This 1977 report from British American Tobacco (BAT) entitled Smoking Behavior (Low Delivery Cigarettes), reports on a study that examined the changes in the smoking behavior of smokers who switch from high tar and nicotine cigarettes to "light" cigarettes. The human subjects used in the experiment were employees of BAT's Research and Development department, so all results were kept completely internal.
The report clearly shows a marked increase in the intensity with which smokers smoke the "low tar" brands:
"Measurements show that both low delivery brands were smoked...with a much greater intensity than the subjects' usual brand...Compared to machine smoking, on average about twice as much smoke was taken from each cigarette by the panel, in about half the time."
The report also shows BAT was aware of how smokers defeat the features of "light" cigarettes designed to dilute the smoke by entraining more air:
"...There were some observed abuses of the cigarette design...It was observed that at least one subject learned that by placing the cigarette further into the mouth, the ventilation holes could be covered up and smoke deliveries increased. It was also noted that the fingers used to hold the cigarettes could be conveniently placed to cover up some of the ventilation holes. One subject was seen to cover the ventilation holes with clear adhesive tape..."
The report also shows that BAT was aware that actual deliveries of tar and nicotine to the smoker from "light" cigarettes differed greatly from the measurements obtained by smoking machines, and that the smokers were taking in much higher amounts of smoke constituents from "light" cigarettes than the machines revealed:
"...The results show that the human smokers used in this test have taken more than twice as much smoke (by volume) from these cigarettes as is taken by a [smoking] machine operating under standard conditions. This is equivalent to about half as much again as was taken from the more usual brand for these smokers..."
This report appears to confirm the recent verdict in Illinois that concluded that smokers were deceived about the relative safety of smoking low-tar, or "light" cigarettes.
.
Fields
Quotes
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Two very low delivery (1.0 ug TPM, 0.1 mg nicotine) cigarette brands, Reemtsma No. l from Germany and Now from the U.S.A. have been smoked by a panel of smokers recruited from the staff at Group R & D Centre, Southampton. Each brand was smoked exclusively for one week. Measurements show that both low delivery brands were smoked in a similar
way and with a much greater intensity than the subjects' usual brand (mean delivery 25mg TPM, 1.6 mg nicotine). Compared to machine smoking, on average about twice as much smoke was taken from each cigarette by the panel, in about half the time. Although the intensity of smoking
individual cigarettes was increased, the number of cigarettes smoked per day was not markedly altered.
[From Page 15, Bates No. 105456349]
...All the smokers in this test usually smoke flue-cured tobacco cigarettes with nicotine and TMP levels at least six times higher than were offered in this test. The change to the low delivery German and American brands was therefore rather dramatic...
...Tthere were some observed abuses of the cigarette design. Thesse tookplace outside the behavioural laboratory. It was observed that at least one subject learned that by placing the cigarette further into the mouth, the ventilation holes could be covered up and smoke deliveries increased. It was also noted that the fingers used tohold the cigarettes could be conveniently placed to cover up some of the ventilation holes. One subject was seen to cover the ventilation holes with clear adhesive tape. All cigarette smoked in the laboratory were smoked through a holder which made the accidental or deliberate
occlusion of the ventilation holes more difficult. One subject was,however, observed to hold the c£Sarette in front of the holder and may have partially blocked some of the ventilation ports. Reference to the individual lit draw resistance measurements show that any attempts to cover the ventilation holes with the fingers were not
very successful.
A further observation...was that the incidence of double and multiple peaked puffs was much higher than had been observed previously...The second part of the peak was generally larger than the first. The reason for this behavioural change with very low delivery cigarettes may be that the smoker puffs initially to increase the glow and combustion temperature of the cigarette (in the smoker's terminology: to get it going) and uses the latter part of the puff to draw smoke for inhalation. It is also possible that the smoker does not experience the sensation he expects from the draw, so another puff is taken very rapidly to add to the first...
...The results show that the human smokers used in this test have taken more than twice as much smoke (by volume) from these cigarettes as is taken by a machine operating under standard conditions. This isequivalent to about half as much again as was taken from the more usual brand for these smokers.
The puff durations were longer from both the low delivery cigarettes and the volumes of the individual puffs were, on average, higher when compared with the usual brand or with machine smoking...
...In general it may be summarised that the subject smoked the low delivery brands more intensely than the usual brands, presumably in an attempt to draw more smoke and nicotine...
OEClCALI460-6
Group Research & Development Centre,
British-american Tobacco Co. Led.,
SOUTHAMPTON.
lOth January 1977
SMOKING BEHAVIOUR (LOW DELIVERY CIGARETTES)
(report No. gD.l&&O Restricted)
e
SUMMAKY AND CONCLUSIONS
Two very low delivery (1.0 u~ 1TM, 0.1 mE nlcoClne) cigarette
brands, ReemCsma No. l from Germany and Now from the U.S.A. have been
smoked by a panel of smokers recruited from the staff at, Croup R. & D.
Centre, Southampton. Each brand was smoked exclusively for one week.
MsasuremenCs show chat both low de1£vary brands were smoked ins similar
way and wlch a much greater incensi~y than the subjects' usual brand
(mean delivery 25mETPM, 1.6mEnicotine). Compared to machine smoking,
on average about ~wice as much smoke was taken from each cigarette by
the panel, in about half the time. Althoush the ~ntensi~y of smoking
ind£yidual cisaEettes was increased, the number of clsarettes smoked per
day was not markedly altered.
~ ~"~-
BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION
-2-
INTRODUCTION
Low delivery cigarettes have been introduced into many of the
world's more developed markets. Amongst the more recent introductions
are ReemCsma No. 1 in Germany and Now from leynolds in the U.S.A. Both
of chess brands offer very low deliveries-" (about 1 mE TPM and 0.1 ms
nicotine), but have comparaClvely high flavour amplitudes. The high
flavour ampllcude might make these cigarettes more acceptable to smokers
experimenting wLth low delivery cigarettes than other low dellver~
brands, which offer very little sensation Co the smoker.
Both Reemcsma No. 1 and Now achieve low delivery by a number of
design features includins ventilation of the mouth section of the filter
tip. Reemcsma No. 1 has a triple filter, "the mlddle section of which
conCalns granules of carbon. Now has a filter w~th a rln8 of five
embossed holes which run longitudinally and four rows of perforations.
As these brands seem to offer some advantages over previous Iow
delivery brands, it was decidod to measure the may in which these
cigarettes were smoked by a panel of smokers, and to compare Chess
results with those obcalned for the usual brand smoked.
EXPE~L'~AL METHODS
The Pan.el
~ ""%
41
The panel was selected from the staff of Group R. & D. Centre to
contain five male and five female subjects. All subjects were wiehln
the age ranks 18-35 years and had taken part in previous exper/ments in
which smoking blhmviour had been recorded.
m~
BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION
(...m
-3-
Experlmental Design
Half of the •ubjectS smoked Kaemtsma No. 1 exclusively for •even
days and were then changed Co emokLng Now exclusively for the next five
days. The other half of the panel smoked Now for •even days andmqmre
changed to Reemtsma No. 1 for the follov~ng five days. (The panel
smoked the first brand during the weekend in the middle of the experiment
durinS which t~me no measurements were made.)
Each subject visited the behavioural laboratory on each of the five
working days of the first week and the five working days of the ~cond
week. On each visit to the laboratory the •ubject s~oked • cigarette
of the appropriate brand. The way the cigarette was smoked was recorded
by a 8mokins analyser (1) while the subject listened to cape recorded
music in • controlled enviroumene room (2).
After smoklnK, the butt length was measured and the filter t£p
rm~ved from the butt and analysed for n£cocine alkaloids (3). The
subjects were issued with as many cigarettes as they ChouKhc they might
need, and a record kept of the clEar•ties issued. Subjects were asked
to rmne~bar or estimate the number of ciKarettee they had S£ven away and
the number left unmnolusd were recorded. The aver•St number of c£Karettas
smoked per day was estimated from chest dace.
m~ .....
The phys~al characteristics and analytlcal results for the "
two elK•reCta brands when smoked by machine under standard conditions
are shown in Table I which also concain8 some results for BENSON &
HEDGES K.S.F.T. and Embaesy R.S.F.T. for reference.
su~
BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION
-4-
TABLE 1
PHYSICAL D~ST.ONS AND ~YTICAL DATA FOR I~TSI~ NO. 1 AND NOW
, m ,
(ms)
Nicotine Alkaloids Del£ver7 (mS)
Puff Numbe=
Nicotine Alkalo£ds in Tip (mS)
Filtration Efficiency (Z)
Overall Cigarette Length (mm)
Tobacco Rod Length (~wn)
Filter Leu~th (ram)
TippLng Pape~ LmaKth (~)
FilCez" Construct:ion. T
C
M
Venc£1aced
Tor.al Puff Volume (machine) (ml)
l
N:f.coc:LnJ Alkaloids Del£very
Reemt:mna No. 1
u iJ i i
1.3
0.06
7.2
0.28
82
83
58
25
29
10 m, paper
7 .m, carbon Kz:an-Zes
8 ,-,, C.A.
Yes
2.52
a ,| m
Emba say
R.S°F.T.
L9
1.3
i • ii
1.4
O. 14
6.7
o.J7
82
57
25
30.5
25,,-- C.A. with
mmbomsed paCte.rn
on mouth end
Te$
235
•
B]CNS~ & ]UEDG~S
K.S.F.T.
1.7
BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION
qP'~
¢,-m
o,,,
-5-
RESULTS
A~ter each subject had smoked a cigarette, e reduced format paper
tape ~ras made and read on a teletype. From these data the totals
and averases o£ the smoking parameters were calculatRd.
One £eBale subject abandoned the test after smoking 17 Reaa~m No. 1
cigarettes in an afternoon and evmain~. The ~ause for complaint was an
unpleasant taste in the mouth, persistent irr£tatlou and lack of aatisfect£on.
The results of the one cisarette smokmi by thls subject in the laboratory
have not been included in the panel averase results. He substitutt
panel member was recruited.
The objective of this test was to measure the way in which these
two low delivery cigarette brands ware smoked by human subjects. The
lensth o£ the test and s~all panel size preclude further mean~naful
separation Lute sub---Broups or periods of t~me, and consequently the data
£rom all subjects (both males end females) and for both weeks 1 and 2 of
the test have ba@n combined.
To provide a reference point these results have been compared with
the results of a survey (4). In this survey seven of the smokers Lu this
test smoked BZNSON & ~C-v-~ K.S.P.T. while two smoked Embassy K.S.P.T.
The results for all subjects were combined regardless og the fact that
Kmbasey is of shorter lenKth. I~n the present study the effects 8t~ L~-
approxi~at£on can he ignorld.
The average results for the way these cisarettes were smoked are
shows in Table 2. Graphical plots of the cusmlative values are sbmm in
the Appendix, P£Suras 1-4.
BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION
c..r'!
-6-
AVERAGE SMOKING P~~S FOR ALL SUBJECTS AND ALL REPLICATES
SMOKING ~F.HTSMA NO. 1! NOW AND BENSON & HEDGES 0R I~fB&SSY
PsrmmeCer
t n le
Total Puff Volume
Average Puff Volume
Total Puff Duration
&retaKe Puff DuraCfon
Total Interval Between Puffs
AveraKe Interval Between Puffs
Total Time Alight
Total of Pressure ~dings co
Draw Puffs
Average of Pressure lU~ad£ns8
, i, , |i
(ml)
(ml)
(sec)
(sec)
(sec)
(,ec)
(see)
(c~W.C. lsec)
(,--,W.G./sac)
(cmW.C.)
Co Draw Puffs
AveraKe LiC Draw Resistance
Puff Number
BuC¢ Length (me)
Number of Ci6arettes Smoked per Day
~HicoC~Jae Alkaloids in Tip (ms)
EsC£maCed Nicotine Alkaloids (ms)
Delivery
F£1craC£on Efficiency (Z)
(S canderd Smokins)
*Noc assured - subjects' own estimate.
Reemnm
No. I
580.2
59.9
26.08
2.69
299.8
34 • 5
334.3
276.4
28.5
10.6
9.7
31.6
25.9
0.83
0.18
82
Now
539.0
59.3
24.68
2.71
277.9
34.3
312.2
308.9
34.0
12.5
9.~L
32.1
27.7
O. 88
0.33
73
B. & H./Embassy
403.0
37.7
~1.96
403.5
41.6
445. I
416.2
38.9
19.8
10.7
29.3
30-35*
qB- o
BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION
c~
-7-
DISCUSSION
Apart from the subject who abandoned the test after smoking less
than one pack of Reemtsm8 No. l cigarettes all the other subjects continued
~
to smoke the Reemtsma No. 1 and How cigarettes axcluslvely for e week
each.
Unsolicited co~me~ts made by the subjects may be eummarised as
senerally unfavourable, particularly durln8 the first £ew days of
Q
smoking the low delivery c£Karettes. Both brands were criticlsed for
lack of satisfaction, bu£1d up of persistent irrlntlon end streaks
taste. All the smokers in this test usually smoke £1ue-cured tobacco
ciK&rettes with nicotine and TPM levels at least 8/I tLmee hiKher than
were o£fered £n th£8 test. The thanks to the Low del£ver7 German and
America~ brands was therefore rather dramatlc.
The number o£ adverse comments on the low delivery brands had
reduced by the end o£ a week of mnokin8 them. This, however should not
be ~nterpreced as /Jadicatln8 that the penel found them more acceptable,
althoush co.writs that suKsested that some subjects ware "setti~K used
to them" became more frequent.
There were some observed abuses o£ the eiKarette desLKn. These
took place outslda the behavioural Laboratory. It was observed that
at least one subject learned that by plac£q the ciKarette £urther
into the mouth, the vent£1at£on holes could be covered up and, mnolue
deliveries increased. It was also noted that the linkers used to
hold the c~arettes could he conveniently placed to cover up 8ome
o£ the vent£1at£on holes. One subject was seen to cover the vent£1atlon
holes with clear adhesive tape. AZI cisarettes smoked in the laboratory
c~
BAT Co LTD - MINNE.gDTA TOBACCO LITIGATION
-8-
were smoked through a holder which made the accidental or deliberate
occlusion of the ventilation holes ~ore difficult. One subject was,
however, observed to hold the c£Sarette in front of the holder and
may have partLally blocked some of the ventilation porte. Reference
to the individual lit draw resistance measurememts shove that any
attempts to cover the ventilation holes wltb the fi~er8 were not
ver~ successful.
J
A further observation, noted from the oscilloscope crates of
individual puff profiles, was chat the LucLdmnee of double and multiple
peaked puffs was much hiKher than has been observed previously. The
peaks sometimes £e1£ to zero flow for between O.O2-1.98 eec before r£sin~
and fellies asain. The second part of the peak was 8enerally lareer than
the first. The reason for this behavlou~al chanKe ~rLth very low delivery
cilareCtes may be that the smoker puffs /~itially to increase the 8low
and coml~etion temperature o£ the cigarette (in the smokersI tarm4nology;
to 8ec it going) and uses the latter part og the puff Co draw smoke for
inhalation. It £s also poss4bla that the smoker does not experience the
sensation he expects from the draw, me mnotkr puff is taken very rapidly
to add to the first.
The averaKe results for all the sub, acts (Table 2) have be~ "~'".m~-
as
compared qrLth the survey results recorded some 3 years previously (4).
Other studies at Southampton (5) have shown chat mmok£~ patterns
are remarkably consistent ~ch time.
The results show that the haman smokers used in this test have
taken more than twice as much smoke (by volume) £rom Chase ciSeretfes as
is taken by m machine operatiD4S under snndard condltlou8. This is
BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION
O',,
C.m
-9-
equivalent to about half as m.uch skein as was taken from the more usual
brand ~or these smokers.
The puff durat£ons we:e loneer from both the low delivery c/safe,tee
and the volumes of the individual puffs were. on averaKe, higher when
compared with the usual brand or ~r~th machine 8mokln8. The average
intervals between puffs were about half that t~skon by machine and about
20X less than between puffs on usual brands. The pressures ned to draw
the puffs were, however, less than those recorded when usual brands were
smoked. This reduction An the d=av res£s~ance ks due to the ventilation
and h£gher paptc poros£ty o£ the low delivery brands.
~n Keneral it may be summarised that the subjects smoked the low
delivery brands more intensely than the usual brands, presumably in an
. attmpt to draw B0re smoke and nicotlne. Even w~th th~s ~ncreesed
£ntensity of smokinK the nwmber of puffs taken from the low delivery
c£KareCtes was about one less than taken from the usual brand. This
suKKests that the subjects "ran out of cigarette" - i.e. it had burned
away before they had taken enov4h smoke from £t. Zt u~sht have been
expected that the subjects would have taken more smoke from these
c£Karettes than was in fact taken. &n increase Lu puff ntmabe~, puff
volume and reduct£ou in interval between puffs and shorter butt lenKt~"~
could have been used. Zt is likely, however, that the low delivery
cijaretts would become mort unpleasant to smoke at h/4Lher intensi~y due
to 8 build up of irritation and added glavour components in the mouth.
The tobacco in these Iow delivery brands is coarsely cut in .
comparison w£th the usual U.E. flue-cured tobacco brands. As such a
faster smoulder rate was to be expected. The increased puff volumes
BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION
0%
C.r)
-IO-
taken by the subjects, in association with the higher smoulder rate has
resulted in the lower number of puffs taken in smoking these cigarettes.
As the subjects could not hope to equalise their nicotine intake
from one of the low delivery brands with that from their usual~r~nd
(unless they took •bout three to four litres of smoke, which i8 clearly
impossible) it might b• expected that more cigarettes of the lower
delivery brands would be smoked in a day. In £•Ct the number of
cigarettes smok•d per day was s4milsr to numbers mmokmd during a *
comparable panel test where the nicotin• deliveries were b•twee~ 8-18
times higher (6).
The analysis o£ the Filter tips £or nicotine content suggested that
smokers received •bout 0.2 mS of nlcot£ne alkaloids on ever•Ks from each
cigarette smoked. This £s about twice •s much •s taken under standard
smoking conditions. Since the filtration e££iciency depends on the
velocity of smoke passing through the filter (7) and the £1ow rates used
tO smoke the cigarettes by the subjects were higher than s~tndard
conditions the d•livery of nicotine to the subjects was probably under-
estimated.
TC is allo of interest to compare the average total volume o£ smoke
drawn from the lowest delivery cigarette J.u an earlier test (6)qmi~-q~se
volumes drawn in this test. Zn the earlier test, for • c£garettePwith a
machine smoked delivery of 1.O4 m8 nicotine, 625 ml of smoke were drawn
in 12 puffs; equivalent to an average puff volume o£ 52 el. This compares
wlth 540-580 ml of smoke taken in 9.1-9.7 pugfs in the present test,
equivalent to an average pug£ volume o£ about 60 el. The elightD4~tcrease
in average volume per pu££ seen when the low delivery cigarettes ware
smoked may be due Co" the lover draw resistance of these cigarettes.
BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION
.......................
r,..m
-11-
V
Since the data from the two tests are comparable ic may be interpreted
thaC clgareCCes with nicotine deliveries of less than 1.0 mE and highly
ventilated filters were smoked ac maximuB £neenslty by Chase smokers.
~d~"~
Previous studies suggest that these smokers normally choose co smoke a
brand which offers them a delivery of 1.5-2.O mE of nlcoCine in 10-12
puffs of 35-45 ml volume per puff.
These findings may be relevant to the design of low delivery cigarettes.
The smokers recruited for this study were unsrLlliuK to increase their
smoking intensity beyond one puff par 30 seconds and the maximum average
volume per puff is 50-~ el. PuffinE at more frequent intervals ks
likely to upset the brea~hing pattern and cause discoafort or at least
awareness of an increased rate and/or depth of inhalation and exhalation.
Awareness of the breathing pattern is abnormal for most smokers.
Because of liuL£tations arising from the usa of a small panel of
subjects, recruited from laboratory staff at Southampton, it is difficult
co extrapolate from the present study. However, the results suggest that
few smokers will find very low delivery, cigarettes attractive.
KEFERENCES
lo
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
BAT Kal~rt No. ED. 1199-K, 28.4.75.
BAT Report No. ED. 1OO7-K, 5.6.73.
T.E.C. Kesearch Paper 11, 2nd Edition 1974.
BAT Eaport So. ED. ll09-E, 7.6.74.
qD-~
BAT Report No. ED.1252-R, 11.9.75.
BAT Report No. ED.1409 Eestricted - To be issued.
Overton, J. Ray, Be£tr]Jge zur Tabakforschung 7, (3), 117-120, 1973.
BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION
-12-
APPENDIX
Yi|~*0 1-A are of the cunulative values for the Puff Volu|t,
Puff Duration, Interval be~waan Puffs and the Pressure used to draw
the puffs. Cumulative values have been plotted as it is possible ~
this way to combine dana from all puffs, irrespective of the number
of puffs taken by individual smokers on particular replicates. C~alative
value graphJ are constructed by plottinS the avaraSe value for the first
puff against puff number I, the addition of the avaraSe values fo~ the
0
first and second puffs against puff number 2 etc.
BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION
