Tobacco Documents Online

BROWN & WILLXAMSON TOBACCO CORPORATION RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ENGINEERING FILE NOTE TITLE: THE EFFECT OF ALUMINI~ SULFATE ON ECUSTA'S VELVET P~ER/325 ALr~0R: Mr. F. K. St.Charles DATE: March 14, 1984 CC: Mr. E. E. Kohnhorst. Dr. R. A. Sanford, Hr. M. L. Reynolds, ~Mr. T. E. Riehl, Mr. D. V. Cantrell, SDMMARY The addition of alu~.inum sulfate to Ecusta's VELVET paper reduces the ~idestream irritation considerably. In two ~eparate tests, using paired sniffing chambers, all people surveyed judged the sidestream from cigarettes made with VELVET paper alone to be much more irritating than sidestream from cigarettes made with VELVET containing al~minum ~ulfate. Total sidestream wet TPM (SS-WTPM) was higher with the alumintu~ sulfate added, equivalent to a 33~ reduction compared to a conventional paper. VELVET paper alone reduces SS-WTPM 50~ compared to a conventional paper. The al~minum sulfate also caused the smoulder rate to decrease. The net result is that the sidestream emlsslon rate is decreased SlIEhtly with the treated paper. The al~intu, sulfate also caused the pE of the SS-WTPM to decrease by about 0.5 pH unit. The vapor phase pE was unchanged. Spills coated with 3 mE of NaH~P04, (NH4)zS04, and citric acid are .ow being tested to determine their effects on sldestream irrltation. Smaller amounts of alumintLm sulfate per spill will also be tested to determine if SS-WTPM can be reduced similar to untreated VELVET while retaining the benefits of low sldestream irritation. EXPERIMENTAL An al~inwu sulfate solution was ~de up by dissolving 7.58 of Ah(S04), ° i8 H20 in I00 ml of delonized water. Spills were coated by blowinS out the tobacco, inserting a plastic rod~ painting on the solution, then blotting by rolling the spill over a Kim Wipe. Ep~lls were weighed before and after coatinE to Setermi.e the amount added. After drying and welghing, tobacco was BAT-blo~ 566001516

into the coated spills. Cigarettes were conditioned at 72"F, 60~ relative h~umidity at lea~t overnight before testing. This treatment gave 3.1 mg of aI~minum sulfate per spill. This araounts to approximately one-fourth the weight of MR0 in VELVET paper. The snifflng chambers were made using rectangular, five-gallon pla6tic jugs. A rectangular hole was cut out Of one side and covered with two overlapping pieces of latex demtal dam. A vacuum line was attached Dear the cut out on the end of the jug opposite the mouth. This ca~ed the sidestre~u~ to be drawn across the cut out before exiting the chamber. The cigarettes were placed at the mouth of the j~g. An air line was attached near the mouth of the jug to allow the chambers to be flushed after each test. Except for being mirror i~ges, the chambers were made as identical as possible to eliminate any bias. Tubing lengths were the J~ for both ch~bers and ~hared a comon connection to the house vacu~Inand ai~ llnes. ~o separate sniffing tests were also ruLn to elimlna~e bias, The te~t cigarettes were placed in opposite chambers for each test. Volunteers from the Product group were asked to sniff to dete~ine if there was any difference~ and if so, what the difference was. A smallec ¢irc~umference sidestremco11~ction apparatus was considered for the sidestrempHmeasurements. This wa~ necessary since the pH neutral Cambridge pads would not fit the usual sidestream collection apparatus. The linear air flow rate for the smaller apparatus was the same as used with the large one. A dry ice-ethanol cooled cold trap was used between the apparat~ and the flow ~ter. The pR of the trapped solution was also measured. The VELVET cigarettes were made in the Development Center to RICHLAND KS Gpecifications except for ventilation. A copy of the ~ple specification sheet is attached. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Four people participated in the flrst sniff test and five participated in the second. Two people participated in both te~ts. Im the first test, untreated VELVET was in the right chamber and treated VELVET was in the left. Corm~ent£ from this test were as [ollows: "Right iga lot stronger. Nasal stinging," "Right burns nose. Left doesn't." "Right is much more irritating." "Right is stronger." -2- 566001817

In the second test, untreated VELVET was in the left chamber and treated VELVET wag in the right. Comments were: "Left more irritating. Can'tolerate right longvr before nose stlng~, not eyes, but nose. left get6 to ~yes so~." "Loft deflnitely more irritating." "Left much more irritating. No eye irritation on the right." "Left definitely more irritating, burns nwe more." These results leave no doubt that alt~in~ sulfate reduces sldestream irrltat£on. I was the only person who smoked these cigarettes. No major taste difference~ were detected, but the cigarette with al~inum sulfate seemed to add a very slightly sweet cooling note. Ash appearance was slmilar for both treated and untreated papers. ~'ne average results for two replicate measurements are given below. These results show that the total sldestream wet TPM (SS-WTPM) was increased with the treated papers, VELVET paper rvduces SE-WTPM 50~ with respect to conventional papers. Reduction with the treated VELVET papers amounts to 33~. Sidestream Results for VELVET With and Without Aluminum Sulfate Aluminum Sulfate (mglspill) SS-WTPM (mg/cig.)a Freeburn Time (min.)j SE Emission Rate (mg/mln.) ES-WTPH pB ES Vapor Phase pH 0.0 3.1 7.1 9.5 9.1 13.4 0.78 0.71 8.77 8.20 9.16 9.13 "Results are for the freeburn of 42 mm. The free burn time for &2 ~m increased over foRr minutes with the treated VELVET. Thus, the rate of sidestream emissions was slightly lower with the treated VELVET. This 51ight difference would not account for the large difference in perceived irritation. The pg of the SS-WTPM was also lower with the treated VELVET. This is not surprising since the aluminum ion is a fairly strong Lewis acid. l'he pg of the aluminum sulfate solution was 3.3&. The pE of the vapor phase solution was the same for both. The pE was also higher than that of the particulate matter. It is believed that ammonia is primarily responsible for this high pH. Even if a considerable fraction were removedI the pR would change only slightly. This ~olution had a dirty, sweet odor. When measuring the pH, many people comented that it smelled like "~ashed potato flavorlng." And thi~ was from acros~ the room! After sitting for a few days, the solutlon took on a definite amldeo fishy odor. -3- 566001818

The reason for u~ing al~minum sulfate was the hypothesi~ that the acidic ion would bind or retard compQunds with free electron ~airs such as ammon£a and aldehydes. This would enhance the probability of reacting or being pyrolyzed to ~ess noxlou~ compounds. Whether this occurred or ~ot i~ not C~r~ai~ slnce the~e compounds were not quantified. But it is certain that ~i4estream irritation was reduced. ~UTURE WO~ Smaller amounts o~ alumlnum ~ul~a~e applied to the paper will a~o be tried. One of the ~igarettes w~th 3.1 mg applied self-extinguished. This could have been d~e to inconsistency in the applicatlon method. Three other compoundB have been initlally scanne4 to ~ee if they • ~duce Si~es%r~m iz~i~ation. These compound~ are: Na~z~04~ (N~4)~S04, and citric acid. The first two appear to reduce irritation, but citric acid doe~ not. However, they ~t be tested more thoroughly before any definite co~c1~sion~ can be m~de. F. K° S. ~KS/hfw 0&&51