Tobacco Documents Online

s' MEMORANDUM April 161, 19181 TO: Mr. C. L. Tucker FROM: V. Norman SUBJECT: Nicotine Tra"nsfer Efficiency of Cigarettes Some typical examples of nicotine delivery efficiency of commercial Lorillardbrands are shown in Table 1. Blend nicotine data used in the calculations were from the February Cigarette Report (H. D. Bogule to Dr. F. J. Schultz, 3/16/81) whereas the smokiing dataiwere 19'80 annual averages. The number of smoke analyses involved is showniin Table 1 in column "n". Figure 1 shows a plot of Burn Rate (min/cmi) versus nicotine transfer efficiencv. Fourteeniof the brands show areasonably goodcorrelation with the slower burning ciga- rettes being more effic~ent in nicotine transfer. Generally, 84's transfer n~icotine more efficiently than,991's. Nicotine transfer efficiency is particularly poor during, the early puffs because smoke aerosol serves as the transfer vehicle for nicotine and during, early puffs there is relatively little aerosol generated. 99's differ from 84's in having about 1.5 extra, early, low transfer efficiency puffs which, when pult on the per cigarette basis dilute the overall transfer effi- ciency significantly. The fact that there must also be some nicotine distilled from the front end'of the 9:9's into the rest of the tobacco column is apparently not enough to over- come the difference. (The tobacco column is a notoriously poor aerosol filter, i.e., the amount of extra! nicotine from the early puffs that is retained by the column is very small). Three brands, KII184, TRI84 and TRI84'r1 had nicotine transfer efficiencies which were considerably out of line with the rest of the brands. These three brands have very high blend nicotine contents. KIII99, onithe other hand, which also has a high.nicotine content fit into the correlation, albeit at a higher relative transfer level than the rest of the 99's. The d'.ifference.-between 84's and 99's appears to be much more pronounced at high blend nicotine contents. C.W ~.F

P Mr. C. L. Tucker - 2 April 16, 198!l Another factor that is sure to influence transfer efficiency is blend (and smoke) pHl with more basic bliend's having a larger proportion of readily distillable free nicotine. On the other hand, free nicotine is also filtered out more readily by the tobacco column, but overall, more basic blends would probably show higher transfer efficiencies. A note of caution: our smoking lab datalare for Control cigarettes, i.e., tobacco columns smoked to tipping plus 3' mm which generally means a butt length of 8 mm. Data that is available in the open''literature is usually for nonfilter cigarettes smokedito a 23'mm butt, i.e., ours and literature data are not strictly comparable. When doing things to cigarettes for the purpose of increasing, nicotine transfer efficiency and! then trying to interpret the data as to what one has achieved the above effects should be kept in mind. The total effect achieved may very well be a combination of the effect of burn rate, pH and what the treatment per se has produced. 3 Xc: Mr. A. B'. Hudson Dr. A. M. Ihirig, Dr. R. W. Slaven /gc . U-V V. Norman

. Es r;r,asr ~ „ I i ~I:t:ilt;l l ; ~i ~ 1 ! I i C , ----~-i--- I ~., --- :.l. ---- - - -~ . r 1 , I - .:_...L... _ X , .~ I . ' . 1~_ _ .1.....___ .i. i. , . I 00397977 , .-r -_--- ~_ _ ,: - C.

A, 0 Blend Nic. (%) n Burn Rate min/cm GLF'4 GRB c `1 2. 20 28 1. 27 ~~ GKE4 LOU 2. 2'0 41 1. 2 7 .; GL~9 2.2588 1.26 GL~9M 2.20, 48' 1.25 KI :.. 3 4 LOU 1.98' 107 1.43 KI= 99 GRB 1.89 46 1.38 KIT 99 LOU 2. 110 70 1. 3'9 KI-I84 2.55 50 1.14 KI-I99 2.59 47 1.09 Ma.~ 120 2.36 23 1.19 N!P "' 4 2.25 24 1.47 TR-34 2.82' 31 1.14 TR==3 4M 2.83 24 1.14 TB~4 2.12 64! 1.04 TG-4 2.12 47 1.06 T F 9 2.04! 64 1.08'. TG'9 2.12 140 1.08' "t,.k ---I ~~~.~ ~ TABLE 1 DATA SUMMARY Nic. N!ic. % Loss in RENic Transf. Transf. transf er Contr. (%) Filt. (o) due to filter ,12. 3/3, Z 5.4 56. 1 12. 3 5.6 54.5 11.9' 4.8 11.7 4.5 59.7 61.5 13, 3/V; / 7.7 ' 42. 1 12.7 7.9 37.8 11.9 7.6 36.1 13.5 2.3 83.0' 11.8 2.9 75.4 . 12:5 /~;j 1 8.4 32.8 13.2 8.6 34.8 13.4 2.3 82.8 13.2 2.2 83.3 11.1 3.6 67.6 11.1 3.7 66.7 11..0 4.6 58.2 10.9 4.6 57.8 56.3 54.1 59.8 61.4 42.3 38.2 36.5 82.7 75.2 33.2 34.8 82.7 83'. 5 67.4 67.2 58 . 0 57.5 , ~ 1 ` 5; i ~ i ~ 3r1