Tobacco Documents Online

. 19 / section. Both Reader's Digest and Consumer Reports have discussed nicotine in their series of articles on cigar- ettes, and both have included nicotine determinations in their published analyses of cigarette smoke. The toxicity of nicotine has been known for over a century, and its pharmacology as a specific and isolated . chemical compound studied extensively for many years(7•21) Because of the observed pharmacological effects, nicotine in cigarette smoke has also been widely studied. The effects of nicotine on the cardiovascular and central nervous systems have been reported, but most recent studies have tended to stress the considerable individual variation among smokers in these responses and the lack of significant adverse effect on normal subjects. Thus, there has been a general diversion of emphasis from nicotine as scientific inquiry has shifted to tar and phenol(9'18'27) 0 Filter cigarettes as a group yield substantially less nicotine in the mainstream smoke than non-filter cigarettes, and within the filter group there is a wide range of nico- tine yield. The nicotine levels of smoke from 37 brands of C W . ~ C,l1~ C0 ~ - 8 - ~

f cigarettes is shown in the attached table published in Reader's Digest, July 1961. These show a range from 0.4 mg. of nicotine in the lowest-yield filter cigarette to 2.5 mg. in the highest-yield nonfilter cigarette. (See Table 2) The nicotine levels of cigarette mainstream smoke tend to vary with the tar levels. Hammond has reported that "tar and nicotine content are closely related. With.a few minor exceptions, cigarettes low in nicotine are also low in tar and vice versa."(19) C. Filtration of Phenol Numerous investigators now suggest that, in addition to tar and nicotine, phenol may also be an important factor in the smoking-health inquiry. Phenol has become the sub- ject of intensive special investigation. There have been reported improved methods for separating, identifying and dptermining the amounts of phenol and phenolic compounds in smoke.A/ ~ See papers of Crouse et al., Spears, Wynder in appendix. and Hoffmann and 9

TABLE 2 IN'icot'ine f Brand Si=e 1957 1958 1939 1961 F1L.TER•TIPS Oasis Kin; 1.9 mg 2'.5 mg , Salem King 2.1 mg 2.0 mg Kool Kin, 2.0 mg 1.9 mg L & M Kin-, 3.1 nig 2.5 mg 1'.6 nig 1.8' mg L & M Long - 2.1 mg 1.5 mg 1.8 mg Raleigh l:in~ - 1.8 mg Tareyton Dual King 1.9 m; 2.0 mg 1.7mg 1.8mg Winston King 2.6 mg 2.7 mg 1.7 mg 1.7 mg Viceroy Kino 2.4 mg 2.2 mg 1.4 mg 1'.6 mg Alpine Kino 0.9' nig 1.5 mg Kentucky Kings King - 1.5mg Marlboro King 1.3 mg 1.5 mg Marlboro Long . 2.4 mg. 1.9 nig 1.3 mg 1.5 mg Winston Long 2.3 mg 1.6 nig 1.5 mg, Viceroy Long - 1.4mg Newport King 1.1 mg 1.3 mg Old Gold Kin, 3.1 mg 1.5 mg 1.3 mg 1.3' mg Parliament King 1.01mg 1.3 mg Newport Long 1.01mg 1.2 mg Duke of Durham King 0.4 nig 1.1' mm Kent 2.2 mg 1'.3 mg 1.1mg 1.1'mg Kent Long - 11.3mg 1.0mg 1.1mb ?,:r!iament Lon; 2'.7 mg 1.5 mg 1.1 mg 1.1 mg Sprin g King' 0.5 mg 0.7' mg Life ' King 0.6 mg 0.5 mg King Sano Kin; 0.6 mg. 0:7 mg 0.4 mg PLAIN-TIPS Chesterfield i M King 2.6 mg 3.4 mg 2.5mg 2.5 mg orr s . Philip "Commander" King - - - 2:5mg Herbert Tareyton King 2.2 mg 2.6mg 2.2mg 2'.4m;, 4 Pall Mall King 2.4 mg 2.6,mg 2.3 mg mg 2. Raleigh King 2.5 mg 2.6 mg 2.7 mg 2.4 mg Chesterfield Reg. 2.4 mg 2.5 mg 2.0 mg 2.1 mZ O1d GoldStraight King - - - 2.1 mg Camel R'eg• 2,8mg 2.5mg 2.3mg 1.9 mg Lucky Strike Reg.. 2.1'mg 2.0mg 1.8 mg 1.9 mg Philip Morris Reg, 2.4mg 2.2 mg .1:6ms 1.9mg Old Gold Straight Reg. 2.4 m; 1.6 mg 1,3 mg 1.4 mg Digest (July 1961) p. 76. Source: Reader's

, Practical methods for selective filtration of the phenol content of cigarette smoke have recently been developed, and a number of brands of cigarettes, produced by several manufacturers, now yield significant reductions in the phenol content of the mainstream smoke. Cicfarette Smoke and Phenol as Ciliastatic Agents Cigarette smoke and some of its components have long been reported to have ciliastatic properties. Since the ciliated epithelial tissues of the respiratory tract serve to remove foreign matter from the tract, the effect of cigar- ette smoke on the functioning of ciliated tissue has been investigated.v The ciliastatic effect of cigarette smoke and some of its.components has been demonstrated on the ciliated tissues of the freshwater clam(13); the frog(3'28); rats(ll) rabbits(ll): cats(l2); goats, sheep and dogs(l5): and cultured human epithelium(2) . V For recent, unpublished studies, see papers of Bernfeld et al., Dalhamn and Rylander, Davis and George, and Q Schultz and Bussell in appendix. ~ ~ - 10 - m O

Among the known constituents of tobacco smoke, phenol specifically has been reported to inhibit or arrest the activity of the ciliated tissues of freshwater clams(l3) and of frogs(3,28,31,35). in laboratory experiments, phenols have also been reported to be ciliastatic when tested on paramecia,:rats and, in some instances cultured human bron- chial epithelium(35)~ Schultz and'Bussell have recently reported that ex- posure to phenol reduces the flow of mucus in frog esophagus tissue in proportion to the dose applied. They found the degree of inhibition of cigarette smoke on ciliary function to be directly related to the amount of phenol in the smoke applied, and when the phenolic compounds in the smoke are reduced "to a low level, the depressant effect [on mucus "(28) f lowJ can be virtually eliminated. Bernfeld et al. reported that smoke from filter cigarettes is less ciliastatic than smoke from nonfilter cigarettes(3) . Dalhamn and Rylander have recently reported privately their studies to date on the effect of smoke from filter and nonfilter cigarettes on the cilia of cats in vivo.

In preliminary findings, it was reported that the smoke from two brands of filter cigarettes did not reduce ciliary activity, whereas the smoke from a single brand of nonfilter cigarettes caused stoppage of ciliary activity in 4 of 5 animals exposed. Ciliary activity was reported to have resumed in 2 of the 4 animals after a 10 minute recovery period but did not resume at all after a 15 minute recovery period for the other 2 animals affected.(12) Selective Filtrationof Phenols The reported presence of phenol and phenolic com- pounds in the cigarette smoke suggested to a number of investigators the desirability of attempting to reduce the phenol content of cigarettes by special filtering action.~ It has been reported that approximately 80° of the phenol in the mainstream smoke is in the particulate phase and 20% in the gaseous phase. It would normally be expected that the reduction of phenol would be proportional to the degree of removal of tar or particulate phase. Hoffmann 6/ See papers of Bernfeld et al., Hoffmann and Wynder, w Schultz and Bussell, and Spears in appendix. ~ G1 Ca 00 N - 12 -

and Wynder, however, found that while cellulose acetate filters of the cigarettes they tested removed 33-42% of the particulate matter in the mainstream smoke, such filters removed from 60-70% of the phenol, thus suggesting a ~ (20) capacity for selective removal . Subsequently, cellu- lose acetate filters were treated with various plasticizers and found to have increased phenol-adsorption capacities. Filters so modified reduced phenol up to 90%(20). Crouse et al., reporting later experiments on 13 brands of filter cigarettes, found a phenol reduction ranging up to 85%(10). Davis and George have reported the selective filtra- .tion of phenol and phenolic compounds both in dry gas and cigarette smoke(13)~ Several investigators have reported that selective filtration of phenol may be significant in the reduction or elimination of ciliastasis. Davis and George reported that selectively filtered smoke was "far less toxic to a 7/ Spears has postulated that the selective phenol filtra- tion occurs because the more volatile phenol concentrating at the surface of the aerosol rticles is adsorbed by O . the cellulose acetate fibers(3 1. ~ CJ? _ GD ~ W - 13 -

given cilia than unfiltered smoke and probably less toxic than smoke filtered by conventional secondary acetate tips..(l3). Schultz and Bussell have reported that smoke from cigarettes provided with phenol-selective filters is less ciliastatic than smoke from unfiltered or unselectively filtered cigar- ettes (28) . Phenol Content of Cigarettes Among cigarettes now available, there is a broad range of phenol content of mainstream smoke. The data of Spears, who determined the phenol yield of 19 brands of cigarettes, both filter and nonfilter, and of Crouse et al., who deter- mined the phenol in the smoke of 13 brands of filter cigar- ettes, are shown on Tables 3 and 4. Filter brands as a group yield less phenol than non- filters and within the filter group there are substantial variations in phenol yield. As reported by Spears, the phenol content of smoke condensate from 85 mm. nonfilter cigarettes ranged from 76 mcg. to 108 mcg., while the phenol content of smoke condensate from the same size filter cigar- ettes ranged from 9 mcg. to 35 mcg. per cigarette. C C.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - 14 - W 04

TABLE 3- PHENOL VALUES OF COMMERCIAL CIGARETTES Phenol per Sample brand and length cigarette (mcg. ) 1 (85 mm. ) NF a 108 2 (85 mm. ) NF 104 3 (85 mm. ) NF 76 4 (70 mm.) NF . 81 5 (70 mm.) NF 59 6 (85 mm. ) F 35 7 (85 mm. ) F 34 8 (85 mm. ) F 33 9 (85 mm. ) F 31 10 (85 mm. ) F 28 11 (85 mm. ) F 24 12 (85 mm. ) F 24 13 (85 mm.) F 23 14 (85 mm. ) F 21 15 (85 mm. ) F 21 16 (85 mm. ) F 14 17 (85 mm.) F 14 18 (85 mm. ) F 12 19 (85 mm. ) F 9 a NF nonfilter F filter Source: Spears(29)

TABLE 4 - REDUCTION OF PHENOL IN SMOKE OF FILTER BRANDS OF CIGARETTES Code Length (mm. ) Phenol in Filter intact (mcg. ) Smoke Filter removed (mcg. ) Reduction (%) C 85 12.8 87 85.3 M 85 19.5 71 72.6' A 80 25 82 69.5 B 85 29 90 67.8 D 80 31 109 71.6 E 85 43 129 66.7 F 80 44 115 61.7 G 85 45 122 63.1 L 85 46 115 60.0 J 85 48 130 63.1 K 85 53 124 57.2 I 85 55 111 50.5 H 85 64 161 60.3 (10) Source: Crouse, Garner and O'Neill O W ~ CJ2 m C~