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

, ~. ; \ ~$ure 5 m 36 :32' 28 24 20 ODOR i i 10/hour 15/hour raLe % i- Cal~ 0.8" ODOR "8, = _= 0.7 -== o.6. 'u ! o.5.l• 0.4' , i IO/hour 15/hour rate • e- ~l=~k== " V, ~.brd 0 0 ¢,..n U'I (3O ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

~v~-ce__ of U~iotion Subjects Q EPPoP b Error ob Table 5 RNDUR £ummarll Tahlst far:. lUIIIR-CAT FILE df ' ~m of ~ F p ,Squ~ 33 18047.312 546.988 3 4400.948 14~5.gB3 22.076 .(XX)O gg 15578.1537 66.451 1 1366.356 13~.356 16.461 .0003 33 2739.181 .83.005 3 4504.222 PJ01.40? 16.915 .(X)O0 g9 8787.5T9 88.'ff:4 CcPPecticn .?2 1.00 .?55 0 0 U~ U1 P~ ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

LUOD'O!]St~I/A,~,~,A/~,,,~ - JC]cICt!jO u~ cO N 0 a~eJ .moq/~[ .moq/O[ q I , I m~g~. •A .,,,.. .T.m~ ,... Om<l~"~ .o. 13YU3A0 , ~'0 .<~'0 .9"0 •/..'0 8"0 m. a Im II Ill 1,0 ,mull Im, 9 o~nS~

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 Dotal 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 rain 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. Odor intensity showed less of a tendency to increase over the 3 rain of exposure, but still tended to increase from round to round (Figs. 17 and 18). ~.; What held for the smoking rate of 10 cig 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 conc!usion 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 eta]., 1986; Cain et ai., 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, mw have led to the round-to-round increments in c23 Q tj1 U'l P~ co cr~ ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

¥~re 7 Zn m m emt 30 2O IO CAPRI rate IImj~ tlumt Ilam mmmm, C~ 0 C.n C.n CO ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

Figure 8 m m E 40 30 20 I0 0 DORAL lO/hour rate 15/l=ur B t~t m ~u U-I OD C~ ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

~.gu=e 9 W 4O 3O 20 10 0 HARLBORO lO/hour rate ltl~t II MSQ. [] aa 15/ho~ 0 0 ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

F~. Rure 10 m g ¢ 40" 3o! 20" 10 0 VIRSINIA SLIHS • m= tO/h0ur " 151h0ur rate 0 U1 U~ r~ ~j ~o O ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

l~:~ '~ Flsu~e II 15 14 :R 13 m 12 m m 11 10 EYE - Caprl 10 clg/hr Z J i 0 1 j 1 ! 2 3 time (rain) ,Nxtl -.- m~t2 m.ntS EYE- Doral I0 clglhr _'= 14 • . ! | 1 0 1 tlme (mln)~" 3 -~ mmal c.m ~m -.,j ~O ClibPDF - www.fastio.coll]

Z'.1.gur e 12 I81 EYE - Marlboro I0 clg/hr 16 $ ~2 . '2 0 1 2 3 t;me (mtn) -~ uuxll -" zud2 16" 15" 14" m c m I¢ l 12- Ii 0 EYE- Virginia Sllms 10 cig/hr 1 2 3 time (rain) -.- mun£2 -a- zoun~ :! amm, h C~ u'l -,< ClibPDF - V'G',J'JVV.fas~[io.coI]]

FL Sure 13 16" 15 c 12 11 I0 THROAT - Capri I 0 clg/hr 0 1 2 3 time (rain) -,- nuN12 e 16" 15 12 11 10 0 THROAT - Dotal I 0 clg/hr 1 2 3 tlme (mlh) zJu~d.3 O L~ ClibPDF - v,~ww.las~io.com

20 18 14 10 8 THROAT - Marlboro I 0 clg/hr i,m ii. i i 2 tlme (mtn) i , ! 3 -.- ~ow42 • t ~,wl. S ::m m m E: m c w 17" 16 15 14 13 12 THROAT - Virginia Slims 10 ctg/hr CD cD tn PJ -,.4 ~D ClibPDF - www.lastio.com

F~,ure I$ 25 2,4 23 22 m ?: 21 ! 20 19' 18 0 NOSE - Capri I 0 clglhr ,,,! n,,= ~ " • a 1 2 3 time (mln) -.- ~r~2 .t am4~ Ilo W 0 C 28 26 24 22 16 0 NOSE- Dotal 10 clglhr 2 time (rain) -~ am41 3 C) CLibPDF - wwvvifastio.com

F£sure 16 28 - NOSE - Marlboro I 0 clg/hr 26 . 0 1 2 3 time (mln) • .o z~ndl -*- zwn42 NOSE- Vtrglnta S)lms I0 clg/hr 30- :m 1 m c m ==st 22' 20 0 1 2 time (mtn) 3 0 c3~ ClibPDF - v.d',J,Jvv.fas~[io.col]]

F£gure 17 28 ODOR - Capri I0 cig/hr 6w ,m . ' I | 0 1 2 3 i241 23 22 21 1:Ime (mln) -.- ~m42 4. ~xta 32 3O 9 28 26 G II e,J I: iii 24 22 ODOR - Dotal I 0 clglhr 0 i o i 0 1 2. 3 tlme (mln) -o. mm41 • "*- z0v~2 • .n. )w4~ 0 0 r~ ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

FL~ure 18 + / 26 24 22 q 20' 0 ODOR - Marlboro I0 cig/hr J l " m 1 2 3 tlme (rain} ¢. qD 31 30 29 28 == = 27 -= 26 25 24 ODOR - Virginia Slims I0 cig/hr -- ~.._o . ~IV r I I I 2 3 time (mln) -'- ~2 -1. ~nct S CD ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

18 17 c 15 14 F£gur8 19 EYE - Caprl 15 ctg/hr m~n42 N~3 ! I " | 0 1 2 3 time (mln) 24" 22 .= 20 " 18 16 EYE- Dora! 15 clg/hr O 1 2 3 tfme (rain) ¢:> c~ LJ~ ..,j ,,D ,,4:> ClibPDF-www.fastio.com

/Tgure 20 3O == 20 .,= _= 10 EYE - Marlboro 15 clg/hr ~2 ~3 1 2 S time (mtn} 24 EYE - Vtrglnta 511ms 15 ctg/hr 22 ~I~Kl" ~ 2o -= 4 ~ -'- =,,~: 16~~$ 14 0 ". t 2 3 time (rain) 0 r~ co o ClibPDF - www.~as[io.conl

¢, ¥tgure 21 2O 19 '~ 18' ,= - 17' THROAT - Capri 15 clglhr • "- ~r~2 • 4- ~our~ ~ t ! " i 0 1 2 3 ttme (mtn) 26] THROAT - Dotal 15 cig/hr 2524Ii "~~xl ~ 23 .- 22 20 ~,~~,~,~~~lm4 S 19 0 1 2 3 : time (mln) 0 0 r,J o ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

F:Lgul-e 22 2e- 2e~ 24i 22m _~ 2o 18 IG 0 THROAT - Marlboro 15 cJglhr ~2 i i i 1 2 3 time (rain) 24- 2~ 2O - 18 16 0 THROAT -Virginia Slims 15 clg/hr i 6 I I ! 2 3 time (mln) ~) r,-) ClibPDF - WWwmfastio.com

¥£Su=e 23 33 32 .= 31 - 30 29 0 ! 2 3 time (mln) ..D amll -" :m, ur~ 2 4- ~mur~ 0 36" 3,4' =:. "~ 32, "= 3o. 28 0 NOSE - Dotal 15 ctg/hr ! " I i I 1 2 3 : tlme (mln) C~ L21 P~ co o ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

Figure 24 38" 36: = 34' ~: 32. 3o. 28" 26 0 NOSE - Marlboro ! 5 clg/hr r I r J i I I 1 2 3 time (mln) -." zwn42 36 34 ~= 32 -= 30 28 NO5E - Virginia Slims 15 clg/hr • Iwn42 m~48 0 " • II I • - i 1 2 3 time (mln) c,,r'l co ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

34" 33 :32 30, 0 ODOR - Capri 15 ctg/hr -- Bm~2 ' ' - i " " u s , . i I I 2 3 tlme (mlh) 37 ODOR - Dor'al 15 clg/hr ~6 -= 35 34 33 32 0 1 2 3 time (rain) 0 0 ClibPDF - www.iastio.com

l~.gure 26 5O 5O w E o 3O ODOR - Marlboro 15 c|glhr ~m~m _______ ~ ,~ "~ m~ll "~ m~12 o -t muM~ i . i il,i . jl • i i. , m ,, 6 0 1 2 3 tlme (min) .o , ODOR - Virginia Slims 15 clg/hr -' 36 3S i 34 0 I 2 3 tlme (rain) <~ mM1 ~m=w. C:) t31 ~n po CO CZ) GlibPDF - www.iastio.com

o,. o ! intensity. Table 6 displays the carbon monoxide levels for the three rounds of judgments within an hour. The likelihood that an increase in vapor phase constituents may have led to the increments in sensory judgments was decided by ",~e finding that odor imensity for each brand varied monotonically with carbon monoxide level between rounds as well as between smoking rates {Fig. 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 Dotal 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 w 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 Capd the lowest. Hence, we could expect some association between carbon monoxide concentration and intensity. Although present at .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 yielc~ed the same result. Figures 32 to 36 revea! that what held true for intensity generally held for accept=,bility. Grams of tobacco smoked offered yet another C~ C) U'I (.j'l r'J Go ClibPDF - ww~,v.1astio.conl

T£gure 27 50" 2O 2 Odor vs. CO, Round by Round ! " ,I • I - o • i - ! 3 4 5 6 7 '8 CO (l)pm) c~ o c,n c.n r~ co o co ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

3O 25 .= llm lS 10 2 ¥:Lsure 28 EYE (round I ) /y " i - i - i . j . i 3 4 5 6 7 CO (ppm) 8 -'- V.SI~ m o) m I= qlD 5' 20 15 10 2 EYE (round 2) | • L " L r t •" 3 4 5 6 7 C0 (ppm) 8 D R m u 15' 10 2 EYE (round 3) i - o' - i - o - ;, 3 4 5 6 7 CO (ppm) ! 8 -'- Dm~ C:) C) (.n (.n Co C~ ,,D ClibPDF - v,vww.fastio.com

T£gu:-e 29 30 THROAT (round ! ) .,. 15 "4" Cl~ "*" V.~i~= 10 , - .... , 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CO (ppm) =I= em l= =1 m~ l 25 20 15 10, 2 THROAT (round 2) -,- ]:)t~t V, Slbra , ,=, 4 • | - ! - i - i - b 3 4 5 6 7 8 CO (ppm) =ll ==1 w tl == II ¢= 25 2O 15 10 THROAT (round 3) " i • i • ¢ • i - i " - • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CO (ppm) • ..- D=~ .e c=~ c::) c) un L.n r,,) GD ,===em • ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

0e 35¸ g II = 30 m C 25 2O 2 F£$ure 30 NOSE (round I) i- - - i J i i i 3 4 5 6 7 CO (ppm) -o" ]j~la~N,s. -"" :oem4 -'.- v.~ 8 == roll i e~ m Ill W 40 35 3~, 25 20 2 NOSE (round 2) | - | - i " i • i r 3 4 5 6 7 8 CO (ppm} ..e- :ML~E~m "" :Om~ "" C..lai is m ¢ o ¢ 2O 2 NOSE (round 3) a - i - , " o - l - i 3 ,4 5 6 7 8 CO (ppm) -=- CL~ • .,,- V.Sl.bm C) u"l U'1 po co .mm.b " ClibPDF - v,vww.fastio.com

~m ¥igu=e 31 ODOR (round I) .= w 30" 2~ ~ - i - i • i . l - 1 . i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CO (ppm) 60- ODOR (round 2) =1 m al 40' ¢1 ,,,,,,a ee • iwl 30" ° • .a- l~l]bm • -,- z:~ml 0 - i . i - i . 4 • L - ] 2 3 4 5 G 7 8 CO (ppm) 60- ODOR (round 3) :1 ¢ 40 m ml i= mm 30 • i . ~ . i . i - i • 2 3 ,4 5 6 7 CO Cppm) • .e. Mldl~o ¢:> (.3"1 U-i r,J co ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

116 F:Lsure :32 EYE (round 1) 2 /S •, i,. , 3 4 5 6 7 CO (ppm) • ~ bf, zll~zo • .,- V.Slism i 8 '8 ql m m elm* e-* M 88 m ql o m il u tim 0.6 0.5 0.4 03 0.2 2 EYE (round 2) ,, ,, = • i - | • 1 • i - ; " | 4 5 6 7 8 CO (ppm) -.- Da~ • 4,- ~ysl " "*- V.SZims : EYE (round 3) ,~ '. | J i L I - ~ ~ • i - i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I~0 (ppm} C::> C:> U'I U"I r~ co (.~ ClibPDF - V'~/\/',/\,~/.faStiO.COI]]

l~.sure 33 0.6 THROAT (round ! ) =03 .= " V.l~i~ g2 e {I~ _., | . i i 1 - ~ i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CO (ppm) ~W==~ ~__51:~1/~THROAT (round 2) " o 0.11"'~.mUL 0.2 • | i., i " i . ,l i " 6 . l | 3 4 5 6 7 8 CO (ppm] 2 --- Din.1 V.SIirr,~ t.- 'G 0.5- m = 03 D u 0.2 I,,. b. 11.I~ 2 THROAT (pound 3") . i i m. b l ~ _ ~ i . 1 - i 3 4 5 5 7 CO (ppm) -*- Da~ ~ CLl=i -,- V,.~ms i 8 0 u~ U'1 po 03 ClibPDF - ~,,~/\/,,/wifastio.coR1

f''" f ~. ; ~'£ ipace 34 0.9 NOSE (round l) = = a7 -m 0~ ~--~" I -o- ~ V.SlM . , T " ' =' " " 'J " I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CO (ppm) f ~ 1 NOSE (round 2) w a71 . .~ 0.6' • ~ ~. = • U m 0.4" 2 3 4 5 6 7 CO (ppm) -,- ~mll -.- cA~ i 8 'I= O m m 41 m m W I= i: U 0 v. O3 0.7 03 2 N05E (round 3] " I " i • l - ! • J 3 4 5 6 7 8 CO (ppm) • -*- Z:~¢l v.SlleM C~ ¢=:) U'I U"I Co ClibPDF - ~..j~,,j\t.,j.~ss'[io.cot]]

-. ° TLsure 3.5 '~ : 1 ODOR (round I ) = a = o.4. " ! - i - i i, . i • i 2 3 .4 5 6 7 CO (ppm) .-o ~kT,22~w 4. ca~ ! 8 r/ :it . .E = ODOR (round 2) u • ~14' 6 ~ . i - a . mt . ~ i , t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CO (ppm) 0.9- ODOR (round :5) ==o.?- .we.6. -0"~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CO (ppm) o 0 (.n t jr1 l',J CO (3", ClibPDF - www.lastio.com

Q,9 .2= P o~~ F£1;ure 36 OVERALL (round 1 ) 0.2 " " i - b - ] - ] " * - i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CO (ppm) -,- ca~ -,- V.~ ~ = :1 OVERALL (round 2) • g --c,~ .~ 0.41 ""*- v.sl~ 02.1 • , - , • , ' , " , " , 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CO (ppm) 0.9 ~0.8 0.7' _= 0.5; I 0.5 C ¢= -- 0.4 .- o.J 0.2 2 OVERALL (round 3) L - * " | - D " i 3 4 S 6 7 CO (ppm) -~ Mcdb= -,- Dmt -t C=~i -,- V.SI~ i 8 =,==~ c~ 0 (;1 Co -.,4 ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

LUOD'O!]St~I'AA,~,Ab,,,~ - JC]dCt![~ c~ c~ "sei;emB!o Lu!ls.n, ln Jo 'w!I$ 'leuo!;ue^uoo ~ uJo~j SeLUOO O:o~qo1 e~ Jeq;eqM Jo e^~:edseJJ! $.L_::I jo uo.r;m.uj! pve Jopo e~ ~!peJd uL, o pawnq oooeqo~ jo lunoLue uo.~euJ!xoJdde ~,sJg e o; leql ueql J~sdde p|naM ~,i "ep!xououJ uoqJeo jo ;eLI; Moleq ,~I;qB!IS hlUO SileJ qO!qM 'enu!^ sl! e;e.n, snll! gl~ o,, ,,£ seJnO~ "/~!suelu! jo el1~le;loo -

FJ.zu~e 37 30" 25 20 .= 15' EYE (round 1 ) 10 8 - 1 - i - i ='- i - 4 5 6 7 tobacco (gins) -D ML~N~ -'- Din1 -t CA~ "" V.li~ Sl~ 301 EYE (round 2) ~ : .= 20 10 3 4 5 6 7 8 tobacco (gms) ~0 25 20 = .= 15 EYE (round ~r) I0 " 4 " i " * " * 3 4 5 6 7 tobacco (gins) --- I:~=t i 8 C;) C) U~ co ====.~ ~0 ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

T£Rure 38 30" 2S¸ ~= 20 .= .= IS 10 3 THROAT (round 1 ) 4 5 6 7 tobacco (grns) -~ ]dlx]b=m "" Omt i 8 30 25 .= m I5 I0 THROAT (round 2) • I " I • I " I 3 4 5 6 7 tobacco (gins) ! 8 30- 25 .= = 2o, l 15' IO THROAT (round 3) I - I - I • I - I 4 5 6 7 8 tobacco (gins) -=..~ -.- ]:~=.t • e- ~ "" v=li~ szi~ 0 0 U-I Ln Oo 0 ClibPDF - wwvv.fastio.conl

T~gure 39 , 3o 25 2O 3 NOSE (round !) .. i 4 i i 4 5 6 7 8 tobacco (gms) 0" 35 .= ~30' iiii 25" 20 NOSE (round 2) ~ . . _ i . - Inlb 4 5 6 7 8 tobacco (gins) ~jO~ 35 30 25 2o HOSE (round 3) 3 --i • t " i • i • i • 4 5 6 7 8 tobacco (gins) --Oral o o~ CLibPDF - v~vvvv.fastio.conl

F~$ure 40 6O 50 40 30 20 3 ODOR (round i) 4 5 6 7 tobacco (gins) I 8 6O 5O =40 Ill 30 20 ODOR (round 2) -- ]:1~1 i~ , I " I . ii I . i i - I 3 4 5 6 7 8 tobacco (gms) 60] -,-~" ODOR (round 3") 30 20 3 4 5 6 7 8 tobacco (gins) c~ un (.n P~ (20 P~ ClibPDF - vjvvw.fas[io.com

F:t Kuz'e 41 3 4 5 6 7 8 tobacco (gins) %_ 0.6 == 0.5 = o.4 ! • u 0.3 i , o.2 EYE (round 2) f 0.1 - , - , - , - , . , 3 4 5 6 7 8 tobacco (gins) ~- :Dml e.Fi -o. ~rali~ Sl~ 0.6" = o.5. _m = 0.4. 0.3- u 0.2" EYE (round 3) 0.1 , - , . , . , . , 3 4 5 6 7 8 tobacco (gins) ~ ~uOx~ -t C~Fi -~ lrali~ Slims C) cJ~ (jq r~ co po (.e4 ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

-. o ° ¥£$u=e 42 0.61 -o THROAT(round I) -,- 03 "~" C~lai O.4 = o.~- = ~ o.2 I~ . ,i J i - " i 0.1 '' 3 4 S 6 7 8 tobacco (gins) 0.6 = 0.5 .m ~0.4' ~ 0.3- g THROAT (round 2) 4 5 6 7 8 tobacco (gms) 0.6] THROAT (round 3} ~ ' [ " '1 " • t • "" '; " ~ " • 3 4 S 6 7 8 tobacco' (gins) (.,n u'l r'~ oo r~ J~ ClibPDF-www.fastio.com

°. F£sura 43 m m o 10 m C 0 w U 0 O.g" 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4" 0.3 3 NOSE (round 1 ) 4 5 6 7 tobacco (gms) -~.~ ~. v-=li~ sua= i 8 o.g" 0.8 0.7 -= 0.6 • ~ . 0.5' 0.3 3 NOSE (round 2) • i - i • l - 1 4 5 5 7 tobacco (gins) O.g" ~. 0.8" NOSE (round 3) 4 5 6 7 tobacco (gms) '-,- V'=ii=i= ST, i==. ,i=db 0 C:> I.I"! (.,,-I I',O Go r,,T" U't ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

F~gure 44 0.9" = 0.8 \ _= 0.7~ = o.6- ~= o.s. = 0.4. 0.3 3 ODOR (round 1) 4 5 6 7 tobacco (gins) "" 9ml -t C,~ '4 8 O.g -" 0.8 = 0.7" = _m o.6 O.s. u © 0.4- 0.3 3 ODOR (round 2) • [ " i • I " L • i 4 5 6 7 8 tobacco (gins) -'- Do~ • 4- V'=t;i~Sl~ 0.9 == = 0.8 ~= 0.7' ~ o.6, ~= o.s, Win, u 0.4- 0.3 3 ODOR (round 3) 4 5 6 7 8 tobacco (gms) --- Do=] -t C=~ o o co ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

Fl&~u~e 45 .- 0.9" OVERALL (round I) "~ ~:~ , ~,~ ~ 0.8 . • 0.7 ~=~ == 0.6 _= 0.5 0.4 == 0.3 0.2 ..... 4 5 6 7 8 tobacco (gins) 0.9 OVERALL (round 2) 0.8 ~ 0.6 ~ 0.5 ~ 0.4 u m L 0.2 3 4 5 6 7 tobacco (gins) --9==1 8 0.9 0.8 -= 0.7" == 0.6' '~ 0.5 == 0.4: OVERALL (round 3) 3 4 5 6 7 tobacco (gins) --9==1 o o P~ (3O P~ ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

Part 2: Physical Measurements INTRODUCTION This section reports emissions of selected smoke components from four brands of cigarettes: Capri, Marlboro (85 ram), Doral Lights (85 ram), and Virginia Slims Lights. Fourteen tests (Table 1) 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 I. Tests Assessing Emissions from Four Brands of Cigarettes Set I Set 2 Set 3 8:00-10:30 11:00-13:30 14:00-16:30 12/22/87 Marlboro Doral Lights Capri 12/23187 Marlboro ~ Va Slims Lights Capri ,r 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 Madboro Dotal Lights Marlboro Va Slims Lights Capri METHOD Four cartons of each brand were provided by B&W. Upon arrival, 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 recirculation rate of 67 or 95 ach. A test session lasted 2.5 hr. C:) C~ u-t un cx) co ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

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 II) were recorded throughout the experiment on a muttichannel Omega recorder. Particle size distributions were measured ('Table II) before the experiment and twice during steady state for 10-rain pedods. Instruments were calibrated before and after each set of experiments. Instrument inlet filters and operating parameters were checked daily. Table I1. Monitoring Instruments .C~ Instrument Method Carbon Dioxide Beckman LB-2, NDIR 2 % Carbon Monoxide Monitor lab 8310 ND1R 10 ppm Hydrocarbons Bendix FID 10 or 20 ppm Nitrogen Oxides Monitor lab 8840 Chemilumin. 0.5 ppm particles Monitored |l'lStrumen'L Method : 0.003-1.0 um TSI 3010 Electromobility Analyzer 0.3-20urn HIAC/Royco 4100 w/1200 sensor Optical Particle Counter 0.1-0.8um MRI 1591 Integrating Nephelometer The mass of total suspended particles (TSP) in the air at steady- state was determined gravimetdcally. Gas-phase nicotine and pa,"ticles 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 P3gure 1. A filter cassette consisted of a 37-ram assembly (Millipore M00003700) containing a Teflon-costed glass fiber filter (Pallflex TX401120WW, 37ram) to collect particles, a support pad (Millipore AP10037X), a spacer, then a tandem treated filter (Pailflex "I'X40H120WW soaked in 4% NaHSO4 - 40% ethanol, then dried) to collect gas-phase nicotine, and finally another support pad. The assembled cassettes ¢:D U'I co r,,o ClibPDF-vvww.fastio.com

,,,. ..... ~m~ 6 ....... ...-- ,-- ~ ,, --' " 4S . ~.-:.~~~-.~.~-. _:.-'-...-." ~-~...~...~-_~_~=:- ~~,..~_. ~ _ 14 u" J I r~ C fa a,-I r. r~ (.,T"t f',a CO ClibPDF - wwwifastio.com

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 o~tside vehicle emissions affected chamber levels of CO, NOx and HC; 2) time between experiments was lengthened 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. 0 co ClibPDF - W'v',,/vv.fas~[io.col]]

f ¢,7 3 " L..~' Table Ill. Capri 12/22 12/23 2/28 3/01 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 4" Gases (normalized to 2.5 ach) CO2 (%) 0.08 0.08 CO Copra) 4.0 4.5 NOx (ppm) 0.11 0.12 HC (ppml 4.6 4.7 Nicotine (ug/m3) 52:p.8 74-z7 23:22 1.42 74-81 2.8-3.8 903¢.3 Particles (normalized to 2.5 ach) OPC (% <1.5 urn) 92-96 Nephelometer 2.4-3.1 TSP (ug/m3) 840.+..26 180 184.,_5 187 1.18 (ug/g-m3) avg Feb:Dec 4.94 4.97 • -0.08 0.08 4.3 4.1 0.12 0.12 2.9 4.1 68-78 42-55 3.6-4.5 3.6-5.8 1064p..15 1091:p..2 0 215 219 !217:p.3 O (j-t ur'l r,,o o3 (,N ClibPDF - www.ias[io.com

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 ventilation (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 1.17 Particles (normalized to 2.5 ach} OPC (% <1.5 urn) 87-96 Nephelometer 2.5-3.5 TSP (ug/m3) 976+0° ° n,.2 7.14 0.08 5.5 0.12 6.0 52-66 3.3-4.4 932+19 154 (ug/g-m3) 133 avg 133 Feb:Dec 7.45 0.08 5.3 0.12 6.4 3.5-5.2 1161+1 8* 156 155+1 C) U-I po Co ¢j4 (..~- ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

• .° Table V. Marlboro 12/22 12/23 2/28 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) 2.5±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 ?_5 ach) 002 (%) 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 73+6 23:22 1.42 69-74 3.6-4.1 1092+166 Particles (normalized to 2.5 ach) OPC (% > 1.5 urn) 92-95 Nephelometer 3.2-4.5 TSP (ug/m3) 1061+15 7.63 7.50 (ug/g-m3) avg Feb:Dec 0.08 0.08 5.5 5.5 0.13 0.12 6.1 6.3" 59-73 29-39 3.7-5.2 4.7-5.8 1194-z71 1305:p..3 139 146 157 174 142+4 166.+.1 2 1.16 O url OO (.N ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

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.-1=0.1 2.35 2.20 recirculation (ach) 95 67 67 Tobacco Mass Burned (g) 6.92 Gases (normalized to 2.5 ach) CO2 (%) 0.08 CO (ppm) 5.1 NOx (ppm) 0.13 HC (ppm) 5.5 Nicotine (ug/m3) 89¢7 1.17 Particles (normalized to 2.5 ach) OPC (% <1.5 urn) 74-91 Nephelometer 3.0-4.4 TSP (ug/m3) 1000+_1 7.05 0.08 5.6 0.13 5.1 75-76 3.8-4.5 1187¢.6¢ 168 (uglg-m3) 144 avg 144 Feb:Dec 8.09 0.08 5.3 0.13 5.5 27-34 4~-5.2 1368+_.1 0 169 169~-1 =,===i O Ln On r~ co L~J ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

r • , ,, , p • ... •....:. • . • Table VII. Comparison of Brands . ..~., . .:... . :- •,..,,~.. :~.;:,-.~,,.~..~,,~.;... . Brand: ' • Capri " '" Dora[ Lights "' :T:"..Ma.dboro - . . ,. n= 4 3 -4 Bun'ied (g) 4.86+_0o16 7.31+0.16 7.55+_.0.06 Va Slims Lights G;~ses: CO (ppm + 0.3) HC (ppm ± 1.0) NOx (pprn .+.. 0.01) Nicotine (ug/m3) Dec Feb De± 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 7.7 6.2 5.5 5.3 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.13 74-2.7 est 89.+.4. 73.+.6 89.-p.? "w • Particles: n- 4 TSP (ug/rn3,Dec) 872+_.32 (ug/rn3,Feb) 1076¢25 (ug/g-m3,Dec) 184.+5 (ug/g-rn3,Feb) 217±3 3 4 3 976±0 1077±167 1000.,-._1 1047±114 1250¢71 1278±91 133 143+5 144 155-2.1 166+_.2 " 169¢1 ..; ., un LYl r~ co c~ ClibPDF - w~jvv,J.lastio.com

l The chamber was ventilated at 2.5 ach with recirculation 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 decrease 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 !11 to Vl 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 CO2 levels were similar in akl 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 simitar for Doral 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 pdmary index of particulate loading was the mass of TSP. As TSP increased there was an increase in the number of large particles (i.e., a smaller percentage of mass <1.Sum) and decrease in visibility. TSP concen~ations in December ranged from 840 to1092 ug/m3, whereas those in February vaded from 932 to 1366 ug/m3. The particle production rates per gram of tobacco burned measured in December were similar, 140+6 ug/g-m3 for Dotal 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. C) u'l u't Po Qo ,.,,j ClibPDF - www.fastio.com

/4 ; DISCUSSION: ": Capri produced lower concentrations of carbon monoxide, hydroc~bons, and p~ulJcles 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. / I O C3 U'l un r'J co (.~ co ClibPDF - www.fastio.com