Tobacco Documents Online

Reports results of study to assess harshness ratings and taste level ratings at different measured rod lengths (6 mm, 19 mm, 32 mm, 45 mm)for two experimental controlled profile cigarettes and a control Winston. Controlled profile cigarettes showed reduced harshness in comparison with Winston, and taste level patterning followed harshness.

SEX-III (Smoking Exposure Study III) study comparing smoking behavior in 1972 2509 smoker sample with 1968 SEX-I participants. SEX-I was able to predict various indices of smoker behavior based on nicotine delivery levels and demographic information. SEX-III intended to assess changes in behavior due to changes in characteristics in smokers and/or change in cigarettes that were smoked. Results show that smokers in 1972 smoked cigarettes with less tar and nicotine, but smoked more of the rod of the cigarette and more cigarettes. Conclude that tar/nicotine quota is operative.

Relates experiences of a panel of human testers test-smoking cigarettes for the purpose of reporting on the cigarettes' subjective taste qualities. Average number of puffs, puff volume, average flow rate, average puff duration were measured. Explains that altough there was a problem in the smoke recorder during the test causing the results not to be accurate, the effects of the problem should be the same for all the subjects. Compared the smokers of these cigarettes to smokers of Marlboro cigarettes. Discusses the phenomenon of "back off" (where subjects increase the length of pauses between puffs).

Lays out the goals and objectives of a research study on human smoking habits. Summarizes past findings that nicotine yield "depends more on the smoker himself than on the cigarette he smokes" and speculates that within a given brand the need for nicotine "is quite different between individuals...leading to a wide spectrum of the actual parameters." Claims that smoking provides a "short-term regulated system" for nicotine delivery "settled by the smoker at each puff, more or less independently of the available quantity." Determines a need to pursue the question of whether specific products are suited to specific smokers, through investigation of smoking behavior of "a few well selected smokers". Concludes with a list of objectives to achieve the stated goal.

Reports the relationship between nicotine yields and nicotine uptake in four groups of smokers. Defines these groups as: 1 mg 'tar', ultra-low 'tar' [ULT], full flavor low 'tar' [FFLT] and full flavor [FF] smokers. States subjects smoked their usual brands and submitted urine samples for measuring urinary metabotiles and nicotine. Reports lower yield cigarette smoker's nicotine uptake per day and nicotine per cigarette are lower and states "These data suggest that nicotine uptake is a function of individual smoking behavior within specified "tar" categories." Indicates FTC yield can be used as a predictor of "nicotine uptake by smokers who select cigarettes with a particular FTC "tar" yield."

States that delivery and proportion of extractable nicotine in the smoke will vary with changes in puff volume. Notes that extractable nicotine delivery varies by tobacco type, and suggests this variation is a function of pH of tobacco. Notes that retention of nicotine in the mouth increases with decreased puff volume. Concludes that puff volume is of extreme importance for determination of extractable nicotine delivery and retention.

Reports micro-encapsulation menthol studies which establish a "sub-recognition" threshold of about 150 parts per million [ppm] using human subjects. Indicates the primary focus of these studies is to define the formulation of menthol or menthol analogues which would be useful as "smoke-smoothing" agents. Describes experimental design studying the micro-encapsulation of menthol in detail and presents these data in the form of charts and graphs.

Primarily contains analytical data of puff-by-puff tar content of various test blends for controlled-profile Marlboro cigarettes. ontains charts of puff-by-puff TPM, water in TPM, nicotine content of TPM, hydrogen cyanide, acetaldehyde, acreolin and formaldehyde in these same test (controlled-profile) Marlboros.

Report of an "Expert Panel" which addresses scientific aspects of design of cigarette toxicity testing systems, the selection and sequencing of particular tests, the reliability, feasibility and costs of tests and the interpretation, limitations, uses and results. Lists the major health effects of cigarette smoke that need to be considered: cancer, non-cancerous lung diseases, atherosclerotic diseases of the heart and blood vessels and toxicity to the human reproductive system. Is very frank about what diseases are caused by cigarette smoke. Says "The psychoactive drug in cigarette smoke is nicotine. Cigarette smoking is a highly controlled form of self-administration of this drug. Says no federal or state agency is currently required to perform tests for toxicity on various brands of marketed cigarettes. Says no test solves the problem of evaluating health effects of new, undisclosed cigarette additives. Concludes that disclosure of additives is required for adequate toxiciity testing, and that testing cannot be done on undisclosed additives.

Conveys results of a "mail out test" in which panelists "were not consistent in detecting initial puff strength differences" between two cigarettes, presumably a traditional cigarette and a controlled profile cigarette. Says Elvax coated wrapper was used for both cigarettes and no definite conclusions were reached as to whether or not an off-taste or odor was detected due to this. Says neither cigarette was preferred over the other. Conveys results of smoker puffing patterns using a CP concept cigarette and a control. Tests indicated that larger puffs were consumed from those using the control model. Conveys results of a mail-out test with a menthol cigarette. Saysn "the C.P. cigarette performed at parity with Kool and Salem."