Tobacco Documents Online

Topical Report PdCI/S&HP/DRfVL #68 CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF SMOKE FROM SELECTED SOUTH FLORIDA VARIANTS 4-17-78 R. B. Quincy, R. A. Jenkins, and A. H. Marshall Tobacco Smoke Research Program Bio/Organic Analysis Section Analytical Chemistry Division Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Interagency Agreement (ERDA-NIH/NCI) No. 40-485-74, Part I Internal (ORNL) Contract Charge Number 3390-0225 Intended for informal communication with project management only. Confidential until published or released by author.

CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF SMOKE FROM SELECTED SOUTH FLORIDA VARIANTS R. 63. QRiin.~qL, R. A. Jenkins, and A. H. Marshall Introduction. A non-filter and filter variant of three brands of South Florida cigarettes were submitted to ORNL. This Topical Report contains analytical data for the measurement of tar, nicotine, CO, CO2, whole smoke HCN, NOx (as NO), and acrolein deliveries from the smokes of these six variants. These constituents in the smokes were analyzed in response to a special NCI-S&HP management request. In addition, values for acetaldehyde and isoprene are also presented. Experimental. Standard NCI protocol methods were employed for cigarette handling, smoking and analysis of smokes. Each analysis was carried out in quadruplicate. Results and Discussion. Table 1 identifies the brand names and the para- meters of the cigarettes smoked in this study. The analytical results for the determined constituents are presented in Tables 2, 3, and 4. These are expressed as delivery per cigarette, mean (mg), or mean (mg) ± one standard deviation (mg) or (ug). The tar deliveries for the filter variants are very similar. Their three non-filter counterparts deliver approximately 70;v more tar. The nicotine:tar ratio for the Centrofinos pair is 0.043, and for the El Ci"sno pair this ratio is 0.026. However, the nicotine:tar ratios of the Competidora pair are not equal, i.e. 0.036 for the non-filter variant and 0.051 for the filter variant. This inequality of nicotine:tar ratios for the Competidora pair may suggest that selective filtration of particulate phase constituents occurs in this variant. The mean CO:CO2 (mg) ratio value of these South Florida variants is 0.345 ± 0.017. Since the CO:CO2 ratio is indicative of the effective puff volume through the fire cone, and the ratios for all the cigarettes (filter and non-filter) are essentially the same may suggest that little air dilution occurs in any oi: the delivered smoke(s). All of the filter variants deliver lesser amounts of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide per cigarette than their non-filter counterparts. However, the concentrations of these constituents in the smokes of these variants between the pairs, and among each other, show no marked differences, i.e. 2.4 to 2.7 fiig CO/puff and 7.0 to 7.6 mg C0.lpuff.

The whole smoke hydrogen cyanide and tVOx as NO results listed in Table 3 continue to show the trend that the smokes of filter variants usually contain lesser component amounts than their non-filter counter- parts. In Table 4 are listed the acetaldehyde, acrolein, and isoprene de- liveries in pgfcigarette for these variants. The smokes of the Centrofinos filter and non-filter pair contain the same amount of acrolein. The El Cuno filter and non-filter pair show approximately the same amount of acrolein delivered in their smokes. The Competidora filter and non-filter pair do not deliver the same amount of acrolein. In fact, this non-filter variant (smoke) contains approximately 70% more acrolein than its filter counterpart. Contrary to the usual trend the El Cuno filter cigarette shows a greater quantity of both acetaldehyde and isoprene in its smoke than is deliverd in the smoke from its non-filter counterpart. This fact is exemplified in the average per puff delivery that shows 239 ug vs 145 pg acetaldehyde for the filter and non-filter counterpart, respectively; and 113 ug vs 60 pg isoprene for the filter and non-filter counterpart, respectively. Also the amount of acrolein per puff is much higher in the smoke from the El Cuno filter cigarette than the non-filter counterpart, i.e. 17.1 vs 12.8 pg, respectively. Likewise, on a calculated per puff basis the Centrofinos filter and non-filter cigarette pair deliver varying amounts of acetaldehyde, acrolein and isoprene. Again the amount of each of these constituents is somewhat higher in the smoke from the filter variant. These results have been verified by additional acetaldehyde and isoprene deter- minations. The isoprene:acrolein ratio for five of these variants range from 4.0 to 4.7. However, the ratio for the El Uno filter cigarette is 6.6, and its acetaldehyde:acrolein ratio is also higher than for the other variants. The reason for the El Cuno filter cigarette smoke's containing a higher amount of some selected organic gas phase constituents is unclear. However, analyses of other components in the gas and particulate phases of the El Cuno pair will be carried out later and if the findings warrant discussion, these results will be reported.

The smoke from a 1R1 Kentucky cigarette was analyzed (in quadruplicate) at the same time. As a comparative measurement the deliver of a number of components are listed in the table below: iRl Kentucky Reference Cigarettes Average Delivery per Cigarette Component Tar, mg 37.6 Nicotine, mg 2.62 Carbon monoxide, mg 21.5 Carbon dioxide, mg 74.0 W.S. HCN, pg 416.1 NaX as NO, -pg 241.5 Acetaldehyde, ug 1020 Acrolein, pg 122 Isoprene, pg 575

TABLE 1 Weight and Resistance-to-Draw (RTD), and Number of Puffs of Selected South Florida Variants Average Values Cigarette Weight, Cigarette RTD, Puff Brand ~ mq mn H20 Number Centrofinos Trinidad Diego 1036 66 9.1 Centrofinos Trinidad Diego-Filter 929 82 7.0 Competidora Extrafinos 983 59 9.0 Coirapeti dora-Fi 1 ter 907 80 7.1 El Cuno Superfinos 1032 60 8.9 El Cuno Regalis-Filter 920 74 6.6

TABLE 2 Comparison of per-Cigarette Deliveries "Tar'°, Nicotine, Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Carbon Dioxide (C02) Brand Tar, mg Nicotine, mg C0, mg CO~, _ Centrofinos Trinidad Diego 36.8 ± 0.7 1.59 ± 0.08 22.5 ± 0.5 67.3 ± 1.0 Centrofinos Trinidad Diego-Filter 20.1 ± 0.2 0.87 ± 0.06 17.5 ± 0.5 53.3 ± 0.9 Competidora Extrafinos 32.7 ± 0.4 , 1.19 ± 0.03 21.4 ± 0.02 62.8 ± 0.5 Competidora-Filter 19.1 ± 0.1 0.98 ± 0.03 19.2 ± 0.6 51.6 ± 1.2 El Cuno Superfinos 31.4 ± 0.1 0.81 ± 0.02 20.7 ± 0.1 61.4 ± 0.2 El Cuno Regal i s-Fi i ter 19.2 ± 0.1 0.51 ± 0.02 15.6 ± 0.8 43.5 ± 2.1 ~:..:: .

TABLE 3 Comparison of per-Cigarette Deliveries Whole Smoke Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NQx as NO) Brand HCN, pg as NO, }ag_ NO x Centrofinos Trinidad Diego 274 ± 10 219 ± 5 Centrofinos Trinidad Diego-Filter 174 ± 9 171 ± 3 Competidora Extrafinos 234 ± 5 219 ± 2 Comeptri dora-Fi 1 ter 183 ± 12 171 ± 8 El Ci.ino-Superfi nos 156 ± 12 246 ± 12 El Cuno Regal i s-Fi 1 ter 119 ± 8 146 ± 3

TABLE 4 Comparison of per-Cigarette Deliveries Acetaldehyde, Acrolein, and Isoprene Brand Acetaldehyde, ~g Acrolein, p2 Isoprene, ug Centrofinos Trinidad Diego 1553 ± 29 172 ± 3 705 ± 21 Centrofinos Trinidad Diego-Filter 1449 ± 32 170 ± 2 681 ± 18 Competidora Extrafinos 1746 ± 28 187 ± 3 809 ± 13 Competidora-Filter 1176 ± 12 113 ± 1 465 ± 9 El Cuno Superfinos 1446 ± 49 128 ± 2 599 ± 9 El Cuno Regalis-Filter 1670 ± 31 120 ± 2 790 ± 7