Tobacco Documents Online

TO: - H. Wakeham DAT'E: March 13, 1974 FROMi: F. Rya n SUBJECT': P'uffi ng Behavi or Descri'pti ve Smoki ng Pa nel During, the last week in February the SEF Descri,ptive Pane1 smokedi aind eval uatedi a Mioni tor 1'6 i n the human smoki ng recorders. Siix smokers and seven nonsmokers parti ci pated . Regul ar panel proce- dures were folllowed. During the filrst phase_of the regular panel procedure the tasters smoked the front 20 mm`of a first cigarette and marked a check list where they detected taste notes. They tended not to inhalle during this phase. Then they diiscuss:ed the taste notes wn th each other (they met in groups of 3, 4, or 5) for a few minutes jointly pointing out fl avors whii'ch they had detected. After the discussiion period they smoked the front 40 mm of a second cigarette and attempted to place sznsaiti'on tntensity ratings on each of the flavor notes they had d'~iiscussed. They wouldl take a puff, search for the flavor notes, wri'te down the ratings, perhaps take a sip of water or a nibble of cracker, and then take another puff searching for the intensity of another f'1'avor. Some of the different taste notes are most noticeablle at different parts of the rod. Sweet notes, hay-tobacco taste, and gas phase effects are eval'uated on early puffs. Alikailoi'dls, b1tterness, mouth and throat harshness, the lii ngieri ng taste of weedy green, etc., ten4to be detected late on the rod. Other character notes appear in midi-rodl or throughout the puffi ngi. A panel i st who detects an off-flavor note or an after-taste may take extra puffs tolsee if they pers,ist. A panellist whio cannot taste a note others report detecti'ng, wi l li take extra puffs hunting for i t. It is obvious that suchia si'tuation is very diifferenit from the lay public's smoking ro~utine, so we expected to findi the smoikin!gi behavior of the oanelists strikingly different from other smoking behaviors we have observed among employees and students in our lia bioraitory . Resu lts Tablle 1 shows the number of puffs taken by the panel'ists on each cigarette sampl'e, arrdi then the average puff volume, average flow rate, and average puff diuraltiion of the non-1'i'ghting puffs.

, 2 Because of a gremlini loose iin the smoke: recorder - computer interface system the numbers reportedlfor theflow, rates are off by an unknown factor which may.be as high as 20'%. But the effects should be about the same for all the smokers. The volumes are also off,,but thie durations are reasonably._ accurate. We've savedi the tapes i'n order to rerun them after the gremllin iis exorcised, but given the range of observed data the absolute numbers are probably not too important, particularly since they're based on a single smoking of a s1ngle rod. So take Tabl'e l with a graiin of salt. What the table shows iis that the smoking panel 's behavior was not strikingly different from the smoking behaviors of'other smokers in other pl'aces. In evaliuating the Marlboro monitor they took many more puffs than a smoker or a smoking machine would haive~-been expected to take, and took them at intervals (not shown) nearer 20 or 30 seconds than the 50-or 60-second' i'nterval',s we customarily observe. These two variables are obviously stroingly dependent on the siituiatioln. But the major vairiables of' flow rate, dluraition,, and puff volume 1'ook very fa,mi'T'iar. A fewimore liow flow rate smokers than usual, perhaps, but this may be related to the task.. There were even two people whio approximated smokimgi machine. behavior (smokers 10 and 11!), but of course most smokers took muchi 1 argier vol ume puffs. (Tabl e ll i s oni the fol l owiing pagie .) There was very little backing-off evident on the second cigarette andinone on the first, a~s seen in Table 2. TA BLE 2'. Averav Vol uime (ml ) by Puff Number (13' smokers ) 20 mm (0igt. 1 ), 40 mm (C'igt. 2) Puff # 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 Total Panel 46.1 50.5 44.7' 46.0 50.2' 4R.8 47.2' 46.3 39.5 48.A 44.2. Six ` Smokers 5:2.8 59.0 51.2' 5'1.2 59.7 53.,7 53.5 48.7' 46.3 49.0 45.7 Seven Nonsmokers 40.4 43'.3 39.2 41'..61 40.7 46.4 41.8 44.2 33.7 47.1 4i2'.9 We must note in passiing that the back-off shoullid be related to intake of nicotine according to, some theoriies and that liittle - N a , inhailation takes place in the 20 mmi'smoking. Thenonsmoki'ng members of the panel, who inhalie less often and less deeply showed . O 21? Ca G!~ Ca

TABLE 1 SMOKING BEHAVIOR SUMMARY 20 mm Length on Cigarette 1 Length"on Cigarette 2 '40 mm -- - , ~ - - - Average Average Average Average Average Average Number Puff Volume Flow Rate Duration Number Puff Volume. Flow Rate - Duration Smoker # of Puffs Puffs 2-N Puffs 2-N' Puffs 2-N of* Puffs Puffs 2-N Puffs 2-N Puffs 2-N - -- -- - - - 1 4 71 1270 3.3 9 63 1400 2.6 2 5 60 1205 2.4 9 63 1515 2.1 3 7 57 1555 1.8 12 55 1760 1.7 4 5 57 1475 2.0 8 61 1514 2.1 5 6 52 1125 2.3 10 52 1480 1.7 6 5 49 880 2.8 7 52 1170 2.2 7 6 48 1725 1.3 10 48 1755 1.3 8 5 38 1020 1.9 10 45 1340 1.7 9 5 38 840 2.2 10 29 900 1.7 10 6 36 1250 1.5 14 34 1055 1.6 11 5 36 1555 2.4 13 35 935 1.9 12 7 30 980 1.6 15 29 1165 1.0 13 6 26 765 1.4 11 31 9$5 1.5

'. - ,..~. A 0 . -4i- less back=off' during cigarette: two. The apparent generali differ- ence in volume between smokers and nonsmokers is not statistically rel iabl e., At test oerformedl on the mean voliumes of each smoker during puffs 2-7 of the second cigarette yielded ai# of less than li, indicating that observed di'fferences between gro1ups are best attri'buted, to chance. It i's our iintention to follow, up this brief examination wi'th an investiigation of the subjective sensory effect of puffs taken at high and low flow rates. jh cc: F. Resnik T. Osdene J. Osma l o.v Wi. Uu n n M. Johnston A. Ferguson B. Hancock