Tobacco Documents Online

of smoke retained in the butt illy. the~average puff volume. a t `t. It is, however, .en ~'of the amount retained ~il anoke components. For this ;i :, condenszte and phenol retained ~ ; h usual ceilwlose acetate ®ter). g,arette the amount of phenol me (constant puff duration ~+ 1ferent gradient. With decreasing ~' t of phenol and condensate 4' 3ortionate increase was not seen ?.; ed ander conditions similar to ate:pheno[' found were 0.5:12:0.13. ' I or - a puff volume of more than 65 ml ~` 20.8). The smokers in this '~ `on average, approximatdy6S-7S )tLffs (at least from a butt length ~ any smoke at all. The true .~ hese tests does not seem to have -~. . `.es (puff duplicator, slave smoker -4' to such proFams. :~ NICOTiNE (in9/TIp) I•0 GSmC tips using the smoking parameters aken from one teat cfguette 7Snd20.5.(b)). ~ staakers (see Table 20.4, 1970). 1.E 30 so 31 at smokers (from KIPA values) .~ :.~ . : .~ \-sention Coeffieients Actual amount oE. m Table 20.3 (a) smoke intake ^ (,m deie) 0.77 21.0, . ~ Fig. 20.6 ~ 0.077 -1 aVaLYS"'.OF CIG.IRF.TTE DUTTS 269 AMOUNT OF NICOTINE RETAINED IN THE BUTT WITH RESPECT TO BUTT LENGTH AND PUFF VOLUME K1PA VALUE5 FOR ALL TEST SMOKERS 1570 0'5i 30 40 Q so DUTT LEN4TH (n+rn)

270 SMOKING BEHAVIOUR AMOUNT OF CONDENSATE RETAINED IN THE BUTT WITH RESPEGT TO BUTT LENGTH AN D PUFF VOLUME GONDENSATE ( m9/T1P) 20 t 50n+G\6s rr+l . .' ~ 65na l 16 10• 8 10 35014 PHENOLS (rn9/T1P) 200 fi . 150 131 I00 30 40 L3 50 00 %c 3UTT ' --NGTH,'rnm'! ;rr AhIOUNT OF PHENOL RESPEGT TO BUTT l

L. • HE BUTT V I D PUFF U'OLUME 4 i0 60 (mm) A.N•tL151S 0I- CIGARF.TTE BUTTS :71 AMOUNT OF PHENOL RETAINED IN THE bUTT WITH RESPECT T0 BUTT LENGTH AND PUFF VOLUME PHENOLS (rn9/T1P) 200 131 100 30 40 43 50 60 bUTT LENGTH (mn,) Fig. 20.8

) i ! 372 SMOiCIIVC BEHAViOt1R The actual amount of nicotine taken was calculated in the same way for various cigarette brands. The amount of smoke retained in collected butts was measured to determine how values obtained from natural smoking relate to standard analysis values. For comparison the same brands were smoked according to standard staoking conditions DIN 10240 (CORESTA • standard method) i.e. free smoking with a butt length of 33 mm (compare with Table 20.1 1972-'14). The nicotine values for these brands (A-I) for natural compared with standard smoking are shown in Table 20.6. In column 6 of Table 20.6 the percentage differences for nicotine intake, eompariag natural smoking and'standard smoking are shown. Table 20.6 Nicotine values according to natural smoking (coUeetion 1974; Table 20.1)) and according to standard smoking for various brands. Amount of Nicotine retained in butts Amount of actual nieotine intake Cigarette (KIPA) (nt8/tip) (~fleis) Difference (:i) B d tu al sm kin ran Natural nnokint Standard smokinf Natwal smoking Standard smoking na r o g • standard smoking A 0.51 0.61 0.12 0.98 -16 B 0.52 0.53 0.60 0.61 .2 C 0.52 0.58 0.81 0.90 -10 D 0.56 0.48 0.66 0.56 18 E 0.38 0.64 0.74 0.81 .9 F 0.61' 0.62 0.73 0.74 .1 G 0.61 0.87 0.76 1.09 -30 H 0.91 0.71 L.04 0.81 28 1 0.96 0.70 0.34 0.61 38 For Srands with equivalent standard values, such as B and I with 0.61 mg nicotinei cgarette of E and H with 0.81 mg nicotine (Table 20.6, column 5) very variable resulu were )btauted between natural and standard smoking (= and 38% or .9 and 28% M-scectiveiv ). This shows that smokers do not aave a uniform smoking pattern for sll tti-ves +f -:i¢arestes. Sectuse of these smo'rcingbehaviour differenees, a is neeessary :a aro.:eeti with %-ariotu asoups of smukers who prefer certain types ofzigarettes. in T'aoie .0.0 for example the following : types ceuld be differentiated: Type !. ;r:.nd' a. C, E. F. G ub• 3r negativedev?ation =rom standard vaiues ia medium amounts of s:r:vke .a.l•ar. - ! ~.'_ a.3= :ng nicotine ; i¢! T}?e !i ~r_r+.uw 9:nu D yU~ ~f iiiQltilY zositive AevL'ticn°om ;tannarl •:aiues in :ow ;rttottnts ir =rr.4r;: .,..._.. ~ . s - .. ~~- i- ~ I + Type III, brands H and I All the smoke values mentior 20.6) are average values from f of butts colleeted. But how much do these valm deviation is there between srnc In Table 20.7 all KIPA mean nicotine retained in the filter c reproducibility (for the corresi. smoke from these brands comt showed in 4 out of 5 tests a cc Table 20.7 Average amounts o eisarettes of different brands i B d an 1968• 1990•` A B 0.41 C 0.49 0.51 F 0.63 C H 0:72 A t 1 . Butts from ;enerai .oilec .. 9utts ^btaineJ •'r:-r+ -'est iixed io,,w _h: -:: ---_m The varlation~in ;lve:age vii ,sriation for days f averag: : a 4nokers. :s :wice :.i ^1Z.ti1. wliN smokers of cae ;am= 5n,d z Q variations zre not :crn-art :~ arand'z corfi::cienc izeaction of'the smok,: a~ ;~~ kDart Iiom : :e :e5t: :.L: r:et: ~ ,=itaaour :c iadw:.ais ~.v~Y+

Av:1GYJ1b Ui• l.llrAKt.i :t uL , ,.: -.. t .,~ in the same way for various llecied butts was measured '. . ...R.. .,~-. ng rO^*e to standard analysis .:. ~ ac~ tg to standard smokirtg ti i.e.Zree smoking with a butt The nicotine values for these _- )king are shown in Table 20.6. 2 for nicotine intake, comparing --v `an8 (collection 1974:,Tabte 20.1). ~~: "actual take <+'- Difference (S) .~. natural smoking •:... _ Standard smoking - standard smoking . ~ ~` - 0.98 -l6 0.61 .2 ~ 0.90 .10 0.56 i 8 F 0 81 •9 .. ~.' ~ . 0.74 •l se-~a= :'~',` 1.09 -30 I 0•' 28 '" - k 3t :~-- as B and I with 0.61 mg nicotine/ '-0.6, column 5) very variable testtits ng (-2 and 38% or -9 and 28% ~.. ~ : a uniforsn smoking pattern for all .viour differences, it is necessary :fer certain types of cigarettes. )uld be differentiated: iegative deviation from standard - medium amounts of smoke taken. 3Z mg nicotine/cig) dightly positive deviation from 1 values in low amounts of smoke 66 mg nicotineicig) ~ T. ~ Iii. brands H and I Strong tiva deviation from standard values in nigh amounts of smoke taken. (0.84-1.04 mg/cig) All the smoke values mentioned so far (Figures 20.6 - 20.8, Tables 20S (a) and 20.6) are average values from fairly large test groups or from representative numbers of butts collected. But how much do these values mean? Are such values reproducible? What deviation is there between smoken, or within a smoker but on different days? In Table 20.7 all ICIPA mean values obtained since 1968 for the amount of nicotine retained in the filter of some brands were assembled to illustrate the reproducibility (for the corresponding values of the amount of nicotine in the smoke from these brands compare Table 20.6, column 4). The brands C and D showed in 4 out of S tesu a coefficient of'variutce of only 4.0 to 6.7%. Table 20.7 Average amounts of nicotine teuined in butts of natural smoked ciprettes of different brands in KIPA tests from (968-7?. d B Nicotine /Fiiter (mg) 2 Cv ran 1968• 1970•• 1971•• 1972* 1974• 1976•• 1917•' ('la) A 0.31 0.39 B 0.41 0.52 0.30 C 0.49 0.32 0.34 0.32 0.52 4.0 D 0.31 0.48 0.56 0.51 0.36 0.32 6.7 E 0.38 0.53 F 0.63 0.61, 0.62 C 0.63 0.63 H 0.72 0.91 0.59 1 0.96 0.84 • Butts from general collectiott in West Germany. •• Butts obtained from test smokers (number of subjects 30-120). The variation in average values is shown to be small for brands, but the average variation for days (average values of all cigarettes smoked in one day) in individuall smokers, is twice as high, with a Ooefficient of variance of 10% and for various smokers of the same brand a coefficient of variance of 2596 was obtained. These variations are not constant for all brands, for example in an extremely low delivery brand a coefficient of 66.5% was found (Table :0.8). Reaction of the smoker to changed products Apart from the tests carried out to determine the average smoking behaviour, the behaviour of individuals towards various products was examined. Questions were asked about the physiological effect of certain smoke components from brands with

274 SmOIQIVG HQiAVIOUR Table 20.8 Variation of 1UPA values in natural smoking. (Tests on one brand at a timei. Coefficient of variance M Nicotine Condensate Phenols Average variation in days measursd on single smokers l0 10 10 Measursd in various smokers 2S' 25 30 'ln very low delivery brands values up to 66.S9G. variable deliveries (Schievelbein, 1978). It was also expected to get some objective results or at lettst indications that smokers who change to a low delivery product would react to it by increasing their consumption of eigarettes or smoking individual cigarettes more intensely. For this purpose two experiments were carried out in 1976 and 1977 in which thirty subjects smoked cigarettes of a different brand for one to two weeks. The actual amount of smoke intake was caiwiated from the butt analyses. The range in nicotine intake is lesa than in nicotine deliveries measured under standard conditions (Table 20.9) in the first test (1976) and this tendency to'leveiling out' the difference . between brands increases in the following test in 1977. Table 20.9 Amount of nieotine taken from various ciaarsttes during smoke tests. Test Amount of Nicotine Nicotine Intake in Cigarette in smoke under test smokers standard conditions (mg/cii) (mg/ci8) `. K 1.05 L 0.54 M 0.40 V 0.64 0 ).75 1976 1977 (n-30) (n30) 1.10 0.80 0.70 0.63 0.70 O.S9 - 0.69 On average the itigh delivery cigarettes K, N and 0 were nrtoked' tess intensiveiy and the low delivery cigarettes were smokea more intensively than under standard smoking conditions. From puff prot3Ie recordings it can be assumed that 'leveiling ;ui of the smoking values was carried out mainly by increasing Ur decrelSi.la tM- a utTvolume (e.g. cigarette {: S0 milpuif, eiguette'd: 60 :nilpuff). There were no si¢ttificattt differences between cigarettes tor butt length znd number of rigarettes smoked' per ja}•. The resuits •.)r these :ests (Table :0.:0) in which neavv :moKers i average.:onsum- 3tior. =0-_5 ::g: dayf aad 'c smoke '.•r 1;hort time i one to :wn :re!cs~ br,.^. as ••vit; .:!!r Q.ant, .tatVlr Qs i^'Jl~ 1: ! • . s li f rtti 511c to'normal' smokers. The tes class) tried to smoke both grot according to their smoking hat to smoke the same number of Normal test smokers from tb clearly from smokers in the lo+ these classes are similar to the daily cigarette consumption is class t}tan in the low delivery c Table 20.10 Smoke and cigire cigarette strength (Collection i Standard Values Class (mg/ci8) Nicotine Condensa 1.09 15.2 Nedium 0.90 13.3 Del. 0.81 13.6 Class 0.81 13.2 0.74 12.6 x 0.87 14.0 Low 0.61 11.8 DeL 0.61 l 1.3 Class 0.56 12.6 x 0.59 i 1.9 • This cigarette nas 3 1_a.e: r low arbitrary. Ac+:rwwled;ement a:lnslatetl by M.•5. e C!COA _ K.

10 10 25 30 .Iso expected to get some objective hange to a low delivery product a of cigarettes or smoking individual out in 1976 and 1977 in which `-and for one to two wedcL The ota the butt analyses. The range es measured under standard conditions dency to 'levelling out' the difference 1977. •us cizarettes during smoke tests. 0.70 ` 0.69 ad 0 were smoked less intensively ire itttensiveiy than under standard tgs it can be assumed that 'levelling iy by increasing or decreasing the -stte M: 60 ml/puff). cigarettes for butt length and ~: 3t .ch heavy smokers (average consum- br. ine (one to two weeks) brands with '~ nces in smoking behaviour compared' .~ ANALYSIS OF CIGARETTE BUTTS 275 to'normaC smokers. The test smokers (I. y smokers fromthe medium delivery class) tried to smoke both groups of cigarettes (medium and low delivery clast) according to their smoking habit, which is to take similar amounts of smoke and to smoke the same number of cigarettes per day (Table 20.9). Normal test smokers from the medium delivery clast distinguish themselves ciearly from smokers in the low delivery class. The amounts of smoke taken from these classes are similar to the standard yields of these classes (Table 20.10). The daily cigarette consuanption is significantly higher in the strong to medium delivery clasa tbatt in the low delivery claau. Table 20.10 Smoke and cigarette consumption in various cigarettes with respect to cigarette strength (Collection in West Germany, 1974, 440-4350 butts). Standard Values Natural Smoke Values clau (ma(ci8) (m8/ciZ) Cigarette Consumption (period/day) Nicotine Condensate Nicotine Condensate 1.09 15.2 0.76 16.1 16.3 Medium 0.90 15.3 0.81 15.3 16.8 DaL 0.81 13.6 1.04 13.1 16.6 Class Low Del. Class 0.81 13.2 0.74 13.4 17.5 0.74 12.6 0.73 13.3 16.7 0.87 14.0 0.32 14.2 16.8 0.61 11.3 0.84• 12.1 13.3• 0.61 11.3 0.60 11.9 13.6 0.36 12.6 0.66 12.4 13.6 (Without (Without 0.630) • 13.60) z 0.59 11.9 0.70 12.1 14.2 ' This ciprette has a delivery level which makes its classification into medium or low arbitrary. AdcaowAedgesnezrt Translated by Mrs. U.C. Hopkins, Britisit-arrterican Tobacco Co. Ltd., Southampton, U.K. References Bethmann. M.von. (1959) Personal cominuniation. Keith. C.H. & Hackney, EJ. (1962) Human smoking cinracteristics. I6rh Tobaccv C7umisrs Reseairh Conjsmiea Richmond. Virginia. Lorenz. H.W. & Seehofer, F. (1971) Zur messung von abrauchparametern mit hilfe von messgroestenumfonnern. Beitrd;e tus. Tabakforschurrg 6, l-6. 2o2i5'74ss7

` 276 Sa[OICING BEHAVIOUR Schievelbein, H. (1978) Metabolic aspects of smoking behaviour. This volume Schulz, W. (1974) Die auswircung der tabaksteuererhohung vom 1.9.1972 auf die lange der dgaxettenstummel in der Bundesepubiik Deutschland. Beitragr zur Tabakforschung. 7, 203-205. Schulz, W. & Seehofer, F. (1970) Uber die lange von cigarettenstummeln in der Bundesrepubltlc Deutschland im jahre 1968. Beirriige zur Tabakforschreng. S, 198-200. Schulz, W. & Seehofer, F. (1976) Die auswirkung der wirtschaftlichen rezession auf die Iange der cigarettenstummel in der Bundempublic Deutschland. Beittage zur Tabakforsckuna, 7, 455-458. ) x. 0 E CREIGHTON. VI J NOBI Inttaduction For the purposes of comparing smoking conditions have been resulting from standard smokir league tables of 'tar' and nicot: There is, however, an interac is poasible, by varying the size to take more or less smoke fro smoking conditions are used, iL smoke components than is iad In order to measure the way reviewed by Hausermann (197 pubiished by Guirierrn and Rac special attention as his work ir- has formed the starting point t on the subject smoking aeigar, connected to a device that cor be recorded on a moving chart measurement of the traces, wh An important requirement o the amount of'tar'. nicotine a by the smoker. Filter tip anail but makes the assumption tha under all smoking re¢imes irtd of a filter is deoendent on the with 3lters such as ceiluiose ac 'tuman smokers use s range of frequently exceed those usect : Nhe etpectedthat :nac,;sractes Q % better _stimace )r :hr im;. Nn smokiag iunilar ::aretres .' Nised h~- .he.smoicer. Betcre : (A:o measure lnd -ecorc :ne zsc _1rte:aS3lreme.'t: iys:e•1 r:aQ.!• e ~d¢arertes :vere sn .~.c c ...