Product Design
Controlled Profile Cigarette
Abstract
Describes the configuration necessary for cigarettes to achieve dilution resulting in lower delivery of TPM. Results showed that air dilution holes must "be opened well back of the coal (10-20 cm) to have a noticeable effect on TPM delivery." Says that lots of holes opened nearer to the coal have little or no effect on TPM delivery. Questions the effect of coal temperature reduction on TPM delivery, syaing the problem is more specific to the paper used.
Fields
- Author
- Hypothesis
- 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.
- Smoke constituent testing
Development of methods for measurement of gas and particulate yields in mainstream and sidestream smoke.- Toxicity and consumer intake
Development of scientifically valid procedures for measuring biological activity and neurological effects of nicotine and smoke constituents.- Use of filters, paper, and ventilation
Modification of tobacco products through use of filters, paper, and ventilation, and measuring effects on dependence, behavior, and toxicity.- Smoke Control
- Smoke constituent testing
- Keyword
- Controlled profile
- Smoke Constituent
- Total particulate matter
- Named Organization
- Controlled profile cigarette
- Subject
- Smoke Delivery/Transport (Measures)
- Paper (Design)
- Tar (Measures)
- Ventilation (Design)
- Paper (Design)
Document Images
PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATE'.
INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
Mrs. T. C. Heatwole
R. A. Tamol
Controlled Profile Cigaret
Date: March 5, 1968
I have appended several examples of successful
controlled profile cigaret puff-by-puff TPM delivery.
Mixing procedure, molecular weight, etc. ha$k4been included
and I believe Howard Kothe can compose suitable examples
from these data.
Please note and transmit to Howard the following
regarding cigaret configuration:
Results to date seem to show that dilution holes
must be opened well back of the coal (10-20mm) to have a
noticeable effect on TPM delivery. We have made observations
of a large number of holes open directly back of the coal
with smoke coming out of these holes after a puff, but
analytically we see little or no effect on delivery. 0ne)
possible explanation at this time is that the open annulus?
between coal and paper at the charline has less resistance~
to air flow during the puff than the open holes mentioned.
However, when a resistance to flow is encountered by the
annulus air farther down the cigaret, dilution air is
drawn in through open holes at a distance of 10-20mm from ithe coal.
Based on these results, I seriously question the effect
of a coal temperature reduction as claimed by Figge. It appears
to me more and more to be a paper patent. He certainly does
not specify a minimum area that must be open to reduce
temperature. We plan to investi ate the effect noted with
larger holes (100% area increase) and will attempt to
measure coal temperature.
/ad
cc: Mr. R. N. Thomson
Mr. L. F. Meyer
Attachment:
