Tobacco Documents Online

B&I~/ BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORPORATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LNIERP;AL CORR£SpO~DENCE TO: FROM DATE: SUBJECT: T F Riehl R H. Honeycutt N Ayya, R A deWijk J E R Friiters February8 1995 BODY AND MOUTHFUL SENSATIONS FOR NEW STUDIES/486 BACKGROUNDANDPROPOSAL 1 General qe pbrpose of t'~is proposal is to review the findings with regard to body and mouthful sensations, and lo prooose a number of studies aimed at providing a better understanding of these sensations Themventoryreviewstneresuitsof R&Dstudlesandof brainstorming sessions w~th the Product Development Group A search in the scientific literature failed to oroduce any results relevant for body and mouthful sensations 2. Descriptors of body and mouthful Although the terms "body" and I'mouthfur' are often used in conjunction, they seem to refer to different and independent sensations Some products rate high on body and mouthful (Marlboro), while others rate high on body and low on mouthful (GPC 100), low on body and high on mouthful (Winston), or low on both (Premier) In fact, it has been suggested that the relatively high body and mouthful sensations elicited by Marlboro FF may be one of the reasons for its SUCCESS A sample of descriptors for body and mouthful sensations used by R&D perscnnelinclude "Feel", 'Warmth". "Coating", Lack of Airiness", 'Chewy", "Smoothness" "Balance of gdtatJon, Taste, Impact, and Draw", and "Balance of Volume and Texture" The BATCo description of body and mouthful is based on quantity rather than quality: 'The ~mpression of volume or amount of smoke entering the mouth and occupymg the mouth dunng puff taking. A physical impression, not to be confused with any temperature, irntatlon, or taste sensations Mouthful] Js usuagy reversely related to draw effort A cigarette with a high Draw Effort will give less Mouthfug of Smoke than a csgarette with a low Draw Effort," (from Omega panel training manual) The diversity of these descriptors indicates the lack of consensus with regard to what sensations or sensory expenences are covered ~y "body/mouthful" and with regard to how body and mouthful can be assessed exc, erimentally Therefore the goal of the first study on boey and mouthtu! should be to generate an unambiguous descriptive profile of body and mouthful sensations 4031000S2

2 3. Effects of blend composition and tobacco moisture on body and mouthful Rick Gonterman carried out a blend study in which subjects rated different blends of Budey Flue Cured, and Oriental tobaccos Body and mouthful ratings increased with the Flue-Oured/Burley ratJo of the blends (Fig la) Furthermore, the ratings were strongly associated with tar per puff ratings (see Fig lb) However. the ratings were also associated with CO content, nicotine per puff, and reducing sugar content. It was not possible to isolate the specific effects of each of these analytical attrioutes because of the high correlations between the analytical attributes, e.g, an increase ~n tar per puff was typically accompanied by an increase in nicotine per puff Consequently, sensory attribute ratings which strongly associated by tar per puff were strongly associated by nicotine per puff (see Repot1 R&B-B088 94) FIGURE la 3.0 , , g~ 2-0 o 013 , , 10-0 15.0 20-0 25-0 80-0 g5-0 C~nt~ Tobac~ ¢~) FIGURE 1 b 5*53 /° 4~ 850 ~ 4~0 ~ 5~ a) Contour graph of [I;e elfect of inclusion levels of Flue-Cured Budey, and Odental ~obaccos on body and mouthful ratings Averaged ratings are depicted for each contour b) Observed versus predicted body and mouthful rabngs. Predicted ratings are based on tar per puff A new blend study s being developed to isolate the effects of tar per puff, nicotine per puff, and reducing sugar content on body and mouthful ratings Blends will have constant inclusion levels of Burley, Oriental, and Flue Cured tobaccos, but with different grades of each type of tobacco Different grades of Burley tobacco affect primarily nicotine levels, whereas different grades of Oriental tObaCCO affect primarily tar levels Ddferent grades of Flue-Cured tobacco affect primarily the sugar content 403&00083

3 Body and Mouthful ratings are also somewhat higher for moist tobacco than for dr~ tobacco (see Fig 2) The effect was only found for nonmenthol cigarettes FIGURE 2 c~ J; ' , , , , Effect of tobacco moisTu-e o,i ~clatk, e bodylmouthfuJ ratings for nonmenthol cigarettes Results are based url averaged ra[rngs for Marlboro KS EF GPCKS VCBROYKS and BEST KS 4 Other relevant findings on body and mouthful Body and mouthful may play a role in self-controlgng puffing behavior (Whitehead, 1994) Smoke from cigarettes with high body and mouthft:l was inhaled in smaller volumes and over shorter periods of lirqe than smoke from cigarettes with low body and mouthfut in addition, the smoker seems to be able to an just smoking behavior almost instantaneously while puffing (see Figs 3a and 3b) FIGURE 3a ~ 65 Rep 2 ~ 60 ~ ~, s5 50 1 2 3 4 5 '6 7 8 puf~ N.mbe~ FIGURE 3b Repl ~ ~3 12 11 = r , i 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 Eects of cigarettes with low (odd pur u nbcrs) and il gi7 (ever~ puff numbers) body and meulhful tin (a) pdff volume and (b) puff duration 4031.00084.

4 Ms Nicki Theme from BATCo will be at B&W on secondment in the chemosensory group during March and ApdJ She will bnng some of the equipment and will instruct the members of the Group on the use of the equipment The Chemosensory group may acquire smoking behavior equipment from BATCo, which would allow subsequent studies on the role of body and mouthful in smoking behavior Ammonia seems to enhance body and mouthful Interestingly, at higher levels of ammonia mouthful becomes mouth coating This suggests that mouthful and mouth coating are pad of the samesensotycontinuum(St Charles, 1988) Band cast reconstituted tobacco, or RCB, seems to reduce harshness/imtatJon and increase body and mouthful Since RCB coRtaills ammonia, this finding is consistent with St Charles' findings Furthermore, RCB is a component of Marlboro FF which may explain the relatively high body and mouthful ratings elicited by Marlboro KS FF (Roth 1984). T'~e hydrophobic compound n hexadecar:e seems to enhance body and mouthful, without affecting :n-lpaet or irritation The hydrophyfic compound glycerol bad no effect on either of these var ables (Bevan & Sheboerd, 1992) Reducing the dens ty of the tobacco in the tobacco rod seems to increase body and mouthful sensations (Hook 1991) Perceived mouthful of smoke seems to be more dependent on cressure drop than the actual amount of smoke (Powe, 1991) Mouthdfyness m~yheimportantforbodyand mouthful The role of filter ventilation on mouth dryness has been investigated and seems to be unimportant (Shepperd, 1992) However, the role of ventilation and of the type of flow, laminar or turbulent, OR body and mouthful has not been investigated It is unclear whether the sensation of mouthful occurs during the process of drawing smoke into the oral cavity, or whether it (also) occurs when the smoke is relatively stationary in the cavity. Blindfolded subjects who puff but do not inhale cigarettes can differentiate between lit and un[it cigarettes, which suggests that body and mouthful sensations are genuine (Dixon and Whitehead 1992) • Other, more anecdotal findings indicate that body and mouthful sensations increase with the levels of CPCL and with the basis weight of the cigarette paper Waxes like triglyeerates also seem to enhance body and mouthful sensations It is possible that mouthful sensations are related to the number of large particles that coat the oral cavity, which would explain its relationship with tar per puff mentioned cartier Additives like cocoa, butterfat, and irritation reducers also seem to act as enhancers No work has been done on body and mouthful for mentholated cigarettes Mouthful for these products may give an indicabon 9n the contribution of taste (irl this case taste of menthol) to mouthful Similarly, the effects of different casings on mouthful can be investigated. 5. Possible mechanisms for body and mouthful sensations Possible mechanisms for body and mouthful sensations include heat of fusion by waxes 'with appropr ate melting points ("Hot Rock" theory), interaction of taste in'pact, draw, and irritation sensations ("Gestalt" theory), balance between the volatile, semi-volatile and non-volatile compounds in smoke, levels of higher molecular weight compounds :ike r, itrogen in smoke, and the ratio bebNeen TPM and the d]fferenca between )referred and actual pressure drop 4(}310008S

---

---