Tobacco Documents Online

MEMORANDUM September 13, 1976 TO: Ms. M. S. I,reland FROM: M. A. Skiadanowski SUBJECT: RELATIONSHIP OF PUFF VOLUME TO NICOTINE TO TAR RATIOS AND CARBON MONOXIDE LEVELS OBJECT : Show that air diluting smoke is equivalent to reducing the puff volume. The air dilution of cigarette smoke increases the nicotine to corrected dry tar ratios; decreases the carbon monoxide; and increases the smoke pH. Norman (1) and Miller (2) have praposed that these changes.are caused by the cone assuming thermal characteristics more like ,~ those of the free burning state because of the reduced air flow over the cone during the puff. A similar sit- uation exists as the puff volume is decreased. As per Dr. Schultz's request, the literature was searched for papers showing the effect of varying puff volume on tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide levels in the mainstream smoke. The data available for proving that air dilution and puff volume 'reduction have similar effects on smoke composition is described below. Lowered carbon monoxide levels, which were found with increased air dilution, have also been found for reduced puff volumes (3). As shown in Tables 1 and 2 both puff volume and porosity of the cigarette paper effect the carbon monoxide level in the mainstream smoke. Data on wet tar and nicotine verses puff volume and puff frequency has been published (4). As shown in Table 3, there was no consistent trend for increasing nicotine to corrected wet tar ratios with decreasing puff volume. According to Norman, increased air dilution and therefore possibly reduced puff volume, may cause increased water to tar ratios. Therefore, the wet tar and nicotine data shown in Table 3 is not useful for observing the effect of'puff volume on tar and nicotine ratios.

M. S. Ireland - 2 - Sept. 13, 1976 The carbon monoxide data available does support the theory that the effects of air dilution on smoke composition are similar to those of puff volume. No information is available on dry tar and nicotine which could be used to compare the effects of air dilution and puff volume. Laboratory data on puff volume -verses dry tar and nicotine could'be collected here at Lorillard. References: 1. V. Norman, Beitr. zur Tabakforsch, 7(5):282, 1974. 2. A. P. Miller, U.S.~Patent No. 3,260,266, July 12, 1966. 3. A. J. Kruszynski and A. Henrilssen, Beitr. Tabakforsch. 5 (1) :9-12, 1969. 4. Lowell P. Bush, Claus Grunwald and Daniel L. Davis, J. Agr. Food Chem., 20(3):67$, 1972. r MAS/lmh Xc: Dr. F. J. Schultz jrDr. H. J.-Minnemeyer Dr. A. M. Ihrig

TABLE 1. Variation of puff volume and CO (% vol) in the mainstream smoke ( 3) . Puff Volume CO (W vol) 20 ml 2.75 35 ml 4.9 45 ml 6.0 TABLE 2.. Variation of cigarette paper porosity and CO (% vol) in the mainstream smoke (3). Porosity of Paper '( . m1/cm2 min) CO ($ vol)~ 25 6.1 80 3.9 , 170 2.4 220 1.9

it& TABLE 3. Variation of puff volume of University of Kentucky reference cigarettes (4), Puff Vol(ml) •50 Puff Frequency (sec) Wet TPM (mg/cig). Nic (mg/cig) Nic x 100 Wet TPM-Nic (mg~,/c_ ig) 90 25.5` 1.64 6.87 60 33.3 2.17 6.97 30 46.4 2.68 6.13 90 35.7 1.76 5.19 '60 45.7 2.63 6.10 30 . 59.4 3.84 6.91 90 41.2 2.60 6.7 60 61.1 3'.44 6.0 30 79.5. 4..06 5.4 l I/