Product Design
Technology Assessment Status Update (May 29, 1992 - K.W. Smith)
Abstract
Assesses problems and potentialities of various development projects. Includes sections: "NTF (Natural Tobacco Flavor); Direct by products additions (DBA); G7-25; Sugar nicotine balance; Increased humectant levels; Modified MTT; High temperature G7 extract; Reaction (K-1008) type flavors; Ammoniated tobacco (flue cured); Heat treated burley; Washed/denitrated carbon treated K stem G7 sheet; Heat treated burley; High temperature G7 extract sheet; Modified MTT flavor system; Alkalized cocoa; Sugar nicotine balance; Natural Tobacco Flavor (NTF); Increased humectant levels; Reaction (K1008) type flavors; Ammoniated tobacco (Flue cured); [and] High temperature extract G7 SED results". Expected benefits of almost all of the aforementioned projects/tests include smoothness and harshness improvement.
User-Contributed Notes
Fields
- Author
- Smith, K.W.
- Hypothesis
- Free Nicotine
- Nicotine transport, transfer, and uptake
Design changes which alter nicotine delivery or effect how the product causes and maintains dependence, including transfer of nicotine from tobacco to smoke, and uptake into the body.- 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.- Use of additives
Modification of tobacco products through use of additives and measuring effects on dependence, behavior, and toxicity.- Use of tobacco processing/ blends
Modification of tobacco products through changes in tobacco processing and use of blends, and measuring effects on dependence, behavior, and toxicity.- Introduction of new/unconventional products
Research and development of novel nicotine delivery devices and experimental tobacco designs.- Mainstream constituent yields
Modification of selected mainstream smoke constituents in response to health concerns.- Behavior Targeting
Cigarette's effect of enhancing/mitigating specific behaviors - Nicotine transport, transfer, and uptake
- Keyword
- Total particulate matter (TPM or Tar)
- Volatile nicotine
- Maillard reaction
- Volatile nicotine
- Additive
- Aqueous Turkish extract
- Asparagine (l-Asparagine Monohydrate)
- Carbonyls
- Cocoa (Chocolate) (Cocoa Shells, Extract, Distillate and Powder)
Composed of nearly 400 identified chemical substances as of 1967- DAP
- Fructose
- HFCS
- High fructose corn syrup
- K-1008
- Licorice (Licorice Fluid Extract, Powder, and Root)
- Natural Tobacco Flavor
- NTF
- Pentanidione
- Sucrose (Sugar)
- Cocoa derivatives
Produced by fermentation, defatting, hot pressing, grinding, roasting, peeling - Asparagine (l-Asparagine Monohydrate)
- Smoke Constituent
- Nicotine
- Volatiles
- Hydrogen cyanide (HCN)
- Nitrosamines (N-nitrosamines)
- Volatiles
- Design Component
- B3
- B9
- BP7
- Burley casing
- Casing
- CRES
- Flue-cured tobacco
- G7 (RJR @reconstituted_tobacco)
- G7-25
- G7-9
- Heat treated extract G7 sheet
- HTE
- KRES
- Reconstituted tobacco
- Turkish Blend (TB)
- C30-A
- B9
- Prototype
- FFLT
- Full Flavor Low Tar
- RU/SB Lights
- Ishmir ZA extract prototypes
- Full Flavor Low Tar
- Operation/Project
- Camel RU (Camel Special Lights)
- Nicotine RSM (Nicotine Response Surface Methodology Study)
RJR study conducted in late 1980s / early 1990s to test acceptability of new experimental cigarettes- Super Smooth Project
- Nicotine RSM (Nicotine Response Surface Methodology Study)
- Named Organization
- IFF
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Cigarette manufacturer (Camel, Winston, Doral))
Cigarette manufacturer (Camel, Winston, Doral)- AVOCA
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Cigarette manufacturer (Camel, Winston, Doral))
- Technology/Method
- QVS
- Quantitative Variable Screening
- MTT Flavor System
- Flacing
- Denitration
- REST
- Quantitative Variable Screening
- Subject
- additives
- Ammonia (Additives)
- Ammoniation (Technology)
- Blends (Design)
- Humectants (Additives to maintain moisture)
- Licorice (Additives)
- Reconstituted Tobacco (Design)
- Smoke Constituents
- Smoke Delivery/Transport (Measures)
- Smoke pH (Measures)
- Smoothness/Harshness (Effects)
- Smoke Nicotine (Measures)
- Sensory Effects—Taste (Effects)
- Ammonia (Additives)
- Brand
- BV
- Winston KS
- Winston SB
- Winston SB Lights
- CAMEL LIGHTS
- MARLBORO LIGHTS
- Winston SB PGT
- Camel Lights 83
- Winston KS
Document Images
TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
STATUS UPDATE
(MAY 29, 1992 - K. W. Smith)
* NTF (Natural Tobacco Flavor):
Description: Use of tobacco extract for total casing.
Status: Initial evaluation of prototypes prepared by H. Young and S. Sohn
indicated that very unique products can be produced with small
quantities (1-2%) of extract applied across the blend in casing for
cutting. Based on internal assessment we have focused "Fast
Track" development efforts on Turkish extract which appears to
give the smoothest product with the least negatives.
Full Flavor Low Tar prototypes with levels of Aqueous Turkish
Extract solid ranging from 0 to 1% of the strip blend have been
produced and mailed out in a Quantitative Variable Screening
consumer test. Results of this test will be in house June 22, 1992.
Testing of extract stability was conducted and indicated that the
extract was stable (i.e. no mold, yeast or bacteria growth),for up
to two weeks of storage at room temperature.
Work has also begun on different extraction solvents. At this time
Young and Sohn are concentrating on alkalized aqueous
extraction of Turkish Tobacco. Addition of base allows more
efficient extraction of fatty acid esters (waxes) through
saponification. Turkish tobacco is rich in waxes and their
translocation to other parts of the tobacco blend may have
significant impact on smoking quality.
Longer term work on other leaf extracts and mixed extracts will
also be considered as time/resources allow.
Next Steps:
,
Consumer Test Results (June 1992).
Develop with manufacturing appropriate processes and
procedures for applying extracts as an ingredient in casing for
cutting: (June-Aug 1992)
Incorporate learning into RU/SB and other product development
programs as appropriate (3rd-4th Qtr 1992).
(1)
* DIRECT BY PRODUCTS ADDITIONS (Dl&.
Description: Direction addition of stem (KRES & CRES) and Scrap (BP7) to
cigarettes through primary processing rather than conversion to
reconstituted sheet may offer RJRT the ability to significantly
change the "taste signature" of products as well as greatly
increase the efficiency of by product utilization. This approach
could have very significant quality and cost improvement
implications.
Status: Previous testing`of direct stem and scrap-addition has primarily
focused on savings segment products and approached as an add
on rather than as a G7 replacement. Recent prototypes made for
BV and WINSTON KS with partial replacement of G7 by direct
stem and scrap addition indicate that these products may be
smoother than products made with G7.
Next Steps:
A test has been designed to look at the product impacts of direct
pound-for-pound replacement of G7-sheet with stem and scrap.
The test will evaluate replacing 25, 50, 75 and 100% of the G7 in a
representative full flavor low tar blend.
• Produce prototypes in R&D Plant (July 92)
0
QVS consumer testing of prototypes (Aug-Sept 92)
Larger Scale Consumer testing if merited (4th Qtr 92)
(2)
* G7-25
Status: A review of all previous testing with G7-25 did not provide clear guidance.
Some products performed well; others performed poorly. A CAMEL RU
test of four pairs of eight prototypes with either G7-9 or G7-25 was
completed in 2nd Qtr and indicated that both sheets give very similar
consumer results in full flavor low tar products. Based on these results,
much of the future development of WINSTON SB and other FFLT Brands
will involve use of G7-25. G7-25, even if not significantly better than G7-9
offers the benefit of not disposing of extract.
Next Steps:
0
WINSTON SB Lights PGT testing to include both G7-25 and G7-9,
but will emphasize G7-25.
• Continued product development with G7-25.
* Higher Levels of Cocoa:
Status: A PGT test was conducted on four pairs of eight RU/SB lights prototypeg
with current and a new casing. The new casing incorporated higher
levels of cocoa (approximately 100% greater than current CAMEL Lt),
high fructose corn syrup at levels to achieve sugar/nicotine balance, and
removed licorice. This casing had a very significant effect on
smoothness and acceptance.
Next Steps:
• Incorporate learning into future development: WINSTON SB Lights
PGT results (Late Aug 1992).
* Smoothness Enha c~ ed Tou Dressing
Status: RU/SB PGT results in March indicated that this top dressing
significantly improved purchase interest for G7-25 prototype. This
prototype was perceived by consumers to be fresher tasting and
to have less drying aftertaste.
Next Steps: WINSTON SB Lts PGT evaluation of Smoothness Enhanced Top
Dressing in combination with new casing; (results Aug 1992).
(3)
* Sugar Nicotine Balance:
Description: Burley casing with sugars provides lower smoke pH (7.8 to 7.0
uncased vs. heavily cased) and reduced volatile nicotine in smoke.
Work by Gary Shelar indicates that fructose/nicotine ratios of 3.2
to 3.4 may provide the smoothest, most easily smoked Burley.
Status: This information, along with other learning, was incorporated into a
new casing for RU prototypes tested in 1st Qtr 92. The best of
these prototypes`were strong parity to MARLBORO Lts with
competitive smokers (18-34 males and females). Gary Shelar Is
continuing work on types of sugar (fructose and sucrose) and
their appropriate level for Burley casing. This work will look at
casing with and without heat treatment.
Next Steps:
WINSTON SB PGT test results with New Casing (late Aug 92).
Development and testing of prototypes with sucrose (3rd Qtr).
• Develop new prototypes for consumer testing based on additional
learning as available (3rd-4th Qtr 92).
(4)
* Increased Humectant Levels:
Description: Work by various investigators, as well as predictions from the
consumer model, indicates that increased levels of humectant may
improve smoothness/harshness and product acceptance.
Status: Attempts to use higher humectant levels on RU prototypes in
January-February, 1992, were unsuccessful due to spotting and
staining. Later investigation indicated that spotting/staining
problems were not totally due to the humectant levels used, but
were part of a more generalized problem associated with casing
and drying operations In the R&D plant. A review of previous
learning and discussions with key Brand Development Staff
provided direction for selecting levels of B3 and B9 that should be
manufacturable in existing plants without severe spotting and
staining. Prototypes were produced at these target levels and
mailed out to a Quantitative Variable Screening consumer test May
18.
Next Steps:
0
QVS results (June 22)
WINSTON SB PGT Test results on higher B3 (late Aug)
incorporate increased humectant levels into PGT consumer test
products as appropriate (July-Oct 1992).
(5)
* Modified MTT
Description: The MTT Flavor System involves specially selected flavors added
to casing ("Flacing"), and was developed by Dr.Gary Wallace of
RJRT and Dr. Karl Richter of IFF.
Status: Positive consumer results were obtained on a WINSTON KS
prototype using this system in 1991. Positive results were also
obtain with older smokers on a CAMEL Lt 83 prototype. Use of
MTT or other "Flacing" approaches are contingent on changing
processes or prdcedures In manufacturing to allow Incorporation
of new ingredients Into casing. Planned assessment will Identify
benefits of Incorporating MTT Flavor System Into standard RJR
production operation with or without heat treatment of Burley.
A test has been designed with the flavor division to look at a
modified MTT system without heat treatment.
Next Steps:
0
Produce modified MTT prototype (3Qtr 92).
• Incorporate learning into product development (3rd-4th Qtr 92).
* Alkalized Cocoa:
Description: New cocoa may offer improved flavor, smoothness/harshness.
Status: R. Pogrow working in cocoa evaluation and means of
implementing into Manufacturing. Dr. Ken Shu of flavor division is
working on identification of chemical differences in smoke that
relate to the various cocoa types evaluated.
Next Steps:
• Produce and evaluate controlled products internally (3Qtr 92).
• Settle Manufacturing capabilities issues (3Qtr 92).
• Incorporate learning into development and testing (3rd- 4th Qtr).
(6)
* High Temperature G7 Extract
Description: High temperature treatment of G7 extract prior to re-application of
extract to sheet may provide enhanced flavor, aroma, and/or
smoothness.
Status: Prototypes have been made in full flavor and full flavor low tar
configurations: (PD4718 FF, and PD4719 FFLT) using extract
produced In a "bomb" borrowed from AVOCA. Informal sensory
evaluation of these products indicates potential benefits. SED
panel testing hag been requested. An in-ftne heat exchanger is
being installed at the G7 Pilot Une and will allow on-line production
of Heat Treated Extract G7 Sheet (HTE). Discussions have been
held with Tobacco Processing concerning equipment, costs and
budgets for adding heat treatment capacity to existing G7
production facilities.
Next Steps:
0
SED Evaluation of. HTE prototypes (June-July).
Complete modifications of G7 Pilot Plant to produce high
temperature sheet on-line (June).
Develop prototypes with pilot plant produced HTE (July-Aug).
• Consumer Test if appropriate (Sept- Oct).
Based on consumer results, develop and Implement plans for
manufacturing capability to support HTE (4th Qtr 92-2nd Qtr
93).
(7)
* Reaction (K-1008) Type Flavors:
Description: Production of unique, tobacco enhancing flavors may be possible
through the reaction of amino acid (e.g., asparagine) with a sugar
or other material.
Status: K-1008, produced from reaction of asparagine and fructose, was
evaluated In 1991 and found to have no significant benefit. Ken
Shu has determined that a better flavor may be obtained from
reacting asparagine with a different material (e.g., pentanidione).
It is hypothesized that the reaction proaucts of interest for
improved taste and smoothness are the semi-volatile or non-
volatile compounds that are not typically measured by most of our
analytical approaches. Dr. Shu has prepared some initiai flavors
for evaluation.
Next Steps:
0
0
Incorporation of initial flavors into cigarette blanks for evaluation by
the Flavor Division and Brand Development. (June 1992).
that contribute to taste benefits. (June-July 1992)
Development of new flavor system. (3rd Qtr 1992)
if merited, indepth analysis of flavors to identify key components
Consumer Testing of new flavors, if merited. (4th Qtr)
(8)
* Washed/Denitrated Carbon Treated K Stem G7 Sheet:
Description: Treatment of K Stem extract may produce a G7 sheet with lower
levels of HCN, carbonyls and nitrosamines. The sheet may have
improved smoking quality.
Status: The Super Smooth group mailed out prototypes using sheet that
incorporated the full denitration and carbon treatment process.
This test consists of prototypes with an H199 type (composite)
blend in FFLT configuration mailed to 21-49 year old smokers
(male and female, X-Savings) In May (CT-2494).. Additional internal
assessment of the individuai effects of K stem washing,
Denitration, and carbon treatment are planed for 3rd and 4th Qtr.
This testing will allow quantification of benefits of the Individual
process steps and perhaps Identify acceptable intermediate
products that can be impiemented with existing facilities. The full
denitration and carbon treatment process is not supportable with
existing facilities and significant capital cost would be Incurred to
developed capacity needed to support significant market share.
Next Steps:
QVS results for Full Process products (June 1992).
Internal evaluation of stepwise treatment (Aug-Sept).
Incorporate learning into prototypes as appropriate for large scale
consumer testing (4th Qtr)
(9)
* Ammoniated Tobacco (Flue Cured):
Description: Treatment of selected flue cured leaf with ammonia under
appropriate reaction conditions (time, temperature, and moisture)
can modify the taste and sensory properties of the tobacco (e.g.,
smoothness, tobacco taste, added flavor).
Status: Initial discussion with PT&D have outlines main areas of
investigation:
Ammoniation with heat. - -- -
Ammoniation of highest sugar content leaf.
Process variables of steam, temperature, moisture, and
retention time.
Next Steps:
• Initial process experimentation (3rd Qtr).
• Informal evaluation of selected product from process tests
0
(3rd Qtr).
Project re-focus based on results (Sept 1992).
Process development and specifications (4th Qtr).
Prototype development and testing (4th Qtr 92-1 st Qtr 93).
(10)
* Heat Treated Burley:
Description: High temperature treatment (300 - 325°F Dryer Temps) of cased
Burley at +28% moisture results In milliard reactions that give
added aroma, taste, and/or smoothness.
-Status: Testing has demonstrated feasibility and required tobacco
temperatures and moisture. Manufacturing trials have been run
that identified appropriated process conditions for production of
heat treated burley. Control and test products have been made
from the burley produced In manufacturing (both straight burley
cigarettes and blended FFLT cigarettes. The blended FFLT
cigarettes are tQ be mailed out to a Qoantitative Variable
Screening consumer test with results expected In early July.
Initial informal evaluation of straight burley and blended cigarettes
by Brand Development Staff indicates no significant taste
difference for either the straight burley or blended cigarettes.
Next Steps:
Consumer test results of heat treated prototypes (July).
Complete internal sensory evaluation of straight burley and blended
cigarettes (June-July).
Complete analysis and review of chemical parameters (June-July).
Conduct stack emission testing to permit manufacturing operation of
process (June-July).
WINSTON SB prototype with Heat Treated Burley and new Casing PGT
consumer test results (late Aug 1992)
(11)
WASHEDfDENITRATED.CARBON TREATED K STEM G7 SHEET
1. TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION:
A. Burley Stems to be used in production of G7 are first washed with water, they
are then extracted In hot water and nitrates are precipitated out of the extract.
The denitrated extract is then treated with carbon, concentrated and reapplied
to the G7 sheet.
II. EXPECTED BENEFITS:
A. Smoothness/harshness improvements
B. Cost
C. Personal Concern `
111. BASIS FOR BENEFIT EXPECTATION:
A. Qualitative testing by Super Smooth Project Group suggests that this sheet is at
may have enhanced smoking properties.
B. Analysis of initial product produced with this sheet shows significant reduction in
carbonyls and HCN. Carbonyl reduction might be expected to reduce
harshness of smoke.
IV. BENEFIT APPLICATION:
A. Harshness reduction should be directly applicable to those FFLT products that
have smoothness/harshness improvement as key product development
direction.
B. Reduction in levels of carbonyls, HCN and nitrosamines, if reaiized , might allow
us to realize cost benefits on savings brands through higher inciusion of burley
stems with out significant taste trade offs increase In these substances.
V. DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
A. The Super Smooth Project Team will conduct QVS consumer testing of FFLT
prototypes using this sheet: (May 92)
B. Internal sensory analysis will be conducted on these same products. (May)
C. Preliminary cost and scale up estimates: (June 92)
D. Based on the results of the QVS testing larger consumer testing in appropriate
product styles (full priced or savings segment) will be conducted. (3rd-4th Qtr)
V:. FINANCIAL COST ANALYSIS: - -
A. Detailed cost analysis has not been performed. Existing facilities can produce
limited amounts of this sheet. _
VII. OPPORTUNITY COST ANALYSIS:
A. R&D resources required for evaluation of this process are moderate. Primarily
these include G7 pilot plant time and resources, analytical services and
consumer testing resources.
B. Scale up of this process will take significantly more resources and would be In
competition with other new sheet and tobacco processing projects.
VIII. TIMING:
A. Initial consumer test resutts (QVS): (June 92)
B.
C. Larger scale consumer testing:
Scale up dependant on volume needs: (3rd-4th Qtr 92)
IX. POTENTIAL PROBLEM(S) EVALUATION:
A. Supportable volumes limited
B. Cost for facilities
X. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE:
A. For smoothness/harshness improvements, preliminary evaluations indicate that
this project may have limited benefit. Depending on the degree that these
attributes are shown to be improved In quantitative testing, this project may
have more direct application to cost savings or personal concern.
XI. HOW LIKELY IS ACHIEVEMENT OF EXPECTED BENEFIT?
A. Smoothness benefit is uncertain and may be in significant.
B. If nitrosamine reductions are realized then costing of the process for increased
inclusion of Burley Stems could have significant cost benefits.
XII. COULD OTHER APPROACHES PROVIDE THE SAME BENEFITS?
A. Expected reduction in discussed smoke components are currently expected
from any other technology being evaluated for Smoothness/Harshness
51277 5568
E
~
I
i
~ . 1_~ ~
~ . a __~
I. TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION:
A. High temperature treatment (300 - 325°F Dryer Temps) of Burley Tobacco
cased with High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) at +28% moisture results in
maillard reactions that produce new/unique flavor and aroma compounds.
B. High temperature may also drive off some of the volatile nicotine in the Burley
Tobacco and there by reduce the amount of volatile nicotine in smoke of the
blended cigarette.
II. EXPECTED BENEFITS:
A. Increased smoothness and reduced Harshness
B. Added pack aroma
C. Added Flavor
III. BASIS FOR BENEFIT EXPECTATION:
A. Internal sensory evaluation as well as qualitative focus groups indicate that this
type of Burley Tobacco may offer smoothness/harshness benefits as well as
improved acceptance.
B. Both sensory evaluation and head space analysis demonstrate that the heat
treated burley tobaccos have significantly more aroma than our normally
processed burley.
C. Many of the compounds expected to be formed by the Maillard Reaction should
have flavor and aroma properties different from the original starting materials.
IV. BENEFIT APPLICATION:
A. This approach may offer benefits for full flavor, full flavor low tar, and ultra light
products. This approach is applicable to full priced and savings segment
products as well.
B. Product application will be dependent on the product specific attribute
movement provided by the technology and the specific development needs of
new and existing products.
V. DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
A. Testing has demonstrated feasibility and required tobacco temperatures and
moisture. Problems with Proctor Swartz dryer and Pilot Plant casing operations
delayed testing for several weeks but have now been resolved. Mike Dube will
mail out prototypes with new casing and heat treatment on May 6 (21-49 FFLT
ex-Savings).
B. A team of R&D and Manufacturing Staff designed a test that was run at
Whitaker Park 4/7/92 to determine if reasonable manufacturing operating
conditions will produce desired product. Preliminary aroma evaluation of these
test tobaccos indicate that manufacturing can produce the desired heat treated
burley at normal operation speeds and tobacco flow rates (i.e. 10 min dryer
retention time) using dryer temperatures of 300-320°F. Subsequent work at
Whitaker Park has also shown that reordering of the heat treated tobacco can
be accomplished with app`ropriate settings of existing equipment.
C. The tobaccos from the whitaker park run will be used for analytical and sensory
testing. We will prepare control and test products from manufacturing
produced materials and evaluate Internally in straight burley FF configuration,
and in a FFLT blended cigarette configuration. (April-May)
D. Prototypes will also be produced from the Whitaker Park Heat Treated Burley
for consumer testing. A Quantitative Variable Screening (QVS) test is planned
for these products in Mid June.
E. Extensive analytical evaluation of the heat treated and control burley tobacco
will be conducted to characterize the key effects of the process.
F. Additional manufacturing runs will be made at Whitaker Park to allow setting of
process specifications. (April-Aug)
G. An emissions test will be conducted to quantify and obtain, if necessary,
environmental permits for the process changes. (April-July)
H. Additional heat treatment testing with other types of casings (i.e. sucrose
instead of fructose) will be evaluated In second and third quarter.
VI. FINANCIAL COST ANALYSIS:
A. Detailed cost analysis has not been performed. Initial indications, assuming no
special emissions control equipment, are that there will be minimal cost impacts
(i.e. production rates will be same as current with no new capital equipment, no
added man, power, and no special inventory or handling procedures). The only
up charge will probably be increased stem usage for higher dryer temperatures.
The cost of this is not clear as there is excess stem capacity.
'VII. OPPORTUNITY COST:
A. Significant R&D and Manufacturing resources are being committed to the
development, testing and implementation of this technology.
B. Large amounts of-laboratory time and manpower will be used for the extensive
evaluation of this technology.
C. R&D Plant Time and resources will be required for production of straight grade
and blended cigarettes for Internal and external evaluations.
D. SED resources will be used for evaluation of straight burley and blended
cigarettes.
E. Consumer testing, QVS an`d later PGT(s), will be required for evaluation and
Implementation of this technology.
VIII. TIMING:
A. Initial consumer screening planned for Mid-June mail out. If results are good,
then this technology could be PGT tested for WINSTON SB in Late August.
B. The required process specifications and resolution of environmental issues can
be resolved well before the end of third quarter 92.
IX. POTENTIAL PROBLEM(S) EVALUATION:
A. Environmental emissions of nicotine and other hydrocarbons may be
significantly increased by this process. This could require re-permitting of
production facilities and additional emission control equipment. The extent of
this problem, if any, will be evaluated in second quarter.
B. There appear to be no significant problems with equipment and process
capabilities in manufacturing. There are no inventory support problems. Heat
treatment will create additional blends and sub blends and therefore may
exasperate blend proliferation and bulker shortages over the short run.
C. Use of HFCS will require some special handling (manual manipulations) in
manufacturing until we fully convert to HFCS in third quarter.
X. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE:
A. The potential benefits of Heat Treated Burley (i.e. smoothness, added flavor and
improved pack aroma) if fully realized, could be extremely valuable to our efforts
to produce superior products.
XI: HOW LIKELY IS ACHIEVEMENT OF EXPECTED BENEFIT?
A. It is highly likely that the heat treatment process produces a burley tobacco that
is different from our current. However, additional evaluation is required to
determine the degree to which this technology delivers the expected benefits In
blended cigarettes and to what extent this material can impact the performance
and taste attributes of the`se cigarettes with key consumers.
XII. COULD OTHER APPROACHES PROVIDE THE SAME BENEFITS?
A. There are several other technologies as well as modifications to the burley heat
treatment approach that may offer similar benefits. However, these other
approaches should be viewed as additive or incremental to the proposed
process at this time. Planned work should lead to Identification of best options.
. . .,
I l _ 1 a _ .~_, ~ 1 .~ t_. l_4
I. TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION:
A. G7 extract is raised to significantly elevated temperature (e.g. 300°F for 10 min.)
In a pressurized vessel prior to application to the sheet. The heat treatment
process drives reactions that produce flavor and aroma compounds not present
in our current sheets. This process does not use DAP.
F
II. EXPECTED BENEFIT
A. Enhanced Pack Aroma
B. Improved Smoothness and Harshness
C. Added or Enhanced Flavor
Ill. BASIS FOR BENEFIT EXPECTATION:
A. Initial screening on lab scale products indicates significant changes in the
aroma, flavor and smoothness of heat treated extract sheet.
B. Head space analysis supports the sensory aroma differences.
C. Analytical evaluation of extracts confirms that Maillard type reactions are
occurring.
IV. BENEFIT APPLICATION:
A. If expected benefits are realized, then this technology could have important
applications across all tar categories and price ranges.
B. Product application will be dependent on the product specific attribute
movement provided by the technology and the specific development needs of
new and existing products.
V. DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
A. Heat Treated Extract Sheet was produced In a small batch mode in late March
using a "bomb" on loan from Avoca. This sheet was used to produce Full
Flavor and Full Flavor Low Tar prototypes in the R&D Plant. (April 6)
B. The chemical, smoke and sensory properties of the test and control products
will be evaluated. (April 92)
V. (CONTINUED)
C. Data on the chemical properties of the heat treated extract from the batch
process will be collected for comparison to larger scale processes to be looked
at In the future. Additional flavor development work will also be conducted on
the cigarettes produced in the April 6 pilot plant run.
D. Assuming positive sensory properties for the products made with the heat
treated extract sheet, then the G7 Pilot Plant will be asked to install the required
equipment to produce this sheet in line. (April-May)
E. The pilot line will then be used to produce sheet for QVS consumer testing.
(June-July)
F. Given positive results from QVS, we will incorporate heat treated extract sheet
into larger scale consumer testing. (3rd-4th Qtr)
G. If positive results are confirmed in consumer testing, then requests will be made
to Tobacco Processing to modify G7 facilities to enable production of this sheet.
(Request in 3rd-4th Qtr., Modifications to take 3-to-9 months)
VI. FINANCIAL COST ANALYSIS:
A. Detailed cost analysis has not been performed. Initial indications are that G7
plant modifications in the range of $ 500,000 would be needed for initial
production. Additional expenditures, up to about $ 2,500,000 could be required
under a worst case of being able to heat treat extract for all G7 produced.
B. Added cost to the G7 produced should not exceed 10 per pound.
VII. OPPORTUNITY COST:
A. Moderate R&D resources required to complete development, testing and
evaluation of this technology.
B. Significant commitment will be needed from the G7 pilot plant to install required
modifications to allow us to complete consumer evaluation by end of year.
C. Consumer testing resources, QVS (3-4 cells) and PGT (2-4 cells) will be
required to determine the benefits of the technology and to justify required
expenditures for plant modifications.
VII1. TIMING:
A. Internal evaluation should be complete by end of April.
B. Initial consumer screening evaluations could be completed by early July if G7
Pilot modifications can be completed by mid May; or by end of August if
modifications are delayed.
C. Large scale consumer test: (3rd-4th Qtr)
D. Manufacturing start up would be 3-9 months from a decision to install required
modifications.
IX. POTENTIAL PROBLEM(S) EVALUATION: ~
A. There are no major technical problems to be resolved. Process parameters
appear to be well understood and relatively robust. Required equipment is
commercially available.
B. This technology will create a new G7 to be Inventoried and feed in the primary
processing operations of our manufacturing plants.
X. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE:
A. The proposed benefits of this technology would be very valuable if fully realized.
It could have significant impact on our ability to make improved products.
XI. HOW LIKELY IS ACHIEVEMENT OF EXPECTED BENEFITS:
A. It Is almost a certainty that the heat treated extract sheet can have a significant
impact on the pack aroma of our products.
B. Based on preliminary evaluations it would appear that this sheet will also move
some sensory attributes upon smoking. The extent that these changes are
perceived and appreciated by consumer has not yet been quantified, but will be
addressed by planned testing.
XII. COULD OTHER APPROACHES PROVIDE THE SAME BENEFITS?
A. Other heat treatment approaches (e.g. Burley Heat Treatment) might provide
similar benefits. However, G7 is a larger component of our finished blend than
burley strip and therefore may offer greater opportunity for taste enhancement.
I. TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION:
A. Incorporation of customized flavors into casings for RJRT blend components
with and without heat treatment of cased burley strip. Original MTT Flavor work
incorporated a flavored high temperature burley casing, followed by a second
flavored casing at low temperatures, and a separate flavored casing for the non-
burley strip. Modified MTT approaches invoive use of a single burley casing
and a total casing for the combined strip blend.
II. EXPECTED BENEFITS:
A. Increased Smoothness and Reduced Harshness
B. Added Flavor
C. Increased Pack Aroma
III. BASIS FOR BENEFIT EXPECTATIONS:
A. WINSTON KS consumer testing in 1991 demonstrated significant product
improvement with the full MTT flavor system.
B. CAMEL LT 83 consumer testing in mid 1991 demonstrated significant product
benefits for the full MTT flavor system and an internal sensory comparison of
the Modified system indicated that it was very similar to the full system.
IV. BENEFIT APPLICATION:
A. This technology should have applications to FF and FFLT products.
V. DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
A. Produce designed pilot plant test to evaluate Full and Modified MTT products
with and without heat treatment of burley tobacco: (3rd Qtr 92)
B. Evaluate benefits of Full and Modified MTT versus other Casing Approaches:
(3rd Qtr 92)
C. Incorporate learning into prototypes for consumer testing: (4th Qtr 92)
V1.
FINANCIAL COST ANALYSIS:
A. Detailed cost analysis has not been performed. Operating and material cost
associated with the MTT system should be only slightly higher than current top
dressing flavors on a worst case bases. -
B. Significant capital expenditure ($500,000 or more) may be required to modify
manufacturing lines to allow controlled addition of new liquid casing Ingredients.
VII. OPPORTUNITY COST:
A. The resources required for development and testing of this technology will be
moderate; consisting mainly of Brand Development, Pilot Plant, and analytical
resources for product development and testing.
B. Minimal consumer testing; one to three cells, will be needed for Implementation
decisions. -
VIII. TIMING:
A. Testing and evaluation should be completed before the end of 92.
B. Implementation Into manufacturing can be accomplished for small volumes
using manual procedures, if warranted. Modification of existing facilities to allow
computer controlled addition of new liquid ingredients would take 6-12 months.
IX. POTENTIAL PROBLEMS:
A. The major issue facing MTT is how to introduce new ingredients into our casing
operations.
X. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE:
A. MTT has been demonstrated in consumer testing of FF and FFLT products to
have Benefits with certain smokers (particularly older smokers). The logistics of
Implementation and the degree of benefit versus other approaches are
questions that must be answered.
XI. HOW LIKELY IS ACHIEVEMENT OF EXPECTED BENEFIT?
A. It is highly likely that MTT offers benefits In the area of added flavor and
somewhat less likely that it provides direct benefits in the area of smoothness
and harshness improvement.
XII. COULD OTHER APPROACHES PROVIDE THE SAME BENEFITS?
A. Other approaches (e.g. new types of cocoa and higher levels of cocoa, as well
as Burley Heat Treatment are quite similar to MTT. Consumer evaiuation wili be
required to determine which approach is most beneficial.
1. TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION:
A. New types of 'cocoa, such as alkalized cocoa, when used in our casing
formulas may offer smoking quality advantages versus our current cocoa
powder.
- 11. -- EXPECTED BENEFIT:
A. Smoothness/harshness improvement.
B. Added flavor
IIi. BASIS FOR BENEFIT EXPECTATION:
A. Qualitative consumer testing by the Super Smooth Team Indicated that
consumers may prefer products with cocoas different than our current.
Increased smoothness was also associated with these test products.
IV. BENEFIT APPLICATION:
A. The most immediate application would be to FFLT products assuming
Smoothness improvements. However, added flavor benefits might be beneficial
to FF and ULT products as well.
V. DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
A. Produce and evaluate controlled products internally: (2nd-3rd Qtr 92)
B. Settle manufacturing logistical issues: (2nd Qtr 92)
C. Incorporate learning into consumer testing: (3rd-4th Qtr 92)
VI. FINANCIAL COST ANALYSIS:
A. Detailed cost analysis has not been conducted. Material and operating cost
would be only marginally different from current.
B. Capital expenditures might be required to modify casing kitchens to allow
addition of new dry ingredient.
VII. OPPORTMITY COST:
A. There will be minimal R&D resources used to develop and evaluate new types
of cocoa. The primary resources used will be Flavor Division Staff.
B. Scale up would require more resources, in that manufacturing would have to
either use manual handling procedures or add addition dry ingredient lines.
Capability for additional ingredients would be of great value to future product
development.
VIII. TIMING:
A. Assessment through Internal and/or small scale consumer testing: (2nd-3rd Qtr)
B. Manufacturing operation start up is dependent on: volume, willingness to
employ off line mixing procedures, time required modify lines for automated
ingredient addition, and whether the new cocoa would be an additional
ingredient or replace existing cocoa for all products. Therefore, Implementation
into manufacturing could range from 2 months to 18 months.
IX. POTENTIAL PROBLEM(S) EVALUATION:
A. Capability for addition of new dry ingredient to casing: currently can only be
done on a manual basis.
B. Potential for material flow problems will have to be evaluated.
X. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE:
A. The proposed benefits of this approach are Important to development of
superior products. Based on qualitative information it would appear that
benefits might be obtained. It is likely that the impact of this technology on
product attributes and performance will be incremental.
XI. HOW LIKELY IS ACHIEVEMENT OF EXPECTED BENEFIT?
A. Based on qualitative testing of Super Smooth Group, and recent RU consumer
testing, it appears that changes in casing that increase cocoa flavor might
provide smoothness and acceptance benefits. Again, it should be noted that
these are expected to be incremental improvements.
XII. COULD OTHER APPROACHES PROVIDE SAME BENEFITS?
A. It is possible that similar benefits can be achieved with higher levels of our
current cocoa. Sensory testing and cost analysis will be needed to determine
the best option.
.I
C_ ~ 1h• 1 ~ I
1. TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION:
A. Burley casing with sugars provides lower smoke pH and reduced volatile
niootlne in smoke than unoased Burley. Gary Shelar has conducted
experiments that demonstrate that neutral smoke pH, minimai volatile nicotine,
and best smoking properties for straight burley cigarettes, Is achieved with
sugar/niootine ratios of about 3.0 to 1.
B. Additional Investigation Is being carried out to determine effects of different
sugar types (e.g. fructose and sucrose) with and without heat treatment.
II. EXPECTED BENEFIT:
,. A. Incxeased Smoothness and Reduced Harshness
Ili. BAS1S FOR BENEFIT EXPECTATION:
A. Internal evaluation of straight burley oigarettes with balanced sugar/niootine
ratio Indicates significant Improvement In smoking quality.
B. Analytical data demonstrates that balanced sugar/niootlne ratio burley tobacco
cigarettes have reduced volatiie niootlne. Volatile niootine Is theorized to be a
major contributor to harshness.
C. Recent consumer test results on RU 83 Indicate that prototypes with higher
levels of HFCS and Inoreased cocoa were perceived as smoother than products
with standard levels of 02,134 and ooooa.
IV. BENEFIT APPLICATIONS:
A. The most obvious and Immediate applioatlons are FFLT products that have
Improved smoothness and reduced harshness as primary development
direction.
V. DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
A. Inoorporate current understanding of balanced sugar/niootine ratios for HFCS
with out heat treatment Into FFLT product development: (1st-2nd Qtr 92)
B. Evaluate HFCS vs Sucrose with and without heat treatment: (2nd-3rd Qtr 92)
C. Develop and consumer test prototypes with casing system(s) (3rd-4th Qtr 92)
that Incorporate learning on sugar level, type and heat treatment.
VI. FINANCIAL COST ANALYSIS:
A. Detailed cost analysis has not been conducted. Cost Impact from Increased
sugar usage will be minor.
B. Use of a single sugar type for all casings would require no significant capital
expenditures. However, if several types of sugars were needed, then significant
expenditures ($500,000 or more) might be required to modify casing lines to
accommodate additional liquid Ingredients.
C. Sucrose Is slightly more expensive than HFCS. Actual cost would be
determined by volumes and purohase contracts.
VI I. OPPORTUNITY COST:
A. Planned development and testing efforts will require moderate R&D resources.
Principal manpower requirements are: experimentation on sugar levels and
type by New Technology Blend Development Group, Pilot Plant Personnel for
production of prototypes, Brand Development staff for prototype development
and testing, and analytical staff for analysis of sugars, volatile niootine and other
parameters. .
VIII. TIMING:
A. Phase one, fructose/niootine balance without heat treatment is essentially
complete and has been Included In suooessful RU prototype testing. Products
with this casing will probably be In market by 1 st Qtr 92.
B. Phase two, sucrose/fructose with and without heat treatment will be completed
In third quarter, with consumer testing In 9rd-4th G?tr 92.
C. Optimal sugar type and level for FFLT blends with and without heat treatment
should be defined by end of year.
IX. POTENTIAL PROBLEM(S) EVALUATION:
A. There are no major techniaal problems with the technology as envisioned.
B. Manufacturing Iogistlcai problems may be created if It Is determined that we
need to use additional liquid Ingredients. However, planned replacement of B2
and 84 with HFCS In Sept. 92 would ameiiorate this situation by freeing up one
line for Iiquid Ingredient addition.
X. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE:
A. The proposed benefits of this technology are extremely Important to our efforts
to develop superior FFLT products.
~
N
N
v
v
~
00
r
XI. HOW LIKELY IS ACHIEVEMENT OF EXPECTED BENEFIT?
A. Based on initial testing, it Is highly likely that efforts In the area of sugar/nicotine
balance will provide Incremental improvements in the area of smoothness and
harshness. This technology, in conjunction with other efforts will form the basis
for much of the FFLT product development over the next 12 to 18 months.
XII. COULD OTHER APPROACHES PROVIDE THE SAME BENEFITS?
A. There are a number of other approaches that may be able to reduced volatile
nicotine (e.g. organic acid additions and WA filters). However, it might be
appropriate to consider these other technologies as supplemental and to be
used when more classicaf aasing approaches do not-achieve desired product
performance.
-
NATURAL TOBACCO FLAVOR (NTFI
I. TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION:
A. Translocation of flavors through use of tobacco extracts as a casing ingredient.
B. Initial approach for irriprovements in smoothness/harshness is focused on the
water extraction (G7 type process) of Turkish Scrap to provide an extract for
use in casing for cutting.
C. Additional, and concurrent work is planned on characterization of solvent
extracts other than water, and on the evaluation of extracts from other types of
tobacco.
II. EXPECTED BENEFITS:
A. Increased smoothness and reduced harshness.
B. Added flavor and unique flavor.
III. BASIS FOR BENEFIT EXPECTATION:
A. Informal smoking of Full Flavor prototypes produced on lab scale indicated very
significant movement of smoking attributes was achieved with 1% of extracted
solids added across the strip blend. The test products cased with Turkish
Scrap Extract were perceived as significantly smoother, less harsh and to have
a unique and pleasant sweet taste as compared to a control product. The
consensus of the evaluators was that the Turkish Scrap Extract had the most
acceptable taste and should receive priority for investigation and development.
B. It is theorized that translocation of flavors and organic acids from the turkish
scrap to other leaf components is the mechanism for observed perceptual
differences.
IV. BENEFIT APPLICATION:
A. The dramatic impact that this technology appears to have on smoothness and
harshness in preliminary assessment, indicates great potential for Full Flavor
Low Tar product improvements. Initial product development and evaluation will
therefore focus on FFLT products.
B. Added and enhanced flavor aspects of this technology can have applications to
FF, FFLT and ULT products.
V. DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
A. Initial evaluation of prototypes prepared by H. Young and S. Sohn indicated that
very unique products can be produced with small quantities (1-2%) of extract
applied across the blend in casing for cutting. Based on internal assessment
we have focused ."Fast Track" development efforts on Turkish extract which
appears to give the smoothest product with the least negatives. Longer term
work on other leaf extracts and mixed extracts may also be continued as
time/resources allow.
B. Ishmir ZA extract prototypes were evaluated versus blended Turkish scrap
products and found to be less acceptable from the standpoint of excessive
coating taste and after taste. Therefore turkish scrap blend has been selected
for fast track assessment.
C. A test has been designed, written up.and coordinated to conduct Qualitative
Variable Screening (QVS) of various levels of turkish extract in a mid-May mail
out. Extract for this test will be produced in the G7 Pilot Plant.
D. Initial discussions have been held with Scientific Affairs to obtain approval for
these prototypes. Fabrication Lab Blends have been prepared and cigarettes
will be produced the week of 4/13/92 to allow generation of needed analytical
data for Scientific Affairs and HRRC approvals. Approval will be obtained by
May 7.
E. A team has been set up to investigate extract stability and storage conditions
with initial investigations to be complete by end of May.
F. A team of R&D and Manufacturing staff will be set up in June to investigate and
develop manufacturing procedures for NTF application.
G. Based on results of QVS testing, product development will continue and NTF
Prototypes will be included in PGT testing in third quarter for possible
manufacturing implementation in forth quarter.
H. Experimentation, analytical testing and sensory evaluation of other solvent
extracts of various tobaccos will be on going through 2nd and 3rd Qtr 1992.
This work will provide direction for new extract approaches and provide
fundamental understanding of the chemistry of key extract components.
VI. FINANCIAtCOST ANALYSIS:
A. Detailed cost analysis has not been performed. Initial Indications are that the
G7 extract approach will have minimal or no negative cost impact. This
assumes that extracted leaf pulp will be incorporated into routine G7 production.
There may be some manpower costs associated with extract production at the
G7 pilot plant. There will also probably be a need for coid storage of extract.
B. There should not be a need for major capital expenditures to produce the
extract as the G7 Pilot Plant (or AVOCA) can produce sufficient extract to
support large market share brands. There may be a need for some capital
expenditures to modify casing operation if this technology is adopted on a large
scale. HFCS implementation should minimize the need for plant modifications.
,
VII. OPPORTUNITY COST:
A. Moderate R&D and Manufacturing resources will be needed to develop and
scale up the NTF process as currently envisioned. Significantly more resources
will be needed for analysis and characterization of various solvent extracts. A
significant amount of this effort will have to come out of Harvey Young's area
and will therefore reduce the manpower available in that area for other projects.
VIII. TIMING:
A. Initial consumer screening of turkish extract levels with consumers is planned
for mid May. Based on these results, additional development could lead to PGT
or larger scale consumer testing in third quarter. If initial results are marginal,
then further consumer testing and product optimization will be delayed until
greater learning and direction is obtained from the planned solvent extract
investigations.
B. Scale up for production scale operations could be accomplished by the end of
1992 if product performance makes it worth while.
C. Other solvent approaches will be significantly longer term (out side of 12
months and could require significantly greater resource).
IX. POTENTIAL PROBLEM(S) EVALUATION:
A. Extract stability will have to be controlled and ensured. This may require cold
storage of extract and/or use of anti mold/bacteria agents.
B. This technology will require us to add a new liquid ingredient to our casing for
cutting operation. This can probably be done manually at Tobaccoville but may
present significant problems at Whitaker Park. If HFCS is Implemented across
the board in September, as planned, this could free up capability for adding a
new casing ingredient.
. X. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE:
A. The benefits seen in Initial product evaluations of NTF were extremely
promising. These products showed very large differences versus controls and
the turkish extract products were very positively received by most internal
smokers. It was noted by a number of experienced product evaluators that
they had never smoked products that were that different but still good.
XI. HOW LIKELY IS ACHIEVEMENT OF EXPECTED BENEFIT?
A. It is highly likely that NTF will significantly change the smoking properties of
products that use ft. It Is not known at this time whether those changes will be
perceived as a significant positive by consumers. _
XII. COULD OTHER APPROACHES PROVIDE THE SAME BENEFIT?
A. There is no other technology at this time that offers precisely the same
opportunities. NTF, using water extraction, is an extremely simple approach
with little downside risk. The relative advantages and disadvantages of this
approach will be better understood after initial QVS testing and additional
characterization of extracts.
k" i et ,I ,~\ ~
I. TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION:
A. Increased levels of B3 and B9 applied via current casing and top dressing
methods or through new methods.
II. EXPECTED BENEFITS:
A. Increased Smoothness and reduced harshness.
III. BASIS FOR BENEFIT EXPECTATION:
A. Nicotine RSM work demorlstrated that higher T/N ratio products are perceived
as smoother and less harsh. Addition of B3 and B9 to cigarette will generate
higher "tar" without Increasing nicotine.
B. The Consumer Model predicts that higher levels of casing and humectants (all
casing ingredients were combined Into one value) will provide improved
consumer acceptance.
C. Qualitative testing conducted by the Super Smooth Project Team indicated that
consumers perceived products with higher levels of humectant as being more
smooth.
IV. BENEFIT°APPLICATION:
A.
The application of greatest opportunity should be to Full Flavor Low Tar
products that have increased smoothness and reduced harshness as key
product development direction.
V. DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
A. Recent and past testing information was reviewed and levels of 83 and B9
selected for a QVS test to be mailed out in mid May.
B. If positive results are obtained then this approach will be included in large scale
consumer testing for possible incorporation Into WINSTON SB. (Sept. 92)
C. Additional application methods are being explored. These will include G7 sheet
additions and REST approaches. (2nd-3rd Qtr)
D. The rest process will be used to conduct a highly controlled experiment on
Humectant Levels to attempt to define an optimal range for smoothness on
FFLT products. (by end of 92)
VI. FINANCIAL COST ANALYSIS:
A. Detailed cost analysis has not been performed. Application of increased levels
of humectants with existing processes should have only a minimal impact on
cost per thousand and no capital costs.
B. If new process approaches are used then significant costs might be incurred.
Addition to the G7 sheet would be relatively easy with small to moderate costs.
Rest applications could require significant capital expenditures for plant
constructions depending on volumes required.
VII. OPPORTUNITY COST:
A. Evaluation of increased humectants with existing processes requires very
minimal R&D resources and can be rapidiy completed. The primary cost will be
the QVS testing slots that we use. This testing is being combined in a design
with NTF so opportunity and dollar cost are minimal.
B. The rest process provides a valuable tool for controlled experimentation.
Although this experimentation will use significantly more resources than
conventional applications of humectant, it will allow us to test significantly
broader ranges under much tighter control.
VIIi. TIMING:
A. QVS consumer testing of best estimate of an optimum (high) level of B3 and $9
will be completed in mid June.
B. If justified, include in large scale consumer test, PGT or IPT: (3rd or, 4th Qtr 92)
IX. POTENTIAL PROBLEMS:
A. Humectant applications through conventional processes is limited by spotting
and staining. Selected levels for QVS testing has been shown to be acceptable
in prior investigations.
B. Measured humectant (even relatively non-volatile humectant like B3) level is
typically much lower than application rates, and highly variable when applied
through our convention pilot plant system.
X. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE:
A.
Increased Humectant by itself is not expected to be a major driver of -product
attributes. It is very likely that it can offer incremental improvement.
XI. HOW LIKELY IS ACHIEVEMENT OF EXPECTED BENEFIT?
A. It Is relatively likely that this technology can provide incremental improvements
in smoothness and harshness.
XII. COULD OTHER APPROACHES PROVIDE THE SAME BENEFITS:
A. There may several other approaches that couid-previde similar levels of
smoothness and harshness Improvement. However, the increased humectant
approach is simple, readily impiementabie and relatively free of problems or
constraints.
REACTION (K1008) . TYPE FtMRS
I. TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION:
A. Production of unique, tobacco enhancing flavors through the reaction of amino
acids (e.g. asparagine) with sugars or other organic materials.
II. EXPECTED BENEFITS:
A. Improved smoothness and harshness.
B. Enhanced or Added Flavor
III. BASIS FOR BENEFIT EXPECTATION:
A. Speculation on benefits achieved by competitors through use of asparagine.
B. Slight, but not significant, attribute movement seen on internal evaluation of
K-1008 flavor.
IV. BENEFIT APPLICATION:
A. Uncertain until specific flavor compounds can be synthesized and evaluated.
V. DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
A. Ken Shu of flavor division will investigate synthesis of new flavor compounds
from the reaction of asparagine with pentanedione. (2nd Qtr 92)
B. Internal evaluation of above flavors on representative products. (2nd-3rd Qtr)
C. Consumer evaluation, if appropriate: (4th Qtr 92)
VI. FINANCIAL COST ANALYSIS:
A. This approach should have no significant cost implications.
VII. OPPORTUNITY COST:
A. As currently planned, this project will mainly impact only the manpower of flavor
and analytical divisions of R&D.
B. Minimal sensory and consumer testing resources are planned at this time.
I
VIII. TIMING:
A. Timing for consumer testing will be determined by results of internal screening.
That is, we will go forward to external testing only when internal screen of
flavors produced by the flavor division indicates that significant progress has
been made.
IX. POTENTIAL PROBLEM(S) EVALUATION:
A. There are no major manufacturing problems with this technology as currently
envisioned.
X. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE:
A. The relative Importance of this project is difficult to assess. It can be noted that
our major competitor, who dominates the FFLT market, probably uses some
form of asparagine reaction flavor.
XI. HOW LIKELY IS ACHIEVEMENT OF EXPECTED BENEFIT?
A. There is insufficient information to make an educated guess at this time.
XI1. COULD OTHER APPROACHES PROVIDE THE SAME BENEFITS:
A. This is an exploratory effort that may lead to new approaches. There is
insufficient data to know what will be accomplished In terms of product benefits.
AMMONIATED TOBACCO (FLUE CURED)
I. TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION:
A. Treatment of selected flue cured leaf with ammonia under appropriate reaction
conditions (time, temperature and moisture) resulting in Maillard reactions that
alter aroma and flavor of the tobacco.
II. EXPECTED BENEFITS:
A. Improved Smoothness and Harshness
B. Increased Pack Aroma _
C. Added or Enhanced Flavor
III. BASIS FOR BENEFIT EXPECTATION:
A. Previous work with C30-A, ammoniated flue cured tobacco, indicated that this
tobacco provided enhanced taste and strength with no negativee impacts on
harshness or smoothness. Use of this tobacco may provide an opportunity to
reduce tar and/or nicotine delivery through filtration/dilution while maintaining
required strength and tobacco taste.
B. Ammoniation of various tobaccos has been a practice of the cigarette Industry
for many years and numerous patents have been filed that discuss effects of
ammoniation on tobacco and the smoking quality of products produced from it.
IV. BENEFIT APPLICATION:
A. Based on previous experience with ammoniated flue cured tobacco, it is likely
that this technology would have its most appropriate application to full flavor
products that have development direction of maintaining strength and tobacco
taste while not becoming to harsh. Ultra light products might also benefit from
the added flavor of Ammoniated Flue Cured Tobacco.
B. Ammoniated Flue Cured might have FFLT applications: it could be used to
produce a more flavorful product and thereby allow other smoothness
enhancing technologies to be used without producing.products that deficient in
strength and tobacco taste.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
A. Initial planning and direction: (Feb-March 92)
B. Initial process experimentation to evaluate process variables and different sugar
content leafs: (March-June 92)
C. Internal evaluation of selected product from process tests: (May-July 92)
D. Project re-focus based on results: (June-July 92)
E. Process development and specification: (3rd Qtr 92)
F. Prototype development and testing: (4th Qtr 92)
VI. FINANCIAL COST ANALYSIS:
A. No significant cost evaluation has been done at this time. Capital and operating
cost for full scale production will be greatly dependent on the type of process
and volume of leaf to be processed. Capital cost could range from insignificant
(assuming use of existing facilities with minimal modifications) to extremely large
(assuming construction of a new facility).
B. Financial evaluation of various alternatives will be considered in 3rd Qtr after we
have better defined the Impact of various processes on the sensory properties
of selected tobaccos and have begun to focus in on the processes of greatest
opportunity.
C. Cost for development and testing will be moderate, as existing facilities and
equipment and manpower will be used. Material costs (tobacco, filters, paper,
etc) will be the primary expense.
VII. OPPORTUNITY COST:
A. The major opportunity cost in 1992 will be the use of PT&D staff resources to
conduct the planned investigations.
B. There will be moderate demand for analytical services to support this project.
C. There will be minimal internal sensory resources used. Any external consumer
testing would occur late in the year if at all.
VIII. TIMING:
A. Timing on this project should be considered Long Term (i.e. greater than 12-18
months). 1992 efforts are directed primarily at assessing the potential benefits
of various processing approaches. Depending on process defined, production
might be only a few months or several years away.
IX. POTENTIAL PROBLEM(S) EVALUATION:
A. There should be no major problems with the experimentation and assessment
phase of this technology.
B. Scale up problems will depend on the process defined for further development.
Use of existing KbN facilities may present issues of moisture, temperature and
ammonia emission control. New facilities would be costly and require significant
construction time.
C. Moisture control will be important to prevent the tobacco "scorching" problems
previously experienced with C30-A.
X. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE: _
A. There Is little doubt that ammonlation can impact the sensory properties of
tobacco. The degree to which this Impact can benefit RJRT products is not well
understood, but could be quite important.
XI. HOW LIKELY IS ACHIEVEMENT OF EXPECTED BENEFIT?
A. It is highly probable that ammoniated flue cured tobacco can impact the
sensory properties of our products. it is not clear whether this Impact will result
in significant product improvement in terms of smoothness and harshness.
XII. COULD OTHER APPROACHES PROVIDE THE SAME BENEFIT?
A. Several other technologies (e.g. Heat Treated Burley, and High Temperature
Extract G-7 Sheet) all invoive maillard reactions. The relative advantages of the
ammoniated flue cured approach versus these other approaches is not ciear. It
should be noted that flue cured tobacco has a high sugar/nicotine ration, and
might therefore be considered the sight of choice for ammoniation.
HIGH TEMPERATURE EXTRACT G7 SED RESULTS
DESCRIPTION:
A full extract return (i.e. approximately 42% water solubles) G7 sheet produced with
extract that has been heated under pressure to a temperature of 300°F for
approximately 15 minutes.
SED EXTERNAL QDA OF FULL FLAVOR PROTOTYPES- -- =
(HTE versus G7-7 and G7-25 In WINSTON KS configuration. with composite FF blend)
• The HTE prototype was perceived to have significantly more uniit aroma (Other,
fruity, sweet and spicy) than the G7-7 control
• The HTE prototype was-perceived to have less: tobacco taste, impact, bitter taste,
astringency, tongue sensation, mouth sensation throat harshness, overall
aftertaste, peppery aftertaste, and harsh aftertaste; than the control.
As compared to G7-25, the HTE prototype was perceived as having more aroma
(other & spicy), and less: tobacco taste, drying sensation, burnt tarry taste and
peppery aftertaste.
There were few significant differences between the G7-7 and G7-25 prototypes.
(G7-25 increased aroma, reduced bitter taste, overall aftertaste, and harsh
aftertaste)
In this FF test, HTE produced significantly greater reductions in harshness related
terms than did G7-25. G7-25 was between G7-7 and HTE in terms of harshness.
SED EXTERNAL ODA OF FFLT PROTOTYPES
(HTE versus G7-9 & G7-25 in WINSTON Lt 85 Configuration with composite FFLT blend)
• The panelist perceived the HTE prototypes to have greater unlit aroma than either
the G7-9 or G7-25 prototypes.
• There were no significant differences between HTE and G7-9 on any of the lit.
cigarette attributes.
• HTE was perceived to have slightly less throat harshness and drying aftertaste.
SUMMARY
OVERALL ON KEY ATTRIBUTES, HTE PREFORMED VERY WELL COMPARISON
TO G7-7 IN THE FULL FLAVOR PRODUCT
IN THE FFLT PRODUCTS HTE PERFORMED AT LEAST AS WELL AS EITHER G7-
9 OR G7-25 ON KEY ATTRIBUTES
HTE CONSISTENTLY DEMONSTRATED INCREASED UNLIT AROMA
• OVERALL IT APPEARS THAT HTE IN FFLT PRODUCTS MAY NOT OFFER LARGE
ADVANTAGES VERSUS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE SHEETS IN TERMS OF
SMOOTHNESS AND HARSHNESS.
• IT DOES PROVIDE INCREASED UNLIT AROMA AND IT MAY OFFER
INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS IN AFTERTASTE VERSUS G7-25.
• HOWEVER, AS HTE IS A FULL EXTRACT RETURN SHEET THAT DOES NOT USE
DAP, IT HAS SIGNIFICANT APPEAL IN TERMS OF REDUCTION OF EXTRACT
DISPOSAL WITHOUT USING DAP.
• THE FULL FLAVOR SED RESULTS FOR HTE WERE MORE ENCOURAGING AS
THEY INDICATED SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS IN HARSHNESS VERSUS G7-7
AND REDUCED NEGATIVE TASTE ATTRIBUTES VERSUS G7-25.
RECOMMENDATIONS
• ADDITIONAL TESTING OF HTE, PARTICULARLY IN FF CONFIGURATIONS IS
WARRANTED.
