Tobacco Documents Online

BROWN k WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORPORATION RESEARCH, DEVELOpmeNT ~ ~GINEERIHG FILE NOTE -TITLE: AS'I"B 0 S : DATE: CC: EFFECTS OF VARYING SMOKE pH ON KOOL KS/244 L. O. Hosser March 19, 1984 Mr. S. S. Kohnhorat, Dr. R. A. Sanford, Mr. M. L. Reynolds, Dr. 2. C. Ssterle~ Mr. T. P. gfehl, Mr. A. Mcl~urtrie Three samples of gOOL KS were made in the S.C. at low (pH = 4.8), medium (pH = 5.2 - current KOOL KS), and hlgh (pH = 5.8) s~oke pH levels and submitted for chemical and sensory analysis. ChelIcal a~lyses s ho_w free nicotine and ~R~ increase with increasiDE smoke pH. However, nicotine and nicotine/puff decrease with increas- ing smoke pg. OWP comparisons show only minor differences, with enhanced delivery of some nitrogenous compounds with increasing pg. Sensory analysis was performed both by in-house "expert" smokers and by consumers at Dupont.I *'Expert" s~okers felt impact, irrltation, tobacco taste, a~d amount of menthol all increased with increasinS smoke pg. The '*experts" found the medium pH aetmple to be the most acceptable. Du~nt paneilsts, however, perceived the medlum pH sample as having the highest level of impact and irritation followed by the high pS and the low pH sample. Panelists felt the cooling effect was highest in the low pH sample, The medium pS and high pH samples were lower but equal to each other in cooling effect. NO differences were found in tobacco taste, amount of ~enthol, or amount of "other" taste by Dupont panels. In acceptability testing, the high pS sample was signifi- cantly (>95~) more acceptable than the medium pS sample which was siEndficantly (>953) more acceptable than the low pH sample. These results indicate that IncreaIlnE_~S of KOOL KS may ald consumer acceptance. However,~tber testinS would be needed to ~rlgy this conclusion. 682094559

A study vs conducted to determine conlumer reaction to changes in the smoke pH of FOOL KS. Three samples of KOOL KS were made in the Development Center: 24~175 - Untreated control, 244176 -- Sample treated with 1,86% lactic acid targeted to reduce smoke pH by 0.5 units. 2&4177 -- Sample treated with i.&~ urea targete~ to increase smoke pH by 0.5 v~It$. ~.-~C~iC anttl ~nd u~ea were applied tD the r~spe~tlve ~inal blends as top flavors. Pertinent s~ple specifications are shown in Table i. 244176 Blend BW-1391 Casings C-107 ~ 0-I08 Flavor F-40 g XFF-317 Lactic Acid (%) 1.86 Urea (%) Density (m~Icc) 231 Paper S-544 Tow 4.3/37 Menthol (%) 0.34 Plu~rap S-3~i Table 1 244175 Medium pH Sample 244177 Hi h H Sao. le > ¥-40 F-40 & XFF-318 -- l.& All samples were submitted for complete chemical and sensory analysis. Results and Discussion Analytical data reveal that free nicotine and ME increase and nicotine per puf£ decreases with increasing smoke pH. At lower pH levels, nleotlne predominates in a bound form. As smoke pH ~s increasedI more of this ~icotlne Is converted to a free 8ta~e. Since cellulose acetate is ~re selectlve for free nlcotlde than bound nicotine, the NRE of the filter increases resulting in a reduction in ni¢otlnelpuf( ~t hi~her smQke I~ levels, knalyti¢~l ~ata fo~ all "samples are shown in Table 2. -2- 682094560 i

Q Table 2 Analytleal Data 2~176 2~4175 244177 ¸Smoke p~ 4.g 5.2 5.8 Tar (~/clg) 18.6 17.4 17.6 Tar/Puff (Bg) 2.35 2.35 Z.17 Nhc (~/¢i8) 1.46 1.29 l.g0 Nim/Puff (mg) 0.185 0.174 0.160 CO (mg/ufg) 14.0 13.9 13.7 ~uff No. 7.9 7.4 8.1 NRE % 34.7 36.2 39.9 Free Nicotine % 15.2 24.7 34.5 Menthol %" .33? .340 .345 Smoke Menthol (mg)/ Puff No. 1.79/7.5 1.87/6.9 i.86/7.7 Smoke Menthol/Puff (mg) 0.24 0.27 0.24 OWP results show very little differences between the three samples except for Peak 24 (2,5,-dimethylpyrazlne) and Peak 34 (nicotine). Both compounds show consistent stepwise increases as smoke pg increases. The amounts of these nitrogen-containing compounds have been seen to increase at higher smoke pB.z Sensory evaluations were ~de by in-house "expert" smokers and by consumers at Dupont. "Expert" smokers found impact, irritation, and tobacco taste (dirty, more hurley-like) increased as the smoke pB increased, In addition, some s~kers found an ~deslrable off-taste (dirty, chemical) in the low pB sample. "Expert" smokers preferred the ~diLu~ pg s~ple due to its balanced overall s~ke q~lity. shown in Table 3 below, Dupont panelists found the medium pH sample to ban the highest impact and irritation, followed by the high pB sample with the low pS sample havins the least impact and irritation. This apparent disagreement with the "expert" smokers could be due to the fact that Dupont panelists are not differentiating menthol impact and irritation from tobacco impact and irritation. Analytical data show the medium pH sample has the highest smoke menthol/puff and this could eo~tribute to its perceived impact and irritation. Panelists fo~a~d no difference in ~unt of tobacco taste or other taste a~ns the three s~ples. However, panelists felt the low pB s~ple had the "most cooling effect. The eoolinB effect of the high pB and medium pB samples were felt to be comparable to each other but lower than the low pB sample. Since panelists feel the low pD sample is lowest in impact and irritation, the cooling effect may seem enhanced to them. GS2094561 -3-

Table 3 Impact Irritation Tobacco Taste/Flavor Other Taste/Flavor Cooling Effect Med > High > Low Med > High > Low No gi~ifieant Differe.ce No Significant Difference Low > High = Medi~ Results of Dupont acceptability testing indicate the hlgh pH sample is signlflcautly (_>95~) ~re acceptable than the medium pH sample which is Eignlflcantly (>95Z) more acceptable than the low pH sample. The panellsts appear to prefer the sample that is balanced between the amount of cooling and impact and irritation. The low pH sample, while lowest in Impact and irrltatlon, has the highest cooling effect (low pain, high cooling). The wedi~m FH slple, while equal to the high pH sample in cooling effect, has the highest impact and irritation (low coollnH, high pain). The high pH sample Is intermediate to these two extremes. These results suggest that increasing the smoke pH of cur- reQt HOOL KS may increase its consumer acceptance. However, further teBtlng would be needed to verify this conclusion. • ooke pH levels of selected competitive products have been previously examined.~ Results show full flavor KS menthol products have a smoke pH of 5.2 - 5.6. Smoke pH data for these products are shown below. Brand Smoke pH Salem 5.5 Newport 5.2 Marlboro Menthol 5.6 L. 0. M. LOM/vT 0156i 6S2094562 -- 4 -

REFERENCES I ~rot~ge, R° F°, "Dupont Evaluatlons of KOOL KS wlth Different pB Levels," B&W Me~o, Proj. 2~4, (8/22183). Canou~ A. B., "Effects of UKELON on SMOke Chemls~ry," B&W Research Me~oo RM-77-2~o (3/18177). 3 Lin, O. C. and Houeycutt, R. H.~ "Chemical Characterlzatlou of U.S. Cigarette Brands," B~ Re~earch Memc~ R&D-R0[~-8~, (2/9/8~). GS2094563