Tobacco Documents Online

~ ~ mmB~ c~ c~ _~ C~

Group Research & Development Centre, British-American Tobacco Co. Ltd., SOUTHAMPTON. BCH/KJG/VS/RA/46E EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY ON TWO LOW DELIVERY CIGARETTES PART I: CHANGES IN SENSORY PROPERTIES REPORT NO. RD.1937 RESTRICTED - R&D-L068-83 6.9. 1983 AUTHORS: B.C. Harding K.J. Gough V.F. Stephan GROUP LEADERS: R.P. Ferris R.B. Dagnall ISSUED BY: D.E. Conway DISTRIBUTION: Dr. L.C.F. Blackman Copy No. 1, 2, 3 Dr. R.A. Sanford " " 4, 5 Dr. P.J. Dunn N " 6 Mr. R.S. Wade u " 7,-8, 9 Mr. R.G. Nicholls " " 10, 11 Herr E. Rittershaus n " 12 Dr. F. Seehofer " " 13 Dr. C.J.P. de Siqueira " " 14 Mr. W. Van Putten " " 15 Mr. R.F. Gi]derdale " " 16 Library " " 17, 18 COPY NO. ~- qD ]983 British American Tobacco C0. Ltd. Tbls report must not be copied or shown to unauChoriscd persons. cz) 0b

Group Research & Development Centre, British-~i~erican Tobacco Co. Ltd., SOUTHAMPTON. BCH/KJG/VFS/RA/46E 6th September, 1983 EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY ON TWO LOW DELIVERY CIGARETTES PART I: CHANGES IN SENSORY PROPERTIES REPORT NO. RD.1937 RESTRICTED EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report describes the initial stage of an overall pro- gramme to determine the effects of environmental temperature and relative humidity on the subjective properties and s~mke delivery chemistry of two low delivery commercial cigarettes; an American blended and a U.K. Virginia product. Consistent changes in smoker's perception of the sensory properties are reported, depending on the environmental temperature and relative humidity. From these findings it is recommended that to facilitate cross-checks or sensory evaluation in general it would be advisable to control the temperature and relative humidity of all smoke panel rooms throughout the group. The results are also important to marketing within countries with wide climatic variation in that increasing temperature decreases Impact and Mouthfull and increases Draw Effort. The consequence of increasing relative humidity is to decrease Impact, Draw Effort and Mouthfeel, and to increase Mouthfull and Acceptability. As the effects of both variables were independent of smoker or cigarette type, the results can be assumed to be genera|i- sable to other smokers and to other low delivery cigarettes. -i- © 1983 Drili~h Am~ri~c.n Tobacco Co. Lid. This report must not be copicd or shown to unauthorised persons. O'J 00

Relatively large changes in temperature and humidity are necessary to produce changes in low delivery cigarettes which are readily detected by smokers. This has further implica- tions for the comparison of sensory evaluations in those countries with a highly variable climate and on the BAT Taste and Flavour Network. -ii- © 1983 British Amcfican Tobacco Co, Lid. This report must not b¢ copicd or shown to unauthoriscd persons. Cmm---- O~ Co 00 O~ 1'0

, f "T i Group Research & Development Centre, British-American Tobacco Co. Ltd., SOUTHAMPTON. BCH/KJG/VFS/RA/46E 6th September, 1983 EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY ON TWO LOW DELIVERY CIGARETTES PART I: CHANGES IN SENSORY PROPERTIES REPORT NO. RD.1937 RESTRICTED R&D-L068-83 c.5~ Y • TECHNICAL ABSTRACT A U.K. flue-cured low delivery brand, and a U.S. blended delivery brand were taken from their respective markets and selected for weight, ventilation and pressure drop. The cigarettes were sensory evaluated under both ambient and twenty-five different levels of environmental conditions pro- duced by combinations of temperature and relative humidity within an environmental chamber. For all evaluations, in- house smokers used the DELTA method for assessment of low delivery cigarettes. Strict safety precautions were maintained under all environ- mental conditions and, prior to smoking, the subjects acclimatised to the prevailing conditions. Sensory evaluation data were transformed using principal component analysis and analysis of covariance to show the effects due to changes in temperature and relative humidity as well as the relative contribution of the variables. Results show that the sensory properties of the cigarettes were affected by temperature and relative humidity variabi- ]ity and that these effects were independant of smoker and -iii- O 1983 Brltish Anlerican Tobacco Co. Lid. This reporl must not b~ copied or shown io unauthorised persons. fJl

! i~¸' ~!i!~ -i ! ,ik~¸ ~ L cigarette type. On the Mouthfull, Draw Effort, Mouthfeel, Impact and Acceptability assessment parameters, the effects are independent of the other variable whilst for Nosefeel and Throatfeel the effects of one variable depends upon the level of the other variable and vice versa. In addition to the direct effect in the market place there are precautions to be taken in the use of Taste and Flavour Panels.. KEY WORDS Temperature Relative Humidity Environmental Conditions Controlled Environmental Room Low Delivery Cigarettes Panel Testing Smokers ~ensory Perception Subjective Assessment DELTA Statistical Analysis INGRID Principal Component Analysis Analysis of Covariance -iv- (~ 1983 British Amer:.can TobacLo Co. Lid. This re~or~ must nol be copied or shown to u.au~orised persons.

-1- INTRODUCTION Currently, little is known about the effects of environmental temperature and relative humidity on the sensory properties of low delivery cigarettes. A study was undertaken by Brown & Williamson (I) in 1971 which showed that WOODROSE assessments, and per puff tar and nicotine deliveries, could be correlated with the moisture content of tobacco. In 1972 GR&DC (2) investigated the effect of changing temperature and relative humidity on the smoke delivery chemistry of high delivery cigarettes. The cigarettes examined were plain and filter versions of Blend 48 and an American ~blended product. Results indicated that substantial increases in tar, TNA, CO and phenols occurred as temperature decreased from 40°C to O°C. The converse was true for nitric oxide delivery. Of the smoke constituents investigated, only water, which decreased, was affected by a decrease in relative humidity from 95% to 10%. These results suggest that inter-territorial sensory evaluation may produce discrepancies between results that are in part due to variations in environmental conditions. Also if the effect of variations in temperature and relative humidity on smoke constituents is recognised by smokers it may be misleading in the absence of an understanding of these effects to formulate blends and design cigarettes in one territory for another part of the world. Within GR&DC there is a temperature and relative humidity controlled environmental chamber. This facility was used throughout a research programme designed to determine the effects of environmental temperature and relative humidity on (a) the subjective properties and (b) the smoke delivery chemistry of two low delivery cigarettes. A further phase O 1983 British American Tobacco Co. Lid, This report must not be copied or shown to unau~horised persons. f,/1 Q0 ~r[~¸

-2- of the programme is to investigate all relationships between these sets of results. It is the purpose of the present report to describe the first stage in this overall programme, designed to answer the following question: What changes can be detected in the subjective impression received from low delivery cigarettes as evaluated by smokers sampling under varied temperature and relative humidity criteri a? RESEARCH METHOD ';~ :~ ; ' Cigarettes . : .. Work was based on a BAT (UK&E) Virginia low delivery product and a B&W blended low delivery cigarette. All cigarettes used in the project were selected for weight, ventilation and pressure drop. ~, ~, . .< Environmental Conditions >~" ~ "-, The cigarettes were evaluated within the GR&DC environmental chamber, details of which appear in Appendix I. A twenty-five cell matrix design was used and the cigarettes were smoked at environmental conditions according to the ranges shown in Table 1. ¢' 1983 British American Tobacco Co. Lid. This report must not be copied or shown to unauthorised person~. k UI

• ? " • 7:/ : 'i -3- TABLE 1 Relative Humidity (%) 15 35 55 75 95 ;, ..... ~ Temperature (°C) 0 10 20 30 10 12 20 4 23 2 3 Ig 18 7 1 g 6 8 24 5 15 22 14 17 40 16 11 21 13 25 The order of smoking sessions was randomised and is shown within the above matrix. . ~ , ,-" .~ ~ -~.:~ - _ " - All subjects involved in this project were given a medical examination prior to the commencement of the work and a further medical check on every occasion they entered the environmental chamber. During extreme conditions all subjects were monitored for aural temperature. The required safety range for aural temperature was maximum 102°F (39°C) and minimum 96°F (35.5°C),were a subject's temperature to move above or below this range they would be immediately removed from the chamber. Following all tests it was stipulated that subjects did not return to normal work areas until their temperature, pulse rate, respiration and blood pressure had stabilised at the same level as prior to entering the environmental chamber. Further, shower facilities were available to the subjects to help facilitate recovery. ~) 1983 British American '['ohacco Co, Lid. This report must not be copied or shown Io unauthorised persons. 0o

i -4- Sensory Evaluation The approach used to compare the sensory properties of cigarettes at each environmental condition was the in-house DELTA assessment of low delivery products. Cigarettes were smoked within each of the twenty-five environmental conditions and evaluated according to the usual set of DELTA assessment parameters (3). Experimental Procedure The same nine trained subjects were used for all twenty-five smoking sessions. Each session began with the subjects assessing two clgarettes, one of each brand, at ambient environmental conditions. The subjects then entered the environmental chamber where they remained for at least one hour to acclimatise to the prevailing conditions prior to any sensory evaluation. The cigarettes to be assessed were taken into the environmental chamber at the same time as the subjects entered. As the cigarettes were enclosed in glass phials, they equilibrated to the temperature of the room, but were unaffected by the relative humidity until their exposure for evaluation. At the end of the acclimatisation period both low delivery products were evaluated using the DELTA assessment parameters on a 0-5 scale of sensory magnitude. Analysis Method Analysis was carried out using INGRID, the standard analysis method for DELTA panel assessments. This version of a principal component analysis established tables of relationships between environmental conditions and O 1983 British American Tobacco Co. Ltd. This report must not b¢ copied or shown to unauthoris¢d persons. i .q :iili mL------'t'Ir Om

~Z -5- assessment parameters, environmental conditions with each other and assessment parameters with each other for both low delivery cigarettes (Appendix II). Also the transformed data within these tables were represented by a two-dimensional diagram, termed a DELTA plot (Appendix II)o This approach gave a graphical best fit summary of the general trends existing within the data matrix, Unfortunately from these results it is impossible to disentangle the complicated inter-relationships among the variables or to interpret trends within the DELTA plot. For this reason it was decided to consider an alternative multivariate approach and/or analysis of variance and covariance in an effort to find a more suitable method for data analysis and the determination of any effects due to changes in environmental conditions. Statistical Methodology The experiment consisted of five factors. (A) Temperature at five levels O, 10, 20, 30, 40°C. (B) Relative humidity at five levels, 15, 35, 55, 75, 95%. (C) Subject at nine levels. (D) Brand at two levels. (E) Session at 225 levels (temperature, relative humidity, subjects). The first four factors (A, B, C, D) are crossed with each other and will be considered as fixed effects. That is to O 1983 British American Tobacco Co. Ltd. This report must not be copied or shown to unauthorised persons. Co 00 Ob tO

i¸ :" :T • i~~• ~, .. I ! -6- say, only the levels of the factors actually in this experiment were considered. For example, the subjects are not considered to be a random sample of subjects who might have done the experiment. 1. Linear. Session is nested within •temperature, relative humidity and subject, but is crossed with brand. It is considered as a random effect, i.e. the one session for each subject under each environmental condition is considered to be a random sample of the many sessions that might have been. The two factors, temperature and relative humidity both have five equally spaced levels, and thus the effects of each are partitioned into three orthogonal components. r' i! 2. Quadratic. 3. Remainder or deviation. The first stage of the analysis was to examine the DELTA scores from the cigarettes smoked at ambient environmental conditions. An analysis of variance was performed on each assessment parameter and brand separately using the factors temperature, relative humidity and subject. This was done to establish that the ambient environmental condition scores were not affected by the forthcoming environmental chamber conditions. There were no effects of temperature and relative humidity on any of the assessment parameters and thus it was concluded that the subjects were not affected by anticipated future conditions. As a result of this the ambient environmental condition scores can be considered as potential covariates in the analysis of the environmental chamber scores. As there were nine assessment parameters it might be thought that a multivariate approach would be fruitful, especially if O 1983 British American Tobacco Co. Lid. This rcpo~ mus~ not be copied or shown to unauthoriscd persons.

/~ i~¸ .k -7- the assessment parameters are highly correlated with each other. The within subject correlation matrix for %he ambient environmental condition scores was computed for both brands separately and as these were very similar a pooled correlation matrix was calculated (Appendix Ill). All correlations were less than 0.4 in absolute value except -0.51 between Mouthful] and Draw Effort. These correlations are very similar to those reported in a previous GR&DC study (3). Hence as nearly all assessment parameters were at most weakly correlated a multivariate approach did not seem worthwhile. The next stage was an analysis of covariance for each of the nine assessment parameters scored in the environmental chamber with the ambient environmental condition scores as covariates. Initially this was done separately for both brands, which allowed judgement on whether or not it was valid to combine the brands. For this to be so the relationship between the assessment parameters scored in the environmental chamber with the assessment parameters scored at ambient environmental conditions should be similar for both brands, this was found to be the case for all assessment parameters. In addition the residual mean squares for both brands should be similar, which they were. Hence the two brands were combined. The final stage was to consider both brands in an analysis of covariance for each of the nine assessment parameters scored in the environmental chamber with the ambient environmental conditions scores as covariates (Appendix IV). There were two levels of analysis between and within sessions. The within level was solely concerned with the differences between the two brands and whether these differences were affected by the subject, temperature and relative humidity. The latter two are of considerable importance since if the effects of temperature and relative humidity were different for the two brands it would be imprudent to average the © 1983 British American Tobacco Co. Ltd, This report rnusZ not be copied or shown to unauthoriscd persons. C=T[:~

/ -8- effects over brands. However it was found that the effects of temperature and relative humidity were very similar for both brands. Hence it was desirable to average the effects over brands. Having found the effects of temperature and relative humidity were not dependent on brand, the between session level was considered. Initially the pair-wise interactions between temperature, relative humidity and subjects were examined. If the interaction between subject and temperature was large then the effect of temperature varied between the nine subjects, likewise relative humidity. This would give rise for concern since if another group of subjects had been used then quite different results might have occurred. Fortunately the interactions with subjects were not large. The interaction between temperature and relative humidity was also very important, since if it was large then the effects of temperature depend upon the level of relative humidity and vice versa. However if there was no interaction, then the effects of temperature and relative humidity were additive and the main effects could be considered. ! For each assessment parameter there were thirty-five significance tests involving either temperature or relative humidity. All of these were independent of one another, and thus even if there were no effects of temperature and relative humidity there would be some significant results. This is similar to the multiple comparisons problem when comparing several brands. The approach taken was informal. Main effects were given more credibility than two factor interactions, which were in turn preferred to three factor interactions. Similarly in the partitions for temperature and relative humidity the linear component was favoured over the quadratic component which had a priority over the deviation component. All analyses were done using GENSTAT (4). Unfortunately one of the subjects was unable to complete one session, and no qB L983 Brltish American Tobacco Co. Ltd. This report must not be. copied or shown to unauthorised persons. ,I • ~!.! Igg~,

L, : • ?7 . ,~E~ l -g- scores were obtained in the environmental chamber. The missing scores were estimated using the GENSTAT missing value procedure described in (5). RESULTS For each assessment parameter, the analysis of covariance is shown in Appendix III and the panel means are shown in Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14. In general the effects of temperature and relative humidity could not be distinguished between the two low delivery cigarettes and the nine subjects. The effects relating to each DELTA assessment parameter will be considered in turn. Mouthfull The effects of temperature on Mouthfull did not depend upon the level of relative humidity and vice versa. From Table 2 it can be seen that increasing temperature decreases Mouthful] at a rate of 0.0075 units per °C and there is no indication that the effect is not linear. Increasing relative humidity increases Mouthfull at a rate of 0.0028 units per % RH. However there is some indication of non-linearity as the average Mouthfull at 55% RH is less than might be expected. ~D 1983 British American Tobacco Co. L~d. This report must not be copied or shown to unauthorLsed persons. ca °

i = -10- TABLE 2 MOUTHFUL TABLES OF NEANS AFTER ADJUSTING FOR MOUTHFULL SCORES UNDER AFI~IENT CONDITIONS Temperature °C 0 10 ZO 30 40 SED* 3.82 3.77 3.70 3.60 3.52 0.09 Estimated linear effect of temperature is -0.0075 (0.0021) per degree C % Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 SED 3.61 3.70 3.51 3.73 3.87 0.09 Estimated linear effect of relative humidity is 0.0028 (0.0010) per % RH Temperature °C 0 10 20 30 40 O.S. Blended 4.04 4.11 4.02 3.93 3.90 SED U.K. Virginia 3.59 3.43 3.39 3.28 3.15 0.13 % Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 U.S. Blended 3.99 4.05 3.79 3.96 4.21 SED U.K. Virginil~ 3.22 3.35 3.23 3.50 3.53 0.13 % Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 Temperature °C 0 3.5 3.9 3.7 3.9 4.1 I0 3.7 3.9 3.6 4.0 3.7 SED 20 3.9 3.6 3.4 3.7 4.0 0.21 30 3.5 3.6 3.9 3.3 3.7 - 40 3.4 3.5 3.0 3.8 3.8 Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 Temperature °C U.S. Blended 0 3.8 4.3 3.8 4.0 4.5 10 4.3 4.3 4.0 4.1 3.9 20 4.1 3.9 3.6 4.0 4.5 30 3.7 3.9 4.1 3.7 4.2 40 4.0 3.8 3.5 4.1 4.0 SED U.K. Virginia 0 3.3 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.7 0.27 I0 3.2 3.5 3.1 3.9 3.4 20 3.6 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.6 30 3.3 3.2 3.7 2.9 3.3 40 2.8 3.3 2.5 3.5 3.6 * SED is the standard error of differences between any pair of means of the same brand. [983 British American Tobacco Co, Ltd. T~s report must not I~ copied or shown to unouthorlsed persons. .E • ~. UI m

• T~, ,H7 r~, 7. -11- Draw Effort From Table 3 it can be seen that for Draw Effort, the relationships with temperature and relative humidity are predominantly linear. When the level of temperature is increasing, Draw Effort increases at the rate of 0.0057 units per °C. Draw Effort decreases at the rate of 0.0026 units per % as relative humidity increases. i - !_ • ., .a . - ;J~ 1 a,': C ~ . © 1983 British American Tobacco Co. Lid. This report must not be copied or shown to unauthorised persons. ¢J 00

i. -12- TABLE 3 DRAW EFFORT TABLES OF ~ANS AFTER ADJUSTING FOR DRAW EFFORT SCORES UNDER ANBIENT CONDITIONS Temperature °C 0 I0 20 30 40 SED 2.05 2.23 2.23 2.26 2.32 0.09 Estimated linear effect of temperature is 0.0057 (0.0020) per degree C % Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 SED 2.31 2.27 2.21 2.20 2.09 0.09 Estimated linear effect of relative humidity is -0.0026 (0.0010) per % RH Temperature °C 0 10 20 30 40 U.S. Blended 1.84 1.91 1.99 2.01 2.02 SED U.K. Virginia 2.26 2.55 2.47 2.50 2.61 0.13 % Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 U.S. Blended 2.03 1.91 2.00 2.01 1.80 SED U.K. Virgin~( 2.59 2.63 2.42 2.3B 2.37 0.13 % Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 Temperature °C 0 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 10 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.0 2.3 " 20 2.3 2.4 2.2 2.5 1.9 30 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.0 40 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.3 % Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 Temperature °C U.S. Blended 0 1.9 1.7 1.9 2.0 1.6 10 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.6 2.0 • 20 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.3 1.6 30 2.1 1.9 2.3 2.1 1.7 40 2.1 2.0 1.8 2.1 2.1 U.K. Virginia 0 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.0 2.3 10 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.5 20 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.7 2.1 30 2.5 2.9 2.4 2.4 2.3 40 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.5 SED O. 20 SED 0.29 ID i983 British American Tobacco Co. Lid, This report mus', not b¢ copicd or shown to unau',horlsed persons. !j: •>% :m cA Go ob cn °

,i .~ ~ ~i-_"~ ~ :k -13- Mouthfeel Mouthfeel is linearly related to relative humidity, the estimated effect is -0.0034 units per % relative humidity (Table 4). This decrease in Mouthfeel as relative humidity increases did not depend upon temperature. Mouthfeel may be related to temperature, with the extremes O°C and 40°C producing a lower response than the intermediate temperatures. 1 © 1983 British American Tobacco Co. Ltd. This report must not be copied or shown to unauthor/scd persons. Go

-14- TABLE 4 MOUTHFEEL TABLES OF MEANS AFTER ADJUSTING FOR MOUTHFEEL SCORES UNDER Ar~BIENT CONDITIONS Temperature °C 0 10 20 30 40 SED 2.32 2.55 2.47 2.47 2.29 0.13 Estimated linear effect of temperature is -0.0014 (0.0030) per degree C % Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 SED 2.55 2.52 2.40 2.33 2.30 0.13 Estimated linear effect of relative humidity is -0.0034 (0.0015) per % RH Temperature °C 0 10 20 30 40 U.S. Blended 2.52 2.84 2.59 2.81 2.68 SED U.K. Virginla 2.12 2.25 2.35 2.13 1.89 0.19 % Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 U.S. Blended 2.81 2.78 2.62 2.58 2.65 SED U.K. Virginla 2.29 2.25 2.18 2.08 1.94 0.19 % Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 Temperature °C 0 2.2 2.6 2.4 2.1 2.3 10 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.1 20 2.7 2.7 2.3 2.3 2.3 30 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.8 40 2.7 2.3 2.2 2.3 1.9 % Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 Temperature °C U.S. Blended 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.7 10 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.5 20 3.0 3.0 2.2 2.2 2.5 30 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.7 3.4 40 2.9 2.7 2.9 2.7 2.2 U.K. Virginia 0 1.9 2.7 2.2 1.8 2,0 10 2.3 2.2 2.6 2.4 1.8 20 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.1 30 2.2 2.1 2.2 1.9 2.3 40 2.5 1.9 1.5 1.9 1.6 SED •0.30 SED 0.41 © 1983 Brilish American Tobacco Co. Lld, ThZs report must not be copied or shown to unauthorised persons.

L • ..° • -15- Nosefeel The effects of temperature on Nosefeel depend upon the level of relative humidity and vice versa (Table 5). TABLE 5 NOSEFEEL TABLES OF PEANS AFTER ADJUSTING FOR NOSEFEEL SCORES UNDER AI~IENT CONDITIONS Temperature °C 0 10 20 30 40 SED ....... 2.27 2,29 2.32 2.12 2.04 0.11 % Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 SED 2.39 2.33 2.18 2.10 2.06 0.11 Temperature °C ~" 0 10 20 30 40 U.S. Blended -~ 2.42 2.50 2.52 2.40 2.35 SED U.K. Virginia 2.12 2.08 2.11 1.85 1.73 0.17 % Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 U.S. Blended 2.54 2.57 2.37 2.37 2.35 SED U.K. Virginilc 2.23 2.09 1.98 1.83 1.78 0.17 % Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 Temperature °C 0 2.1 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 10 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.3 SED 20 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.1 0.24 30 2.2 2.5 2.1 1.9 1.9 40 2.8 2.2 1.9 1.7 1.6 % Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 Temperature °C U.S. Blended 0 2.0 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.7 10 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.6 2.6 20 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.7 2.3 30 2.7 2.8 2.2 2.0 2.3 40 2.8 2.5 2.4 2.2 1.9 SED U.K. Virginia 0 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.1 2,0 0.37 10 2.2 1.8 2.3 2.1 2,0 20 2.5 2.4 2.1 1.8 1.9 30 1.7 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.6 40 2.7 1.8 1.4 1.3 1,4 1983 British American Tobacco Co. Ltd. Th~s report must not be copied or shown to unau~horiscd persons.

-16- The following equation was therefore fitted. Nosefeel = mli,j) - 0.0063 (T-20) - 0.0044 (RH-55) -0.00036 (T-20)(RH-55) - where m(i,j) is the mean Nosefeel for subject i smoking cigarette j ~ 20°C and 55% RH. From this the following are estimated (Tables 6 and 7). ..... TABLE 6 1 EFFECTS OF CHANGING TEF~ERATURE AT VARIOUS RELATIVE HUMIDITIES g RH Units per °C I 15 I 35 95 +0.008 +0.001 -0.021 I+0.004 I ±0.003 +_0.004 Table 6 shows that at low relative humidities temperature has no effect, whereas at high relative humidities there is a decreasing effect of temperature, i ~ : TABLE 7 ~: 55 75 -0.006 -0.014 +0.002 +0.003 EFFECTS OF CHANGING RELATIVE HUMIDITY AT VARIOUS TEMPERATURES Temperature (°C) Units per % RH 0 +0.003 +0.002 I0 -0.001 +0.002 20 -0.004 +0.001 30 -0.008 +0.002 i- 40 -0.012 +0.002 ! From Table 7 it can be seen that apart from the highest temperatures where relative humidity has a decreasing effect there is little effect of relative humidity at the other temperatures. C, 1983 Bri'.ish American Tobacco Co. Ltd. This repo~ must noC be copied or shown to unauthoris.'xI persc~ns. t ,c

:7 -17- Throatfee] Table 8 shows that Throatfeel is related to both temperature and relative humidity, however these effects are not additive. TABLE 8 THROATFEEL TABLES OF I~_ANS AFTER ADJUSTING FOR THROATFEEL SCORES UNDER AFBIENT CONDITIONS Temperature °C 0 10 20 30 40 SED .... 2.85 2.80 2.88 2.90 2.65 0.12 % Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 SED 3.09 2.92 2.68 2.75 2.63 0.12 Temperature °C 0 10 20 30 40 U.S. Blended 3.12 3.20 3.15 3.24 3.07 SED U.K. Virginia ;- 2.57 2.41 2.61 2.56 2.23 0.17 % Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 U.S. Blended 3.43 3.30 2.96 3.09 3.00 SED U,K. Virginil( 2.75 2.55 2.40 2.41 2.27 0.17 % Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 Temperature °C ...... 0 2.8 2.9 2.5 3.1 2.9 10 3.0 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.9 SED 20 2.9 3.2 2.7 2.8 2.9 0.26 30 3.4 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.6 ~ 40 3.4 3.0 2.6 2.4 1,9 % Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 Temperature °C U.S. B] ended 0 3.0 3.1 2.9 3.2 3.4 10 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.2 20 3.3 3.4 3.0 3.0 3.1 30 3.8 3.5 2.7 3.1 3.1 40 3.9 3.3 3.0 2.9 2.2 SED U.K. Virginia 0 2.6 2.7 2.1 3,0 2.5 0.38 10 2.8 2.1 2.5 2.2 2.5 20 2.5 2.9 2.4 2.6 2.7 30 3.0 2.3 2.9 2.5 2.2 40 3.0 2.7 2.1 1.9 1.5 "t {) 1983 British American Tobacco Co. Lid. This report must not be copied or shown to unauthorised persons. ¢b QD Ob

:i ' ~:~ ~i~~ V ! k•~ -18- The following equation was fitted. Throatfee] = m(i,j) -0.0030 (T-20) -0.0054 (RH-55) -0.00049 (T-20)(RH-55) where m(i,j) is the mean Throatfeel for panellist i smoking brand j at 20% and 55% RH. Hence, the effects of changing temperature at different levels of relative humidity and the effects of changing relative humidity at different levels of temperature are calculated and listed below as Tables 9 and 10. TABLE 9 EFFECT OF CHANGING TEMPERATURE AT VARIOUS i ' LEVELS OF RELATIVE HUMIDITY ; | %RH I 15 35 55 75 95 Units per °CI +0.017 +0.007 -0.003 -0.013 -0.023 • +_D. 004 +_0.003 +_0.003 +_0.003 +_0.004 ! From Table 9 it can be seen that at low relative humidities Throatfeel increases with increasing temperature, whereas at high relative humidities the converse is true. .L:. TABLE 10 EFFECT OF CHANGING RELATIVE HUMIDITY AT VARIOUS LEVELS OF TEMPERATURE Temperature °C Units per % RH 0 10 +0.004 -0.001 +0.002 +0.002 20 -0.005 +0.001 30 -0.011 +0.002 40 -0.016 +0.002 Excluding high temperatures where there is a negative effect of relative humidity, there is no effect of changing relative humidity (Table 10). O 1983 British Amcdcan Tobacco Co. Ltd. This rcpo~ must not ~ copied or shown ~ tmauthoriscd ~rsons. i~,Ti ca om

-19- Table 11 shows the effects due to temperature and relative humidity on the assessment parameter Impact, which is strongly related to both temperature and relative humidity. Increasing temperature decreases Impact at an average rate of 0.011 units per °C. There is some indication that the effect of temperature is less at low relative humidities than at high relative humidities. Impact is negatively related to relative humidity, the average effect is -0.0046 units per % RH. However at 10°C and 20% the effect is not as apparent as ~ O°C, 30°C and 40°C. O 1983 British American Tobacco Co. Ltd. This report must not be cop{ed or shown to unauthorised persons. C.o Ob Ob Co aL----'m,m

• i ¸ -20- TABLE 11 IMPACT TABLES OF MEANS AFTER ADJUSTING FOR IMPACT SCORES UNDER AMBIENT CONDITIONS Temperature °C 0 10 20 30 40 SED 3.14 3.00 3.02 2.86 2.66 0.12 Estimated linear effect of temperature is -0.0110 (0.0026) per degree C % Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 SED 3.20 3.01 2.77 2.88 2.80 0.12 Estimated linear effect of relative humidity is -0.0046 (0.0013) per % RH 30 " 40 Temperature °C 0 10 20 U.S. Blended 3.48 3.52 3.42 3.26 3.11 SED U.K. Virginia 2.79 2.48 2.61 2.46 2.21 0.16 % Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 U.S. Blended 3.66 3.53 3.19 3.22 3.18 SED U.K. Virginia 2.73 2.49 2.35 2.55 2.42 0.16 % Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 Temperature °C 0 3.2 3.5 3.1 2.9 3.0 10 3.2 2.8 2.8 3.0 3.2 " 20 3.2 2.9 2.8 3.0 3.1 30 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.6 40 3.2 2.8 2.3 3.0 2.0 % Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 Temperature °C U.S. Blended 0 3.6 3.8 3.5 3.1 3.4 10 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.6 • 20 3.8 3.3 3.1 3.5 3.6 30 3.6 3.7 3.1 2.8 3.1 40 3.6 3.3 2.9 3.4 2.3 SED 0.26 SED U.K. Virginia 0 2.8 3.1 2.7 2.7 2.6 0.35 10 2.6 2.1 2.2 2.6 2.9 20 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.7 30 2.9 2.4 2.6 2.3 2.1 40 2.8 2.3 1.7 2.6 1.7 1983 British American Tobacco Co. Lid. This repor~ must not be copicd or shown to unauthorised persons. !i,,i '/i 1 Ob C.rl Co (Z)

-21- Taste From Table 12 it can be seen that Taste is weakly related to temperature and relative humidity. The only indication of an effect on Taste is a higher response at 20°C and 30°C than at the other environmental temperature levels. TABLE 12 TASTE TABLES OF MEANS AFTER ADJUSTING FOR ....... TASTE SCORES UNDER AMBIENT CONDITIONS Temperature °C 0 I0 20 30 40 SED L:~ ~ ~ 2.89 2.86 3.00 3.04 2.80 0.10 Estimated linear effect of temperature is -0.0001 (0.0022) per degree C % Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 SED 2.98 2.95 2.83 3.01 2.80 0.10 Estimated linear effect of relative humidity is -0.0015 (0.0011) per % RH Temperature °C 0 10 20 30 40 U.S. Blended 3.19 3.11 3.40 3.41 3.10 SED U.K. Virginia 2.59 2.61 2.60 2.67 2.49 0.15 % Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 U.S. Blended 3.30 3.38 3.15 3.29 3.09 SED U.K. Virginia 2.66 2.53 2.51 2.74 2.51 0.15 % Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 Temperature °C 0 2.7 2.9 2.7 3.0 3.1 10 3.0 2.9 Z.8 2.9 2.7 SED 20 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.8 0.22 30 3.3 3.0 2.9 3.1 2.9 40 2.9 2.9 2.8 3.0 2.5 % Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 Temperature °C U.S. Blended 0 3.0 3.4 3.1 3.1 3.3 10 3.3 3.4 3.0 3.2 2.7 20 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.2 30 3.7 3.4 3.2 3.5 3.4 40 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.2 2.8 SED U.K. Virginia 0 2.5 2.3 2.3 3.0 2.9 0.31 10 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.7 20 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4 30 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.4 40 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.2 ¢> 1983 British American Tobacco Co. Lid. This repom must not be copied or shown to unauthorised persons. ¢JI

~f -22- Aroma From the means (Table 13) it can be seen that there is no indication of Aroma having been affected by changing temperature and relative humidity. TABLE 13 AROMA TABLES OF MEANS AFTER ADJUSTING FOR • AROMA SCORES UNDER AMBIENT CONDITIONS Temperature °C 0 10 20 30 40 SED 2.62 2.60 2.58 2.65 2.54 0.10 Estimated linear effect of temperature is -0.0011 (0.0022} per degree C ; ~ ~ ~ ..... % Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 SED 2.67 2.64 2.56 2.60 2.52 0.10 Estimated linear effect of relative humidity is -0.0017 (0.0022) per % RH Temperature °C U,S. Blended U.K. Virginia % Relative Humidity U.S. Blended U.K. Virginia % Relative Humidity Temperature °C 0 10 • 20 30 40 % Relative Humidity Temperature °C U.S. Blended 0 10 20 30 40 U.K. Virginia 0 10 20 30 40 0 2.82 2.43 15 2.95 2.39 15 2.7 2.5 2.7 3.0 2.6 15 2.8 2.9 2.8 3.2 3.0 2.6 2.0 2.5 2.7 2.2 10 20 2,85 2.91 2.36 2.25 • 35 55 2.88 2.86 2.40 2.26 35 55 2.7 2.5 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.5 35 55 3.0 2.7 3.2 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.6 3.1 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.1 2.1 2,5 2.2 2.5 2.3 3O 40 2.86 2.80 SED 2.44 2.29 0.14 75 95 2.78 2.76 SED 2.42 2.29 0.14 75 95 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.4 SED 2.7 2.6 0.22 2.42.6 2.6 2,3 75 95 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.3' 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.8 2.8 2.7 SED 2.4 2.5 0.31 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.1 2,3 2.4 2.5 2.0 O 1983 British .~h'ncrican Tobacco Co. Ltd. This report must not be copied or shown to unauthorised persons. (,/1 o !i

-23- Acceptability Table 14 shows that Acceptability, for this panel, is not affected by temperature but increases linearly with increasing relative humidity at a rate of 0.0059 units per % RH. TABLE 14 ACCEPTABILITY TABLES OF MEANS AFTER ADJUSTING FOR ACCEPTABILITY SCORES UNDER AMBIENT CONDITIONS Temperature °C 0 10 20 30 40 SED • 2.18 1.96 2,00 2.07 2.21 0.15 Estimated linear effect of temperature is 0.0018 (0,0033) per degree C % Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 SED .... : ~ • 1,82 1.91 2,15 2.34 2,20 0.15 Estimated linear effect of relative humidity is 0.0059 (0.0016) per % RH Temperature °C ' 0 10 20 30 40 U.S. Blended 2.04 2.05 1.79 2.06 1,91 SED U.K. Virginia 2.31 1.86 2,22 2.08 2.50 0.20 % Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 U.S. Blended 1.70 1.82 2.19 2.17 1.97 SED U.K. Virginia , 1.94 2.00 2.10 2.51 2,42 0.20 % Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 Temperature °C 0 2.1 1.7 2,6 2.4 2.1 .... :10 1.8 2.0 1.7 1,9 2,4 SED 20 1.5 1.4 2.1 2.5 2,5 0.33 30 1.9 1.8 2,2 2.5 1,8 40 1.9 2.5 2.1 2.4 2,1 % Relative Humidity 15 35 55 75 95 Temperature °C U.S. BI ended O 2.1 1.5 2.4 2.4 1,8 10 2.0 1,9 1.8 1.8 2.7 20 1,4 1.6 2.2 1.8 1.9 30 1.5 1.8 2,7 2.7 1,6 40 1,5 2.2 1,9 2.1 1,8 SED U.K. Virginia 0 2.1 1.9 2.7 2.4 2,4 0.46 10 1.6 2.1 1.6 2.0 2.0 20 1,5 1.3 2.0 3.1 3.1 30 2.3 1.8 1.8 2.4 2,1 40 2,2 2.9 2.3 2.7 2.5 © 1983 British American Tobacco Co. Lid. This report mu~t not be copied or shown to unauthoriscd persons.

-24- DISCUSSION The effects of temperature and relative humidity were independent of either subject or brand, Thus the results reported here are not dependent upon the composition of the in-house DELTA pane] and it is therefore confidently predicted that similar results would be obtained if the experiment were repeated with another trained panel. ~ ~ .' . o z ". ° The similarity of the effects of temperature and relative humidity on both brands is also of importance. In the absence of such similarity it could be suggested that such results may not be generalisable to other low delivery brands. Also brands do not remain constant in design terms across time, thus the value of this experiment may be questioned as it only establishes the effects of temperature and relative humidity on two brands as they are now and not as they could be in the future. Clearly if such questions could be upheld then this experiment would have a reduced relevance. However the two brands used are quite different in type, and the fact that both are so similarly affected by temperature and relative humidity is an important result, the consequence of which is that these findings may be reasonably extrapolated to other low delivery brands and used to predict the effect of atmospheric temperature and relative humidity on the subjective impression received from further generations of low delivery cigarettes. It should be remembered that of necessity the experiment was carried out in artificial conditions (environmental chamber). Thus it is possible that the environmental chamber had a physiological effect, (which cannot be quantified), on the subjects and this gives rise to some doubt whether the results would be reproduced exactly in the outside world. For seven of the nine assessment parameters, effects of changing environmental conditions were detected. This does O 1983 British Amedcan Tobacco Co. Ltd. Tiffs r~q:~ort must not be copied or shown to uoauthodsed persons. .°

. \ -25- not necessarily mean that the effects will invariably translate into a practical issue. For example Acceptability is linearly related to relative humidity, but unrelated to temperature. The estimated effect of relative humidity is 0.0059 units per % RH. Thus a change in relative humidity of 80% will change Acceptability by half a unit, on a six point scale. Therefore the question must be asked whether this is of any practical significance and similarly for effects associated with the other six assessment parameters. The situations within which such effects are likely to be of practical significance are during any attempt by one territory to design a cigarette for another territory, the continuity of sensory evaluation in countries where large day-to-day or seasonal variations occur, and cross-checks within the BAT Group Taste and Flavour network. For the remaining two assessment parameters, Taste and Aroma, no effect of temperature and relative humidity was detected. However this does not necessarily mean there is no effect, or even that the effects are negligible. For example, for Aroma the estimated effect of changing temperature is -0.0011 + 0.0022 i units per °C. Thus a change of 40°C has an estimated effect of -0.04 with a 95% confidence interval of (-0.22, +0.13). Therefore it can be confidently predicted that the effect is less than 0.2 units in absolute value. In summary, consistent changes in smoker's perception of the sensory properties of two different low delivery cigarettes are reported, depending on the environmental temperature and relative humidity. From these findings it is recommended that to facilitate cross-checks or sensory evaluation in general it would be advisable to control the temperature and relative humidity of all smoke panel rooms throughout the group. It is suggested that these environmental conditions should be 20°C and 58-60% RH, i.e. the same temperature and relative humidity as is recommended for smoking laboratories throughout the Group. t) 1983 British American Tobacco Co. Lid. This report must not be copied or shown to unauthorised pcrsons.

-26- Also any attempt by one territory to design cigarettes for another territory must make allowance for these effects if the desired product is to be achieved. It is possible that these effects can be used, during product development, to manipulate the sensory properties of a single cigarette rather than manufacturing a range of cigarettes to produce the equivalent sensory characteristics. REFERENCES 1. B&W Report No. 71-27-27-8.71. 2. BAT Report No. RD.914-R, 4.8.72. 3. BAT Report No. RD.1912-R, 4. GENSTAT (1977) A General Statistical Program. Numerical Algorithms Groups. 5, N. Alvey, N. Galway and P. Lane (1982). to GENSTAT. Academic Press. Oxford: An Introduction © 1983 British American Tobacco Co. Ltd. This report must not be copied or shown to unauthorised persons,

3 -27- APPENDIX I ENVIRONMENTAL CHANBER The overall dimensions of the environmental chamber are 12'3" x 13'6" x 9'3" and the walls and ceiling are insulated with 6" urethane set in three layers with vapour seal to brickwork, lined internally with white plastisol sheet, The floor is also insulated with 6" urethane, finished in i-I/2" granolithic cement and covered with cork tiles. A main door is fitted complete with an inspection panel of 12" x 12" dual glaze as well as a door from the main chamber to the air lock. The air lock walls and ceiling are insulated with I" polystyrene and finished in white plastisol. The ventilated suspended ceiling of the environmental chamber consists of tiles manufactured from electro zinc coated chromate passivated sheet steel with plastisol PVC finish bonded to one face. Glass fibre acoustic pads enclosed in polythene are included in all tiles not used for ventilation. Temperature within the chamber may be varied between -5°C and 45°C and the required conditions are achieved by the circulation of air round the chamber and through carbon filters and a heating or cooling heat exchanger. Chamber temperature may also be adjusted by the introduction of fresh air and within this system there is a filtration section as well as heating and cooling heat exchangers. Humidity may be varied from 100% down to 10%. Increasing humidity is achieved by injecting a spray of steam into the air circulating through the fans and drying is achieved by passing the air through a chilling plant. © 1983 British Asnerican Tobacco Co. Ltd. This report must not be copied or shown to unauthorised persons. G0 ~t

~ ~i~!~ ~i~~ -28- The main control of the recirculation air plant is achieved by modulating heating and cooling valves in sequence according to the dictates of a room sensor. Control of the fresh air plant is maintained by a system providing sequence and modulation for heating and cooling together with humidification and dehumidification in sequence from temperature and humidity detectors. There are two detectors for each controlled function together with selector switches and mercury relays to provide a changeover from low to high settings. This is necessary as it is impossible to achieve the full range of settings on one detector. ~ ,, Normal access to the chamber is via an "air lock" but a large side door is available for loading and as an emergency exit. Operation of the chamber is effected from a control and instrumentation console situated in the preparation room and the inside of the chamber may be viewed from this room through a close circuit television system. ,- • ,-~,~ LI ID 1983 British American Tobacco Co. Ltd. This repo~ must n~ ~ copied oT shown to tmauthorised persons, ':!'!i CO 00

I APPENDIXI FIG.I ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING FACILITIES RD. 1937 RESTRICTED I t ~&~9~RO~9 ENVIRONMENTAL CHAMBER AIR LOCK N SHOWE:RI SHOWER PREPARATION .___x L COUCH II 0 2 4 G B 10 FT. • ° . . i . , i I , . I

~i~~ ~! ~ii~f~ ~ ~ ~ilL~ L-~.• -29- APPENDIX II TABLE 11.1 AMERICAN BLENDED LOW DELIVERY PRODUCT CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND ASSESSMENT PARAMETERS 0 0 L 0 0 ~" E E o I,. .r= ,e- CL (3 O°C 15% RH -0.42 0.10 -0.53 -0.68 -0.45 -0,16 -0.51 -0.26 0.43 O°C 35% RH 0.64 -0.75 -0.01 0.33 0.18 0.62 0.38 0.42 -0.46 Ooc 55% RH -0.44 0,09 -0.46 0.12 -0.27 -0.08 -0.48 -0.46 0.62 O°C 75% RH -0.44 0.24 -0.61 -0.40 -0.32 -0.47 -0.60 -0.66 0.77 O°C 95% RH 0.72 -0.75 0,15 0.50 0.37 0.37 0.23 0.19 -0.34 IO°C 15% RH 0.76 -0.15 0.41 0.41 0.35 0.69 0.26 0.57 -0.42 IO°C 35% RH 0.70 -0.33 0.57 0.36 0.23 0.42 0.46 0.79 -0.56 IO°C 55% RH -0.06 0.09 0.33 -0,24 0.05 -0,03 -0.63 -0.i0 -0.23 10°C 75% RH 0.51 -0,93 0.31 0.23 0.06 0.20 0.00 0.25 -0.21 10°C 95% RH -0.35 0.20 -0.23 0.05 -0.08 -0,01 -0.72 -0.76 0.58 20°C 15% RH 0.30 -0.08 0.61 0.69 0.56 0.61 0.47 0.07 -0.70 20°C 35% RH -0.17 0.42 0.60 0.31 0.53 0.05 0.56 0.03 -0.54 20°C 55% RH -0,60 0.21 -0.75 -0.48 -0.47 -0.51 0.01 -0.16 0.58 20°C 75% RH -0,14 0.48 -0.60 0.25 -0.01 0.17 0.40 0.32 0.06 20°C 95% RH 0,83 -0.74 -0.04 0.02 -0.05 0.32 0.12 0.58 -0.35 30°C 15% RH -0.18 0.29 0.17 0.45 0.64 0.39 0.70 0.54 -0.52 30°C 35% RH -0.16 -0.03 0.17 0.77 0.77 0.59 0.31 -0.39 -0.19 30°C 55% RH -0.03 0.43 -0.22 -0.56 -0,61 -0.43 -0.07 0.31 0.56 30°C 75% RH -0.57 0.45 -0.18 -0.57 -0.27 -0.59 -0.04 -0.59 0.71 30°C 95% RH 0.49 -0.47 0.80 -0.04 0.03 -0.15 0.22 0.15 -0.50 40°C 15% RH 0.01 0.16 0.47 0.73 0.84 0.50 0.09 0.17 -0.52 40°C 35% RH -0.72 0.14 -0.04 0.33 0.42 0.09 0.07 -0.49 0.42 40°C 55% RH -0.76 0.21 0.03 -0.39 -0.30 -0.66 -0.39 -0.51 0.26 40°C 75% RH 0.16 0.30 -0.16 -0.69 -0.58 -0.23 -0.31 -0.19 0.43 40°C 95% RH -0.07 0.13 -0.41 -0.75 -0.85 -0.81 -0.55 -0.15 0.22 © 1983 British American Tobacco Co. Lid. This report must not be copied or shown to unauthorised persons.

c -30- TABLE 11.2 U.K. VIRGINIA LOW DELIVERY PRODUCT CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND ASSESSMENT PARAMETERS ~= o~- O f,- O O ~ E I.-- O°C 15% RH -0.04 -0.02 -0.15 0.07 0.06 0.34 -0.35 O°C 35% RH 0.43 -0.36 0.71 0.63 0.44 0.81 0.05 O°C 55% RH 0.43 -0.61 0.15 0.02 -0.30 0.21 -0.62 O°C 75% RH 0.42 -0.62 -0.26 0.06 0.45 0.45 0.65 O°C 95% RH 0.52 -0.25 -0.30 -0.i0 0.13 0.27 0.73 lO°C 15% RH -0.33 0.32 0.40 0.61 0.49 0.17 0.18 I0°C 35% RH 0.04 0.22 -0.08 -0.42 -0.79 -0.82 -0.55 10°C 55% RH -0.41 0.53 0.64 0,47 0.Ii -0.14 -0.01 10°C 75% RH 0.81 -0.38 0.15 0.03 -0.30 0.18 0.27 I0°C 95% RH 0.22 -0.02 -0.36 0.15 0.33 0.54 0.54 20°C 15% RH 0.28 0.13 0.63 0,78 0.31 0.44 0.43 20°C 35% RH -0.29 0,42 0.49 0.73 0.57 0.26 0.36 20°C 55% RH -0.18 -0.22 0.44 0.II -0.06 -0.06 -0.19 20°C 75% RH -0.04 0.i0 0.06 -0.30 -0.03 -0.02 -0.23 20~C 95% RH 0.47 -0.82 -0.07 -0.16 0.i0 0.31 -0.19 30°C 15% RH -0.10 0.04 -0.03 -0.14 0.49 0.43 0.62 30°C 35% RH -0.40 0.91 0,05 0.17 -0.03 -0.20 0.09 30°C 55% RH 0.40 0.03 0.36 0.48 0.58 0.43 0.50 30°C 75% RH -0.70 0.19 -0.40 -0.33 0.05 -0.42 0.22 30°C 95% RH -0.02 -0.23 -0.05 -0.60 -0.68 -0.62 -0.52 40°C 15% RH -0.57 0.59 0.50 0.73 0.57 0.28 0.06 40°C 35% RH -0,25 0.45 -0.35 -0.36 0.00 -0.33 -0.18 40°C 55% RH -0.60 0.17 -0.65 -0.64 -0.49 -0.80 -0.35 40°C 75% RH 0.32 -0.40 -0.54 -0.85 -0.62 -0.25 -0.02 40°C 95% RH 0.12 -0.07 -0.57 -0.61 -0.82 -0.74 -0.63 E 0 U O. 58 0.06 0.06 -0.19 -0.ii 0.43 0.04 0.19 0.36 0.28 -0.58 -0.74 -0.05 -0.12 0.14 -0.65 0.44 -0.05 0.42 -0.22 0.16 -0'.70 -0.41 -O.1l -0.77 -0.11 0.21 0.84 -0.20 0.63 0,71 0.09 0.39 -0.38 -0.05 -0.57 -0.37 0.24 0.09 0.00 -O.34 -0.24 0.41 0.53 -0.19 0.21 0.32 0.55 -0.40 0.17 1983 Bdtish American Tobacco Co. Ltd. This report must not b¢ copied or shown to unauthorised persons. /, - i C.rl¸ +°

i L; • i~-~' . ÷ i I ,? =o= o.J Eo= ~E ~56 3~b ........................ .... o ooo~o ooooo ~ooo~ o~oo ~gSL3~ o~oo~ o~o~o ooooo ooooo ooo o ii i* =* * ll* N g$£ 3o0~ gdddd ggddg Sd~g ~d~d d ~d ~s~ "i"i ~iii" ~ .... ~i" " ~ .... ooooo ooo~o ooo~ ooo ~ ooooo NIS£~£ g~gd dgd~S ~ddg ~ ~dd g6~dS ................... ~ ~ISL3oOZ ~oooo ooooo ooo ~ ooooo ~oooo i i iiii ii i ii i i ~gS63oO[ o~oo~ ooo~,, ooo~o,, , ooooo, , , ooooo ~S~OoOt ooo~o, , oo~ ~ o~o~o, ooooo,,,, o~ooo, , , , ~N~O~ ~o ONo o~o ~ ~ ~ ~NNNN ~S£ 3oOt ooooo o o~o ooooo ooooo ooooo i i i ~ %St ~l ooooo oooo oo~oo ooooo 05000 %SL 300 ' 6d6 6 ~666d 66~66 66666 d6666 i i Zl ~ |z z, z, , ~ZSS300 oo, oo, ~d~d~,,,, - -- -ododo oooo~, ooooo, ~S£3o0 ~ ~o ooooo, , o~ooo, ooooo,, ooooo,,,,, ~uu uu~u~ u~u ~uu~u ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ca G~

~z III I III III I I I ~i,1 , ,,I i l ii I~1 IS6 3oOZ ........................ ~.s.,' 3oOZ dd~S~d g~ddd gg~ d gd~c;d ~c;d~ ........... . • ......... , . H'd %SS 9o0Z ooooo, oooo, o o o o,~ o~ooo,,, oo, oo~, zs~ 3oOZ dd~c~d c~ddc~c~ c~ c~c~c~ c~c~c~c~c~ dc~c~c~c~ ~, .... ~o~r~ ~NNNN ..... ,~o'o" ................ Ba~s6 3oot ooooo o ooooo, , oooo, o, ooo~o, , ~SL O~t ooooo, ooo, o ooooo,, ooooo, o50,05 Is5 3oOt ooo, oo,, oo oo,, ooooo,, 500o0 ooooo,, gst ~oOt oo~oo, , , oooo, o~ooo ooooo ooooo gS6 :)00 o" c; d c; d~g~d c;d~d~ dd~d ~Sd~d I.RIgSL 3oO c;dd c; (;d,gcgc; gd~; ,~dddd dc;~g ............... , = o ° . .... I~I ZSS 3o0 oo o, oooo oo , , , oooo= o,?oo~,, o50,=0 i i = i z i z = ~ z I~ ISL 300 oooo , , ooooo, o5ooo, , ooooo o, oo5o, , ====~=~== ==:=== ===== ===== =~==~ 0 ~ o o ooooo ooooo oc~ooc~ oc~oo~ OO .°

• ! I N- ? , .? .... -.. ~ T .... F -33- ,. ) TABLE 11.5 AMERICAN BLENDED LOW DELIVERY PRODUCT INTER-ASSESSMENT PARAMETER CORRELATIONS --, ~ -, u~ ~. Ca. ul 0 ~J 0 ~- 0 0 r- i~ ~ $.- U M0uthfull -0.53 0.25 0.15 -0.01 0.29 0.ii 0.44 -0.37 Draw Effort -0.53 -0.14 -0.11 -0.01 -0.21 0.00 -0.12 0.25 Mouthfeel 0.25 -0,14 0.27 0,40 0,16 0.21 0.09 -0.44 Nosefeel 0.15 -0.11 0.27 0.71 0.67 0.31 0.12 -0.40 Throatfeel -0.01 -0.01 0.40 0.71 0.62 0.41 0.07 -0.39 Impact 0.29 -0.21 0.16 0.67 0.62 0.29 0.25 -0.31 Taste 0.ii 0.00 0.21 0.31 0.41 0.29 0.41 -0.33 Aroma 0.44 -0.12 0.09 0.12 0.07 0.25 0.41 -0.42 Acceptability -0.37 0.25 -0.44 -0.40 -0.39 -0.31 -0.33 -0.42 4D 1983 British American Tobacco Co. Lid. This report must not be copied or shown to unauthorised persons. ~ L~'='~

! TABLE II.6 U.K. VIRGINIA LOW DELIVERY PRODUCT INTER-ASSESSME~T PARAMETER CORRELATIONS i /i .o Mouthfull Draw Effort -0.55 0.02 -0.02 -0.17 0.29 O.OS 0.17 0.II -0.55 0.13 0.23 0.10 -0.24 0.00 0.04 -0.32 Mouthfeel Nosefeel Throatfeel -0,17 0.10 0.36 0.59 0.66 0.53 0.05 -0.14 Impact 0.29 -0.24 0.41 0.56 0.66 0,39 0.24 -0.04 Taste 0.08 0.00 0.07 0.23 0.53 0.39 Aroma 0.17 0.04 -0.02 -0.12 0.05 0.24 0.24 0.12 Acceptability 0.11 -0.32 -0.32 -0.48 -0.14 -0.04 -0.20 0.12

l=.,,_ - APPENDIX TT FIG.1 AMERICAN BLENDED LOW DELIVERY PRODUCT COMPOSITE DIAGRAM FOR COMPONENTS I AND ]Z 18.3 "1. effort RD.1937 RESTRICTED 1 1 KEY TO CIGARETTES Temperature °c 1. ,0 2. 0 3. 0 4. 0 5. 0 6. 10 7. 10 8. 10 9. 10 10.10 11.20 12.2O Relative Humidity °/e 15 35 55 ?5 95 15 35 55 ?5 95 15 35 os asco a throotfeeL nosefeeL impact taste mouthfeeL ACCEPTABILITY e19 aroma mouthfuR DRAW EFFORT 18 el e13 e23 AROMA acceptability MOUTHFEEL I 37.6"/, el; e17 rASTE IMPACT THROATFEEL KEY TO CIGARETTES Temperature oc 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 30 17 30 18 30 19 30 20 30 21 40 22 4O 23 40 24 40 25 40 ' Relative Humidity °1o 55 75 95 15 35 55 ?5 95 15 35 55 ?5 95

APPENDIX 1T FIG.2 ..: ilz ilI U.K.VIRGINIA LOW DELIVERY PRODUCT MOUTHFULL COMPOSITE DIAGRAM FOR COMPONENTS T. AND Tr draw ef(or~ ]~ 21-4% AROMA . RD.193"/ RESTRICTED 1 KEY TO CIGARETTES Te mpero~ure °C 1. 0 2. 0 3. 0 4. 0 5. 0 6. 10 ?. 10 8. 10 9. 10 10. 10 11. 20 12, 20 Re[ at {ve Humidily /° 15 35 55 ?5 95 15 35 55 ?5 95 15 35 AC CEPTABI LIT Y m outhfeeL nosefeet throo Uee L e25 tost, impac' oromo e4 IMPACT TASTE mouthfu II % DRAW EFFORT THROATFEEL 33"4% I ---------- NOSEFEEL MOUTHFEEL KEY TO CIGARETTES Temperature °C 13. 20 14. 20 15. 20 16. 30 1?. 30 18. 30 19. 30 20. 30 21. 40 22. 40 23. 40 24. 40 25. 40 Relotive Humidity oil 55 ?5 95 15 35 55 75 95 15 35 95 '75 ~5

~ !~i~¸ -35- APPENDIX Ill Mouthfull Draw Effort Mouthfeel Nosefeel Throatfeel Impact Taste Aroma Acceptability Eigen Values 1 2 2.6 1.6 h- .c a.a 0 1.00 - 0.51 0.12 0.16 0.13 O. 24 0.16 O. 14 0.04 3 I.I TABLE Ill.1 WITHIN PANELLIST CORRELATION MATRIX POOLED OVER BOTH BRANDS ASSESSMENT PARAMETERS SCORED UNDER AMBIENT ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS T 0 N-- e- E • ! 1. O0 -0.05 1.00 -0.02 0.36 -o.o3 o.36 -0.16 O. 20 -0.15 0.18 -0.04 0.11 -0.21 -0.28 4:5 0.8 0.7 ,i 1.00 0.36 1.00 0.25 0.37 1.00 0.18 0.25 0.30 0.19 0.18 0.23 -0.15 -0.28 -0.05 6 7 8 0.7 0.6 0.5 (M E 0 1.00 O. 39 1. O0 -0.11 -0.20 9 0.4 ~) 1983 British American Tobacco Co. Ltd. This report must no~ be copied or shown to unauLhorised persons. U 1.00 :m Q0

~ii~I~I~~ ;C~~ ~ ~i~~ ii:• L ) ...... -36~ APPENDIX IV TABLE IV.1 MOUTHFULL ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE Source of Variation Degrees Sum of of Mean Variance Freedom Squares Square Ratio Between Session Stratum Temperature Linear Quadratic Deviations Relative Humidity Linear Quadratic Deviations Panellist lemp.RH Lin.Lin Quad.Lin Lln.Quad Dev.Lin Quad.Quad Lin.Dev Deviations Terap.Panellist Lin.Dev Quad.Dev Deviations RH.Panellist Lin.Dev Quad.Dev Deviations Covariates Residual TOTAL Within Session Stratum Brand lemp.Brand Lin.Dev Quad.Dev i Deviations i RH.Brand Lin.Dev Quad.Dev Deviations Panellist.Brand Temp.RH.Brand Lin.Lin.Dev. Quad.Lin.Dev tin.Quad.Dev Deviations Temp.Panellist.Brand Lin.Dev.Dev Quad.Dev.Dev Deviations RH.Panellist.Brand Lin.Dev.Dev Quad.Dev.Dev Deviations Covariates Residual TOTAL GRAND TOTAL Covariance Regressions (AF~bient Environment) Covariate Coefficient Between Session Stratum 0.218 Within Session Stratum 0.096 4 5.10 1.27 3.36 I 5.02 5.02 13.26 1 0.06 0.06 0.16 Z 0.01 O.O0 0.02 4 6.55 1.63 4.32 1 2.74 2.74 7.23 1 1.69 1.69 4.47 2 2.17 1.08 2,86 8 18.51 2.31 6.10 16 15.12 0.94 2.49 I 0.03 0.03 0.10 1 1,35 1.35 3.56 1 0.77 0.77 2.05 2 0.61 0.30 0.81 1 0.05 0.05 0.15 2 0.07 0.03 0.i0 8 12.06 1.50 3.98 32 18.07 0.545 1.49 8 4,11 0.51 1.36 8 3.58 0.44 1.18 16 10.34 0.64 1.70 32 21.45 0.67 1.77 8 5.87 0.73 1.94 8 6.67 0.83 2.20 16 9.03 0.56 1.49 1 2.90 2.90 7.66 126 47.72 0.37 1.38 223 135.43 0.60 2,21 i 19.08 19.08 69.54 4 1.06 0.26 o.g7 I 0.68 0.68 2.50 i 0.07 0.07 0.26 2 0.31 0.15 0,56 4 1.36 0.34 1.24 1 0.38 0.38 1.40 1 0.64 0.64 2.36 2 0.33 0.16 0.61 8 9.49 1,18 4.32 16 5.91 0.36 1.34 1 0.00 0.00 0.03 1 0.33 0.33 1.22 I 0.10 0.10 0.38 13 5.44 0.41 1.52 32 12.55 0.39 1.43 8 2.55 0.31 1.16 8 3.40 0.42 1.54 16 6.55 0.40 1,49 32 10.42 0.32 1.18 8 2.66 0.33 1.21 8 2.63 0.32 1.20 16 5.09 0.31 1.16 1 0.41 0.41 1,52 126 34.58 0.27 224 94.90 0.42 447 230.34 Standard Error 0.079 0.078 or) cJ cJ

~L ~C T y / J i -37- TABLE IV.2 DRAW EFFORT ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE Source of Variation Between Session Stratum Temperature Li near Quadr at i c Deviations Relative Humidity L i near Quadratic Deviations Panellist Temp. RH tin.tin Ouad.Lin Lin.Quad Dev.Lin Quad.Quad Lin.Dev Deviations Temp.Panel I i st Lin.Dev ~ Quad.Dev Deviations , RH.Panellist Lin.Dev Quad.Dev Deviations Cnvari ates Residual TOTAL Within Session Stratum Brand Temp.Brand .: Lin.Dev Quad.Oev Deviations RH.Brand Lin.Dev Quad.Dev Deviations Panellist.Brand Temp.RH.Brand tin.tin.Dev Quad.Lin.Dev Lin.Quad.Dev Deviations Temp.Panellist.Brand Lin.Dev.Dev Quad.Dev.Dev Deviations RH.Panellist.Brand Ltn.Dev.Dev Quad.Dev.Dev Deviations Covariates Residual TOTAL GRAND TOTAL Degrees Sum of of Mean Variance Freedom Squares Square Ratio 4 3.69 0.92 2.50 1 2.92 2.92 7.92 1 0.31 0.31 0.86 2 0.43 0.21 0.58 2.62 0.65 1.77 2.47 2.47 6.69 1 0.05 0.05 0.15 2 0.09 0.04 0.13 8 26.44 3.30 8.95 16 5.75 0.35 0.97 1 0,11 0.11 0.31 1 O.O1 0.01 0.03 1 0.00 0.00 O.O1 2 0.14 0.07 0.20 1 1.75 1.75 4.76 2 0.24 0.12 0.33 B 3.48 0.43 1.17 32 17.21 0.53 1.45 8 6.01 0.75 2.03 8 3.25 0.40 1.10 16 7.99 0.49 1.35 32 18.63 0.58 1.57 8 4.34 0.54 1.47 8 8.62 1.07 2.92 16 5.85 0.36 0.99 1 4.52 4.52 12.26 126 46.51 0.36 0.98 223 125.40 0.56 1.50 1 19.11 19.11 50.99 4 0.70 0.17 0.46 1 0.09 o.og 0.25 1 0.00 0.00 0.01 2 0.60 0.30 0.81 4 1.80 0.45 1.20 1 0.27 0.27 0.73 1 0.17 0.17 0.48 2 1.35 0.67 1.80 8 8.03 1.00 2.67 16 2.76 0.17 0.46 1 0.37 0.37 0.99 1 0.15 0.15 0.40 I 0.05 0.05 0.14 13 2.19 0.16 0.45 32 13.48 0.42 1.12 8 1,7B 0.22 0.59 8 5.07 0.63 1.69 16 6.64 0.41 1.10 32 19.91 0.62 1.66 8 6.91 0.86 2.30 8 4.85 0.60 1.61 16 8.09 0.50 1.35 1 1.55 1.55 4.14 126 47.24 0.37 224 114.61 0.51 447 240.02 Covariance Regressions (Ambient Environment) Standard Covariate Coefficient Error Between Session Stratum 0.241 0.069 Within Session Stratum 0.159 0.078 • /w ~,~

° 4 / -38- TABLE IV.3 NDUTHFEEL ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE Source of Variation Degrees Sum of of Mean Variance Freedom Squares Square Ratio Between Session Stratum Temperature Linear Quadratic Deviations Relative Humidity Linear Quadratic • Deviations Panellist Temp.RH Lin.Lin Quad,Lin lln.quad ; Dev.Lin quad.Quad !~:' Lin.Dev : Deviations Temp.PaneIlist tin.Dev Quad.Dev Deviations RH.Panellist Lin.Dev Quad.Dev Deviations Covariates Residual TOTAL Within Session Stratum Brand Temp.Brand Lin.Dev Quad,Dev Deviations i RH.Drand Lin.Dev quad,Dev Deviations Panellist.Brand Te~p.RH.Brand lin.Lin.Dev Quad,tin.Oev Lin.Quad.Dev Deviations Temp.Panellist.Brand lin,Dev,Dev Quad.Dev.Oev Deviations 8H.Panellist.Brand lin.Dev.Dev Quad.Dev,Dev Deviations Covariates Residual TOTAL GRAND TOTAL Covariance Regressions (Ambient Environment) Covarlate Coefficient Between Session Stratum 0.196 Within Session Stratum -0.124 4 4.26 1.06 1 0.17 0.17 1 3.45 3.45 2 0.63 0.31 4 4.49 1.12 1 4.33 4.33 1 0.01 O.Ol 2 0.13 0.06 8" 40.71 5.08 16 16.14 1,00 1 0.38 0.38 I 0.12 0.12 1 1.47 1.47 2 5.04 2.52 1 0.17 0.17 2 1.60 0.80 8 6.97 0.87 32 35.74 1.11 8 13.29 1.66 8 6.02 0.75 16 16.73 1.04 32 14.88 0.46 8 3.29 0.41 8 2.07 0.25 16 9.53 0.59 1 3.09 3.09 126 100.89 0.80 223 220.24 0.98 1 24.56 24.56 4 4.47 1.11 1 1.64 1.64 1 0.68 0.68 2 2.11 1.05 4 0.94 0.23 I 0.31 0.31 1 0.47 0.47 2 0.15 0.07 8 16.20 2.02 16 8.43 0.52 1 0.00 O.O0 1 0.41 0.41 1 1.63 1.63 13 6.40 0.49 32 30.19 0.94 8 12.17 1.52 8 7.70 0.96 16 10.19 0.63 32 14.57 0.45 8 1.18 0.14 8 2.87 0.35 16 10.45 0.65 1 1.14 1.14 126 85.20 0.67 224 185.74 0.82 447 405.99 Standard Error O.lOO 0.095 1.33 0.22 4.32 0.38 1.44 5.40 0.08 0.07 6.35 1.20 0.44 0.16 1.80 3.13 0.26 1.05 1.09 1.35 2.05 0.90 1.36 0.51 0.54 0.34 O. 74 3.87 1.14 1.40 36.34 1.63 2.48 1.09 1,53 0.39 0.47 0.67 0.18 2.95 0.79 O.Ol 0.62 2.45 0.79 1.35 2.20 1.44 0.92 0.63 0.29 0.51 0,96 1.67 LI C~

>. t ) I i -39- TABLE IV.4 NOSEFEEL ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE Source of Variation Between Session Stratum Temperature Linear Quadratic Devi ati ons Relative Humidity Linear Quadratic Deviations t : Panellist Temp.RH tin.Lin - (' Quad.Lin Lin.Quad Dev.Lin Quad.Quad Ltn.Dev Deviations Temp. Panel I i st Lin.Dev Quad .Dev Deviations RH.Panellist Lin.Dev Quad.Dev Deviations Covari ates Residual TOTAL Within Session Stratum Degrees Sum of of Mean Variance Freedom Squares Square Ratio 4 5.20 1.30 2.43 I 3.56 3.56 6.67 1 1.13 1.13 2.13 2 0.48 0.24 0.45 4 7.16 1.79 3.35 1 6.88 6.88 12.88 1 0.08 O.OB 0.16 2 0.20 0.10 0.19 8 26.00 3.25 6.08 16 15.22 0.95 1.78 1 9.64 9.64 18.05 1 0.28 0.2B 0.53 1 1.01 1.01 1.89 2 0.93 0.46 0.88 1 0.04 0.04 0.08 2 0.05 0.02 0.05 8 3.27 0.40 0.76 32 32.75 1.02 1.92 8 20.63 2.57 4.83 8 5.36 0.67 1.25 16 6.27 0.39 0.73 32 18.42 0.57 1.08 8 4.39 0.54 1.03 8 3.17 0.39 0.74 16 10.82 0.67 1.26 1 3.57 3.57 6.6B 126 67.34 0.53 0.76 223 175.69 0.78 1.12 Brand 1 17.51 17.51 24.93 Temp.Brand 4 1.39 0.34 0.50 Lin.Dev 1 1.28 1.20 1.83 Quad.Dev 1 0.00 0.00 0.01 Deviations 2 0.09 0.04 0.07 RH.Brand 4 1.00 0.25 0.36 Lin.Bev 1 0.70 0.70 1.01 Quad.Oev 1 0.00 O.O0 O.O0 Deviations 2 0.30 0.15 0.21 Pane)list.Brand 8 20.56 2.57 3.66 lemp.RH.Brand 16 B.08 0.50 0.72 Lin.Lin.Dev 1 0.24 0.24 0.35 Quad.Lio.Dev I 0.43 0.43 0.62 Lin.Quad.Dev I 0.21 0.21 0.31 Deviations 13 7.18 0.55 0.79 Temp.Panellist.Brand 32 15.38 0.40 0.68 Lin.Dev.Dev 8 5,16 0.64 0.92 Quad.Dev.Dev 8 1.46 0.18 0.26 Deviations 16 8.59 0.53 0.76 RH.Panellist.Brand 32 26.74 0.83 1.19 Lin.Dev.Dev 8 6.61 0.82 1.18 Quad,Dev.Dev 8 13.70 1.71 2.44 Deviations 16 6.38! 0.39 0.57 Covariates I 0.]51 0.16 0.22 Residual 126 88.52 0.70 TOTAL 224 179.36 8.01 GRAND TOTAL 447 355.06 Covariance Regressions (Ambient Environment) Standard Covariate Coefficient Error Between Session Stratum 0.206 0.080 Within Session Stratum -0.046 0.099 Cq O~ C~ O~

• ¢ ~ i~ - :: :j -40- TABLE IV.5 THROATFEEL ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE Source of Variation Between Session Stratum Temperature Linear Quadratic Deviations Relative Humidity Linear Quadratic Deviations Panellist lemp.RH Lin.Lin Quad.Lin Lin.Quad Dev.Lin Quad,Quad Lin.Dev Deviations Temp.Panellist Lin.Dev Quad.Dev Deviations RN.Panellist Lin.Dev quad.Dev Deviations Covariates Residual TOTAL ! Within Session Stratum Degrees Sum of of Mean Variance Freedom Squares Square Ratio 4 3.53 0.88 1.48 1 0.80 0.80 1.34 1 1.41 1.41 2.38 2 1.31 0.65 1.10 4 12.76 3.19 5.36 I 10.42 10.42 17.52 1 1.1O 1.10 1,85 2 1.18 0.59 1.00 B 32.74 4.09 6.88 16 26.09 1.63 2.74 1 17.34 17.34 29,15 I 1.6I 1.61 2.71 1 O.O1 O.O1 0.02 2 0.51 0.25 0.43 I 0.02 0.02 0.04 2 0.25 0.12 0.21 8 6.27 0.78 1.31 32 9.61 0.30 0.50 B 2.86 0.35 0.60 8 2.41 0.30 0.50 16 4.28 0.26 0,45 32 18.51 0.57 0.9l 8 12.10 1.51 2.54 8 2.44 0.30 0,51 16 3.70 0.23 0.39 I 2.92 2.92 4.91 126 74.93 0.59 0.88 223 181.13 0.81 1.20 Brand ~ 1 39.47 39.47 58.54 Temp.Brand 4 1.57 0.39 0.58 Lin.bev /', I 0.49 0.49 0.72 Quad.Dev 1 0.09 0.09 0.13 Deviations 2 0.99 0.49 0,73 RH.Brand • 4 0.49 0.12 0.18 Lin.Dev 1 0.00 0.00 O,O0 Quad.Pev 1 0.12 0.12 0.18 Deviations 2 0.37 0.18 0,27 Panellist.Brand 8 17.53 2.19 3,25 Temp.RH.Brand 16 8.77 0.54 0.81 Lin.Lin.Dev I 0.35 0.35 0,52 Quad.Lin.Dev 1 0.36 0.36 0,54 Lin.Quad.Dev I 0.15 0.15 0,23 Deviations 13 7.92 0.60 0.90 Temp.PaneJlist.Brand 32 21.86 0.68 1,01 Lin.Dev.Dev 8 3.13 0.39 0.58 Quad.Dev.Dev B 10.14 1.26 1.88 Deviations 16 B.69 0.54 0.80 RH.Panellist.Brand 32 14.60 0.45 0,67 Lin.Dev.Dev 8 5.74 0.71 1.06 Quad.Dev.Dev 8 2.42 0.30 0,44 Deviations 16 6.41 0.40 0.59 Covariates 1 0.77 0.77 1.14 Residual 126 84.96 0,67 TOTAL 224 190.05 0.84 GRAND TOTAL 447 371.19 Covariance Regressions (Ambient Environment) Standard Covariate Coefficient Error Between Session Stratum 0.200 0.090 Within Session Stratum 0.095 0.089 i ; i CA Ob i',

s -2 -41- TABLE IV.6 IMPACT ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE Source of Variation Between Session Stratum Temperature Linear Quadratic Deviations Relative Humidity Linear Quadratic Deviations -. Panellist Temp.RH Lin.Lin Quad.Lin Lin.Quad Dev.Lin Quad.Quad • Lin.Dev Deviations Temp.Panellist Lin.Dev ~ Quad.Dev Deviations RH.PaneIlist Lin.Dev Quad.Dev Deviations Covariates Residual TOTAL Within Session Stratum Brand Temp.Brand Lin.Dev Quad.Dev Deviations i RH.Brand tin.Dev Quad.Dev Deviations Panellist.Brand Temp,RH.Brand Lin.Lin,Dev Quad.Lin.Dev Lin.Quad.Dev Deviations Temp.Panellist.Brand Lin.Dev.Dev Quad.Dev.Dev Deviations RH.Panellist.Brand Lin.Dev.Dev Quad.Dev.Dev Deviations Covariates Residual " • TOTAL GRAND TOTAL Degrees Sum of of Mean Variance Freedom Squares Square Ratio 4 12.08 3.02 5.03 1 10.89 10.89 18.15 1 0.56 0.56 0.93 2 0.62 0.31 0.51 4 10.78 2.69 4.49 1 7.47 7.47 12.46 1 1,97 1.97 3.29 2 1.32 0.66 I.i0 8 37.23 4.65 7.75 16 20.08 1.25 2.09 1 3.53 3.53 5.88 I 2.95 2.95 4.92 1 0.00 0.00 O.O0 2 1.63 0.81 1.36 I 1 1.51 1.51 2.52 2 4.64 2.32 3.87 8 5.44 0.68 1.13 32 20.99 0.65 1.09 8 5.73 0.71 1.19 8 3.64 0.45 0.76 16 11.55 0.72 1.20 32 29.33 O.gl 1.52 8 16.56 2.07 3.45 8 2.99 0.37 0.62 16 9.78 0.61 1.01 1 0.46 0.46 0.76 126 75.60 0.60 1.33 223 206.59 0.92 2.05 1 35.97 35.97 79.92 4 1.54 0.38 0.85 1 0.06 0.06 0.15 1 0.13 0.13 0.29 2 1.34 0.67 1.48 4 1.85 0.46 1.03 1 1.12 1.12 2.50 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0.72 0.36 0.80 8 10.80 1.35 3.00 16 4.92 0.30 0.68 1 0.02 0.02 0.05 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 0.09 0.09 0.20 13 4.80 0.36 0.82 32 17.40 0,54 1.20 8 9.35 1.16 2.59 8 1.62 0.20 0.45 16 6.42 0.40 0.89 32 23.97 0.74 1.66 8 5.34 0.66 1.48 8 8.23 1.02 2.28 16 10.39 0.64 1.44 1 2.07 2,07 4.61 126 56.71 0.45 224 155.26 0.69 447 361.85 Covariance Regressions (Ambient Environment) Standard Covariate Coefficient Error Between Session Stratum 0.082 0.094 Within Session Stratum 0,167 0.078

• :L i~¸' -42- TABLE IV.7 TASTE ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE Source of Variation Between Session Stratum Temperature Linear Quadratic Deviations Relative Humidity Linear ::. Quadratic Deviations : Panellist ~ :, Te~np.RH Ltn.Lin Quad.Lin Lin.Quad Dev.Lin Quad.Quad Lin.Dev Deviations " ! Temp.Panellist ~ tin.Dev Quad.Dev Deviations RH.Panellist Lin.Dev Quad.Dev Deviations Covariates Residual TOTAL Within Session Stratum Degrees Sum of of Mean Variance Freedom Squares Square Ratio 4 3.55 0.88 2.00 1 O.O0 0.00 0.03 1 1.77 1.77 4.18 2 1.77 0.88 2.01 4 3.19 0.79 1.84 1 0.84 0.84 1.92 I 0.03 0.03 O.OS 2 2.34 1.17 2.79 8 27.39 3.42 8.03 16 5.20 0,32 0.72 1 2.05 2.05 4.89 1 0.91 0.91 2.11 I 0.40 0.40 0.93 2 0.38 0.19 0.46 1 0.00 O.DO 0.01 2 0.45 0.22 0.55 8 1.04 0.13 0.35 32 8,31 0.26 0.69 8 3.69 0.46 1.02 8 2.51 0.32 0.78 16 2.09 0.13 0,37 32 18.25 0.57 1.37 8 5.09 0.63 1.42 8 6.03 0.75 1.77 16 7.14 0.44 1.06 1 2.37 2.37 5.54 126 53.78 0.42 1.03 223 122.08 0.54 1.42 Brand I 18.73 18.73 47.93 Temp.Brand 4 1.28 0.32 0.83 Lin,Dev 1 0.15 0.15 0.49 Quad.Dev I 0.26 0.26 0.66 Deviations 2 0.84 0.42 1.08 RH.Brand 4 1.25 0.31 0.81 Lin,Dev 1 0.39 0.39 l.DO Quad.Dev I 0.08 0.08 0.25 Deviations 2 0.77 0.38 0.98 Panellist.Brand 8 4.92 0.61 1.55 Temp,RH,Brand 16 3.99 0.24 0.60 Lin.Lin.Dev i 0.84 0.84 2.19 Quad.Lin.Dev I 0.10 0.10 0.28 LinoQuad.Dev I 0.28 0.28 0.76 Deviations 13 2.74 0.21 0.51 Temp.Panellist.Brand 32 15.38 0.48 1.21 Lin.Dev.Dev 8 6.36 0.79 2.08 Quad.Dev.Dev 8 4.10 0.51 1.35 Deviations 16 4.87 0.30 0.70 RH.Panellist.Brand 32 13.94 0.43 1.16 Lin.Dev.Dev 8 3.52 0.44 1.18 Quad,Dev.Dev 8 4,04 0.50 1,24 Deviations 16 6.42 0.40 1.08 Covariates 1 0.08 0.08 0.25 Residual 126 49.21 0.39 TOTAL 224 108.82 0.48 ~RAND TOTAL 447 230.91 Covariance Regressions (Ambient Environment) Standard Covariate Coefficient Error Between Session Stratum 0.230 0.097 Within Session Stratum 0.045 0.095 C,J CZ)

'Q ~ 4P -43- TABLE IV.8 AROMA ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE Source of Variation Degrees Sum of of Mean Variance Freedom Squares Square Ratio Between Session Stratum Iemperature 4 0.55 0.13 0.30 Linear 1 0.11 0.11 0.25 Quadratic 1 0,03 0.03 0.08 Deviations 2 0.40 0.20 0.44 ;Relative Humidity 4 1,28 0.32 0.71 Linear 1 1,03 1.03 2.28 Quadratic 1 0,00 0.00 0.01 Deviations 2 0.Z4 0.12 0.27 Panel)ist 8 30,26 3.78 8.37 Temp.RH 16 7,35 0.45 1.01 Ltn,Lin 1 0,28 0.28 0.63 Quad.Lin 1 0,02 0.02 0.06 Ltn,Quad 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dev.Lin :' 2 0,54 0.27 0.60 Quad.Quad ~ 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ltn,Dev - 2 0,40 0.20 0.44 Deviations J. 8 6.05 0.75 1.67 Temp.PaneIIist -~;, 32 11.30 0.35 0.78 Lin,Dev ..... ~ 8 4,21 0.52 1,16 Quad.Dev L;, ~ . 8 2.53 0.31 0.70 Deviations ; 16 4.60 0.28 0.63 RH.Panellist 32 14,34 0.44 0.99 Lin,Dev : 8 4.53 0.56 1.25 Quad.Dev : / 8 4,03 0.50 1.11 Deviations o~ 16 5.83 0.36 0.80 Covariates .~ I 7.02 7,02 15,55 Residual 126 56.92 0.45 1.19 TOTAL : 223 129,05 0.57 1.52 Within Session Stratum Brand 1 13,84 13.84 36.56 Temp.Brand 4 0.98 0.24 0.64 Lin.Dev • I 0.07 0.07 0.19 Quad.Oev 1 0.31 0.31 0.84 Deviations : 2 0.59 0.29 0.79 RH.Brand 4 0.66 0.16 0.44 Lin,Dev 1 0,17 0.17 0.47 Quad.Dev 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 Deviations Z 0,50 0.25 0,66 PanelIist.Brand 8 6,17 0.77 2.03 Temp.RH.Brand 16 6.74 0.42 1.11 Lin.Lin.Dev I 0,11 0.II 0.30 Quad,Lin.Dev 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lin,Quad.Dev 1 0.69 0.69 1.82 Deviations 13 5.92 0.45 1.20 Temp.Panellist.Brand 32 11.18 0.34 0.92 Lin.Dev.Dev 8 4.29 0.53 1.41 Quad.Dev,Dev 8 3.99 0.49 1.32 Oeviations 16 3,25 0.20 0,53 RH.Panellist.Brand 32 7.67 0.23 0.63 tin,Dev.Dev 8 3.43 0.42 1.13 Quad.Dev.Dev 8 1,88 0.23 0.62 Deviations 16 2,32 0.14 0,38 Covariates 1 0,13 0.13 0.35 ResiduaT 126 47,70 0.37 TOTAL 224 95,10 0.42 GRAND TOTAL 447 224.16 Covariance Regressions (Ambient Environment) Standard Covariate Coefficient Error Between Session Stratum 0.319 0.081 Within Session Stratum -0.056 0.095

-44- TABLE IV.9 ACCEPTABILITY ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE Source of Variation Degrees Sum of of Mean Variance Freedom Square Ratio Squares Between Session Stratum Temperature 4 4.22 1.05 1.09 Linear I 0.29 0.29 0.30 Quadratic I 3.48 3.48 3.60 Deviations 2 0.46 0.23 0.24 Relative Humidity 4 16.01 4.00 4.13 Linear 1 12.45 12.45 12.85 Quadratic 1 1.67 1.67 1.73 Deviations 2 2.03 1.01 1.05 Panellist 8 38.41 4.80 4.95 Temp.RH 16 27.10 1.69 1.74 Ltn.Lin 1 0.17 0.17 0.18 Quad.Lin 1 4.20 4.20 4.33 Ltn.Quad 1 1.15 1.15 1.19 Dev.Lin 2 4.59 2.29 2.37 Quad.Quad 1 0.77 0.77 0.79 Lin.Dev 2 3.68 1.84 1.90 Deviations 8 12.92 1.61 1.66 Temp.Panellist 32 77.16 2.41 2.49 Lin.Dev 8 37.03 4.62 4.77 Quad.Dev 8 16.20 2.02 2.09 Deviations 16 23.49 1.46 1.51 RH.PaneIlist 32 37.63 1.17 1.21 Ltn.Dev 8 21.41 2.67 2.76 Quad.Dev 8 1.78 0.22 0.23 Deviations 16 14.37 0.89 0.92 Covariates I 23.64 23.64 24.40 Residual 126 122.03 0.96 1.07 TOTAL 223 346.24 1.55 1.71 Within Session Stratum Brand 1 5.42 5.42 5.99 Temp.Brand 4 8.81 2.20 2.43 Lin.Dev I 1.59 1.59 1.76 Quad.Dev I 1.68 1.68 1.85 Deviations 2 5.53 2.76 3.06 RH.Brand i 4 3.77 0.94 1.04 Lin.Dev 1 0.74 0.74 0.82 Quad.Dev 1 1.78 1.78 1.97 Deviations 2 1.24 0.62 0.68 Panellist.Brand 8 109.61 13.70 15.15 Temp.RH.Brand 16 19.31 1.20 1.33 Lin.Lin.Dev 1 0.15 0.15 0.16 Quad.Lin.Dev 1 0,83 0.83 0.92 Lin.Quad.Dev 1 1.65 1.65 1.83 Deviations 13 16.47 1.26 1.40 Temp.Panellist.Brand 32 38.49 1.20 1.33 Lin.Dev.Dev 8 8.06 1.00 1.11 Quad.Dev.Dev 8 14.64 1.83 2.02 Deviations 16 15.73 0.98 1.08 RH.Panellist.Brand32 30.19 0.94 1.04 Lin.Dev.Dev 8 10.52 1.31 1.45 Quad.Dev.Dev 8 12.65 1.58 1.74 Deviations 16 7.39 0.46 0.51 Covariates 1 0.81 0.81 0.90 Residual 126 113.91 0.90 TOTAL 224 330.35 1.47 GRAND TOTAL 447 676.60 Covartance Regressions (Ambient Environment) Standard Covariate Coefficient Error Between Session Stratum 0.353 0.071 Within Session Stratum -0.068 0.071

~i~i~ ~,~ c~ C~

~ ~I~ kl ~m C~ C~ Lqml~I1i o

i ~ 111 .,? • i~i!~¸ :~,~!:iI i li~ '!!~i~ ~i~'~'~ ii,~. ~!~ ..~ ~,~ii~!~¸ • i C~ C~ c~