Product Design
[Regarding Means to Achieve Nicotine Balance and Deliveries]
Abstract
Consists of edited "draft" transcript from free-ranging discussions regarding how to achieve consistent nicotine deliveries via additives, filter designs, blends, etc. Identifies individual speakers and corporate researchers. Compares Reynolds and Philip Morris products and discusses various corporate methods and projects. Contains editing in marginalia.
Fields
- Notes
Listed as 122-page document but is only 61 pages long (doubling of the 61 pages). Appears to be incomplete (per last page).
- Rank
- 1
- Hypothesis
- Free Nicotine
- Elasticity and Product Control
- Design changes over timeChanges in cigarette design over the past half century.
- Health effectsDesign changes which have measurably altered health effects of cigarette smoke, both for smokers and nonsmokers.
- Mainstream constituent yieldsModification of selected mainstream smoke constituents in response to health concerns.
- Toxicity and consumer intakeDevelopment of scientifically valid procedures for measuring biological activity and neurological effects of nicotine and smoke constituents.
- Health effectsDesign changes which have measurably altered health effects of cigarette smoke, both for smokers and nonsmokers.
- Sensory effectsTechnologies used to measure, control, or alter sensory effects
- Keyword
- Ciliatoxic
- Cytotoxicity
- Inflammatory response
- Patents
- Perception of draw
- Saponification
- Smoothness/Harshness (Attribute measure)
- Total particulate matter (TPM or Tar)
- Volatile nicotine
- Additive
- Acetaldehyde (RCHO)
- Acrolein
- Alcohol
- Ammoniasee also: Ammonium bicarbonate, Ammonium carbonate, Ammonium chloride, Ammonium hydroxide, Ammonium sulfide, Diammonium phosphate, and Urea
- Ammonium carbonate
- Ammonium phosphate
- B9
- Bland oil
- Carbon dioxide
- Carbowax
- Citric acid
- Cocoa (Chocolate) (Cocoa Shells, Extract, Distillate and Powder)Composed of nearly 400 identified chemical substances as of 1967
- Diammonium phosphate
- Fructose
- Glucose
- glycerin
- Hydrogen sulfide
- Lactic acid (Lactic Acid and dl-Lactic Acid)
- Levulinic acid
- Molasses (Molasses Extract, Tincture)
- Myvatem
- Powdered water
- Propylene glycol
- Scrap extract
- Sodium hydroxide
- Sucrose (Sugar)
- Sugar
- Turkish extracts
- Smoke Constituent
- acrolein
- Aldehydes
- ammonia
- Benzene
- Calcium
- Carbon monoxide
- formaldehyde
- formaldehyde
- Hexamethylene tetramine
- Hydrogen cyanide (HCN)
- Magnesium
- Nicotine
- Potassium
- Pyrazines
- Design Component
- Carbonized filter
- Burley tobacco
- Flue-cured tobacco
- Paper
- Virginia tobacco
- Oriental tobacco (Turkish)
- Filter tow
- Web acid filter
- G7 (RJR @reconstituted_tobacco)
- Ammoniated flue-cured tobacco
- XDU
- LN35
- South Carolina 58
- G13 (RJR @expanded_tobacco)
- C1
- C3
- K2
- T
- B26
- TB
- KDN (Nicotine extracted tobacco)RJR @denicotinized_tobacco
- Expanded tobacco (Puffed tobacco, ET)
- DIET (Dry ice expanded tobacco)PM @expanded_tobacco especially during 1980's and early 1990's
- g9
- Prototype
- RSM cigarettes
- Operation/Project
- XA Project
- Smoothness Project
- Gordin Study
- Project XBProject designed to test acceptability and smoke contents of experimental low-tar cigarettes
- Marlboro Duplication Project
- Named Organization
- ecusta
- Kimberly-Clark Corp. (Specializes in the tobacco reconstitution process)Specializes in the tobacco reconstitution process and in helping the tobacco companies control their nicotine
- Philip Morris Companies Inc. (Parent company of Philip Morris USA, Kraft, Miller)America's seventh-largest industrial enterprise in 1993, owns Kraft, Miller Brewing, General Foods, and more.
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Cigarette manufacturer (Camel, Winston, Doral))Cigarette manufacturer (Camel, Winston, Doral)
- Federal Trade Commission (Enforcement agency for laws against deceptive advertising)Enforces laws against false and deceptive advertising, including ads for tobacco products. Ensures proper display of health warnings in ads and on tobacco products;collects and reports to Congress information concerning cigarette and smokeless tobacco advertising, sales expenditures, and the tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide content of cigarettes.
- United States Department of Agriculture (Agency responsible for tobacco price support program)
- North Carolina State University
- Brand
- Camel (RJR)
- CAMEL LIGHTS
- Marlboro (PM)
- MARLBORO LIGHTS
- MILD SEVEN
- Next De-Nic
- PHILIP MORRIS BRANDS
- Salem (RJR)
- STAR
- Tempo
- Winston (RJR)
- Subject
- Ammoniation (Technology)
- Blends (Design)
- Expanded Tobacco (Design)
- Filters (Design)
- health effects
- Irritation (Effects)
- pH Manipulation (Technology)
- Pressure Drop (Design)
- Puff Parameters (Measures)
- Respiratory Effects (Health Effects)
- Secondhand Smoke/Constituents
- Sensory Effects—Impact (Effects)
- Sensory Effects—Taste (Effects)
- Smoothness/Harshness (Effects)
- Tar (Measures)
- Test/Reverse Engineering (Testing)
- Transfer to Smoke (Measures)
- Levulinic Acid (Additives)reduces the harshness of cigarettes
Document Images
Speaker Shannon
We are looking at smoothness from a different perspective.
Probably coming through the back door compared to some of the
other approaches that I think are being taken. I want to talk
about bioactivity of the gas phase, because this is the approach
we are taking to try to address some biological activity
questions. We think the results from this work will be pertinent
to smoothness. On the bio-activity of the gas phase, several
things in the gas phase have been related to significant
biological responses. Thef4=s_t- o= Qh nses-is--texi-c~i-tY-:
We know there - are . a number- .of--compounds -_in--_the-.gas phase,-that are-
extremely toxic: carbon monoxide, hydregen--ey-antde,-----benzene,
etc.. There-$re--probably-at- least- -a--de-$en---cempounds--in_-t2re- -gas
phase that are considered tox4c. We-al-ao --know -that---t-here--are
biological responses due to the irritation of the gas phase. In
fact, the gas phase contains some-of the moSt_powerful irritant
compounds that are known to man: hydrogen cyanide, acrolein,
formaldehyde, and many others. At leaav---two--c- thosQ--compounds-
(hydrogen cyanide and acrolein) are in the gas phase of cigarette
smoke at sufficient quantities to cause mucosal irritation and
other biological responses.
We also have respiratory depression as a biological response
marker. Respiratory depression is typically measured with the
Alarie Test. There have been studies, such as.one by Coggins in
4 _
~ ~
_n ~
x
1987, that showed the Alarie response (or the depression in
respiration) from the gas phase, alone, is nearly as much as the
M^~ bm
whole smoke. So we feel that the gas phase-~ an important
indicator ©owaamsie of respiratory depression.
We are also very interested in the response of inflammation.
Actually it was Sam Simmons and Carr Smith who postulated the
possible significance of the inflammation response. Inflammation
is a physiological, biological response to irritation. It
involves the recruitment of white blood cells to the point of the
insult to the body. T~ere ~~ti~n
ip taking-- place-- in- the. bady--due - to-- the--,gas---phase--o~---eigarette
smeke. Primarily this has been shown as an increase in
epithelial permeability which was shown to be about the same for
the gas phase, alone, as for whole smoke. Tt~ ~n---post,ul-eted
that the inflammation leads to a build-up.of--mucus_within the
lungs and- resulting--ecangesti-on.
Ciliastasis is an inhibition of ciliary action in the lungs. The
cilia are supposed to clean the lungs and to remove toxins.
4 rn~i (r
Again, the gas phase has been in the
inhibition of the ciliary action in the lungs. Products tested
that have carbon filters to reduce gas phase, when compared to
non-carbon filter products, show a tremendous delay in the
inhibition of the ciliary activity.
Ln
2 000
~
m
CO
m
Ln
0
f
Cytoxicity has recently been investigated in-house by Dave
Doolittle, etc. The cytotoxicity of the gas phase is about 90
percent of the cytotoxicity of whole smoke. It looks like the
S usr~ oU
gas phase, from what is now known, is in
causing cell death in in-vitro assays.
ne.cr-os-i-er -of -the cells,- you_ .wil.l_ get several things- happening.
You will get more cells produced by the body, to account for, or
make up for this cell death-: Also you may get a lot-"-of chemicals
from those.dying cells which are released into the-tissues in the
body or particularly into the-lungs. Those chemicals could cause
__1 (I
a lot of degradation of bo-dily tissues. We are interested, in my
group, in looking at smoothness because we are trying to get at
its relationship to biological activity. We think this
relationship is very important. Linking smoothness to smoke
chemistry and smoke chemistry to biological responses may provide
new insights into ways of making smoother cigarettes.
Speaker: Norman
I don't know anything about taste or smoothness. Except that we
have got a lot of experts in this room that know a lot more about
it than I do, with regard to components of harshness and how to
change tobaccos and what kind of things are put onto tobacco.
What I want to talk about is maybe another definition of
smoothness. This would be thinking of "smooth sailing" or absence
of problems in products. Think about if you smoke Winstons or
Salems everyday and how many of them you get that has a stick or
stem in it when you light it. Occasionally you will get one that
3
smells like goats; occasionally you will get one that goes out in
the ashtray. Getting around to what I think is the most
important thing we can do to enhance smoothness with that kind of
definition, is to do everything we can to make the product a lot
more consistent than it already is. To get rid of the
possibility for the cigarettes to go out. The non-uniform
pockets of Burley tobacco in one place and flue cured in another,
where they smell bad sometimes. Take a look at ingredients that
we put into cigarettes and make sure they are the highest quality
stuff we can come up with. This is not an original idea, Mike is
the one that was telling me about putting on a good quality sugar
and a good quality cocoa. Just make sure the stuff that goes
into our products is stuff you would want to use on your kitchen
table if you ate that particular product. Make sure it's not
this black, gunky stuff that looks bad and tastes bad.
Getting into the area where I do have some experience working
with things; we have these practices where we have multiple
suppliers for one, say cigarette paper, for example. We have a
history of using the same materials supposedly from different
suppliers. We have certain kinds of characteristics that we use
to measure cigarette paper, tipping paper, what have you. We do
not necessarily know that these kinds of characteristics
guarantee that the performance of the material, while the
cigarette is being smoked, is going to be the same. Some
findings we are getting on the XA project right now are
t
OD
0)
Ln
N
,
r
indicating that the permeability of cigarette paper that we
measure everyday with porosimetry is not necessarily an indicator
that the paper is going to burn at the same rate. You can get
pore size characteristics from distributors that are different,
depending on how the paper is made. This ultimately could result
in, say, using paper from K.C. or paper from Ecusta, and having a
slight difference in the burn rate in cigarettes that could lead
to these kind of inconsistencies that I am talking about. That
is one example of how materials can promote this, like not an
absence of problems but a prevalence of problems, from cigarette
to cigarette. So, a couple of examples with a different kind of
definition.
S:AAfts :
. I agree with what Alan said, I remember back when we
were early in our space program. The first man that we shot up
in a rocket was Allen Shepard, but we did not put him in orbit.
The next man was John Glenn and they were monitoring his
physiological functions while he was getting ready for the
launch. He was in the capsule and they noticed that his heart
rate went up pretty rapidly while he was waiting. After the
flight they got him back and everything. They were debriefing
the guy and they asked him what he started thinking about. He
said all I could remember was that the whole damn thing could go
up at any minute.
Speaker: Simmons
Ln
m
00
5 'p
m
CO
m
Ln
w
Everybody in this room has heard me expound on my ideas about
smoothness. Unfortunately when I talk about it I have to mention
Philip Morris, because I use them as some sort of standard. When
I smoke Philip Morris products I find a couple of things. They,
don't have any taste, but each one is, like Alan's comment, just
like the other one. To me they are bland, but they are very,
very smooth. Now, what does that mean to a smoker? That means
that he can smoke thirty years of that product and not get any
surprises. He knows exactly what he is going get every time he
takes a cigarette out of a Philip Morris pack. It does not have
any highly recognizable flavor. I can't recognize a flavor of a
Philip Morris product, I can not say that it tastes like this or
that, but it is never bitter and it is always easy to inhale, no
matter which one I pick up. So smoothness to me is important.
Our products, as Alan pointed out, every now and then I'll get
one that is really either hot (what I call hot) or very bitter
with a lack of uniformity. The question is, given that, what
would I do or what do I think is the most important thing about
making a cigarette smooth. To a certain extent I agree with
Mike. I think that the gas phase contains things which are harsh
but I don't know that there is any substantial difference between
our products and Philip Morris products with respect to the
delivery of the gas phase components. Then what is it? I think
they have learned (and I believe this); the one component which
is really identifiable in cigarette smoke is nicotine. In that
nicotine does have a taste I have done this little test myself.
6
I recommend it if you have the guts. Dilute some raw nicotine
and taste it. I mean I have done this before. Just take a drop
or two and dilute it, put it on bitter as hell! It is a base. what we are going to do is work nature
and this is very vague. with. But I think those acids
your finger and taste it. It is
It is an alkaloid. I think that,-
with materials that are acidic in
I don't know which acids to work
are going to have to be native to
tobacco. I'm looking ahead to problems that I see on the
horizon. There is going to be sooner or later a severe
ingredients issue for the cigarette industry. Very much like
what our Northern neighbors ran into. List all the ingredients
on a pack or take them out of cigarettes. Now, when that comes I
can see all kinds of problems. To the extent that we can smooth
our products out through processing, by using tobacco extracts a'
la Harvey Young's work. I think this is what we need to do. In
other words when we approach the smoothness issue we ought to do
it with sort of a far reaching vision. To not incorporate into
that process a problem that we then are going to have to deal
with later down the road. Can we obviate the problem in the
initial process? I believe that we don't understand enough about
the differences. We know the gross differences between the
various types of tobacco. Orientals, versus the Virginia
tobacco, versus the Burley and whatever. How those differences
interact with each other, I don't think we understand. We do
know that the so called American Blend is the most popular
cigarette in the world. They are desired everywhere in the
7
world. So we know that it works, but what we don't know is why
it works. I think we need to spend a little more time working on
this and I think that we need to see if we can work with
processes in smoothing out our product by using acids or whatever
to smooth out the nicotine. So I have not given you anything
specific but those are the ideas that I have come up with. I
have expressed this to Dr. DiMarco and many of you in this room
bef ore .
Speaker: Dube
I am going to try and guess what some of the other folks in this
room are going to say. I have been doing some things lately in
the smoothness project. A lot of them are really things somebody
else in here is more equipped to talk about. I'm going to pick a
topic I thinlc probably would be ignored. I am going to talk on
tar per puff. This is what I want to spend a little bit of time
on. Looking at the literature when we started this project and
seeing what key mechanism seemed to be operating. Nicotine
obviously I think I hear a lot about, Gary and Sam have already
talked about it. Gas Phase, Mike did a great job. I would have
talked about it if I would have gotten up here before him, but he
did a much more elegant job than I could do. But, another thing
that seems to be operating and the evidence is rather indirect.
I think tar per puff is a critical element in how harsh or smooth
the cigarette is. Most of the data I think comes from Charlie
Green back (I can't pin it exactly, about '86-88, somewhere in
8
that range) did a major study on dry cigarettes and what was
going on there. To me all of those things we are talking about
is, in.essence, moisture loss. When you have moisture loss, the
one thing you clearly get is an increase in the yield of tar per
puff. You yield more tar per puff. So if you have an acceptable
product and the thing dries out you get more tar per puff. It is
harsh. This is just a general kind of thing you can find in a
lot of studies. I think that, that is something we probably
don't pay a lot of attention to. A simple fix right off the top
is you increase the density of the product. If you increase the
density you will then get more puffs and if you play around and
keep your tar the same, obviously the tar per puff comes down.
The problem with that is we always get the thing that kills us
and everything else, is we get an increase in draft and then
people don't like it. We did some products in a test that just
came back.
N a lk«. :
nAC+-; n
You get an increase in draft when you do what?
*b 6e'.
#mewmnt When you increase the density and don't do something
other than what is typically done, your draft goes up. We just
ran a Camel RU test where we increased the draft, I think about
five to six percent, it's about 0.5 millimeters per rod. The
results came back, it's ok in the smoothness area but it's hard
to draw. If it's hard to draw it is not acceptable. So, I don't
know how to answer this question but I'm hoping maybe somebody
CO
rn
Ln
-J
else can think about it and come up with some answers. I think
one of the key things we have got to find is a way to either
increase density or some kind of way adjust tar per puff yields
without impacting draft. I think probably a classic example done
is all the work that Tom did on TSB. I think that was a neat
technology for providing you a way to alter tar-per-puff. I may
have then had some questions about it and it took some extremes
in manufacturing. But it is the only method I can find anywhere
reported in RJR, R&D kind of literature that actually impacted
and did not get all the negative stuff. Which we used a decent
filter and still got what you wanted, which was a decrease in tar
per puff. I guess the one last thing is that if we took Camel
Light and increased the weight five percent and then ten percent
or fifteen percent and ran tar per puff (just being analytical)
and plotted it versus all the weight on the chart it looks like
this. (Showing plot: Tar/Puff-Slope is obviously wrong. This is
Camel Light this is Marlboro Light. We had to increase Camel
Light, (this is Camel Light ten percent weight) to get the
delivery that looks like Marlboro Light.) Their weights are
essentially the same. What are they doing that we don't do? We
had to have a lot more weight than this product has got. So I
think there is a direction. I am not sure what the answer is or
how to get to it, but as long as we are going to follow the trend
that has already been set and express some opinion, I think that
it is something that we need to spend some time with.
Ln
m
10 00
m
CO
m
Ln
CO
