Product Design
Development Smoke Studies - 4009 Special Observation of Human Smoking Patterns
Abstract
Report on seven-month brand switching study to determine if changes recorded in smokers' profiles upon changing brands are permanent; to collect data on changes in response to physical properties of cigarette; to correlate data with smokers' subjective response (no correlation found); and to determine if cigarette delivery is a factor in number of cigarettes smoked. Findings: 1) Smokers in general are capable of taking very large puff volumes. Puffs of 60 cc are common, and one smoker exceeded 130 cc. 2) Smokers can vary their puffs over a wide range. 75-86% increase from low to high are not unusual. 3) Some smokers are very consistent in their average puff volume on a given brand while others show continued variation. 4) Trend to larger puff volumes on Merit Ultra Lights. Concludes that smokers have different smoking averages, but similarities are noted within a given brand or brands with similar properties; and that smokers have a great capacity to vary puff volume profile.
User-Contributed Notes
Fields
- Rank
- 1
- Author
- Gauvin, P.
- Goodman, B.
- Kelley, M.F. (PM Researcher)Research Professional
- Recipient
- Mulherin, B.
- Osdene, T.S.
- Ryan, F.
- Spielberg, H.
- Stimler, J.
- Thomson, R.
- Tindall, J.
- Wakeham, H.
- Wickham, E.
- Claflin, W.
- Daylor, F.
- Dunn, W.L.
- Dwyer, W.
- Ennis, D.
- Fagan. R
- Farone, W.
- Gunst, K.
- *Kassman, A (use Kassman, Allen, Ph.D.)1997
- Meyer, L.
- Hypothesis
- CompensationIncorporating knowledge of compensation and effects of human smoking behavior into cigarette design.
- Design changes over timeChanges in cigarette design over the past half century.
- 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 smoking behaviorMeasuring the effects of changes in human smoking behavior on intake of nicotine and smoke constituents.
- Smoking psychology and behavior
- Elasticity and Product Control
- Keyword
- Puff volume (Puff amount)
- Cost savings (Cost reduction)
- Smoker behavior (Human smoking behavior)Puff parameters, daily intake, etc.
- Inhalation (Smoke inhalation)
- Design Component
- Pressure drop (PD, Resistance to draw (RTD), Flow rate or Draft)
- Technology/Method
- Smoker profile recorder
- Human smoker simulator
- Subject
- Pressure Drop (Design)
- Smoke Delivery/Transport (Measures)
- Compensation (Measures)
- Puff Parameters (Measures)
- Test/Smoking Behavior (Testing)
- Test/Consumer Preference (Testing)
- Low Yield Cigarettes (Products)
- Tar (Measures)
- Smoke Nicotine (Measures)
- Smoke Delivery/Transport (Measures)
- Brand
- Cambridge (PM)
- Marlboro (PM)
- Merit (PM)
- Philip Morris
- Virginia Slims (PM)
Document Images
THIS REPDitT IS CONFIDENTIAL TO THE BUSINESS OF THE
COIPANYs IT SHOULD BE CAREFSit.f-M7tN0LED0 IS NOT
TRANS FFRABLE TO 11NOT1iFR I ND i r I DUAL, ADO IS NOT TO
BE PHOTOCOPIED.
It Its rsport has s.rv.d Its parpose and Is no
longer n..ded, pl.a" rrturn it tmMdlat.ly to
the CMtral Ftle at tAM R.searcA Canter for
record kNping purpos.s and d.struetioa.
Accession Number: 84-020
Copy Number: 4-n
Issued To: :;,f
PHILIP MORRIS U.S.A.
RESEARCH
CENTER 1~~ -,
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA ~ rr-. n
~02
Development Smoke Studies - 4009
TYPE REPORT: Q ANNUAL 0 SEMIANNUAL 0 COMPLETION ~ SPECIAL
DATE: January 27 ; 1984 PERIOD COVERED:
REPORT TITLE: Observations of Human Smoking Patterns
Matt Kelley
Ba:rbro J~oodm
APPROVED BY Y~-<-~~X- ffi .
Paul Gauvin
DISTRIBUTION:
Dr. H. Wakeham Dr.
Dr. R. Fagan Dr.
Dr. W. Dunn, Jr. Mr.
Dr. T. Osdene Mr.
Dr. W. Farone Mr.
Mr. L. Meyer Mr.
Mr. ~RES sMr
Dr. PPJrTF
Mr. 3
nkryM~
E~
Mr. F~~~~OV~ L BY:
`~'
W. Dwyer
D. Ennis
H. Spielberg
E. Wickham
J. Stimler
J. Tindall
R an
ISiBUTJON
VANAGER OF CIGARcTfE DEVELOPMEIVT
.a
KEYWORDS: Smoker Profile Recorder, Human Smoker Simulator,
Smoking Profile and Smoker Parameters, Tar, Nicotine Delivery,
Puff Volume, Duration, Flow Rate, Cigarette Consumption
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
OBJECTIVES
STUDY PROCEDURE
DISCUSSION AND RESULTS
A. Smoker Parameter Changes
Graph la, Puff by Puff Volumes
Graph lb,
Graph 2,
Table 1, Physical and Analytical Data
Graph 3, Individual Average Puff Volumes
B. Quantity of Cigarettes Smoked
Graph 4, Average Number of Cigarettes Per Day
C. Deliveries to the Smoker
Graph 5, Average Puff Volumes
Graph 6, Average Number of Puffs per Cigarette
Graph 7, Total Volume Per Cigarette
Graph 8, TPM Deliveries Per Cigarette
Graph 9, Nicotine Deliveries Per Cigarette
Graph 10, TPM Deliveries Per Day
Graph 11, Nicotine Deliveries Per Day
Subjective Evaluations
Graph 12, Subjective Ratings, 10 Panelists
5
5
8
8
8
9
10
11
13
14
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
, Virginia Slims Lts:~:Smoker' 28
, Cambridge 100 Smoker 29
1003638934 .
ABSTRACT
Twelve smokers were tested during a seven-month brand switching
study. Recorded data was taken' every two weeks from the smokers
smoking their regular brand for two months, followed by three months of
smoking Merit Ultra 'Lights, and then switching back to their regular
brand for the final two months. Four objectives were outlined for this
study; 1. Determine if changes recorded in smokers' profiles upon
changing brands are permanent, 2. To collect additional data on smoker
profile changes in response to cigarette physical properties and
deliveries, 3. To collect subjective data and examine for correlation
with smoker response changes, 4. Determine if cigarette delivery is a
properties. Results in this study indicate that cigarette length is
the dominant effect on the number of cigarettes smoked. If the lengths
are different, more of the shorter cigarettes will be smoked regardless
of delivery. The perception of the panelist's own brand could be
changed by having the panelists substitute the Merit Ultra Lights
cigarette for their own brand over an extended period of time. All of
the data collected in this study has been stored in the computer for
use in the development of the Simulator Modeling Program.
subsequent deliveries of cigarettes are affected significantly by
smoker profile changes in response to the cigarette's physical
The recorded smoker data shows that individual smokers have very
different smoking profiles. Each person shows a more constant smoking
profile while smoking a given brand or a brand with similar properties
.than they do when smoking brands with different properties. The
factor in the number of cigarettes smoked.
Through a long series of smoker-studies conducted in the Smoker
Simulator Program, smokers have consistently shown differences in their
smoker profile when smoking cigarettes having differen-t physical
properties. The fact that smokers smoke different cigarettes with
different profiles is accepted by most people familiar with smoker
responses; however, the cigarette properties, physical or analytical,
which prompt the changes in profile are topics of discussion. Whether
or not the change is permanent while smoking that particular brand, can
., ~
also be argued. The purpose of this study was to provide data to
answer these questions. The type of study required, i.e. over a long
time period, also afforded an opportunity to obtain accurate
-.~ .
information on deliveries to smokers by different brands, number of
cigarettes smoked of a particular brand, and subjective evaluations.
what changes are made by switching, then to determine
the changes recorded in smokers' profiles upon changing brands are
permanent or if the smokers shift back to a base smoker profile.
2. To collect additional data on smoker parameter change in response
to physical properties and delivery differences in cigarette brands.
3. To collect subjective data and examine any correlation with smoker
4)
10
1^ °
61
rT-oL,-- o
response changes.
To determine if cigarette delivery is a factor in the number
3
This'study was planned to coincide with the introduction of a new
.. _.. ; '. .
°PAi,cigarette, Merit Ultra Lights. It was hypothesised that a new brand
. ~
'
~ _ ..
.. . i .. .. ....,l~. "...
might induce smokers with firmly established regular brands._to switch
. . .' .... .. ~' .. .-.... ..; ... .. . ,....~' i " .. . ' .} - f .».~. _
or sample with serious consideration to switching. With that timing we
could possibly obtain a larger group to participate in our test.
.~_
Ballots were delivered at 'R & D with the daily cigarettes for an
indication of initial -interest. in participation in the study.
Approximately thirty people returned the questionnaire, and sample
packs were given to those people. 'After smoking the samples and after
a personal interview in which the test procedures were reviewed, twelve
smokers remained interested in taking part in the long-term switching
Before initiating the collection of study data, each smoker was
trained on the use of the Smoker Profile Recorder and reviewed on the
test procedures. Smoker involvement in the study included four duties:
smoking on the recorder, saving butts from the recorded smokings,
completing subjective ballots, and assisting in collecting accurate
data on the number of cigarettes smoked during each of the three test
periods. During the first test period, data was obtained on the
smokers' profiles on their regular brands. This consisted of four test
smokings on the recorder (3 cigarettes per test day) at regular
intervals (approximately 2 wks.) over a two month period. Each smoker
was then switched to Merit Ultra Lights 85 regular or menthol for-three
months for the second test phase.
4
Six,sets of three test smokings were recorded on the Merit Ultra Lights
starting on the switching day and then at two-week intervals. For the
third phase smokers were switched back to their regular brand for two
months with recorded testing on the switching day and at two week
intervals thereafter for a total of four testings.
.: A .. .~ r a.. . . f'~F.'. .. .,
=~ Throughout the seven months smokers were supplied with daily
cigarettes of the brand under testing, so that only those cigarettes
being tested were smoked.,-A tally was. maintained on the number of
cigarettes furnished and the approximate number each smoker indicated
that they gave to others. This information provided a reasonable count
on the number of cigarettes per day of each brand smoked.._
The sex of the twelve smokers and
1. Male Cambridge 100 Regular
2. Female . Cambridge 100 Regular
3. Female Merit .85 Regular
4.
5.
Male .~,Merit 85
Female Merit 85
6. Male
7. Male
8.
9.
Female
Female
10. Female
11. Female
:Merit 85
Merit
100
Merit 100
Merit 100
Merit 100
Virginia
Regular
Menthol
Menthol
Regular
Regular
Regular
Menthol
Slims Lights
12. Male Marlboro 85 Regular
their regular brands were:
Menthol
N
0
CJ
~
Ca
CO
.W
This numerical order of the smokers will be the same throughout the CO
report.
5
IV. DISCUSSION AND RESULTS
-A. SMOKER'PARAMETER CHANGES
, , ` a~ ~ }.
A smoker's profile is defined as the volume, duration, maximum and
average flow rate of each puff, the interval between puffs, and the
~,
number of puffs taken on the cigarette. The puff by puff volumes from
an individual cigarette, as shown in graphs la and 1b, present
.cigarettes provides useable numerical and graphical data (Graph 2).
:.difficult sets of data on which to make comparisons; ,,:however, using
.,.the weighted statistical average from the profiles of several
:, ... . -
most affect how smokers smoke a cigarette. Note that the physical and
.~ _; ,:.. - . _ . .
analytical properties of the Merit Ultra Lights and the Cambridge 100
The data in table 1 show the specific cigarette properties that
:Ultra Lights.
. are very similar with the exception of RTD. The properties of the four
., .. _
other regular brand cigarettes differ extensively from those of Merit
As indicated in the procedure section, each smoker smoked three
:.cigarettes on each recording day. A total of four recording tests were
.made in Phase 1 on the original regular brand, six recordings in Phase
-2 on Merit Ultra Lights, and four recordings in Phase 3 on the final
,-reguLar brand.
6
Changes in some of the parameters that comprise a profile are
easier to detect than others. Puff volume, which reflects changes in
duration and maximum flow rate, was used in graph 3 to show changes as
a result of switching to a different cigarette. Each point represents
the average puff volume taken on a recording day. The average puff
. .... ... .~ . . _ _ . ., . .. . _ , ~ . ., .. _
volume for each phase is also given, as indicated by the symbol X.
These averages for the three phases were used to calculate the percent
..;,. ~. . 7
change in volume when switching from one brand to another.
~ ~a,- ... , .. ..'~`~~ . ..a...._. ., ~.,., . -. . ~. . .!. ~. .~f.~ .. ~.._. .. r.;~ : _ . _ . .
With reference to graph 3, smokers 1 and 2 were switched from
-Cambridge 100 to Merit Ultra Lights 85 and back to Cambridge. These
cigarettes differed primarily in RTD. With that being the primary
physical difference, these smokers made essentially no change in the
.._, ..._~_~ ..iF,:i' .. _ . .~._ .
average puff volume taken on the two different brands. Smokers 3-12,
,who were Merit, Virginia Slims, and Marlboro smokers, experienced
significant changes in product properties when switching cigarette
..... .J.V-
brands. All tenshowed significant increases in their puff volumes on
D~7 the Merit Ultra Lights compared to the regular brand. Some, but not
all, of the increase was due to the low RTD and high dilution of the
-Merit Ultra Lights. Increases of 15% to 30% were commorn, and one
smoker --recorded a 48% increase. These volume increases are
~Istatistically significant. On switching back to the regular brand from
1Merit Ultra Lights, some smokers did not revert completely to their
original volume level; however, the volumes on the original and final
smoking of their regular brands were not statistically different.
7
An examination of the individual's data in graph 3 reveals some
interesting information about smokers:
1. Smokers on this panel and smokers in general are capable of taking
very large puff volumes.
puff profiles between replications are no smaller when the panelists
smoke test cigarettes exclusively than they have been in previous tests
where panelists smoke their regular brand between recordings.
4. The trend to larger puff volumes on the Merit Ultra Lights is
given brand while others show continued variation. The differences in
Puffs of 60cc are common, and one smoker
2. Smokers can vary their puffs over a wide range. ' 75-96% increase
from low to high are not unusual; (Smokers 4,5,7, and 10).
w .. .... .. ~_....._ .. ....._ . . ... . .
3. Some smokers are very consistent in their average puff volume on a
exceeded 130cc.
evident even on the smokers' recording large variations in puff
volumes.
CONCLUSIONS
od3~-: ~~
Smokers do have different smoking averages. Similarities are noted in
smokers' average puff volumes while smoking a given brand or a brand
with similar properties. Smokers have a great capacity to vary their
puff volume profile even within the narrow range of properties of
commercial cigarettes. The first three recordings on a new brand were
not significantly different from later recordings on that brand.
PUFF BY PUFF VOLUMES
«.... . . -t ~.
Mirit Ultra Lights 85
y ~A . ' : .~-_i ' ! _ ,. _-- -~~.
~ ~ 1 .
~ ~ - 1 ~
-. - _ ; i . - -. 1 ; ...!..
soi -
. . , . ... ~--f.. _. a..
--T---- '
~
.
- - . - ------
.~
---~-
GRAPH 2
PHYSICAL AND ANALYTICAL DATA FROM CI
BRANDS RTD
IN. H20
Merit Ultra Lights 85 4.1
Merit Ultra Lts.'85 Menthol 4.0
Cambridge 100
Merit 85
Merit 85 Menthol
Merit 100
Merit 100 Menthol
5.0
Va. Slims Lts. 100 Menthol 4.6
Marlboro 85
vvGqE9cOOZ
4.7 ,
DILUTION
~
57
TPM
mg
4,9-
TAR
mg
4.2
NICOTINE
mg
0.36
0.36
57 4.2 j- 3.5 0.28
32 7.2 0.56
. s , ! ' . :~_ - . ' .
ryi,,, ~ ~, . . . .. , . . . . . . .. '
32 8.9 ~. . 7.4 0.59
40 9.8 8.1
10 20.6
16.4
i 11. ikic:
GRAPH 3
'INDIVIDUAL AVERAGE PUFF VOLUMES
70
SD
70
40
50
40
~
~
} 20
%-70
` 60
4 50
40
Brand Brand
Regular I I Merit Ultra Lights Regular
Ortginal Final
Ssnker 1
.= :_ .. . ., . . _
.. _. .._ .... .
_ . . .. _
:z:::_ .. _. .___ .. _.- _ - .~: . ~ ... .._ .rr: .r :. - :::: :. ....: -t- --j- ~.. ~ - ° ~
_ ~ ....
. . .. ;. ~ r -. . . - . ::+ ..: -'.' ^ - .. ~` ~ ~
:. .: }
:TT
-' .:' ::. : : ~ -
;
,. :
...
.. . ....
.->-
, . .. . .
..:
~
~ F .-- - -
. . . . .. .~ . . .~ '. .._ .1-. :.. L
. . . .. . .. ... Y ~_
,. .~
-'_ __ . . _ .. . ~~._. . _ _ - -
._~ ._ _ - . .. , . . , .
. t
-- -- --~-. --- - i~ ----
-
iz:r
1-. I--- j - .
-4
: t
~. ..;. . ,
30 -
70
50
40
4
0
m
58
. .
--- 1 ..i .. , . _ ! . _ ~._._ . l .
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 2C
Weeks
Sfi768E9E00Z
120
110
100
70
Original Final
v
u
eg ar g
Brand ~ i Brand Swoker /
. ... .. r ; . . _ . . . .. . . ~ ... ..- : :_
. . ... .... .~.~ i: ._ _ ... .. . 7.-.:---
, ..: '. . - _ _ ..i . : ... .,. : - - -
.~ :~. :~ - : -- .- -~ : : ;; , ~ : i :.~:! ~ : ' - _ _
: .. . , : ! `r. . ... : .: ~. '.L. ... :: . r . . .
,
-
. .....
. ..
.. . , .. .:..
: _.:'' ,.:. .. :. -. .
__ _~. - i .. : ` : . i -- :. ::: ... , . ., ~ :; .:. . . =_.
i_ ... . ' ~ :'. .. i
. . . . . . . : .
:. . . .
. _. . . : .. :~- ... ' . 1:"~ .' .. 'i:'.~: .. ... : ~ : ..-:.. .~ . .._ ._. .: , i
. .;. .. ..' .
.._ _. . ~ r
,-:-
. . , ,
: :
-f~ -
i i.. -
k-T
- -r.
-: - . .-_- -- . .- - .. . . _ ..c. .:.::- .rr- ---~-~ ~: . ... :. :
: . . .. . . -:. . . ,..:. ...
--_i- ...:.. _ _: _ . .. .. .-,-
. . . . tr.- - . . . ~ . :-:-- -. ~ .. -:-_ ~ ... :
so{
. . . .
~ ; . . : :
.
_.
, ~ . . ~ Ti e ,.
70`
7 j ,
, ..: . . . ~ .. .i... ......... . : . ' ~ _: _
. .. ...
~F : : . _ . ....~_... ' .
10 61 I
; ... :...... . _.
; i .:.~. `.. ~ .
-
20 ..
s0:
30
.. . . i . . . . - . . 0
F::~f ~41
~ .^ : :. . :. .. a_... ... - 44Kf 33 ! :....:... _.... _ '. : ... . = I ' .. I ..
--- ~_-- .
. i . ... . _...... ....... . .:... .... .. . c.. .. i
. i.
. . . . _. . .. : _. __d ._ ! . f. i... i I
----- -- : .. 5~ i- j .
36
.._ . . :. ._.. :.. ..i
10 '-------.~... ..
50
. i . , . _i . . . t_ . ...
y .61.
57
j
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Weeks
. } 't
_.__, _..,--- ~----
42.
:--l---
0
11
. . . ,,..
B. QUANTITY OF CIGARETTES SMOKED
_ _ . . _ . . :: ~ -..:. ,,.
It has been speculated by some and stated as fact by others that
switching from a high delivery to a low delivery cigarette results-in
the smoker increasing the number of cigarettes smoked.Our, panelists
were supplied with all cigarettes smoked during the seven month study
with no upper limit on quantity. They smoked only those brands being
tested in each phase. Each smoker was responsible for reporting how
many of the issued cigarettes were.given away. All panelists appeared
to make an honest effort in reporting and, therefore, we believe a
reasonable count was made.
Graph 4 shows the average number of cigarettes smoked per day for
each test phase by each smoker. Since the 100mm Merit Ultra Lights was
not available for testing, the discussion will be separated into 85 and
100mm smokers. Smokers 3-6 and 12 were 85mm regular brand smokers.
All five were switched to a lower delivery brand, Merit Ultra Lights.
Two of the Merit 85 smokers (3 and 4) smoked fewer Merit Ultra Lights.
Smoker 5 gave split results, smoking fewer Merit Ultra Lights than the
original regular brand and more Merit Ultra Lights than were smoked on
the return to original brand. The remaining Merit 85 smoker (6) and
the Marlboro 85 smoker (12) smoked more Merit Ultra Lights.
The Merit 100 smokers (7-10) and the Virginia Slims Lights smoker
(11) all smoked more Merit Ultra Lights. One Cambridge 100 smoker (1)
smoked more of the Merit Ultra Lights while the other smoker (2) did
not.
1003638946
12
C ONCLUSI ONS
,- y
~ These test results indicate that cigarette length is the dominant
effect on the number of cigarettes smoked. Cigarettes having equal
length will produce random results in respect to the number smoked. If
the lengths are different, "more' of the shorter cigarettes will be
smoked regardless of delivery.
LDNG-TERM STUDY OF 12 PANELISTS
0
AN
®
ORIGINAL BRAND
MERIT ULTRA LIGHTS
RETURN TO ORIGINAL BRAND
A
N
U
M 40
B
E
R
C
I
G
A
R
E
T
T
E
S
/
D
A
Y
30
20
10
®
1 : 2 - 3 4 S - 6 7 : - . 8 9 10 11 1 Z
5v68c9uDOZ
SMOKER NUMBER
14
C. DELIVERIES TO THE SMOKER
The deliveries of any brand of cigarettes smoked with different
puff profiles vary over a'wide range with different smokers. With our
twelve smokers the TPM per cigarette delivery on the Merit Ultra Lights
.. .- . . T. ._. .. .
85 ranged from 5 mg to 25 mg and for nicotine from 0.3 mg to 1.7 mg. A
portion of this variation is attributed to the known smoker profile
changes in response to the cigarette's physical properties, but there
are indications that available tar and nicotine also influence the
In order'to see how the puff profile variations influence the
deliveries three graphs are included. Graph 5 illustrates the effect
;;- . ... r .. ........... -.._. _ .~._.,tl...., . _._.._ ..
on each smoker's 'average puff volume as the result of physical
differences in their regular brand and the Merit Ultra Lights 85. The
ten smokers (3-12) experiencing significant cigarette differences in
RTD
and deliveries took significantly higher puff volumes on the Merit
Ultra Lights.
,.,
Graph6 shows the number of puffs taken per cigarette, and graph 7
shows the total volume per cigarette. Since an increased number of
, _..
puffs can be taken on a 100 mm cigarette, the majority of the 100mm
smokers took larger total volumes on their regular brands than on the
Merit Ultra Lights, which, in turn, caused these smokers to receive
higher TPM deliveries from their regular brands (Graph 8).
For the 85mm smokers (3-6) who had an equal number of puffs and
increased average and total puff volumes on the Merit Ultra Lights the
1003638949
15
TPM deliveries per cigarette were not significantly different on the
low and ultra-low delivery products. This can be explained by the
relatively small differences in CI TPM deliveries between brands. "=r,The
Marlboro 85 smoker (12) exhibited the same average puff volume increase'`
. ~.:.~,f _r.. -4,. - . . . . '. , ., . ~~ .. ~ . .. ~. ,
on the Merit Ultra Lights as the other 85mm smokers;
. .. ~;,~.
however, e'ven
with an increased puff count the TPM was only 56% of that on the
Marlboro, which shows that when CI deliveries are drastically different,~ .~..y.
the actual delivery to the smoker-will also- be different. ' The nicotine
deliveries (graph 9) as well as the - tar deliveries generally 'follow
determined (Graph 10). The Merit 85 smokers (3-6) showed no
significant difference between brands,in the total TPM per day. Two of
cigarettes smoked per day, (Graph 4) the total daily smoke intake was
' ~l' ., .-. . ~ .. . ... ~..~~ 4 '~:'~:.. .-~ .. .. ,. . . . . ..- . 3 t~~' ~_(~ ~. . 1j1
r.
Using data from the average TP1-1 (Graph 8) and the number of
_ , ... _ .. ~:.. ' . . :y
Merit 100 mm smokers (9,10) and the Marlboro smoker (12) received less
.... _. , , f
TPhI onthe Merit Ultra Lights, while one Cambridge smoker received more
TPM on Merit Ultra Lights. "
. : r - . . ,- . .
the Merit 100 smokers (7,8) and the'Virginia Slims Lights smoker (11)
and one Cambridge smoker (2) also received similar amounts of TPM on
. .. . .; . . .... ,
the Merit Ultra Lights and their regular brand. The remaining two
The daily nicotine deliveries for the ten smokers showed more
variability inresults than was observed for TPM (Graph 11).
: 'i....'r.
16
Some interesting observations can be made in relation to
calculated puff volumes, smoker-panel data, and CI data (Table 2).
Using the RTD for the smokers' own brand and Merit Ultra Lights and the
knowledge from previous studies of how RTD influences puff volumes, the
average expected puff volumes were calculated. These calculated values
are similar to those from the actual smoking test, which means that a
large portion of the profile changes can be explained by the
differences :in RTD of the cigarettes. Some influence of the cigarette
tar level could also be expected; 'however,the differences in the
average smoker TPM and PC on their own brand and on the Merit Ultra
Lights were very similar to the differences calculated using the TPM
and PC from CI data.
~.
TABLE 2
Own Brand
~.; ~~ .'- :_z ,,:i.
Merit Ultra Lts.-
Calculated :,.Smoker Data
Puff Vol. Puff Vol.
cc - cc
CI Data
TPM PC TPM PC
mg no. mg no.
53.2 52.6
Regular Menthol 59.5 60.8
- J;.,. .. _ ~
17.1 9.9 10.0 8.8
12.3 9.1 4.9 7.8
Difference 6.3 8.2 4.8 0.8 5.1 1.0
All of the data collected in this study has been stored in the
computer and is readily available for use in the continuing development
of the Simulator Modeling Program. This includes individual cigarette
smokings for all twelve panelists smoking Merit Ultra Lights and two
sets of regular brands.
17
CONCLUSIONS
The deliveries of cigarettes are affected significantly by smoker
responses to the cigarette's physical and/or delivery properties.
The average deliveries to the smoker from Merit Ultra Lights were
equal in TPM and higher in nicotine than from the Merit 85 for the
majority of smokers.
The average TPM and nicotine.deliveries were lower on 'the Merit
Ultra Lights 85 than on the Merit 100 due to the extra puffs on the
The increase in the number of 85 mm cigarettes smoked by the 100
:r" mm regular brand smokers was enough to equalize the daily delivery of
TPM and nicotine from the two brands for a majority of these smokers.
11
GRAPH S
AVERAGE PUFF VOLUMES.
130
120
A 110
V ~
E 100
R 7
A 90'
G ~
E 80
V 70
e 60
U 50
M
E 40
C 30
C 20
10
N
1
CS6$C9EOOZ
2
LONG TERM STUDY-'OF 12 PANELISTS
3
4
®
ORIGINAL BRAND
MERIT ULTRA LIGHTS
RETURN TO ORIGINAL BRAND
5 6 7 8
SMOKER NUMBER
9 10 ~11 12
AVERAGE NUMBER-OF FUFFS/CTGARETTE
LONG TERM STUDY OF 12 PANELISTS
A
6
E
18
P' ' 12
U
F:.
F
S
10
P
E
R
ORIGINAL BRAND
RETURN TO ORIGINAL`
* MERIT ULTRA LIGHTS`
2 3 4 5_,. 6., .7; ~,. . 8;.: 9 10 11 12
,SMOKER NUMBER
T
0
A
L
-.
SS68E9EOOZ
®
®
2
:. GRAPH 7
TOTAL VOLUME PER CIGARETTE
LONG TERM STUDY OF 12 PANELISTS
ORIGINAL BRAND
MERIT ULTRA LIGHTS
RETURN TO ORIGINAL BRAND
3
4 5 6 7 8
SMOKER NUMBER
10 11 12
GRAPH 8 t1~~
,
t
~
~:.s
.
TPM DELIVERIES PER CIGARETTE
LONG TERM STUDY OF:12 PANELISTS
A
V
E
R
A
G
E
T
M 15
G
10
5
®
®
ORIGINAL BRAND
MERIT ULTRA LIGHTS
RETURN TO ORIGINAL BRAND-
1 2 3
9S68c9cOOt
4
5
7
SMOKER NUMBER
10 11
12
r --r
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
~SSg~9E00Z SMOKER NUMBER
GRAPH 9
NICOTINE DELIVERIES PER CIGARETTE
LONG TERM STUDY~OF'12;PANELISTS.
. ~, .GRAPH 10
- c::t~ 41s. , .
1200
.1
.~ .
.t-
PMDELIVERIESPER DAY-
I
LONG'TERM STUDY OF
ORIGINAL BRAND
RETURN TO ORIGINAL
T
P
M
P:
R
D
A
Y
M,
G
*MERIT ULTRA LIGHTS
I
1 2 3 4
8S68E9EOOZ
1000.
: 0N
.-
400
200
5 6
11
12 PANELISTS
7 ; 8
SMOKER NUMBER
®
_T_- -]
10 11 12
~, ..
GRAPH 11
NICOTINE DELIVERIES PER DAY
LONG TERM STUDY OF'12 PANELISTS
ORIGINAL BRAND
RETURN TO ORIGINAL
70
*MERIT ULTRA LIGHTS
V/,
A
N
I
C 50
0
T
I 40
N
E
ON
P
E
R 20
0
A
Y
M
G
10
®
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
SMOKER NUMBER
6568c9EOOt
25
D. SUBJECTIVE EVALUATIONS
This study afforded an opportunity to collect long-term subjective
data on several existing brands and a new introductory brand. The test
ballot shown in the appendix was developed with the assistance of the
Product Evaluation and Flavor Divisions. Ballots were completed on the
brand being tested every two weeks starting with the last recording day
on the smoker's original brand. Product Evaluation Division personnel
in their analysis of the data found an interesting correlation between
subjective data on the various brands and the smoker selection of their
regular brand after the test was completed. Ten of the twelve smokers
La
selected Merit Ultra Lights as their regular brand indefinitely.
Factor Analysis indicated that subjective results on Liking also
. represented results on Draw,' Satisfaction, Taste, and Aftertaste.
Mildness results represented data on Burn, Harshness, Irritation, and
Smoothness. The average data for Liking, Taste, Mildness, and
Smoothness for the ten smokers that switched indefinitely are shown in
graph 12. Initially in each of the four categories the Merit.Ultra
Lights was perceived as equal to their regular brands. On continued
smoking their rating of the Merit Ultra Lights remained high and when
they changed back to their previous brand their opinion of that brand
(graph 12 record 11) was significantly lower than it had been before
smoking Merit Ultra Lights.
26
Two smokers preferred to continue with their original regular
brand at the end of the seven-month test. Th.e Virginia Slims Lights
smoker indicated in her remarks that she preferred the menthol flavor
and the size of the regular brand. The Cambridge 100mm smoker
preferred the 100mm length cigarette. The reasons for staying with
their regular brand was much stronger with the Virginia Slims Lights
than with the Cambridge 100 smoker. This difference is reflected in
the four graphs on each~of these smokers (Graph 13, 14). The Virginia
Slims Lights smoker ratings on Liking, Taste, and Smoothness on Merit
Ultra Lights never approached those on the regular brand. Only
Mildness was rated higher than the Virginia Slims Lights but on
continued smoking it was rated lower than the regular brand. The
Cambridge 100 smoker in graph 14 does not give the large rating
difference on the two brands and on continued smoking indicated a
preference for Cambridge in all cases except in Liking.
CONCLUSION .:.
The perception of the panelist's own brand could be changed by
:_L
having panelists substitute the 85 mm Merit Ultra Lights cigarette for
their own brand over an extended period of time. These results may
have implications for switching patterns in consumers.
SUBJECTIVE RATINGS, 10 PANELISTS GRAPH 12
15 ,
14
13
12
11
10
9
7
6
3
AVERAGE OF SMOKERS EXCLUDING NONSWITCHERS.
LIKING IN UNITS OF CM
............... 0 . 'o
T
A
S
T
E
b-'AOWN BRAND RAT I NG
13 "'085MM MERIT ULTRA LIGHTS
6 ~
3 .~
AVERAGE OF SMOKERS EXCLUDING NONSWITCHERS
TASTE IN UNITS OF CM
",
6 OWN BRMID RAT I NG
°"'885MM MERIT ULTRA LIGHTS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
13 J
14
13
12 . JI
11
10 ~
9 ~
8
7 ~
6 .~
3J
4
RECOBO
AVERAGE OF SMOKERS EXCLUDING NONSWITCHERS
MILDNESS IN UNITS OF CM
o----------------- i ...............4m
&-a OWN BRAND RAT I NG
e""fl 85MM MERIT ULTRA LIGHTS
2 3 4 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
13
14
13
12
11
10
9
e
7
6
3
4
RECORD
AVERAGE OF SMOKERS EXCLUDING NONSWITCHERS
SMOOTHNESS IN UNITS OF CM
............ . - - --
OWN BRAND RATING
13 "'0 85MM MERIT ULTRA LIGHTS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 13
RECORD gEf1]g0
zssecscoot
, l:
1
L
I
K
I
N
G
14
13
12 ~
11 .~
Is.,
a.,
8
7
0 .~
4 .,
3J
2.
1 .~
I.
SUBJECTIVE RATINGS, VIRGINIA SLIMS LIGHTS SMOKER GRAPH 13
1LAM VIRGINIA SLIMS LIGHTS NENTNOL SNOKER /ll 18 1r141 VIRGINIA SLIMS LIGHTS IFIJTNOL SNOKER /11
LIKING IN WITS OF CN 17 TASTE IN WITS OF CN
10
is
14
O
b" 10" VIRGINIA SLIMS LIGHTS -ENTFEL
13"4185MM MERIT ULTRA LIGHTS MENTHOL
T 13
A 12
S 11
T 18
E a
e
7
4
1SOM VIRGINIA SLIMS LIGHTS MEMTFIa.
~ 85MM MERIT ULTRA LIGHTS MENTHOL
l 2 3 4 s 0 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 13 10 1 2 3 4 S 0 7 8 9 18 11 12 13 14 15
WEEK
10" VIRGINIA StINS LIGHTS YENflH[. SNQKEt /11
MILDNESS IN INITS OF dl
`
-~ 10MM VIRGINIA SLIMS LIGHTS -ENTFIa.
85MM MERIT ULTRA LIGHTS MENTHOL
1 2 3 4 3 0 7 8 8 1s 11 12 13 14 15 10
WEEK
18" VIRGINIA SLIMS LIGHTS /ENTHOL SMIWER I11
SIOOTMESS IN WITS OF CN
A"A 19" VIRGINIA.S.INS LIGHTS
°"'985MM MERIT ULTRA LIG"nENTHOL
N
1 2 3 4 5 0 7 8 a 19 11 ~12 13 14 13 00
WEEK WEEK
19
18
l7
to
15
l4
13
12
it
to
9
e r
7
0
s
SUBJECTIVE RATINGS, CAMBRIDGE 100 SMOKER
100-N CA19aRIDGE SMOKER M2
LIKING IN WITS OF CM
4
3
2 `--~ 100lM CAM6R I OGE
t 85MM MERIT ULTRA LIGHTS
0
7
1 2 3 4 5 0 7 8 9 10 It 12 13 14 13 to
WEEK
19
is
1~ ES IN ~ II*!1 SMOKER ~
04
17
10
15
14
13
12 .a '
N 11
I
10
~,. . I
L 9
0 8
N
E
7
S
S E
S
4
3
0 -"~ 100lfl CAFgtIOGE
9"4085MM MERIT ULTRA LIGHTS
1 2 3 4 3 0 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 13 16
v968E9cOOZ
T
A
S
T
E
100-M CAIl9RI0GE SNOKFR 12
TASTE IN WITS OF CN
. t,
-r
h'-'A 1001M CAF6RIDGE :
11-085MM MERIT ULTRA LIGHTS
1 2 3 4 5 d 7 8 9 10 It 12 13 14 15
WEEK
1 2 3 4 5 d 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 13
WEEK
h , 0 0 ' 01
' ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author extends special thanks--to the twelve smokers who
.faithfully smoked in this seven-month brand switching study. Their
contributions were invaluable in the collection of data. -
Appreciation is extended to the following personnel for special
assistance:
Mr. Warren Claflin for technical assistance in preparation of the
report; Mr. John Tindall for his statistical analysis of the data;
Mr. Howard Spielberg for his assistance in preparing of the subjective
..
-ballots; Dr. Dan Ennis and Mr. Archie Williams for their analysis of
the subjective evaluation data; Personnel in the Nicotine and Water
laboratory for their analysis work; Ms. Rose Arthur for assistance in
all phasesjof the study.
APPENDIX
SENSORY ASSESSMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Please rate the cigarettes you have been smoking for the past week on the
attached ballot. You should make your assessments every MONDAY 1KORNING.
When using the ballot, try to form an overall opinion of the cigarette gained
from the entire week's smoking, rather than your assessment based on a couple of
cigarettes smoked just before filling out the ballot. When using the ballot to
make your weekly assessment, find a quiet place where you can concentrate and
give each question careful attention. Place a slash (/) at a point on each line
which reflects the amount- of that property you detect in the cigarettes.
Thank you for your help.
Archie Williams
Matt Kelley
NAME:
Cigarette Smoked
Not Smooth
2. IBRITATION
Not Irritating
DATE:
Very Smooth
Very Irritating
3. AFTERTASTE
Bad
4. TASTE
Good
Bad Good
5. COOLNESS
Not Cool Smoking
Very Cool Smoking
. BURN RATE
Slow Fast
7. DRAW
Without Difficulty
S. SATISFACTION
Not Satisfying
HILDNBSS
I
.
Not Mild
10: TASTE
Not Distinctive
11. DBYNESS
Not Dry
12. HAFtSHNSSS
Not Harsh
13. LIRING
Dislike Very Much
14. MENTHOL CONTENT
With Much Difficulty
Very Satisfying
-,, Very Mild
Very Distinctive
Very Dry .
Very Harsh
Like Very Much
Very Much
