Tobacco Documents Online

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION FROM PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED CONCERNING MEASUREMENT OF THE RELATIVE "TAR" DELIVERIES OF BARCLAY AND OTHER CIGARETTE BRANDS THROUGH ANALYSIS OF RETAINED NICOTINE IN CIGARETTE BUTTS ? D ) 3 9 Philip Morris Research Center Richmond, Virginia July 30, 1981

I V ' , , ) 31 0 3 ) 2 ~ 3 ~ SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO THE FEDERAL TRADE CONMISSION FROM PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED CONCERNING MEASUREMENT OF THE RELATIVE "TAR" DELIVERIES OF BARCLAY AND OTHER CIGARETTE BRANDS THROUGH ANALYSIS OF RETAINED NICOTINE IN CIGARETTE BUTTS introduction •The accepted procedure for measuring the "tar" delivery of a cigarette is to smoke it on a standard- ized smoking machine and calculate the dry particulate matter, less nicotine, delivered to a collecting pad. The utility of this.method in deriving results meaning- ful to smokers necessarily depends on the assumption that cigarettes with similar "tar" deliveries on the smoking machine will have similar "tar" deliveries to any given smoker, and specifically that cigarettes with comparatively low "tar" deliveries on the FTC smoking machine will have comparatively low "tar" deliveries when smoked by a person. As the Commission is aware, the validity of this assumption has now been seriously called into question by the introduction of a new, peculiarly constructed filter on the Barclay cigarette. The problem will be greatly exacerbated by the announced intention of the brand's manufacturer to incorporate the

) 2 same filter on additional brands, and the inevitable proliferation of the new filter throughout the industry, 1/ absent prompt action by the Comaaission. To compare the "tar" deliveries of Barclay with 3 1) ) 3 I i D the "tar" deliveries of other cigarettes when smoked by r human smokers, an analysis has been made of the butts of cigarettes smoked by a panel of smokers. This "butt study"confirms our previously reported findings that Barclay -- which is unique among currently marketed cigarettes in that its high machine-smoked dilution , z.::.. percentage drops radically when it is smoked in the lips -- delivers significantly more "tar" to actual smokers than a conventionally filtered cigarette which also measures 1 mg. "tar" on the smoking machine. As discussed more fully below, in order to assess the relative "tar" delivery of a cigarette by a nicotine retention study, it is necessary to measure: 1. The amount of nicotine retained in the filter of the cigarette following smoking; 2. The nicotine filtration efficiency of the cigarette filter; and ~ 1/ It has recently been reported that Brown & william- son will incorporate the Barclay filter on the Kool Ultra brand, in both 85 and 100 millimeter varieties.

3 3. The characteristic delivered "tar" to delivered nicotine ratio of the cigarette. ) ) ) ) 1 a a a ~ Once the retained nicotine and the filtration efficiency of the filter are known, it is possible to estimate the amount of nicotine that was not retained in the filter, and thus was delivered to the smoker. That delivered nicotine is then multiplied by the."tar"-to-nicotine ratio to estimate delivered "tar."- As set forth below, it is essential to realize that both filter efficiency and "tar"-to-nicotine ratio are variables, that will depend both on the brand of cigarette and the manner in-which the cigarette is smoked. In particular, filter efficiency and "tar"-to-nicotine ratio depend heavily on the rod flow rate, that is, the velocity at which smoke, as opposed to air, is drawn through the filter. As rod flow rate increases, filtra- tion efficiency decreases and "tar"-to-nicotine ratio 2/ increases. Rod flow rate, in turn, is directly depen- dent on the cigarette's dilutior.. As dilution decreases, more smoke is drawn through the cigarette, and rod flow rate goes up. 2/ As more fully described in footnote 5, infra, filter efficiencies for "tar" differ from those for nicotine,. depending upon the flow rate.

4 ) ! I 3 : R Some earlier nicotine retention studies -- per- formed on undiluted cigarettes -- had assumed that filter efficiency and "tar"-to-nicotine ratio were constant for any-cigarette brand. This assumption did not significantly affect the results of "butt studies" performed on undiluted cigarettes, but it is patently erroneous for diluted cigarettes. Especially if the dilution of a cigarette varies depending on whether the cigarette is smoked in the lips or on a smoking machine -- which has been shown to be the case with Barclay the assumption that filter efficiency and "tar"-to-nicotine ratio are constants is guaranteed to yield distorted results. Because the amount of "tar" delivered by ciga- rettes to human smokers will vary widely from smoker to smoker depending on the physiology and puffing characteristics of the smoker and other factors, it is not scientifically meaningful to attempt to mea- sure absolute cigarette "tar" delivery through an analysis of retained nicotine in butts. It is pos- sible, however, to compare the results for several

) 5 I I r b 3 brands and to draw conclusions about their relative "tar" deliveries. Indeed~, if cigarette brands dis- play similar relative "tar" deliveries for a number of different smokers, there is a high probability that those relative deliveries reflect the proper rank order of the products. In the study discussed below, Barclay KSSP, Cambirdge RSSP, and Merit KSSP cigarettes were smoked by a panel of regular smokers. Cambridge was selected because, with a measured FTC "tar" delivery of 1 mg. and unlit dilution of 78%, it is similar to Barclay as smoked on a smoking machine. Merit was selected because, with a measured FTC "tar" delivery of 7 mg. and unlit dilution of 28%, it is (although somewhat lower in "tar") closer to Barclay as smoked by the human smokers in earlier studies. The nicotine re- tained in the various cigarette butts was measured, and the nicotine filtration efficiency and "tar"-to- nicotine ratio were calculated for each smoker for each brand.

T ) D ) i ) I 6 The results set forth below indicate that, for every smoker on the panel, Barclay-delivered sexeral times more "tar" than a 1 mg. cigarette, and approxi- mately as much "tar" as a 7 to 8 mg. cigarette. This confirms earlier studies demonstrating that Barclay displays anomalous behavior in a smoking'machine, and is not comparable to 1 mg. cigarettes in "tar" delivery to human smokers. Relative "Tar" Estimation from Retained Nicotine a P Z While it is not possible rigorously to calcu- late the "tar" delivery of a cigarette from compounds retained in the filter after smoking, relative com- parisons can be drawn between different kinds of cigarettes smoked by the same smoker. The analysis depends upon three distinct variables: 1. The total quantity of nicotine retained in the filter after smoking. 3/ 3/ At first glance, it might appear that retained "tar" on the filter should be related to delivered "tar." However, "tar" is unstable because of its volatile [Footnote continued on next page.]

7 2. The nicotine removal efficiency of the filter at the smoke flow rate at which the cigarette was actually smoked. 3. The ratio of delivered "tar" to deliv- ered nicotine at the smoke flow rate at which the cigarette was actually smoked. ) 4 The first variable -- retained nicotine -- can be measured directly by chemically extracting the nico- tine from the filter and analyzing it in a gas chromato- graph. The second and third variables -- nicotine fil- tration efficiency and "tar"-to-nicotine ratio -- can be derived from standard curves once the individual 4/ smoker's flow rate for the cigarette type is measured. The following method has been developed to com- •pare the relative "tar" deliveries of cigarettes to a human subject based on retained nicotine on the filter: [Footnote continued from previous page.] components, and is not chemically definable; "tar" is simply the total weight of material deposited in the filter minus the weight of water and nicotine. There- fore, butt studies have consistently relied instead on measurement of the most stable and most readily ex- tracted component on the filter, nicotine. a 4/ These curves may be obtained from controlled machine smoking of cigarettes under varying conditions.

8 ) $ First, the subject is permitted to smoke ciga- rettes in an unrestricted fashion, the butts are col- lected, the material on the filter is then extracted, and the absolute amount of nicotine is measured by conventional techniques. Second, the subject then smokes similar ciga- ~ rettes, both lit and unlit, on an instrument which : I measures the duration of a puff and the volume drawn through the cigarette rod during a puff, from which average rod flow rate can be derived: Average Rod Flow Rate ='Rod Smoke Volume (1) Puff Duration This is done enough-tisaes to establish average para- meters for each smoker for each cigarette brand under study. A Third, using the smoker's average rod flow rate, the filter efficiency at that flow rate is obtained from a curve of nicotine removal efficiency N versus rod flow rate. Knowing the filter efficiency OA O N C11 at the smoker's flow rate and the amount of retained ~ ~ ~ rP Z.

a , 9 I ) 3 t 3 2 ~ nicotine allows the total nicotine that entered the filter from the tobacco rod to be calculated: Nicotine Total Nicotine Entering Filter = Retained on Filter (2) Filter Efficiency at Smoker's Average Flow Rate The nicotine delivered to the smoker is then given by: Smoker Nicotine = Total Nicotine - Nicotine Retained (3) Entering Filter on Filter Finally, the smoker's delivered "tar" is calcu- lated by a formula using the nicotine delivered to the smoker and the ratio of delivered "tar"-to-nicotine at the smoker's flow rate, obtained from a curve: Smoker Tar = Smoker Nicotine x'Tar"-to-Nicotine Ratio (4) at Smoker's Average Flow Rate This series of tests is repeated for a panel of smokers, and the relative "tar" deliveries to smokers of different cigarettes can be estimated.

j 10 ) A P t a -3 a 3 Some previous studies of human "tar" deliveries based on analysis of retained nicotine have assumed that the filter efficiency for nicotine removal and the delivered "tar"-to-nicotine ratio were totally independent of flow rate and therefore remained con- stant from machine smoking to human smoking. This assumption did not significantly distort the results -obtained for undiluted cigarettes, in which the flow rate through the filter is a relatively high value for machine smoking (1050 cc/min.) and an even higher value for human smoking. 'However, filter efficiencies can change rapidly as flow rates become small Ji.e., every filter is 100% efficient at zero flow rate). Therefore, for highly diluted cigarettes, where flow rates may be well below 1050 cc/min., there can be large differences in efficiency and "tar"-to-nicotine 5/ ratio as between machine and human smoking. 5/ In general, the filter efficiency for total par- ticulate matter (TPM), nicotine and water is a func- tion of the flow rate through the filter, since the longer the residence time of the smoke the more probable that the smoke components are removed. The [Footnote continued on next page.]

1 ) ; 11 Therefore, techniques that ignore the variable nature of filter efficiency and "tar"-to-nicotine ratio will lead to large errors when applied to cigarettes with substantial dilution. Experimental Method ) f 3 i D In addition to Barclay KSSP, two cigarettes were used in the study for comparison. One, Cambridge RSSP, has a measured FTC method "tar" delivery of 1 mg. and an unlit machine dilution of about 78%. The second,'Merit KSSP, has a measured FTC method "tar" delivery of 7 mg. and an unlit machine dilution of [Footnote continued from-previous page] delivered "tar"-to-nicotine ratio is also a function of flow rate since filtration of "tar" increases more rapidly than filtration of nicotine at reduced flow rates. This is because the nicotine and "tar" removal processes in cigarette filters differ. Nicotine removal is gener- ally by particulate filtration. However, much of the "tar" produced by a cigarette puff is volatile material in the vapor phase that can be removed by the very effi- cient process of condensation. As the flow rate is re- duced, the nicotine removal increases hut the "tar" re- moval increases at a greater rate because of the very efficient condensation mechanism coupled with the normal particulate removal. Therefore, the delivered "tar"-to- nicotine ratio increases greatly with increasing flow rate through the cigarette and filter.

12 ) I ) V j y 28%. Cambridge was selected because it is similar to Barclay in~"tar" delivery and dilution when tested in smoking machines. Merit was selected because, in other tests, it has been shown to be similar to Bar- clay in "tar".delivery and dilution when smoked by human smokers. A panel of 13 regular smokers was assembled for this study. included were men and women with high, medium and low flow rates. Each panelist was given four cigarettes of each brand and asked to smoke them at their leisure, saving the butts. They were also asked to puff each cigarette, lit and unlit, on Philip Morris' on-line monitoring equipment (Figure 1). Mea- surements were made of the rod flow rate for each smoker for each brand. From these measurements, the retained nicotine and the individual smoking charac- teristics of-the subjects were determined. Tables 1-3 show both the individual and average values for Bar- clay, Cambridge, and Merit. ~ ;:

~ : ~ r 13 Filter efficiencies and delivered "tar"-to- nicotine ratios were determined for e4ch brand from ) ) machine smoking at several dilution levels. Measure- ments were made of TPM, nicotine and water, both on the filter and on the collecting pad. The delivery and retention data were fitted to a power function, as described below, and this function was used to calculate the component efficiencies as a function of lit rod flow rate: Filter Efficiency = Amount on Filter x 100 (5) Amount on Filter + Amount on Machine Pad Experimental Results a ~D- The standard method of measuring cigarette dilu- tion is to use unlit cigarettes. However, since the results reported in this document involve the smoking of lit cigarettes, dilution values on lit cigarettes are used to calculate percent dilution -- i.e., the split of the total puff flow between tobacco rod and dilution holes. The percent dilution measured on a lit Z-)

14 • I D cigarette is greater than that on an unlit cigarette because the hot coal (900° C) increases the viscosity of the air being pulled through it. This increase in viscosity leads to an increase in resistance to flow at the cigarette coal. Since there is then an added resistance to flow down the rod of a lit cigarette, more of the flow is drawn through the dilution holes on the filter giving a higher percent dilution on lit cigarettes. Figure 2 shows the lit dilution values as a function of the unlit dilution values. These data were derived from the on-line dilution measuring equip- ment when both lit and unlit dilution values were mea- sured for each cigarette over a wide range of flow rates. A nonlinear, least-squares fit was made to the function: Power Lit Dilution = Constant x(IInlit Dilution) (6) 9 in order to facilitate applying the flow rate correc- N O N r* Z; tions. Figure 2 shows very little scatter in the data r CA points, and this is taken to show that the same correction ~

I D , 3k 15 is applicable for each of the three cigarettes for any flow rate. Using the data reflected in Figure 2, the unlit dilutions derived from standard machine measurements were transformed to lit dilutions so as to plot work- ing curves in terms of lit.rod flow rates. Once this correction is applied, the component values retained in the filter and those delivered to the smoking machine pad were fitted to the following general equa-• tion: Amount = Constant x (Lit Rod Flow Rate) Power Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the best fitted lines and the experimental points for the delivery to collect- ing pads and for the material retained in filters for Barclay. In Figure 5 and Figure 6 are corresponding values for Cambridge and in Figure 7 and Figure 8 for Merit. Table 4 shows complete equations derived for all components and cigarettes. Once the best curves have been derived by non- linear, least-squares analysis of the data, nicotine (7)

) I ) ) - D .t 3 3 16 filtration efficiency versus flow rate can be calcu- lated from the retained nicotine and the delivered nicotine data using Equation 5. The results are shown in Figure 9. Note that the efficiency curves for each cigarette become asymptotic to 100 percent efficiency as the rod flow rate approaches zero. Also observe that the Cambridge filter is more efficient at every flow rate than the.Barclay filter. This is a highly significant result. It means that even if the same amount of nicotine were retained in the Cambridge and Barclay filters, the nicotine delivered by Barclay would be much greater than that delivered by Cambridge because of the greater efficiency of Cambridge's filter. In fact, as our studies show It~. (Table,6rj, Cambridge's retained nicotine was substan- tially lower than Barclay's, indicating an even lower nicotine delivery.by Cambridge relative to Barclay. Discussion of Results The equations have been developed for describ- ing both the component delivered and the component

: ) I ! I 3 , V 17 retained on the filters as a function of flow rate for the cigarettes. Curves of nicotine efficiency versus flow rate and "tar"-to-nicotine ratio versus flow rate• have been constructed from the data. (Figures 9 and 10.) This information can now be used with the smoker's flow rate, dilution-in smoking, and nicotine retained on the smoker's filter to compare the rela- tive "tar" and nicotine deliveries of the three brands to each smoker. The results of this analysis are shown in Tables 5 and 6. Note that the relative "tar" deliveries of Merit and Barclay are basically identi- cal in Table 5, while Barclay's nicotine delivery ex- ceeds Merit's by approximately 50 percent (Table 6). This is due to the substantially higher nicotine availability in the Barclay blend (2.8%) than in either the Merit blend (1.5%) or the Cambridge (2.0$). Similarly, Figure 10 reflects these differences. The consistency of these results for each of the panelists, with very different individual smoking characteristics, is remarkable. These tables confirm 2

18 a . I ) "4 .4 that Barclay, when.smoked in the lips by human smokers, is equivalent to a cigarette in the range of 7 to 8 mg. "tar" by FTC method, and far above the 1 mg. range.

1 ,.. ... sp 0% o*`. ~ •aft

) *INDEX OF EXHIB'ITS Tables 1. Retained Nicotine and Individual Smoking Characteristics ) Barclay KSSP 2. Retained Nicotine and Individual Smoking Characteristics 3. Cambridge KSSP Retained Nicotine and Individual Smoking Characteristics 4. Merit KSSP Formulas for Calculating Delivery and Retention Values for ) I 5. Machine Smoking Relative "Tar" Deliveries for 'Individual Panelists 6. Relative Nicotine Deliveries for Individual Panelists Figures 1. Schematic Diagr= of On-line Measuring Instrument 2. Dilution: Litt vs. Unlit ) 2 3. Barclay KSSP: Components Delivered to Pad vs. Lit Rod Flow Rate 4. Barclay KSSP: Nicotine Retained.in Filter. vs. Lit Rod Flow Rate ~ 3 5. Cambridge KSSP: Components Delivered to Pad vs. Lit Rod .Flow Rate 6. Cambridge KSSP: Nicotine Retained in Filter vs. Lit Rod ~ .4 Flow Rate iV O 7. Merit KSSP: Components Delivered to Pad vs. Lit Rod Flow Rate 06 N ~ , 8. Merit KSSP:- Nicotine Retained in Filter vs. Lit Rod Flow Rate "~ 9. Nicotine Efficiency vs. Lit Rod Flow Rate 10~. "Tar"/Nicotine Ratio of Delivered Smoke vs. Lit Rod Flow Rate

TABLE I RETAINED NICOTINE AND INDIVIDUAL SMOKING CHARACTERISTICS BARLCAY KSSP ~ Retained Lit Total Puff Rod Total ~ Smoker Nicotine Dilution Volume Duration, Flow Rate Flow Rate # mg /cigt. % cc/Puff Sec. cc/Minute cc/Minute 1 . 0.92 63 64 2.9 490 1324 2 1.02 48 50 2.6 600 1154 3 1.48 31 46 2.3 828 1200 4 1.13 57 51 1.9 693 1610 ) y 5 1.13 59 61 2.1 715 1743 6 1.35 30 41 1.9 906 1295 7 2.25 54 51 2.0 704 1530 ~~ 8 1.12 46 70 2.7 840 1556 9 0.77 50 26 1.0 780 1560 10 1.29 68 60 2.1 549 1714 ~ j 11 1.62 38 52 • 2.8 691 1114 12 0.99 64 55 2.3 517 1435 13 0.88 72 47 2.0 394 1410 Avg. 1.23 52 52 2.2 670 1434 Machine Smoking 0.24 90 35 2.0 105 1050 3 D . 5

TABLE 3 RETAINED NICOTINE AND INDIVIDUAL SMOKING CHARACTERISTICS MERIT KSSP ~~ Retained Smoker Nicotine, Lit Dilution, Total Volume, Puff Duration, Rod Flow Rate, Total Flow Rate # mA/cigt. % cc/Puff Sec. cc/Minute cc/Minute 1 1.09 48 59 2.6 708 1362 2 0.79 39 46 2.4 702 1150 3 1.28 35 50 2.3 848 1304 4 1.06 46 45 1.9 767 1421 5 1.05 45 52 2.0 858 1560 ) 9 6 0.96 46 55 2.0 891 1650 7' 1.75 47 54 2.2 781. 1473 8 1.16 44 74 2.8 888 1586 ~ . 9 0.67 44 31 1.1 947 1691 10 0.69 40 46 1.9 872 1453 11 0.94 40 62 3.2 698 1162 12 0.70 41 50 2.2 805 1364 13 0.60 39 36 2.1 627 1029 Avg. 0.98 43 Si 2.2 799 1400 Machine Smoking 0.71 41 35 2.0 620 1050 : 3 N O N N N ~ ~

r p A ) a 2 3 0•69 1 ~2 0, 94 0,70 Avg. ~ l 0•9 ach =~3 8 ~o e ng 0. 72 42 44 40 40 3S S9 46 SO 2• 2 2.0 puf f Dtr ~at -Z on' R FIo~ oa 2.6 cc/,y~n a ee~ 2.4 620 708 136 IZSO 2 304 1421 2560 1650 1473 2 S86 2692 1453 1162 1364 1 1400 I0S0

I k TABLE 4 FORMULAS FOR CALCULATING DELIVERY AND RETENTION VALUES FOR MACHINE SMOKING* BARCLAY KSSP TPM In Pad = 0.03895 x(Flow)0'8830 Nicotine In Pad - 0.008421 x(Flow)0'7386 Water In Pad = 0.0008125 x(Flow) 1.10S Nicotine In Filter = 0.1436.x (Flow)0.2839 t a CAMBRI DGE KSSP TPM In Pad = 0.03214 x(Flow)0'7939 Nicotine In Pad = 0.004604 x-(Flow) 0.6977 Water In Pad = 0.004352 x (Flow)0. 7067 Nicotine In Filter = 0.08849 x(F1ow)0•3255 MERIT KSSP TPM In Pad = 0.1429 x (Flow) 0.6416 Nicotine In Pad = 0.02039 x(Flow)0.4985 Water In Pad = 0.01682 x(Flow)0•6083 Nicotine In Filter = 0.08267 x(Flow)0'3043 * These formulas were developed to predict machine smoking (35 cc puffs) values as a function of flow rate. They should not be used to predict human values as puff count and volume effects can only be accounted~for by using retained nicotine values adjusted for variances in filter efficiencies and "tar"-to-nicotine ratio.

) TABLE 5 RELATIVE TAR DELIVERIES FOR INDIVIDUAL PANELISTS Ca.mbrid e Merit ~ Smoker # am ri ge Cam-F~ 'riage 1.0 4.6 ~ 2 1.0 2.1 3 1.0 3.0 8 4 1.0 2.7 5 1.0 4.1 ~ 6 1.0 3.2 7 1.0 3.2 I 8 1.0 2.9 9 1.0 9.1 ) D 10 1.0 2.6 11 1.0 2.8 12 1.0 4.1 3 13 1.0 2.7 O 2 ~ ~ 3t Average 1.0 3.6 ~ 3. ~. ~

TABLE 6 RELATIVE NICOTINE DELIVERIES FOR INDIVIDUAL PANELISTS ~ Cambrid e Merit - _ B_a_r__c~la~ am ri ge Cam br dge C am~ge Smoker # 1 1.0 3.1 2.9 1.0 1.4 2.3 3 1.0 1.9 3.0 D ~ 4 1.0 1.8 2.5 5 1..0 2.7 3.8 6 1.0 2.0 4.0 7 1.0 2.1 3.5 3 8 1.0 1.8 2.4 9 1.0 6.3 9.3 10 1.0 1.7 3.6 11 1.0 1.8 4.0 12 1.0 2.6 4.1 ~U 13 1.0 1.8 2.7 O N N 1 . ~ ~ Average 1.0 2.4 3.7 ~ m D

FIGURE 1 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF ON-LINE MEASURING INSTRUMENT DENTAL 2 DAMS .) ) ) ) DURATION, VO~~ ME , Dl LUTiON , 3 -~ ~ DRAW -40P

FIGURE 2 DILUTION : LIT VS UNLIT 100 80 J L I T D 0 J I L U T I I 40 I 0 ~ N ~ o , 20 , ,' ~ ,I 0 20 0 ' Y 0 0 . A . . ABARCLAY KSSP Q a CAMBRIDGE KSSP 0 o MERIT KSSP ---------- Y = 3.551 X 0•7369 40 60 80 100 ~BG~'GSZZOZ UNLIT DILUTION,

FIGURE 3 BARCLAY KSSP: COMPONENTS DELIVERED TO PAD VS. LIT ROD FLOW RATE TPM In Pad = 0.03895 x (Flow) 0.8830 Nicotine In Pad = 0.008421 x (Flow) 0.7386 Water In Pad= 0.0008125 x (Flow) 1.105 p , 20 Is 10 0 Tar - TPM - Nicotine - H20 ~ TPM 'fA . , , , . . .' . . . . A . . .' . ,~- . . . . . .* 0 . . . .0 n ~•b Nzo - . ~ / / ~ . •.=:yA •-"" __----- •-------_-- --- _ -=------ Nt ~~ 0 -200 400 600 800 1000 1200 LIT ROD FLOWRATE , CC/MINUTE 20215'74'785 J

F I GURE 4 BARCLAY KSSP: NICOTINE RETAINED IN FILTER VS. LIT ROD FLOW RATE Nicotine In Filter = 0.1436 x (Flow) 0.2839 W 1 0.8 a , 0.6 0.4 v e 1 N O N ~ L!L1 3 -4 200 400 600 800 1008 & 1200 Q LIT ROD FLOWRATE , CC/MIN a

z 0 ) 1 3 , 3 D FIGURE 5 CAMBRIDGE KSSP: COMPONENTS DELIVERED TO PAD VS. LIT ROD FLOH''RATE TPM In Pa'd = 0.03214 x(Flow),0.7939 Nicotine In Pad = 0.004604 x(Flow)0.6977 Water In Pad = 0.004352 x(F1ow)0•7067 Tar = TPM - Nicotine - H20 20 10 . ..;,, ..~,, i

FIGURE 6 CAMBRIDGE KSSP: NICOTINE RETAINED IN FILTER VS. LIT ROD FLOW RATE Nicotine In Filter = 0.08849 x(F1ow)0.3255 V ~ N I C 0 T I 1.2 I ~ N E R 1 E T A 0•8 i IS I N E .6 D . 0.4 M G / 0.2 ~ C I G 0 S? T : d ~ O N 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 ~ ~ ~ LIT ROD FLOWRATE , CC/MIN ~ m m

: 1 ) l D , 3 i 3 J FIGURE 7 MERIT KSSP: COMPONENTS DELIVERED TO PAD VS. LIT ROD FLOW'RATE 20 15 10 TPM In Pad' = 0.1429 x(Flow)0.6416 Nicotine In Pad = 0.02039 x (Flow) 0.4985 Water In Pad = 0.01682 x(F1ow)0•6083 Tar - TPM - Nicotine - H20 '(PM . r , -' TaA .~ oeo .• Z . .- : ~' . . . ' ! so ~ , ~ -_-~ -- - ----'__ ~ - - -= ===== '- r /~ -rrr - rrrr - - • rr r - . • rU ca E 0 200 400 600 800 1000 LIT ROD FLOWRATE , CC/MIN

FIGURE 8 MERIT KSSP: NICOTINE RETAINED IN FILTER VS. LIT ROD FLOW RATE ~ N C 0 ~ ~ T I 1.2 . N E R I E T A 0.8 1 N E 0.6 D D ' 0.4 ~ M G / 0.2 C I G 8 a T 0 a Nicotine In Filter - 0.08267 x(Flow)0.3043 b e i N O ~ M+ I 208 400 600 800 1000 ~ 1200 LIT ROD FLOWRATE , CC/MIN ~ O,

I..:) w 100 N I C 0 0 T I N E E F x 70 F I C E 0 N C Y 50 . 40 wr' w w FIGURE 9 NICOTINE EFFICIENCY VS LIT ROD FLOW RATE BA CLAY CA _.._ _...,. BRIDGE - o MA NINE FLO ~ AV HUMAN F 0W ,. . . . . . . ., , ~ -. ,- ~ • --- ---, ~ '---. ' ~ ~ ---•-. •.._ - '-~ -- - - - 200 0 Z6Gt~~SZ202 400 600 . 800 LIT ROD FLOW RATE CC/MIN 1000 1200

(? ShJ 20 T A R 17.5 / N I C 15 0 T I 12 5 N E R . 10 A T I 0 .5 5 w 1~1 fLf ay ~7 M .y FIGURE 10 TAR/NICOTINE RATIO OF DELIVERED SMOKE VS LIT ROD FLOW RATE BAR LAY CAM MER RIDGE * MAC INE FLO "AVG HUMAN F. OW ~ r ~__.--- r" r . f r r , rr ~. ,~. ' ~ ----- -- -- , / - -- -- / - -- l .- .- r.- f * ' / / ' ' . ~ , 200 400 600 800 LIT ROD FLOW RATE CC/MIN 1000 1200 zsc,~~fszzoz