Tobacco Documents Online

-DRAFT- Psychophysical and Physical Measures of ET$ 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. Wiliiam H. Deines B&W B & W Tower Louisville, KY 40202 Date April 7, 1988 I*" C:> O Cr~ ¢j1 r~ -.~4i ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

h Part 1: Psychophysical Measurements INTRODUCTION 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. bL=11-CD Sub iects: 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 served 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), Dotal Ughts (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 ft, aluminum environmental chamber. Relevant parameters were as follows: temperature, 22 C; relative humidity, 36% (SD=6); recirculation rate, U~ r~ -~4 j:~ ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

,. 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 only one brand. Table 1 displays the order of brands smoked across days. Table 1: Schedule of Sessions Date Bra~d Date Brand December 28 December 29 December 30 December 31 Marlboro January 4 Doral Lights January 5 Capri January 6 Va Slims Lights January 7 Dotal Lights Marlboro Va Slims Lights 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 lit every 6 rain and was smoked for 6 rain. 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 stow. During the first hour, carbon monoxide rose to a more-or-less steady level. During the second hour, |evel 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 min, 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 Jevel of carbon monoxide. Psychophysical iudgments were collected during the fourth hour. emmb O Url -,,,j ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

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. ~: Perceived intensity was derived from graphic ratings by measuring the distance in mm 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 "t3-mm 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 brands at the smoking rate of 10 cig per hr, it climbed above the others at 15 ¢ig per hr. The departure from paraleilism 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 o ¢j-t (.3"1 P~ ..,.4 -,.4 ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

¥iSul:e 2 20" o 18" 16" _= 12 I0 EYE lO/hour tS/hour rate ~Ca~ o 0.5" m m 0.4' im m w 8 - 0.3 I ti @ -, 0.2 u O.1 EYE i | lOIhour 151hour rate 0 0 ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

of Uar|otion Subjec~ G b Tab~ 2 RNOUR Summary Table fn~ [VE-CRT FILE df ~ of ~ F p Sc~o~ 33 lg39g.810 587.570 3 451.831 150.610 2.342 .07"78 gg 53~5.715 1~4.3(X) ! 2171. 126 21/1. ~26 56. ~T)g .0000 33 1254.529 38.319 3 312.g52 104.317 1.555 .204g gg ~836.4t~ 6?.035 Epsi I~ Ccrr,ection .~2 1.90 .62 0 ...,.j -,,j CO ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

I ¥£gure 3 24" 22: .= 20£ ~82 '~ 16- 14" 12 THROAT t lO/hota" 15~hour rate W 1 w 1 Ill o Qa w 1 I e~ f.1 L 0.5 0.4 0.3' 0.2' 0.1 THROAT i i lOIhot~ 15/bout rate V.SZi~ o u1 u1 P~3 ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

• -..) Table 3 RNGUR £.mmxru Tabin far:. TIIRGRT-~:RT FILl;: of df Sde of ~ F p F.psi Ion UcrJotJon ~ ~ ~rlr~tctim ~x~j~ 33 2~94.647 896.807 a 3 659.652 219.884 2.810 .0434 Error 99 7?45.545 79.238 .eO b I 2287.520 22S'7.~20 54.622 .0000 Error 33 1382.016 41.879 1.00 at) 3 532.261 i";?.420 2.230 .0894 Er-r'cr 99 "7876. 184 "79.55? .62 r, ip m.d. C::) r',,.) "--,I Co ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

i Figuce & 34 32 30 r: 2B, • 26: 3 24~ 22~ 2O NOSE 1 I lOIhour 15/hour rate -o l~ab~ -* ca~ "~- V.~m 0.8" o.71 = ," 0.6, m g o.s. u 0.4" NOSE ! I lO/hom. 15/hom- rate C~ U~ U~ r~J --M co ClibPDF - v,vww.fastio.com

°.. ~..-. of ~riatlm SubJ~ts G b T~Xe 4 RNflUR £ummmrU Table fur. HG£1:-CRT FILE df ~ of Ileon F P Squats Square 33 240O8.4"/9 "/27.4(~ 3 2896.427 ~. 4",~ tS.S2e .0000 9~ 603S."/22 60.9g'/ 1 2095.$13 209S.~13 28.747 .0000 33 2405.511 72.894 3 3O48.444 t015.14S 15.354 .0000 6..',.',~ 1."~ 65.190 .54 1.00 .65 L,F'I r,o -,,,,,,j Oo r,o ClibPDF - www.fastio.com