Research and Development Centre Southar~ton England B~kT (U,g AND E~IPORT) IlWTED AblrmbrrolthB~CT Gr~p W bjl rrpod m~ul noc be topkd or~bo~n 0 Ul~lbMfYd plSOOS ~j C: I i I; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 B,l,f (U,K, IExport) Ltd,, Research I Devclop#nt Gmtfe, SOUT~PTOH, NE/RA/BTH/119 AEROSOL E~UCTER~A~T~E~ FROII CIGARETTES TIPPED Y1W EXTREnE ESIGN FILTERS REPORT NO, T,187 4,1,1988 AUMOR: nl Egllrr·Rrynolds GO-WORKERS: R,TI Fiebcltofn SECTION LEIIDER: O,PI Roblnson ISSUED BY: R,RI Bater DISTRIBUTION: Dr, R, Blnns Copy No, 1 nrl A1II Lard 2 nr. n,L, Reydbr 3,~ Dr, P,JI Dunn 5 Dr, S,R, bsey I 1 6 nr, R,G, Iltcholls 7,8 Herr El Rfttarhilus 9 Dr, E, tasch 10 Dr, C,J,P, de SlpwlFa 11 nr, H,V, Tholsm 12 nf, R.F, Gllderdalt 13 Ubnry 11,15 KIPY NO, ~ lulf I~ T IU.L. ~po bamllun~ thu rrppn mnl no k qwd or IhP~ to ~iu~nd Irnool. N Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 B,A,T (U,K, ~ Export) Ltd,, Research 1 Development Centre, SOUTHAMPTOH, NE/RA/BTW/11S Ith January, 1988 AEROSOL CHARACTERISATION OF SWKE FROM CIGARETTES TIPPED WITH EXTREME DESIGN FILTERS REPORT NO, T,187 SUMMARY Filters with different tow specifications have been compared for their effect on aerosol chancteristiesl Two extreme filter designs were attached to standard Ylrginia tobacco rods, a filtered version of which acted Is the control, One filter was composed of very fine filaments, densely packed together, The other had coarse filaments In lower number concentration, They were brought to similar delivery by applying 251 laser ventilation to the coarse filament filter, The aerosol data, collected by using a laser aerosol rpectrorneter, indicated that the particle median diameter was 5·10t larger fron the coarse filter than the fine filter~ There were also fewer particles with the coarse filter, The 251 filter ventilation also contributed to this snift in size distribution, The Increases in nicotine per puff and nicotine-to·tar ratios, in the coarse filter compared with the line filter, were 30 and 191 respectively. By co~binlng the ~easured change in particle sin distrlbutlan and nicotine delivery it is apparent that nicotine Is preferentially carried in the larger spoke particles. .i· a 1~11l.~.r I11.K. md elrnnl lunlud, tbk apn aull # a eneiea # Iho*n lp uolub~wd ~np~ W _ O C: I i I; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 KEYuORDS b~e aerosols Aerasol characterisation Ma~nltreu snake Yenti:leted filters Flbre denier Puff·hy-puft deliveries Filter design ·ii· ~ i~rl i,: IIL mu EIPLl~"d Tll I~nlllP ~ *Ild~llbmDLIYV03 p,l w C: I i I; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 IHTROOUCTIOI fhe dbjecttver of the a~mrol wort in Souhmpton an: i) to determine there ehmges In aerosol characteristics ktlich impmve Im3lte 4dity inaxllaie Impact and reduce i rri tati on) and ii) W der~nine hau to achieve the dcrind thanger· previous wort with lynbefle menthol (I) and nicotine [2) aetosols has shown that larger aerosni particles give ore glr ~llact than wll particlrt· In the pre~mr study, two extreme filter designs have been attached to Identical tobacco rods, in order to determine whether changer In the particle sites in mainstream smoke can be achieved. EXPERIMENTAL SAMPLES Three cigarettes were tested In this study, all with Idmtlcal Standard Yirglnil blend t6baceo rods. The control product wll the conventional State Fnpnn IZI King S~2r eigselte, tipped with its usual fltrr~ The ~D test cigarettes had filters of a large number of fine fill*ntl and a small nler of coarse filamentr, as indicated: FILTER T~PES US~ Filament benierl Iventilltion Code Filter Total Oenier I Pine fil~ment t.85135000 O CF I Coarse f~lanent a.o/lsooo 25 SE I SE 555 KS ~·0/3~000 0 I$~ I ~ I ~L 6 *1 flml L.rO Thll np nwl , ~ m~p~O blMm!OunluVon~d ,,,, ....-- ·- -----------~--~-' cr ...._.,,.. ...~..~.~---· C: I i I; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 The test products were brought to similar delivery levels by applyinp 253 ventilation to the coarse filament pradue:~ METHOD Cigarettes were ~nted on a single-port Borgwaldt engine under standard puffing conditions li,e~ 35 ed/2 second every 60 seconds)~ A fast lan~ling/dilutlPn system (rigure ii composed of a snatch-valve and a glass ejector was used to provide about 105·fold dilution prior to particle measurements performed by using a lasts atrosol Ipctrowter (IM-XI. The details of this technlpue have been given elsewhere (3). Mcasurenentr were repeated three times by smoking three cigarettes for each product type· The cigarettes an also analysed for nalnrtnani puff·~-purf delivery eharacterlrticr (TPa, PlRIWF, nicotine, water and COJ. RESULTS FHO DISCUSSION The analytical data on slnstn~P ch~irtry is given in Tabler i, 2 and 3 from the fine, coarse and conventional filtered products rerpectidy. particle count data were statistically analysed to obtain the count and mass median dlaneterr, geometric standard deviations and mba concentrations on a puff·by·puff basls~ The results are given in Table 1 and Figure 2. In the aerosol experiments, some variation was observed in the puff nunbcrs of the cigarettes rated a shown in Table 5. Thenfon, the results were averaged for the nearest conmon whole puff nua~er, i~l· a puffs, which are luwarired in table 6~ a ~ lvrT a T ii L ~n~ ~lpnlllmlrJ Tt~a rclon aWI nos k;qUO pr M*n to unluVu?YQ *Mnl 0\ Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 Particle analysis war also performed on the cone filament sample with no ventilation (CFa), to highlight the separate effects of coarse filament and ventilation an the particle site~ The no·ventilation product has I higher delivery a confirmed by the number counts as indicated in Table 6~ The count median diameter of all four products are pitr Jimilat, The mars median diameter is highest (O.U Vn) for the CF filter with 25: vent~tltlon, The nuaber counts for those It similar deliveries (I~e~ A, CF and SE) are also quite close to each other as indicated In Table 5, The changes in the particle site distribution are better demonstrated in Figure 3 there the hlltogra~l, as number fraction per channel width of the LIJ·X, are plotted. The nun~er of particles below 0.21 Ilm have decreased and there above 3,25 Vn have Increased with the tF filter with 25'. ventilation, when compared to the fF as seen in Figure 3a~ Comparison of Figure 3(11 with 3(b) and 3(cj shows Let this change is partly due to filament design and partly due fo ventilation, leverthclelr, there II a definite shift in the particle site to larger sites with Me coune filament with ventilation, even ~hen compared to State Express 555 XS a seen In figure 3(61~ Nicotine per puff and nleotinc·to-tar values Ire also higher, relative to Me Ff filter bv 30 and 18 respectirely, with the coarse filament filter as Indicated in Table 5. If Me different rice fractions in cigarette Ind~e differ in chemistry, a small change in nedlan diameter could i~ly big changer in mxlle cMnponent deliveries. Due t6 the dfaebr·cubed relation between particle 112e and volume, the Imate which has 101 lat~per particle nedian dieter can dellvrrj -M: laore of a chemical component which is present In larger sire fractions in comparison to a control product, ft ~ ~urt a ~ I .1. r ~ l~a~l ~nod TIIl npn mull MI I:rgwd s ~ba~ F;lllulhOnld pelMlI Oj _~1311_1~1~.,., 0\ Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 Previous worir by others has suggested Wit Lotn mote panicle site and nicotine delivery increase with ventilation (3-5), and nicotine is unevenly distributed with respect to particle size (6·8), wortr by Morie and 8aggett (6) suggests nicotine is primarily in particles of D,5·0,6 ym diameter whereas Isnin et at, (8) claim 0,08 ylIl diameter particles have the most nicotine, The findings in this Report imply that, as nicotine increased as the particles got bigger, larger particles in sm3te carry more nicotine, The differenee in the medlm particle site of particles from FF and CF is not large enough to give more impact by changing the transport properties of smoke in the upper airways, but the chemical difference could be enough to give non impact once inhaled. To investigate this latter possibility, a limited Ilnbcr of sensory tests have been carried out. All four mobrr involved in the tests agreed that the coarse filament filter with 25: ventilation gave more inpact than the fine filament filter, However, under human puffing conditions, the CF filter was believed to deliver more smoke due to its lower draw resistance than the FF fitter, Therefore, it is difficult to restrict the increased impact sensation to the difference in smoke size distribution or nicotine content only, Ei :u~l a A T l1 I mJ I~anl IlmllcJ tll~ ~rpm mull K1#;11O*101 WLn IS YIYY~P911Kd nlllunl 1 C: I i I; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 fFELYeES i. IAT Report No. RO,2O50 9, 13~0.1986, Pgcr 9. 2, I1W Report Yo· n15·80~·81, 5319~~ 3. 1~ Report Ho. ~.~2~·L I~~~~ 1, II RcClrtlo, @, ~~11~~ 5, s~ Report Ho~ W,PWB·L 15~055~ 6. b~a ~h lodllgrjltt, Lt, U71, Idfh TICI~1P~O~ 91 t2~ ~rr~L I11 Irt, 2, yn, Flchllchl ~~· Irtcrh Tabltrcglt, 1, 118, L BHn, L, 1·1I, tl~l L1B, ~, Is, ~~ ~nwl Scl~, Ut2), 1231 br p II1I~~ rbl 8 ~~l~~lcwlJI11~1~·l* TL' "o" '·' *~ig~· O ClihPDF - v~~fastia.~aui I. TCBLE 1 PU~F·BY·PUFF 4)lALYSIS Sample: Fine Filament (Fi) Puff Wunbcr 9,87 Puff 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 Number TPH I~ilI o,srl 2, 2.36 1 2,591 2,91 I 3,Fl) 4.53 H20 0,081 0.0810,10 1 O,lii O. 0,16 1 O,UI 0.26 ~ O,MII 1,10 SHA (nKJlpuff) 0,05 ) 01111 0,14 1 0.16 1 0. 0.18 1 0.211 0,22 1 0,26 1 0.28 PIQIHF (mglpuff) 0,741 1,24 1 Illf / l,bcl 1.911 2.02 1 2. 2t13 ) 2,611 3.15 CO (Rslpuffl 0,701 0.811 0,95 1 1~031 1,30( 1.33 1 1.51 1.67 1 1.911 1.88 Total TPM p t4t0 mg Total TNR .1,79 ng Total CO 1 13.1 mg Total H20 1 2~8 ng Total PHWHF t 19.1 pg nLf 2 PuFF-ern~i ~HausIs Sample: Caa~se Filament (CT) Puff lunmer 9.11 Puff 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Number TPM i 0,731 1.311 1.60 1 1~C 1.811 2.26 2,401 2,72 1 3,00 1 1,911 H20 0.0610,06 1 0,10(0.06 0,0610.11 0,151 0128 1 0,66 1 0,35 mA (aglpuff) 1 0.05 0,10 1 0,12 ) 0.13 0,14) 0,16 1 0,18 ) 0118 1 0,17 ) 0,13 PWWNF (nglpuff) 1 0.62 1,93 12.011 2.26 / 2,17 j 1.43 CO (nglpuff) 0,96 1~31(1.47(1.~611~73 l,ae 1 2,321 2,37 1 2,35 ) 1101 Total TPM r 19~L mg Total fNI i 1.36 rng Total CO ~ 16.9 mq Total H20 · 2,0 nrJ Total PHHF 116,1919 T~LE 3 PUFF·BY·PUR ~WALISIS Puff Wunber 9,8 Sample: SE 555 123456789 10 Puff Nulnber tpM (mglpuff) 0,921 1.33 1.71( 1.831 2,01( 2~31 2~511 2,98 1 4.89 / 4.M H20 Imglpuff) 0,04 0.0310.0110.0810.10 0.14 0,2010~~311~1210,52 THA (mglpff) 0,061 0.11 0,13 1 0,14 1 0.16 0.17 0~1710.2010~2310.20 PHIIWF (mg/puff) 0.821 1,18 1 1.5111.61 1,75 1 2.04 2~2012,3513.5413~32 CO bglpuffl 1,211 0.84 / 1,46 / 1,6~ 1,4811,98 2,1912~0312,6312,32 Total TPM :20,1 mg Total nl '1.56 nq Total CD'tl,B og p Total H20 1 2~7 m3 Total P~IHF ~ 20.3 ng O ~ lu~l a ~ T II L mJ ~lpnlLmllrP 'Ihle !~pv: -wl M k:rqwO or ylpvn to unlumonl Imoln O - 0\ nl~ ··-· --- .--- -- _----~·3* C: I i I; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 tllE I FILTERS Geolaetric Hulober Count Median Me Mtd~an Standard Concentration Oian\etet Oevl ation Oiameter xIO' (em (unl (un) ~g Hltlr R ii P R P R ii P A ii SE Type Puff Hu~er 1.44 ) 1.48 1 1.44 ( 1.4011.411 IA 1 (1,19 1 0~2: 1 0,19 1 0.30 ( 0,33 ( 0~29 1,5D j 1.17 1 1.45 1 1.34 11,66 2 0,20 1 0.21( 0,20 1 0.32 ) 11.35 10~13 1 1.47 j / 0.20 (0.10 1 0.19 ( 0,32 ( 0.31( 0,31( I.n 1.49 1 1.46 ( 1,69 ( 1,46 ( 1.61 1,49 j 1,46 11,871 1,8111.93 4 / D.1P /0.2110~20/0.30( 0.311 0.32 11.41 1,48 1 1,15 12,07( 1,96 1 2.09 5 1 0.10 j 0.21 j O.l'i 10~32 / 0,36 10.10 ) 1.41 6 ) 0.1" / 0,21( 0,12 10.30 1 O·U (0~30 1.45 1,99 11~P5)Z.DBlt~171 2.24 I,P7 i 1,45 ( 2.39 1 2~0112~~1 I j 0.10 ( 0.21 j 0.20 i 0.30 j 0.33 ) 0.30 i 1.ii 0 j 0.19 j O.M I 0.20 j 0,28 ( 0.31 i 0.31 1144 1,47 ) 1,46 i 2.36 1 2,11(2~51 1,46 i 1,46 1 2'40 1 2,79 12.6q g 0.1s j 0.21 0.19 10.28 j 1.32 10.301~1 to unlulhon~d pnoil . ~h rLn null not tr ;npuO or ~n~Ln ~ ~url B~T 11L ~nJ L~lpnl LIIII~J O\ Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 TABLE 5 YAIIATIONS OF PUFF NUnBERS FOR THE CIGARETTES JOKED IH THE TESTS Fine Fitrent I coarse Flluent SE 555 Experiment lumber Il 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 3 Putf Hunber 8·519~0 / 9.0 1 9.5 1 9.21 9.0 1 9,019,0 ( 9.0 TADLE 6 PUFF AYERAGEO ~SROSOL CHARACTERISTICS ANO DELIVERIES OF THE TEST PRODUCTS n.109 count kss Hlfot~nel kd~an Meal an liePtine PlrtlSler Puff(m9) Oianeter I Dibrneter (mg) Tar' " (un) (uml R 1.91 0,20 0.31 1.45 1.81 0,120 7,69 Cf 1.88 0,21 0.34 1,(8 2.00 0,156 9,12 SS 2.01 O~M 0.31 1,95 0.143 8,49 [CF]·[FF] 1· ·2: '5: 110t ~t ~10f 309 19: [55] w, 2.27 0.20 o.n 1,P1 t PIF as given in fables 1-31 ~ lurl B ~ T Ilr 1N Ilpnlbma~e hn:lpxl PYLI ~W(X;I~ ~ L~lOrll 10 YIYlhOnKd ~Pnl O ·· Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 w g 41 2 1 W P E 13 r vl Y O p: r u ul P 11 w z q x u 5 1 I I I III i; I \' I ~ rz P:O (C r\ E fl w II r ,, I I I ii~S c/ O POin r U w w Y u. O J I Z 4 VI > q w O r t O w x U Z' vl wO 3P: d" O hi W iD C N Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 T. I11 RE 2 ~~ROIOL )IRTil [XIRR[IRI~IIOH 01 I1IKI iI L IUIIT~n Oi ~Uii IIIPR auntt w mnww ron~n~~~ acc,r NIAfIBIR COHCIH~RAI#N gn·l ~c~;;"J l.s b ~,,,~ tF ~~~ Ff l.o E9 O.S EP i 7 -i j M~NQ 1W [OUNt EIEM)IW DMnEf~e COUNT nE3AH OIA, IHltROHS) 0/1 0211 c,..,~···...~~c*+r~.· ~..,~_ O.ZD ouwo~ u ~ua mw~~ OIAEET~A r5lit. I 2 3 n~fS ~WAN DIA. 7)'c: .......~ ~-'s~r~Ce~ ~C~~le~ PUFF Wo. Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 r, In FIG. 3 ~IZ[.OISTRIUTIOH pU'I·IYERAaO PLRTI[L~ ~-- FR~I'IK)WI[HA~HE1 5 ,~. If 125'/, VEHf,l 3 2 1 II O.L L1 ( ~IRTI(L[ SaE . NlINONS bl 5 ~(HO VENn I Z 1 or r) 5 ,,. ~mo Mitl c If (2SX VENT.) 2 ~Sa.~ u dl SE 555 5 ,.. IF 125'/, VEHTI 4 3 a 2~ )( ( I I I O re o.I a 0\ Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 Ibilid " 1 0 rl C C 7 ii ~ ~LI~I~, L L~vy Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111