Product Design
Smoking and Low Delivery Cigarettes - II
Abstract
Reports how manipulating tar and nicotine ratios can produce acceptable subjectives in a low delivery cigarettes. Suggests cigarette acceptability can be enhanced with a greater nicotine to tar ratio than in ordinary cigarettes and deviation in either direction from a tar to nicotine [T/N] ratio of 0.07 negatively effects cigarette acceptability.
Fields
- Author
- Jones, Barbara W. (PM Behavioral Research Asst. Scientist, 1974)Assistant Scientist at Philip Morris working on the Behavioral Research Program in 1974.
- Schori, Tom R. (PM's Behavioral Research Scientist, 1974)
Research Scientist involved in the Behavioral Research Program in 1974 at Philip Morris. - Schori, Tom R. (PM's Behavioral Research Scientist, 1974)
- Recipient
- Dunn, William L., Jr., Ph.D. (PM Smoker Psychology Principal Scientist 1970s-80s)Principal scientist at PM during the 1970s and 1980s, nicknamed the "Nicotine Kid." Supervised Victor DeNoble, Paul Mele, Carolyn Levy and others. Led "smoker psychology" programs for PM.
- Fagan, Raymond (PM Principal Scientist c. 1968-83)
Principal Scientist at Philip Morris Research Center in Richmond, Virginia, between around 1968-84.- Gauvin, Paul N. (PM R&D)
- Jones, Barbara W. (PM Behavioral Research Asst. Scientist, 1974)
Assistant Scientist at Philip Morris working on the Behavioral Research Program in 1974.- Lowitz, Dr. David (PM Research Manager)
Defense- Meyer, Leo F. (PM Research Director, scientist)
Defense- *Osdene, Thomas Kevin (Use Osdene, Thomas Stefan)
- Resnik, Frank Edward (Vice Pres., then Pres. and Chairman of Bd, Philip Morris)
TI Executive Committee. Prot駩 of Clifford Goldsmith. Vice President Philip Morris, Inc. from 1979 to 1984. President in 1984 and served on the Board of Directors from 1985 to 1989.- Ryan, Frank J. (PM Scientist)
Philip Morris scientist (circa 1973), developed smoker puff-profiles, compiled data on compensation and lip occlusion of ventilation holes. Associate Senior Scientist with PM, c. 1987.- Schori, Tom R. (PM's Behavioral Research Scientist, 1974)
Research Scientist involved in the Behavioral Research Program in 1974 at Philip Morris.- Thomson, Richard N. (PM Development Director, scientist)
Defense- Wakeham, Helmut R. R., Ph.D. (PM R&D VP)
Vice President and Director of Research & Development, Philip Morris - Fagan, Raymond (PM Principal Scientist c. 1968-83)
- Hypothesis
- Inhalation ProfileAre cigarettes designed to cater to individual inhalation profiles?
- Low-yield cigarettes
Modification of low yield products to assure that adequate levels of nicotine delivery are maintained, and effects of yield changes on toxicity and dependence.- Smoke constituent testing
Development of methods for measurement of gas and particulate yields in mainstream and sidestream smoke.- Smoking psychology and behavior
- Low-yield cigarettes
- Keyword
- Low delivery (Reduced delivery)
- Nicotine delivery (Smoke nicotine or nicotine yield)
- Sensory response
- Tar/Nicotine ratio (Nicotine/Tar Ratio or T/N ratio)
- Total particulate matter (TPM or Tar)
- Nicotine delivery (Smoke nicotine or nicotine yield)
- Smoke Constituent
- Nicotine
- Total particulate matter
- Operation/Project
- Project 1600 (Smoker Psychology/ Behavioral Reseach)
- Named Organization
- Philip Morris Research Center (Did 1983 study which concluded that nicotine is addictive)Philip Morris Research Center did a 1983 study which concluded that nicotine is addictive, per New York Times (Reuters 4/5/94).
- Subject
- Effects—Smoking Behavior (Effects)
- Low Yield Cigarettes (Products)
- Test/Smoking Behavior (Testing)
- Low Yield Cigarettes (Products)
- Brand
- Marlboro (PM)
Document Images
Ti
l
.
Copy No.
Issued T
PHILIP MO.RRIS U,S ,A,
R E S E A R C H C E N T E R
Accession
CHARGE NO. & TITLE:
Project 1600 - Smoker Psychology
TYPE REPORT: OANNUAL Q SEMIANNUAL o COMPLETION QSPECIAL
DATE: October, 1973
REPORT TITLE:
PERIOD COVERED:
CONFIDENT{AL
SMOKING AND LOW DELIVERY
CIGARETTES - II
(TNT-3)
.WRITTEN BY 2Z w
T. R. Schori and' B. W. Jon
APPROVED BY
W. L. Dunn, Jr.
0 a
DISTRIBUTION:
I H.
aZ F.
Wakehiam ~
R e s n i k
( R. Fagan c&o7' F. Ryan
.3 T. Osdene
~
4R. ThomsonQW q,-~,/oDay File (2)e<e
5L. Meyer f/qr-Eg.Central File (2)
f 3. l,R• SC k0 "
-J&.,i.es
w
/6-
KEYWORDS:
i-
Nicotine to tar ratios; Proportionate Reduction
of nicotine and tar; Cigarette acceptability;
Cigarette strength
, 6 b,,l', A.
I
I
F
r
f
I
F
F
F
F
L
F
L
L
L
k I
ABSTRACT
r
Salies figures suggest that low delivery ci,garettes are
~
not very acceptable to smokers. Since low deliveries are
typIcally achieved by proportional reductions in nicotine
anditar, some have thought that disproportilo-nal reductions,
particularly those resulting in larger nicotine to tar ratios
than are normally found in cigarettes, might result in low
delivery cigarettes with greater subjective acceptability.
Therefore, in the present investigation, smokers from the POL
National Panel were required to smoke 14 mg tar cilgarettes
iat .3, .75 and 1.2 mg n1cotine, 11 and 8 mg tar ci'garettes
=at .3 and .75 mg nicotine, and a'Marlboro control, _,
The 14 mg tar/.75 mg nicotine ci,garette (a cigarette
withiproport;ional reductions in nicotine and tar) was accorded
an acceptability rati'nig equivalent to that of the Marliboro
control. These data in conjuncti'on with earlier data (Schori,
1972'a) suggest that the n1cotine/tar ratio characterizing,
natural state tobacco (.017) is probably optimal from the
smoker's point of view. The evidence from these studies sug-
gests gests that deviations from this .07 level in either d'irection
have adverse effects upon cigarette acceotability.
I
F
F
F
I
U
I
.
INTRODUCTION
Despiite the conti'niued'lintroducti,on of new brands of low
delivery cigarettes, sales data suggest that such cigarettes
are not particu!llarly acceptable to smokers. However, since
n1cotine and tar tend to be reduced~~proportionately, low
delivery cigarettes generally have nicotine to tar ratios
quite similar to hiiigh delivery cigarettes. To some, it has
;seemed likely that acceptability of low delivery cigarettes
},.
could be enhanced by disproportionately reducing nicotine
and tar--especially disproportionate reductions resulting
in larger nicotine to tar ratios thaniare currently employed.
moist acceptable low deliivery.cigarette.. Those observations
In a previous study (Schori, 1972a), it was observed that
.proportional red~uction of nicotine and tar, resulted in the
F
L
F
L
L
L
L
were thought not to be'definitive.though since nicotine
variation had been achiieved via addition of ni'cotine salts an~d
because RTD had.systemati'cally varied with tar deliivery.
Wh.en naturally low alkaloid tobaccos became availiable,
it was decidedito make further observations onithe effect of
tar and nicotine manipulations on subjective accepitablility of
low delivery cigarettes--hopiefully eliminating some of the
defiiciencies associated with the earlier study.
;;iz: ...
I
3
»
METHODS
F
I
U
I -
F
r
~
L
L
L
L
L
Procedures
i
Subjects were requiredl to smoke cigarettes which varied'
systematically in their tar and nicotine deliveriles. These
,I
cigarettes were made from naturally low alkalioid tobacco;
the varying nicotine delliveries were achieved by_blending
rather than by nicotine addition. The targeted delilveriies
for these cigarettes are shown in Table I. The delivery
levels actually achieved for the experimental cigarettes were
sufficiently close for our purposes. These values and other
analytic data for these cigarettes and a Marlboro control are
presented' in AppendIx A.
for
Target Delivery Levels
the Nine Experimental Cinarettes
Miicoti ne (mp)
.3 .75 1.2
Tar (mg ) 8 * *
11
14 * * *
*Experimental cigarettes employed.
Note: The two empity cells represent
combinationis that we were
unable to achieve.
Each subject smoiked!one pack of each of the seven experi-
mental cigarettes and of the Marlboro control. The ci,qarettes
were smoked in random order. Immediately after smoking a pack
of cigarettes, the subject was required toirate that particullar
cigarette on an acceptablility scale and on a strength scale. A
sample ballot is shown in Appendix B.
U
[
U
f
f
i
w
4
Subjects
Subjects were 600 smokers selected fromithe National
POL Panel. Regular filter and health filter (Mi-Fi) smokers
were chosen such that their relative numbers were proportionall
to their numbers in the general population of smokers. Usable
ballots were returned by 380~ panelists.
F
r
r
I
I
(
I
5
RESULTS
Acceptability Data
Since we had no cigarettes d'elivering 1.2 mg nicotine
at the 8 and 11 mg tar levels, we performed two analyses on
the acceptability data. The first was a two-way analysis of
varianice in which tar delivery (8, 11,14 mg) andl nicotine
delivery (.3 and .75 mg) were treated as independent variables.
Thiis analysis is summarized in Table II.
Summary Table
(
f
F
I
C
F
L
L
Source of
Variance
TABLE IIl
Acceptability Data
Two-way Ana)ys i s of Vari ance
Tar Del i'very (A)
Nicotine Delivery (B)
Subjects (S),
A x B
A x S
B x S
df MS F Probability
2 97.23 40.515 <.0011
1 9.97 3.83 <.05
365 4.45
2 115.36 51.47 <.001'
730 2.40
365 2.40
Note: The subjects" effect and its interacti'on could not be
tested as there was bu!t 1 measure per cell.
InspectTon of Tablie IlI reveals that tar, nicotine and the
tar/nicoltine interaction were a11 siqnificant (p<.015). The
sign,ificant tar/nicotine iinteraction,indicates that the exact
effect of tar (or nicoti'ne), depends upon the level of the other
factor under consideration, ii.e., nicoti,ne (or tar).
F
F
IT
i
r
I
r.
L
F
L
L
L
L
6
..
The second analysis of the acceptability data was a one-
way analysis of variance of the 14 mg tar level in which,
nicotine delivery (.3, ,75 and 1.2 mg) was the independent
varilable. The summary of the analysis is presented in Table III.
The nicotine effect was hiphly significant, but interestingly
the relationship was not linear since the mid!-vailue (.75 mg)
achieved the highest mean acceptability rating.
One-way Analysis of
Variance Summary Table
Nicotine Delivery (A)
SubJects (S)
A x S
df
2
371
742
MS
31 .66
3.36
2.17
F
14 .57
Probability
. <, 0 01
Note: The subject effect and its interactions coulid not be
tested since there was only 1 measure per cell.
Mean acceptability ratings for the seven experimental
cigarettes and~thie Marlboro control are shown pilottedlin Fig. 1.
Inspection of this figure revealis that the experimental ciga-
rette having an acceptability rating most similar to that of the
Marlboro control was the 14 mg tar/.75 mg nicotine cigarette.
Also it can be seen that the 11 and 14 mg tar cigarettes had!
greater acceptability at the .75 mg nicotine level than at the
.3 mg level; the reverse was true for the 8 m4 tar cigarette.
TABLE III
Acceptability Dataa
for the 14 mg Tar Ciigarettes
F
f
I
(
I
F
I
F
I
L
I
L
F
F
L
5.0
3.5
0
Fig. 1
.3 .75 1.2 MARLBORO
CONTROL
~
NICOTINE DELIVERY(mg)
Subjective Accentability Ratinq as a Function
O
O
C!~
of Tar and Nicotine Delivery - -
L
r
F
I
F
l
L
7
.
Furthermore, acceptability of the 14 mg tar/1.2 mg nfcotine
cigiarette was roughly comparable to that of the 11 mg tar/
.75 mg nicotine cigarette. In general, 14 mgi tar was associ-
ated wftM greatest acceptability, while 8 mg tar was associated
with the least acceptability.
Strength Data
The strength data were also analyze6by means of two
separate analyses of varianice. The analyses were identical
to those performed on the acceptability data. The two-way
analysis of variance of the strength data is summarized in
Table IV. Tar, nicotine and the tar/nicotine interaction
were all significant (p<.05).
TABLE IV
I
L
L
L
L
Source of
Variance df
Tar Delivery (A) 2
Nicotine Deliivery (B), 1
Subjects (S) 364
A x B 2
A x S 728
B x S 364
A x B x S 728
MS F Probabli,l i ty
200.72 71.24 4.001
351.20 108.49 <.001
6.62
100.46 35.2'1 <.001
2.82
3.24
2.85 ~
Note: The subject effect and~its interactions could not be
tested since there w&s only one measure per cell!.
Strength Data
Two-way Analysis of Variance
Summary Table
U
8
.
U
~
The one-way analysis of variance of the strength data
for the three 14 mg tar cigarettes, in which niicotine delivery
was the independent variable, is summarized iniTable V. The
nicotine effect was significant (p<.05).
TABLE V
IT
r
ii
(
[
c
I
C
t
L
I
L
L
Strength Data for thie 14 mg Tar Cigarettes
One-way Analysis of Variance
Summary Table
Source of
Variance df MS F
Probability
Nicotine Delivery (A) 2 18.27 8.16 <.001.
Subjects (S) 373 4.30
A x S 746 2.24
Note: The subjiect effect and its interactionis couldinot be
tested since there was only one measure per cell.
Strength rating;s for the seven experilmenital cigarettes
and the Marlboro:conitrol are shown plotted iniFig. 2. From
thiis figure, it can be seenithat the 8 mg tar/.75 mg nicotine
cigiarette resulted in strerngthl ratings whiich were considerably
hiaiher than those assacta.ted with any of the other cigarettes.
In general, the 11 m4 tar cigarettes resuilitedlin the lowest
strength ratings while the 8 mg tar cigarettes resulted in the
highest ratings. Furthermore, at each tar level, increased
nicotine delivery was associated with increased strength
ratings.
