Product Design
Changes in FTC Intake Produced by Changes in FTC Delivery
Abstract
Examines how changes in delivery levels of a cigarette effect daily tar intake. Suggests three theories: Constant Intake, Delivery Dependant or Response Invariance as possible outcomes. Describes experimental cigarettes with increased or decreased tar and nicotine deliveries and uses a Marlboro-type control delivering 19 mg tar and 1.26 mg nicotine per cigarette. Finds the Response Invariance hypothesis consistant with findings in that "a specific low delivery cigarette appears to be smoked in the same manner as a higher delivery cigarette." and suggests further studies.
Fields
- Notes
Contains some marginalia.
- Author
- 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.
- Recipient
- Charles, James L., Ph.D. (PM, R&D VP, Pharmacologist, Industry Expert)Vice President of Research and a scientist for Philip Morris, Inc. Vice President of Research for Philip Morris, Inc. in 1986 and then again from 1992 to 1993.
- Cohen, Melvyn B. (PM Logistics, Specialized Services for SEX-2 Study)Provided specialized services as requested by Barbara Forrest who was to coordinate the Executive evalution of the SEX-2 Study as written by Myron Johnson on March 3, 1969.
- Daylor, Frank L. (PM Gen. Products Development. Mgr., R&D)Was involved in flavor development for Philip Morris; worked for PM Research and Development in Products Development 1962-93.
- #618 (Eichorn, P. A.)
- Fagen, Raymond DVM (Epidemiologist in late 1960's--worked for PM)Raymond Fagen was a Epidemiologist in the (late 60's) and 1983. (Source: NM Tobacco Companies Personnel List). Before working for Philip Morris, he worked at the NCI/NIH
- Filias, G.
- Johnston, Myron E., Jr. (PM Marketing researcher)
- Martin, PeggySpecialist
- Osmalov, Jerome "Jerry" S. (Joined PM in Dec. 1964 to work on filter development)
- 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.
- Seligman, Robert B. (PM VP of R&D c. 1976-82)Vice President of Research and Development at Philip Morris Richmond, VA 1976-1982. Reported to Senior Vice President of Operations. In 1982 transferred to tobacco technology group. Wanted to share ammonia and other tobacco technology with PM International companies.
- Tamol, Ronald Adam, Sr. (PM Research Engineer)Defense
- Thomson, Richard N. (PM Development Director, scientist)Defense
- Tindall, John E. (PM Product Evaluation, R&D )Defense
- Wakeham, Helmut R. R., Ph.D. (PM R&D VP)Vice President and Director of Research & Development, Philip Morris
- Will, Fritz, III (PM Manager)Defense
- Hypothesis
- FTC machine testing and ratingsDesign changes to achieve altered FTC smoke machine tar and nicotine ratings, with or without measured changes in human intake.
- Inhalation ProfileAre cigarettes designed to cater to individual inhalation profiles?
- Low-yield cigarettesModification of low yield products to assure that adequate levels of nicotine delivery are maintained, and effects of yield changes on toxicity and dependence.
- Measuring human intakeDevelopment of scientifically valid procedures for measuring tar and nicotine levels that more accurately reflect human intake.
- Measuring human smoking behaviorMeasuring the effects of changes in human smoking behavior on intake of nicotine and smoke constituents.
- Smoking psychology and behavior
- Smoking psychology and behavior
- Use of tobacco processing/ blendsModification of tobacco products through changes in tobacco processing and use of blends, and measuring effects on dependence, behavior, and toxicity.
- Keyword
- Attribute perception ratings
- Behavioral effects (Behavioral pharmacology)Addiction behavior, withdrawal, and measured nicotine effects
- Consumer acceptability (Consumer preference)
- Daily intake
- Dose-response
- Human testing
- Inhalation (Smoke inhalation)
- Inner need
- Intake (Smoker yield)
- Low delivery (Reduced delivery)
- Nicotine delivery (Smoke nicotine or nicotine yield)
- Per puff deliveryPer puff tar, per puff nicotine, and per puff CO
- Puff count
- Puff parameters
- Puffing behavior (Human puff parameters)
- Self-administration
- Sensory response
- Smoker behavior (Human smoking behavior)Puff parameters, daily intake, etc.
- Smoking dynamics
- Tar/Nicotine ratio (Nicotine/Tar Ratio or T/N ratio)
- Total particulate matter (TPM or Tar)
- Smoke Constituent
- Nicotine
- Total particulate matter
- Design Component
- Butt length
- Filter efficiency (FE)
- Porous tipping paper
- Pressure drop (PD, Resistance to draw (RTD), Flow rate or Draft)
- Static burn rate
- Tobacco weight
- Operation/Project
- SEX-II
- Named Organization
- Federal Trade Commission (Enforcement agency for laws against deceptive advertising)Enforces laws against false and deceptive advertising, including ads for tobacco products. Ensures proper display of health warnings in ads and on tobacco products;collects and reports to Congress information concerning cigarette and smokeless tobacco advertising, sales expenditures, and the tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide content of cigarettes.
- Product Opinion Lab (industry-funded)
- Brand
- Benson & Hedges (PM)
- EXPERIMENTAL
- Marlboro (PM)
- Parliament (PM)
- Virginia Slims (PM)
- Winston (RJR)
- Marlboro 100
- Alpine
- PALL MALL FILTER
- Benson & Hedges Menthol
- Subject
- Behavioral Effects (Effects)
- Compensation (Measures)
- Low Yield Cigarettes (Products)
- Metabolites (Measures)
- Puff Parameters (Measures)
- Smoke Delivery/Transport (Measures)
- Smoke Nicotine (Measures)
- @smoke_constituents_measures
- T/N Ratios (Measures)
- Tar (Measures)
- Test/Consumer Preference (Testing)
- Test/Smoke Constituents (Testing)
- Test/Smoking Behavior (Testing)
Document Images
June, 1970
Project 1600
SEX-II
Evaluation Report #415
CHANGES IN FTC INTAKE PRODUCED
f.
GONFlQEE11TI%L
6t Cr' ;HNGcS I~~ F'TC DE'..IhFRY
Distribution
Dr. H. Wakeham
Dr. R. Seligman
Mr. R. Thomson
Dr. P. Eichorn
Dr. F. Will
Mr. J. Osmalov
Mr. F. Daylor
Mr. G. Filias
Mr. F. Resnik
Dr. R. Fagan
Mr. M. Johnston
Mr. J. Tindall
Mr. J. Charles
Mr. M~. Cohen
Mr. R. Tamol
Mrs. P. Martin
a
I
ZI
11
n
RESULTS .
.
. . .
PREDICTED POSTSHIFT BEHAVIOR .
OBSERVED DOWNSHIFT BEHAVIOR .
OBSERVED UPSHIFT BEHAVIOR .
SOME QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS .
. . .
. . .
. .
. . . .
.
. . . . . .
.
.
. .
. 12
. 17
. 18
. 18
During the fall and winter of 1968-69, the Product Opinion
i
I
I
1
I
I
I
tar in smoke, and filter efficiency, we were able to calculate
how much smoke had passed through each filter into the smoker's
knowledge of the relationships of the nicotine in smoke, FTC
other things, mea-suring the amount of nicotine deposited in
-filters of cigarettes smoked by the general public. From
Exposure I (SEX-I), for an outside client. It involved, among
Laboratory carried out a research project,, titled Smoke
mouth.
.Eventually we began a pilot-experiment called SEX-II to investi-
gate the effects of changes in FTC del.ivery on smoker FTC tar
Experience with this project caused us to ask a number of
questions about cigarette consumption, cigarette FTC tar delivery
level, smoker FTC tar intake, butt lengths, and allied subjects.
intake.
We asked: if we were to change the delivery level of an
B5mm cigarette, what would happen to the smoker's daily FTC
tar intake?
There are a number of possible answers. The first is that
it would not change but would remain constant. The smoker would
smoke as much tobacco as needed to keep his daily intake at the
accustomed'level. If the delivery was increased, then the
constant intake would be produced by smoking fewer cigarettes,
or less of each rod, or some combination of the two. If the
change were downward, smokers would consume more cigarettes,'or
more rod, or both. We call this the Constant Intake hypothesis.
O
A second possibility is that the smoker's i'ntake would ~
change as a direct function of the nominal change in' tar delivery. ~
0?
~
W
This suggests that a 20% increase or decrease in FTC tar delivery
(as recorded on a smoking machine in analytical division) would
-4~
less tar from each one.' We call this the Delivery Dependent
suming the same number of cigarettes but by getting 20% more or
intake. Such an increase would be produced by the smoker con
produce a 20% increase or decrease in total daily smoker FTC tar
.hypothesis.
suggests that each cigarette is puffed in exactly the same manner1l,
A number of other outcomes are possible. Among them is the ;
Response Invariance or Constant Smoke Volume hypothesis. This
that changes in cigarette characteristics have little effect on
puffing behavior. As a result, the smoker takes in about the
same volume of smoke each day.
has sophisticated apparatus for detecting changes in the body,'s
biochemistry and physiology.
covert reasons which will only be evident to an observer who
physiological deficit state. It suggests that we smoke for
The three hypotheses stress different things. Constant
intake stresses the physiological and chemical effects of the
smoke. It emphasizes the impact of the FTC tar on the lungs
and the physiological consequences of the nicotine in the smoke.
It suggests that a cigarette is put out when enough FTC tar or
nicotine has been ingested to compensate for some transitory
- The Delivery Dependent hypothesis places its stress on the
data in tables such as those of our Monthly C.I. Report and this
report's Table I. It is a chemical hypothesis, a smoking ~
machine hypothesis. It is the type of hypothesis which anti- ~
smoking forces would employ in condemning the tobacco industry W
for producing high delivery cigarettes.
.-,-+ .
...
. . ~ : ,. .- , - , e.,
. >>.. _.. . ,
7
I
J
a
I
a
a
7
_1
a
The Constant Volume (Response Invariance) hypothesis
emphasizes the habitual components of the smoking: puff
volume, puff duration, number of puffs, duration of interpuff
interval,'etc. It is a psychological interpretation which
stresses the behavior of men, not machines, while ignoring the
chemistry of both men and cigarettes.
It should be obvious that these three hypotheses are only
unrefined first approxi-mations. They are a starting place for
a research project, not the final answer. They are not neces-
sarily exclusive - they may all be acting at once: some people
may smoke as if one rule governed their behavior, others as if
a second rule, still others may vacillate between one and another.
A test of the three hypotheses was performed at R & D during
the autumn of 1969. Smokers were first given an unlimited supply
of a Marlboro-like cigarette. Then they were either shifted up
to a cigarette with more FTC tar and nicotine or shiftedidown to
a cigarette with less FTC tar and nicotine. Consumption and
intake measures were taken throughout the study period in the
hope that preshift-to-postshift changes in intake level and
patterns of smoking behavior would support one of the three
hypotheses.
The Cigarettes
The three cigarette types used are characterized by the
analytical data of Table I. Compared to the preshift Marlboro-
like cigarette, the downshift cigarette delivered about 20%
less tar and 19% less nicotine while the upshift cigarette
delivered 28.4% more tar and 19% more nicotine. The filler of
the three cigarettes was identical. All were made from the
4
same batch of Marlboro-type tobaccos. The altered delivery levels
were achieved by changing the cellulose acetate of the filter and
the porosity of the paper. Compared to the preshift model, the
downshift cigarette had a more efficient filter, more porous paper,
a higher RTD, and a slightly lower burn time while the upshift
model had the same filter and RTD, a less porous paper, and a
longer burn time. As a result, to burn the preshift and downshift
cigarettes to a 28mm butt took 9.0 and 9.2 puffs compared to 10.5
puffs for the upshift cigarette. These burn rates and puff differ-
ences are critical, and greatly affect the interpretation of the
results;
TABLE I
A Summary of the Analytical Data of the Three Cigarettes
Downshift Preshift Upshift
Smoke
Butt Length, mm 28
FTC tar, mg/cigt. 15.2
Nicotine, mg/cigt. 1.02
Puff Count 9.2
Filtration Eff., % 56
Cigarette
Total RTD, in. of H20 5.72
Static Burn. Time, Mlin. 8.2
Length, mm 84.4
Circumference, mm 25.3
Paper
Porosity, sec. 14
Filter
RTD, in. of H20 4.01
Length, mm 20.0
Weight, gms 0.18
Fi11er
Total alkaloids, % 1-.71
Total reducing sugars, % 6.6
W t. o f T o b.gm.s. 0.84
~
U~ 4 -I
,
~,
2 8 --.: -~' 2 8
(19.01) ~.2 4..4 z
} : 261 . 50
9.0 10.5
46 46
4.53
8.6
84.4
25~4
4.82
10.5
84.4
25.3
26 36
2.78 2.78
19.9 19.7
0.15 0.15
1.73 1.66
6.8 7.0
0.85 0.87
©ne hundred and one filter-cigarette smokers from R & D and
J
I
a
I
postshift cigarettes and seven were eliminated because they:
pally illness or general dissatisfaction with the preshift or
Table II. Eighteen more withdrew for various reasons, princi-
was promised for all who completed the study. Usable data was
obtained from 76 smokers, whose regular brands are presented in
. ration. A $10 gift certificate from a leading department store
Richmond Operations were recruited to participate in the study.
Having promised to smoke only the experimental cigarettes during
the study period', they were given as many free experimental ciga-
rettes as they wished in addition to their normal employee's
data is based on over 30,000 cigarettes smoked.
(1) forgot their butts on more than one of the four collection
daysof any single week, or (2) had a mean daily intake of less
than 3 mg on any day. Butt length or analytical measures were
occasionally missed for some smokers on some days, but in no
case are reported scores based on fewer than 32 people per day
per group. The sample size only appears small. It is actually
quite large for a pilot project using an extended series of
repeated measures on the same subjects. For example, the usable
TABLE II
Regular Brands of Smokers in the Two Groups
Number in
Downshift Group
Regular Brand Number in
Upshift Group
17 Marlboro 19 O
3 Marlboro 100 3 O
6 B & H 7 W
1 Alpine 1 N
Virginia Slims 5
5 P.M. Filter -
1 Marlboro Menthol C11
Parliament 2 Ca
NJ
B & H Menthol 1
Winston 1
39
Procedure
a
I
~
~
I
I
I
a
Group Upshift began smoking the highest delivery cigarette and
brand and to smoke only the test cigarettes for a period of six
weeks. For,the first two weeks, all panelists received the pre-
shift cigarette. Beginning the third week, the panelists were
randomly divided into two groups for the remainder of the study.
All panelists were asked to discontinue smoking their regular
space provided'on the pouch identification label. Our measure
of the "yumber of cigarettes smoked" was the sum of the number
of butts in the pouch plus the estimated number omitted. The
fold-over aluminum foil pouches, originally designed for pipe
tobacco, were deposited daily at designated pickup points.
omitted from each day's pouch and recorded this number in a
them in individual pouches. They estimated the number of butts
Group Downshift the lowest delivery cigarette. Each group con-
tinued smoking these cigarettes for four weeks. The panelists
were not informed of the shift and they did not know the purpose
of the test. Throughout the entire six weeks they saved all the
butts from cigarettes smoked Monday through Thursday and placed
From here they were retrieved by a technician who recorded
the number of butts in the packet, measured the lengths of two
randomly selected butts, and prepared the entire sample for
analysis. She removed the tobacco and paper from each filter
section and sliced one side of each plug along its longitudinal
axis so as to lay open the plug material.
A day's batcKof prepared plugs for a given subject was placed
in a paper cup and submitted for chemical analysis. The number of
plugs per cup was reduced down to 5, 10 or 20 plugs, whichever
came first, in order to facilitate handling and treatment by the
chemical analysis group. The amount of residual nicotine
in the filter material was then determined, and the average
amount of FTC tar which had'lpassed through the filters was
calculated. Total daily FTC tar for each smoker was calculated
by multiplying the average FTC tar times the number of cigarettes
smoked on that day. Butts were not analyzed in Week 1.
All analytical data collected on one day (Tuesday, October 28,
1969) proved so unusual that it was ignored.* The number of
cigarettes smoked that day was, however, included in the results.
Results
The preshift and postshift smoking behavior of the two groups
.1
I
I
will refer to them continuously.
represent the principal fi'ndings of the study and the discussion
are presented in Figures 1, 2, and~ 3. The data of these figures
When smoking the preshift Marlboro-like cigarettes, there
were some slight consumption differences between the two groups.
Both groups left almost exactly the same length of butt (see
Figure 1) but the upshift group smoked about 22 more cigarettes
per day per person than the downshift group (Figure 2). As a
consequence of the extra cigarettes, the upshift group had a
higher average daily intake of FTC tar, 240mg vs. 207mg (Figure 3).
F-h
0
* Many subjects fell below 3mg that day: whether this was due O
N
to collection errors, analytical errors, weather factors, or
some unknown event is unclear. October 27 was a payday. ~
~
Ca
0
I
U
40
39
38
33
I
0
PRESHIFT
~
-----
.~
o-~'
~"O
DOWNSHIFT
y y
2 3 4 5 6 PRE- POST
WEEK SWITCH
MEANS
Fig. 1 - Butt lengths were increased among the upshift group, µA
stayed the same among the downshift group.
.o--
