L&M Research Report 1961

8/8/2019 L&M Research Report 1961

1/205


2/205


3/205


4/205


5/205


6/205


7/205

0

0

J .

t

R ent

tai

n

VARIOUS ASPECTS OF CIOAASTTE SMOKE FILTRATION

Introductio n

Wth the tremendous growth of filtered cisarettea sales, the filter

portion of the ei ,arette has become an important part of the industry's

research effort. A cigarette filter, generally consisting of a bundle of

cellulose acetate fibers and/or other fibrous material, serves several

purposes . Certainly one primary purpose of a filter is to remove a portion

of the smoke stream as it passes from the cigarette to the smoker's mouth .

This, of course, provides a somewhat lighter or less dense smoke for the

consumer and by ao doing may partially alleviate his fears stemming from

the much publicized medical attacks on cigarette smoking . It also works t o

the benefit of the industry in that stronger, less desirable tobaccos may

be inoornorated in the blend and th-ir otherwise objectionable impact can

be greatly moderated by the filter . An economy is also effected since a

portion of the tobacco column is replaced with a lose expensive substitute .Anot her purpose w hich may be of m eat subj ect ive import ance t o t he

consumer i s t hat the fi lter t ip provides a f irmmouthpiece whichisolat es

the mouth from loose tobacco shreds . Because of the subject ive nat ure of

this r eason for smoking fi ler ci, arett ea, it is l ikely that it is more

importantant in holdi ng est abli shed filter s mokers than i n creat ing newones .

Another affect of a cigarette filter, which may serve a useful purpose,

is to slightly modify the taste and aroma of the smoke obtained from a

fi it or cigarette . This may be accomplished either by volatilizing materials

prAe+nt on or added to the filter or by selective absorption of vapors from

the smoke stream . In general the practice is ta try to minimize the taste

changes introduced by the filter ; however this does not preclude future

developments along this line .

Wththese purposes i n and, this l aborat ory has bee n involved over

the years i n a conside rabl e amount of work on oi,Hett e fi lters . This

M

c

1

LG 0391593


8/205

N

- 4 -

0

r

IN

FE

report summarises this work and generally discusses the design, manufacture,

and properties of cigarette filters . As a preliminary to the discussio n

of presently avail able and possi ble future fi lters, several sections

dealing wth the t heoret ical, orgenoleptic . and pract ical aspe cts of

filtrat ion of ci garet te smoke are Ino luaed .

Meehanieris of r'ltratio n

In the passage of cigarette smoke through the filter tip of a

cigarette, a number of physical processes are occurring which contribute

to the overall filtration process . Acong these are the mechanical capture

of smoke particles by one of several mechanisms, the adsorption and desorp-

tion of volatile smoke components on the filter fibers . and the drag on

the moving smoke stream caused by the stationary fibers . From work during

the war on as mask filters, the general theoretical basis of these r ocesses

has been developed . In thia section we shall discuss these theoretical

concepts in their special application to oi ..arette smoke and oiKerett e

fil ters

In considering the processes by which a smoke particle can b e

mechanical ly captured by a cigaret te fi lter, it is useful t o conside r t he

dimensions of the system . Acigaret te smoke part icle general ly has an

avorav e diameter of a quarter of a mcron o r 10 mllionths of an inch

The f ilter fibers have diameters general ly r anging from16 t o 60 mcrons

and are sep arat ed froma soh other by d ist ances of the order of 100 mcrons .

Because of the wde separat ion of the fi lter f ibers, it Is evident tha t

the fi lter does not Not as a sl evs f or smoke particl es . In fact t he

separat ion is great enoughthM, to a good approxia : t! .on, the fil tration

proce ss can b e consi dered as msummat ion of t he fi ltrat ion eff ect s achiev ed

ty si ngle fibers uninfl uenced by nethhborinKf :b . re . It to convenient t o

0

0

co r

f1 1

th

be !

fi t

pa y

S M

pa .

Co

t h

r a

as

fi

Be

in

fi

of

be

at

i t

an

I t

C c

f .

t ,

t

LG 0391594


9/205

r

rp-

n8

ze

s

..no -

W

0

CM

U

- 5 -

consi der s ucha case, where a si ngle part icle Is appru. ohing an isolat ed

fiber ori ented acr oss t he fl owng gemairman. As t he particl e approach es

the fi ber, several processes can o ccur whichwll result in the part icle

being capt ured b y t he fi ber .

If the part icle i s f avorably p laced In th e st eamwthrel ati on to t he

fiber, its t raj ectory can bo such that t he two touchas t he st reamflows

past the fi ber . This procea a i s known as f iltrat ion by dir ect intercep tion,

and its magnitude depends principal ly on the rat io of the si te of the

part icle and the fi ber . ' therefore, l arger part icles, are more read ily

colleted, and smaller f ilter f ibers are more efri c :ent collectors than

their larger counterpart s si nce boththese factors .-ind to increase th is

rat io and consequently t he efficiency .

In considering the collection of smoke particles, the question arises

as to whether a particle which just touches the filter fiber adheres to the

fiber or is subsequently removed and reintroduced into the smoke stream .

Because the small site of the particles gives them a large surface are a

in comparison to their mass, the forces of adhesion of the particle to the

fiber are relatively large . It has been estimated that gas velocitie s

of more t han 100 centimet ers per second past the at tached part icl e would

be necessary t o disl odge it fromthe fi ber- 3tnce this velocit y is con-

si derabl y great er t han t he maxi mumvelocit ies f ound in pufrin4 on a ci garet te,

it aonnare t o be rat her unlikely any appreciabl e fr act ion of the captured

smoke particles would be Cnintroduced Into the smoke atroam .

This i rrevers ible co llecti on of smoke part icl es makes it essenti al ly

impossible t o manufact ure a f tltor whichcan aeloet ively remove undest rabl a

components from the particulate phaa . r f ci ;bret te smoke Ducha select ive

ftltnr must presume that t he n+ajoortty of the particles are co llected b y t he

filter medium the ntrieelrabl e component r emcwod, ani the part icl es are

then reint roduced into t he st reamwththeir al tered composi tion

0

LG 0391595


10/205

- S -

a

n a

e

'tte

It s

V

ho

N

The wei,tht of evidence indicates that this is not the case, but rather that

the particles which pass throubh the filte, Into the smoker's mouth have

never touched the filtering material and therefore could not be affected

by it .Returni ng to t he methods of col lect ion or s moke particl es, another

process by whicha part icle can st rike and adhere to a fi lter f iber i s by

inert ial l mpsoti on . Again co nsi dering the etngle p articl e upst reamfrom

a fi ber, It is evident that the st reamin fl owng around the protruding

fiber must change direct ion, turni ng eit her up o r down as i t passes t he

fi ber . ASmoke particl e embedded in thi s s treamis not as r eadily able to

change it s dir ection of motion because of its i nert ia, so tha t it tend s

to continue to it s ori ginal path whichcauses it to collide wththe

fi ber . In t his proce ss the controll ing fact ors are t he mass or inert ia

of the part icle, t he velocit y of the st ress", and the :fiber diameter .

Larger part icl es moving at higher spee ds ar e more eff ici ently collect ed

by this mechanism . Thus t his mechani sm and t :h . .t of dir ect Interce ption

tend to collect large : part icles i n preferen ce to smaller counterpart s .

It is t hought that the combinat ion of t hese t wo mechani sm to primarily

responsi ble for t he fi ltrat ion of larger oldarett e smoke part icles . Since

the tobicoo column of a ci garet te acts as a f ilteri nt t o likely t hat these

same mechani sm tend t o control t he la rger par ticl e end of t he si ze

dist ri bution of cigarett e omoke in bo thfi ltered and unfi ltered oi ;Sardttes .

Another f iltrat ion meeh"niamwhichprobab ly plays a si gnificant part

in removing particles from a smoke stree :mis t hat of dlf fuaion al cap ture .

Tt is known that small s weo1part icles un dergo a violist and err ati c

oact llat ton peneral ly -ai led Urownlen motion . This arises throughnumerous

coll isi ons of the surr ounding gas molecul es, whichare experi enci ng the

!same kind of motion, with the particle . such a collisi on process would

result In smal ler part ic]ee moving at greater speeds and g reater dis tanced

11

th

f i '

S i

t h

a

C . ?

W

8 1

m

LG 0391596


11/205

than their larger uounterpnrs . "hen suchpart icles are close to a fi lter

fiber, a number of them will move towards and collide with the fiber .

Since the smaller particles mavo greater distances from any given collision,

they have a correspondingly greater chance of collision with the fiber i n

a given period of time, or are more readily filtered out of the passing

cmoke strew This meohai .tam, which bec sea more effective as the smoke

particle site decreases, probably controls the small particle end of the

size distribution of filtered cigarette smoke .

From .he combination of these filtration meenantems for large and

small particles, it can be predicted that there should be an intermediate

partic'e site which is least effectively filtered . This prediction has

been verified by two sets of experiments . The first of these oansisC e

of our recently published data on the particle sits distribution of filtered

and unfiltered cigarette smoke . In this work it was found that the site

distribution of smoke was sharply peaked at approximately 0 .25 microns ,

erA that very fewparticles smaller than 0 .1 microns or larger than 1 micron

,sere found in cigarette smoke . This distribution was found to be essen .

tially unaltered on passage through additional cigarettes and cigarette

filters, even though large numbers of particles were removed . Such a

behavior indicates a combination of removal mechanisms for large and small

particles which are le,,st effective for the most freuuntly occurrin g

site. 0 25 microns .

Amore d irect experimental veri ficat ion of t hese p rocesses h as r ecently

been obtai ned in work on the fi ltrat ion of homogeneous aerosol s of dif ferent

part icle size s . Tn this work it was f ounl t hat curves of filtrat ion

efficiency, which is defined as the pernenta,tv of the incoming amoke removed

by the fi lter . vrsus part icl e si ze had u mnimumat approximat ely 0 .30-

O .3F microns . Tuble 1presen ts some representat ive data whichillust rat e

this poitat

LG 0391597


12/205

- 8-

TABL .1

Corparison of Solid Aerosol "titration Hfficisnoles for 17 as Filter Plugs eap tAerosol decoPartial sSire

26 DP Facetate

16 DPF acetat e+ 12% solka floe

2 DP Facetate

U .S . Fil terCorp . paper a nimicrons )

0 .20 15% 46% 60% 85%aro t

2 5 11 42 56 8 10 .30 41 54 79

aer o

0 .35 41 54 78 fli t0 .40 1 . 43 55 7 20 .5 00 .60

1318

4 853

5763

8 288 aoe t

From the data in Toblo . l, it is apparent that a v ariety o f fi lters

exhibit the same filtration pattern with changing particle site, thereby

suggesting a generality of application of these filtration mechanisms for

oiy .rott ;e filt ers .

In the proceeding paragraphs, we have discussed the collection of

otsarette smoke particles in terms of an idealised filter consisting of

isolated straight fibers oriented with their long axis perpendicular

to the smoke stream . Howeler, the coeaonly used cellulose acetate type

of filter has a structure in which the filtering strands have an average

orientation parallel to the smoke stream . Theoretically, the orientation

of the fibers should have a considerable effect on the collection efficiency

of the fi lter f ibers . If the fibers are truly parallel to the smok e

stream, the diffuslonal capture of prrticlee should be enhanced since the

particles are in close proximity to the fiber for longer times . Conversely,

the processes of direct interception and inertial impaction should not be

operative since the flowdirection is unchanged in flowing along the fiber ..

In actual practice, however, a cellulose acetate filter has a number of

irregularities in the flowpattern, caused by the crimps in the fibers and

the crossing of one fiber over another . These factors reintroduce th e

inter ception and Impaction mechanis ms, so that t heir filtrat ion charact eri st ics

are no t unlike those of ot her t ypes of filters .

more

tnor

grad

sate

a di

amok

the

port

it a

the

efft

err ,

LG 0391598


13/205

- 9 -

r Plugs

Another process which occurs in cigarette filters in addition to the

capture and removal of smoke particles, is the process of adsorption and

desorption of vaporited smoke components . The presence of such a process

can be demonstrated by comparison of filtration efficiency data for cig-

arette smoke and a material which is completely condensed into solid

aerosol particles . Such a comparison is given in Table 2 for a series of

filters containing various amounts of solka floe added to 16 DPF cellulose

acetate fibers .

TASLg 2

Comparison of Smoke and Solid Aerosol Filtration gtficienoe s

r

oz

pe

.age

t on

'latenc y

the

r sely .

,t b e

fiber .

11

Cigaretteli eroso T

filtration Efficiencyke i t rati oZfflolono y

14W- 0% floc 16 .7 26 . 916W- 3% floc 24 .6 28 . 6lbw- 6% floc 33 .1 32 . 717W- 9% floe 42 .2 39 . 618W- 12% floc 62 .3 44 . 419v- 15% floe 60 .1 60 . 3

In Table 2, it is apparent that the efficiency of removal of an

aerosol consisting only of solid particles starts at a lower value but

increases more rapidly than the corresponding efficiency for smoke in this

graded series of filters . This would indicate that cigarette smoke contains

materials oth'r than particles which are removed from the smoke stream i n

a different manner as the Construction of the filter changes . Snce the

smake stream is known to contain vaporized components, it is thought that

the difference between these efficiencies is caused by the removal of a

portion of the vapors by the cigarette filter . From the data in Table 2,

it appears as though the vapor efficiency is essentfiily constant for all

the filters in the series, and is Intermediate between the particulate

efficiency of samples 14( and 19W . This would account for the higher smoke

efficiency of 14W and in turn for the lower smoke efficiency of sample 19W

LG 0391599


14/205

-10-

0

A further series of experiments were conducted to more directly

measure the vapor adsorption efficiency of this series of cigarettes . In

these exoerimente a pad of Cambridge filtering material, which collects

essentially all the particulate material and allows a portion of the vapor

phase of smoke to pass through, was placed between a cigarette and its

filt er tip The assembly was then Booked in the usual fashion and the

amounts of material collected on the Cambridge pad, the cigarette filter,

and the final L and N trap were measured . The vapor adsorption efficiency

is given by the amount of material on the cigarette filter divided by the

total amount of vaporised materials, represented by the sum of the amounts

on the of .arette filter andthe L and N trap . An estimate of the total

amount of particulate material is given by the weight collected on the

Cambridge pad . Table 3 summarizes these data .

TA B L EPweaeu"ements of Vapor Adsorption Cfficiency and Relative Amounts of

Material in the Particulate and Vapor Phase s

-' Total Per cent Vapo rCigarette Weight o f

particulat ematerial

Weight of vapo rtrapped b ycigarette fi lter

Weigh tofvaporised

of Smoke adsorrpptio nin vapor fftcteno yphase (Z

(mgm/oig .) (ago/oig) materia l( F(oil )-

(% )

14W 64 .1 4 .49 11 .8 16 . 338 915W 60 .6 3 .91 10 .1 14 . 338 916 W 64 .4 4 .24 10 .6 14 . 140 017W 63 .9 4 .50 11 .4 15 . 139 6l8W 63 .? 4 .39 11 .3 15 . 138 819$ 61 .9 4 .06 10 .0 13 . 940 6

In Table 3 . it is indicated that the vaporadsorption efficiency isfo r

oonstantAthia series of filters, containing from 0 to 15% solks floe .

Snce the ajuitton of 156 folks fl oc approximately t ri ples t he surface area

of the fi lter, It is i ndicated th at an equilibri umexist s between adsorp-

tion and desorption of the vaporised smoke components . I f suchan

equilibrium were not present . the larger surface area fi lters ( i .e . 19 0

as opposed to 14W would have greater vapor adsorption efficiencies . It

is all

adsor t

i

phas e

thougi

adsort

utili

efftc,

betwe .

const

which

fiber

depen

the v

seater

unde r

cigar

This

ftite

ortet

to m

great

the 1

can .

dro p

LG 0391600


15/205

M

0

- 11 -

0

n

is also indicated that cellulose acetate and solka floe have similar

adsorbative capacities for the vaporised materials present in poke .

The dat e i n t abl e 3on the percent of the t otal smoke i n t he vapor

phase ar e probabl y consi derabl y l ower than t he act ual val ues . This i s

thought to be the cas e si nce t he Vambridge f ilter pad u ndoubt edl y has some

adsorbat ive capaci ty f or smoke vapors . For this r eason, calculati ons

utilisi ng these amounts of vap or and part iculat e mat eri al , and the vapor

eff iciencies given in table 3to not completel y recti fy the discr epancy

between t he eff ici ency f igures of Tabl e 2 .

The filtration efficiency of a cigarette filter can thus be thought to

consist of two separate properties, its particulate filtration efficiency

which depends primarily on number, site and orientation of the filter

fibers, and its vapor adsorption efficiency, which probably primarily

depends on the material composing the filter . Further investigation o f

the vapor adsorption of oi,garatte filters both for smoke vapors and pure

materials is planned to increase our knowledge of this process and to better

understand the differences between different types of filters .

Up to this point, we have been concerned only with the efficiency of

cigarette filters and not with their pressure drop, or resistance of draw .

This property is, however, intimately related to the efficiency of the

filter since both properties are dependent on the number, size, and

orientation of the filter fibers . It stands to reason and is well known

in practice that the more filtering material packed into the filter, the

greater the blocks, ;e of the channels through the filter, hence the greater

the resistance to flowof gas through the 0tlter . This resistance to flowcan alt .rnativ,ly be considered s s the pressure difference, or pressure

drop required to drawa given flowthrough the cigarette,

pr

so

m u

f i

i s

a t

I

I

LG 0391601


16/205

-19-

u

In theoretically considering the factors which contribute to the

pressure drop, there are two approaches which may be taken . The fi rst, and

more commonly used, is to consider the filter as being composed of a

multitude of regu2arly6haped channels of capillary dimensions . th

filter is thus considered me a bunch of capillary tubes in which Poiseutlle's

lawapplies . While this approach may be useful in considerind certain types

such as paper filters which have well defined channels, the wide fiber

spacings in most fibrous filters makes a second approach more promising .

This approach consists of considering a fiber as essentially isolated

from its surrounding fibers and estim-ting the viscous drag of the stationary

fiberfbn the moving air stream . The force per unit area required t o

overcome this drag effect is considered to be the pressure drop of the

fil ter . Calculations of the pressure drop based on the numbers and dimen-

stons and orientation of cellulose acetate fibers are found to be in

reasonable agreement wth the measured values when this model is'chosen .

In these calculations the variables of primary importance are the velocity

of flow, the fraction of the filter area occupied by the filter strands,

and the orientation of the fibers . In general it is found that a reduction

in pressure drop may be achieved by reducing the number and/or dross sectional

area of the fibers and by insuring that a greater proportion of the fiber s

are oriented perpendicular to the stream . Of these factors, only a reduction

in the number of fibers tends to reduce the filtration efficiency, whil e

the others can increase this property .

In summary, it has been found from theoretical considerations that

a filter consisting of very small fibers oriented perpendicular to the

smoke stream would tend to maximize the filtration efficiency obtainable

per unit pressure drop . The comoosition of these fibers can be such that

the filtration efficiency may be enhanced by an extra adsorption of

vaporized components of the smoke stream . This l at ter prop e-t ; may, however,

to d .trlmental in that excessive adsorption of vaporized conponents can

0

I

HZE

alter

bear

sale(

be d

som e

thi s

post

smot i

th .

whi(

S he

won

tap

!o r

ac(

act

im)

psi

th

th

a r

LG 0391602


17/205

- 13

alter the organolpetic properties of the smoke stream . It should again

be noted that it appears to be highly unlikely that a filter which can

selectively remove specific components from the particulate phase ca n

be devised . Because of the equilibrium nature of vapor adsorption processes,

some degree of selectivity can be achieved for smoke components present in

this phase .

By alteration of the structure of the filter it would appear to be

possi ble to sl ightly shirt the part icle si ze dist ri bution of t he exit

smoke stream . The degree of change obtainable tends to be minimized by

the fact that the smoke must necessarily pass through the tobacco column,

which is in itself a filtering medium . Also because of this consideration,

the chances of shifting the distribution towards larger particle size s

would appear to be better than the opposite ease .

The trend of development in ei .,arette filters is generally towards

tepro vement of filtration efficiency with a reduction in pressure drop .

For the most commonly used type, a fibrous filter composed of cellulose

acetate or other staple fibers, the tendency has been to reduce fiber size

and increase the randomness of fiber orientation which represents an

improvement over the older parallel orientation . The less widely used

paper filters represent a theoretical improvement over the fibrous type in

that their fibers are generally smaller and more favorably odented . Furt her

theoretical improvements in both these types of filters are possible and

are the sub3eot of our continuing investigations .

0

Tt

able of

depends

filtra t

Tt

unnatur

differ,

ist ios

tt.r" M

T1

of $aw)

the pat

the pat

smoke,

A

reduce,

l norea

produo

effioi

stiuntl

a bla n

p

Lion f

tastin

to cobs

than a

oigare

ohann .

LG 0391603


18/205

0as

1 1

. .

0

- 14-

FILTRATION AN SHOVE FLAVO R

The presence of any kind of artificial tip on a cigarette has a remark-

able effect on the flavor of the smoke . The degree of influence on the tip

depends on several factors such as tip length, tip composition, and tip

filtration efficiency .

The tip on the and of the cigarette causes the emote to travel an

unnatural path . Filter tips are usually composed of material which is

different from leaf tobacco . These 'toreign' materials have surface character-

isties and shapes which are different from tobacco . When the smoke is forced

through such materials, the delicate balance of the smoke flavor is disturbed .

The most obvious result of the filter tip is the reduction of the amoun t

of smoke reaching the smoker's mouth . The filter tip simply removes some of

the particulate and vapor phase of the smoke . The removal of any portion of

the particulate and vapor phase unbalances the flavor characteristics of the

smoke, and the degree of unbalance is not always prediotaole .

A cellulose acetate filter reduces the overall flavor level and, generally,

reduces the sweet-fragrant component of the flavor . The result is an apparent

increase in the bitter taste . A low efficiency cellulose acetate filter

producos an increase in mouth and throat harshness . As t he fi ltrat ion

efficiency of a cellulose acetate tip is increased, the smoke flavor and

stimulation characteristics decrease to the point whore the smoker receive s

a bland, flat-tasting smoke which has neither body nor satisfaction .

Paper filters produce more drastic ohandee in smoke flavor and stimula-

tion factors . Paper fi lters, general ly . produce dry, acrid, and bitter

tasting smoke from almost any type of tobacco or tobacco blend. Paper seems

to absorb more moisture and sweet-tasting, fragrant components from the smoke

than cellulose acetate . The physical arrangement of the paper sheet in a

cigarette filter resembles a 'honeycomb s and contains hundreds of tiny

channels . These channels seem to scoentuato the production of bitterness and

r

harehne

above .

ohambel

smoker'efteoti

recess

the bac

inorea .

tobaoo .

8 .

oharao

formal

I

materl

harahn

both f'

a amok ,

0

maters

eaterl

tanks,

lntrod

fruit

flavor

volati

recent

as t o

LG 0391604


19/205

- 15 -

er-

d

4 .

.t

illy ,

:n t

:6

ad

harshness in the smoke .

The effect of a recessed filter tends to support the idea described

above . The space within the recess ante like a lards 'channel' or mixing

chamber where the smoke particles can conglomerate before they reach the

smoker's mouth . The recess produces a sharp bitterness and harsh throat

effects which are different from those produced by non-recessed filters . A

recess in the filter tends to present the majority of the flavor impact to

the back of the smoker's mouth . The apparent relocation of the smoke impact

increases the intensity of the non-fragrant woody and bitter tastes of the

tobacco smoke .

FUYORING FILTERED CIGAHF TT Es

since each type or filter produces a different effect on the smoking

oharaoteristios of a cigarette, It is necessary to develop a flavoring

formula for each filter change .

If a low efficiency filter is desired, the flavor formula should contain

materials which restore most fragranoe to the smoke without introducing

harshness . When a high filtration is desireu, materials which will restore

both flavor and stimulation must be added to the tobacco in order to produce

a smoke which exhibits a balanced spectrum of taste and feeling factors .

One oa, .not al ways pred ict whichtypes or combinat ions of f lavori ng

mat eri al s wl l produce the desi red result . General ly, the non-volat ile

materi als f ound in natural extract ives suchas l icorice, coco a, deert ongue,

tonka, resi ns and spi ces ser ve t o rest ore i mpact to fi ltered smoke as well as

introduce mouth stimulation factors . Volat ile fl avori ng materi als such as

fruit extract s, organic est ers, aldehydes and colas, and ampli tude to the

flavor by o vercomn g the ' blindness found in fi ltered smoke . The mor e

volatile fl avori ng materi als ar e part ioulnrly import ant in connection wth

recessed fi lters . They serve t o bal ance t he bit ter am woody tast es ni t wel l

as t o produce more t ast e i n t he fr ont part of t he smoker' s mouth .

plea s

prob l

LG 0391605


20/205

M

a

a

- 16 -

Mother important function Of the volatile additives is to produce

pleasing package aroma to the filter and of the cigarette package .

Each newtobaooo blend and each newfilter presents its own flavoring

problem . the c

Pleat

as a

of i f

Is t

40 p1

advai

dot e

prea

pri m

L a n

an d

th e

LG 0391606


21/205

- 17 -

0

0

FILTER DEVELOPM .94T

The Land Wfilter i s made by a t ensi on-addi tive process . That is,

he cellulose acetat e t owis s tretched to separat e or "bloom" the fibers

Past icizer to sprayed on the fi bers and then the fl oe addit ive is applied

as a dust : The cellulose acetat e t owused in the Land Mfilter i s made

of 16 denier filaments and h as a total denier of 80,000 .

The 16 dpf 80,000 towproduces a very fire filter . The L and M filter

to the firmest of all cellulose acetate filters on the market .

The floc additive is applied in sufficient quantity to maintain a

40 percent filtration efficiency. A filter of the L and M type offers two

advantages : The fi lters ar e fi rmer, end the l evel of filtrat ion, whichis

determined by the additive content, can be changed at will without changing

equipment or materials .

The disadvantages of the additive type filter are (1) non-uniform

pressure drop, (2) non-uniform site and (3) high manufacturing costs due

primarily to inspection and "making room" waste .

The continuing problem of non-uniformity in the pressure drop of the

L and A ci ;9rette has caused us to devote considerable effort to the study

and development of newtypes of filters .

Thre have been several newdevelopments in the oisarette filter field

during the past year . Among these are (1) Celaweb Acetate Roving, a

Celanese product, which is a web-type cellulose acetate floes composed of

small, irregularly-shaped filaments ; (2) A 03tuffer-Jet" for the febrioetion

of high efficiency filters from small filament tow ; and (3) A high pressure

air Jet which "air-blooms" cellulose acetate tow . This high pressure air

jet was developed by the Eastman 'h .mical Products Company and is calle d

thn :-60 Process .

be

fil

rev

Cal

L a

f t

fl ,

a t

m e'

m a,

t h

p r

o v

t o

t o

C e

r e

swb

r

m

b

LG 0391607


22/205

lte r

u s

th e

Lud y

fiel d

L of

.o .tion

insur e

ai r

led

1 0

a

- 18-

The CFZ .AItEB product requires neither additive nor plasticizer and can

be made into filter rods on a simplified filter-making machine . Celaweb

filters exhibit very uniform pressure drop charac'eristics . Our cooperative

research wth the Celanese Fibers Company led to tie development of Type 21

Celaweb which is nowbeing used on the Dute of Durha'i, 70 aim L and M and 8o as

L and X .

The STUFF -JEJ is an Eastman development which vas designed to make

firm, uniform filters from small filament, lowtotal der .ler tow . The small

filament, lowtotal denier towwill produce a uniform, hi%' s ;f lcienoy fi lter

at lower cost than our present 16 denier tow . In additton, the avl1 fila-

cent towdoes not require an additive .

The Stuffer-het can be attached to the standard tension type filter

maker . It requtr,e lb to 20 psi compressed air . The air is used to force

the tow fibers into the garniture of the filter maker . the st uffer-Jet

produces firm uniform filters and provides a limited amount of controlover the pressure drop and filtration efficiency of the filters produced .

Filters made by this tension-stuffing process using 2 .1 dpf 80,000

total denier towexhibit a pressure drop and filtration efficiency comparable

to the present L and H filters containing 16 dpf 80 .000 TD towand 13 per

sent floe .

In t he course of our research on the tensi on-st uffing process wth

the 2 .1dpf 60,000 TDtow we foun d t hat it was necessar y t o sl ightly

redesign our machine t, accommodate the low denier material . After sev eral

modificat ions and adjustments, we fou nd t hat a sat isfact ory fi lter r od could

be produced wthout the aid o f the st uff er Jet . Successive rune usi ng

several l ots of 2 .1 dpt 60,000 TD towfrom both suppliers showed good

reprod ucibil ity by the st rai ght tensi on process . Filtrat ion uniformt y was

maintained, . .id we real ized a real advantage in pressure drop uniformt y

We nowhave several machines modified to produce 2 .1 denier filters

by the tension process

LG 0391608


23/205

- 19 -

T.

'ra e

id .

3

Parabl e

pe r

h

Vera l

c. .,uld

The Fastman rc6O Jet was submitted to its in October, 1960 . The 9 60

process employs a newapproach to the manufacture of filters from cellulose

acetate tow . Instead of tension, a relatively high pressure air stream and

a speetal Set are used to bloom the tow. The 9-60 process produces firm,

uniform filters from small filament, very lowtotal denier tow . The E 60

Jet completIly blooms thi toe and can produce satisfactory filters with

considerably lees material than is required by the tension process . The

9-60 process also includes a newattachment for the application of plastici-

zer . it utilizes a wick rpplicator instead of a spray and virtually

eliminates plasticizer waste .

In our first E-60 experiments, we used 2 .1 dpf 48,000 TD tow . These

filters exhibited higher pressure drop and filtration efficiency than our

present L and M filters . More recently, we have been studying the use of

1 .6 apt 39,000 TD tow . The 1 6 denier towand the 9-60 process produce

a uniform, satisfactory filter rod which has pressure drop and filtrationcharacteristics of the L and M filter .

Table 1 shows a comparison of the physical properties of 86 an

eiitarsttes made with the several types of filters which have been discussed

above,

2

LG 0391609


24/205

KCCAK O SA ~C Y~ Ln q

IM

-20-

TA B L t CI

COMPARISON OF SIX ?!P23 OP FILT91 CI0AR6TT4 9=

IN

Tow Type 16 Of Celaweb 2 .1 Apr 2 .1 dpf 2 .1 dpt 1 .6 dp f80 .000 TD 0 3 0.000TD 60,000TD 48 .000TD 37 .000 T

Process Tension- - Tension- Tension 2-60 2 .6 0Additive Stuffin g

Plasticiser % 4 .6 - 7 .0 7 .0 8 .0 8 . 0

Additive % 13 .2 - - - - -

Cigt . Mt .,gm . . .238 1 .147 1 .161 1 .144 1 .143 1 .09 9

Cigt . Pressur eDrop(CmsR .O)

12 .2 12 .8 11 .1 11 .2 12 .2 10 . 7

Filter Pressur eDrop(crosHsO)

8 .0 8 .4 6 .3 8 .0 8 .3 6 . 7

FTC Smoke Solids 33 .0 35 .0 35 .7 31 .5 35 .1 35 . 0

FTC nicotine 1 .88 1 .77 1 .84 1 .49 1 .70 1 .6 4(m 6)

FTC Smoke les sniootine(sgs) 31 .38 53 .23 33 .86 30 .01 33 .40 33 .3 6

Fil tratio n%ffioieney

41 .0 42 .3 39 .0 43 .0 43 .7 41 . 4

in order to compare the cost of manufacturing the filters which have

been described above, we have prepared Table 2

. able 2 shows stheestisated cost of materials required to sake 17 as

filters for 1 million cliarettes . The quantities shown for the 16 Apt

80,000 TD filters include the wastes which we have experienced in our

filter making operattonp over the past three months . Wastes have been

stisated and are included in the quantites given for the other types of

fil ters .

w , ~ . ] . . s o 14 Wa0 34 - --

I

LG 0391610


25/205

0

-21 -

LA" I

E5TINAT09 COST OF K Tf . RIALS RC UDI2D TO MAKE 17 as FILT2R 9FOR 1 KILLION CIOAM2TTE 9

Tow Type 18 dpf Celaweb 2 .1 dpf 2 .1 Apt 1 .8 dpf8O, 2 Do 21 60000TD 48 .0001D 37,2 M

Process Tension -

Additive

i Tension 6-60 E-6 0

Tow, lbs . 402 .0 336 .5 302 .5 287 .7 231 . 4

Towprice $0 .45 $0 .60 :;0 .89 $0 .62 ;0 .6 8

Tow Cost 8180 .90 4201 .90 ;,178 .48 ;178 .37 3167 .3 5

Plasttctaer Cost ?9 .36 - 9 .20 j8 .97 88 .9 7

Floe Cost $13 .41 - - - -

Total cost 8203 .66 $201 .90 =187 .88 $187 .34 =166 .32 0

Savings -- 01 .76 $16 .98 $16 .32 37 .3 4

Annual Saving sbased on 20 billion 936,200 9319,600 ;326 .400 F746 .80 0

Droluotio n

Practical Aspect gf Filte Manufactur e

The manufacture of each type of filter described in Tables 1 and 2

has certain advantages and disadvantages which are discussed below ;

,16 Apt 80 .000 TD Tow4 P stioiser Flo c

Our present L and M formula enables us to change filter efficiency at

will over a range of 20 to 40 percent . The It denier towproduces a ver y

firm rod, and tiro rods help cigarette machine performance . The disadvantages

in the use of the floc additive are (1) non-uniform pressure drop at higher

levels of fi ltrati on (2) non-uniform site . (3) relatively hash waste o f

towand floc, and (4) higher inspection costs .

Ca :

and san

nor add

filtratL and M

assembl

assembl

techni q

Tt

ch uins

more of

lower awll h+

tow .

tow wh

with t

fil ter

than t

a]1 ty

oompe t

I

aoprec

little

be us(

stuff '

LG 0391611


26/205

t e

Coloweb JU

Celaweb 21 produces a uniform filter w th a minimum inspection cost

and can be made into filters on a simplified machine . I leitber plasti cizer

nor additive I . needed . The main disadvantage of Celaweb 21 is its fixed

filtration efficiency . Cslaweb filters are not as firm as our presen t

L and k1 filters and do not perform satisfactorily on all types of cigarette

assemblers . Recent experimental work indicates that filter firmness and

assembler performance can be improved through modifications in processing

techniques . Celaweb 21 offers a slight economic advantage .

2 .1 dQ 60,000 TD + Plasticize r

The 2 .1 denier towoffers a real economic advantage . In addition, the

elimination of the floc additive may enable us to make a filter that is

more uniform in both pressure drop and also . Inspection costs should be

lover and we would expect to have less towwaste . Filter making machines

will have to be modified to a certain extent to accommodate the 2 .1 denier

tow . However . the modified machines can be used to prbosss any type o f

towwhich does not require an adaltive . The primary disadvantage connected

with the use of 2 .1 denier towis that we sacrifice the ability to change

fi ltrat ion eff iciency at wll . Filters made with 2 .1 denier toware softer

than the L and M filter, but are firm enough to perform satisfactorily on

all types of assemblers . The 2 1 denier filters compare with the leading

competition in firmness .

2 .1 DO ?o+ Plasticizer with Stutter Je t

The use of the Stutter Jet with the 2.1 denier towoffers noaopreoiable advantage over the tension process except that it may allowa

little lati tude in fi ltrati or range . In other words, the stuffer jet can

be used to effect a slight increase in filtration which is aooosjili4w1by

stuffing more towinto a given length of filter, The main disadvantage

of

t o

m at

pr

of

at

qu,

wi

co

W

inLi

o f

LG 0391612


27/205

11

0

of the stuffing process is the cost of installing and operating oo%presaors

to rrovide 15 to 20 psi air pressure for each filter making maohine .

Rr60 PROC6s 5

The ;-60 Process offers the advantage of rather large savings in

materials and reduction in waste . It is si mple to operat e The L-60process produces firm, very uniform filters which perform well on all type s

of assemblers . The 9-60 process saorifioes the ability to change filtration

at will except over a very small range . rho process requires large

quantities of high pressure air (20 to 25 psi) . The filter asking machines

will require considerable modification . It is est imated that the cost of

converting machines and installing sufficient air capacity will be about

23,000.00 permachine .

An additional disadvantage rests in the tact that the 9-f0 process

involves a patented device and its use requires an agreement which say bind

Liggett and Myers to the astaan Company making Zastman the exclusive supplier

of any towused on the device .

Aft

i n

de l

ri :

an

Ps'

he .

tb

Sp

the

re

fi

so

fi

t h

a n

a t

t o

a n

so

I n

pa

to

of

P 1

LG 0391613


28/205

It


29/205

S

a s

int o

and cos t

i

part

ro e

me

ng

spie s

on .

ileble

p_s of

jet

on-

drop,

'f cul t

rotors,

:ory .

3r .R t

t o

ist ios

i n

LS meter,

and the pipe cleaner and molded filters, which achieved a preferred

perpendicular orientation of the fibers .

As a continuation of this a process for forming an extruded, mixed

fiber filter rod has been developed . The process essentially consists of

extruding a methanol slurry of a mixture of short cellulose acetate and alpha

cellulose fibers through an critics tube with a perforated wall . Ibis

operation forms a coherent rod by separating the mixed fibers and the

methanol, the latter being expelled through the perforations in the

extrusion tabs . After oven drying the rod consists of a porous mass of

fibers generally oriented perpendicular to the long axis of the rod . I

is found that t .hv se filters have filtration efficiencies and pressure

drops similar to those found for aouste Skyline paper filters and have

about 251 less pressure drop then an L and k type filter of corresponding

efficiency . They do not appear to have the objectionable taste properties

of the paper filters .which

Two other experimental filter&/have been suggested,but have not as

yet been investigated, are an electrostatic filter and a diffusion battery

fil ter . The former of these is based on the filtration mechanism of

attracting charged smoke particles to an oppositely charged filtering

medium . It is known that smoke has a roughly equal division of positively

charged, negatively charged, and neutral particles . By employing a filter

material with a permanent polarization or charge separation, it should be

possible to remove an apprwiable percentage of these charged particles

without increasing the filter pressure drop.

A seoo nd prospective filter is based on the principle of a diffusion

battery . This would consist of a multitude of small channels without bends

or protruding fibers . As such it would be effective only for removing

small particles and tend to shift the most frequently occurring particle

slue of the filtered smoke to a larger site . Since the bulk of the weigh t

LG 0391615


30/205

0

lpba

of smoke is found in the larger sized particles, such a filter would not

apvear to be particularly effective by the usual filtration efficiency

criterion . It would, hoveve' . have the advantage of removing the site of

particle most likely to penetrate into the lungs while leaving those tha t

are thought to impart taste to the smoke relatively undisturbed .

preliminary investigatinn of this filter is being started .

Q

a

1 t

a

1

Orr

T

r

a

I s1 vt

1 1

C

0

LG 039161 6

11


31/205

i

I

Competitive Brand filtration Studie s

During the past year, analyses or the physical properties, smoke

production, and filtration efficiency of 17 competitive brand filter cigarettes

have been conducted . In this period, two separate test methods have been

employed . One of these is the F .T .O . testing routine in use during the past

fewyears . The second is the L and M testing method modified in accordance

wth the proposals of the Analytical Methods Committee of the Tobacco Chemists'

Conference . Although such data is no longer required for advertising purposes,

analyses by the P .f .9 . method have been continued to provide comparative data

on the same purchase of cigarettes tested by the newmethod . Snce the P T .C .

method provides less reliable data and considerably less information abou t

the cigarettes under test, its further use is not contemplated at this time,

and all future testing will be by the revised L and M method .

In the past four years, 17 series of filter cigarettes have been testedby the method outlined in our publications in Tobacco Science . This method

.served its intended purpose well, in that variations in the composition o f

the brands tes ted were readi ly detect abl e . Anumber of t he t est proced ures

were, however, consi derabl y di fferent fromthose used b y ot her workers so

that our dat a was not compar abl e t o other publ ished and unpubl ished dat a .

In an e ffort to st andardize smoke t est ing and provide a met hod whichcould

be used f or col laborat ive t est ing, the Anal ytical Met hods Commttee of the

Tobacco Chemists' Conference carefully studied the problem and puopose a

ri gorous s et of test procedures . In one of t he al ternat ive for ms, the met hod

approximates' the old L and M method . The maj or r evisi ons a re a ch ange in

puff volume f rom44 to 40 cu bic centi met ers , a change i n f requency from2to

1putt per mnute, a chan ge fr omsmoking a f ixed number of puffs t o smoking

al l cigarett es t o a 30 mmbutt length . and the subst ituti on of a Karl Fischer

weter determnati on for t he old chloroformeo lubl t ar- determnati on

These rev isi ons were such that the older dnta ar e not st rict ly comparabl e

to data obtained by the new method . For i nst ance, the change i n puff volume

resul

rssid-

from :

L an d

in th

the a

is th

since

app's

words

volat

appe'C

corr e

appal

thro e

proof

dono r

the i

f OW%c

s inu

aimi *

to a

door

alga

Whir

pro d

no w

to t

LG 0391617


32/205

-28-

;arettes

a n

pas t

onc e

hemists'

urposes,

e dat a

. . T .C .

ou t

Rime ,

e ted

tho d

o f

urea

s^

.t a .

,ul d

the

u a

method

in

2to

k i ng

'leche r

parabl e

olume

results in a slightly increased filtration efficiency caused by the larger

residence time of the smoke within the filter . This amounts to a 9% increase

from 39 .5 to 43 .1% efficiency for the total smoke obtained from an 85 mm .

L and M cigarette . .

The change in interval for cellulose acetate filters generally result

in the smoke efficiency being slightly higher than the nicotine eftienoy for

the same cigarettes . For paper filters the opposite seems too-hstrue . It

is thought that this behavior is related to the vapor absorption problem,

since efficiencies computed from smoke weights corrected for water generally

appear to be in better agreement with the ntootine efficiency . In other

words, the water present in smoke is more effectively filtered than the less

volatile components, so that the overall smoke efficiency is reduced to

approximately that of the non-volatlle*oomponent, nicotine, when it is

corrected for water . The introduction of a longer interval between puffs

apparently enhances the process of water removal by the filter, possibly

through a more complete condensation and absorption of the residual smoke

present in the filter and cigarette during the interval . This has been

demonstrated in experiments where similar L and K cigarettes were smoked by

the same routine except for a change in the frequency of puffing . It was

found that the water removal efficiency changed from 25 .7% at 4 puffs per

minute to 31 .3% at 2 puffs per minute to 52 .5% at 1 puff per minute . A

similar change in the total amount of water in the smoke was noticed .

The effect of shifting from smoking a fixed number of puffs to smoking

to a fixed butt length has been discueeed previously . The main effect is todecrease the amount of smoke and other components delivered by fast burning

cigar-ttee, since fewer puffs are necessary to reach the fixed butt length .

Whereas formerly most cigarettes appeared to be quite similar In their smoke

producing properties, and differed mainly in their filtration efficiencies ;

nowboth the smoke producing end filtering propertiep very wdely from brand

to brand .

LG 0391618


33/205

I

-29-

anger

Increase

. A .

exult

nay for. It

Iles,

inerally

;he r

0" .4 less

t o

L e

puffs

abl y

smoke

been

oked by

t wa s

e per

A

smoking

+ a .. Is to

burning

length .

'ir smoke

L .Dias,

rom brand

In addition to the changes noted in the proceeding paragraphs, a new

measurement of the porosity of cigarette paper has been added to the

analytical routine . This consists of a measurement of the pressure drop of

a 5 square centimeter section of paper at an air flowof 200 oo/min . The

more porous the paper the lower the pressure drop . Values range from 4-5

centimeters of water for the highest porosity paper to 20-25 centimeters

for a normal cigarette paper .

Another added determination is a measurement of the oirouaferenoe of

the cigarette by means of a Rauni gauge .

During the course of the Year, one complete series of analyses have

been performed by the revised L and M method, and three series performed by

the F .T .C . method . The data obtained represent the average values for

cigarettes purchased in 8 cities throughout the United States, and are

summarised in Table 1 and 2 .

In Table 1, it should be noted that the cigarettes are all smoked to

the 25 mm . butt length required by ,he P .T .C . method except where the length

of the tipping paper is such that this is not feasible, in which case they

are smoked to wthin 2mm . of the tipping paper . These exceptions are

indicated by appropriate footnote marks .

The cigarettes tested in Table 1 for the most part appear to followthe

ranking pattern established in late . 1959 . Reductions in the amount o f

smoke solids were, however, noted for the Life, Sano, Newport, Old Oold, and

Salem cigarettes during this period . The reasons for these changes wil l

be disouseed in connection with Table 2 .

Average data obtained by the revised 1 . and M method for the July

nat ional purohase of ci garet tes ar e given in Tabl e 2 . The chang es not ed i n

Tabl e 1for s evera l bra nds ar e evident in t hese dat a, when compar ed wth

the previous results obt ai ned by t he ol .d 1 . end M method . These changes may

be tummarized as follows :

LG 0391619


34/205

0

-30-

M 1 . The Life cigarette has been altered to give less evoke than was

previously measured for this brand. This reduction was achieved by lengthen-

ing the filter to 20 millimeters and by changing the wrapper to .a high

porosity paper .

2 . Sane cigarettes are now equipped with an all paper filter in place

of the former mixed payer and cotton plug . This change resulted in a

considerable reduction in smoke delivery for this cigarette .

3 . Marlboro cigarettes are nowequipped with a 20 mm . acetate fi lter

plug, this replacing the previous 17 mm . plug .

4 . It has been noted that the Salem is nowequipped with a small fiber

acetate filter and medium porosity paper . Formerly this had a coarser filter

m d high porosity paper . These opposing changes bring this cigarette into

line with the Wnston, and have resulted in a slight reduction in smoke

delivery.

5 . The Newport and Old Gold are nowwrapped in medium instead of high

porosity paper . This change was probably accompanied by a blend change and

a slight weight reduction . This is indicated by the inoreaaen burning rate

of these cigarettes, in spite of the paper change, and by a slight reduction

in nicotine content of the blends .

6 . Alpine and Parliament were tourd to have shifted from high porosit y

to sodium porosity papers . These changes slightly decreased the cigarette-increase d

burtAng rate ant/the smoke delivery for these brands .

In general , the changes ob ser ved during this year in t hese brands h ave

been sl ight in compari son wt hthose made in pr evious years . The t rend

towar ds r educi ng smoke and nicot ine del ivery has i n most inst ances s topped

and for some brands has begun to go the other way .

0

1

I

vN

LG 0391620


35/205

-31-

?A BL

SUMMARY DATAOF COMPETITIVE CIGARETTES ANALYZED BY THE F .T .C . METHOD DURING 1960

All Ctgarettes Booked to 26 n Butt Length except an Indicate d

J ANUARY 196 0 PEU HUARY 196 0 J U3 . 19 0goke Nu3er o u4er Book s Ncot i ne l umberSo i ds N coti ne of Soi ds N coti ne of So i ds o

(ege/0110(e / oiR Puffs (am0110(aga/oigl Puffs (sgg/ci g) ( Ma/old Puff s85 ae iSotng 17 .1 0.6 8 . 4Lfer 17 .6 0 .7 9 . 5Alpine 23 .1 1 .0 9 . 5Parliament 25 .2 0 .9 9 . 7Kent 25 .7 1 .2 10 1Sano 25 .4 0 .7 10 6Hit Parade 28 .0 1 .1 10 . 7L and M 29 .4 1 .6 10 5Newport 29 .2 1 .3 9 . 4Viceroy 29 .6 1 .5 10 . 7Old Gold 30 .5 1 .3 9 . 5Winston 32 .2 1 .8 11 . 0Marlboro 35 .3 1 .8 11 . 4Tnreyton 35 .4 1 .8 10 . 8'Alen 57 .4 2 .0 11 . 3Dukes

17 .60 .68 619 .60 .89 824 .21 .09 726 .81 . 11 0 928 .11 . 21 0 223 .10 . 61 0 327 .01 . 22 0 329 .01 . 51 0 628 .81 .39 929 .41 . 61 0 827 .21 .39 630 .81 . 81 0 834 .41 . 81 0 934 .91 . 81 1 234 .42 . 01 1 1

17 .30 .69 116 .60 .59 224 .51 210 125 .91 210 026 .91 .19 617 .30 .59 ?27 .81 310 428 .91 410 328 .41 .29 428 .51 510 525 .91 .29 031 .11 ?10 933 .02 710 6.3 .51 610 832 .51 910 916 .20 .99 3


36/205

[Is

E! M

u

E

6 1 9

_ppf 32

_

TABLE $

Summary Table of 18th Series of 0 0m1 -3titiw Cigarette s

All Cigarettes smoked to a 30 an butt Lengt h

Cigarette Lfe Sano Spring Alpine L N ViceroyC 1

Cistarelto Data C t as 1 . 0551 174 1 .117 1 .164 1 .204 1 .10 0Pressure drop cmHs0)15 . 916 3 13 .7 12 .7 13 .1 13 .8

FCircunferenoe mm 25 . 1526 39 25 .41 26 .60 26 .29 26 .21 CBurn Rat e ( mn 6 . 215 19 6 .62 4 .54 4 .26 4 .69 fNicotine Content %) 1 . / 10 88 1 .07 1 .53 1 .72 1 .75 NLengt h (mm 84 . d86 0 84 .6 84 .8 84 .9 84 .9 IPaper Porosity(omsHe0)5 .68 6 4 .0 10 .8 19 .9 24 .6 I

ter Data YKgam) 0 . 2040 189 0 .260 0 .250 0 .261 0 .163 jPressure Drop((oaHa0) 10 .39 0 8 .2 7 .4 8 .6 7 .0 ILength . 101M20 . 015 1 20 .0 20 .0 17 .0 17 .0 IFiber Diameter (es) Paper filter Paper filter 23 24 45 18 IAdditive Content(%) None None 9 .3 None 13 .8 Non e

2221109 Dausher o? Putts 9 1 9 .3 8 .8 9 .9 9 .6 9 . 9

Butt Length(ccs) 30 0 30 .1 29 .9 30 .0 30 .1 30 . 2

fat r a ont

o s Rmt g22 7 27 .5 28 .0 38 .9 38 .8 37 . 9Mater mgmcig 8 2 7 .4 8 .4 11 .6 12 .0 10 . 1

DDry emoks(s~m pig) 14 .5 20 .1 19 .6 27 .3 26 .8 27 .7Nootine(mp/ci g) 0 69 0 .45 '0 .65 1 .12 1 .41 1 .4d

1Nat rt a

ot , mgmoi g 66 4 54 .6 53 .8 70 .9 70 .6 65 . 6Mat er mgmcig 22 8 16 .7 20 .1 85 .2 22 .9 20 . 8Dry Smokttimgm/o1) 33 .6 39 .1 33 .7 45 .7 47 .6 44 . 8Nicotine(mgs/otgJ 1 .76 0 .9? 1 .18 1 .90 2 .50 2 .4 3

FL-4tratag Efficienc yW* 69 8 49 .8 48 .0 45 .1 46 .0 42 .4 P- da er 54 0 52 .9 68 .2 54 .0 47 .6 51 .4

:

66 . 8ry tine . 48 .6 41 .8 40 .3 43 .7 38 . 2)Ncoti ne (~) 5 53 .6 44 .9 41 .1 43 .6 39 . 9

T.T .C . Analyst .mo o ids mgm/cig)15 . 7 17 .3 17 .3 24 .5 29 .0 28 . 5

Nicotine (ago cig) 0 . 6

f

0 .6 0 .7 1 .2 1 .5 1 .5 F

s9 1umber of Puf 9 .7 9 .1 10 .1 10 .4 10 .6

1

0

LG 0391622


37/205

TASLIC I (Gent . )

troy CiasretteHi t

Parade KentPar la -

ment Marlboro Newportl

Gold.C:

C Dat00 weight grams) 1 .124 1 .080 1 .113 1 .172 1 .046 1 .06 68 Pressure Drop(cmH,O) 10 .0 12 .5 13 .2 11 .6 11 .2 11 . 121 Circumference (mm 25 .56 25 .33 26 .38 26 .70 26 .38 25 .4 4it Burn Rate (se/min 4 .25 4 .87 4 .34 4 .28 5 .32 8 .3 9'5 Nicotine Content %) 1 .60 1 .36 1 .50 1 .78 1 .51 1 .609 Length ( s m ) 85 .0 84 .9 84 .8 86 .0 84 .8 84 . 96 Paper Porosity(o s He0) 23 .9 8 .2 10 .1 11 .8 6 .8 9 . 8

Tr Dta_

F

L63 eam 0 .185 0 .209 0 .218 0 .249 tl .191 0 .19 43 Pressure Drop(c5H,O) 3 .8 8 .9 7 .0 6 .2 6 .7 5 . 6

Length (mm) 16 .9 17 .0 20 .01 20 .0 17 .0 17 .0Fiber Diameter (K) Paper 23 18 28 21 23 0

.1. filte rAdditive Content (4 )

Sapki ng _Ds a

None None None Non . None hone e

.2' 1h ts-ber ofuff s 9 .7 9 .4 9 .7 10 .1 8 .6 8 . 7Butt Length ( s m) 30 .0 30 .0 30 .0 30 .2 30 .0 29 . 9

Ma is . a' .1 ok s gM ctK 39 .1 35 .0 41 .2 43 .6 35 .8 37 . 8

wat .r( s gs /otd 10 .3 11 .1 12 .4 10 .9 10 .6 10 . 846 Dry Snake ( s p/oig) 28 .8 23 .9 28 .8 32 .7 26 .2 27 .0Nlootine( s g s (oig) 1 .26 1 .07 1 .24 1 .43 1 .16 1 .17 I

S. 6 To Na a a 1e) . 8 woke s Gig 67 .3 58 .9 69 .3 71 .9 68 .5 59 . 0i 1 Water mg s /oig 22 .5 21 .3 25 .5 22 .6 20 .4 20 . 5. 43 Dry Smok .( s ga/ci) 44 .8 37 .6 43 .8 49 .3 38 .1 38 . 5

Nicotin .( s gm/oig 2 .25 1 .64 1 .99 2 .29 1 .74 1 .7 5

Z.4 Filtra n Effto 01 .4 Sao 41 40 .6 40 .5 39 .4 37 .1 36 . 98 .2 Water (S 54 .2 47 .9 51 .4 51 .8 48 .0 47 . 39 .9 Dry Smoke (S) 35 .7 36 .4 34 .2 33 .7 31 .2 29 . 9

Nicotine (S) 44 .0 34 .8 37 .7 37 .6 33 .9 33 . 18 .6 F .T .C . Analysi s.5 Smoke Solids mgm/c1g) 27 .8 26 .9 25 .8 32 .9 26 .6 26 . 90 .6 Nicotine (mgm/oig) 1 .3 1 .1 1 .3 1 .7 1 .2 1 . 2

Number of Puffs 10 .4 9 .? 10 .0 10 .6 9 .4 9 . 1

tIncludes 5 mm recess

B

0

0

LG 0391623


38/205

-34-w L

TABLR 2 (Cont .)

70 M . 90 M .Cigarette Winston Salem Tareyton L K East O aks

C ar-t t Dat aWeight (gross) 1 .161 1 .161 1 .142 1 .012 0 .966 1 .11 9Pressure Drop asHaO) 10 .6 10 .8 10 .7 11 .9 13 .2 16 .6 DidCircumference (mm 25 .70 25 .82 26 .57 26 .14 26 .4? 26 .0 1!turn Mats (ms/min) 4 .46 4 .34 4 .60 4 .14 4 .39 4 .70 th e.Jicotine Content (7G) 1 .91 2 .06 1 .66 1 .77 1 .3 9Length (me) 84 .7 84 .4 84 .8 70 .0 89 .9 86 .0 etaPaper Porosity(omHiO) 11 .9 10 .2 34 .6 19 .6 8 .4 10 . 9

Fr Da aeight-Gass)) 0 .182 0 .186 0 .225 0 .234 0 .191 0 .301 fi r

Pressure Drop(omH,0) 6 .9 6 .0 4 .6 7 .? 6 .6 12 . 3Length (mm) 17 .0 17 .0 16 .0 15 .0 15 .0 26 .01 is .Fiber Diameter ( 27 27 28 45 23Additive Content ( %) None None gone 14 .0 None None fla

Book& Data ver!luster or Pufte 10 .1 10 .0 9 .? 7 .1 7 .3 9 . 7Butt Length (mm) 29 .7 30 .1 29 .9 30 .0 30 .0 30 .3 te a

Mat a Ql T g-

_F39 oegs/oi 43 .0 43 .2 43 .5 33 .4 29 .1 38 .7 0water (sgs/oig) 11 .7 12 .7 12 .7 10 .2 10 .2 13 .6 betDry Smoke (sgs/ot ) 31 .3 30 .6 30 .8 23 .2 18 .9 25 . 1

Nicotine (agm/cigl 1.73

1.82

1.68

1.22 0 .85

1.37

f1aTot al Ka i s S s

S m o k e s gs oig 67 .0 6'3 .9 66 .8 55 .5 47 .6 80 . 6water sgs/oig 21 .9 22 .5 21 .3 1 .1 19 .4 33 .8 wa sDry Smoke ( oig) 44 .4 34 .4 46 . 8NiooLlne(10g~ g) 2158 2 .33

1.50 sm o

F ltra t Eff iciency 2fit35 .8 35 .4 34 .9 39 .8 38 .9 52 . 0Mater (~

e )48 .6 43 .8 40 .4 51 .2 47 .4 59 .8 ton

s (i f

yNicotinen

N 32 .9 32 .8 32 .2 8 7 34 .6 46 .9 th e

F .T .C . A a ansots o ids mgu/cig) 31 .1 32 .5 33 .6 23 .6 20 . 6

Nicotine (sgs/cig) 1 .8 1 .9 1 .6 1 .3 0 .9 ex bNumber of Putts 10 .9 10 .9 10 .8 8 .0 8 . 0

Includes 5 s m recess .

th e

f 1a

re d

Th e

4 100

u

0

LG 0391624


39/205

. -38

-

FLAVOR R SEARCH, FILTER 410 TTI S

0

D

competitive gradS

Each month, the flavor laboratory examines competitive brands of

cigarettes to evaluate any ohanges in package aroma and smoking qualities

that may have been made . Since our last report, we have noted the following

changes in competitive brands of filter cigarettes .

Winston : The aroma of the Wnston tobacco indicates no apparent change in

flavoring additives . The increased filtration produced by the Wnston filter

is apparent in the nooks . It lacks the high impact and amplitude of sweet

flavor which has so long been typical of the Wnston .- The smoke produces a

very lowthroat impact and is dominated ter a persistent papery and hay-like

taste .

Marlboro : The Marlboro tobacco seems to contain moreflavoring than it did

before the 20am . filter tip was adopted . The Marlboro produces more smoke

flavor as a result of the increased flavorings . The smoke flavor is mainly

sweet-tasting and seems to be more uniform throughout the cigarette than it

was before this change was made. The Marlboro shows more improvement in

smoking quality than any of its competitors .

Parliament : The Parliament blend seems to contain more of a sweet vanilla and

tonks type flavoring than it did a year aso . The only improvement noted In

the smoke has been found in the aftertaste . The Parliament smoke exhibit s

an unusual flavor spectrum . When the smoke is drawn into the mouth, it

exhibits a harsh, woody taste and high throat Impact . As i t is exhal ed,

the taste becomes sweet, vanillin-like .

Cent, Viceroy and Tareyton do not exhibit any apparent changes in

flavoring or smoking qualities .

Salem : The Increased filtration of the Salem filter has caused a

reduction In amplitude of sucks flavor compared to several months ago .

There has not been a ch ange i n t he t ype of f lavor exhibi ted by t he Sal em . Its

amok*produces l ess t hroat eff ect t han it did be fore t he fi lter ch ange .

M

The

whi t

to t

flea

new

sta

heat

rep]

m aw

The

w e

Pa p

si b

ape

di n

I n

o f

LG 0391625


40/205

_ 36-

Aan The Alpine smoke produces an increased menthol taste and impact .

The Alpine still lacks the heavy, fragrant tobacco-like background flavor

which is found in Oasis and Salem .

The Newport and Spring Cigarettes have not been changed appreciably .

The Newport aroma and smoke flavor is dominated by a Peppermint Oil oharsoter .

The peppermint taste also dominates the aftertaste . The Spring produces a

'diluted' tasting smoke which has very lowamplitude and impact and which is

dominated by a bland, papery-sweet taste .

LSItett MAavers !

Land K

A large portion of the Flavor Laboratory research work has been devote d

to the study of the L and N cigarette with emphasis on ways to produce more

flavor in the smoke . This work includes the effects of reduced filtration,

newtypes of filters, cigarette papers, blends, and newapproaches from th e

standpoint of flavoring additives .

In March, 1960, the L and N tobacco blend was changed in that all of th e

heavier grade tobaccos which had been purchases from the tobacco pool were

replaced by tobaccos purchased by our leaf department for this purpose . Th

newblend produced an improvement in the smoking characteristics of the L and N .

The improvement primarily involved throat irritation factors . The newblend

produced a smoother, less-irritating smoke . Smoking panels reported a better

balance between flavor and stimulation factors .

In July, 1960, the fast burning paper was replaced 'with Type A cigarette

paper on the L and N . The slower-uurning L and N prcauoed a sucks which

exhibited slightly more pleasant sweet flavor than the faster-burning product .

Although the July L and N produced a balanced, pleasing smoke flavorspectrum, the amplitude of its flavor continued to be lower than was desired,

since the 'filterea-taste" component in the smoke was not completely covered .

In addition, the high floc content filters continued to present the problem

of pressure drop variation . The majority of complaints from our consumer-

type par

LandK '

re

It was I

(1) wore

inhibit

produce sIn

wth a

office,

shows %I

period .

Tb

seere

A 1'

lprefere,

"*sola r

Th

made wl

algaret

accepts

were de

flavor

L

in th e

LG 0391626


41/205

0

0

- 3 7

A impact .

ad flavo r

rreolably .

Oil Character .

,produces a

and which i s

)been devoted

x duce more

fil tration,

pee from th e

1

br t all of th

pool were

purpose . Th

e of the L and W

The newblend

orted a bette r

pe A cigarette

eke which

u .ning product .

eke flavo r

n was desi red,

et ely covered .

no proble m

.r consumer-

type panels were attributed to the fact that a considerable percentage of

L and Use were too hard to draw .

We were asked to panel-test an L and K with a less efficient filter .

It was thought that the less efficient filter would have two ..advar .taies :

(1) Wore woke flavor would be produced, and (2) The oigarettes would

exhibit more uniform pressure drop, since more uniform filters can be

produced as the floe content is reduced .

In July, 1960, we prepared Sample ll-X which is an L and Wcigarette

with a 10% floc filter and Type A Paper . Sample 11-' . was submitted to

office, Factory, and laboratory preference panels . The following Table

shows the preference ratings obtained from all panels during 4-week test

period .

Preference Ratings for Sample 11-4 vs Normal L and W

Panel Locat ion Cgar et te Preferred Degree of Preference

Rchmnd Fac or y 11 .x1 1 to 1Duhamfac or y l l .a1 6 to 1DhamOf i ce 11- 1 1 4 to 1l aboa oyl 1x1 2to 1

The Flavor Profile panel evaluationeshowthat Sample ll .x exhibits

more smoke flavor, and a higher south impact than the normal L and W .

All panels showed a unanimous preference for Sample llA . Th

preference aeons to have beenasde on the basis of 'sore taste' and

'easier draw .

The panels have evaluated additional samples of L and M cigarettes

made with filters containing lower amounts of floe . In all oases . L and K

cigarettes whose filters contained loss than 10 per cent floe were not

acceptable to the consumer type penile . The flavoring additives, which

were designed for the hi3h filtration L and K filters, produced unbalanced

flavor and irritatinn factors in the presence of low-filtration filters .

Laboratory ezpwrtments indicated that sub-threshold amounts of menthol

in the L and 4 blend have desirable effects on the smoke flavor . Th

LG 0391627


42/205

3 8

I

1

smoke flavor seems to be enhanced while stimulation factors such as Mouth

and throat Irritation seem to be depressed .

Sample 20 X., made on July 7th . is an 85 am filter tipped cigarette

which contains L and M tobacco blend . Menthol was added to the L and M

top-dressing and applied in the usual manner . The finished tobacco contains

apprf,ctmately 0 .01 per cent menthol . The filters contain 10 percent floc .

Sample 20 .A was evaluated by our laboratory panels . The majority of

the panel members commented favorably on Sample 20-X and judged the sample

to be more acceptable than a normal L and X on the basis of "more flavors

and 'mildness' . Profile flavor analysis of Sample 20-X . showed a broader

flavor spectrum which exhibits more heavy, sweet fragrance with a lover

level of throat impact .

As a result of the favorable acceptance of Sample 11-X and 20 .4, it

was decided to remake both samples and submit them to the preference panels

for comparison . The newsamples were designated 24-X and 25-X respectively .

The following Table shows the preference ratings after a four-week testing

period .

Preference Ratings of sample 24-A ve Sample 26- X

Panel Location Sample Preferred Degree of Preferenc e

Richmond Factory 24- . 1 .6 to 1Durham Factory 26-X 1 .9 to 1Durham Office 24-) . 1 .6 to ILaborstory 26-X 2 .1 to 1

M

d

of

Fz ]

The Durham Factory panel and the Laboratory panel showa strong

preference for the mentholated 25X . The Durham office and 810pond groups .

which together consumed nearly two-thirds of the cigarettes smoked, showa

significant preference for the Sample 24-A which contained normal L and M

tobacco .

Personal opinions taken at the conclusion of the testing period show

that a large percentage of the panel smokers found no difference or very

slight difference between the two samples .

i

a

a

a0

(

0

LG 0391628


43/205

-39-

h

I

tel l

rely .

!o w

. .

11

0

Formal panel smokers, who are usually more sensitive than the average

smoker, found only very slight difference in the smoking ohareoteristios

of 24-X and 26-X . In their opinion, sample 25-X (mentholated) produced

less throat impact and mouth dryness and seemed to have a slightly higher

level of sweet flavor than 24-X . A comparison of the flavor profiles of

samples 24-X and 26-X wth a normal L and K showa higher level of smoke

flavor from 24-X and 25-X than from the L and K . This is probably due to

the reduced filtration and easier drawof the samples .

Tb results of this study indicate that the addition of sub-threshold

amounts of menthol to the L and K formula does not sake a significant

improvement in the smoking characteristics of the blend .

In our flavor research during the pa&t fewmonths, we have prepared

and tested hundreds of newitems and formulations in our attempt to develop

an improved flavoring for the L and K cigarette . This work has led to the

development of a modification of the L and K flavoring formula which seems

to produce improved package aroma and smoke flavor .

Sample 12-A represents our most recent filter cigarette flavor

development . Sample 12-A contains the 2 .1 denier filter which is being

considered for the L and M . The flavoring in 12-A is a modified L and K

type which produces a more fragrant package aroma and a mild, balanced smoke

taste which exhibits improved sweet flavor, especially in the aftertaste .

Smoking panel tests are incomplete, but the initial reaction to sampl e

12-A has been favorable .

ows

We have been unable to make a sib'niticant improvement in the smoking

charact eri st ics and amok*flavor of t he Oasi s ci garet te . Formulat ions hav e

been devel oped whichwll add more a mplitude and i mpact to t he i nitial

smoke fl avor, but these al terat ions have al wayb resul ted In an unbal ance

of t he aft ert ast e o!a raoteri eti ca, cau si ng unpleasant si de effects suchas

bit terness and mouth coat ing .

0

0

LG 0391629


44/205

rage

as

d

.her

o f

-ks

I t o

gol d

i

red

evelop

o the

teems

)king

.1s have

a l

a . e

uch a s

11

I

0

-40-

The 'menthol-mist' formula contains a small amount of oil of Wntergreen .

It has been brought to our attention that the food and Drug Administration

will ban the use of Wntergreen in foods in January, 161 . In keeping with

our policy of avoding unapproved flavoring materials, a have been testing

revised formulas which contain no Wntergreen . In October, we develope d

such a menthol-mist formula which was applied to Sample 13-A .

Sample 13-A has been submitted to preference panels for comparison

wth Oasis . All panels showa definite preference for Sample 13-A . After

four weeks, the overall panel preference is 2 to 1 in favor of Sample 13-A.

We recommend that the Sample 13-A menthol-mist formula be adopted fo r

production when our present stock of Oil of Wntergreen is exhausted .

The oasis filter is made with 16 denier towa-_ contains 6 per cent

floc . Our recent success with non-additive . small denier filters for use

on L and whas prompted us t3 investigate non-additive filters for us e

on oasis .

Through cooperative work wth Celanese fibers Company, we have

developed a specification for Celaweb whtoi provides the same filtration

and pressure drop as our Tremont Oasis filter . The product is designated

Celaweb D-366 .

Smoking panel examination of Oasis cigarettes wth Celaweb D-366

filters indicate no change of smoke flavor as compared to normal Oasis .

The Celaweb D-356 filters are not me firm as we would like them to be .

We are continuing our work wth Celanese to improve the firmness .

Oasis Sample 25-V was made wth a filter composnd of 8 dpf 80 .000

total denier tow . The 8 denier filters products a filtration efficiencyand p'assure drop oompari .blc to the present Oasis filter ..

Samni . 25-V was subritted to the preference panels and tested for a

period of four weeks . All panels showed a preference for 25-V . The

ovarail preference rating was 2 to 1 in favor of 2'5-V

0

LG 0391630

C


45/205

- 41 -

.ntergreen .

:ratio n

.r_g wit h

:eatin g

lope d

loon

Afte r

Is 13-&

b r

1 .

cent

br us e

us e

atio n

gna te d

66

cis .

be .

000

enc y

for a

is

Duke of Durham :

In June, 1960, Celaweb type 21 was adopted for use in the Duke of

Durham filter . Celaweb 21 is designed to produce a filtration efficiency

of at least 60 per cent with a cigarette pressure drop of 16 to 16 ems

water . A modification of the Duke of Durham flavoring formula accompaniedthe revisi on of the fi lter . The initial Duke of Durha s filter was made

with 18 denier towand contained enough floc to produce a 80 per cent

filtration efficiency .

The main advantage gained from the Celaweb 21 filter was the improvement

in pressure drop uniformity . Another big advantage was realized in the

filter making department through improved machine performance and reduced

waste .

1e have made several Duke of Durham samples wth filters which have

efficiencies of less than 60 per cent . Smoking panels have found that such

filters produce undesirable characteristics with the Duke of Durham blend.

As the filtration level is decreased, the smoke flavor becomes unbalanced

and the smoke tastes bitter and harsh . If a reducti on in the fi ltrat ion

level of the Duce of Durham filter is contemplated, it will be necessary

to redesign the flavor so that it will accommodate both the reduced

filtration and the recess .

Snce laborat ory exp eri ments i ndicat ed that smal l amount s of menthol

have desi rable offset s on filtered smoke, it was decide d t o i nvest igate

the effect of menthol on the Duke of Durham . Smoking pane l st udi es s how

that menthol is not compatible with the present Duke of Durham formula ;

it causes the smoke flavor to exhibit unusual flat-papery taste characteristics .

Non-filtering M9Rih2L8_Q_ q

Tn June, 1960, we resumed work on the devolopment of a recessed, non-

filteri ng mouthpiece e i, ;arett e whichwll rove the smoke fl avor charaoter ts-

tics of a C hesterf ield . This pr oj ' ot was Legun i n April, 1959, but was

curtailed to September . 1969, preceding the development of the Duke o f

011

LG 0391631


46/205

- 42 -

ed

loon t

d

ulb

d .

d

fl

i

,ristics

)n-

'ris-

Durham cigarette .

The non-filtering, recessed mouthpiece wth which we have been working

consists of a 7 .5 ms . section of 25 dpf cellulose acetate towwith a 5 mm .

recess . The factory machinists modified a 1-2? assembler to make a king

etae ci ;;arettc with a 12 .5 mm . tip and 1$ am . tipping paper .

In Au .tust, '+e made Sample 2-Y which contained regular Chesterfield

blend . In spite of its low filtration efficiency, the mouth piece caused

a considerable decrease in the amplitude of smoke flavor normally produced

by the Chesterfield blend . In addition, the flavor was unbalanced and was

domtnnted by a bitter taste .

An unpleasant bitter toots seems to be associated with the presence

of a recess on the mouth and of a cigarette . In the samples which we have

made during the past fewmonths we have not been successful in achieving a

blended and balanced smoke flavor .

We have attempted to increase smoke flavor impact by altering the

tobacco blend and flavoring additives .

We have merle a aeries of samples composed by the followng tobacco

blend ,

35% No . 1 Strips30% No . 25 Strips16% Turkis h20% CT S

This formula exhibits a high impact to the smoker's mouth and throat .

Replacing the No . 25 strips with 'nicotine reduced" No . 25stri ps res ult s

in a reduction of the undesirable mouth pepperiness and throat irritation ;

but the smoke flavor exhibits too much bitter and woody taste ,

we have been trying to develop a tobacco blond and flavor formula

which will add sweet flavor without producing undesirable after effects .

To reduce throat impact and burley type aftertastes, the tobacc o

blend was modified to contain more No . 1st ri ps and less No . 25 st ri ps

we follows .

12

3

LG 0391632


47/205

42% No . I stri ps20% No . 26 st ri ps16% Turkis h

3% Maryland20% CT B

Sample 7-B contains the above blend and is flavored wth a very complex

mixture which contains some heavy, sweet resinous extracts and rum type

flavors . Sample 7-B exhibits more packa ;e aroma than any of the previous

samples of its type . The smoke flavor produces a moderate amplitude of

sweet taste and a fairly good balance of flavor and stimulation factors .

Although Sample 7-B represents the most favorable among the recessed non-

filtering mouthpiece ctgarettes that we have made thus far, we do not feel

that it is satisfactory enough to be considered as a marketable item .

LG 0391633


48/205

K

FLAVOR RESCARCH - MON-FILTER CIOARETU S

M

Chesterfield :

We have been unable to make a significant improvement in t .te flavorin g

formula which has been used on Chesterfield since January, 1960 . The present

Chesterfield produces a well-aiended aroma and a high amplitude and impac t

of smoke flavor . Aging studies showthat the Chesterfield retains Its aroma

and flavor quality for a longer period of time than it did prior to the use

of its present formula .

Our work with casings has led us to the study of the use of liquid

corn sugar as a replacement for the solid No . 700 corn sugar which has been

used for many years .

The liquid corn sugar offers the aovantage of being ready to use,

that is, it does not have to be melted and consequently should allowa

saving in handling costs . Tt'e liquid sugar also offers an eoone .mlo adven-

ta3e of ;1 .75 per hundred pounds . This cost advantage amounts to approximately

;60,000 .00 par year based on our present usage .

Both formal panel and preference panel data showfavorable acceptance

of Chesterfield cigarettes which contain the liquid corn sugar .

Laboratory experiments have shown that the dipping of burley tobacc o

in oastng solutions results In an improvement In the smoking characteristics .

The dipping process is especially noteworthy because of its ability to

effect a reduction of throat harshness in the smoke of burley tobacco .

These dipping experiments tndicot that considerable quantities of sugar

and flavoring can be applied to the leaf .

The l owpri ce of rawsugar makes i t an at tract ive it emfor use i n

tobacco casing mixtures . in order t o evaluate :t s ef fect iveness, we have

prepared a number of samples containing burley tobacco which was cased by

din""tng-

N

I

I

$

0C

0

LG 0039634


49/205

0

voring

presen t

.mpact

Is aromaI:he us e

aidras bee n

I

e ;

dve n-

p_aximatel y

ptano e

+t coo

eristics .

t o

to .

in

a have

sod by

N

0

Sample 25-Y contains normal Chesterfield tobacco blend . The Burley

and Maryland strips were dipped In a casing solution composed of 35 lbs .

Raw Sugar . 70 lbs . Water and 6 .7 lbs . Finished 4hesterfield Casing . After

lipping, the tobacco was dried to gusrdite order and bulked in hogsheads

for several days when it was then blended with the No . 1 and Turkish strips .

The full blend was then spray-cased in the usual manner with normal

Chesterfield casing . out and top-dressed with Chesterfield flavoring .

Sample 25-Y was submitted to all smoking panels for evaluation agains t

a normal Chesterfield . Panel reaction to 2i-Y was about neutral after a

smoking period of 3 1/2 waste . Formal taste panel examination of 25-Y

showed a favorable reaction to the slightly increased flavor amplitude and

mouth stimulation . In the opinion of the formal panel, 25-Y exhibited more

h- .avy sweet flavor in the aftertaste chan a normal Chesterfield .

Sample 25-Y was remane in October and is being tested by the smokingpanels at this time .

Nicotine Red e Burle y

The majority of our flavorresearch involving nicotine reduced burley

tobacco has bsen connected with the non-filtering mouthpiece project

ds+aoribed above .

The formal panels h

Documents

L&M Research Report 1961