 1078±25 [ugJg-m3,Dec) 184..~.5 (ug/g-m3, Feb) 217+3 3 4 3 976+0 1077-,-167 1000+1 1047+114 1250+71 1278~91 133 143±5 144 155±1 166-,~...2" 169.+_1 Ltl r~ Co BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

The chamber was ventilated at 2.5 ach with recircu[ation at 95 ach during the tests in December. A new blower installed in the chamber in February lowered ventilation to 2.3 ach and recirculation to 67 ach. The decrease in the ventilation rate typically increased the concentration of gases and particles by 7%. The clecrease in the recirculation rate increased particle levels by an additional 17% presumably by decreasing particle deposition on the walls and in the ducts. Net steady state chamber concentrations of gases and particles listed in Tables III to Vi were normalized to 2.5 ach. Background concentrations (subtracted) were typically 0.03% CO2, 0.3 to 1.5 ppm CO, 4-6 ppm hydrocarbons, and 0.06 to 0.2 ppm NOx. Increases in C02 levels were similar in all tests (0.08 ppm) and were attributed to respiration of the smokers. Levels of CO and hydrocarbons were typically higher and more erractic for December presumably because of holiday season traffic. Carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon, and nitrogen oxide concentrations were similar for Dora] Lights, Marlboro, and Virginia Slims Lights, with a slight trend for Virginia Slims Lights < Doral Lights < Marlboro. Capri produced the lowest concentrations. Available nicotine concentrations for December were consistent within a day, but inexplicably 42'/= low on Dec 22. Such discrepancies have been observed before in chamber experiments; the reason is unknown. We hope that values for the tests in February will be more consistent. Nicotine concentrations were similar for Doral Lights and Virginia Slims Lights and similar, but 17% lower, for Capri and Marlboro. The primary index of particulate loading was the mass of TSP. As TSP increased there was an increase in the number of Iarge particles (i.e., a smaller percentage of mass <1.5urn) and decrease in visibility. TSP concentrations in December ranged from 840 to1092 ug/m3, whereas those in February varied from 932 to 1368 ug/m3. The particle production rates per gram of tobacco burned measured in December were similar, 140+6 ug/g-m3 for Doral Lights, Virginia Slims Lights, and Marlboro, and 32% lower than Capri at 184 ug/g- m3. Production rates in February followed an identical pattern, but were consistently16-18% higher than those observed for each of the four brands in December. ===,m O O U'l U'l Po o~ L,a BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

/A ; / • DISCUSSION.- ; Capri produced lower concentrations of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and particles than the other three brands of cigarettes. Capri burned slower than the other brands, which indicated less efficient combustion. Consequently, emissions of both gases and particles per gram of tobacco smoked is higher for that product. 0 0 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

• ° / Mr. W.H. Deines P.O. Case Or. R.R. Baker PDC/AIW/46M 1 June 1987 CAPRI STUDY - OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE MEASURES ~o i) Sidestream Objective Measurements a} b) c) d) e) To be done both puffed and smouldered Analyses - Sidestream .-- ~#/S TNA J CO -J/ CO2 -J Jotal Hydro~arbons~-~ henol s v~Ol atil e AI de~ydes ormal dehydc~k" V~H crolein CN ~o°nia rticulate Phase Scan (if available) samines (Volatile and Tobacco Specific) al Density Analyses - Mainstream Al I the above, plus: ~/Ni tric Oxide ...-Clplllary Vapour Phase Scan or ~arked Column Vapour Phase Scan ticulate Phase Scan (if available) Physical Testing, etc. ,.rN" MAIN SP~--/~. V~per Analyses ysical Heasurements ~/// ysical Testing (SBR, Expanded tobacco, etc. Mainstream Analyses TPM, PMWNF, TNA, CO, NO Tobacco Analyses: Nitrate, blend, ash Combustion Measures Puffing and Smoulder Burn~peratures~ Burn Rate Monitor Data 0 0 P~J OO BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

-Z- 2) Environmental/Chamber Room Measures: Particulate Matter Nicotine CO COz Total Hydrocarbons Methane Non-Methane Hydrocarbons Oxides of Nitrogen Nitric Oxide To be carried out puffed and one number of cigarettes under one set of environmental conditions. 3} Subjective Studies /, .~ Booth studies Cto i.clude .aze) .~ing a fixed le.~ of ,/÷l'l--I tobacco rod being consumed. Capri versus other 3 only. ./ b) Sidestream Black Box studies visibility of Capri versus other~ 3 only. ~/~ c) Environmental Room/Chamber smoulder studies. Capri versus other 3 only. d) Fabric Box technique sensory testing Capri against other 3, ~o~-~o~,~E. but allowing for cigarettes to all smoulder a set length of) time. Other Establish product pluses - can slims be patented from a total sidestream reduction standpoint. 0 U~ r~J oo BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

6661, ,~elN 0~ epeueo q~,leeH • seo!~JeS leBel Joj J, ueuJnoop oonv8 c~ QO c~J - q -J r~ ,d of, O '0 :I -4 I- ! ,,'-~-r~,,~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~~~~_..~- • " :" ,I :,-~ .¢ J. :t .! ! :L :l o~ /,,%~.~ .... -~~ ~~~ .... ~'~o... ~,~ .................................... -~.,~,,~:~k~ .~,~ ',,! . . -. . ..... ~, I •: . "- • .'." . -' ~ . °.; -o. o. . ': • • .. o . q -°

..: .. i... • • , . .o ... : ~ ,4- ° • • ,. ° o" ~. • .~.,- .. . __ .~ -. . . -,: ..... ~ s L~-~ ~.--t ~ ~ ~.~--~--~ • :,.,'.° .-~,~,- .~ ~ - ,.. ~, ~. 'i" - m ". ,- ' ' ~.~° ~!.;'~.__c--Z... ,. %~_~ ,.,.. ~_'~ ~,"~ BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

L . ° ,c- .'~.'.. L • , ~.~ ~ w. l~,,J: F~.~o__ ~-r- ~"~E. • . • . . - ' ~" "i:'."." "" "'-' , . . ,- • -. m~ ~-~ n-~_~_~____~~ s~,~e~ .! L~ ' 'i ! BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

L .............. AEROSOL .... ,~M ~/ EN.T7 SM OI<.E AT C/-tftMC_.TEf~I!L~T/D,,~ I:)/:" I>E-A ~" TI M E~ C.f)?Ri .... ~ :~ o ,~ ,4 L _ L~ .... _. V I IQ. ~ I AJ I ,#~ ........... _ 5Lii~4_5 ....... __MA Y.-. _ NuMBE~ ....... 1_- 3 3 __ 2,06 ,~,-24 ..... 2;18 COONT . .M EblAM ] / 3q ........ • Iqo . M~BIAN_. .... "51 ~m ErE~ .... -.2.2.2.._. • ,9,.00 .... -;21~ ....... o ............ )) i ) i I • ! p1A55 . _ C_.oNc. • (pCd) _i • #/~ .... io. 12..o(, ...... 14317 __ 1~2_ .... 0 k=l=1 _r,o CO k.l=~ BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

S~:.S i~ ...................................... C~Pad . ?.~ 0 T/eE'~5 i! ............................................ ii " ................ :°'/ ..................... 3"-', i jNo .il P~ ~ T/C LE . :t:- °~.l 11 .... Z).O.RAL.. . uot,,t6..~_ ........................ "PA~T~CV U~TE ~B.C. .................... M4ss ........ ..... 3~.7. ........... .../~ a~.L~soo~,_ 41__7, .......... .... ,~-.7. ......... ................ ~ .7. ....... ............ ,~7. ..................... " , o ....... °I o . X' [o"o ....... __1 4! C) q; ..... • .............................................. "~ I i. .~ ............................. . ................................... --~ i: ° -~ -~ • BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

i ! q $ ,, * ! 1 .] .| ° I' :] .1 i :t i .; "1 .j i ! 1 .1 t 1. .; a l ] -'| :! :1 .! 'I t "-I :i ,J :! i .!~ %. m k,.- t-..t k.,- <I:: I'-..- .:,.. 2 ..,. i-4 (..5 <I: l c;) ("t • ° la4 i l i ' I i' ~ l Ll'l ~ bl ~ Li~ ~;) Lf~ r,,, LI'I (',I ~ /~ U'I L"I =-4 --4 --4 ,,..4 - f,..)C~-'-f..)ta.l-P)...~<£:~--t_4~_ v..i "(~ i i t I i-- i,,-- A l,,,-- v o~ i.u @- BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

00 -4 C) 0 O. O (3 C 3 rD -1 I-- tO m 00 BI .B 3~ m =3" O o. C~ tO tO tO .o'. ;',' o'.. "| 0,20 H D I flO ,IN E T [ 0.14 t C R 0 ~o .12 • ) " ... °., ~ L I~ i, 9 ~ S ~00l-:~ :- ~ •.°. 1B08 ." " .i ~SBB ' 2~oB ' ~sae ' • ~" ~.- ...... -~,: ............. ~. : ; . ~- .... y.....---~--~ ... I I ..... " "~'"'- ' " " ' " ~' "" '' ' . . • . . ..

.) BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

G ............. ~_.E~.. ~._.w~ s .r-¢,.~,< c..~e-,t ~'r~..~. :- .................... L _~. _~._ s ..~-..'~) ............ ....................................... ~~$ ................................. ..C.: .o ) .............. ~ __.~..~'~e.~-e-.~'~.. _~._~.._~.~-~. ~..e-~ ..................... ' " .................... _~P.~e~_.-~ . _~ .. =~.~,-~,~ .................. ~. ......... ~ ~_ ~ .~.~ .~,~__.~,-.~,~ ~,~ ! ~._~~_. .......... : ............... ". ...... ~..Au.e..~. ~..~ ............... ' .......................... .......... ~ ..................................................... ~ ° CZD BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

~. .".. --C -"--- #-~'~-" ~'~- ___c4,e R.',. -~&~,.,-~_....~,._--~_ ~..~_. ~.o &~_.~S w. ~ .~~:~-\..~...~..09..~ " i; i~,o 7,, ;: zC ~'- ....... ~_'I~ -u:: e-..~., t'T1~mo ............ ~P~-~'~. o~- P~o,'4_6 • .~-~..._N o X ~ c~,_~.u,~~o__~&_._ I 2~6_..~ - ~-F qs ~.6 l'q- • | | ~-o C.. /.-. ~I: .% c,./_.., .... I _~~ o,~ ~-~_ I~__~_~___~_. ' ! . t~Z~SO0~ .~:._~- .... ~_t~-~_~_L~ ,'~.tF--~..~--~._~__..__~ BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

6661. ~elN 0i~ epeueo qJ, leeH • seo!AJeS leBe-I Joj J, ueuJnoop OOlVl3 00552852 ~-~-3~r~ ~-,--~.u.-~*--~ ...................... ~.: :. ..... .... "o~_o~~ o~ :R.l~ ................. : :",-t " o/oQ~ o ~ ..... .~-~:~:~..~-~ ............... ..L °. • -.-co-~ ~-~ - . ! • "- . • .._ , .i • i ~.: .~. , '° -'I ' ~-~-~l~'m~- k~r'~ ....... ~~ _._~. = ~-~ o~~1 ~ .................. m,~ ~'~-g3~ ~ ~--~,,~--" ~ o~_ "LX~-~"f'i~ ..... ~-~~~~-~ ~ • "-~uo~ .... . ........ • ~.£-~-~,~---~ ......f,~ ...... --.a,~o~ .......... • ~~-'~~ra ........... ~,::L~-,~-o ....

.-4- pp, fv/..,f T~=~. .... P~_~..oso~. ~L~__ ~.P_~E~o..~~~ ..... ,~3~-~ Ll~'t c,.he~ ;~ ?7 .............................................i - ....................... l r ! ......... ............ ..... ~__ ~.~_~p. x. ~'~.._.. ...c -.. .... 1=~p~_ ............ .... ~..-B_~_~_ ?i,_~_ _.~. ~. e.¢~_.~ "~ ~.x_~.E._ ........ ~ ..... .... -%3 5-z ....... Lo.-.z. ............... L.O.:_~ ..... 's-.6 7- __.~.I -6G5" -?- i- ..~-o ". :~" .o. ~'.t~ _~'I , i~: a,~_ _~'_~ ~i ,. "=3to ..265" ~ i[" [L ............... :?, : y -; ..r.. ~:~-.__ _ _ 12. .... i~:~,,<, IT" ,! ~,.~a~,7 .... :i' oL ~S~ZSS00L BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

i .+. .° ~.~p~ __~ .... • C" ......... .................. ~ .l~___t. ¢..~ .~__ ~.~x~_~> --~ -~u. ~,~<~__~ .L t k. .............. °..° ............. -__u..~.~4-.. "rx.x'9-- c-tSt:~.~ ~c _~_'-t' ~>~-~~--,~. 1 !- '.. i ... ............ ,+,-- .... ~:'I<L .... +u__ ~++~ +,,.. i .° ° - o ,- L .................. ~>u.r-r--~7 ~.d-~;~~m--~ ...... Pc+ "-+m'-~', ........................... ~cgz~O0~ BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

.................. , ° .---.u--~ . ...... o ................. ' ........ __*==~ _ ..... \~zO.. ,,, ,~ .... ~- -,, ~.~F .... :.'___ .._ N ~'v~a~ _ox.~ ....... .% _.%-I ._. ~-~-'rL~ ~.~ ........... ~..~ ......... ~m'-~_..__ ~,,,.=~-) ...... ~c..~_.~,~._ .~ ~. _ ..... .... ~ e~,~_..~-- to _(. -', ~-n~_~ ~_ ....... ~3._o.7_.. ,_ .'-r~'~-s~_.~_. [..-- ............. IL-_~__ ._. _~;~3~,~ ~ ~, ..%_~. • ,~ ___o:.R. ~ ..... __ .... ~. . ....................... ~.__ ...... t~.~_.~. [ ~ .......................... .LO_..~ ...................... _~._" ~o'~ ~_~____ ~',~ q.,,.V" .t__-L~ .... ...~_~~. _.ll,_~,,.__ o .t_51 B _ ~_'~_7 . .,_ l.O--b ..... __S.-~- t~,:~.~ ~._." " _~.:~L___ _~,o _.~_. o.q:~ _ __.~Z?- ... o,.I ._)_.'~__~ e,l~ o'~-~" o'l~bo o'o-~ ' I ~.o~% S~SSSO0 ~. BATCo document for Legal Services l Health Canada 20 May 1999

~o. -- . >t~-~o ~.~'3 ~ ~¢ 4 ........... __~~_..~____~_ ,~_ .... .~F~.~L~-~m'J %= __.L~__ ...... , ......... c~.~_-~_ ~.~_~ --I ............... ~.~ .............. .~/.~3- ........................ :~'E:__.__~.o-~_. .__~ .~.~ .._'~-.__.V~ .l~... . ~-'~._.~__ ..~,~ . ro] .___~.~ __~-~__ ~t e IG'~ .... :_~_ ..... ~ ~~T ~~ ~- ~~"~ • ---~--~-- - ~~ ......... I ~_~~'~_____ ~P~ i~l~- I .! - ~k~ ._-1~,~_.___f ..~__~__c~_ ..... .o~'__~--_._ __ o_~ o ~ . _'7~ 6_ ~_-£ ~_ B- IC t $ I. i BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

............... ~'o _ _~__..~_~_~ 11 t-~_.~ .~. ~ ~ ..... a,~DD.I - _ .... ,) o-~m ~t~-E s~-~s~, ........ ~ %s~u. ~_~s~_e~w %_~ ~r~ ~_~P~/. PP-~~ ......................................... ~_~ .t,~,r ~ ~t"r~ _~/Fr"~- 0 On Oo BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

8~0~00~ BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

¢,3 ...... P~ m ,-~>_~B ~-~ . q-- i ...... P__~.~ ................... ~<-Br/.j..--s.~x~. y--,q.~--#> fl,~-o~.apH-~- .. r,o cx) BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

N OT~.g BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

LI-_I_ q-__~ l~ J_"z:._?__ S~"2 ~'Z 5"Z/.'~' _ 7-s __~,3 ~Z +mtet,tt"T ~,.~~ m~_ I~_ ~ I~Z !270 % 32. 0 0 P~ 0", BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

cS" ..~ ~¢F--A~_ __~/v 7//"~-- ~,'-/ .-Te~ . .......... ~ ..... ~ ,# c,.- ........... _"~_ _ __'27/~_ __ 7z~~-~- ¢2t'I ~¢~-.-I ............. ~$___~ ~ ~c7"~ ::B_l_O~:, _. j,,~-,cc.el--~_.~~. ~ w ~?'~ ........ G O ¢,J"l Ox BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

m 0 0 Q. 0 e- 3 0 r- ~3 i m. 0 .e I t~ i 0 :3 0 _J~ tO ~D tO PUFFED AND SHOULDERED SIDESTREAM YIELDS PRODUCT r_ ,°, VIRGINIA SLIMS MARLBORO BOX DORAL LIGHTS CAPRI PMW~ 30.1 26.4 21.2 20.3 SIDESTREAH DATA PUFFED Mg Cig-1 TNA CO CO2 4.09 50 391 THC 28.0 3.61 2.52 2.64 42 349 25.0 I . 48 335 20.2 44 266 I8,g PUFF NO. 10.3 g.O 6.8 SIDESTREAH DATA SMOULDERED M9 Ci 9-1 TIME -'- - "- ALIGHT PMWNF TNA CO CO2 THC Mlns 11.1 28.2 4.13 59 495 34.8 10.7 26.4 4.19 57 510 33.6 8.2 19.5 2.50 47 424 27.4 'l' -- 9.3 10.8 20.8 2.99 43 313 23.5 % INCREASE/DECREASE SMOULDERED RELATIVE TO PUFFED PI4WNFI TNA CO C02ITHC -5 1 18 36 24 0 16 36 -8 1 2 2 13 -2 46 34 = 27 35 18 24 Note 1: Note 2: Nute 3: % Increase = smoulder-puffed x 100 puffed -ve means that puffed yield is higher than smouldered 1(;11 = Total Ilydrocarbon ConLent of sldestream vapour phase expressed as mg ctg-1 of methane equivalents c,.9E)7c3 ;001

......... w~_ ~__ ,d~_ -.~_~___~ ~.,~ .... ~.z..2)' ~ 7-- ~':' 7-'~2~'~''''= ........ l,u~_-z~_._ __ ~_~._,/ ,~ ............ ,£~_~ ~F___}~.d~.~_~_S., Ox BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

f A--- .cu rsT~ ___ .,~a.spt.~. __ _,~._.~._ ~ .... 6E,,~cr_._~.- .... ~-~.~__ ,o~CF ~ ~~____t~ ~ ..... 0 0 _i",,~ BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

°. ............ ~L~- U'I ___~J Co O~ CP, ° . BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

f A-~ .... p~. ........ . .-r7~-~_.~_.~_____ __~ ........ _>_ .~...~- s,~,~3r--x~_ e~oa-~.. A~_~ ~-~ ___~_~..~_. ......... J-a~! ee~ ...... ~= ~,~ ____~J__? ~- ¢~ ~.~-" ~o~I l.h ~-t~- ~ a~0~.'~_.~__ G ¢j'I U'I 0", _ .1"t~l~Z~o__ _~_~k._.¢~ ............................. _~ ...... BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

................... , ---° iS_7 ts's" 6,~" ~s-s" ~o __~ _~_S_._&3-' 'q;-I ..~ .... ~kcm~- .... 0 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

tZo I - ~IS..-._ _@ F__-6~ . . O__Trt~ .... ~d_~__~.~_s___z~/ w 0 0 P~ (Do Ox BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

~.".._.'rg6_ #~-,'~ "TYPE. ~,~._ _ .... jtT._~_,t~*r _. _.~._~ ~_,,,v. 4,~.~_ / P,~, NNF E.._~"m-- ....... ¢r,] e-.~P-l. -- P ............ N~__/J~$o .rPz~ zda~ _c~. ~c ................ ~ -- A-,=,"+-/~ ~tT/~- z~.__q~ ceN'~.w7- • 77. ~F--Z._lt~-~ ................ ~x_P4~_____ _.z¢~" u 0 CO 0 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

U 0 0 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

,a,,~ td &"lX . w ) 7tin me.x:, • P~z~u.cr- ~'/I-~ ~ N Iq 1,4 NNK ~"r7 lqE_ i'r~ i-'h= c/"72- /0..2/... (,, .¢~, "UIT: ~-... ~r-zp.~~__ ..... ,4~. .,V'L~ n~ e_~ ,--~,a~. ~'-~'7~ F~~ .,¢~W,(o~s,~t~,v" ;~v,s-r¢.~ ...... t4t, lc.kE.,~ ) ')~¢~,c~ . ~a,v'.. ~tr7 ,s ..... .... G 0 ",,i BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

t ~.7.. f ~r.,t t.a_t~ • ...... c.,iq-P R. I O,.C q 3 (o I~-~. I/7 117 1/o 2.2.o 90 lo2.. n7 tlZ "~t-'m.. (,63 3.Z(o ..... At~,,.~,~o .... gox .... "bw.m- z./~hx ..... oV,,e./ ! / .~At .#.. t,/_P'/R.. ..... /vAiN a/~~, auK. ........ ~ ....... ~..':Z ...... ...... 67. Ul 3~ ~.__ ..~o7 ../~ 2__ _ l.*.3z. ?g i ~z ' • C:::) .LIt '¢Jrl ro CO l,,,N BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

PP-@~e.,"- N 17d0 I/I~/W/~ Vt~q~J~fP c~£/ ~qz. ~oa" M0 ~7 !~ ..... ~72. ~Z . ~? /~ o lo8 62. 773 ~--/ ,'~7 .. /°7~.... ........................... ~I ./~_ / / ..I" :.. m ...... 0 0 ¢...n ¢ju BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

W > -4 0 0 Q. 0 0 e- g 0 r- 0 ww m m o m m Q. m o ,< FACSIMILE }4ESSAGE FROM SOUTHAI%~PTON 780332 (AREA CODE [0] 703) TO THE FACS/L{ILE OPERATOR PLEASE PASS THE FOLLOWING I To ~./-.~~ FoR WITH COPIES ALSO TO .~ FROU PAGE/PAGES IF T[[ERE IS ANY PROBLEm! |VIT}! TIIE COPY PLEASE TELEPIIONE SOUTIIAMPTON 782111 AND ASK FOR EXTENSION 2428 OR 2428 ~;ZgZ§~;O0 1

r i...... ~ (/J-- _ ~_F__--c~°P-Ij _ I"-- | .......... i ( .................. I O l i ! I .............. I (_rl P~ Co CT~ BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

l )q I i * i 5£_.2. _ 9~ 5"~&) i I .................... . i- ~-~_ ~.._~_ (c_~~.~_._~_~? ~ ,. 0 t.m i .................... .TTm~.. ........ 6 ~ .... ~__ ~-~t:~-_. e~-~;)~__~~~ -.4 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

130 -4 0 0 O. 0 3 0 "1 r" (1) rn (j0 ii 0 (I) mi -r (I) i ~r 0 Q. t,D t,D t,D TABLE 1 SIDESTREAH YIELDS (HEASURED AHD CALCULATED) ° . / zssodl Sldestream ~Ields Product (mg cl9"~) Name .... PHNNF TNA CO CO2 Virginia Slims 30,1 4.09 50.2 391 Camel 29.6 4,34 64.7 447 Benson & Hedges 29.3 5.30 55,6 428 A279 28.8 5,08 75,9 Nzrlboro Ll9hts 28.6 3,91 49.7 ~rlt 28,3 4,17 50.8 Vantage 28.2 4,13 51.0 ~rclay 27.3 4.31 5~1.~ rlboro Doral Lights 21.2 2.52 47,8 Capri , 20.3 2,64 4317 Note: Benson & Hedges is a BAT (UK&E) A279 is an internal R&DC Vtrgini Calculated Sidestream Yield mg Per Gram Dry Paterial (Tobacco and Nicotine) ,m ,,, Puff ~o. PH~NF TNA CO CO2 10,3 53,3 '338 75.0 592 8,5 48.9 377 91,6 633 9.7 46.2 338 75.7 583 521 9.4 42.8 328 95.7 657 387 9.0 51,1 343 76.1 592 366 8.0 53.5 353 81.7 588 346 7,4 50.9 352 79.5 540 ~4~ 10,0 48.7 352 78.9 642 9.0 43.8 296 61.7 508 335 618 43.1 327 83.1 583 226 9.3 55.3 326 103,1 627 Produced Product, a Product, In terms of P~F Capri ts the lowest product tested within this series being 33~ below Virginia slims. .... . o

1 I I.................... i ........... s ,,>~s~ ...... ~b __~u#_v~7 _ J......................... 1 1 ........... ~to~_'l~es .... ~_~ ~ ! X~m__.~- I......... I I i h.E, ct~_.~ . ~#_.b . .h,,L_7z~._~ ,.~aV" ................... ~ E,~ w ~,)~ _..Ccs _ ~--. .~ o, ~.~ .... ~ ........ ~_/_~ ................. ~..e~..5. ~ /b~h~_yse.s wlTl'hc¢ 71~. ¢,~~ A-'r--" /,4evt ~x.£.u.7 .m,,~v,"~s r~_a~_ _.~_EA'~_..) ...... ~47_lt£gE__ .,~,o --- ,,~ ..... 6L~ZSSCOt BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

i m p ,i G ! BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

.. ~,~,~, .~o~_ ......................... ........................... ~-,~'u,:~-~ ............ p~,4~,,~'e.wr~ ...... ~ ~,,~ .~ .~. G_~._____ ...... ~Y~L,-~c,.t ~ ........ ~z ~.=~.~ .......... ~v,,.,,.,% s'~ aoq- loS" (:,! I~ ~e_9_ .... ~~. O" 6~' .... o .,~.P.- o.¢,~ .... (~.B~ B,l~ .o ,_,,.~..__~,_.~ .~ ~L~ .3 3,~ 0 ,-.Q- t ~, ~..~-- _._o_, Lo :zB, q- __0 .=~__..~_ _o_~_q-_~__ ~._ t__:. G~=_ ~,...1~ o, 2.'~ 0,..?- ~ 0."~f~ ~. ~"2_ o ,~ ............ .~a~h.,;,. .......... i~ =.~,.-.,, ~° ( , .......... • " _,~.'T/ ,-~ ............. Io_'2,-___, ~l'-+ L~-_6 .___0 "~_0 .m~ 0~2- o_ -1~-q- o .qs" t.................... o _~..~ I',o CO BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

6661, ~el/I 0i~ epeueo q~leeH " seo!~es leBe7 Joj ~uewnoop ooiv8 O O -t .b~ E.--.O ~>'0 ~=~'b "f.J7 ---= b'O -~b' 0 c,%. 0 --~i "t.I E9 "+~ 5t:.S b- "L.~ _gb, O -I ~.11 o'19. =9"~," T., ~9..-t -Cff-O 9W'9 8S'~; l~;.E,i I ~:--o-A_. 9"h'l b-~'l gE'l 9b.I I~-: IS't: O~ "ll bg:'b +..~.% -- %7:;-+.. +_I .l :19",+_ 05 "C ~5.0 "~"C I 90'& +-%'D £>l" I ~-! a~p.~,~- ~ ~tha'~ i~.T" ,t~ ~ ~',.,~-~-"~ --~I ,~'N._?.~-~ ill L l~~ .f--~" .) ..... S~l::~.~/d • s " W / " ~ " ~

6661, tielN Oi: epeueo q~leeH • seo!~es le6e7 Joj ]uemnoop o01v8 co co_ c~ C~ 0 bb'~ ~>'9 - ~-~ -~.~j -~ g I~'t Sb't It'+_ -+..L • b'~- "Z.'¢.1 +..b-.s a " go-~--- 9-6-~1 ~,o~ Ob'~' --c+,. gr, - o,.g:z~ r..~ ~] -¢'bE ...gg' ~ t.ll ~>II ~al %.~I 3'~I"°~%cI '~ "~ ~C-~ 9~'~ ~b /~"-~d ........... -o-~-'i" F~'. '~"~P"~'~'~ I--- ~-i "S --:'I -i-__g-/I -~:%S L.,~_. g ~'1 Ib'O I b'~ 9b'o ~:~' b b-O:) = ~9'S "~I'+7 ?..'C • 1 ~t-%1 _~S'~ -__9" 0 -C.O" I bO'-:-.~- '08"0-- bD-O-- qg "1 bb,O 0.9:, 'l Bb'O --.Sb-'~ ov,'g5 bb'O 58," ~. --~ .... ~.C --s~>-- --~.~ ..... --,~,..,5~ Vx-- - -~. ffot,,t-. bO-I . ........... ,. "/-°"~P ....... I I I L W ~~ .... ~, io~ro-~.q'~4 ........ ,~ -~q~.~:a_. -- ,~-o-,- g,,,-~,~o-~ .............. ~~ s.da-~ -o.~,~ g..-. ~.,:~e,.% ....... ,., v~:,la~ ~ ........... -o,ap~mru ......... } l,;,,~a.lqp._ ~os~-a:d ......

MAINSTREAM AND SIDESTREAM SMOKE PARTICULATE PHASE ANALYS~S OF CAPRI ~ MARLBORO, VIRGINIA SLIMS AND DORAL, LIGHTS. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this investigation was to obtain a detailed comparison of the composition of the particulate phase of both mainstream smoke and sidestream smoke produced by Capri and three other brands. This has been achieved by GC-MS analysis of extracts of Cambridge filter pads used to collect mainstream and sidestream produced by smoking the cigarettes on a modified 20 port smoking engine. METHOD OF ANALYSIS. Mainstream and sidestream smoke were collected simultaneously using a Filtrona smoking engine modified to allow the attachment of fishtail chimneys. Smoking took place using standard regimes and to a butt length of overtipping plus 3 mm. Three cigarettes were smoked per port and each brand occupied 4 ports. Air was drawn through the fishtail chimney at the standard rate of 2 litres per minute. After completion of smoking the pads were extracted with 25 cc of propan-2-ol containing n-heptadecane as internal standard by shaking for one hour. The resulting extracts were analysed using a 60 metre 0.25 u ID Supelcowax i0 capillary column directly interfaced to a Hewlett-Packard mass selective detector. Data was primarily processed by mass spectral identification of each peak, both to highlight key compounds and to check whether any brand exhibited any unique compounds. Some 26 chemicals were then used to describe differences between brands. In each case an ion characteristic of the particular compound was chosen, and it is the peak area of this ion that is detailed in tables I, 2 and 3. This procedure is necessary to ensure accurate assessment of the concentration of each component by limiting the possibility of chromatographic overlap. In the time available response factors for each chemical were not acquired and so the data should be used for brand comparison only. INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA. The following is a brief interpretation of the results presented in tables i, 2 and 3. CD CD ~n un co co BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

a~) Mainstream smoke. Data on nicotine and the phenols agrees in ranking terms with with results of routine smoking. The less volatile aromatic bases fall in line with this ranking of Marlboro highest, Virginia Slims and Capri similar, and Dotal somewhat lower (reflecting blend). However indole is found to be greater in Capri than Virginia Slims. Of the more volatile bases Dorals are similar to Marlboro in terms of pyridine with Capri over 50% lower. Vinyl pyridine , however, ranks Capri second to Marlboro with Virginia Slims and Dorals somewhat lower. Phenol data shows Capri and Marlboro similar with Virginia Slims around 50% lower and Dorals even lower. This trend is followed in the case of ethyl phenol, but not for p-cresol where Capri and Virginia Slims are higher than Marlboro. Neophytadiene follows the same ranking as nicotine ( Marlboro, Virginia Slims, Capri then Dotal ), but if you calculate the ratio of nicotine to neophytadiene then Capri and Marlboro are similar with Dotal and Virginia Slims significantly lower. b_~) Sidestream smoke (puffed). Unlike mainstream, the sidestream ranking for nicotine is Virginia Slims the highest concentration followed by Marlboro, Capri and finally Doral. This trend is reflected in the less volatile bases except in the case of myosamine where Capri is significantly lowest of the four brands. Hexamethylenetetramine is interesting with again Capri coming out lowest but with Marlboro somewhat higher than Virginia Slims. Phenol concentrations show Capri significantly lower than the rest with Virginia Slims some 44% higher, though ethyl phenol results have Virginia Slims lowest. P-cresol shows Marlboro and Virginia Slims similar and around 39% higher in level than Capri, with Doral slightly lower again. In every compound, apart from vinyl pyridine, Capri has a significantly lower sidestream yield than Marlboro. c) Sidestream smoke (smouldered). Comparisons between the data for puffed and smouldered sidestream are interesting. Although trends are generally maintained yield of bases are slighly higher in smoulder, and yields of acidic compounds are slightly lower in smoulder as compared to puffed. There is some odd data, such as ethyl phenol showing Virginia Slims highest in line with phenol data (this may question.the CD CD ~m ~m ~o Oo Co ~m BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

puffed result), and vinyl pyridine where Marlboro is highest in smoulder. Hexamethylenetetramine in smoulder shows Virginia Slims much the greatest though Capri maintains its position as lowest yield. The more volatile compound quantified in mainstream were not observed in either sidestream analysis. This could be due to a lower collection efficiency of the pad for the smaller sidestream particles, to stripping of volatiles during the collection period, or to a shift of the chemicals from the particulate phase to the vapour phase. To summarise, the results use 26 chemical markers to put the mainstream and sidestream smoke yields of Capri in perspective with three other brands. For virtually every chemical Capri shows a significantly lower yield than Marlboro both in mainstream and sidestream smoke. C J Proctor BAT (UK&E) R&D Centre. CD O CO CO BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

.I=--=: /o FIG. S FISHTAIL CHIMNEY b - I~ ' . ~°~ ! F I "[ I ! 1 I SIDE VIEW" , 1 ~'~: ,3 PLAN SIDE VIEW "o~,~b~ ~ ~-~.~. 0 0 U~ r~J Co Co BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

f ~1 w .t-r~. _~.~___o _~_~_~______ ....... __.~_t~ ~~. _i .... " _~_-_~_:__~ ~--/~~. _~ ..... .... ~-~-~i~ ............. ~~ ...... _.. o-~ Co Co BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

666 ~/~elN Oi; epeueo qJ, leOH " sooPJoS leBol Joj ~,uouJnoop oo~v£] Cr~ oC) oO L[3 L~ C~ C~ ... • ,. .. , • ~. -, .. ., .;. '.. ..-; . .,J. . . ... : ... . . • • L .J o • * -,:~ ..~" ,,~ 2-'- "" :. -: ~..~, ~.. ~-,~.~ • ~; ,:..;,~'÷ "j.~.,-.'..~" ;~-. J . ~, ".r ~; ...... ~,~

f ___'l..7 ..... __4z__ [l'~' ~t.r_I ~.~ z~ ................................. ~~N _~_.'~.~_~ ~.r~ \_~.~.._~__g~__~ ....... ~T~'~ ...................... BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

er~ ............ ~ ...... --~,e... ........ ~ ."m~_.P_ -~ ~:' 2o "z. ......................... a) ~-____.~ -- ~,gZ- _~_ ~t~__~___P.m~= '~__~ ............... ~__,~t.t~'-~ _ ~_o ~ _ ................ ~ __..~...!,,I.t¢ ~.'vr=.%. ........................ 0 o, Co I BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

W > -I 0 0 0 3 r- ml -t- in m 0 Q. 0 ID L":~ir~ FACSI~ITLE 51ESSAGE FROM SOUTIIM, IPTON 780332 (AREA CODE 10] 703) DATE : ~.5)-[[~-~ TO TIIE FACSII,~ILE OPERATOR PLEASE PASS TIlE FOLLOI?INO TO ~<. g. "~.er~'.6s %:'ITI| COPIES ALSO TO FOR "---- f 11" Till:ill'; 11} AN~ PIIO~I,I.,'II |71Til TIII,: (;f)PV I~I,I'A;IR Tl'3,1.3qlfll,ll-~

I ! I ~ .............. 1:_'7 .... /.-_% ......... __~-..~__ ........... e~pkm.~.~ . ~____._~_...~_~ ........ Z-~ ............... s:9 ........ ~,,,~,,~ .>~,r=. ~_~_~ .... !-.¢? ......... i ......... ~:s'_ ..... t~,x,a.~....e~._ .~ .................... ~:6_..~.' ...... ~:~. ........ ~'~l ~,-~,~. m~a~s~._'r/ ..... .... ,~..~_ .............. ._ ._~:.1 .. ~._~_ - 9.$?_..c~__. ___%_~_7,._ 997_ ,. ~I=Z. .._ ~-.__ ~ ~_u.'~._ tL~..sa k.,n~ s ~.~._ .~.-3. _~ .~__ _~_~~a_-?-~.. ___ s~ 0--1,0 .................. ..c~.. _.g3 ........ ~'". -~;~-_ ..x _'v_~_.-~a'~ ............ :__o ,~- ........ .lq, l~t~_ .-,~--~x'x--~'~x.~,,3 ............. I. o l ,q ._-~_. _-~-_. I,~ ~----m-- ..~ %~X _ .-_. i'"/ ~-- D ~fi ~,~t~.',/ ......... .~.-x~ ~ ~,~ ..... ~.,~ ~'.'-I. o'9 .............. t-z ..... ~,l _.,~,~ ........ ~'-I ~"? ~_ ~'-7 .... .... BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

._~_o__~. ~'~ ~- 0 (3o BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

• ~_~_~_. _~s f.. _. I .............................. s~.~_£-?r_ ( ¢.r,s'~,F.F.~F_~ ~~~j ~,,,~ F__.. ~_ c~_ _~_~-- ,} BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

I • L~_ ~=,~--~ .9.~" .~.~ 1"7 0"~ ~.'~ S'Z _...._~, 0 ~S'~_. ~ ~ ~ ~"~"~..,~r.~s_~ ~ ~"c~. e,--%,~ ......... ~_~.~ ~~ ~-- ~ ~-.~ __ .......... _14f~r~_ ~_~ _e.~_. ~,E oi.. __!"7 _~_ o--7 ~..A=~.e_. .1 "_~ ,.~..~- ~_~_ ...... ~'1 ~.~ t'2. 3"3 C) BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

,,~~'_~i~.u.'rm. _~=s._._~_~'m.. l'I o-~; /'(o BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

U'I U'l rxJ co 03 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

i~~sk~ ....... ~ ~,:~a, ~.~ _~_ ~4~ ....) ,,~ ~.,~o~\~o.~,~. ~.V~, BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

(.~g Pl uj~'./ ¢,~ - Pe,,~'r- 9_-etqE. ~rz.P~-/~-r~ - I :5- /~P.C---~N r- J I b~..9_ ,-~:~-r ~ ~. 9-.~ig~" • .~o'~. ~) 13~ @)- 2.9..~2.. - P~ ~.-~~ MCd'~-'fL ~m'h. l'(etc~E L~~'~E. r, ~),~_=-~,.) ~r~ P~.oe~. " lb3 1~2.. _~b:~ /.~ q} !. ~9~]- • 9.J(o ~,~ .. ".., ~:~" ~a~pJ. I/.g~ -~@ /+2. (~) I(~I 14-I IS .SI C~ 0 U'I U'~ 0 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

.j l ii i _m~5__~~ >~ ,~qb | 'o~" "7 '~So 0 0 LJ'I t.,l-i 0 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

B.A.T (U.K. and Export] Limited RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTRE Regent's Pa~rk Road Southampton SO9 1PE England Telephone: Southampton 10703} 782111 Telex: 477269 Fax: 780332 TO THE FAX MACHINE OPERATOR ,,EASE PASS T~E FOLLOWING 3 PAGES FOR THE ATTENTION OF PLEASE GIVE COPIES ALSO TO ,ROM ~'~, C2~ BATUKE R~D CENTRE SOUTHAMPTON FAX NO. [0]703 780332 IN THE EVENT OF PROBLEMS WITH RECEIVING A MESSAGE FROM US PLEASE TELEPHONE [0]703 782111 A Member of the BA.T Industries G,oup Regd Office: P.O. Box 482 Westminster House. 7 Miilbank. London 5~V1P 3JE. Inc0q>orated in London NO. 239762 C) O Uq ,.D O BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

Ih"AP hLl~ o .... _. + +.-- C~ 0 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

r-~l_~l~_~. .... o.. ............ I ___3_'~.~" _!~_~_~ -~.' |2. "7-~_& ...... '~& _~:+7_ ~.~3 o'~'7 ....... "~(u~- _ ~.Le~-'~-3~____ .... i 3 _g./.,~" _9__ _tt7 ~'~ ~7. (o2. ~._.t-z'L t_____t~_____ (.;I ~m _~&_._ r,o BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

~7 Ir2O ~Z s7 /6o ~3 61 7~ ,~37 ~o7 (c~ s~'~s-~ ~.~L-~ s~.~=~, m .2~-b _22~ ~a . .~,~ .. e7 ~o7 13& ' Gz;7 ! ° zz~7 I?eE l{~f P,d ,,.D BATCo document for Legal Services - Health Canada 20 May 1999

IIJ\I IORATORY SERVICES Analytical Report B.A.T ILt.K.and Exportl Limited RESEARCH • 0EVELOPMENT CENTRE ~ou rHAMPTON ENGLANO 5¢, ;, i'~',;t ./\All 1ors Ci~ c:t dation File AR. aT-zo-ozs BRAND ANALYSIS:PRO3ECT 701.01.130 MRS. K. L. BRAYSHAW MR.P.D.CASE P/?01.01.130 Signed ~. L .~jc-~L~ for Manager 0 C) 0 "OI~IFIDENTIAL- NOT TO BE COPIED OR SHOWN TO UNAUTI-tORISED PERR(3N.'q BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

BATCH BRA~ FIRMNESS M/C RES. HT. AC3NE CAPRI 69.3 12.5 Page :i Of ,~ - FIRMNESS RES. HT. 13.5 M?c 6,5.6 0 C:) ~n C~ BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

Branc~ frem t.he G~n~an Var~. Brand ~ Nic CO C02 HC PN Caprice 20.3 2.9 40.9 261 21.1 9.6 R1 Slim Line 22.5 4.5 44.6 330 25.4 I0.I Phillip Morris Lt /%m 25.0 3.7 42.6 368 aaa 8.5 R1 25.5 5.4 44.6 381 28.8 8.8 Peter S tuyvesant 27.2 3.5 51.8 392 aaa 8.5 West 27.6 3.8 53.7 410 aaa 8.3 HB KF 27.7 3.8 51.1 404 aaa 8.8 Krone Lts 27.9 3.5 54.5 401 aaa 8.3 Krone 28.2 3.7 50.5 375 27.1 8.9 Ernte 23 28.2 3.3 55.1 417 aaa 8.8 R6 28.5 4.0 51.5 402 29.4 9.5 Camel 29.1 4.2 53.3 403 aaa 8.7 Kim 29.5 3.7 57.5 408 aaa 9.3 Marlboro KS 30.6 4.5 52.4 411 aaa 8.5 Reval 32.9 3.9 60.4 416 aaa 9.0 PN - aa~ - phase ~ (C~4 equiv.) puff~ daaa ~ be acquired. 0 0 Un ,.0 0 CO BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

O ,,.O O BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

PDCI~T;~ lOth Au,just, i.nB7 Dr, i¢, ~orowsk | BAT ~;tg~1~tten Fabriken F.E. Bahrenf(;Id,,r ,9 Chaussee 13g ZOC:.~ Hamhur5 50 WEST G Ell,~'.'~l ~Y • P "le RE: C.~r~l 11;, q ..IATI(~'.I I h~v,: hee.w lskErl hy Alan IIEard to send you a|l our current f|mJi~.]s on Capri. The data Is enclosed. Ess;:.1'.lally, the data Is in two majOr sections:- "Ihc Firs'. fs the det.~ilcc! ana1:Ksis on Capri and t.hree oU~er U.:.. brands, unC'~rtur,~t,-'17, this d~ta |s n~t as yet formally r~l;orT-cJ and t.h~: r~.sz{Its are ,.,~)r~ly !:and wrlttQn and do nEt fall Into any sot order, l$o~,.".'c-r, -~s all el,! I e.-.clo'.e a typed doe~Jment "A" In i;hlch you will flnd a brr:aL.!okm of .~',e ~:at~ ~hlch hoc been asked for by l)rosm ~ Williamson. Then hy exar~i:iatlcn of til-. hand ~Iritto, results you slluuld find all tl},., a!:pro1~riate i nfor-a ti (~n. Secn~rJly, a s~rles of Technical Ilenos (~ in rural) relatl,,~ to vari,.~,~ as~,.,:t'.. ~)F .~|des:}-e.~,;~ smoke are also Inc1,~ed. T1~,~.~.e docu~;nt~, ..mr.,. r" .,.~:,,I hy ~,lan )lear.! .~5 hackor~und t,J the main Capri study. Eventually~ t,, .~, ~ill also be l.~cued (wltJ, ar.~aendr~'nts) as report;. |f y,,u haw ,~-y queries on t2~Is InformatlQn please do not hEsl¢ate to contact ,~E. co: "r. A.L. Heard n.o.o. Dr. R.R. Baker C~ .CZ) ~j~ 0 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

O 0 (.m m BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

IL,, × CD CD r,o BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

0~ O O Uq r~ ~o L~ BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

| t. ............ y*°. t . -. |! , /i ..... ° . - t • -" :.'": a ! i • "r 0 ........ 0"1 J ¢:" _',_-?7 ..... .'. " (.Ja ; r,o ,,,.JD '-'"'~~';'~ • ":'t i~'~ 'V~.?,'. ",'; k'~... ,. ,~. BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

• o J • ~ ~~" .... BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

666 ~/~elN 0~ epeueo q]leeH • seo!AJeS leBe-I Joj ~ueuJnoop oOIVB ~O O~ ~J Lr3 L~ Q Q ~%~_ ~,.~. ~ .~,

666~/EelN O~ epeueo qJ, leaH " sao!~JaS le6a-i JOt luauJnoop o01v8 O~ c~J L/3 L~ 0 0 ° . . ,,° --° , ~¢t~ _-:P..

NITROSAMINE ANALYSIS REPORT From No. Results ! I I~G ._ I C~fa 1 f ~3__ 2.-°~b .ZE; 2.tZ 0 .t'l 2.~,1 I-0=~ .Z..go l-tl % ~.~ ~?..Z 6 .~ob =~ "~ C~ ,,.0 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

POC/BTH/46M 17th June 1987 PROJECT ALPHA - CAPRI STUDY SIDESTREAM BRAND SURVEY SUMMARY Due to the interest in the Brown & ~lliamson product C~pri a sldestream brand analysis survey has been undertaken on the sidestream yields from a variety of United States Domestic products. The data in the memo shows that Capri has the lowest sidestream PI~F delivery of all the U.S. Domestic brands currently tested. -i- ra IV,~? U A.T m U.~.. amd E~I~ I bm,,ed. Thas reix~.t musl not be cnpled or ,.J~o~-n Io ~aut~n~ ~ns. 0 0 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 2. METHODOLOGY 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION a) Sidestream Yields b) Pressure Drop and Ventilation tVeasurements c) Cigarette Dimensions d) B]end Data e) Rod Weights f) IValnstream Deliveries 4e 5. PAGE Z .1 3 3 4 6 7 8 10 CONCLUSIONS 11 • RECOMIVENDATIONS 11 REFERENCES 11 APPENDIX I 12 -ii- Iq]~7 n A T I ~.]~. and E,Cl~rt i ~m,ted Th,s rep~'~ must noc be c:nl:)ied or shown to unau(honsed per".ons. c~ C~ C.,n C~ "--4 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

-1- 1. INTRODUCTION As a result of interest expressed In low circumference cigarettes since the launch of Capri on the US Market, a brand survey of nine United States Domestic Market products has been undertaken. In addition an internal control cigarette and a Virginia product have also been tested. The cigarettes have been subjected to sidestream analyses using the Fish-tall system (I). ~instream, blend and physical measurements have also been done on the cigarettes. The data has been collated in this Technical Memorandum and observations/explanations are given where possible on the sidestream performance of these products. 2. METHODOLOGY Standard BAT (UK&E) R&DC analytlcal methodology has been used throughout this study. The butt length smoked to with all cigarettes was overtip plus 3 mm. Sldestream yields have been determined on the Fish-tail system as mentioned previously. Differences between puff number exist between the sldestream and mainstream analyses, this is because currently automatic butt detection is not available on the Fish-tail system. 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (a) S1destream Yields Table 1 gives the sidestream yields on the products ranked in order ofdecreasing sidestream PMWNFyleld. Additionally, in Table 1 the sidestream yields are expressed in terms of per gram of dry tobacco (or nicotine) burnt, i.e. taking into account the rod length, density, moisture content and blend nicotine results, see Tables 3 and 4. C~ (.T1 P~ -,.D C~ CO BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

-2- TABLE 1 SIDESTREAM YIELDS (HEASURED AND CALCULATED) Product Name Sidestream ~'lelds (mg rig"A) PMWNF TNA CO C02 calculated Sldestream Yield mg Per Gram Dry Miterial (Tobacco and Nicotine) Puff No. PMWNF TNA CO CO2 Virginia Slims 30.1 4.09 50.2 Camel 29.6 4.34 64.7 Benson & Hedges Z9.3 5.30 55.6 A279 28.8 5.08 75.9 M~rlboro Lights 2B.6 3.91 49.7 ~erit ZB.3 4.17 50.8 Vantage 28.2 4.13 51.0 Barclay 27.3 4.37 51.4 ~rlboro Box ~ ~ 42.4 Doral Lights Z1.2 2.52 47.8 Capri 20.3 2.64 43.7 Note: Benson & Hedges is a BAT A279 is an internal R&DC 391 10.3 53.3 338 76.0 592 447 8.5 48.9 377 91.6 633 428 9.7 46.2 338 75.7 583 521 9.4 42.8 328 95.7 657 387 9.0 51.1 343 76.1 5gz 366 B.O 53.5 353 81.7 5B8 346 7.4 50.9 362 79.6 540 418 10.0 48.7 352 78.9 642 349 9.0 43.8 296 61.7 508 335 6.8 43.1 327 83.1 583 226 9.3 55.3 326 103.1 627 (UK&E) Produced Product. Virginia Product. In terms of PMWNF Capri Is the lowest product tested within this series being 33% below Virginia s|ims. It would be expected that as the rod weight burnt, decreased (see Table 5) the sidestream yield would fall. This is plotted |n graphical format in Figure 1. Clearly with the exception of Doral Lights and Capri no such trend is apparent. = IV~7 B A T IU K i~ E~m) I ,re,ted Th~s repiw% mus| ~x be ¢npied ¢w sho~n to unauthonsed pe~ons. C~ C3 r~ c~ ,,£) BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

-3- The reason for this is unclear particularly since other ltnear trends have been Illustrated in the past relating sidestream PI~IF to tobacco rod weight burnt I2,3). However, these results relate to products which had the same blend type incorporated in them, and with a product survey of this nature the blend co~osition and PM~F potential of each material is unknown. To illustrate this point data is given In Appendix I which shows the sidestream PMWNF potential of 100% Virginia lamina and 100% Virginia stem. Similar points can also be raised on sidestream carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide deli veri es. Examination of sidestream nicotine yields is more meaningful because the sidestream nicotine yield can be influenced by the blend nicotine, this is illustrated in Figure 2. In this situation the sidestream nicotine yield is plotted against the nicotine weight smoked (calculated from the rod weight smoked, the moisture content and the blend nicotine). Regression analysis of this data provided the following equation: Sidestream nicotine = 0.333 x nicotine weight smoked + 0.08. y = M . X + C where the R2 value was 0.9 and the intercept is not statistically significantly different to the origin." Thus, the sidestream nicotine yields are explainable within the product survey, being related to the nicotine weight smoked. Examination of the calculated sidestream ylelds per gram of tobacco burnt in Table I shows that for carbon monoxide and PMWRF, Capri has the highest yleId. Alternatively, the greatest PMWNF and carbon monoxide sldestream production efficiency comes from Capri. This is not surprising bearing in mind Capri is virtually an all lamina blend with no stem and little reconstituted tobacco (see also Appendix I). However, because of the low rod weight of Capri on a per cigarette basis it Is still the lowest sidestream PI~F yleld of the brands surveyed in this study. (~ IV]t7 BAT i~K a~l Etrq~) L~rmted Th~srep~m mvst no(b~¢r~pbed or sho~*.fl¢ounam.ho~scd ixrsons. 0 0 lXj ~0 0 BATCo document for Legal Services - Health Canada 20 May 1999

~4- Dora1 Lights has a stdestream PtC~IF yteld only sltghtly above that of Capri, this Is due to the low rod weight of the sample (Table 5) because of a high level (27.8%) of expanded tobacco being present in the blend, Similar comments apply to the gas phase results for carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. The sldestream nicotine yleld is lower in {)oral Lights than Caprl, this is a consequence of both the low tobacco rod weight of Dotal Lights and the low blend nicotine level (Table 4) relative to Capri, (b) Pressure Drop and Ventilation Measurements Table 2 details these results. Essentially the rod pressure drops are similar for the majority of these products but with the low circumference cigarettes the rod pressure drops rise as reported previously (2). The paper permeability range covered In this survey will have no effect on the sidestream performance of these products. c~ BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

-5- TABLE 2 PRESSURE OROP ~D VENTILATION ~E~URE~NTS Sample Virginia Slims Camel Benson & Hedges ~7g • rlboro Lights Merit Vantage ~rcl ay /Marl boro Box Ooral Lights Capri Total P.D. (ram w.G.) Unbound 111 117 122 142 122 118 150 52 11o 146 139" Total P.D. Cram W.G.) Bound 171 125. m 141 147 158 161 159 113 251" Rod P.D. (~ W.G.) 74 61 54 51 49 52 56 52 48 65 149 Filter P.D. (m w.G.' g7 64 68 go g8 106 105 I07 65 81 IOZ* Paper Permeability {C.U.) 33 38 69 51 24 35 44 25 26 21 28 % Filter Ventilation 45 10 o 40 23 36 11 52 *~asured on P.D. tester for small cigars. 0 0 t/l t.n r,o ,.0 "-.4 r,o BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

~Q (c} Cigarette Dimensions Table 3 details the results, the majority of products are of King Size dimensions with Marlboro Box being a 79 mm length product and Virginia Slims and Capri being longer length and lower circumference than the rest. TABLE 3 O I MENS IONS Sample Virginia $1 ires Camel Benson & Hedges A27g Marlboro Lights Merit vantage Barclay Marlboro Box Doral Lights Capri Total Rod Length (ram) 98 67 84 64 84 64 B4 64 84 57 84 57 84 59 84 57 79 60 84 57 g7 70 Tobacco Rod Length (~) 31 20 20 2O 27 27 25 27 19 27 27 Filter Rod Length (mm) Over-Ti ppi ng Length (mm) 36 • 25 24 24 31 Circumference (ram) 23.17 24.75 25.1Z 32 3O 32 23. 31 32 24.73 24.75 24 .B3 25.04 24.72 24.7i 24.82 16.83 Rod Length ~oked (ram) 57 57 49 51 50 b 1~$? B.A.T (U.K. a~l Ezpon) Umi~L This ~epon m~ not be coped or ~own m m~.Uw~i~d personL (.n o~ r~ ~D --4 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

-7- (d) B|end Data Table 4 contains the blend data. Ignoring Capri the BAT and Philip ~bnris products a11 contain about approximately 10% expanded tobacco whereas the R.J. Reynolds products contain more (- 14% for Camel and Vantage and 2B% for Dotal Lights). This causes some loss In puff number with these products (Table 6). The sugar chemistry for all products except Benson and Hedges and A279 is typical of U.S. blended style products. Interestingly the two previously mentioned Vlrglnia products have the highest blend nicotines and highest sidestream nicotine yields (Table l) of the pr6ducts tested. TABLE 4 BLEND DATA Sample Virginia Slims Camel Benson & Hedges A279 • rlboro Lights Merit Vantage Barclay • rlboro Box Dora] Lights Capri Nicott ne (% d.w.b.) 2.I4 1.90 2.47 2.30 2.03 2.22 2.06 2.22 2.07 1.57 2.21 Reducing Sugars (% d.w.b.) 9.0 9,8 14.1 17.9 8.4 9.9 9.9 8.9 8.5 9.4 9.1 Total Sugars (% d.w.b.) 11.6 10.4 16.0 19.8 ll.B II.6 II .0 II.7 11.5 I0.6 12.0 Filler Densit~ (mg cc-L) 247 247 244 282 254 247 241 262 256 222 293 % Expanded 8.9 14.0 I0.i N.M. g.3 9.B 14.4 7.8 10.1 27.8 None N.M. = Not measured. lgg'; LA.T IU,X. Md Ezponl L~mlmd. This report muss no( txt ¢olded or shown Io ua,,uthorisecl pe.r~x~ % ~I sture at Yoking 14.5 14.3 13.6 15.1 14.3 14.9 13.6 13.9 14.2 14.4 13.5 O CD t.FI t.n r',D ,,.o "-,4 j:= BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

~8~ (c) Rod ~l~jhts Table 5 details the results, the rod wetght smoked takes tnto account the butt length to which the product was smoked to. The dry rod weight then takes account of the moisture content and the nicotine weight smoked also takes into account the blend nicotine levels. The data is merely collated and no cogent is made. @ 1957 ¢bLT (U.K. ¢~1 IEmpmll L~mded. T~I report must ~ot be ¢oided ot sbcm, n to umst;IJ.,odsed penoel. O C~ U'I (j'l P~ "-4 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

Co }> C) o Q. 0 0 e- 3 0 I- ra m im im 3: m m 0 CI. 0 il ® i .I i J 11 lr i | 6 l l "tl Total Rod Filter TIp Sample (g) (g) (9) L , __ " .... V|rgtnta Slims0.970 0.751 0.219 Camel 0,974 0,807 0.167 Benson & Hedges 0,979 0.824 0,155 A279 1.05 0.89 0.166 Hsrlboro Ltghts 0.964 0.744 0.220 Peril 0.949 0.734 0.225 Vantage 1.080 0.741 0.339 Barclay 1.030 0.757 0,273 Yarlboro Box 0.929 0.778 0.151 Ooral Lights 0.871 0.656 0.215 Capri 0.585 0.479 0.106 H.H. = Hot measured. 7" -9- TABLE 5 ROD WEIGHTS Filter Nett (g) 0.169 0.130 0.122 0.129 0.169 0.173 0.290 0.210 0.116 0.160 0.073 Cigarette Paper (g) 0.054 0.048 0,056 N.M. 0.048 0.049 0.049 0,048 0.050 0.047 0.038 Rod Wetght Smoked (9) ,661 .706 .734 .793 .642 ,641 .651 .6~ .575 .424 Nicotine ~|ght Smoked (mg) 12,1 11.5 15.7 15.5 11.4 11.8 11.4 12.4 12.2 7.7 8.1 Dry Rod Weight Smoked (g) .565 .605 .634 .673 .560 .529 .554 .561 .603 .492 ,367 9L6Z§SOD| ....

-10- (d) Yainstr~am Oelfverles Table 6 glves the results and no detailed c~nt is made on the individual product deliveries apart from to say that blend chemistry, filter pressure drop and ventilation will all influence the deliveries. J I987 B.A.T IU.K. a~l Espm~J L~mluKL This report mwt n~ be coped or ~ to umuuihot%ed pe13oe~ C~ C~ ~O BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

m i •e,,,OQOBOO ¢-- I ¢.~ ¢.) E t | i I • • • • • • • o ,.3' • • • • • • • • • • eft E v E :;¢ ~J p- E A ¢g ¢/3 c ~'~.~ ~, ~ ~ ~ "~"~ '~ ~,.. L E 0 Ii m ~) 1987 B.A.T IU.J(. and Ezpor~j L~m~tecL Tlus ~ must not be coped or shovm to u~uu~me~KI c~ t.n t.n ",,.4 oo BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

-12- CONCLUSIONS (a) (b) Capri produces the lowest sidestream Pf~IF delivery of aI~ the products tested within thts brand survey, being 33% lower than Virginia s11ms. Sldestream nicotine yields are correlated with the nicotine weight smoked within this product survey. R ECO MMENDAT IONS Although Capri is the lowest sidestream cigarette reported in this survey there may be other products on the U.S. Market which are below this and have not been tested, ll~us care must be taken over any claims that are made for Capri. REFERENCES i. BAT Report No, RD.1987-Restricted, 21.11.1984. 2. BAT Technical ~morandum 87.06.005, 16.6.1987. O 0 CJ'l ',,.D ".,.4 BATCo document for Legal Services - Health Canada 20 May 1999

-12- APPENDIX I SIDESTREAM PARTICULATE PHASE YIELDS FROM ALL LAMINA AND STEM CIGARETFES Cl ga ret te Code R231 T658 T658 Blend Type 100% W.T.5 100% Virginia Lamina 810 mg Smoked Rod Weight Smoked 810 740 Sidestream Ylelds (mgm ci9-~) Pt~/~F TNA 12.6 1.18 32.0 5.43 35.0 5.94 Therefore stem PI~IIF I 36% of Lamina. Therefore stem TNA - ZO% of Lamina. 0 0 tm tm t~O ,.0 C~ 0 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999

666b ,~elN 0~ epeueo q3,1eeH • SeO!AJeS leBel Joj ;ueuJn0op oOCVB cO C7~ c~J Lr~ C~ O O U1 o~ =o r-1 --4o vt -r c3 M~ ~4 O I CAPRI DORAL LIGHTS MERIT VANTAGE MARLBORO LIGHTS VIRGINIA SLIPI,~ . _ _ ..,~AHLLAT ..... '-- B&H U'l r'~ Q --Q "o "rl vI "0 ~z li- A279 O,

> .-I O O Q. 0 ¢3 t- 3 0 r- ¢Q B= ml m 0 -I e~ 0 r~ cD Flfi. 2 SIDESTREAM NICOTINE YIELD VERSUS NICOTINE WEIGHT SMOKED SIDESTREAH NICOTINE DELIVERY ling cig.-! ) 6 S 4 2 4 3 ~"R~GRESSION L,NE C Y - '. X • ':~ NICOTINE WEIEHT SMOKED No_. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 io EIGARETTE TYPE, VIRGINIA SLIHS CAMEL BENSON & HE(IDES A 279 MARLBORO LIGHTS HERIT VANTAOE BARCLAY HARLBORO BOX DORAL LlfiHTS [APRI Z96?c5S00I

m o 0 C 3 W m mm |l W m W W 0 W C~, O 0 4 I I I I

IXI .-I 0 0 13. 0 C g 0 iI l-- t~ i i| t~ ul -I- ra o Q. 0 ,,< (D (D ~r co L~ C~ C3 i I ' I o !

666~/~elN 0g epeueo qJ, IeeH " seo!AJes leBe7 aoj ~ueLunoop o::)1V8 Lr3 CO O~ CM It') Lr3 C~ C~ I • ,q El 9-o 6-L S .||-.h -5 ~.~ -h.o~ E.~ ~-o ~.ol -h.~J~'-~ .9.6 6-~ l-t 9~ "~-~| b-El S"ol -~'11 (~'6 6 .o -6-o S-~ g -~ "1: .b b.q .l/.f~r'l~ "JwI..L .%QS" =uS +l'b

THIS FILE CONTAINS ALL SIDESTREAM DATA RELATING TO CAPRI. BOTH PUFFED VIRGINIA MARLBORO DORAL CAPRI ANALYTE SLIMS BOX LIGHTS ANALYTE ANALYTE ANALYTE ANALYTE ********* PUFFED ****************** 30.10 30.00 21.20 20.30 PMWNF MG/CIG 4.09 3.94 2.52 2,64 TNA M8/CI~ 50.20 54.70 47.80 43.70 CO MG/CIG 391.00 411.00 5"35.00 226.00 C02 MG/CI6 10.30 9.00 ~.80 9.30 PUFF NO, OR TIME ALIGHT 28.00 25.00 20.20 18.90 T.H.C. MG/OI6 137.00 155,00 83.00 129.00 HCN UG/CIG 615.00 580.00 466.00 517.00 FORMALDEHYDE UG/CIG 316.00 304,00 255.00 210.00 PHENOLS UG/CIG 4062.00 3641.00 3110.00 2735.00 VOLATILE ALDEHYDES UG/CI8 283,00 297.00 335.00 244.00 ACROLEIN UG/CIG 11.50 9.50 6.50 6.90 AMMONIA MG/CIG 2.31 1.27 0.54 1.36 VINYL PYRIDINE 1.96 5.72 2.08 0.67 PROPYLENE GLYCOL 1,39 1.18 0.80 0.85 FURFURYL ALCOHOL 2.35 2.27 1.91 1.65 NONANOL 1.59 1.46 0.95 1.18 DECANOL 1.46 1.33 0.95 1.06 FURFURAL 1.27 3.06 0.80 0.95 METHYL ACE"TYL PURAN 70.31 67.90 47.40 57.90 NICOTINE 13,21 12.20 9.49 8.75 NEOPHYTADIENE 0.94 0.92 0.82 0,65 METHYL NAPTHALENE 2.88 2.50 1.78 2.24 METHYL BENZOFURAN 6.46 7.61 5.37 4.63 HEXAMETHYLENETETRAMINE 24.~8 21.65 17.32 17.12 PHENOL 0.42 1.17 0.79 0.85 DIMETHYLNAPTHALENE 7.31 7.28 4,88 5.26 P-CRESOL 2.26 3.67 2.83 2.51 ETHYL PHENOL 31.00 28.15 19.00 18,77 MYOSAMINE 9.62 9.5~ 5.22 5.64 NICOTYRINE II.82 11.30 7.19 7.35 INDOLE 8.12 7.51 5.03 5.46 DIPYRIDYL I ..--- tD 0 0 BATCo document for Legal Services • Health Canada 20 May 1999