Tobacco Documents Online

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