Abstract
This 1973 R.J. Reynolds Research and Development (R&D) document indicates a chemical change that took place in cigarettes around that time.
RJR chemically analyzed competing brands of cigarettes that were excelling in sales to see how they differed from RJR's products. They found that the smoke from these other products (specifically Marlboro and Kool) was more alkaline, and that this caused more of the nicotine to go into "free" form (vapor form), "which is volatile, rapidly absorbed by the smoker and believe to be instantly perceived as nicotine 'kick.' "
RJR correlated these differences in smoke pH with improved market performance (higher sales) of these brands, saying
"Our preliminary correlactions strongly suggest that... the vigorous, sustained growth in sales of Marlboro (and other Philip Morris brands) and Kool correlates closely with the increased smoke pH, hence increased 'free' nicotine and nicotine impact of those brands."
The name for this chemical process is "free basing," the same term also used to describe the process of changing cocaine into "crack," a form of cocaine that is smoked and gives a more rapid, intense onset than snorting.
Fields
- Quotes
I. INTRODUCTION; OBJECTIVES:
This year the continuing, vigorous sales growth of various competitive cigarette brands, especially Marlboro and Kool, prompted an intensive study of the physical and chemical properties of those brands as compared with our brands. This was aimed at (i) identifying any significant property differences which might correlate with market performance, (2) measuring and monitoring such differences, and (3) learning how such differences are achieved, permitting to achieve similar effects in our existing or new brands, if desired.
[From Page 4, Bates No. 500917509]:
...III. SMOKE pH A~D "FREE" NICOTINE
In essence, a clgarette is a system for delivery of nicotine to the smoker in attractive, useful form. At "normal" smoke pH, at or below about 6.0, essentially all of the smoke nicotine is chemically combined with acidic substances, hence is non-volatile and relatively slowly absorbed by the smoker. As the smoke pH increases above about 6.0, an increasing proportion of the total smoke
nicotine occurs in "free" form, which is volatile, rapidly absorbed by the smoker, and believed to be instantly perceived as nicotine "kick"...
Marlboro and Kool deliver about the same amounts of total smoke nicotine as do our comparable brands... (Charts IX and X)...Thus, Marlboro and Kool smokes contain more "free" nicotine than our comparable brands, hence would be expected to show more instantaneous nicotine "kick"
than our brands...
[From Page 5, Bates No. 500917510]:
V. MARKETING CORRELATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Putting all of this together, we see that Marlboro (and other Philip Morrls brands) as compared with WINSTON, our other brands and most other brands on the market shows; (1) higher smoke pH (higher alkalinity), hence increased amounts of "free" nicotine in smoke, and higher immediate nicotine "kick"...
...These differences in nicotine impact and other smoke qualities arising from smoke pH increases would be expected to give rise to differences in consumer response, hence market performance. Our prelimlnary correlations strongly suggest that this is the case and that the vigorous, sustained growth in sales of Marlboro (and other Philip Morris brands) and Kool correlates closely with the increased smoke pH, hence increased "free" nicotine and
nicotine impact of those brands...
...Chart XIII suggests that market performance of various brands correlates positively with total amount of "free" smoke nicotine, and that all brands surveyed having over about 35 micrograms of "free" nicotine/cigarette increased
in market share in the period studied...Subsequent detailed analysis by Marketlng Research of our pH and "free"
nicotine data along with sales data and other factors has confirmed the strongly positive correlation between "free" nicotine in smoke (determined by pH and total nicotine in smoke) and market share performance...
...If our data, correlations and conclusions are valid, then what has emerged is a rather new type of cigarette, represented by Mrlboro and Kool, with high nicotine "kick", burley flavor, mildness to the mouth, and increased
sensation to the throat, all largely the result of higher smoke pH. There is evidence that other brands which are selling well also have some of these attributes, particularly increased "free" nicotine impact. Because brands of the new type continue to show vigorous growth in sales; because a high proportion of beginning smokers are learning to llke Marlboro, the leading brand of the new type; and because we have no current brand in this newly identified, major segment of the market; it has become appropriate for us to consider moving our present brands in the direction of the new type of cigarette and/or creating new products to compete directly in that area of the market.
- Company
- R.J. Reynolds
- Author
- Teague, Claude Edward, Jr., Ph.D. (RJR R&D Admin. Director 1987)
Assistant Director of Research at RJR in 1973 and Director of R&D Administration in 1987.(Source: RJR Who's Who NMLRP) Teague was Director of Research & Development
- Recipient
- R.J. Reynolds, corporate recipient (presumed)
- Region
- United States
- Type
- REPORT
- Named Person
- Moore, J.R.
- Blevins, R.
- Subject
- free nicotine (nicotine without salt, in vapor form)
Free nicotine is more rapidly and easily absorbed into the bloodstream, gives the user more of a "kick" when smoked.
(RJR 500917506)
- nicotine
- Ammoniation (Technology)
- pH Manipulation (Technology)
- Pharmacology (Effects)
Document Images
Page 1: tlr59d00
SECRET
.y..
~1o. 1~ _
a adft
IMPLICATIONS AND ACTIVI,TIES ARISING FROM CORRELATION
OF SMOKE pH WITH NICOTINE IMPACT, OTHER
SMOKE QUALITIES, AND CIGAPETTE SALES
Page 2: tlr59d00
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION; OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . 1
II. HISTORICAL DATA, TRENDS AND BRAND COMPARISONS ........ 1
III. SMOKE pH AND "FREE" NICOTINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
IV. SMOKE pH AND OTHER SMOKE QUALITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
V. MARKETING CORRELATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . . . . . 3
VI. PRESENT RJR BRAND ACTIVITY . '. . . . . . . . . . . 3
VII. RESEARCH ACTIVITIES, CURRENT AND PLANNED . . . . . . . . . . . 4
LIST OF CHARTS
Chart No. Title Page
I pH Concept and ScaYe . . . . 6
II Puff-By-Puff pH Values: 1972 WINSTON
and Marlboro 85 . . . . . . . . . . . ... 7
III Average Maximum Smoke pH of Tobacco
Materials and Products . . . . . . . . . 8
IV WINSTON vs Marlboro: Smoke pH vs
Year of Manufacture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
V SALEM vs Kool: Smoke pH vs Year
. of Manufacture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
VI Filter Cigarette: Smoke pH vs
Year of Manufacture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
VII Nonfilter Cigarettes: Smoke pH
vs Year of Manufacture . . . . . . . . . . .. 12
VIII pH, Nicotine and Smoke Quality . . . . . . . . . _ 13
IX FTC "Tar" and Smoke Nicotine - _
Marlboro vs WINSTON . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
X FTC "Tar" and Smoke Nicotine -
SALEM vs Kool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
XI
15
Sales pH and Free Nicotine - -
Marlboro vs SALEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
XII Sales pH and Free Nicotine -
Koo1 vs SALEM . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . 17
XIII Market Share Change vs Free Nicotine
in Smoke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
APPENDICES
Appendix No. Title Page
I Current Data on RJR and Competitive Brands ... 19
II Memoranda From Marketing Research ....... 22
III Present Brand Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 27
Page 3: tlr59d00
I,PLICATIONS AND ACTIVITIES ARISING FROM CORRELATION OF SMOKE QH t,ITH
NICOTINE IMPACT, OTHER SMOKE QUALITIES, AND CIGARETTE SALES
I. L`'TRODUCTION; OBJECTIVES:
This year the continuing, vigorous sales growth of various competitive
cigarette brands, especially Marlboro and Kool, prompted an intensive study of
the physical and chemical properties of those brands as compared with our brands.
This was aimed at (1) identifying any significant property differences which
might correlate with market performance, (2) measuring and monitoring such
differences, and (3) learning how such differences are achieved, permitting us
to achieve similar effects in our existing or new brands, if desired.
II. HISTORICAL DATA, TRENDS AND BRAI\'D CO`iPARISONS
In seeking out significant property differences, we gathered available
historical and current data on our brands and competitive brands, and made
comparisons. It soon became apparent that in recent years, corresponding to
recent sales performance, the most significant difference between our brands and
Philip Morris brands and Kool has been in the area of smoke pH.
It will be recalled that smoke pfl is a means for expressing, on a 0-14 scale,
the degree of acidity or alkalinity of the smoke system. As smoke pH increases
the system becomes more alkaline, and as smoke pH decreases the system becomes
more acidic. Chart I* illustrates the pH concept, Chart II shows typical smoke
pH curves from which average values are derived, and Chart III shows typical
smoke pH data for various tobacco materials and products. Current data on smoke
pH and related properties of our brands and competitive brands are given in
Appendix I.
Our data show that smoke from our brands, and all other significant
conpetitive brands, in recent years has been consistently and significantly
lower in pH (less alkaline) than smoke from Marlboro and to a lesser degree
Kool. Chart IV shows averaged smoke pH data for WINSTON vs. Marlboro over
the years, Chart V shows a SALE`i vs. Kool comparison, and Charts VI and VII
show smoke pH data for some other major brands. All evidence indicates that
the relatively high smoke pH (high alkalinity) shown by Marlboro (and other
Philip Morris brands) and Kool is deliberate and controlled. This has raised
questions as to: (1) the effect of higher smoke pH on nicotine impact and
smoke quality, hence market performance, and (2) how the higher smoke pH
might be accomplished.
*Charts I - XIII appear on pages 6 - 18.
Page 4: tlr59d00
- 2 -
III. SMOKE pH AND "FREE" NICOTINE
In essence, a cigaretke is a system for delivery of nicotine to the smoker
in attractive, useful form. At "normal" smoke pH, at or below about 6.0,
essentially all of the smoke nicotine is chemically combined with acidic substances,
hence is non-volatile and relatively slowly absorbed by the smoker. As the
smoke pH increases above about 6.0, an increasing proportion of the total smoke
nicotine occurs in "free" form, which is volatile, rapidly absorbed by the
smoker, and believed to be instantly perceived as nicotine "kick". Chart VIII
shows how proportion of "free" nicotine increases as pH goes higher.
Marlboro and Kool deliver about the same amounts of total smoke nicotine
as do our comparable brands (Charts IX and X). However, Marlboro smoke is
typically at pH 6.8-7.3, and Kool smoke is typically at 6.4-6.6, as compared
with WINSTON smoke at pH 5.8-6.0 and SALEM smoke at pH 6.0-6.2. Thus,
Marlboro and Kool smokes contain more "free" nicotine than our comparable
brands, hence would be expected to show more instantaneous nicotine "kick"
than our brands. Charts XI and XII show these relationships, along with
some comparative sales data to be discussed later.
As a result of its higher smoke pH, the current Marlboro, despite a
two-thirds reduction in smoke "tar" and nicotine over the years, calculates
to have essentially the same amount of "free" nicotine in its smoke as did
'he early WINSTON. Over the same period, with some reduction in smoke pH
-:nd about two-thirds reductions in smoke "tar" and nicotine, the calculated
amount of "free" nicotine in WINSTON smoke has decreased by about two-thirds.
Thus, currently the calculated amount of "free" nicotine in Marlboro smoke is
almost three times the amount in WINSTON smoke. In Kool vs. SALEM comparisons,
much the same pattern emerges over time, although the differences are.not as
pronounced.
IV. SNOlOv pH AND OTHER SMOKE QUALITIES
In addition to enhancing nicotine "kick", increasing the pH (increasing
alka linity) of smoke above about 6.0 causes other changes, particularly when
the increase in smoke pH is achieved by adding ammonia to the blend. As smoke
pH increases, in general stemmy taste, mouth irritation, flue-cured flavor and
Turkish flavor are diminished, and burley flavor and character are enhanced.
It should be noted, however, that if the smoke pH goes much above 7 at normal
total smoke nicotine levels (1.1-1.6 Ug/cigt.), the amount of "f ree" nicotine
becomes high, and this uay cause harshness to the throat. These changes in
smoke qualities with changes in smoke pH are illustrated in Chart VIII.
~
0
0
«.
...~ .<,. ...~r ..--_.....i.,..a,:.a:.,,;:.,.............;~~...---;__
Page 5: tlr59d00
3
V. MARKETING CORRELATIONS AND IrLpLICATIONS
Putting all of this together, we see that Marlboro (and other Philip
Morris brands) as compared with WINSTON, our other brands and most other
brands on the market shows: (1) higher smoke pH (higher alkalinity), hence
increased amounts of "free" nicotine in smoke, and higher immediate nicotine
"kick", (2) less mouth irritation, less stemmy taste and less Turkish and
flue-cured flavor, and (4) increased burley flavor and character. Kool
differs from SALF1M in much the same way; however, the differences are not as
great and the different levels of menthol and other factors tend to blur the
picture.
These differences in nicotine inpact and other smoke qualities arising
from smoke pH increases would be expected to give rise to differences in
consumer response, hence market performance. Our preliminary correlations
strongly suggest that this is the case and that the vigorous, sustained growth
in sales of Marlboro (and other Philip Morris brands) and Kool correlates
closely with the increased smoke pH, hence increased "free" nicotine and
nicotine impact of those brands. The accompanying reduction in mouth irritation
aud stemmy taste, and the increased burley character may also be factors.
Chart XI compares regular WINSTON to regular Marlboro in terms of smoke pH,
calculated amount of "free" nicotine in smoke, and annual sales, for recent
years. Chart XII compares regular SALLM to regular Kool in the same way.
Chart XIII suggests that market performance of various brands correlates
positively with total amount of "free" szoke nicotine, and that all brands
surveyed having over about 35 micrograms of "free" nicotine/cigarette increased
in market share in the period studied.
Subsequent detailed analysis by Marketing Research of our pH.and "free"
nicotine data along with sales data and other factors has confirmed the
strongly positive correlation between "free" nicotine in smoke (determined by
pH and total nicotine in smoke) and market share performance. Memoranda in
Appendix II summarize the work of Marketing Research.
VI. PRESENT RJR BRAND ACTIVITY
If our data, correlations and conclusions are valid, then what has emerged
is a rather new type of cigarette, represented by Marlboro and Kool, with
high nicotine "kick", burley flavor, mildness to the mouth, and increased
sensation to the throat, all largely the result of higher smoke pH. There is
evidence that other brands which are selling well also have some of these
attributes, particularly increased "free" nicotine impact. Because brands of
the new type continue to show vigorous growth in sales; because a high
proportion of beginning smokers are learning to like Marlboro, the leading brand
of the new type; and because we have no current brand in this newly identified,
major segment of the market; it has become appropriate for us to consider
moving our present brands in the direction of the new type of cigarette and/or
creating new products to compete directly in that area of the market.
Page 6: tlr59d00
4
Currently, Research, Tobacco Development and Marketing are collaborating
on a series of tests aimed'at exploring the newly-identified area of the
market. The three basic types of products being prepared for evaluation are:
(1) direct matches of Marlboro (NF0 10/15) and Kool (NFO 12/3), (2) WINSTON
KING (NFO 10/15) and CAMEL FILTER (NFO 10/15) maintaining basic integrity but
with smoke pH same as Marlboro, and (3) SALEM.KING (NFO 12/3) maintaining
basic integrity and menthol level but matching Kool in smoke pH. Work is
planned, but NFO target dates are not yet established, for evaluation of
similar smoke pH changes in DORAL and VANTAGE.
Additionally, a series of WINSTON-type cigarettes with step-wise
increases in smoke pH, with the top-step well above the smoke pH of Marlboro,
will be made for evaluation in the first quarter of 1974. Panel testing of
these cigarettes should provide information on: (1) the minimum smoke pH
change detected by the consumer, (2) changes in satisfaction factors and
other smoke qualities associated with small pH changes, (3) the preferred
pH range for smoke of a given, normal nicotine content, and (4) the break-over
point, beyond which increasing the smoke pH gives smoke which is undesirable and
too harsh to inhale.
A memorandum describing these activities and schedules in more detail
appears as Appendix III.
VII. RESEARCH ACTIVITIES, CURRENT AND PLANNED
As its part in this collaborative effort, Research has: (1)*collected,
correlated, interpreted and described to Management data on smoke pH of
various brands, (2) developed and put into routine use improved methods for
measurement of smoke pH, (3) discovered and reproduced the additives and
procedures necessary to prepare the G-7 type of material used to increase
the smoke pH of Marlboro, and (4) monitored, on a continuous basis, smoke pH
and related properties of ta rlboro, other Philip Morris brands, Kool, our
brands, and some other conpetitive brands. Additionally, Research has substantial
work in progress on (1) deterisining how smoke pH elevation and control are
achieved in Kool, (2) developing a method for measuring pH of pipe smoke,
(3) studying how smoke composition and other things change as pH is changed,
and (4) evaluating various methods whereby smoke pH may be increased, with
emphasis on ammonia treatments of stem materials.
Methods which may be used to increase smoke pH and/or nicotine "kick"
include: (1) increasing the amount of (strong) burley in the blend,
(2) reduction of casing sugar used on the burley and/or blend, (3) use of
alkaline additives, usually ammonia compounds, to the blend, (4) addition
of nicotine to the blend, (5) removal of acids from the blend, (6) special
filter systems to remove acids from or add alkaline materials to the smoke,
and (7) use of high air dilution filter systems. Methods 1-3, in combination,
0
represent the Philip Morris approach, and are under active investigation. 0
The remaining methods appear less attractive or less practical, and are %o
.-
currently receiving less attention.
J
U
Page 7: tlr59d00
5
Thus in this continuing, collaborative effort, Research is providing
measurements, data, interpietations, new information and discoveries, and
technical consultation to TPD, Marketing, and others. We anticipate
continued intensive effort in this potentially fruitful area throughout 1974.
:jhb
Xc: Dr. 24urray Senkus
Page 8: tlr59d00
CHAr,T I
pll CONCEPT AND SCALE
q
DEFItSITION : pH IS A MEAa\S FOR E?3RESSING, ON A 0-14 SCALE, THE DECREE
OF ACIDITY OR ALKALINITY OF A SYSTEt4.
pH
14 -T- LYE (STRONGLY ALKALINE)
BAKING SODA
CIGAR SMOKE
BATTERY ACID (STP.O::GLY ACIDIC)
Page 9: tlr59d00
- 7 -
CILAP.T II
2
' PUFF-BY-PUFF ptl !'A! UcS:
1972 ~~IP1ST0fI ANJ F:;~LB0R0 85
4
PUFF f;UM3~R
6
8
0
Page 10: tlr59d00
CHA.^,T III
AVCCJ:GE PL-'JiINU'M S"10KE 1!~. OF TOBACCO IL4TERL4LS AYD PRODUCTS
pH
9T ALKALINE
0
BIG CIGAR
KF BURLEY
7-
.
- FLUE-CURED STEMS
WASHED BURLEY STEMS
5--1- ACIDIC
CASED KF BURLEY
MARLBORO i'- MARLBORO G-7
KOOL 1,.
CAMEL -f- CF FLUE-CURED
SALEM 6 __1._.
TURKISH BLEND
WINSTON BURLEY STEMS
.
pH
