Relationship between puff intensity and smoke yields from a series

Relationship between puff intensity and smoke yields from a series

Relationship between puff intensity and
smoke yields from a series of different
smoking regimes
Stephen W Purkis (1), Valérie Troude (2), Gerald Duputié (2),
Christian Tessier (2), Xavier Cahours (2)
SEITA Imperial Tobacco Group.
Imperial Tobacco Limited, Southville, Bristol UK
Background
Smoking behaviour and alternative smoking regime
filter analysis (TIP)
topography record
panel of smokers
smoking machines
cigarette products
Smoker habits
Former data & current results
Smoking behavior
Delarue, B. et al, 2001. Assessment of smokers’ tar and nicotine yields under
natural smoking conditions: comparison between smokers of full flavour and
superlight cigarettes; CORESTA Congress Xian, China, 2-6 September, Paper
ST3. http://www.imperialtobaccoscience.com/
Purkis. S.W, Troude V; Duputié G.; Tessier C. Limitations in the
characterization of cigarette products using different machine smoking regimes.
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 2010. 58(3), 501-15.
Machine smoking regime
Imperial Tobacco Group data from two commercially available cigarettes,
sold in the early 1980s and having 0 and 28% filter ventilation was
presented in February this year at an ISO TC126 Working Group 10
meeting
Objectives
Reproduce the work carried out in the 80s with two
currently available cigarettes
Analyze the data obtained
with currently used or proposed smoking regimes
with human smoking data.
Cigarette design
Code
L
F
LV (L with vents taped)
ISO Tar yield (mg/cig)
Source Market
Blend style
PDc (mmWg)
PD TIP (mmWg)
Cigarette Length (mm)
Butt Length (mm)
3.3
Arabic countries
US
95
95
83
35
10.5
Morocco
US
125
67
83
29
7.9
US
148
95
83
35
Filter Ventilation (%)
Filter Length M(m)
49.3
27
0.5
21
0 Vents Taped
27
Testing Details
Puff Duration (sec)
Puff Volume (ml)
Puff Frequency (puffs/min)
2
17.5, 35, 55, 70
1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 3.0
Smoke
Filter Tip
Tar, Nicotine, Water, CO
Nicotine, Solanesol
SM450 16 different smoking regimes were used on the
3 cigarettes using a linear SM450 smoking machine
N=168 runs
Dataset : 1512
Location of the Filter
ventilation holes
Human smoker Yields
former results and new tests
smokers mouth
Panel 30 smokers
own product in their everyday environment
Smoking topography
Filter flow
sensor
SPA-D Sodim equipment
In the lab
Natural butt collection
ad lib. smoking behavior
measurements
δP in mmWG
20
10
Puff Volume
0
85
95
Puff duration
Smoking time (s)
Products: L, F
Cambridge filter pad: chemical analyses
Butt collections: part-filter analysis (10mm mouth end)
Key point : --no human vent blocking when using the device
D87 Sodim equipment
Parameters
Puff Intensity (ml/min)
PI = Puff Volume x Puff Frequency
Coal Volume
the volume of smoke going through the tobacco rod up to the cigarette filter.
For an unventilated cigarette
the Coal Volume = Puff Volume (PV) set on the smoking machine
For a ventilated cigarette
Coal Volume =Puff Volume (1- Ventilation(%)/100)
Human Smoker Yield
Filter nicotine filtration efficiency
Nic TIP/ (Nic TIP +Nic MS)
Tar Yield vs. Intensity
F
L
LV
y = 12.689Ln(x) - 34.136
2
Tar Yield mg/cig
R = 0.96
30
y = 9.6427Ln(x) - 26.512
2
R = 0.95
20
y = 6.7062Ln(x) - 20.724
R2 = 0.92
10
 60

 60

 *35  = 105 =  * 70 
 20

 40

0
0
ISO
50
100
CI
150
200
Puffing Intensity ml/min
Similar results to the 80s: good relationship Tar (Intensity)
Comparable curves for Nicotine and CO
Method: Average (N=3 replicates per regime )
Tar Yield vs. Total Puff Volume (focused on light product)
L
LV
LC
Tar Yield mg/cig
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
200
400
600
800
Total Puff Volume ml/cig
Similar data obtained for LV and LC (incl. coal volume effect)
Tar is more dependent on coal volume rather than on puff volume
Nicotine & CO behave the same
Water Yield vs. Total Puff Volume
L
LV
y = 1E-07x
LC
3.0635
2
R = 0.95
25
y = 2E-06x
2.424
2
Water Yield mg/cig
R = 0.91
20
15
10
5
y = 4E-07x
2
2.424
R = 0.91
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Total Puff Volume ml/cig
Comparing LC with LV – Water is lost when vents are open
Human smoker yield
L
LV
LC
Human Smoker Yield
Tar Yield mg/cig
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Total Puff Volume ml/cig
Smokers vary considerably in their puffing behavior styles and
cover a wide range of puff volumes (and puff durations and interpuff intervals) but follow same trend
Human data collected without vent blocking
Nicotine Yield vs. Total Puff Volume
Nicotine Yield mg/cig
L
LV
LC
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Total Puff Volume ml/cig
700
800
Filter nicotine analysis
Nicotine Filtration Efficiency (%)
50
LV
L
Smoker Yield
30
20
10
0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
Puff Flow rate (ml/sec)
Nicotine TIP vs. Total Puff Volume
L
LV
Smokers
600
Nicotine TIP µg/cig
NFE (%)
40
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
200
400
600
800
Total Puff Volume ml/cig
1000
Filter solanesol analysis
Solanesol TIP µg/cig
L
LV
Smokers
y = 0.2369x + 27.338
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
R2 = 0.7961
0
200
400
600
Total Puff Volume ml/cig
800
1000
Summary up
Results obtained with two currently available cigarettes
in line with the findings of the 80s cigarettes
– good relationship Tar vs. Intensity & Total Puff Volume
– water yield: specific curve (vs. Total puff volume)
Versus human smoking data obtained
on these two products
– filter analysis (nicotine, solanesol):
efficient method to assess human yield
– help in the view of modeling the different yields.