Tobacco Documents Online

COW11DthT1L TO: R. B. Seligman DATE: July 28, 1967 FROM: W. L. Dunn, Jr. SUBJECT: A Study of the Effect of Lip Occlusion of Air Holes on Main Stream Delivery in Air Diluted Cigarettes Anearlier study (Memo of June 27, 19~67) established that lip contact with the tipping paper extended to:9.96 mm from the outer end of the tipping paper for the average smoker. Since the air dilution holes are located~in~ a band from 8.01to 9.7 mm from the outer end of the tipping paper, it follows that some of these holes are likely to be occluded under normal smoking conditions, whereas no occlusion is likely to occur when the cigarettes are machine smoked for analysis. Does this then U. RUBBER DAM PLASTIC DILUTION FILTER a FLOW CAPILLARY mean that the smoker can be expected~to obtain more mainstream smoke than indicated'from the analytical data? We designed a study to answer this question. We reasoned that if there is an increase in the mainstream component of the smoke as a result of lip occlusion, the increase would be reflected in the difference inimainstream volume between an air diluted cigarette where normal lip occlusion can occur and the same cigarette where lip occlusion ~can not occur. One would expect an increase in mainstream volume whenidilution air is reduced1by lip occlusion. We were concerned only withithe effect of li,p occlusioniupon: mainstream volume when normally smoking the air dilution cigar- ette with a 10 mm plastiic sleeve. Therefore, no attempt was made to systematically occlude. We simply measured mainstream volume under conditions which permitted~ _,normal oc'clusion and under conditions which did not permit normal occlusion.

Measurements were made by inserting a flow rate transducer between the tobacco rod and the filter tip,. The transducer signal was fed into an amplifier with two outputs. One out- put was fed into a polygraph recorder. This provided a graphic recording of flow rate with time. The area under the'curve generated by a puff represented puff volume. The secondioutput from the amplifier was delivered to an elec- tronic integrator which yielded a direct puff volume reading inicc's onian electronic counter. This reading was recorded manually by the operator. The instruments were screened from the smoker's view. That portion of the assembly seen by the smoker is shown diagrammatically. The chamber fed air pressure readings into two transducers, only one of whichiprovidedireadings for this study. All available regular Richmond panelists participated, yielding a gross total N of 52. The records of seven sub- jects were rejected as unuseable, leaving a net N of 45 subjects. Each panelist smoked on two successive days, one cigarette per day. The two samples of cigarettes were drawn from a common lot of 85 mm cigarettes with air dilution filters, plastic type. Cigarette 1 was smoked with no modification other than trans- ducer chamber insertion. Cigarette 2 was additionally modified by attaching a 10' mrn extension sleeve of Parliament- like tipping paper to the mouth end of the filter. An ink band was inscribedion the rod paper 35 mm from the coal end. Subjects were instructed to smoke to the mark on the paper. They were told that the purpose of the study was to evaluate the flavor and acceptability of the smoke, and that the purpose of the insertedchamber andrecording equipment was to measure a certain component of the smoke. Presentation order was balanced'. Acceptability ratings were obtained on each cigarette. The results are tabulated below. The number of puffs recorded are the total number minus lighting puffs. Lig,hting puffs were readily identifiable as such by inspection of the patterning of the polygraph recordings. Total mainstream volume figures do~ not include lighting puff volumes. Note that the tabled values are mainstream values; the gross puff volume would consist of the mainstream volume plus that air volume entering through the dilution holes. The gross puff volume was not measured. J -2-

i + Mean Mean Puff Mean Mainstream Volume Per Cig. (cc) Mean Number of Puffs Per Cig. Mainstream Volume (cc) Cig. #1 Mean 425.9 11.00 38.72 (Without Extension Standard 28.5 .49 - Sleeve) Cig. #2 Error Mean 454.8 11.76 38.67 (With Extension Standard 32.010 .56, - Sleeve) Error The critical values are entered under the heading "Mean Mean Puff Mainstream;Volume". This value was obtained by first determining the mean puff mainstream volume for each subject on each cigarette, then determining the average value for all subjects on each of the two forms of the cigarette. Had the hypothesis been supported that lip occlusion increases main- stream volume, then the mean meanipuff mainstream volume would have been~higher for Cig. 1 than Cig. 2. Such obviou~sly is not the case. Where considered necessary the values have been included'.for the standard'error of the mean. The differ- ences betweencolumnar means are well within chance expectancy limits in all three instances. We interpret these findings to mean that the mainstream puff volume is not influenced by whatever occlusion of air holes that occur under normal smoking conditions. There is no reason to suspect that "lipping behavior" under these test conditions differed from normal lipping behavior. Two explanations of mainstream,volume constancy have been put forthiby those evaluating these findings: (1) Smokers adjust puff intake in order to maintain TPM and/or nicotine constancy; • (2) Occlusion of the air holes does not linearly reduce air dilution, thus, upito an undetermined'point, the blocking of holes will result in increased compensating flow through the remaining unblocked holes. Both of these possibilities should be subjected t&further study. SEF will assume responsibility for checking out #1. We suggest that #2 pe pursued by Jerry Osmalov. /jem / cc: H. R. ~-Jakeham / F. Resnik (2) P. A. E'ichorn R. N. Thomson J. Osmalov E. Snyder J. Martiri Co

RECEIVE H. WAKEHAM JUL 311967 A. M. P. M. [9:f1o 1 1J12 I I2 131 4! 5' 6J i