~ji British·Amorican Tobacco Company limited FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH CENTRE W 8ox 90 Regents Park Reed Southampton 909 7FS England Telephone: Southampton (0703) 781111 tdex: 477269 Fax: 107031 779715 30 April 1992 RRBlsTM/Reparts See Distribudon ReoortNo. T?a38 Th_e EffectP~tFilt~t_V~!nfilatiar~ an_th~ Psoi~adMaun~~Dlvi~4Prooa~es_of etnareae Smoke This short study has shown that filter ventilation has no effect on mouth dryness or aftenaste, It is complementary to work already reported in RD,2218 an the effects of phenols and nicotine on mouth dryness, ~i~~Ju E1.R.Bak~er Distribub'on Dr, P,J. Dunn, ITL, Canada Prof, L Aiaersnaw, BATCF, Germany Mr, E, Gram, Argentina Dr, C.J,P, de Sipueita, 9ouza Crul Dr, E, Kausch, 9ATCF, Eermanp Mr, A.G~ Stephenson, ETC, Southampton Dr. S.R. Massev, YTL, Canada Mr. H,V. 'Ihomsen, Denmark Mr. G,A, Read, Millbank Dr, J.S. Wigand, B&W, VSA Mr, T.1, Wilson, Australia Encl, IllePO~na Y~Wn: k4a Gn~u S~u~ Iwll IDY b Mlmu a mt B~T LwWmJU GIKD LUR)IUW M IO1IWe NO 11W~ C: I i I; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 1~ IhsoRTruRR~u.rr·TZ-3~ fllE NO: (Delemjned by Issuer) PROJECT N[): RETORT NO: Security Crosd~ialion: (De~cnnined by [swa) REPORTTIT1E: 3iC l-~lec~ q T-I i L*i \jE~~ti\ch~· c~\ Cb (lel(G~L~wJ I~OL~jl I~k~jP~~ 9ry~ny ~loFii~ q c~y c\FEt~G Se~Ol(Q Figsl(;nphs· No: (To Dnwing Office) IUIxaR: CS~kp~J Fi~sl~rapCs· No: (Computer Drawn) co·wo~ Phologpphs·Nc: sEaelEADEWRmEWER: R~.Ci~ell~ IZ ~ ~Llr(tJ ISSUER: DISTRIBUTION: RE (1): AI~H(I): MIJ1(2): PfD(I): SRM(I): TIW(2): W (1): m (1): CmdcS(1): HYT(1): I~(1): libwy(2): me DISK REE~ERENCE; TIP~NG CNECgING Sig~anut I Da~l Sent DPe Dpe Autbwl Dah: ~ssuer Dete 'i Received I Rwmed I Reviewer DIBftfOl I"u'l~ ~p~mg - ~iT~i 1~12:11~ P~ep~e Master Corre~b~ PrepM One Bound CoW Irspe I ~eB 127AP~~I -30~4·~26~ 1 I I I" fhisprojormo is intended to iocilitatr ond derail lhe progress dBdTVKE R~D CEna~ R~or~Jlrom the O ?Ip~scnpr nnge wuil the report isfiFnl!v Ilpprovld oJ irsuld. The p~ojorma should be commcnrrd or ~iu in time of;he inirio( wing and oCoomPMY the lypuc~ (ond ~M~llr ofter pTcporarioni d:oll I~b~LqU1111 V1 srogc, [I rrmn he sent to Central Records with t~ Iloas when the report is issued u C: I i I; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 THE EFFECT OF RCtER VEN'FILAflON ON ~HE PERCEIVED MOUTH DRYING PROPERTIES OF CIGAR~ SMOKE REPORT NO: T,U8 30 April 1992 DISTRIBUTION1 Mr, e,A, Read Dr. R,R, Baker 2 Mr. A,G, Stephenson 3 Dr~ J,S, Wigand 4 Dr, J,S, Wigand 5 DI~ P,J, Dunn 6 Dr~ S,R, Massey 7 Plot, E, Riaershaus 8 Dr. E, Kauseh 9 DI, CJ,P, de Sipueira 10 Mr, E, Grant 11 Mr, H,V, Thomsen 12 Mr, T,I, Wilson 13 library 14 library 15 E 1991 BAT Co, ltd. Do not copy or Ihor to wwloriscd pendn;, C: I i I; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 Fundamental Research Centre, Blitish·Ameriean Tobacco Co, ltd,, SOUTHAMPTON CJSIBfM THE EFFECT OF FILtER VEN~1A'T1ON ON THE PERCEIVED MOUTH DRYING PROPERTIES Of CIGARE~T~E SMOKE REPORT NO: T,238 30 April 1992 AUTHOR: C,J, Shepperd PROJECT MANAGER: A,A, erellin ISSUED BY: R.R, Baker COPY NO, E 1992 BAT Co. Ltd. Do not copy or shaw to unxchomcd pesons, 03 C: I i I; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 Fundamental Research Centre, British American Tobacco Co. Ltd,, SOU'THAMPTON CJSIBTM 30 April 1992 THE EFFECT OF FILTER VENTILATION ON fHE PERCEIVED MOUTH DRYING PROPERTIES OF CIGARETTE SMOKE REPORT NO, T,238 SUMMARY: This report examines the suggestion that 611er ventilation contributes to an increase in the mouth drying properties of tobaec~ smoke, Two products were used in this work · a Rue·cured and a blended cigarette, Each cigarette type was laserventilated to give a small range of ventilation levels. The cigarettes were then analysed both objectively and subjectively, The primary findings of this work were that filter ventilation has no significant effect on the smoker's perception of mouth dryness, draw effort or amount of aftertaste for either product, However, as expected, there were significant reductions in other subjective parameters, namely draw resistance, impact, irritation and mouthfull, 0 I"ol B~T CP. Itd. DO DOt MP? OrSbOW 10 Un3UfhOTiSed PWOHS, U1 C: I i I; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 INDEX TERMS: Filters Ventilation Aftertaste Mouth Dryness Sensory Assessment Mainstream Smoke Irritation Impact Moutnfull C 199: 9ST Co. L:d. Do not copy or rhow to unluthorired prrsops. C: I i I; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 INtRODU~flON There is a certain amount of anecdotal evidence to suggest that filter ventilation gives rise to an ine~ease in mouth drynwa This report deswibes some simple experiments performed to test these observations, using both fluecured and US blended style cigarettes. The approach was to take an unventiiated (or very lightly ventilated) cigarette, and to further ventilate it to medium and high levels. Both objective and subjective analyses were performed on the resulting product sets. The work is complementary to other recent studies (2) which have shown that theme is a correlation between mouth dryness and smoke phenols, but not catachol or nicotine. MrmODS 1. ClaarettesreDaratian and ohiective measurements. Two cigarettes were chosen for this study; an unventilated Modified Virginia nukcured cigarette and a lightly ventilated US blended product For both eigareftes, hvo additional levels of ventilation were achieved using a Hauni llP100 lab laser, at approximate~y 30% and 600~, The actual ventilation levels were determined using a Filtrona ventilation and pressure drop tester, In addition, the TPM deliveries and puff numbers for all sbe cigarettes were determined using a Borgwaldt RM20 smoking machine. 2, Sensory testing, Seven volunteer smokers, all of whom had had some training in sensory testing of cigarette smoke, took part in the sensory test The smokers were presented with thethree Ruecured cigarettes, and a questionnaire, The subjects were asked to smoke the three cigarettes in their normal way, at least 15 minutes apart, avoiding other cigarettes for Be duration of the test. During smoking they scored ton a 1·5 scale) their sensory impressions of draw resistance, draw effort, impad, throat and mouth irritation and mouthfull. Two additional parameters of aftertaste amount and mouth dryness were assessed similarly, after the last puff, This test was repeated on the following day, this time considering the three blended cigarettes. The results for both sensory tests were analysed statistically using a kvo~way analysis of variance, that examined the smoker and cigarette effects, RESII1'IS, The results of the objective tests, i,e, ventilation, pressure drop,'TPM delivery and puff number, are presented in Tabie 1, for all six cigarettes, For both C· cigarette types, the increase in ventilation has resulted in the expected fall in pressure drop and delivery, and increased puff number, n D 1992 8~T Co. ltd 03 Obl COP? 01 JhPW 10 unauthorised geaaFs. L" C: I i I; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: Dill __ The sensory data are presented in fables 2 and 3, showing mean sensory scores and (for each parameter) an indication of the significance of the differences between the Cigarettes (the cigarette effect), DISCUSSION The experimental findings presented in this report suggest that increasing filter ventilation, even to a relatively high level, does not result in an increase in the smoker's perception of mouth dryness. This is the ease for both the Rue cured and blended products used in this study. Draw effort and the amount of aftertaste are similarly unaffected, However, filter ventilation does have an effect on other subjective parameters, significantly reducing draw resistance, impact, throat and mouth irritation and mouthfull sensations. Other workers (1), who looked at the effect of Per ventilation on the sensory characteristics of tobacco smoke found that increasing ventilation had no effect on "astringency' (mouth dryness?), They also saw no change in bitterness or harshness, The latter parameter is assumed to be equivalent to irritancy, and this particular finding is not confirmed by this present study. Finally, one comment, made by the panelists after completing the two smoke tests is perhaps worthy of note. Whilst the deliveries and ventilation levels were not precisely matched for the two product sets, the smokers found that the effect of ventilation was less noticable for the blended than for the Rue~ cured cigarettes. In other words, the high and law ventilated blended cigarettes were more similar to each ether than the corresponding fluezured samples. This observation is confirmed by the data, although no strong conclusion can be drawn from this limited study, It is, however, a generally accepted finding within product development, that as deliveries are reduced by ventilation, nue·cured cigarettes diminish in sensory intensity to a greater extent than do blended cigarettes. It is for this reason that many fluezured blends used in low tar formats are modified by the inclusion of small percentages of air·cured or Oriental tobacco. REFERENCES 1), Akaki, T,; Watanabe, R; Tanaka, H,; Maeda, IC; Fukuzumi, T. ScientiBe papers of the Central Research Institute Japan Tobacco and Salt Public Corporation. 122: 122-130, 1980. 2). BAT Report No. RD.2218, 1~~3.1992. ~ 1992 B~T C~, Ltd Do RM CDPY 01 SLOW 10 UI1JOhDdWd pc~Ol, C: I i I; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: Dill TABLET OBJECTIVE ME4SUREMEN'TS ON THE FUU PRODUCT SET, Fluccured US Blended vcntilatidn 14i)Filter I, 28P/I 58P/O 1ZP/g sri 1 rFn P.D, (mmH2O) 135 ill 85 112 91 80 TPM (meicid 1 15.3 8.5 11,6 15.8 10.9 Puff No 8.8 9.9 10.7 8.1 9.6 9.1 Filter ventilation and pressure drop (P,D) measured at an air Plow of 17,5 ct' min.l TAB1E2 SENSORY DATA fOR FLUE·CURED CIGARET~TE ·Ai MREE VEM114'TION ~P(ELS, MEAN S.D. SCORES O% Vent. 28% Vent, 58% Vent, SiPoificaace DRAW 338 2,57 1.71 95% RESISTANCE i 0,57 i 0,19 i 0,60 DAAW 3.00 3.14 3.36 N.S. (~ 90'/() EFFORT i0.91 i 0,69 i 0,90 IMPACI 3,14 2.19 1,86 95% 1.03 i 0.57 i O,QS THROAT 279 157 1.50 99% IRRITATION i0,bQ i 1,06 i0.76 MOUTH 221 114 1,36 99% IRR~ATION i0,70 i0,7S ~0,45 MOIITWUU 3,14 2.93 1.93 99% ~1.07 i0.76 i0.45 AFIZRTASTE U9 3.07 2.36 N.S. (~ 90'/1) AMOUNT i0.?O ~0,19 i0.99 MOL~~ L29 ZSO 228 N,S, !~ 90"/0) DRYNESS i0.99 t0.6J ~0.70 N.S, I Ciga~enes not significadly different f 199? BAT Co. ltd, Do not cop!~ or lo* to umahorised peaons. C: I i I; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 MB~B SENSORY DATA FOR BLFMOEO CI~R~ AT ~REE VEMTll9TlOM ~ELS. YE~~ LD. SOORES 1~Val ]~~ yl. nr hr SinilPee DRAW 117 2W L17 ta91 tas~ 10,13 DRAW 179 IA3 La HS, (~ 90W) 0.19 tb67 i 0.'79 YAQ 119 271 ~J7 91"/1 t 0,49 THROAT 111 t~ 19 91?/1 IRR~AI70N tOlf tilt t 0.66 YOW 216 tOO U) 91"/1 ~WIAIIW F(U rlll tO,64 YOITIHRIII 141 1U U~ 99?/, ta67 ta16 ia~ AFIu(TAlTE 107 li9 19 H,S, (( 90~ tR19 tatl i 0.69 YO~ 171 LJO Lip H.S. ~ sm) DRYNESS t199 t 0.10 MS. 1 CBanbl nQ signifieanlly dbnol a ~92 BAt CO. ltd. Db id P)! I IhOl I ·1I~JdL( O peaoa. ClibPDF - v~~fastio.soni