You are on page 1of 205

V.

O T?LX Or TOPICS 10 15 _3 AT THIC RACS&WH a_NF-Aa_ 1K

RLCMR B AND Q, 10-


0
REG. NO.O.
1 . Introduction . pp . 1-8

II . Various Aspects of Cigarette Back* Filtration . pp . 3-43


A. Introduction

B. Mechanism of Filtration
1. Dimensions of the system
2 . Filtration by interception
3 . Filtration by inertial impaction
4 Filtration by diffusional sap•.ur s
6 . The effect of filtration type on smoke particle site
6 . Filtration by vapor adsorption
7 . The resistance to dray
6 . Summary

0 . Filtration and books Flavor


1 . the affect of a filter on smoke flavor
2 . Flavoring filter cigarette s
D. Filter Development
1. The L and K filte r
2 . Rev development in the filter field
a . Cslavsb Acetate Roving
b . The •dtuffsr-.Tat e
0 o . The `tensions process
a . The 2-40 proces s
3 . Properties of the new filter s
4 . Practical Aspects of Filter Manufacture
a . Pressure drop
b . Firones s
o . Filtration ef'ioiency
d . Onifrrmity
e . Cost
. tspertmental Filter s
2
1 . Filters submitted by outside inventors
S . Filters suggested by L and K personnel
a . asparto floc
b . Cxtruded filte r
o. .eotroetatio filter
d . Diffusion filte r
F . Competitive Brand Filtration Studies
1 . F .T .C . mots tests .
2 . The modified L and M metho d
a . Changes in old L and N metho d
3 . Data on tompetitivs brand cigarette s
A . Discussion of changes in competitive cigarettes

LG 0391587
•1

r. ter,,,.. . .w . . ..

0 . Flavor Research-Filter Cigarette s


1 . Competitive brand s
2 . Liggett and Myers Brand s
a . L and N
b . oasi s
o . Duke of Durha m
d . Non-filtertng mouthpiec e

III . Flavor Research - Non-filter Cigarettes . pp . 44-46


A . Competitive Brand s

B. Liggett and Myers Brands


1 . Chesterfiel d
a . Liquid corn sugar
b . Dipped burley
a . Nicotine reduced burley

V . Tobacco Evaluation Reports . pp . 47-111


A. Cigarette Analyse s
1 . Chemical
2 . Physical (types of tobacco)

B . Pamarket Survey s
1 . Flue cured
2 . Burley
C . Stored Tobacco
1 . Flue cured
2 . Burley

D . Sources of Nicotine in Cigarettes


1 . Chesterfield
2 . L and N

L . Naleio Rydraride Studies


1 . The method of analysis
2 . Flue cured
3 . Burley
4 . Cigarette s

F . Armeni a
1 . Arsenio Content of Cigarettes
a . 1953
b . 1966
0 . 196 0
2 . Leaf tobacc o

0 . Tobacco Variety and Cultural Practice Studies


1 . Flue cure d
a . Future work with Coker Pedigreed Seed Co
b . N .C . 96
o . Bulk curing of bright tobacco
2 . Burley
a- New varieties
b Primed burle y
c Neat curlnb burley tobacco

LG 039158 8
H . Daluation of Domestic Aromatic Tobacc o
1 . Comparison of domestic aromatic tobacco of the 1959
crop with imported aromatic tobacco s

V. Report of the D+ginesring Division . pp . 118-139

A . Introduction

B . Nicotine Reduction Plan t


1 . Present status of the project
2 . Review of the proces s
3 . Variables affecting nicotine reductio n
4 . Operational control of nicotine reduction
5 . Factors affecting cost of the proces s
6 . Economic Analysis
a . Case I
b . Case IIA
a . Case IIB
7 . Recommendation s

C . Nicotine Recover y
1 . Present status of the project
2 . Hconosic study
3 . Suaaary
4 . Recommendations
D . Status of Other Project s
1 . Quality Control instrument s
a . Keasuresent of filling power
b . Soft spot measuring device
o . Automatic cigarette sorter
d . Burn-spot measuring devic e
e . Softening of cigarettes during burning
S . C .T .B . manufacturing proces s
a . Reduction in CTS thickness
b . Control of C .T .S. thickness
C . Hydroyyrethyl ssylose as a binder
d . W interference sui t
3 . *Pilots oidarette factory
4 . Drying studies
5 . Filling powe r
a . 'Dipped sprayed on burley
b . Dipped burle y
6 . tundaaental Studie s
a . Cellulose sharecteriatics of tobacc o
b . Pressure drop through packed tobacco beds
7 . Miscellaneou s
a . Cut burley stems
b . Competitive brand s

VT . Problems Associated with the Storage of Tobacco . pp . 140-157


A. The Insecticidal Fogging Progra m

9 . Natural Refrigeration for Insect Control

LG 0391589
.
I-

C . Floor Construction Studies in ran Cooled Houses


1 . Types of floor s
2 . Results to dat e

D . The 11014 Problem


1 . Introductio n
2 . Magnitude of the problem Prio :
3 . Preventative measure s oonfereno
Moisture Variations in Storage these ear
1 . A planned study
2 . Vapor barrier studies phases of
a . Project 1
b . Project 2 placed on
o . Project 3
d . A new projec t of inters
F . Cooperative Studies with the Stored Tobacco Insects
adequatel
laboratory of the United States Department of Agriculture
oonterenc

preparati

the confe

for repel

adaquate~

this natt

1.

thorough

interohst

each pro.

2.
basic ty ;
rate and
the repo:
previous
covered .
3.

pressing

diecusee

LG 0391590
RESEARCH CONFERENCE, DURHAM, H . Q . DECEMBf.H a a►A 8 . 3 I
4
This s

INTRODUCTION what i

Prior to our last xanadewent-Research conference in June 1960 , is eel


does n
conferences of this nature were held at intervals of 12 to 15 months . In
these earlier conferences an attempt was made to report on essentially all sins

phases of the work of the Research Department with special emphasis being T

placed on findings or topics of major interest . By 1569 the number of areas of our

or Interest and research had become so numerous that It was Impossible to the Is

adequately discuss 12 to 16 months work on each one and still keep the topics

physic
conference within the practical time limit of two days . At the time of

preparation for the conference in June 1960 the decision was made to hold physic

the conferences at approximately 6 month intervals and to schedule the topics I

on • a
for report and discussion so that all areas of research interest would be
adequately covered at least every 1Q .Aoniha ._ It was felt that a oha:ige of use o f

to be
this nature would serve several useful purposes .

1 . It would allow sufficient time for each topic on the agenda to be

thoroughly discussed In depth, which in turn would allow a more complete

interchange of management and research ideas on the need and purpose of

each project .

P . It would allow sufficient time to elapse between reports on more


0
basin type research . This type of work often proceeds at a relatively slow

rate and It more frequent reports are mane a proportionately laree part of

the report consists of background material and material which has been

previously reported a& a necessary foundation for the new material to be


covered .

3 . It would allow sufficient time freedom so that topics and work of

pressing importance and of significant advance In certain areas could be

discussed out of turn if it seemed desirable .

0
0

LG 0391591
a
P 0

2
This concept and schedule of reporting assumes one very important fact .

This assumption is that management understands the reporting schedule for

what it is and recognizes that the material which is covered in this report

is only that portion of our work which is scheduled for this report an d

does not represent the results of the entire effort of the Research Department

since the last conference .

The major emphasis of our last conference ,was placed on a discussion

of our biological work and some of the work of the Engineering Division of

the laboratory . In .he discussion of the engineering work the primary

topics were nicotine reduction . nicotine recovery, the importance of the

physical properties of cigarettes and possible ways of improving the

physical properties of Liggett and Myers' cigarettes .


.d
In the conference beginning today our major emphasis will be placed
;opio s
on • comprehensive discussion of the filtration os cigarette smoke and the
)e
use of nicotine reduction Ed recovery pro .essjj . Most of the other material
of
to be discussed will have some bearing on one or both of these main topics .

be

to

re

slow

of

of

LG 0391592
0

J.

VARIOUS ASPECTS OF CIOAASTTE SMOKE FILTRATION I

t Introductio n
With the tremendous growth of filtered cisarettea sales, the filter

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

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

the benefit of the industry in that stronger, less desirable tobaccos may 1
be inoornorated in the blend and th-ir otherwise objectionable impact can

tai 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 .

Another purpose which may be of meat subjective importance to the

consumer is that the filter tip provides a firm mouthpiece which isolates

the mouth from loose tobacco shreds . Because of the subjective nature of

this reason for smoking filer ci,arettea, it is likely that it is more


M
importantant in holding established filter smokers than in creating new ones .

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

fiitor 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 .


With these purposes in a'nd, this laboratory has been involved over

the years in a considerable amount of work on oi,Hrette filters . This

LG 0391593
N

- 4 -

report summarises this work and generally discusses the design, manufacture,
co r
and properties of cigarette filters . As a preliminary to the discussio n
r f11
of presently available and possible future filters, several sections
th e
dealing with the theoretical, orgenoleptic . and practical aspects of
be !
filtration of cigarette smoke are Inoluaed .

Meehanieris of r'ltration fi t
In the passage of cigarette smoke through the filter tip of a pa y
cigarette, a number of physical processes are occurring which contribute SM
to the overall filtration process . Acong these are the mechanical capture pa .

of smoke particles by one of several mechanisms, the adsorption and desorp- 0 Co


tion of volatile smoke components on the filter fibers . and the drag on th
the moving smoke stream caused by the stationary fibers . From work during ra
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 as


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

filters . Be
In considering the processes by which a smoke particle can b e in
mechanically captured by a cigarette filter, it is useful to consider the fi
FE

dimensions of the system . A cigarette smoke particle generally has an of


avorav,e diameter of a quarter of a micron or 10 millionths of an inch . be
The filter fibers have diameters generally ranging from 16 to 60 microns at
and are separated from a soh other by distances of the order of 100 microns . it
Because of the wide separation of the filter fibers, it Is evident tha t
0 IN an
the filter does not Not as a slevs for smoke particles . In fact the

separation is great enough thMt, to a good approxia:.t!.on, the filtration It


process can be considered as m summation of the filtration effects achieved Cc

ty single fibers uninfluenced by nethhborinK f :b .re . It to convenient t o f.

t,

ti

LG 0391594
0 - 5-

consider such a case, where a single particle Is appru .ohing an isolated

fiber oriented across the flowing gem airman . As the particle approaches

W the fiber, several processes can occur which will result in the particle

being captured by the fiber .

If the particle is favorably placed In the steam with relation to the

fiber, its trajectory can bo such that the two touch as the stream flows

past the fiber . This proceaa is known as filtration by direct interception,

and its magnitude depends principally on the ratio of the site of the

r particle and the fiber . 'therefore, larger particles, are more readily

rp- CM coll^eted, and smaller filter fibers are more efric':ent collectors than

their larger counterparts since both these factors .-ind to increase this

n8 ratio and consequently the 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

ze fiber are relatively large . It has been estimated that gas velocitie s
of more than 100 centimeters per second past the attached particle would

be necessary to dislodge it from the fiber- 3tnce this velocity is con- 0


s U siderably greater than the maximum velocities found in pufrin4 on a cigarette,

..no - it aonnare to be rather unlikely any appreciable fraction of the captured

smoke particles would be Cnintroduced Into the smoke atroam .

This irreversible collection of smoke particles makes it essentially

impossible to manufacture a ftltor which can aeloetively remove undestrabla

components from the particulate phaa . r.f ci .;brette smoke Duch a selective

ftltnr must presume that the n+ajoortty of the particles are collected by the

filter medium, the ntrieelrable component remcw od, ani the particles are

then reintroduced into the stream with their altered composition .

LG 0391595
- S -

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

the particles which pass throubh the filte, Into the smoker's mouth have f i'
a
never touched the filtering material and therefore could not be affected Si

by it . th

Returning to the methods of collection or smoke particles, another a

process by which a particle can strike and adhere to a filter fiber is by C .?

na
inertial lmpsotion . Again considering the etngle particle upstream from W
a fiber, It is evident that the stream in flowing around the protruding 81

fiber must change direction, turning either up or down as it passes the

m
fiber . A Smoke particle embedded in this stream is not as readily able to

change its direction of motion because of its inertia, so that it tend s

to continue to its original path, which causes it to collide with the

fiber . In this process the controlling factors are the mass or inertia

e of the particle, the velocity of the stress", and the :fiber diameter .

Larger particles moving at higher speeds are more efficiently collected

by this mechanism . Thus this mechanism, and t:h . .t of direct Interception

tend to collect large : particles in preference to smaller counterparts .

It is thought that the combination of these two mechanisms to primarily

responsible for the filtration of larger oldarette smoke particles . Since

the tobicoo column of a cigarette acts as a filterint to likely that these

same mechanisms tend to control the larger particle end of the size
'tte ,
distribution of cigarette omoke in both filtered and unfiltered oi ;Sardttes .

Another filtration meeh"niam which probably plays a significant part

in removing particles from a smoke stree :m is that of dlffuaional capture .

Its Tt is known that small ■ wre•o1 particles undergo a violist and erratic

V oactllatton penerally -ailed Urownlen motion . This arises through numerous


11

ho collisions of the surrounding gas molecules, which are experiencing the

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

result In smaller partic]ee moving at greater speeds and greater distanced

LG 0391596
than their larger uounterpnr•s . "hen such particles are close to a filter

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 few particles 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 freuu•ntly occurring

site . 0 .25 microns .

A more direct experimental verification of these processes has recently

been obtained in work on the filtration of homogeneous aerosols of different

particle sizes . Tn this work it was founl that curves of filtration

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

by the filter . v,rsus particle size had u minimum at approximately 0 .30-

O .3F microns . Tuble 1 presents some representative data which illustrat e

this poitat

LG 0391597
- 8 -

TABL .1
Corparison of Solid Aerosol "titration Hfficisnoles for 17 as Filter Plugs
eapt
Aerosol dec o
Partial s 26 DPF 16 DPF acetat e 2 DPF U .S . Filter
Sire acetate + 12% solka floe acetate Corp. paper an
imicrons )
0 .20 15% 46% 60% arot
85%
0.25 11 42 56 81 aero
0 .30 41 54 79
0 .35 41 54 78
0 .40 1• . 43 55 72 fli t
0 .5 0 13 48 57 82
53 63 88 aoe t
0.60 18

From the data in Toblo


..l, it is apparent that a variety of filters

exhibit the same filtration pattern with changing particle site, thereby

suggesting a generality of application of these filtration mechanisms for

oiy .rott;e filters .

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 more

orientation parallel to the smoke stream . Theoretically, the orientation tnor

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

sate
of the filter fibers . If the fibers are truly parallel to the smok e
a di
stream, the diffuslonal capture of prrticlee should be enhanced since the
amok
particles are in close proximity to the fiber for longer times . Conversely,
the
the processes of direct interception and inertial impaction should not be
port
operative since the flow direction is unchanged in flowing along the fiber ..
it a
In actual practice, however, a cellulose acetate filter has a number of
the
irregularities in the flow pattern, caused by the crimps in the fibers and
efft
the crossing of one fiber over another . These factors reintroduce th e
err ,
interception and Impaction mechanisms, so that their filtration characteristics

are not unlike those of other types of filters .

LG 0391598
- 9 -

Another process which occurs in cigarette filters in addition to the


r Plugs 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

li erosoT ke i tratio n
Cigarette filtration Efficiency Zfflolonoy

14W- 0% floc 16 .7 26 . 9
16W- 3% floc 24 .6 28 . 6
lbw- 6% floc 33 .1 32 . 7
r 17W- 9% floe 42 .2 39 . 6
18W- 12% floc 62 .3 44 . 4
oz 19v- 15% floe 60.1 60. 3

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


pe
aerosol consisting only of solid particles starts at a lower value but
.age
increases more rapidly than the corresponding efficiency for smoke in this
t on
graded series of filters . This would indicate that cigarette smoke contains
'latenc y
materials oth'r than particles which are removed from the smoke stream i n

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


the
smake stream is known to contain vaporized components, it is thought that
r• •sely .
the difference between these efficiencies is caused by the removal of a
,t b e
portion of the vapors by the cigarette filter . From the data in Table 2,
fiber .
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 .

11

LG 0391599
-10-

A further series of experiments were conducted to more directly


is all

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


adsort
these exoerimente a pad of Cambridge filtering material, which collects
i
essentially all the particulate material and allows a portion of the vapor
phas e
phase of smoke to pass through, was placed between a cigarette and its
thougi
filter tip . The assembly was then Booked in the usual fashion and the
adsort
amounts of material collected on the Cambridge pad, the cigarette filter,
utili :
and the final L and N trap were measured . The vapor adsorption efficiency
0 efftc,
is given by the amount of material on the cigarette filter divided by the
betwe .
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


const
amount of particulate material is given by the weight collected on the
which
Cambridge pad . Table 3 summarizes these data .
fiber
TABLE P depen
weaeu"ements of Vapor Adsorption Cfficiency and Relative Amounts of
Material in the Particulate and Vapor Phase s the v

-' Total Percent Vapor seater


Cigarette Weight of Weight of vapor Weight of Smoke adsorrpption
particulat e trapped b y of in vapor fftcteno y unde r
material cigarette filter vaporised phase (Z )
(mgm/oig .) (ago/oig) materia l (% )
( F(oil)-
cigar
14W 64 .1 4 .49 11 .8 16 .3 38 . 9
15W 60 .6 3 .91 10 .1 14 .3 38 .9. This
16W 64 .4 4 .24 10 .6 14 .1 40 . 0
17W 63 .9 4 .50 11 .4 15 .1 39 . 6 ftite
l8W 63 .? 4 .39 11 .3 15 .1 38 . 8
19$ 61 .9 4 .06 10 .0 13 .9 40. 6 ortet
to m
In Table 3 . it is indicated that the vaporadsorption efficiency is
for great
oonstantAthia series of filters, containing from 0 to 15% solks floe .
the 1
Since the ajuitton of 156 folks floc approximately triples the surface area
can .
of the filter, It is indicated that an equilibrium exists between adsorp-
dro p
tion and desorption of the vaporised smoke components . If such an

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

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

LG 0391600
M
0

- 11 -

is also indicated that cellulose acetate and solka floe have similar
0
adsorbative capacities for the vaporised materials present in poke . pr
The date in table 3 on the percent of the total smoke in the vapor so
phase are probably considerably lower than the actual values . This is mu
thought to be the case since the Vambridge filter pad undoubtedly has some fi
adsorbative capacity for smoke vapors . For this reason, calculations is
utilising these amounts of vapor and particulate material, and the vapor at
efficiencies given in table 3 to not completely rectify the discrepancy IT
between the efficiency figures of Table 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 of

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 I
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 flow of gas through the 0tlter . This resistance to flow

can alt .rnativ,ly be considered ■ s the pressure difference, or pressure


drop required to draw a given flow through the cigarette,

LG 0391601
-19-
In theoretically considering the factors which contribute to the
alter
pressure drop, there are two approaches which may be taken . The first, and
bear
more commonly used, is to consider the filter as being composed of a
sale(
multitude of regu2arly6haped channels of capillary dimensions . the
be d+
filter is thus considered me a bunch of capillary tubes in which Poiseutlle's
some
law applies . While this approach may be useful in considerind certain types
thi s
such as paper filters which have well defined channels, the wide fiber

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


post
This approach consists of considering a fiber as essentially isolated
smoti
from its surrounding fibers and estim-ting the viscous drag of the stationary
th .
fiberfbn the moving air stream . The force per unit area required t o
❑ whi(
overcome this drag effect is considered to be the pressure drop of the
Sh e
filter . Calculations of the pressure drop based on the numbers and dimen-
won
stons and orientation of cellulose acetate fibers are found to be in

reasonable agreement with the measured values when this model is'chosen.
tap
In these calculations the variables of primary importance are the velocity
!or
of flow, the fraction of the filter area occupied by the filter strands,
ac(
and the orientation of the fibers . In general it is found that a reduction
act
in pressure drop may be achieved by reducing the number and/or dross sectional
im)
area of the fibers and by insuring that a greater proportion of the fibers
psi
are oriented perpendicular to the stream . Of these factors, only a reduction
th.
in the number of fibers tends to reduce the filtration efficiency, while
th
the others can increase this property .
ar
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 latter prope-t ; may, however,

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

HZE

LG 0391602
- 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


Tt
be devised . Because of the equilibrium nature of vapor adsorption processes,
able of
some degree of selectivity can be achieved for smoke components present in
depends
this phase .
filtra t
By alteration of the structure of the filter it would appear to be

possible to slightly shirt the particle size distribution of the exit Tt

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

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

istios
which is in itself a filtering medium . Also because of this consideration,
tt.r"M
the chances of shifting the distribution towards larger particle size s

would appear to be better than the opposite ease . T1

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

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

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

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

and increase the randomness of fiber orientation which represents an A

improvement over the older parallel orientation . The less widely used reduce,

paper filters represent a theoretical improvement over the fibrous type in lnoreat

produo•
that their fibers are generally smaller and more favorably odented . Further
theoretical improvements in both these types of filters are possible and effioi

are the sub3eot of our continuing investigations . stiuntl

a bla n

Lion f

tastin

to cobs

than a

oigare

ohann .

LG 0391603
0
as

. ..

r
- 14-
FILTRATION AN SHOVE FLAVO R
harehne
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
above .
depends on several factors such as tip length, tip composition, and tip
ohambel
filtration efficiency .
smoker'
The tip on the and of the cigarette causes the emote to travel an
11 efteoti
unnatural path . Filter tips are usually composed of material which is
recess
different from leaf tobacco . These 'toreign' materials have surface character-
the bac
isties and shapes which are different from tobacco . When the smoke is forced
inorea.
through such materials, the delicate balance of the smoke flavor is disturbed .
tobaoo .
The most obvious result of the filter tip is the reduction of the amount

of smoke reaching the smoker's mouth . The filter tip simply removes some of
8.
the particulate and vapor phase of the smoke . The removal of any portion of
oharao
the particulate and vapor phase unbalances the flavor characteristics of the
formal.
smoke, and the degree of unbalance is not always prediotaole .
I
A cellulose acetate filter reduces the overall flavor level and, generally,
materl
reduces the sweet-fragrant component of the flavor . The result is an apparent
harahn
increase in the bitter taste . A low efficiency cellulose acetate filter
both f'
producos an increase in mouth and throat harshness . As the filtration
a amok,
efficiency of a cellulose acetate tip is increased, the smoke flavor and
0
stimulation characteristics decrease to the point whore the smoker receive s
maters
0 a bland, flat-tasting smoke which has neither body nor satisfaction .
eaterl
Paper filters produce more drastic ohandee in smoke flavor and stimula-
tanks,
tion factors . Paper filters, generally . produce dry, acrid, and bitter
lntrod
tasting smoke from almost any type of tobacco or tobacco blend . Paper seems
fruit
to absorb more moisture and sweet-tasting, fragrant components from the smoke
flavor
than cellulose acetate . The physical arrangement of the paper sheet in a
volati
cigarette filter resembles a 'honeycomb ■ and contains hundreds of tiny
recent
channels . These channels seem to scoentuato the production of bitterness and
as t o

LG 0391604
- 15 -

harshness in the smoke .


The effect of a recessed filter tends to support the idea described pleas
above . The space within the recess ante like a lards 'channel' or mixing

chamber where the smoke particles can conglomerate before they reach the probl
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
er-
the back of the smoker's mouth . The apparent relocation of the smoke impact
d
increases the intensity of the non-fragrant woody and bitter tastes of the
4.
tobacco smoke .
.t
FUYORING FILTERED CIGAHF.TTE s

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


illy ,
materials which restore most fragranoe to the smoke without introducing
:n t
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 always predict which types or combinations of flavoring

materials will produce the desired result . Generally, the non-volatile

materials found in natural extractives such as licorice, cocoa, deertongue,

tonka, resins and spices serve to restore impact to filtered smoke as well as

introduce mouth stimulation factors . Volatile flavoring materials such as

:6 fruit extracts, organic esters, aldehydes and colas, and amplitude to the

flavor by overcoming the 'blindness' found in filtered smoke . The more

volatile flavoring materials are partioulnrly important in connection with

recessed filters . They serve to balance the bitter amt woody tastes nit well

ad as to produce more taste in the front part of the smoker's mouth .

LG 0391605
M

- 16 -
Mother important function Of the volatile additives is to produce

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

Each new tobaooo blend and each new filter presents its own flavoring

problem . the c

Pleat

as a

of i f

Is t t

40 p1

advai

dote

prea
pri m

L an

an d

the

LG 0391606
- 17 -

FILTER DEVELOPM .94 T


be
The Land W filter is made by a tension-additive process . That is,
fil
he cellulose acetate tow is stretched to separate or "bloom" the fibers .
rev
Plasticizer to sprayed on the fibers and then the floe additive is applied
Cal
as a dust : The cellulose acetate tow used in the L and M filter is made
L a
of 16 denier filaments and has a total denier of 80,000 .

The 16 dpf 80,000 tow produces a very fire filter . The L and M filter ft
to the firmest of all cellulose acetate filters on the market . fl ,
The floc additive is applied in sufficient quantity to maintain a at
40 percent filtration efficiency . A filter of the L and M type offers two me '
advantages : The filters are firmer, end the level of filtration, which is

determined by the additive content, can be changed at will without changing ma,
equipment or materials . th
0 The disadvantages of the additive type filter are (1) non-uniform pr
pressure drop, (2) non-uniform site and (3) high manufacturing costs due
ov
primarily to inspection and "making room" waste .

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


L and A ci ;9rette has caused us to devote considerable effort to the study
to
and development of new types of filters . Ce
Th^re have been several new developments 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 re


small, irregularly-shaped filaments ; (2) A 03tuffer-Jet" for the febrioetion sw
of high efficiency filters from small filament tow ; and (3) A high pressure b
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
r
thn :-60 Process .
m

LG 0391607
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 with the Celanese Fibers Company led to tie development of Type 21

Celaweb which is now being 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
•lter firm, uniform filters from small filament, low total der .ler tow. The small

filament, low total denier tow will produce a uniform, hi%' s ;flcienoy filter

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

cent tow does 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 stuffer-Jet

produces firm uniform filters and provides a limited amount of control


us over the pressure drop and filtration efficiency of the filters produced.

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


th e total denier tow exhibit a pressure drop and filtration efficiency comparable
Ludy to the present L and H filters containing 16 dpf 80 .000 TD tow and 13 per

sent floe .
field In the course of our research on the tension-stuffing process with

the 2 .1 dpf 60,000 TD tow, we found that it was necessary to slightly


L of redesign our machine t, accommodate the low denier material . After several
.o .tion modifications and adjustments, we found that a satisfactory filter rod could
insure be produced without the aid of the stuffer Jet . Successive rune using
10
ai r several lots of 2 .1 dpt 60,000 TD tow from both suppliers showed good
led reproducibility by the straight tension process . Filtration uniformity was

maintained, . .id we realized a real advantage in pressure drop uniformity .

We now have several machines modified to produce 2 .1 denier filters

by the tension process

LG 0391608
- 19 -

The Fastman ^rc6O Jet was submitted to its in October, 1960. The 9 .60
process employs a new approach 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 low total 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 new attachment for the application of plastici-

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


eliminates plasticizer waste .
2
In our first E-60 experiments, we used 2 .1 dpf 48,000 TD tow . These
T.
filters exhibited higher pressure drop and filtration efficiency than our
'ra e
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 tow and the 9-60 process produce
a uniform, satisfactory filter rod which has pressure drop and filtration
id.
characteristics of the L and M filter .
3
Table 1 shows a comparison of the physical properties of 86 an
Parabl e
eiitarsttes made with the several types of filters which have been discussed
per
above,

Vera l

c. .,uld

LG 0391609
KCCAK O ♦ SA~CtY ~ ;Ln q

IM

-20-
TABLtC I
COMPARISON OF SIX ?!P23 OP FILT91 CI0AR6TT49
=

Tow Type 16 Of Celaweb 2 .1 Apr 2 .1 dpf 2 .1 dpt 1 .6 dpf


80 .000 TD 030 .000TD 60,000TD 48.000TD 37 .000T

Process Tension- - Tension- Tension 2-60 2 .6 0


Additive Stuffing

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 .099

Cigt . Pressur e 12 .2 12 .8 11 .1 11 .2 12 .2 10. 7


Drop(CmsR.O)
IN
Filter Pressur e 8 .0 8 .4 6 .3 8 .0 8.3 6.7
Drop(crosHsO)

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 .64


(m6 )
FTC Smoke les s 31 .38 53.23 33 .86 30.01 33 .40 33 .3 6
niootine(sgs)

Filtration 41 .0 42 .3 39.0 43 .0 43 .7 41 . 4
%ffioieney

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

been described above, we have prepared Table 2 . -

Table 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


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

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

filters .

w, , ~ . ] • ..s •o
)14 Wa0 34 - --

LG 0391610
-21 -

LA" I

E5TINAT09 COST OF K Tf..RIALS RC UDI2D TO MAKE 17 as FILT2R 9


FOR 1 KILLION CIOAM2TTE9
Ca :

Tow Type 18 dpf Celaweb 2 .1 dpf 2 .1 Apt 1 .8 dpf and san


8 O, 2 Do 21 60000TD 48 .0001D 37,2M
nor add
Process Tension- i Tension 6-60 E-6 0
Additive filtrat

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

Tow price $0 .45 $0 .60 :;0 .89 $0 .62 ;0 .6 8 assembl

Tow Cost 8180 .90 4201 .90 ;,178 .48 ;178.37 3167 .3 5 assembl

Plasttctaer Cost ?9 .36 - „9 .20 j8 .97 88 .97 techni q

Floe Cost $13 .41 - - - -

Total cost 8203 .66 $201 .90 =187 .88 $187 .34 =166 .32
0 Tt
Savings -- 0.1 .76 $16 .98 $16 .32 €37 .34
ch uins

Annual Savings more of


based on 20 billion 936,200 9319,600 ;326 .400 F746 .80 0
Droluotio n lower a

will h+

Practical Aspect gf Filte Manufactur e tow .

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

has certain advantages and disadvantages which are discussed below ; with t

,16 Apt 80 .000 TD Tow 4 P stioiser • Floc filter

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

will over a range of 20 to 40 percent . The It denier tow produces a very a]1 ty

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

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

levels of filtration . (2) non-uniform site . (3) relatively hash waste of


I
tow and floc, and (4) higher inspection costs .
aoprec

little
be us(

stuff '

LG 0391611
te

Coloweb JU
of
Celaweb 21 produces a uniform filter with a minimum inspection cost
to
and can be made into filters on a simplified machine . Ileitber plasticizer

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 mat
assemblers . Recent experimental work indicates that filter firmness and pr
assembler performance can be improved through modifications in processing of
techniques . Celaweb 21 offers a slight economic advantage . at
qu,
2.1 dQ 60,000 TD + Plasticize r
wi
The 2 .1 denier tow offers a real economic advantage . In addition, the
co
elimination of the floc additive may enable us to make a filter that is
W
more uniform in both pressure drop and also . Inspection costs should be

lover and we would expect to have less tow waste . Filter making machines
in
will have to be modified to a certain extent to accommodate the 2 .1 denier
Li
tow . However . the modified machines can be used to prbosss any type o f
of
tow which does not require an adaltive . The primary disadvantage connected

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

filtration efficiency at will . Filters made with 2 .1 denier tow are 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 tow offers no

aopreoiable advantage over the tension process except that it may allow a

little latitude in filtratior range . In other words, the stuffer jet can
be used to effect a slight increase in filtration which is aooosjili4w1by

stuffing more tow into a given length of filter, The main disadvantage

LG 0391612
11

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 . t
Af

Rr60 PROC6s5
in
The ;-60 Process offers the advantage of rather large savings in
del
materials and reduction in waste . It is simple to operate . The L-60
ri :
process produces firm, very uniform filters which perform well on all type s
an'
of assemblers . The 9-60 process saorifioes the ability to change filtration

at will except over a very small range . rho process requires large
Ps'
quantities of high pressure air (20 to 25 psi) . The filter asking machines
he .
will require considerable modification . It is estimated that the cost of
tb
converting machines and installing sufficient air capacity will be about
Sp
23,000 .00 permachine .
the
An additional disadvantage rests in the tact that the 9-f0 process
re;
involves a patented device and its use requires an agreement which say bind
fi
Liggett and Myers to the £astaan Company making Zastman the exclusive supplier
so
of any tow used on the device .
fi

th
an
at
to
an

so

In

pa
to

of

P1

LG 0391613
<o u s.

Uperisental !'liters
at
In the proceeding sections of this report, several new developments
P.
in the area of cellulose acetate filters have been discussed. These

developments and those in the field of the previously mentioned paper


fi
filters have tended to improve the mechanical filtration properties and cos t
ex
and ease of manufacture of the filter tip .
It ee
In addition to these new filters, a number of sample filters and

patents submitted by inventors have been examined, and for the most part

have been found not to be of interest . Since most inventors start from

the erroneous concept that they can develop a selective filter oy some

special treatment of an existing filter material, it is not surprising

that most of these inventions are not of particular value . other samples

represent a new employment of one or more of the previously dsoussed

filtration mechanisms, and as such receive a more thorough examination.

So far none of thee* has appeared to be as good as the presently available

filters in one or more of the usual criteria of evaluation . An example of

this is found in the MaoParland-Lwbert filter, which consisted of a Set


and impingement plate system . This system, *von thoudb it removed con-

siderable amounts of coke, was found to have an excessive pressure drop .

to have undesirable taste characteristics, and would probably be difficult

and expensive to manufacture .

Besides filter developments submitted by manufacturers and inventors,


me t
some work on eVertmental filters has been conducted in this laboratory .
pot
In previous reports some of these have been discussed, and for the most
wi t
part have represented attempts to reduce the filter fiber diameter . to

improve the fiber orientation, or to alter the adsorption oharacterlstlos


bat
of existing filter materials . Oxamples are the use of esparto floe in
or
place of solka floe, which would result In a reduced filter fiber diameter,
amt

Si '

LG 0391614
S

as

and the pipe cleaner and molded filters, which achieved a preferred
int o
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
and cost
extruding a methanol slurry of a mixture of short cellulose acetate and alpha
cellulose fibers through an critics tube with a perforated wall . Ibis
i
operation forms a coherent rod by separating the mixed fibers and the
part
methanol, the latter being expelled through the perforations in the
roe
extrusion tabs . After oven drying the rod consists of a porous mass of
me fibers generally oriented perpendicular to the long axis of the rod . It
ng
is found that t.hv
.se filters have filtration efficiencies and pressure
spie s
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
on .
efficiency . They do not appear to have the objectionable taste properties
ileble
of the paper filters .
p_s of which
Two other experimental filter&/have been suggested,but have not as
jet
yet been investigated, are an electrostatic filter and a diffusion battery
on-
filter . The former of these is based on the filtration mechanism of
drop,
attracting charged smoke particles to an oppositely charged filtering
'f cul t
medium . It is known that smoke has a roughly equal division of positively
charged, negatively charged, and neutral particles . By employing a filter
rotors,
material with a permanent polarization or charge separation, it should be
:ory .
possible to remove an apprwiable percentage of these charged particles
3r .Rt
without increasing the filter pressure drop .
to
A seoo nd prospective filter is based on the principle of a diffusion
istios
battery . This would consist of a multitude of small channels without bends
in
or protruding fibers . As such it would be effective only for removing
LS meter,
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
0
11

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

lpba are thought to impart taste to the smoke relatively undisturbed .

preliminary investigatinn of this filter is being started .

1 t

Or
r
T
r
a

Is ® 1

11
0
C

LG 039161 6
i

Competitive Brand filtration Studie s resul


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

production, and filtration efficiency of 17 competitive brand filter cigarettes from :


have been conducted . In this period, two separate test methods have been L and
employed . One of these is the F .T .O . testing routine in use during the past

few years . The second is the L and M testing method modified in accordance in th
with the proposals of the Analytical Methods Committee of the Tobacco Chemists' the a

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

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

on the same purchase of cigarettes tested by the new method . Since the P .T .C . app's
method provides less reliable data and considerably less information abou t words

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

and all future testing will be by the revised L and M method . appe'C
In the past four years, 17 series of filter cigarettes have been tested corre

by the method outlined in our publications in Tobacco Science . This method appal
.served its intended purpose well, in that variations in the composition o f throe

the brands tested were readily detectable . A number of the test procedures proof
were, however, considerably different from those used by other workers so dono r
that our data was not comparable to other published and unpublished data . the i

In an effort to standardize smoke testing and provide a method which could f OW%c

be used for collaborative testing, the Analytical Methods Committee of the ■inu

Tobacco Chemists' Conference carefully studied the problem and puopose« a aimi *

rigorous set of test procedures . In one of the alternative forms, the method

approximates' the old L and M method . The major revisions are a change in to a
puff volume from 44 to 40 cubic centimeters, a change in frequency from 2 to door
1 putt per minute, a change from smoking a fixed number of puffs to smoking alga
all cigarettes to a 30 mm butt length . and the substitution of a Karl Fischer Whir
weter determination for the old chloroform eolubl• tar- determination . pro d
These revisions were such that the older dnta are not strictly comparable now

to data obtained by the new method . For instance, the change in puff volume to t

LG 0391617
-28-

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
;arettes from 39 .5 to 43 .1% efficiency for the total smoke obtained from an 85 mm .
an L and M cigarette . .
pas t The change in interval for cellulose acetate filters generally result
onc e in the smoke efficiency being slightly higher than the nicotine eftienoy for
hemists' the same cigarettes . For paper filters the opposite seems too-hstrue . It
urposes, is thought that this behavior is related to the vapor absorption problem,
e dat a since efficiencies computed from smoke weights corrected for water generally
. . T.C . appear to be in better agreement with the ntootine efficiency . In other
ou t words, the water present in smoke is more effectively filtered than the less
Rime , volatile components, so that the overall smoke efficiency is reduced to

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


e ted corrected for water . The introduction of a longer interval between puffs
thod apparently enhances the process of water removal by the filter, possibly
of through a more complete condensation and absorption of the residual smoke
urea
present in the filter and cigarette during the interval . This has been
s^
demonstrated in experiments where similar L and K cigarettes were smoked by
.t a .
the same routine except for a change in the frequency of puffing . It was
,ul d
found that the water removal efficiency changed from 25 .7% at 4 puffs per
the
minute to 31 .3% at 2 puffs per minute to 52 .5% at 1 puff per minute . A
u a
similar change in the total amount of water in the smoke was noticed .
method
The effect of shifting from smoking a fixed number of puffs to smoking
in
to a fixed butt length has been discueeed previously . The main effect is to
2 to
decrease the amount of smoke and other components delivered by fast burning
•k i ng
cigar-ttee, since fewer puffs are necessary to reach the fixed butt length .
'leche r
Whereas formerly most cigarettes appeared to be quite similar In their smoke
producing properties, and differed mainly in their filtration efficiencies ;
parabl e now both the smoke producing end filtering propertiep very widely from brand
olume to brand .

LG 0391618
I

-29-

anger
In addition to the changes noted in the proceeding paragraphs, a new
Increase
measurement of the porosity of cigarette paper has been added to the
. A.
analytical routine . This consists of a measurement of the pressure drop of

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


exult
more porous the paper the lower the pressure drop . Values range from 4-5
nay for
centimeters of water for the highest porosity paper to 20-25 centimeters
. It
for a normal cigarette paper .
Iles,
Another added determination is a measurement of the oirouaferenoe of
inerally
the cigarette by means of a Rauni gauge .
;her
During the course of the Year, one complete series of analyses have
0" .4 less
been performed by the revised L and M method, and three series performed by
to
the F .T .C . method . The data obtained represent the average values for
Le
cigarettes purchased in 8 cities throughout the United States, and are
puffs
summarised in Table 1 and 2 .
abl y
In Table 1, it should be noted that the cigarettes are all smoked to
smoke
the 25 mm . butt length required by ,he P .T .C . method except where the length
been
of the tipping paper is such that this is not feasible, in which case they
oked by
are smoked to within 2mm . of the tipping paper . These exceptions are
t wa s

e per indicated by appropriate footnote marks .

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

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

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

+a . . Is to Salem cigarettes during this period . The reasons for these changes wil l

burning be disouseed in connection with Table 2 .

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

'ir smoke national purohase of cigarettes are given in Table 2 . The changes noted in

L .Dias, Table 1 for several brands are evident in these data, when compared with

rom brand the previous results obtained by the ol.d 1 . end M method . These changes may

be tummarized as follows :

LG 0391619
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
0
of the former mixed payer and cotton plug . This change resulted in a

considerable reduction in smoke delivery for this cigarette .


v
3 . Marlboro cigarettes are now equipped with a 20 mm . acetate filter N

plug, this replacing the previous 17 mm . plug.

4 . It has been noted that the Salem is now equipped 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 Winston, and have resulted in a slight reduction in smoke
1
delivery .

5 . The Newport and Old Gold are now wrapped in medium instead of high I

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


-increased
burtAng rate ant/the smoke delivery for these brands .

In general, the changes observed during this year in these brands have

been slight in comparison with those made in previous years . The trend

towards reducing smoke and nicotine delivery has in most instances stopped

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

LG 0391620
-31-

?ABL
SUMMARY DATA OF COMPETITIVE CIGARETTES ANALYZED BY THE F .T .C . METHOD DURING 1960

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

JANUARY 1960 PEUHUARY 1960 JUI3' . 19 0


gioke Nu3 er o • u4 er Books Nicotine lumber
Solids Nicotine of Solids Nicotine of Solids o f
(ege/0110 (e /oiR) Puffs (am/0110 (aga/oigl Puffs (sgg/cig) (Ma/old Puff s
85 ae i
Sotng 17 .1 0.6 8. 4 17 .6 0 .6 8 .6 17 .3 0 .6 9 .1
Life'r 17 .6 0.7 9. 5 19 .6 0 .8 9 .8 16 .6 0 .5 9 .2
Alpine 23 .1 1 .0 9. 5 24 .2 1 .0 9 .7 24 .5 1 .2 10 .1
Parliament 25 .2 0 .9 9.7 26 .8 1 .1 10 .9 25 .9 1 .2 10 .0
Kent 25 .7 1 .2 10. 1 28 .1 1 .2 10.2 26 .9 1 .1 9 .6
Sano 25 .4 0 .7 10. 6 23 .1 0 .6 10 .3 17 .3 0 .5 9 .?
Hit Parade 28 .0 1 .1 10 . 7 27 .0 1 .2 20.3 27 .8 1 .3 10,4
L and M 29 .4 1 .6 10. 5 29 .0 1 .5 10 .6 28 .9 1 .4 10 .3
Newport 29 .2 1 .3 9.4 28 .8 1 .3 9 .9 28 .4 1 .2 9 .4
Viceroy 29 .6 1 .5 10 . 7 29 .4 1 .6 10 .8 28 .5 1 .5 10 .5
Old Gold 30 .5 1 .3 9. 5 27 .2 1 .3 9 .6 25 .9 1 .2 9 .0
Winston 32 .2 1 .8 11 . 0 30 .8 1 .8 10.8 31 .1 1 .? 10 .9 .
Marlboro 35 .3 1 .8 11 . 4 34 .4 1 .8 10 .9 33 .0 2 .7 10.6
Tnreyton 35 .4 1 .8 10 . 8 34 .9 1 .8 11 .2 .3 .5 1 .6 10 .8
'Alen 57 .4 2 .0 11 . 3 34 .4 2 .0 11 .1 32 .5 1 .9 10.9
Dukes 16 .2 0 .9 9.3
_

_ppf32
TABLE $

Summary Table of 18th Series of 00m1- 3titiw• Cigarette s

[Is All Cigarettes smoked to a 30 an butt Lengt h

Cigarette Life Sano Spring Alpine L•N Viceroy


C1
Cistarelto Data Ci
• t as 1 .055 1 .174 1 .117 1 .164 1 .204 1 .10 0
Pressure drop cm•Hs0)15.9 16 .3 13 .7 12 .7 13 .1 13 .8 F
Circunferenoe mm) 25 .15 26 .39 25 .41 26.60 26 .29 26 .21 C
Burn Rate ( min 6 .21 5 .19 6 .62 4.54 4 .26 4 .69
E f
Nicotine Content %) 1 ./1 0.88 1 .07 1 .53 1 .72 1 .75 N
Length (mm) 84 .d 86 .0 84 .6 84 .8 84 .9 84 .9 I
Paper Porosity(omsHe0)5 .6 8 .6 4 .0 10 .8 19 .9 24 .6 I
ter Data Yj
Keg ams) 0 .204 0 .189 0.260 0 .250 0 .261 0 .163
Pressure Drop((oaHa0) 10 .3 9.0 8.2 7 .4 8 .6 7 .0 I
Length .101M) 20 .0 15 .1 20.0 20 .0 17 .0 17 .0 I
Fiber Diameter (es) Paper filter Paper filter 23 24 45 18 I
Additive Content(%) None None 9 .3 None 13 .8 Non e

2221109 Da
usher 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
t
fat r a on
o • ■ Rm7 tg 22 .7 27 .5 28 .0 38 .9 38.8 37 . 9
Mater mgm/cig 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 .7
Niootine(mp/cig) 0 .69 0.45 '0 .65 1 .12 1 .41 1 .4d
E!M 1
Nat rt a
ot, mgmioig 66 .4 54 .6 53 .8 70.9 70 .6 65 . 6
Mater mgm/cig 22 .8 16.7 20.1 85 .2 22 .9 20. 8
Dry Smokttimgm/o1) 33 .6 39 .1 33 .7 45 .7 47 .6 44 . 8
❑ Nicotine(mgs/otgJ 1 .76 0 .9? 1 .18 1 .90 2 .50 2 .43

FL-4tratag Efficiency
Wot* 69 .8 49 .8 48.0 45 .1 46 .0 42 .4 P:
-dater 54 .0 52 .9 68.2 54 .0 47 .6 51 .4
Dry tine. % ) 66. 8 48 .6 41.8 40.3 43 .7 38. 2
619 Nicotine (~) 5 53 .6 44 .9 41 .1 43 .6 39 . 9

T .T .C . Analyst .
moso ids mgm/cig)15 . 7 17 .3 17 .3 24 .5 29 .0 28. 5 F
Nicotine (ago cig) 0 . 6 0.6 0 .7 1 .2 1 .5 1 .5
Number of Puf f s 9 . 1 9 .7 9 .1 10 .1 10 .4 10 .6

LG 0391622
TASLIC I (Gent . )

Hi t Par la - ld
troy Ciasrette Parade Kent ment Marlboro Newport Gold
.
C:
C • Data
00 weight grams) 1 .124 1 .080 1 .113 1 .172 1 .046 1 .066
8 Pressure Drop(cmH,O) 10 .0 12.5 13 .2 11 .6 11 .2 11 . 1
21 Circumference (mm 25 .56 25 .33 26 .38 26 .70 26 .38 25 .44
it Burn Rate (se/min 4 .25 4 .87 4 .34 4 .28 5 .32 8 .39
'5 Nicotine Content %) 1 .60 1 .36 1 .50 1 .78 1 .51 1.60
9 Length ( ■ m) 85 .0 84 .9 84 .8 86.0 84 .8 84 . 9
6 Paper Porosity(o ■He0) 23 .9 8 .2 10 .1 11 .8 6 .8 9.8
F
T r D•ta_
L63 eame 0.185 0 .209 0 .218 0 .249 tl .191 0 .194
3 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 . 0
Paper 23 0
Fiber Diameter (K) 18 28 21 23
.1 . filte r
Additive Content (4 ) None None None Non. None hone e

Sapki ng _Ds a
.2' 1ht■
-ber ofuff s 9 .7 9 .4 9 .7 10.1 8 .6 8. 7
Butt Length ( ■m) 30 .0 30 .0 30 .0 30 .2 30 .0 29 . 9
Ma is . a
' .1 ok• ■ gM ctK 39 .1 35 .0 41 .2 43 .6 35 .8 37 . 8
wat .r( ■ g■/otd 10.3 11 .1 12 .4 10 .9 10 .6 10. 8
46 Dry Snake ( ■ p/oig) 28.8 23 .9 28 .8 32 .7 26 .2 27 . 0
Nlootine( ■g■(oig) 1 .26 1 .07 1 .24 1 .43 1 .16 I
1 .17
S. 6 Totes Na a a 1
). 8 woke ■ Gig 67 .3 58 .9 69 .3 71 .9 68 .5 59 . 0
i1 Water mg■/oig 22 .5 21 .3 25 .5 22 .6 20 .4 20 . 5
. 43 Dry Smok .( ■ga/ci) 44 .8 37 .6 43 .8 49 .3 38 .1 38. 5
Nicotin .( ■gm/oig 2 .25 1 .64 1 .99 2 .29 1 .74 1 .7 5
Z .4 Filtra n Effto 0
1 .4 Sao • 41 40 .6 40 .5 39 .4 37 .1 36 . 9
8 .2 Water (S 54 .2 47 .9 51 .4 51 .8 48 .0 47 . 3
9 .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 . 1
8 .6 F .T .C . Analysi s
.5 Smoke Solids mgm/c1g) 27 .8 26 .9 25 .8 32 .9 26 .6 26 . 9
0 .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

t
Includes 5 mm recess

0
0

LG 0391623
w L

-34-

TABLR 2 (Cont .)
M.
70 90 M .
Cigarette Winston Salem Tareyton L•K East Oak s
Ci ar-tt Data
Weight (gross) 1 .161 1 .161 1 .142 1 .012 0.966 1 .119
Pressure Drop asHaO) 10.6 10.8 10 .7 11 .9 13 .2 16 .6 Did,
Circumference (mm 25 .70 25 .82 26 .57 26 .14 26 .4? 26 .01
!turn Mats (ms/min) 4 .46 4 .34 4.60 4 .14 4 .39 4 .70 the
.Jicotine Content (7G) 1 .91 2 .06 1 .66 1 .77 1 .39
Length (me) 84 .7 84 .4 84 .8 70.0 89 .9 86.0 eta"
Paper Porosity(omHiO) 11 .9 10.2 34 .6 19 .6 8.4 10. 9
F rDa a
eight-Gass)) 0 .182 0 .186 0.225 0.234 0 .191 0 .301 fir
Pressure Drop(omH,0) 6 .9 6 .0 4 .6 7 .? 6.6 12 . 3
Length (mm) 17 .0 17 .0 16 .0 15 .0 15 .0 26 .01 is .
Fiber Diameter ( 27 27 28 45 23
Additive 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. 7
Butt Length (mm) 29 .7 30.1 29 .9 30 .0 30 .0 30.3 tea
Mat a Qfl T_
Fg
-3i■ gs/oi
9:oe 43 .0 43 .2 43 .5 33 .4 29 .1 38 .7
11 .7 12 .7 12 .7 10 .2 10 .2 13 .6 0
water (sgs/oig) bet•
Dry 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 f1a.
Total Ka is S's
Smoke ■ gs oig 67 .0 6'3 .9 66 .8 55 .5 47 .6 80. 6
water sgs/oig 21 .9 22 .5 21 .3 °1 .1 19 .4 33 .8 was
Dry Smoke ( oig) 44 .4 34 .4 46 . 8
NiooLlne(10g~ g) 2158 2 .33 .50 smo
1
F ltra t Efficiency
35 .8 35 .4 34 .9 39 .8 38.9 52 . 0 2fit
Mater (~ 48 .6 43 .8 40 .4 51 .2 47 .4 59 .8 ton'
ne if)
N yNicotin e s ( 32 .9 32 .8 32 .2 8 .7 34 .6 46 .9 the
F .T .C . A a an
sots 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 exb
Number of Putts 10 .9 10 .9 10 .8 8 .0 8. 0
the

Includes 5 ■ m recess .
f 1a

red

The

410 0

LG 0391624
. - -
38
FLAVOR R SEARCH, FILTER 410 TTIS

competitive gradS, The


Each month, the flavor laboratory examines competitive brands of
whi t
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 Winston tobacco indicates no apparent change in

flavoring additives . The increased filtration produced by the Winston filter

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

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

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

taste . to t
Marlboro : The Marlboro tobacco seems to contain moreflavoring than it did flea
D before the 20am . filter tip was adopted . The Marlboro produces more smoke new
flavor as a result of the increased flavorings . The smoke flavor is mainly staf
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 heat
smoking quality than any of its competitors .
rep]
Parliament : The Parliament blend seems to contain more of a sweet vanilla and maw
tonks type flavoring than it did a year aso . The only improvement noted In The
the smoke has been found in the aftertaste . The Parliament smoke exhibit s
we
an unusual flavor spectrum . When the smoke is drawn into the mouth, it

exhibits a harsh, woody taste and high throat Impact . As it is exhaled,

the taste becomes sweet, vanillin-like .


Pap
Cent, Viceroy and Tareyton do not exhibit any apparent changes in
sib
flavoring or smoking qualities .

Salem : The Increased filtration of the Salem filter has caused a ape
reduction In amplitude of sucks flavor compared to several months ago . di n
There has not been a change in the type of flavor exhibited by the Salem . Its In
amok* produces less throat effect than it did before the filter change . of

0
M

LG 0391625
_ 36-
Alan : The Alpine smoke produces an increased menthol taste and impact . type par
The Alpine still lacks the heavy, fragrant tobacco-like background flavor LandK '

which is found in Oasis and Salem . re

The Newport and Spring Cigarettes have not been changed appreciably . It was I
The Newport aroma and smoke flavor is dominated by a Peppermint Oil oharsoter . (1) wore
The peppermint taste also dominates the aftertaste . The Spring produces a inhibit
'diluted' tasting smoke which has very low amplitude and impact and which is produce s
dominated by a bland, papery-sweet taste . In

LiSItett MA avers ! : with a

Land K office,

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

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

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

new types of filters, cigarette papers, blends, and new approaches 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
Tb
replaced by tobaccos purchased by our leaf department for this purpose . Th e
were se
new blend produced an improvement in the smoking characteristics of the L and N .
A1'
The improvement primarily involved throat irritation factors . The new blend
lprefere,
produced a smoother, less-irritating smoke . Smoking panels reported a better
"*sola r
balance between flavor and stimulation factors .
Th
In July, 1960, the fast burning paper was replaced 'with Type A cigarette
made wl
paper on the L and N . The slower-uurning L and N prcauoed a sucks which
algaret
exhibited slightly more pleasant sweet flavor than the faster-burning product .
accepts
Although the July L and N produced a balanced, pleasing smoke flavor
were de
spectrum, the amplitude of its flavor continued to be lower than was desired,
flavor
since the 'filterea-taste" component in the smoke was not completely covered .
L
In addition, the high floc content filters continued to present the problem
in the
of pressure drop variation . The majority of complaints from our consumer-

LG 0391626
0

- 37

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

ad flavor 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 :
rreolably .
(1) Wore woke flavor would be produced, and (2) The oigarettes would
Oil Character .
exhibit more uniform pressure drop, since more uniform filters can be
,produces a
and which i s produced as the floe content is reduced .
In July, 1960, we prepared Sample ll-X which is an L and W cigarette

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

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

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

x duce more period .

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


Panel Location Cigarette Preferred Degree of Preference
pee from the
Richmond Factory 11 .x 1 .1 to 1
1 Durham factory ll• .a 1 .6 to 1
Durham Office 11-1 1 .4 to 1
br t all of th e
laboratory l1-x 1 .2 to 1
pool were The Flavor Profile panel evaluationeshow that Sample ll .x exhibits
purpose . The
more smoke flavor, and a higher south impact than the normal L and W .
e of the L and W . All panels showed a unanimous preference for Sample llA . The
The new blend preference aeons to have beenasde on the basis of 'sore taste' and
orted a bette r 'easier draw' .

The panels have evaluated additional samples of L and M cigarettes


pe A cigarette made with filters containing lower amounts of floe . In all oases . L and K
eke which cigarettes whose filters contained loss than 10 per cent floe were not
u.•ning product . acceptable to the consumer type penile . The flavoring additives, which
eke flavo r were designed for the hi3h filtration L and K filters, produced unbalanced
n was desired,
flavor and irritatinn factors in the presence of low-filtration filters .
etely covered.
Laboratory ezpwrtments indicated that sub-threshold amounts of menthol
no proble m
in the L and 4 blend have desirable effects on the smoke flavor . The
.r consumer-

LG 0391627
38

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


I

flavor spectrum which exhibits more heavy, sweet fragrance with a lover
i
level of throat impact .

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


1 a
was decided to remake both samples and submit them to the preference panels
a
for comparison . The new samples were designated 24-X and 25-X respectively .
a
The following Table shows the preference ratings after a four-week testing
0
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 1


Durham Factory 26-X 1 .9 to 1
Durham Office 24-). 1 .6 to I
Laborstory 26-X 2 .1 to 1
The Durham Factory panel and the Laboratory panel show a strong (
M
preference for the mentholated 25X . The Durham office and 810pond groups .

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

significant preference for the Sample 24-A which contained normal L and M
d
Fz] tobacco .
Personal opinions taken at the conclusion of the testing period show
of
that a large percentage of the panel smokers found no difference or very

slight difference between the two samples .

LG 0391628
-39-

h 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 with a normal L and K show a 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 draw of 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


I
improvement in the smoking characteristics of the blend .

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

and tested hundreds of new items and formulations in our attempt to develop
tel l
an improved flavoring for the L and K cigarette . This work has led to the
rely .
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 0
12-A has been favorable .

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

11 characteristics and amok* flavor of the Oasis cigarette . Formulations have


!ow
been developed which will add more amplitude and impact to the initial
..

smoke flavor, but these alterations have alwayb resulted In an unbalance

of the aftertaste o!a raoterietica, causing unpleasant side effects such as

bitterness and mouth coating .


0

LG 0391629
-40-

rage
The 'menthol-mist' formula contains a small amount of oil of Wintergreen .
as
It has been brought to our attention that the food and Drug Administration
d
will ban the use of Wintergreen in foods in January, 161 . In keeping with
.her
our policy of avoding unapproved flavoring materials, a have been testing
of
revised formulas which contain no Wintergreen . In October, we develope d
-ks
such a menthol-mist formula which was applied to Sample 13-A .
I to
Sample 13-A has been submitted to preference panels for comparison
I with Oasis . All panels show a definite preference for Sample 13-A. After
gold
four weeks, the overall panel preference is 2 to 1 in favor of Sample 13-A .

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

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


red
The oasis filter is made with 16 denier tow a-_ contains 6 per cent
evelop
floc . Our recent success with non-additive . small denier filters for use
o the
on L and w has prompted us t3 investigate non-additive filters for us e
teems
on oasis .

Through cooperative work with Celanese fibers Company, we have

developed a specification for Celaweb whtoi provides the same filtration


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

Celaweb D-366 .

Smoking panel examination of Oasis cigarettes with Celaweb D-366

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


0
The Celaweb D-356 filters are not me firm as we would like them to be .

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

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

)king total denier tow . The 8 denier filters products a filtration efficiency

.1s have and p'assure drop oompari .blc to the present Oasis filter..

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

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

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

11

LG 0391630
- 41 -

.ntergreen . Duke of Durham :


:ratio n In June, 1960, Celaweb type 21 was adopted for use in the Duke of
.r_g with Durham filter . Celaweb 21 is designed to produce a filtration efficiency
:eating of at least 60 per cent with a cigarette pressure drop of 16 to 16 ems
l ope d water . A modification of the Duke of Durham flavoring formula accompanied

the revision of the filter . The initial Duke of Durha ■ filter was made
loon with 18 denier tow and contained enough floc to produce a 80 per cent
After
filtration efficiency .
Is 13-& The main advantage gained from the Celaweb 21 filter was the improvement
br in pressure drop uniformity . Another big advantage was realized in the
1. filter making department through improved machine performance and reduced
cent waste .
br us e 1e have made several Duke of Durham samples with filters which have
us e 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


atio n
and the smoke tastes bitter and harsh . If a reduction in the filtration
gna te d 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


66
filtration and the recess .
cis . Since laboratory experiments indicated that small amounts of menthol
be . have desirable offsets on filtered smoke, it was decided to investigate

the effect of menthol on the Duke of Durham . Smoking panel studies show
000 that menthol is not compatible with the present Duke of Durham formula ;
enc y it causes the smoke flavor to exhibit unusual flat-papery taste characteristics .

Non-filtering M9Rih2L8_Q_q
for a
Tn June, 1960, we resumed work on the devolopment of a recessed, non-
is
filtering mouthpiece ei, ;arette which will rove the smoke flavor charaoterts-

tics of a Chesterfield . This proj'ot was Legun in April, 1959, but was

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

0
11

LG 0391631
- 42 -

Durham cigarette .
The non-filtering, recessed mouthpiece with which we have been working

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

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


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

domtnnted by a bitter taste .


d
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 few months we have not been successful in achieving a
ulb
blended and balanced smoke flavor .
d.
We have attempted to increase smoke flavor impact by altering the
d
tobacco blend and flavoring additives .
We have merle a aeries of samples composed by the following tobacco

blend .,
35% No . 1 Strips
30% No . 25 Strips
16% Turkis h
fl 20% CTS

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

i Replacing the No . 25 strips with 'nicotine reduced" No . 25 strips results


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

,ristics . but the smoke flavor exhibits too much bitter and woody taste ,
12
we have been trying to develop a tobacco blond and flavor formula

which will add sweet flavor without producing undesirable after effects .
)n-
To reduce throat impact and burley type aftertastes, the tobacc o
'ris•-
blend was modified to contain more No . 1 strips and less No . 25 strips

we follows .

LG 0391632
42% No . I strips
20% No . 26 strips
16% Turkish
3% Maryland
20% CT B

Sample 7-B contains the above blend and is flavored with 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
K

FLAVOR RESCARCH - MON-FILTER CIOARETUS

Chesterfield :
We have been unable to make a significant improvement in t.te flavoring

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
I
of smoke flavor . Aging studies show that 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 allow a

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 show favorable 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


I
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 .
0
The low price of raw sugar makes it an attractive item for use in
C
tobacco casing mixtures . in order to evaluate :ts effectiveness, we have

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


0
din""tng-

Ni

LG 0039634
0

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

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


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

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

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

Is aroma The full blend was then spray-cased in the usual manner with normal
I
:he us e Chesterfield casing . out and top-dressed with Chesterfield flavoring .

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

aid a normal Chesterfield . Panel reaction to 2i-Y was about neutral after a
r
as bee n smoking period of 3 1/2 waste . Formal taste panel examination of 25-Y
I showed a favorable reaction to the slightly increased flavor amplitude and

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

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

`dve n- Sample 25-Y was remane in October and is being tested by the smoking
p_aximately panels at this time .
NO

Nicotine Red e Burley


ptano e
The majority of our flavorresearch involving nicotine reduced burley

tobacco has bsen connected with the non-filtering mouthpiece project


+t coo
ds+aoribed above .
•eristics .
The formal panels have examined L and M and Chesterfield cigarettes
to
which were made with ntcnttne reduced burley tobacco .
to .
The panels find that the nicotine reduced burley tobacco does not

appreciably influence the flavor of L and M smoke . There ta, however, an

apparent decrease of throat harshness to the smoke of an L and A which


in
contains nicotine reauoed burl .+y .
a have
Chesterfield cigarettes containing nicotine reduced burley exhibit less
sod by
mouth stimulation and throat harshness than a typical production Qheeterfield .

ri

LG 0391635
IN

The e¢,ke flavor exhibits more burley taste characteristics .


Chesterfield cigarettes in which half the burley is nicotine reduced

exhibit a more balanced smoke flavor which is typical of normal production .

s t

LG 0391636
I

ris7+~
; 00

-47-
CIGARETTE ANALYSCS of alai

Chemical last fi
m Pall 14
The periodic chemical analyses of competitive brands of oi6a retta s

and of the Chesterfield and L and M of„arettes have been continued since and fi :

the lost report . The average ctamioal analyses for certain constituents of of the

fifteen brands of cigarettes are shown in Table 1 . The analyses are shown but i nc

by quarters for 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960 . 'fhe data ahocn for the third had ma'

quarter of 1960 are incomplete and include only the analyses of the cigarettes of 196 :

purchased in July and August . quarto :

Thschemical analyses of these 15 brands of oi,yarettes do not indicate prewt o'

that any major changes have been sad* in the tobaccos used which would T'

alter appreciably the chemical make-up of the cigarette . The noticeable ci.ntim

changes in some of the chemical constituents determined would probably be nf. trog•

the result of changes in cropo used in the blends and the initial use of of 195 .

reocnotituted strip in some blends . until

The alpha-amino nitrogen content of Chesterfield decreased in the were i

fourth quarter of 1959 and bas remained fairly constant during the first remai n

three quarters of 1960. The nicotine content of Chesterfield continued to T

decline slightly through the sec . ;nd quarter of 1960 . The general level of third

sugars and starch was slightly higher during 1960 than in previous years . quarte

The alpha-amino nitrogen content of L and M has remained fairly constant brand

since the third quarter of 1959 but at a level considerably below that of previo

1957 . 1958 and the first two quarters of 1959 . The nicotine content o f stgnif

L end M continued to decline slightly through the second quarter of 1960• ofPAr

The general level of sugars and starch seemed to be slightly higher in the quarto
M
L and M curing 1960 than in previous years . 0 and th

The data on the Lucky Strike has remained fairly constant throughout quarts
0
the four year period but indicate a slight decline In alpha-amino nitrogen decrea

and nicotine oon ;entb in th, last five yuarteru tested . The higher level . in the

LG 0391637
- 48 -
of starches previously reported has remained fairly constant during the first
last tour quarters . Thi alpha-amino nitrogen and nicotine contents of the remain
Pall Mall have been quite variable, but generally lower, since the second conten
and first quarters respectively of 1959 . The alpha-amino nitrogen content four qi
of the it Parade declined rather sharply in the fourth quarter of 1969 remain,
but increased in the second quarter of 1960 to tt . .• same general level it inan e .
had maintains) during the latter part of 1958 and the first three quarters slight
of 1959 . The nicotine content of the At Pa „ral"e decreased in the fourth nitrog
LE
quarter of 1959 and since that time has remained at a lower level than the the is
I previous year. quarts:
The Reynolds Tobacco Company products, Camel, Winston, ann Salem have aarlbo
ct.ntinued, with minor exceptions, the general decline in alpha-amino Ti
nitrogen content started in the latter part of 1959 or in the first quarter quart e:
of 1958. The nicotine content of these brands decreased from early 1959 1959,
until the second quarter of 1959 in which they increased sharply . They amino I
were immediately reduced again during the third quarter of 1909 and have in the
remained fairly constant since that time . Indies
The total nitrogen content of Mill D Morris increased slightly in the has be
third quarter of 1959 and remained fairly constant during the first three quarts :
quarto-* of 1960 . The alpha-amino nitrogen and nicotine contents of this Tt
brand were slightly lower in the last four quarters tested than in the 1969 at
previous three years . The starch content of Philip Morris increased reset n i
significantly during the last four quarters . the to .-1 nitrogen oontAnt Tt
of Par iam .nt decreased from the fourth quarter of 1959 through the second had car
quarter of 1959, increased during the third and fourth quarters of1959 quartet
and the first quarter of 1960, and remained constant through the third and the
quarter of 1960 . The alpha-amino nitro{en content of Parliament, which had P oond
decreased from early in 1958 through the third quarter of 1959, tnoreaeed has o•'
in thefourth quarter of 1969 and remained fairly constant during the 1 thir d

11
0

LG 0391638
0

r!

- 49 -
first three quarters of 1960 . The nicotine content of this br'.nd has

0 remained fairly constant since the first quarter of 1959 . The starch at
content of Parliament has also been considerably higher during the last br
t four quarters tested . The total nitrogen content of Marlboro, which bad fr
remained fairly constant through the last half of 1958 and all of 1959 . 03

increased sharply in the first quarter of 1960 and seemed to decline very Ti

e slightly during the second and third quarters of 1960. The alpha-amino Ct

nitrogen and nicotine contents of Marlboro have been fairly constant during D4
e the last four quarters at a level slightly lower than the previous four ti

quarters but much lower than in 1957 and 1958 . The starch content of e:

s Marlboro also increased during the last four quarters tested .

The total nitrogen content of Old Gold increased slightly in the fourth

or quarter of 1969 and first quarter of 1960 from the low attained earlier in

1959, then increased sharply in the second quarter of 1960 . The alpha-
amino nitrogen content of M G 91d held fairly constant at the low attained

in the third quarter of 1959 until the third quarter of 1960, which

indicates an appreciable increase . The nicotine content of this bran d 0


a has been quite variable around the level attained In the first and second 6
quarters of 1958 . p
The total nitrogen content of Rent has increased very slowly during

1969 and 1960 but the alpha-amino nitrogen and nicotine contents have

remained fairly constant during this period of timu .

The nicotine and total nitrogen contents of Kool and Viceroy oisarettes C
had continually declined from early 1957 through the third and fourth a

quarters of 1969 ; increased again through the fourth quarter of 1959 (Koo1)

and the first quarter of 1960 (Viceroy), then decreased sharply in the

ad a .oond quarter of 1960 . The alpha-amino nitrogen content of these brands

has oven quite variable but generally of the same magnitude since th e

third quarter of 1958 .

LG 0391639
i

- so-
Table 2 shows a comparison of the fifteen brands by chemical dat a
the
averaged over the last four quarters tested . Of the six non-filtered
hi c
brands, tabulated from Chesterfield through Old Cold, Camel stands ou t
co r
from the group with considerably higher total nitrogen and nicotine contents .
1 Old Gold also stands out with the lower total nitrogen and nicotine contents . c or

The alpha-amino nitrogen contents of the six brans are quite comparable .

Chesterfield differs from the group primarily in its lower content of


0
petroleum ether extractable materials and higher content of reducing and

total sugars ; the latter is also reflected by the bigher content of alcohol

extractable materials .

Thechemtoal data on the nine filteret brands vary rather widely .

The relatively high alpha-amino nitrogen and total nitrogen contents o f

L and M would indioate that the tobacco used in this blend places it among

the group of brands (L and K, Marlboro, tool, Salem) made up of less

mature, perhaps heavier bodied tobaccos . The nicotine content of L and We

however, is considerably lower than tool and Salem in this group and e :.ceeds
0
only Kent, Parliament and It Parade in the entire group . L and K does

stand out from the other filtered brands in its very low content of

petroleum ether extractable materials .


tent is noticeably different from the other filtered brands with its

much lower content of total nitrogen and protein nitrogen and nicotine .

Although Parliament is more comparable to Kent in nicotine content than the

other trends, its alpha-amino nitrogen, protein nitrogen, and total nitrogen

are much higher than Kent .

Although the total nitrogen and alpha-amino nitrogen contents of Winaton

and Viceroy ■ re lower than the brands of the higher group (L ana K, Marlboro,
Kool and Salem), the nicotine contents of these two brands are comparatively

high and are exceeded only by kool and Salem .. •fhe Viceroy differs from

LG 0391640
the Winston in its lower content of petroleum ether extractable materials,

higher content of reducing and total sugars and consequently the higher Cigarette
HEC ST . sPI E
Content of the alcohol extractable materials, and the lower hydrogen ion
1957
concentration (p11) . 1957
1957
1968
1968
1958
1968
1959
1969
1989
19b9
1960
1960
198 0

L AND $
T -'1937
2 1957
3 1957
1957
1 1968
E 1958
3 1958
4 1958
1 1969
E 1959
3 1969
4 1959
1 1980
2 1960
3 1960

14CKY 8TR
1 193'T
2 1957
3 1967
4 1957
1 1958
E 1938,
3 195A
4 1966
1 1959
2 1959
3 1959
4 1959
1 1960
2 1960
3 1960

LG 0391641
I
- 52-
TABLE 1
Chemical Arm lyses of Some Competitive vi mattes by ;4uarters for 198?, 1968, 196 9
an 196 0
Tot . . Prot . tno Rico- 1'et . ned . Tota l A lo .
Ci arette Nit . Nit . Nit . tine Ether Surs :3ugare 3tarcti NVA tat . PH
195? 2 .26 0 .97 0 .169 2 .01 5 .23 14 .85 15 .90 3 . 78 16 . 1 6 35 . 14 5 . 32 Mae r f
P. 1957 2 .31 0 .94 0 .183 2 .10 5 .28 14 :65 15 .61 3 .79 16 .21 34 .86 6 .31 PA
3 1957 2 .35 1 .00 0.188 2 .19 5 .04 13 .47 14 .51 3 .62 17 .34 34 .97 5 .29 T i
4 1957 2 .42 1 .30 0 .205 2 ..24 5 .15 13 .89 14 .81 3 .61 17 .31 35 .80 5 .25 2 1!
1 1958 2 .43 1,01 0 .219 2 .25 6 .18 13 .95 14 .78 3 .73 17 .4? 35 .06 6 .27 3 1!
2 1958 2 .41 1 .01 0 .213 2 .14 5 .30 13 .83 14 .81 3 .92 17,10 34 .85 5 .25 4 1'
3 1958 2 .38 1 .01 0 .196 2 .06 6 .42 13 .69 14 .78 4 .15 16 .74 34 .22 5 .25 1 1'
4 1958 2 .30 O .S8 0 .190 1 .95 5 .07 13 .96 15 .36 4 .31 16 .79 36 .66 5 . 27 2 1
1 1959 2 .29 0 .95 0 .192 1 .93 4 .98 13 .87 15 .14 3 .74 16 .96 34 .93 6 .23 3 1
4 1
2 1959 2 . 32 0. 98 0 . 190 1 .94 5 .12 14 .07 15 . 2 8 4 . 38 16 .99 35 .21 5 .28
1 1
3 1959 2 .33 0 .97 0 . . 34 1 .90 5 .26 13 .55 14 .47 4 .49 16 .93 34 .96 5 .25
4 1969 2 .30 1 .00 0 .170 1 .82 4 .66 14 .0? 16 .18 4 .40 17 .03 35 .95 °. 1
0 5 .28 3
1 1980 2 .28 1 .00 0 .171 1 .80 4 .67 14 .54 13 .64 4 .80 1
16 .61 36 .44 5 .30 4 1
2 1960 2 .31 0 .99 0 .171 1 .75 6 :13 14 .16 15 .09
3 1960 2 .28 0 .97 0 .168 1 .78 5 .12 14 .32__15 .87
4 .J
4 .26
.
1 6. b l 35 .89 6. 1
2
1
1
L AND P 3_ 1
T '1937 2 .68 1 .08 0 .233 2 .24 4 .84 11 .82 12 .83 3 .52 18 .53 31 .58 6 .3 0
2 1957 2 .69 1 .08 0.230 2 .35 5 .06 11 .24 12 .37 3 . 51 18 . 53 31 . 42 5 . 32
3 1957 2 . 7 4 1 . 08 0 . 22 7 2 . 41 4 . 84 11 . 35 1 2 . 4 0 3 . 52 18 . 96 3 2 .01 6. 26
r I
4 1957 9 1
2 .73 1 .12 0 .232 2 .39 4 .82 11 .92 12 .76 3 .52 18 .19 34 .22 6 . 26
1 1958 2 .66 3 1
1 .10 0 .239 2 .29 4 .78 11 .86 13 .21 3 .52 18 .06 32 .70 5 .26
2 1958 2 .63 1 .10 0 .241 2 .17 4 .81 4 1
12 .17 13 .20 3 .96 18 .14 32 .88 5 .T7
3 1958 2 .62 1 .07 0 .229 2 .14 5 .00 11 .95 13 .07 4 .30 17 .56 31 .81 5 .26 1 1
4 1958 2 .66 1 .06 0.232 2 .10 4 .63 12 .18 13 .57 4 .61 17 .28 33 .76 5 .24 2 l
,
1 1959 2 .52 1 .03 0 .236 2 .06 4 .47 12 :00 13 .19 3 .92 17 .94 33 .12 5 .2 1 4 1
2 1959 2 .52 0 .99 0 .236 2 .00 4 .49 12 .49 13 .47 4 .34 17 .97 33 .06 5 .27
3 1959 2 .51 0 .99 0 .216 1 .96 4 .65 11 .70 12 .35 4 .41 17 . 72 1 3
34 . 10 5. 27
4 1959 2 .52 1 .02 0 .209 1 .90 3 .90 12 .32 13 .06 4 .72 17 .82 33 .86 6 .2 6 2 1
1 1960 2 .49 1 .04 0 .208 1 .85 4 .02 12 .44 13 .62 5 .12 3 1
17 .56 35 .30 5 .29 4
2 1960 2 .51 1 .12 0 .208 1 .81 4 .33 12 .97 13 .29 4 .76 17 .34 3.7 .82 5 .33 1
1 1
3 1960 2 .49 1 .06 0 .212 1 .88 4.4
49 12 .39 13 .17 5 . 10 17 . ( 7 31 . 91 5 . 25 2
C STR 3
1 193 2 .34 0 .9? 0,181 1 .92 5 .71 12 .48 14 .07 3 .82 18 .31 32 .99 6 .3 9
2 1957 2 .34 0 .97 0 .185 1 .83 5 .96 12 .73 13 .98 CA
3 .78 17 .64 33 .26 5 .45
3 196? 2 .31 0 .98 0 .177 1 .85 5 .69 12 .40 14 .05 4 .06 18 .77 33 .20 5 .3 6
4 1957 2 . 29 1 .00 0 .177 1 83 0. b2 12 .82 14 . 38 4 . 03 18 . 11 34 . 13 6 . 34 2
1 1958 2 .30 1 .00 0 .1821 .90 5 .53 12 .78 14 .21 3 .97 17 .64 33 .71 5 .34 3
2 1958 2 .30 1 .00 0 .1871 .81 5 .66 121 .93 14 .23 4 .17 18 .13 32 .90 5 .39 4
3 1958 2 .29 1 .02 0.179 1 .46 b .72 12 .76 14 .26 4 .37 17 .91 33 . 30 5 .37 1
4 1968 2 .30 0 .99 0 .1831 .49 5 .bO 12 .56 13 .57 4 .53 18 .21 33 .36 6 . 36 2
3
1 1959 2 .28 0 .99 0 .)Z 1 .82 5 .49 12 .75 13 .81 4 .12 17 .91 32 .79 5 .34 4
2 1959 2 .29 1 .01 0 .182 1 .80 5 .75 13 .12 14 .73 4 .66 17 .47 33,42 5 .42
1
3 1959 2 .30 1 .00 0.169 1 .77 5 .77 12 .28 13 .92 4 .48 19 .13 33 .79 5 .39
0 .164 2 .74
2
4 1959 2 .27 1 .02 5 .34 13 .07 14 .37 4 .52 17 .44 34 .49 5 .36 3
1 1960 2 . 34 1 .04 0 .178 1 .60 A 36 13 .14 14 .45 4 .84 17 .61 35 .88 5 38 4
°. 1980 2 . 31 1 .04 0 .172 1 . '/7 5(8 12 .45 14 . 15 4 . 56 17 . 88 35 . 27 5 .38
2 .29 1
3 1960 1 .04 0 169 1 .1 .6 5 .69 1'2 .90 14 .15 4 73 17 .69 34 . 2 1 5 .38 2
3

LG 0391642
969 0 - 53 -
TABLE 1 (Continued )
1.
Tot . Prot . Amino Ntaa- Pet . tied . Total Alo ..
32 Ctaerette it . Nit . Nit . tine Ether Sugars Sugars Starch NVA Ext . PH
31 PA . . 4A
2 .40 0 .99 0.189 2 .00 5 .95 12 .18 13 .37 3 .89 18 .39 32 .97 5 .4 2
29
2 1957 2 .37 1 .01 0 .201 1 .89 6 .09 12 .35 14 .05 3 .75 18 .03 31 .93 5 .4 6
25
27 3 1957 2 .31 1 .03 0 .194 1 .92 5 .95 12 .38 13 .92 4 .03 17 .96 34 .28 5 .38
4 1967 2 .37 1 .03 0 .193 1 .93 5 .74 12 .70 13 .99 3 .76 18 .19 34 .96 5 .3 4
1'25 5 .93 12 .60 13 .88 4 .06
1 19 .08 2 .36 1 .05 0 .200 1 .91 17 .85 33 .76 6 .4 0
2 1958 2 .13 1 .02 0 .190 1 .817 5 .84 1 .2 .79 14 .04 4 .31 7.8 .42 34 .01 6 .4 4
3 1958 2 .54 1 .03 0 .181 1 .87 6 .0? 12 .42 14 .16 4 .46 17 .78 32 .77 5 .3 7
23
} 1958 2 .33 1 .03 0 .187 1-92 5 .7? 12 ..46 14 .02 4 .60 18 .22 34 .83 5 .2 8
28
.25 1 1959 2 .33 0 .99 0 .189 1 .92 5 .68 12 .71 14 .16 4 .21 18 .44 34 .70 5 .3 5
2 1959 2 .33 1 .06 0 .198 1 .81 5 .96 13 .12 14 .43 4 .52 18 .02 33 .49 5 .4 1
.28
3 1969 2 .31 1 .02 0 .173 1 .80 8 .03 12 .16 13 .50 4 .13 18 .75 32 .85 5 .3 9
.30
4 1959 2 .31 1 .04 0 .163 1 .73 5 .42 12 .73 13 .95 4 .66 18 .08 32 .85 5 .4 1
1 1960 2 .35 1 .05 0 .183 1 .80 5 .33 13 .22 14 .63 5 .00 17 .83 33 .75 5 .3 8
2 1960 2 .33 1 .03 0 .166 1 .68 5 .83 12 .38 13 .68 4 .71 18 .13 34 .15 6 .4 4
3 1960 2 .32 1 .03 0 .172 1 .71 5 .62 12 .48 13 .40 4 .59 19 .01 31 .5, 5 .4 0
.3 0
. 32 HIT PARAD E
.26 1057 2 .48 1 .00 0 .188 2 .16 5 .81 12 .45 13 .7? 3 .86 18 .22 33 .45 6 .3 4 SA
. 26 2 1957 2 .45 1 .02 0 .197 2 .06 8 .03 11 .88 13 .51 3 .99 18 .67 32 .20 5 .4 0
X26 3 1957 2 .43 1 .04 0 .175 2 .03 5 .85 12 .18 13 .54 3 .98 18 .98 31 .35 5 .3 2
. 7 4 1957 2 .41 1 .05 0 .181 2 .01 5 .52 12 .21 13 .27 3 .84 18 .69 32 .68 5 .2 9
1 1958 2 .38 1 .06 0 .182 1 .97 5 .54 12 .24 13 .38 4 .17 18 .33 33 .10 5,33
2 1968 2 .33 1 .03 0 .179 1 .80 5 .71 12 .86 14 .21 4 .24 18 .21 33 .07 5 .5 0
3 1958 2 .30 1 .03 0 .160 1 .80 6 .70 12 .79 14 .24 4 .36 17 .91 32 .62 5 .3 8
:21 4 1958 2 .30 1 .01 0 .168 1 .78 5 .6E 12 .43 13 .93 3 .94 18 .71 .34 .04 5 .3 5
.27
. 27 1 1959 2 .26 1 .00 0 .164 1 .73 5 .49 12 .68 14 .02 4 .04 18 .2? 36 .13 5 .3 9
. 26 2 1959 2 .31 1 .04 0 .171 1 .74 5 .77 13 .00 14 .51 4 .40 18 .57 33.11 5 .4 5
29 3 1959 2 .30 1 .03 0 .161 1 .74 3 .78 11 .98 13 .45 4 .47 18 .42 32 .47 6 .42
.33 4 1959 2 .27 1 .01 0 .14? 1 .64 6 .35 12 .59 13 .96 4 .46 18 .17 32 .97 6 .4 8
1 1960 2 .29 1 .00 0 .149 1 .88 5 .21 13 .32 14 .26 4 .46 18 .44 33 .33 5 .4 3
.25 2 1980 2 .34 1 .02 0 .166 1 .66 5 .47 12 .28 13 .37 4 .50 18 .21 32 .0; 6 .4 6
3 1960 2 .35 1 .04 0 .160 1 .'72 5 .72 11 .44 12 .96 4 .78 28 .4¢ 31 .9J 5,3 9
, .3 9
, . 45 CAME L
1 1957 2 .62 1 .01 0 .209 2 .44 5 .85 10 .8? 12 54 3 .68 19 .36 31 .56 5 .2 3 PHIL '
a . .36
P . 34 2 1957 2 .54 1 .00 0 .215 2 .25 6 .58 11 26 12 .71 zI .81 19 .53 31 .90 5 .2 9
' .34 3 1957 2 .52 1 .CP 0 .1SY1 2 .25 5 .49 11 .28 12 .83 4,12 18 .59 30 .77 5 .2 8 2
i .39 4 1957 2 .61 1 .03 0 .211 2 .25 5 .32 11 .33 13 .08 3 .68 18 .75 33 .42 5 .2 5 3
5 •t7 1 1958 2 .50 1 .04 0 .213 2 .18 5 .33 11 .57 13 .36 3 .94 18 .34 32 .30 5 .C 5 4
2 1958 2 .51 1 .05 0 .199 2 .14 f .48 1 .1 ..70 13 .29 4 .02 18 .61 31 .99 5 .2 5
5 . a6
A 1 .968 2 .45 1 .02 0 .192 2 .08 5 .611 11 .62 13 .37 4 .3'9 18 .40 32 .12 5 .2 7 2
534
5 .42 4 1958 2 .43 1 .01 0.18? 2 . c3 5 .45 1142 13 .60 4 .41 18 .4? 32 .14 5 .3 0 3
1 1959 2 .7,9 1 .00 0 .189 2 .02 b .2? 11 .43 12 95 3 .77 17 93 31 .30 5 .2 9 4
539 2 1959 2 .48 1 .01 0 .191 2 .25 5 .71 11 .71 13 .28 4 .34 19 .82 31 .82 5 .2 9 1
.36 3 1959 2 .44 1 .02 0 .183 2 .11 5 . 8 .3 10 .04 12 . 52 3. 96 18 . 68 31 . 5 3 5 . 30 2
5 38
4 1959 2 .45 1 .03 0 .1'77 2 03 5 .36 11 .44 13 .41 4 .05 18 .72 34 .66 5 .2 7 3
5 . :58
0 1 1960 2 .44 1 .04 0 .172 2 .04 5 .34 i 1 .9 : 1 .4 .01 4 .48 18 .83 35 .14 6 .27 4
5 .38
2 1960 2 .41 1 .01 0 .171 1 .115 b .00 1 i .90 1 .S . 61 4 .43 Ili . 41 32 .37 5 30 1
3 1960 2 .45 1 .05 0 1 ?t, 2 ,, : ? .b1 11ru3 1 .1 5 ._ •1 .'29 18 .48 33 .02 5 .24 2
S

LG 0391643
m

- 64 -
TABLE 1 (Continued )

Tot . Prot . Amino Nico- et . tied . Total Ale .


C1 arette Nit . Nit . Nit, tine Ether Sugars Sugars Starch NVA Elt . D H
W N°'"0N
1 b7 2 . 73 1 . 07 0 , 25 0 2 . 30 5 . 6 4 9 . 24 10 . 97 3 . 97 18 . 54 30 . 60 5.2 4 P. AR 1
3 2 1957 2 .61 1 .08 0 .232 2 .34 5 .87 9 .36 11 .12 4 .26 17 .84 31-15 5 .25
4 3 1957 2 .58 2 .05 0 .216 2 .32 5 .87 9 .87 11 .39 4 .26 18 .06 29 .52 5 .23 2 19 [
0 4 1957 2 .58 1 .07 0,227 2 .20 5 .33 10 .12 11 .22 3 .98 17 .67 32 .25 6 .28 3 19f
1 1958 2 .b3 1 .06 0 .22? 2 .13 5 .36 10 .14 11 .48 4 .43 17 .37 31 .17 5 .22 4 19 ,
4
7 2 1958 2 .49 1 .04 0 .218 2 .02 5 .36 10 .86 12 .23 4 .46 17 .42 32 .25 6 .26 1 19 f
8 3 1958 2 .43 1 .04 0 .204 1 .93 6 .48 10 .96 12 .51 4 .51 17 .32 31 .66 5 .24 E 19 f
5 4 1958 2 .39 1 .00 0 .196 1 ..8b 5 .04 11 .31 12,83 4 .50 17 .53 33 .34 5 .21 3 19 :
1 1 1959 2 .36 0 .99 0 .209 1 .81 4 .95 11 .13 12 .60 4 .0E 17 .76 32 .87 6 .24 4 19 :
9 2 1959 2 .45 1 .02 0 .210 2 .10 5 .55 10 98 12 .29 4 .34 19 .91 31 .98 6 .28 1 19 :
3 1959 2 .41 0.99 0 .186 2 .01 5 .44 10 .42 11 .62 4 .34 18 .33 32 .4? 6 .26 2 191,
8 4 1959 2 .43 1 .02 0 .186 1 .87 4 .92 10,88 12 .10 4 .53 17 .99 32 .64 6 .21 3 191,
4 1 1960 2 .43 1 .02 0 .180 1 .95 5 .09 11 .29 12 .74 4 .83 18 .00 33 .03 b .28 4 19 :
J, 2 1960 2 .43 1 .05 0 .183 1 .97 5 .51 10 .69 12 .01 4 .45 18 .28 32 .21 6 .27 1 19(
3 1960 2 .40 1 .05 O .i68 1 .92 5 .52 10 .54 11 .96 4 .54 18 .13 32 .17 6 .22 2 lit
3t9
.4 SALEM
:0 1 1967 2. 77 1 .06 0.259 2 .51 5 .17 11 .70 13 .30 3 .60 18 .43 31 .79. 6 .26 MARLD O
.2 2 19 :17 2 .86 1 .08 0 .240 2 .33 5 .28 11 .63 13 .18 3 .65 17 .88 31 .39 6 .28 19 .
3 1957 2 .81 1 .06 0.222 2 .31 4 .94 11 .61 13 .31 3 .76 18.24 32 .24 5 .26 2 19
13 4 1957 2 .67 1 .08 0 .246 2 .34 4 .89 11 .85 13 .38 3 .60 17 .85 32 .88 5 .24 3 19
1 1958 2 .61 1 .0? 0 .248 2 .24 4 .91 12 .18 13 .81 3 .80 17 .72 31 .92 5 .25 4 19
58 2 1958 2 .64 1 .04 0 .242 2 .24 5 .06 12 .96 14 .26 3 .90 19 .66 33 .06 6.27 1 19
S5 3 1958 2 .58 1 .04 0 .221 2 .14 6 .20 12 .79 14 .32 3 .89 16 .83 32 .40 5 .27 2 19
59 4 1958 2 .53 1 .04 0 .219 2 .07 4 .91 12 .58 14 .43 3 .94 17 .72 33 .86 6 .26 3 19
15 1 1959 2 .43 1 .00 0 .222 1 .92 4 .83 12 .50 14 .16 3 .69 17 .24 33 .56 5 .30 4 19
12 2 1959 2 .55 1 .05 0 .226 2 .19 5 .17 12 .68 14 .00 3 .88 17 .58 33 .11 5 .31 1 19
i8 3 1959 2 .64 1 .03 0 .206 2109 5 .37 11 .83 13 .20 3 .86 17 .91 31 .97 5 .34 2 19
13 4 1959 2 .55 1 .03 0 .209 2 .03 4 .93 12 .23 14 .13 3 .86 17 .99 32 .32 6 .29 3 19
4C 1 1960 2 .54 1 .04 0 .202 2 .08 4 .83 13 .04 15 .06 4 .20 17 .66 33 .37 6 .32 4 19
2 1960 2 .59 1 .02 0 .207 2 .06 5 .22 12 .17 13 .91 3 .9? • 18 .36 32 .26 5 .79 2 19
3 1960 2 .5.5 1 .04 0,198 2 .08 5 .30 11 .7? 13 .74 3 .90 18 .18 31 .64 5 .33 2 19
3 19
23 PHILIP MCARIS
29 T-'-%57 2 .43 0 .97 0 .196 2 .23 6 .10 10 .31 11 .60 3 .46 18 .09 32 .18 5 .23 OLDC
G
28 2 1957 2 .41 0 .98 0 .195 2 .18 6 .16 10 .25 11 .63 3 .46 17 .39 31 .60 5 .2 5
25 3 1957 2 .34 0.97 0 .195 `2 .19 5 .85 10 .52 12 .06 :5 .76 17 .46 31 .26 5 .24 2 it
L5 4 1957 2 .34 0.98 0 .192 2 .14 5 .82 10,27 11 .85 3 .72 17 .86 31 .80 5 .21 3 1$
1 1958 2 .31 0.98 0 .203 2 .13 5 .4'7 10 .87 12 .19 3 .73 16 .85 33 .13 6 .23 4 14
27 2 1958 2 .27 0.99 0 .203 2 .00 5 .71 10 .89 12 .76 3 .86 16 .60 33 .66 6 .21 1 is
30 3 1958 2 .25 0.97 0 .188 1 .91 5 .'70 11 .10 12 .67 4 .08 16 .56 :2 .73 5 .22 2 is
29 4 1958 2 .22 0 .99 0 .179 1 .88 5 .40 11 .12 12 .97 4 .28 16 .82 33.39 5 .23 3 is
29 1 1959 2 .23 0 .96 0 .187 1 .vO : .42 10 .91 12 .44 3 .78 16 .9;, 32 .89 5 .21 4 14
30 2 1959 2 .24 0 .96 0.189 1 .92 0 .72 11 .07 12 .47 3 .84 17,40 32 .14 5 .26 1 11
27 3 1959 2 .28 0 .98 0.179 2 .85 5 .92 10 .50 11 .58 4 .16 17 .20 32 .93 E .23 2 1!
27 4 1959 2 .30 1 .06 0.173 1 .H1 5 .19 11 .28 12 .52 4 .41 17 .08 34 .41 5 .25 3 is
~ ry
1 1960 2 .29 1 .03 0.176 1 .81 5 .20 11 .80 13 .56 4 .84 16 .94 35 .26 6 .26 4 1!
2 1980 2 .29 0 .97 0 .178 1 .76 5 .70 10 .89 12 .56 4 .49 16 .73 32 .54 5 .27 1 1!
1960 2 .33 1 .00 0 .172 1 OR ti .95 10 .40 2 .00 4 .44 16 .99 32 .76 6,2A 2 1'.
I 3 1'

LG 0391644
0

-55 -

TABLE 1 (Continues )

Tot . Ptot . Amino ioo- et . Hod . Tots Ala .


L Claaretts Nit . N1t. Nit . tins Ether 3uxare Sugare Starch NVA 1pct . vH
i .24 MLIANF21
) .25 1 1957 2 .42 1 .02 0.197 2 .28 5 .84 10 .60 12 .69 3 .45 18 .16 32 .96 6 .21
$ .23 2 1957 2 .63 1 .00 0 .203 2 .36 5 .83 9 .79 11 .76 3 .68 18 .55 31 .51 5 .21 1
5 .25 3 1957 2 .41 1 .02 0.189 2 .20 5 .56 10 .26 12 .18 3 .73 18 .09 52 .61 8 .2 : i
5 .22 4 1957 2 .48 1 .01 0 .209 2 .23 5 .61 9 .37 11 .77 3 .62 18 .50 33 .16 5 .21 1
5 .26 1 1968 2 .39 1 .06 0.214 1 .96 5 .49 9 .27 12 .04 3 .48 18 .35 31 .49 5 .3 )
) '• 4 2 1958 2 .33 1 .05 0.203 1 .73 . .J2 9 .85 12 .32 3 .57 18 .45 32 .25 5 .4 5
5 .•21 3 1958 2 .32 1 .06 0.187 1 .70 5 .63 9 .94 12 .3? 4 .03 18 .52 31 .44 5 .3 7
i .24 4 1958 2 .30 1 .05 0 .194 1 .69 5 .20 9 .54 12 .08 4 .05 18 .37 31 .89 6 .3 7
5 .28 1 1959 2 .26 1 .02 0 .180 1 .62 6 .12 9 .08 11 .84 3 .68 18 .69 31 .18 6 .4 2
5 .26 2 1959 2 .27 1 .04 0 .172 1 .58 5 .33 9 .61 12 .00 3 .90 18 .80 30 .07 6 .1 6
5 .21 3 1969 2 .32 1 .05 0.165 1 .5? 6 .40 9 .16 11 .25 3 .97 18 .2? 30 .78 6 .4 5
b .25 4 1959 2 .37 1 .10 0 .180 1 .53 4 .83 9 .53 11 .68 4 .11 19 . :2 31 .02 6 .4 7
5 .27 1 1960 2 .41 1 .11 0 .189 1 .63 4 .88 9 .4? 11 .78 4 .45 10 .98 30 .21 5 .' : 4
5 22 2 1960 2 .40 1 .11 0 .185 1 .56 5 .19 9 .59 12 .03 4 .35 19 .89 29 .97 6 .•s3
3 L960 2 .38 1 .05 0.182 1 .58 5 .27 9 .65 11 .30 4 .32 18 .83 s0.2O 5 .3 4
5 .26 MARLBOR
1 ;67O
5 .28 1 2 .65 1 .03 0 .239 2 .33 5 .99 8 .38 10 .96 3 .29 19 .20 30.16 6 .33
5 .26 2 195? 2 .65 1 .04 0 .236 2 .29 6 .03 8 .64 11 .21 3 .39 18 .88 29 .86 5 .33
5 .24 3 1957 2 .56 1 .04 0 .224 2 .23 5 .85 8 .47 10 .87 3 .67 18 .63 30.13 5 .33
5 .25 4 3957 P .55 1 .09 0 .235 2 .24 5 .63 8 .54 10 .60 3 .69 18 .60 31 .46 5 .3 3
6 .27 1 1958 2 .62 1 .05 0 .233 2 .16 5 .63 8 .49 10 .76 3 .28 17 .83 30.67 5 .33
27 2 1958 2 .53 1 .07 0 .243 2 .13 5 .67 8 .68 11 .30 3 .60 17 .83 30 .32 6 36
8 .25 3 1958 2 .46 1 .07 0 .222 1 .96 6 .82' 8 .87 10 .99 3 .83 17 .67 30.63 6 29 a
5.30 4 1958 2 .48 1 .03 0 .225 2 .02 5 .40 8 .68 11 .20 3 .90 18 .03 32 .76 6.2 8
5 .31 1 1959 2 .45 1 .06 0 .232 1 .99 6 .39 8 .7? 11 .26 3 .65 18 .28 32 .61 6 .3 0
5 .34 2 1959 2 .44 1 .06 0 .229 1 .96 5 .58 9 .04 11 .34 3 .93 17 .69 31 .63 6 .37
5 .29 3 1959 2 .46 1 .07 0 .199 1 .88 8 .70 8 .72 10.47 3 .94 18 .36 31 .8? 6 .29
5 .32 4 1989 2 .48 1 .07 0 .216 1 .89 5 .26 8 .78 10.81 4 .08 18 .09 31 .82 5 .33
5 .19 1 1960 2 .58 1 .11 0 .214 1 .96 5 .21 8 .92 11 .22 4 .49 18 .20 32 .89 5 .33
2 1960 2 .53 1 .14 0 .211 1 .88 8 .66 8 .04 10 .74 4 .08 18 .29 31 .02 6 .4 0
3 19IO 2 .52 1 .11 0 .214 1 .87 5 .67 8 .19 10 .91 4 .23 17 .34 29 .42 . 12
7
5 .23 OLD GOLD
5 .25 15 2 .67 1 .06 0 .271 2 .36 6 .20 7 .53 8 .69 3 .23 19 .87 29 . 08 5 .28
5 .24 2 1957 2 .66 1 .03 0 .246 2 .37 6 .09 7 .24 8 .37 3 .22 19 .61 29 .23 5 .34
5 .21 3 1967 2 .83 1 .05 0 .224 2 .31 5 .74 7 .57 8 .33 3 .44 19 .49 29 .36 6 .33
6 .23 4 1557 2 .50 1 .03 0 .22? 2 .10 5 .91 7 .95 8 .89 3 .46 19 .09 31 .08 6 .! ?
5 .21 1 1968 2 .21 0 .96 0 .190 1 .66 5 .36 9 .06 11 . :57 3 .62 18 .29 31 .64 o .3 6
.22 2 1958 2 .14 0.94 0 .194 1 .68 6 .47 10 .05 1 : : .17 3 .81 18 .30 32 .33 5 .2 8
5 .2.3 3 1958 2 . 07 0 . 91 0 . 175 1 . 4 4 5. 43 10 . 68 12 . 3 0 4 . 09 17 . 97 32 . 01 5 . .1 4
0
5 .21 4 1958 2 .10 0 .91 0 .171 1 .56 5 .43 10 .02 12 .04 4 .38 18 .03 32 .84 6 .1 1
5 .26 1 1959 2 .10 0.90 0 .181 1 .57 5 .37 a .85 11 .95 3 .82 18 .16 32 .83 5 .34
;, .23 2 1959 2 .09 0 .93 0 .173 1 .54 6.54 10 .46 12 .44 4 .18 18 .04 32 .90 6 .2 5
5 .26 3 1959 2 .11 0 .91 0 .183 1 .64 5 .69 9 .79 11 .70 3 .76 18 .38 33 .50 6 .2 6
6 .26 4 1959 2 .15 0 .96 0 .168 1 .bl b .37 10 .6? 12 .19 3 .99 17 .82 33 .80 6 . :1 3
5 .27 1 1960 2 .17 0 .94 0 .102 1 .07 8 .23 10 .16 12 .16 4 .17 18 .44 34 .81 6 . .14
a 9t
2 1980 2 .28 0 .94 0 .163 1 .75 5 .79 9 .23 11 .43 3 .69 18 .95 31 .30 5 .119
3 1950 2 .25 O .4A 0 .179 1 . ;'4 5 .42 5 .88 11 .04 3.50 18 .49 31 .71 8 .1, 9

LG 0391645
9P9L9£0 r- 1

11 0 0

1'9 99' 0'61 ► '► oa• ► 0013 96 .0 98'1 £9t •o 1o' QC'a 6961 C
9t'9 9L'£C 83 .61 0t'1 96'21 09'ZT 88'0 86't 991'0 10'1 02'3 0961 Z
OT'Q tt'C2 LQ'LT 8710 t9' ► 1 011'£t 0410 60'3 341'0 10't Q1''3 0961 1
9019 Ct•9C 06'61 to' ► 61 .1'1 9Z'Ct at10 .40'a to 0011 9 ► 'a 6961 ►
0t•9 td' 0C 09 t 3612 LO' ►I 6L'Z1 43'9 90 .3 991'0 66'0 99'3 6481 2
01'9 99'1'0 01'61 *Cl** C9' ►t 2C•2T 31'9 W•1 181'0 86'0 89'3 8961 3
90'9 98'22 08'91 WA'0 9911'1 61'0 09 .0 86't 24110 8610 93'3 6961 1
C0'9 99'1C 09'91 09'1 L91't 6t'Ct 29'0 3411 OLtTO 66 '0 33 •3 9061 ►
011'4 ba'1'2 22'91 01' .1' 10'91 0C'CT W' ► W X 991'0 00'1 63'3 $961 2
90'9 U.1C 0191 It'0 11'91 09'21 1'8'0 Z6't QLttO 88'0 98•3 9961 a
90'9 11'1'2 1'3141 11412 CZ1'l 96'Zt 1111' 38't 64,110 00•1 09'3 8961 I
90'4 83'90 00'61 9L'C £0'It CO'LL 44'0 C8' 1 041'0 t0't 39*8 696t 0
90'9 "'CC 34 .61 08'4' 06 .21 t9'31 9811 06'1 342'0 10'1 99 .3 496t 2
60'0 96'32 61' .t 39 .2 41 .91 28•t1 4C14 20'3 99110 at Z4'3 6961 a
11'0 99'30 69'!1 49'9 08'3t 99'11 W9 60 .3 981'0 TO'1 99'9 6981
!2-O AL

O 9 1A * .&I 2a'1' 93-tj O O 14 i 008 0 66 O f ZZ 0961 -


62'9 68119 90'91 96 .2 r6111 96'11 33'9 86 .1 603'0 66 .0 91''3 0961 a
69 .0 L9'99 60 .91 OC'I 1'9131 99111 I0'0 1913 003 .0 to 11 99'3 0961 1
9319 96'22 91'81 16 .2 13'31 92 .11 03 .9 62 .3 203 .0 30't ► 4'a 6961 1'
0 1'9'9 Zt'CC 31181 99'2 WIT 00'11 19'9 69'3 L6t'0 8610 81''3 6961 2
0 69 .9 L0 39 03'91 30 .0 63'3t TV *11 09'0 92'3 933'0 90'1 61''3 6961 a
12'9 03'32 82 . .t 0612 93 .81 9Z'It 03'0 6113 60340 6610 62'8 6961 1
09'9 62'a9 92 .41 9111 69'31 6£'tt 09 9
' 00 3 1 113
'0 86'0 99'3 906t 9
49 91 89112 10 .41 8101 ► 44'Zt 99'TT 9012 2611 91310 10•t 69'8 9961 2
63'4 46'19 92161 at, 14 .31 09'11 91'19 00'3 023'0 2011 W a goal 3
29'0 98'02 96 .91 20'0 t3'ZI WIT 42'0 90'8 1I3'O 00't 31''8 8961 1
I9'Q 36'12 39'61 66'2 30'31 C6'01 12'0 61'3 993'0 t0't O'S 1,281 IF
12'9 10'12 19'81 1612 96•IT 09 .01 It *9 28 '3 033 '0 90 • 1 39' 8 6061 2
LC' 9 69'0 2 11 .9 1 39' 2 26 .01 98 .6 89'0 41' .3 1'CZ'o 90't 69' 3 4961 a
32 ' 0 02 '09 1'0 ' 81 99 1 2 WIT 18'6 99'9 ►Q•a 993'0 40 . 1 69 1 8 6261;1601

11
WO WOC 41''81 Wt 69' 1''O*. 90'9 LQ't 047'0 WO QI'a 0961 f
92'9 49'29 08•6t 0011' 91''ZI ►t'IT •C6'9 9► 't 69110 86'0 3113 0961 a
02'9 W22 99'81 80'1 09'21 06'01 6 :'9 09'1 991'0 26'0 3t'3 0961 1
98'9 6t•22 MOST 1'8'2 98'It 20'Ot 82'9 toll 26t•0 Z6'0 tt'3 6961 4
93'4 31-92 10181 9612 99'Tt 9916 44'9 391t 99t'0 t6 .0 0t•3 6961 9
1'3 .9 93'32 81'81 20'0 01'31 62'0t 69'2 99'1 66t'0 16 .0 01 .3 8961 Z
L2'9 t0'22 92'01 69'2 19'11 t0'01 02'9 80 .1 081'0 89'0 Lola 6981 1
93'9 11 .22 66'61 114, 80'31 t6'6 19'9 4► 'I 26t'0 06'0 ►O'Z 8961 1
6319 09'12 69 .61 2812 16'11 t6'6 1919 9 ► 'T 091'0 0810 60 3 8961 L'
39'9 6C'22 U141 4819 06'3T or of t4'9 09't 06t'0 3810 911Z 8961 3
39 .9 94 .32 61'6t 89'2 W31 62'01 3214 69'1 061'0 16'0 01'3 9981 t
9919 14'29 I ► '8t 34'2 40'tt 9618 29'9 09 .1 £03 .0 98'0 92'3 696L 1
42'9 10'09 63'61 WC 06'0( 89'8 64'9 10'3 318'0 68'0 92'3 L951 9
1'2' ; 99'02 W-31 33'9 06'6 18'L 90'9 03 .2 6 :3'0 20'1 89'3 6961 6
83 .9 dt'tC £0'8t 9819 93'0t 89'8 £t'9 39'3 393'0 %0'1 99'3 496 1
4o40g aWfig •J ( • rig a 2S •uI 'AT '~• iN b11~ .t• 1 0 0
'4111 T"01 -VON -lad -0011 OUT!/ •30ad •aoZ 11
(y•nutsuoo) i S.•{g'v-
1

- 99
aaaoouao .~CUUpvapaap0 a waaagCYiaaabaar uPaaaav .ve. .. .L.- . .. . .

50 -080-0- FNwUO► O r
404M4W44tAa -w -am 44NNt.10 tO90CACA f ~
pe)~laltVr ► p _flo 0004 . 000ta

10
0

- 57-
AUI~ 2

f COMPARISON OF BRANDS BY CHEMICAL WTA AVt l&GED OVER LhST FOUit QUA1TER S

ot a otei n in o a uo -
Nit - Nit - Nit - Nico- Pet . 1ng Tota l Ale .
and rogen ro 4n roaen tint Ltner Bugara bra Starch NVA Ext . pH

Chesterfield 2 .29 0 .98 0 .170 1 .79 4 .90 11.4 .27 15 .45 4 .50 18 .73 36 .01 5 .32
Lucky Strike 2 .30 1 .04 0.171 1 .74 5 .b2 ''.2 .84 14 .28 4 .66 17 .68 35 .06 6 .38
Camel 2 .44 1 .03 0 .1?3 2 .02 5 .60 11 .81 13 .6? 4 .31 18 .66 33 .80 6.2 ?
Pa11 Mall 2 .33 1 .04 0 .171 1 .73 5 .66 12 .?0 13 .91 4 .74 18 .01 33 .07 5.41
Phi1!p Morris 2 .30 1 .01 0 .174 1 .82 5 .01 11 .04 12 .66 4 .54 16 .94 33 .74 6.25
Old Gold 2 .21 0 .96 0 .168 1 .64 6 .40 9 .78 11 .91 3 .81 18 .42 32 .66 5 .29 0
L and M 2 .50 1 .06 0 .209 1 .86 4 .19 12 .63 13 .29 4 .93 17 .45 33 .72 5 .2 8
Wtneton 2 .42 1 .04 0 .1'e9 1 .93 5 .26 10 .85 12 .20 4 .69 18.10 32 .51 6.2 5
Viceroy 2 .39 1 .02 0 .16? 1 .96 4 .83 12 .98 14 .24 4 .16 17 .50 34 .89 6.1 3
Kent 2 .13 0 .96 0.169 1 .51 5 .64 10.77 12 .09 4 .07 18 .35 33 .26 5 .32
Marlboro 2 .53 1 .11 0 .214 1 .90 6 .43 8 .48 10 .92 4 .22 17 .98 3'_ .14 5 .36
Parliament 2 .39 1 .09 0.1f14 1 .68 5 .04 9 .56 11 .69 4 .33 18 .96 30 .35 5.4 2
tilt Parade 2 .31 1 .02 0.156 1 .68 6.44 12 .41 13 .63 4 .54 18.32 .52 .53 5.4 4
Kool 2 .49 1 .00 0.f.04 2 .17 6 .19 11 .36 11 .96 4 .11 18 .06 32 .67 5 .34
?a1es 2 .55 1 .03 0.204 2 .06 5 .07 12 .30 14 .21 3 .98 18 .05 32 .37 8.33

IM
0

09

physical,
Physical separation of the fifteen brands discussed in the precedin g

section of this report by tobacco types was made on oi,yarettes purchase d

in November, 1959 . The results of these separations . as well as the results

of previous separations of these brands, are shown in Table 3 .


It should be emphasized that the data on tobacco types in a bran d

are determined from only four oijarettes and are subject to the relatively

large variations one would expect from such a small number of oitarettee .

Variations in each of thb tobacco types of • 2 percent would be expected .

In addition to this, these data are subject to the errors of judgment made

by the individual making the separations . More precise data would require

the separation of a large number of oigarettss for each brand, whic h

from the standpoint of time alone, is not practical .

Listed below by companies are what seems to be actual changes which


0 have been made in some of the brands rather than fluctuations in the data
which would be expected . Although the data on some of the brands show

percentages of tobaocu types which differ somewhat from the previously

determined percentages . these differences may or my not be real . For

this reason, on'y the more definite changes are pointed out .

The only significant change made in :.i •e an Myers products seems

to be the increase in Turkish tobacco to the Chesterfield otS .retce . The

data on the L and M are quite comparable to the previous data on this brand .

The products of the American Tobacco Company . Lucky Strike . Pall Maw,

and i]j arad , all show the addition of reconstituted strip to their

blends . The ups of Maryland tobacco in the Pp11 Nall seems to have been

discontinued .

The data on the Neynolda 1bacon company products, Camel, W ne on and

Salon do not indicate any significant changes in these blends .

LG 0391648 .
I

- 69 -
I
The blend of the Philip Monk, a product of the Philip Norris

Tobagoo Cam, does not sees to have been changed since the addition of WP
Bra
reconstituted strip prior to January . 1958. The percentage of reconstituted rc
Marc
strip used in the Harlbor4 and Parliament cigarettes is approzima ;ely the Marc
same as reported in October, 1958, which is considerably more than was An .
Jan .
initially reported in January, 19D8 . The use of stem material in Marlboro Jan
Jan
Oct
seems to have been dinoontinued. There also seems to be a decline to the
MIT
use of flue cured tobacco In the Parliament .

The initial use of reconstituted strip by the Lorillard TTobaooo Mar


Company Is shown by the use of this material in the Odd, mold blend . TAe war
0 Jan
Jan
data on the tent oigarette, however, does not show the use or this material Jan
Jan
nor any significant changes in its blend . Oc t
The only real changes that sees to have been made in the Brown at

Williamson Tobaooo products . Viceroy and Kool, since October, 1958 is the
11
initial use of a small quantity of reconstituted strip .

A more direot comparison of the physical oats-up of the fifteen brands


is shown In Table 4 .

i.

N.

LG 0391649
.coon . ; e• BArtty • I'IL' 4

- 60 -

ABL A

PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION OF TOBACCOS 114 CIGARETTE BLSND S

Date and
Brand Bright Burley Turkish Maryland Latakia Stem Reconstitutsd
B F %to an
ro 87 .5'0 17 .50 7 .50 3 .00 4 .50
March 1953 66 .77 18 .01 8 .12 2 .25 4 .8 5
March 1984 6? .0E 27 .62 8 .26 1 .97 6 .13 warob 1 a
Jan . 1955 67 .03 17 .36 8 .90 2 .35 4 .37 parch 1 9
Jan . 1956 69 .19 16 .61 8 .88 0.88 4 .44 March I s
Jan . 195? 81 .62 19 .86 10 .8? 1 .85 2 .41 3 .59 Jan . 19 !
0 Jan . 3958 58 .56 22 .33 7 .54 2 .85 3 .40 8.32 Jan . 191
Oct . 1958 57 .18 20 .51 8 .71 5 .27 3 .99 4 .34 Jon . 19 1
Nov . 1949 55 .45 19 .6? 17 .6 6 1 .24 2 .73 3 .26 Jan. 19 1
Oct . 19 :
to UICKK 30 . x ! Nov . 9
Ma ch 3 ~ .00
65 30 .00 /9 .00 6 .00
March 1953 54 .25 31 .95 8 .96 4 .85 MD I
March 1954 63 .75 32 .00 11 .20 3 .Ob rb l
Jan . 1955 55 .46 30 .75 9 .75 4 .05 Jan . 19
Jan . 1966 07 .17 21 .26 17 .71 0 .56 3 .51 Jon . 19
Jan . 196? 49.06 31 .74 14 .23 1 .60 3 .37 Jon . is
Jan . 1968 44 .00 36 .29 13 .42 2 .60 3 .69 Jan . IS
001 .1958 45 .31 34 .62 12 .20 2 .90 4 .97 Oct . if
Nov . 1959 44 .61 30.71 15 .63 4 .36 3 .a Now . ii
, 0 CAMEL 10 .r.14 lo
}larch 1962 4b 000 4 9.0 00 3 .00 •
00 -
lurch
March 1953 48 .40 36 .86 6 .96 3 .65 3 .16 1 .10 .Jan . I'
March 1954 48 .95 38.85 8 .00 2 .06 3 .30 3 .86 Jon. 1'
Jan . 1955 49 .10 65 .60 7 .90 2 .60 1 .15 9 .75 Jan . 3
Jan . 1956 49 .83 28 .51 13 .58 0 .81 4 .34 3 .93 Jan . 1
Jan . 1957 45 .05 38 .50 8 .35 1 .24 2 .72 4 .14 Oct . 1
Jan . 1868 38 .46 37 .21 12 .76 2 .32 2 .90 6 .36 1101 .
Oct . 1958 46 .IS 39 .80 5 .88 1 .41 3 .17 3 .56
Nov . 1959 42 .58 36 .34 10 .18 1 .01 ZION
c
r
8160 PALL MALL 39• G/ $jI #? / •o0 4 .s( parch
~S7 3•S/
march 2 55 .00 55 .00 b~.00 4 .00 Marc h
March 1963 54 .06 34 .05 7 .38 4 .55 Jan . 3
March 2934 57 .40 28 .40 12 .25 1 .95 Jan .
Jan . 1955 56 .00 32 .35 8 .90 2 .75 Jan .
Jan . 1956 51 .83 29 .32 14 .39 0 .64 3 .88 Jan .
Jan . 1967 54 .72 31 .47 9 .23 1 .87 3 .01 Oct .
Jan . 1958 42 .58 36 .19 14 :64 3 .05 3 .54
Oct . 1958 46 .4? 37 .2? 10 .94 2 .00 4 .3 2 ftu-
N_ov . 1959 43 .43 32 .31 18 .65 2 .84 2 .77 A4 to KM
rsh
PHILIP MORRIS Maro t
March 1 61 .66 22 .45 11 .06 1 .45 Maro t
March 1953 61 .60 20.00 11 .40 2 .10 Jan .
March 1954 69 .20 21 .50 13 .16 1 .95 Jan .
Jan . 1966 59 .60 19 .90 13 .20 2 .66 Aug .
Jan . 1966 64 .01 13 .82 14 .12 4 .64 Jan .
Jan . 196? 67 .81 23 .20 12 .16 0 .99 2 .68 3 .26 Oct .
Jan . 1958 46.97 22 .13 16 .14 1 .93 2 .22 2 .37 6 .24 Nov .
Oct . 1958 53 .08 21 .72 14 .57 0 .86 1 .36 1 .64 6 .7 ?
Sv . 1969 62 .70 18 .42 18 .46 1 .34 1 .32 1 .19 6 .57

w ♦ A12Iws •0 .'► Oo>• 0

LG 0391650
I
l

- 61 -
TIBLk 9. (Continued )

to and
BranQ : Sr ht burlev 'P kieh Ka land Leta a Stes xtituted W-fe
OLD GOL D Brand
RarcrI 52 51 .58 28 .05 7 .00 7 .30 0.60 5 .60 A6 6o WLI
starch 1983 54 .06 26 .70 7 .36 6 .10 0 .70 5 .10 3a`n .
Karch 1954 51 .10 28 .70 8.05 3 .55 1 .00 ? .60 Jan .
Jan . 1958 57 .20 30 .55 10 .86 3 .65 0 .90 6 .15 Jan .
Jan . 1956 58 .29 20 .12 13 .94 1 .53 0.48 5 .54 Oct .
Jan . 1957 66 .62 84 .61 9 .66 2 .59 0 .19 6 .44 Nov .
Jan . 1958 62 .44 15 .79 12 .27 2 .47 7 .03
Oat . 1958 53 .28 17 .81 11 .16 2 .65 15 .10 PARLI
Nov . 2959 52 .43_2-8 .66 10 .71 1 .46 9 .05 3 .09 Me ro .
Sept .
L AND K Karat
Aar^To T954 49 .60 22 .00 2i .85 2 .25 4 .40 Jan .
Jan . 1965 47 .05 30 .65 17 .7 5 4 .65 Ja n .
Jan . 1958 41 .68 29 .66 21 .06 3 .38 4 .38 Jan .
Jan . 1957 41 .68 31 .11 14 .62 3 .41 9 .38 Jan .
Jan . 1968 34 .49 24 .10 18 .62 4 .98 17 .81 Oct .
Oct . 1968 37492 22 .81 18 .41 3 .83 17 .00 Nov .
Mov. 1969 _ 38 .66 23 .97 18 .2 8 3 .76 18 .M
KIT I
•LO g TOM y4 ak •( - >,/sI TOM t ."
aro 954 42' .76 19 .60 16 .45 2 .1 0 18 .10 Jan .
.Jan . 1985 50.85 16.20 18 .88 2 .10 16.30 Jan .
Jan . 1956 48.27 21 .00 32 .61 18 .22 Oat .
Jan . 298? 44 .43 26 .97 12 .46 0.99 16 .16 Nov .
Jan . 1958 36 .13 26 .21 12 .91 9 .54 22 .81
Oct . 1908 39 .67 •26 .00 14 .35 1 .41 19 .37 KOOL
Nov . 1959 37 . 30 _ 24 .90 16 .80 0 .72 20 . 2 6 more
Jan .
Jan .
W CI 962 55 .90 26 .90 6 .90 2 .30 Jan .
March 1953 49 .60 27 .90 8 .50 5 .30 8 .80 Jan .
March 1954 47 .56 29 .35 10 .36 3 .06 9 .70 Oct .
Jan . 1986 00 .60 34 .06 7 .90 2 .40 5 .00 Nov .
11 Jan . 1956 62 .64 24 .69 10 .00 2 .63 10 .21
Jan . 1957 46 .01 2Y .67 15 .27 1 .97 7 .17 Av 14 SAL
Jan . 1968 51 .72 25 .80 9 .28 2 .55 10 .6 6 an .
Oat . 1958 07 .68 23 .37 6 .62 2 .97 9 .36
Nov . _1959 50 .69 - 23 .64 13 .97 1 .7 4 8 .08 1 .88 Jan .
Jan .
Ault o _[ TT r~yy , yy /0.66 /L / - 7-,f -/ .. .it Oct .
rch 192 .00 33 .00 10 .00 3 .00 1 .00 Nov
Maroh 1953 -
Karch 1964 48 .76 24 .66 20 .00 2 .10 4 .60
Jan . 1956 69 .80 26 .45 10 .06 4 .70
Jan . 1956 67 .86 21 .98 11 .89 0 .66 7 .41
Aug. 1967 61 .84 20.80 7 .82 1 .46 8 .01
Jan . 2968 68 .49 19 .39 13 .47 2 .42 6 .88
Ont . 1968 53 .61 19 .62 14 .14 2 .?? 9 .96 Trace
Nov ._ 1959 54 .90 2P .90 11 .78 0 .44 10 .68

LG 0391651
I

-62 -

TABLE 3 (Continued )
Date and
Brand Bright Burley Turkish Maryland Latakia Stem Reoonstituted
£J oo MABLB 37• g a f~
Jan . 19 6 57 .AS 23 . 11 14
~f . 18 1 .7 Trace Yr.> Y
3 .19
Jan . 195? 57 .63 25 .06 15 .21 Trace 2 .09
Jan . 1958 4A .72 27 .38 14 .19 2 .60 1 .73 b .4 0
Oct . 1958 41 .92 23 .66 20 .41 2 .63 1 .07 10 .31 Brand
Nov . 1959 44 .05 26 .09 15 .01 1 .26 13 .69
Chesterfiel d
PARLI AY. SIT Lucky Strik e
arc 1 5 52 .00 37 .00 8 .00 3 .00 Came l
Sept . 1952 62 .25 26 .65 8 .45 2 .66 Pall Mal l
March 1954 62 .85 15 .95 18 .90 2 .30 Philip Morr i
Jan . 1955 69 .85 21 .65 6 .05 2 .45 Old Gol d
Jan . 1956 65 .84 12 .18 20 .02 1 .95 L and M
Jan . 1957 - - - - Winsto n
Jan . 1958 49 .43 29 .43 10 .?? 1 .02 1 .14 2 .02 6 .19 Viceroy
Oct . 1958 40 .31 29 .00 14 .79 1 .72 1 .53 12 .65 Ken t
Nov . 1959 35 .06 33 .52 15 .87 0 .45 1;81 13 .29 Marlbor o
Parliamen t
HIT PARADE' Hit Pa r ad e
Sat . 1956 45 .96 40 .26 10 .41 3 .37 Kool.
Jan . 1957 46 .01 36 .89 13 .28 0 .65 3 .17 Salem
Jan . 1958 39 .12 42 .23 12 .92 1 .86 3 .87
Oct . 1958 40 .86 40 .31 12 .76 1 .74 4 .33
Nov . 1959 39 .01 37 .44 15 .11 -0 .29 4 .54 4 .62

K00L
March 1964 57 .45 27 .26 6 .90 1 .90 6 .46
Jan . 1955 59 .10 26 .10 6 .90 2 .30 6 .60
Jan . 1956 63 .52 17 .89 8 .23 - 13 .03
Jan . 1957 44 ;86 31 .22 8 .98 2 .09 7 .85
Jan . 1958 50 .99 26 .70 10 .66 3 .27 8 .38
Oct .1968 54 .28 26 .08 6 .93 3 .71 9 .0 0
Nov . 1959 46 .714 _ 25 .52 1j .49 .83 8 .14 1 .23

c.141 -
A`+' 40 ~ . 1956 44.08 21
.88 /8 .6i 26 .00
April 1956 52 .92 16 .32 9 .21 1 .01 20 .54
Jan . 1957 33 .54 36 .25 7 .94 1 .39 21 .88
Jan . 1958 30 .73 38 .02 9 .48 3 .10 18 .6?
Oct .1958 34 .37 35 .02 7 .55 2 .69 20 .37
Nov . 1959 39 .48 27 .04 9 .18 2 .73 21 .57

0 0

LG 0391652
- 63 -

TA1LF. 4

COMPANISON OF BRAUN, BY TObwl :00 TYPES, NOV2MBEH . 195 9

Neconeti-
Brand Bri,cht Nurlgy furkieh Maryland Latakia Stem tute d

Chgaterfteld 55 .45 19 .67 19 .66 1 .24 2 73 3 .2 5


Lucky Strike 44 .61 30 .7 1 15 .6,3 1 .17 4 .36 3 .52
Camel 42 .58 38 .34 10 18 1 .01 4 .22 5 .6?
Pall Mall 43 .43 32 .31 18 .65 2 .84 2 .7 7
Philip Morrie 52 .70 18 .42 18 .46 1 34 1 .32 1 .19 6 .57
Old Gold 52 .43 18 .66 15 .71 1 .46 8 .65 3 .09
L and M 35 .65 23 .9 7 18 .28 3 .75 18 .3 5
Uinaton 37 .30 24 .9 0 16 .80 0 .72 20 .2 8
Viceroy 50 .69 23 .6 4 13,97 1 .74 8 .08 1 .88
Rent 54 .90 22 .2 0 11 .78 0 .44 10 .6 8
Marlboro 44 .05 26 .09 15 .01 1 .26 13 .59
Parliament 35 .06 33 .52 15 .87 0 .45 1 .81 13 .2 9
Hit Parade 38 .01 37 .4 4 15 .11 0 .28 4 .54 4 .62
Kool 46 .79 25 .5 2 16 .49 1 .83 8 .14 1 .23
Salem 39 .48 27 .04 9 .18 2 .73 21 .57

Mineton

Salem

Pall Ma:

Luoky 81

Tareyto

lent

Marlbor

Alpin e

LG 0391653
M

A . Qpj

ADDEN2Wd IQ HESEAH j R2: OH OF PErEM8l:H Q A140 g . 1980 Th,

Physical separation of the following brands was made on cigarette s growing

purchased in November, 1960 . Since these data were obtained too late to the pas

include in the regular tables cif this report, they are shown below compared Mr . M .

to data obtained on these brands purchase . in November . 1959 . It was felt the fl u

that it would be of inter .st to insert these data since they indloate some TT

rather significant changes in some of these brands . each o f

- Brand Date of Purchase Bri .cht BurleY Turkish Maryland CTS Cut Stem

Camel Nov . 1989 42 .58 38 .34 10 .18 1 .03 5 .67 4 .22


Nov . 1960 38 .36 30 .88 20 .28 1 .92 4 .90 3 .6 6

Winston Nov . 19510 37 .30 24 .9 0 16 .80 0 .72 20 .28 --- -


Nov . 196 0 29 .4 0 22 . 1 6 24 . 05 --- - 24 . 30

Salem Nov . 1959 39 .48 27 .04 9 .18 2 .73 21 .67 --- -


Nov . 1960 26 .46 34 .04 17 .46 - 0 .44 22 .61 ----

Pall mail Nov . 1969 43 .43 32 .31 18 .65 ---- 2 .77 2 .84 E
Nov . 1960 39 .61 54 .17 15 .00 3 .15 3 .51 4 .67
during
Lucky Strike Nov . 1959 44 .61 30 .71 15 .63 1 .17 3 .52 4 .36
Nov . 1960 46 .08 30 .09 14 .01 2 .74 4 .13 3 .05 infore

Tareyton Nov . 1959 38 .91 36 .46 17 .35 1 .16 2 .49 3 .65 of the
Nov . 1960 41 .02 33 .38 14 .58 2 .34 5 .29 3 .39
e xamit
Kent Nov . 1959 54 .90 22 .20 11 .78 0 .44 ----- 10.88
Nov . 1960 56 .08 20 .22 10 .66 1 .64 2 .76 7 .94 f olla
Marlboro Nov . 1959 44 .05 26 .09 15 .01 1 .28 13 .59 ---- - or itn '
Nov . 1980 37 .25 25 .Pl 13 .68 0 .96 22 .P! ---- -

Alpine Nov . 1969 39 .18 29 .31 12 .45 0 .29 15 .50 3 .37


Nov . 1960 41 .52 20 .63 12 .52 ,, l_- 23 .~~----- less

than

tobac

bod le

from

A v#br

LG 0391654
I.

- 64 -

kREMARKhT SURVEYS rA pla n


A . fl Cured
adeo
The premarketing program was carried out in the flue oure .i tobacc o
f growing areas during the 1960 season in essentially the same manner as in 0 durl
the past . The results of the premarket evaluations were discussed wit h Dept
wr . M . E . Warrington and other members of the Leaf Department for each o f
an i
the flue cured belts .

The number of farms sampled and the number of samples analyted fro m

each of the areae are shown below .


1260
. PXemarkat Sample s

No . of No . of
Area Farme Sampled Samples An v ed

8 Georgia-Florida 85 328
S . Car .-Border Belt 79 370
71 Eastern North Car . 109 61 0
Middle Belt 66 25 8
Old Belt 71 323
sa w
Total 409 1889
re f
4 By using the available information concerning the climatic conditions
9
during the transplanting, growing, and harvesting s^asone ; the available

information concerning cultural practices used by the growers ; Observation

of the crop in most areas during the early harvesting season ; subjective

examination of samples oolleoted ; and chemical data on these samples, the

following general evaluations of the crop were made for each belt prior to

or immediately after the opening of the markets within the belts .

The crop in the Oetrgia-Florida dell was Judged to be heavier bodied,


}7
lees mature, higher in nicotine content, and lower in reducing sugar content To
than any of the crops sampled since 1951 . The data indicated that the or

tobecoos from the upper plant positions ant the later crops would be heavier gr

bodied, lees mature, and higher in nicotine content than the samples collected he

from the lower plant positions and the earlier crops . It wan reoommended that ws

a very careful selection of the mature well textured tocwocos of the middl e tt

m
0

LG 0391655
Mk

65

C plant positions be purchased only to the extent deemed necessary to maintai n


seeme d
adequate stocks of flue oared tobacco .
make up
It wau also recommended that samples collected front our purchases mad e
In
during the first two days of marketing operation be forwarded to the Research
immatur
Department for chemical evaluation . Tae summary of these data converted t o
mature
an estimate of the strip analysis is enown in the following table by grade .
that ti
Total Amino Reducin g
Grade Nitrogen Nitrogen Nicotine Sugars off H3A priming

D 1 .78 0 .182 1 .68 21 .20 5 .37 3 .05 Ti


N 1 .82 0 .206 1 .75 19 .23 5 .32 3 .1 2
39 1 .85 0 .206 1 .87 18 .88 5 .34 3 .08 varie d
SP 1 .97 0 .254 1 .90 16 .04 5 .29 3 .1 8
Ca 2 .02 0 .286 1 .84 13 .25 5 .41 3 .02 law ni t
SMP 1 .95 0 .238 1 .90 15 .18 5 .29 3 .15
9.°P 1 .86 0 .212 1 .73 15 .29 5 .34 3 .11 typioa:
.1 11P zoo I .7 7 5 4 7 .
AVEAAOE 0 2 9 1 79 li 5- 3 1 i (UTIR orang e

The differences between these data and the data shown below on strip and me

samples of comparable grade collected during the entire marketing period tobao o

reflect the trends expected from the more upatalk tobaccos and later crops . medium
latter
Total Amino Reducin g
trade Nitrogen Nitrogen Nicotine Sugars DH WSA physic

D 1 .93 0 .204 2 .09 19 .38 5 .30 3 .24 harve s


N 1 .96 0 .203 2 .14 19 .04 5 .29 3 .42
8M 2 .00 0 .238 2 .25 17 .22 5 .33 3 .34 moist y
8P 2 .V7 0 .260 2 .29 13 .55 5 .32 3 .22
C, 2 .17 0 .271 2 .35 15 .16 6 .33 3 .08 later #
SXP 1 .95 0 .242 2 .06 16 .57 5 .31 3 .5 0
8PP 2 .04 0 . 288 2 . 12 13 . 98 5 . 36 2 . 7 4
.-
i 12 .05
A ERAG6 048 . 1 2 .18 16 .12 5 34 3 .1 7 top w

The crop in the South Carolina- order 8e1t area was Judged to be mor e

variable than the Georgia-Florida crop . It was thought that a part of the textu

crop would exhibit the more desirable physical characteristics of texture, aiequ
grain, and color . The data on this part of the crop indicated that it was

heavy bodied and quite high in nicotine content . Mother part of the crop

wan Ju .tged to be oulte poor in physical characteristics and the data indicated mor e
this part to be ewashed out,' heavy bodied, and very low in nicotine content . tionE
A third portion of the crop was produced from Coker 316, a variety which

LG 0391656
- Eu -

seemed to be quite similar to Coker 139 in physical appearance and ohlmtosl

make up .

In view of the fact that come of the second pricings were not quite as

immature as normal, it was recommended, that a very oreful selection of the

mature lower plant position tobaccos be purchased . It was also reoossended

that the mature well textured tobaccos from above t' .e first and seoor A

pricings be purchased to the extent that marketing conditions would fro . tt .

The tobaccos in Egetern M :rth Carolina were also fudged to consist of

varied types . Approxinately one-third of the crop was made up of light bodied,

low nieotinr content tobaccos o: a pale milky white color which were void o :

typical tobacco aroma . A part of the crop was . made up of yellow to yellowish

orange tobaccos which the obtzinal data indicated to be light to metliuw bodied

and medium in nicotine content . Another portion of the crop was made up of

tobaccos with a darker orange color which she chemical data indioatid to be
medium to heavy bodied and medium to high in nicotine content . Within the

latter two general types, the more nature crops tended to exhibit 1prod
physical characteristics . Within the three general types, the orop u

harvested before optimmum maturity or prematurely curing periods of exOesoive

moisture exhibited chalky, grey, and green colors along the midribs and

lateral veins of the leaf, and a ocnsiderable amount of sponging on the leaf .

In view of these data and the effort being made by thw Leaf Department

to purchase a reasonable peroenta,ye of the crop, it was recommended that %

1 . Purchases of the pale colored tobaccos be made from the mature well

textured tohaooos only to the extent deemed absolutely necessary to saintain

adequate stocks of flue cured tobacco .

2 . Only the carefully ueleoted mature first pricings be purchased .

3 . The mature, well textured, light to medium bodied tobaccos Pros the

more desirable tobacco types be purchased to the extent that marketing condi-

tions would permit .

The tobaccos in the Mid-11e Bej, .t were Judged to be heavier bodied an d

LG 0391657
I

- 67-

higher in niootine oontent than any of the previous belts . The obamical

data also emphasited the iutattrity of the first, second, slid in some

lnst•.noes the third primings . It was pointed out that a relatively high
Pero-, '•-a of the crop exhibited very poor physical characteristics and that

a selection of the more normally colored, mature, better textured tobaccos

would be expected to be more medium to heavy in body and medium to high in

0 nicotine content.

It was recommended that : 8.

1 . The immature first primings not be purchased .


In.
2 . only the carefully selected, more mature tobacoos from the second

and third priminga be purchased . va

3 . Purchases of the pale colored tobaccos be made from the mature well ho

textured tobaouos only to the extent deemed absolutely necessary to maintain en

adequate stocks of flue cured tobaooO .


th
4 . The mature, well textured, lighter bodied tobaccos from the more
ar
desirable tobacco types be purchased to the extent that marketing conditions
tb
would permit .
To
The tobaccos in the Qq,Uj,y, were judged to be heavier bodied, less
we
mature, and higher in nicotine content than in any of the previous belts .
so
In some specific areas the tobaccos from the entire plant were fudged to be
to
immature . It was pointed out that a selection of tobaoooe possessing the
h!
more desirable physical characteristics would be heavier bodied and higher

in nicotine Char. the general crop average .


Since it was felt that the tobaccos iu the Old Belt were less

desirable for use in cigarettes than tte tobaccos in all the earlier belts,
it was recommended that purchases in this area be limited to the minimum

quantity deemed necessary to maintain adequate stooks of flue cured tobacco .

It was further recommended that purchases in any grade be carefully selected

from the mature higher'bodiei tobaccos possessing the better physical

characteristics .
C

LG 0391658
-68-

Comparison of Plus Cured Belts by Estimated Strip tobacco


Analyses Determined from ?remarketing Sample s
(Prankl
Tot Amino Reducing
Belt Nitrogen Nitrogen Nicotine Sugars vH MBA in this
Ga . - Pla . 1 .93 . 0 .244 1 .87 15 .67 5 .43 - - T1
S . C . Border 1 .89 0 .209 2 .18 19 .93 5 .28 3 .16
E .N .C . 1 .88 0.913 1 .88 19 .44 5 .19 3 .18 except
Middle 2 .08 0 .228 2 .44 18 .29 5 .22 3 .3 0
01 2 .25 0.234 2 .91 17 .27 5 .31 3 .34 meth=

indio s
B . mgt
and tb
All of the available information on the 1960 crop of Burly tobacco
were s
indicated that the tobacco in any specific marketing area would be quite

variable in their suitability for use in cigarettes . In broad terms, I


sampl e
however, some general comments were male on the physical and chemical differ-
were I
ences between tobaccos produced in this crop .
this,
The subjective examination of the samples received from this drop and
crops
the chemical data on them indicated that the tobaccos from .the Covington
data
area ; the tobaccos produced along the Ohio River in Kentucky and Indiana,
Grope
the southoentral section of Kentucky, and the northoentral section of
Baste
Tennessee were typical of tobacoos produced during extended periods of dry
rsosi
weather . These tobaccos were generally smaller in size, chalky grey in
bodi t
color and chaffy in all plant positions . The chemical data on these
consl
tobaccos indicated that they were generally heavier bodied, less mature and
and t
higher in nicotine content than the more desirable cigarette tobaccos
the
produced in other areas .

It was felt that the tobaccos on the Shelbyville, Bloomfield, Paris,


roe s
Cynthiana, Maysville and Ripley markets would have been more normal in Burley

character than the tobacco on the previously mentioned groups of markets, but

heavier bodied, less mature and higher in nicotine content .

The data indicated that the tobaccos in the central and southeastern

sections of Kentucky . including the Springfield, Lebanon, Harrodsburg,

Danville, Lexington, Wt . Sterling, Winchester, Richmond, Somerset and London

markets, were judged to be more desiraole for use in cigarettes than the

LG 0391659
- 6N -
tobaccos of any other area . The tobaccos in Southoentral Tennessee

(Franklin-Fayetteville) also seemed to be among the better tobaccos produced

to this crop .
The data on the samples from Eastern Tennessee indicated that with the

exception of a few specific markets, the tobaccos in this area were generally Nor
Can
medium bodied, medium in nicotine content and fairly mature . These data did Las
!%QD
indicate that the tobaccos in the Boone-West Jeff arson area were loss mature,

and that the tobaccos in the Abingdon, Pennington Gap sod Gate City area

were somewhat less mature and considerably higher in nicotine content .

The upsetting factor concerning the evaluation of this crop from the

sampled received was that approximately sixty percent of the farms sampled

were from the first seventeen percent of the crop transplanted . In vier of

this, the data on the individual farms were regrouped according to when the

crops were transplanted in an effort to ascertain the extent to which the

data on the crop could be effected . These data indioated that the later

crops which were very lightly sampled were considerably less mature in

Eastern Tennessee, Central Tennessee and Northern Kentucky . The samples

received from the later crops in Northern lentuoky also seemed to be heavier
0
bodied, and the later crop in Northern Kentucky and Central Tennessee were

considerably higher in nicotine content than the earlier crops . The body

and maturity of the early and late crops in Central Kentucky were essentially

the same but the nicotine Content of the later crops were somewhat lower .

The estimated strip data, oaloulateu'flom the data on the leaf samples

received, are shown in the tollowina table by the four geographical areas .

ut

in

LG 0391660
Total Nitrate Mino Pet .
Area Nitroien Nitr!Uen Nitroxen Nicotine Ether NVA V5A n H

Northern kentuok7 4 .32 0.47 0 .517 4 .14 7 .64 29 .96 2 .59 6 .19
Central Eontuok7 4 .35 0 .49 0 .487 3 .50 7 .30 27 .90 2 .27 6 .33
Eastern Tennessee 4 .17 0 .4 5 0 .470 3 .61 6 .98 26 .74 2 .14 6 .47
Cantrai 4enneseee 4 .51 0 .491 3 .56 7 .*~~Pri^°=°'~~~ 1

LG 0391661
2

- 71-

5TOACD 1'0 0 I

these
A . flue Cure d
adeque
Flue cured tobacco striy from the 1960 crop was sampled in each of
were e
the stemmeries of the company in such a manner that the samples would be 2

The go
representative of our purchases in each type and grade over the entire period
the be
of marketing operations . Opening dates of the belts were closer tha n
1960 C
normal this year and the preaarketing program did not permit weekly chemical
analyses of the strip samples for the leaf Department as was done durin g
the 1959 crop .
The data on the 1960 crop shown in the following sables indicate that grade
our purchases from this crop are heavier bodied, less mature and higher in light
niootine content than our purchases of the previous two years . shown
The data in Table 2 . showing the overage analyses of flue cured strip the g
for the 1964 through 1960 crops by belts, show that our purchases mad e

in pastern Worth Carolina are the only 1960 purchases made that would be Type
Judged to be more desirable for use in ci, ;arettes than purchases from Geni i
comparable belts in 1959 . These data show that our purchases in the Oeorgia-
Florida and the youth Carolina-Border Belt areas particularly, are heavier schee
bodied, lass mature and higher in nicotine content than our purchases from Conte
these areas of the previous two years . prey,
The data in Table 3, showing the average analyses of flue cured strip and I
for the 1954 through 1960 crops by grades, show that . with one exception, indi
each grads purchased would be Judged to be less desirable for use in cig-

arettes than purchases mode in comparable grades in 1969 . The tobaccos alth
purchased from this crop in grade 814 would be judged to be slightly better sale
than rurohases made in the same grades in 1959 . avai
The data in Table 4, showing the average analyses of flue cured strip that
of the 1960 crop by belts and grades, express the same general levels of the
body, maturity and nicotine content as shown in the previous data . ava !

LG 0391662
- 72 -
It should be pointed out that in consideration of the crop from which

these purchases were made and the amount of tobacco needed to maintain

adequate stocks of flue cured tobacco, it is felt that these purchases

were selected from the better crops of the more desirable types of tobacco .
m
The general evaluations of the crop as determined by premarketing each of

the belts have been discussed in another section of this report on the

1980 crop . 1954

1956
B . Burl s
1988
The data in Tables 5 and 8 show that our purchases in a full range of
195?
grades from the 1959 burley crop were made up of well matured tobaccos of
1954
light to medium body and low to sodium nicotine content . The differences
2989
shown in Table 4 between the *straight, two-side and heavy* grades express
1960
the general plant positions from which these grades were purchased .

The data in Table 7 show that the purchases made in the Tennessee

Type were only slightly lighter bodied, more mature and lower in nicotine

content than those made in the Lexington Type .


a- In view of the discussion oL the nicotine reduction plant which is

scheduled later in this conference, it should be noted that the nicotine

content of the 1958 and 1959 burley crops was low compared to the years

previous to 1958 . The average nicotine content of these two crops was 1 .99

and 9 .87 percent respectively and the nicotine content of the highest

individual grade, CCX, 1959 crop, was only 2 .73 percent .

The presarket surveys made on the 1958 and 1959 crops indicate that

although very little tobacco of high nicotine content could have been

selected from the 1958 crop, they would probably have been more readily

available in certain geographical areas in 1959 . At this time it appears

that the nicotine content of the 1960 burley crop should be higher than in

the past two years and that high nicotine tobaccos should be readily

available in some areas .

LG 0391663
Q
- 73-

LW i
Average Analyses of Plus Cured Strips by Crops

Total
Reduo- Acid s Crop Ar'
0 Total Protein Amino MOO- Pet . ing oo .N/I0
Crgp Nitrogen Nitrogen N1jEo.en tine L4jr Sugars Alka, JBA oN 1964 Os
0.80 0 .239 2 .79 8 .24 17 .06 13 .19 3 .69 6 .13
S.
1964 2,13 2.
Ni
1966 2 .19 0 .92 0.247 1 .96 7 .60 14 .64 12 .37 3 .57 5 .20 01
9 .27 7 .01 16 .66
1956 8 .18 0 .88 0 .230 12 .23 3 .79 5 .12 IRS Gf
8.
1957 2 .64 0 .95 0.260 3 .95 7 .31 13 .76 14 .64 4 .60 5 .08 s.
1958 1 .93 0 .83 0.234 1 .93 6 .45 17 .16 14 .18 3 .61 5 .24
x1
1959 9 .05 0 .89 0 .230 2 .25 6 .49 15 .99 14 .12 3 .63 6 .2
2
S
19600 2 .14 0 .261 2 .45 16 .44 3 .38 5 .87 t

'1aooeplete

LG 0391664
29" &
Analyses of Flue Cured Strips 1ES4-1980 Crops oy Area s

Total
Total Reduo- Aoids
Nitro- Protein Amino Nioo- Pet . 1ng oo .N/10
Cron Area Ben Nitro en Nitro .cen tine Ether 3uaars -A3k . W5A B
o

1954 Georgia 2 .12 0 .82 0 .2?1 2 .44 8 .20 15 .66 13 .74 3 .68 6 .14
Si Carolina 1 .99 0 .76 0 .220 2 .65 8 .34 18 .05 12 .26 3 .67 6 .12
E .N . Carnilne 1 .98 0 .78 0 .201 2 .53 7 .91 20 .23 11 . :54 3 .50 5 .16
Middle Belt 2 .29 0.82 0 .26 0 3 .13 8 .47 15 .68 14 .63 3 .89 5 .1 3
Old Solt 26 0 6 98
AVERAGE P ; 13 1191- 1 18,
1133-1
S9 S Georgia 1 .96 0.224
0.83 t . 90 79 18 .19 13 . 131E
8 . Carolina 2 .09 0 .89
0 .241 1 .77 7 .60 13 .99 12 .20 3 .62 6 .12
L .N . Carolina 2 .01 0 .88
0 .226 1 .56 7,48 16 .25 10 .75 3 .60 5 .12
Middle Belt 2 .39 1 .01
0 .284 2 .02 7 .43 11 .40 U .113 3 .74 8 .19
Old Belt 2 .44 7 lop 2&12 7 7 3 .R 1 .3
FAWMAGE, 0~, 0
16 Georgia 1 .96 .63 6 .228 1 .77 5 15 .41 11 .70 3 .39 0 .32
S . Carolina 2 .02 0 .81 0 .20? 2 .28 7 .56 17 .04 10 .82 3 .64 5 .14
Z .N . Carolina 2 .07 0 .84 0 .206 2 .16 8 .47 17 .29 11 .99 3 .83 5 .06
Middle Belt 2 .33 0 .94 0 .239 2 .44 6 .80 16 .81 13 .21 3 .94 5 .06
2 7 7 7
Old Belt 2i9#

57 0eorgia 2 .2Q .
0 .97 0 .248
I E 7 a-18Hall iffid 1-21
0 . 89 0 .283 2 .74 7 .44 4 .r 14 .56 3 .59 5 .32
S . Carolina 2 .63 0.80 0 .291 3 .72 7 .43 13 .37 14 .04 4 .57 5 .06
Z .X . Carolina 2 .67 0 .92 0 .279 4 .19 7 .73 13 .35 13 .63 4 .77 6 .02
Middle Bel t 9 .74 0 .99 0 .261 4 .33 7 .31 14 .46 14 .76 4 .76 5 .11
Old Belt 270 4 15 6 82 15 73 14 84 4 ~U e
AVERAGE 7 7 :60 1 .14
oeordia 1 . O. 0 .83 1. 6 1 +S .9 3 .24 5 .41
S . Carolina 1 .83 0 .60 0 .220 1 .52 6 .06 18 .21 13 .80 3 .12 6 .31
1: .N . Carolina 1i86 0178 0 .214 1 .63 6 .22 18 .44 13 .52 3 .68 5 .09
Middle Belt 2 .06 0 .88 0 .269 2 .21 6 .92 18 .31 14 .45 3 .66 6 .16
Old Bol t e. O 3 b 4 17
5 :93 5 : 034
. 93 0T0 19 2
Georgia 1 .81 0 . Q . 00 1 .70 6 ;04 0 .17 1 :5 .8 3 .30 5 .24
S . Carolina 1 .96 0 .82 0 .218 2 .23 6 .44 18 .18 14 .08 3 .45 5 .26
E .N . Carolina 2 .23 0 .97 0 .247 2 .48 6 .66 13 .88 13 .81 4 .01 5 .12
Middle Belt 2 .24 0.99 0 .247 2 .38 6 .72 12 .96 14 .86 3 .63 6 .31
Old Bel t 0 53 26 67 no
AVERAGE e.69 0~ 0 .230 2,E8 27 - MR 01 ;fti 91;
P60•Qeordla 2 .08 0 .251 2.31 16 .9 3 .28 5 .33
S . Carolina 2 .13 0 .253 2 .50 16 .55 3 .35 8 .28
F .N . Carolina 2 .07 0 .243 2 .05 18 .68 3 .41 6 .23
Middle Belt 2 ..31 0 .267 2 .59 14 .09 5 .49 5 .28
Old Belt 0,275 4 S
AVL► AO 2 .!4 0 .2§ 5 1 6 .44 3 .38 7
•1non pleto

LG 0391666
73 -

Analyses of Flue Cured Strips 1954-1960 Crops oy Grade s

Total
Reduc - Acid s
Total. Prot9 in Amino Nico- Pet . ing oc .N/10 QL2
rep Grade Nitro4en Nltro .con Uitro A_Pfl tinA tither Su,;are Alk . --W,%% -PH
5 .14 195E
1954 D 1 .93 0 .75 C .199 2 .61 7 .72 20 .58 12 .89 3 .62 5 .16
6 .12
5 .16 a N 2 .00 0 .-7 0 .205 2 .39 7 .9? 19 . .55 12 .78 3 .64 5 .1 4
5 .13 SM 2 .14 0 .79 0 .2 .32 d .88 0 .24 17 .53 le .k3 3 .71 5 .12
5 SP 2 .18 0 .83 , O .G60 2 .88 8 .51 15 .16 13 .72 3 .68 3 .1 4
Ca 2,.. .887 Q.289 2.91 8 .82 12 .76 13 .85 7 U
PVE.RAOE -22 . U 0 .60 13 .1y .6 5.
6 .19 1955 N 0 .83 0.214
6 .18 2 .15 2 .65 ? .'L3 16 .50 14 .84 3 .6 6 N O
5 .12 SM 1 .99 0 .85 0 .215 1 .81 7 .28 17 .44 11 .71 3 .44 5 .1 8
SP 2 .11 0 .92 0 .244 1 .80 7 .50 14 .5.4 11 .66 3 .44 5 .20
8 .19 Ca 1 .84 7 .66
2 .2? 0 .99 0 .274 12 .04 12 .02 3 .47 5 .2 2
SN2 2 .12 0 .86 0 .230 2 08 7 .37 15 .77 11 .90 3 .76 5 .1 4
SP, 2 .26 0 .92 0 .286 2 .09 7 .74 13 .62 12 .00 3 .72 5 .1 8
5 .38 C,F 3 .24 0 .5_9 0,2 83 _ 2 13 7 .78 11 .08 12 .66 3 .8 Q 5,1 8
3 .14
5 .06 AVE 2 .19 - 0 .91 0,247 2 .06 7 .51 14 .54 3. 5
5 .06 5R N .04 O .A1 0 .181 2 .36 6 .7 1c 0 13 . .0
SM 1 .92 0 .82 0 .186 1 .97 6 .62 19 .25 11 .85 3 .48 5 .1 5
SP 2 .07 0 .67 0 .214 2 .00 6 .83 17 .68 11 .90 3 .63 5 .1 3
C. 2 .75 0 .95 0 .255 2 .08 7 .18 14 .80 12 .44 5 .64 5 .1 2
5 .32
6 .06 Na 2 .10 0 .80 0 .208 2 .53 6 .97 18 .53 11 .96 3 .95 5 .1 4
1 5 .02 SM, 2 .23 0 .86 0 .222 2 .48 8 .95 17 .38 11-PO 3 .93 5 .1 1
3 5 .11 SP, 2 .34 0 .91 0 .244 2 .49 7 .17 15 .96 12 .46 4 .08 5 .08
C,F 2 .49 0 .96 0 .288 2 .81 7 .38 13 .11 13 .10 4 .10 5 .1 3
6
C,xx 1 .0- 0,26 2,C7 6, 82 12,61 12 .90-- .5,?4-_5 .03
AVERAGE 2.18 0 .60 2,0= 2 .27 7 .01 16 , 8 23 - 79 6, i s
l 6 .4
5 .31 457 9P 2 .33 0 .90 0 . 24 3 .18 7 .85 12 .62 14 .8 1
2
Ca 2 .77 1 .04 0 . :513 3 .96 7 .40 11 .58 14 .28 4 .20 5 .1 3
8 5 .09
6 No 2 .39 0 .86 0 .219 3 .89 7 .14 17 .69 13 .61 4 .40 5 .1 1
3 .30 SM, 2 .54 0 .90 0 .248 4 .01 7 .20 15 .90 14 .x2 4 .81 5 .09
SP, 2 .85 0 .93 0 . V171 4 .10 7 .35 14 .29 14 .40 4 .62 5 .1 0
5....2
24 C,F 2 .A6 03 0 .267 4 .2 7 .19 11 .27 15 .48 4 .94 5 .02
5 5 . 26 AVY}tAGE 2 .5 0. 5 0 3 . 6 _7 .31 14 ..42 4 .60 5 .09
5:58 SM 1 .86 0.80 0 .214 1 .92 6 .32 15: .41 13 . 6 3 3 .57 2 9
)1 5 .12
t3 5 .31
SF 1 .93 0 .83 0 .231 1 .97 6 .48 1'/ . 4? 14 . 08 3 . 54 5 . 1 9
Ca 2 .02 0 .86 0 .263 2 .06 6 .65 15 .42 14 .43 3 .59 5 .2 0
1 SNP 1 .77 0 .76 0 228 1 .39 5 .75 18 .50 14 .58 3 .44 5 .18
SPP 1 .87 0 .79 0 .245 1 50 6 .25 15 .77 15 .20 3 .08 5 . :5 5
8 33
C,P 1 9 ._ 0 .8; ci.~69 6 .29 _J 2G ' 6 .27% 3.,Q1_ 5 ,
35 5 . 28 AVE}tAOE ` - . 6,45 17 . 16 ___ ~4~8 3 151 5-.f
4• 6 .23 t
495 28

f 7

!'1
la

LG 0391666
78 -

1AbI .E 31 (continued )

Total
Reduo- Aoid e Sc
Total Protei n Amino Nioo- Pet, tog 00 .8110 CI
Groo rage Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen tine Ether Sutare - Alk . MSA PH

1959 SMP 1 .81 0 .76 0 .224 1 .7 1 5 .91 18 .35 16 .04 3 .26 5 .2C
16 SPP 1 .89 0 .79 0 .251 1 .73 5 .99 17 .16 16 .64 3 .30 6 .21 0
14 C,P 2 .01 0 .88 0 .261 1 .87 6 .34 14 .95 15 .63 3 .28 6 .26
12 D 1 .91 0 .82 0 .189 2 .2 0 6 .39 20 .24 13 .25 3 .66 5 .21
14 N 1 .90 0 .84 0 .191 2 .0 8 6 .26 20,11 13 .44 3 .65 5 .23
1. SM 1 .95 0 .87 0 .206 2 .16 8 .32 18 .63 13 .69 3 .60 5 .21
SP 2 .06 0 .89 0 .229 2 .17 6 .31' 16 .10 14,00 3 .83 5 .22
27 C, 2 .18 0 .96 0 .258 2 .2 1 8 55 12 .66 14 .68 3 .66 6 .26
18 3Mo 2 .26 0 .94 0 .240 2 .9 6 8 .9E 15 .?0 13 .58 4 .10 5 .19 I
20 SP, 2 .21 0 .94 0 .234 2 .63 6 .77 16 .63 13 .26 3 .85 6 .2C C
22 Car 70 6 .94 „~ c6 _~Q .34 3
014 GE 9 14
18 0U SKY 1 .93 0. 69 -9,06 - - 16.97 3 .29 5 .3C
oaPP 2 .06 0 .287 2 .09 14 .06 2 .96 6 .33
Cap 2 .14 0.301' £ .20 11 .89 2 .89 6 .42
0 D 1 .98 0 .209 2 .32 19 .62 3 .36 5 .26
15 N 2. 08 0.218 2 .25 18 .68 3 .38 5 .27
.13 SM 2 .05 0 .236 2 .31 18 .83 3 .39 5 .28
.12 8? 2 .14 0 .258 2 .4 0 14 .80 3 .33 5 .29
.14 C. 2 .41 0 .268 2 .39 12 .40 3 .25 5 .32
.11 am* 2 .19 0 .229 2 .72 17 .46 3 .66 5 .23
.~ 9 SF, 2 .31 0 .257 2 .78 14 .47 3 .60 5 .1 4
44 Ca l P,~¢1 0 .283 2 .78 11 .77 3 .65 6 .
,03 AVERAGE
*Incomplete
07
13 LAMA 1
11 C ed at!-'APO of the 196 0
09 Incomplete chemical Analys re of brig Cu
.1 0
Total Amino R uoing
Area Grade Nitrogen Nltro.t n Nigotine Sg .care WSA an
.2 9 1 .95 0 .242 2 .06 16 .57 3 .50 6 .31
OeorNia 3KP
.1 9 0 .888 2 .1 2 13 .98 2 .14 5 .36
.20
Up e .04
Cap 2 .18 0 .306 2 .1 8 12 .05 2 .80 6 .44
.18 D 1 .93 0 .204 2 .09 29.36 3 .24 5 .30
N 1 .96 0 .203 2 .1 4 19 .04 3 .42 6 .29
SM 2 .00 0 .2.18 2 .2 6 17 .22 3 .34 5 .33
88 2 .07 0 .260 2 .29 16 .65 3 .22 6 .32
Ca 2 .19 0 .271 2 .36 16 .16 3 .06 6 .33
81te 9 .18 0 .230 2 .62 17 .16 3 .67 6 .30
spa 2 .29 0 .268 2 .69 15 .83 3 .37 6 .32
Cap 2 70 2 .6 .1 1 .44 6 37
AVk1JAOE .O 0 .25 2 .131 15 . 3.?a

LG 0391667
8996£0 01

ell
29 .9
04 .9
ec•c
39'9
8i~,c IF i a-6?8T
94 .9 41•'' 92•at
Z4 4
3 8 -60W'6-
68•3 Cea•o
Cr$
61 •z
8'3O zlv-
a ds 63'9
09 .9
31 .9 01'4 81 .91 ta•a 913 .0 6a•a 'KS 11 .9
91'9 it•C 0C•6 1413 88210 31 .3 a0 99'9
0 11 .9 We 33 .81 016'3 LLi.'O 8a•& as 14 . 9
9C•s t1 1 c 1e•4t 19 .3 993 .0 gala K6
CC'9 LC'C 13 .91 cola 893 .0 91 a N
99•s T2 *2 96 .41 181 .2 TWO - 90•Z-_ (1 - 1 1 .8 to
ZD -0 _'89$ a'0

9a'9 6912 60•Ct s8'd 4163 .0 91 .3 On


13 .9 We C3 .9t 96•2 OSZ'0 t4•a 'K9
92'9 3C'C 69 .0 ( 99 •3 683'0 Le'2 •0
63 .9 We 1e•at 99 .3 063 0 4513 36
6319 01 .4 91 .9t 1913 .ca'0 ta•a K9 4319! ecle
89'9 3414 96 .9t 99 .6 L1a '0 Ct'a N 11'8 -9-9f,
SF
OC'9 31 .4 013 .0 4113-- a oTDDTK 11 .9 09 . 2
'99,41T Ca•9 99•C
ux-V 99-C 1 6 • C43-0 93,a Ago 34 .9 9a'C(
169 .9 61 .4 CT•ct eta aia•o era Gds 6319 9412
31 .9 69•C 8t•6t 81 .3 10x•0 80 .a 'K8 83'9 621
1919 01'4 03'21 cola 193 .0 81 .6 •0 .9 8e• t2163
4t•9 We o6'9t 9113 833 .0 cola is 93 .9 99 .9
Lt•9 91'C 69 .81 3013 8Ti•o 1t•a K9 31 .9 68•••
67'9 3212 38 .61 8911 903 .0 70'3 N CC•9 96
91 .9 31•C 69'03 9611 20310 "*T a ova _6a' C
93 .9 9a1C 08 .3t 69•t 99a•O 40'3 ago
163 .9 Ca•C O3 .9t )9•t 666 .0 3611 ddb
87'9 1214 ?.1 .81 36't 983 . 0 C6'T .1KS suTtoa3 33 .9 29'4
N .2 6t'9 Ot•1
0c~a 29710 et~7 3OYHa AV 93'9 r 99~ '4^
y

r1 1. LO ► ► +° 0 33' 9 97 . 2
61'9 86 .2 rs .1t 66 .2 t~~z•o zs z tdS ta• 9 09
6119 &•e CC•Lt 29 .2 f.26 O 6t' 2 22 .9 09'2
CS•9 We 01'9t X1 . a 493,• ' n3'a 18'9 99 .9
02'9 gale 0VVTL 6C' a 693 .0 It•3 93'9 83•
93 .9 84 .2 BT•LT 4C•a 13z•o c0 .3 13'0 0e
93'9 eve t0'6t WE tt'L•0 IO•a 03-9 93• j
1a .a 91 .2 92'03 81 .2 661 .0 86 .1 a
81 .9 98'3 96 .0t 81 .3 1'02'0 91 .3 d 110
14 . 9 Tile 09'Ct ua•a 686 .0 60 .3 ddb sUTto .z+ 0
60 96' 9C 191 Ct'3 LLa•0 T61 1 .K9 ano8
H3` -y i Z* 1n au 61St uo oa ~►p-Ua ooJ N *. so
9uTonpag OUTW 16101

(DonuT3uo0) V van

I.

1
- 8-
TA8LE
Average Analyses of Hurley Strips by Crop s

Total Nitrate no Pet . otZ Aoia e


Crop Nitrogten Nitrogen Nitrogen Nicotine Ether co .N/10 Alk . IV. og

1954 3 .68 0.48 0 .323 3 .08 8 .61 29 .78 2 .10 6,13


1955 4 .05 0 .29 0 .626 3 .12 6 .61 26 .02 3 .22 8 .89
1956 4 .06 0.24 0 .612 3 .33 6 .89 26 .36 2 .96 8 .81

1957 4 .18 0 .31 0 .51 9 3 .75 7 .14 27 .08 2 .89 We


1938 3 .42 0 .29 0 .305 1 .99 5 .82 26 .57 1 .63 6 .43
1959 4 .17 0 .49 0 .264 2 .27 0 .87 28 .00 1 .47 6 .8 1

Burley stripe 1984-1989 Crops by Up"a e

Total lolde
ORM 0o Ny /1O Al 1/8~ ., -
1964 80 3 .74 0 .42 0 .361 3 .46 6 .6? 28 .21 2 .66' 6 .96
BL 3 .85 0.49 0 .385 3 .51 8 .88 26 .00 E :60 8 .90
BD 3.95 0 .51 0 .406 3 .6 9 6 .90 68 .51 it .84 8 .87
CC 3 .83 0 .46 0.406 3 .46 6 .63 26 .25 8 .43' 6 .0 1
B0 3 .59 0 .52 0 .266 2 .73 6 .05 27 ;98 1 .83 0 .26
Me 3 .69 0 .50 0 .284 2 .87 6 .17 28 .62 1 .88 6 .28
BRAS 3 .48 0.47 0 .265 2 .61 6 .36 28 .24 . . 60 6 .26

I!i-
cc , 0 0 .23 8
23 A-M Eft j,~j
0
8L
I
3 .75 0 .58
.4.30
0 .456 3 .14 6 .87
.1 a
f.7 .51
3~
2 .80
V 6+R
.91
BD 4 .07 0 .38 0 .373 4 .04 6 .83 27 .40 3 .08 8 .65
OC 3 .97 0 .26 0 .644 3 .02 6 .86 24 .21 3 .26 5 .65
CCX 4 .59 0.28 0 .753 3 .58 6 .61 25 .07 5 .78 5 .53
Sri 4 .1 8 0 .20 0 .719 2 .8 0 6 .22 22 .33 3 .19 6 .5 6
Br1X 0 .839 3 .19 6 .28 _28,02 3 .83 6 .43
AVPAat: .5 6 3 8
0 .42 .41 i .
0 .440 3 .39 6 .29 28 .78
0 .655 .5 .44 8 .30 27 .41
0.624 3 .20 6 .18 25 .46
0 .530 2 .66 5 .56 23 .93
0 .701 3 .83 6 .63 26 .71
0 .746 3 .51 5 .56 26 .4 5
5 Q4 . .+ 7
7 .612 3 .33 85 - M : JL, too 6 . 81

LG 0391669
I .

(continued)

total Nitrate Amino Mioo- Pat . Tot Acids


Crop Grade Kitroae8 Nitro.cen B . tro en tine Ether oo .M/i0 Ali. )ML __Vg

3 .98 0 .33 0 .422 3 .88 7 .36 30 .01 8 .76 6 .01


4 .06 0 .33 0 .473 4 .06 7 .35 28 .06 2 .76 ' 6 .99
4 .11 0 .30 0 .817 3 .71 7 .87 27 .2 3 8 .84 6 .9 6
4 .83 0 .32 0 .656 3 .67 7 .8 3 26 .1 1 2 .63 6 .06
3 .95 . 0 .41 0.886 3 .96 7 .1 6 89 .83 2 .1 0 6 .1 7
3 .69 0 .38 0 .289 3 .89 7t3 4 88 .94 1 .99 6 .88
3 .79 0 .28 0.269 3 .13 6 .69 89 .74 1 .73 6 .36
4 .82 0 .31 0 .786 4 .24 6 .87 25 .59 3 .33 5 .83
4 .38 0,87 0 .631 3 .48 7 .0 3 24 .69 2 .83 5 .9 8
4 :10 0 .26 0.268 2 .63 6 .30 26 .12 1 .4 4 6 .68
4174 0 .23 0.761 3.60 6 .69 85 .45 3 .03 6 .9 4
ray . ;I:±1_ Le 0 .31 -0,619 3., M 7 .14 _ 27.08 2 .89 E
on BO 3 .67 0 .31 0 .349 2 .36 x .00 28 . 4 2.0 4
8L 3462 0.33 0 .346 2 .33 6 .87 27 .68 1 .93 6 .31
ED 3 .48 0 .86 0 .40 2.23 5 .9 6 27 .4 0 1 .66 6 .34
00 5 .99 0 .28 0 .324 2 .01 6 .0 1 26 .04 1 .69 6 .4 0
MIS 3 .58 0.38 0.283 1 .93 5 .67 87 .53 1 .61 6 .43
SD,, 3 .30 0 .30 0 .236 1 .5 1 6 .46 * 26478 1 .12 0 .64
co - 0 . 7a

90 4 .30 0 .51 O .ago % .Go 8 .90 98 .07 1 .76 6


SL 4 .22 0 .50 0 .300 8 .66 6 .02 29 .63 1 .73 6 .36
BD 4 .04 0 .47 0 .258 .2 .17 5 .90 28 .92 1 .36 6 .62
00 3 .99 0 .52 0 .254 2 .18 6 .86 28 .29 1 .36 6 .66
BF 4 .•'6 0 .42 0 .441 2 .4? 5 .96 25 .09 1 .76 6 .38
80. 4 .11 0 .89 0 .178 1 .5t 6 .34 30 .19 0 .62 6 .86
0.% 4 .30 0 .69 0 .247 2 .12 6 .64 29 .18 1 .3? 6 .46
6D, 4 .14 0 .56 0 .242 2 .00 6 .66 28 .33 1 .28 6 .60
CC, 4 .04 0 .53 0 .19? 1 .6? 5 .67 28 .52 1 .03 6 .7 6
wl. 4 .13 0 .40 0 .294 2 .21 6 .01 26 .93 1 .39 6 .63
BOX 4 .88 0 .44 0 .340 2 .69 6 .24 28 .45 1 .91 6 .37
CC] 4 .26 0 .36 0 .363 2 .73 6 .24 26 .68 1 .69 6 .39
Bl1X 4 .16 0 .38 0 .366 2 .60 6 .21 25 .20 1 .77 6 .5 0
B/X 3 .87 0 .49 0 .180 1 .44 _6

Chemical Analyses of Burley Strip 1964-1969 Crops by Type s

of Nitrate Amino Mao- r,it . Votil Acid s


Crroo Type Nitrogen _Nittrogen N"Qden tine Pther oe .N/10 Alk W$A n M

0 .321 3 .44 7 .33 26 .80 2 .26 5 .96


0 .326 2 .86 6 .36 26 .60 2 .1 3 6 24
0 .32 0 2 .92 6 .04 29 .66 95 6 :14
0 .323 3 .06 -6 .01 2 .80 6 .1 3

LG 0391670
I

:!M

of the I
itdividi

this tit
beets be

of Saab

proourec

reports

the blo-

b pent

thts is

LG 0391671
r
- 81
Ali ANALY_I Q T SOII_O OF NICOTINE IN Tilt 0 3T FUM AND L •
ES SLUDED b-9 NAIWH 118 _

At the request of Mr . Z . V . Yeller, the ii4ividual components used

in the Chesterfield and L and K blends were sampled on March 29, 1980 by
5. 0
b types, classes . Drops ant grades .

-b94 This breakdown of the nicotine content to the individual components

used in the two brands and the grouping of these 4ta by grades, classic,
types and crop years facilitates locating the source of the nicotine i n

the blends which will contribute more readily toward any adjustments deairad
in the total nicotine content of the brand . These data, need in eonjunotiea

with the annual strip data, also permit the prior determination of the

effect on the nicotine content of the brands necessitated br changes i n

crop years or by the addition of certain grades upon the depletion of others .
:he data in the following tables show that the total nlootine conten t
of the two brands, determined by the sum of the nicotine oontsni .of the

individual components, are somewhat higher than oigarettea manufactured at

this time . This is probably due to sampling errors made by sampling hogs-

heads being blended at the particular time . The average nicotine content

of each component used in the blends, determined on a number of samples

procured during the purchasing periods and reported in the annual strip

reports probably would be more accurate . The use of Dealers tobaccos in

the blends, however, and our loot of any data on them, necessitate at least

a partial sampling of the components of the blood when such a breakdown as

this is requested .

C1

LG 0391672
ON
0

1
1 am

r4
- 02r ..

UT

" 1
{
Non-BtOOtine Containing WUtery4a ver 106 Pou nd of 81EM hi
i
uaJarlsl Pounds Aonlted Panda Soli4

#700 Sugar 2 .00 1 .70


Invert Syrup 7 .00 5 .30
Glycerine 2 .40 2 .40 We.
Gl7oo1 0 .60 0 .60
riav 2.60

1"-L A

Proportion of Materials I . %;heaterfield Blend


1A trial Fircant
• L . ounda of JOt4-j T

Bright 66 48 .22
Burley 80 17082
Maryland 4 3 .45 0
Turkish ib 12 .91
•a . 0*206 . 6 4 .30
B .S .L . 8 4 .30
Ca 9

imm A
Itootine Contribution for Uosponents of CLeeterfiel d

aoc ne reent iootine


Notarial contact .% of Total Coairibuiloa
Bright (No . 1 strip) 2 .26 48.22 1 .089 8
Ihrlsy (No . 26 strip) 3 .27 17 .28 0 .863 1
Maryland 1 .62 3 .46 0.068 9
Turkish 1 .27 12 .91 0 .164 0
T, C .T .S . 0 .62 4 .30 0.0623
B .S .L. 0 .69 4 .30 0 .0896
Casing_ 0.00 .60
9 0.0000

TOTAL 100, 0O 1 .984?

m
0

LG 0391673
I

a
n .
84
LAW 4

4eereas Nicotine Content of Loh Component and Its Contribution to th e


Niootins Content of No . 1 Strip (Marche 29, 1960)
opor- loo n e
tion of Contribu-
Blend Percent tion t o
Blend Mids .
Crop Clasp 'Prue s 10 Niootins
Bhds . Grade
.02345 3
a. .088495 2 .65 1
1 D 1 954 .00957
1953 S.C . .265486 1 .98 9
3 D .268486 2 .63 .06988
3 D 2954 6 2 .9 8 .08437 1
1953 W. DIV .08849 5 3
1 D 2 .34 .06071
1954 a. .088496 4
1 N .176991 1 .86 .0387 4
2 MP 1964 Os . 01938 •1
1956 OR . 1088495 2 .19 1
1 we S. C . .268486 1 .99 .06283
3 11 1 983 .01310 7
1953 8 .086495 1.48 3
1 N 2. 55 .09066
4 1954 8 . 343982 I
9 .088495 2.74 .0242 5
1 112 1966 8
DIV .068496 3 .38 .02938
1 11 1984 M
Durban .066496 2 .55 .062 57
0 1 ■ 1966 M
.088495 3 .68 . 0620 6
92 1966 Y D+M
.088495 3 .05 .09699
3. Sit 1954 as . . 01628
1 SIP 1954 84 . .088895 1 . 64
06 . .068495 1 .70 .0160 4
1 am 1956 .176991 2.09 .0667 8
2 3* 1906 Os . Swsatsd i
1954 8.0 . .261486 2 .82 .07487
3 ON .01319
1 SIP 1963 S .C . .088495 1 .49
Sweated .176991 1 .3 6 .094W
8 51(P 1908 S .C . .14018
1964 1 :630073 2 . 64
6 SI . 0536 4
. 008495 • 8 . 66
3N2 1956
1908
9
6 Sweated .176991 1 .89 .03348 WAR
8 8m .086495 3 .55 .03 1 42
1 am 1954 Y D*M
V D4W .442477 2 .36 .1 04 42
8 as 1955 .06849 6 2 .4 6 .0217 7 N
2 a% 195 6 W Durba n
8reated-Du2' . .088495 1 .74 .1x840 up
1 SM 1 958 1 118
.088490 1 .67 .01477
1 OPP 1954 a. .07.318
08849 0 1 .49 ii w
SP, 1 .16 .03116
1906 Oa . Sweated .176991 0N2
2 6p 1 .06 .01380
.088495 SP
1 Sp 1 956 6 . 0. 2 .1 8 .05788
1966 5.0 . .265486 0
3 SP .176991 1 .44 .08649 Opp
E 5P 1908 8.0. Sweated SP2
.088495 3 .76 .0331 9
1 628 1906 B.C . . 00044
Dealers .176991 2 .86
8 SP 195 4 8
.176991 2 .48 .0430 eras
2 SP 1954 2 .01684 vi a
1955 6 .088495 1 .79 era s
1 5P .07363
1956 6 .353982 2 .08 r at
4 8P 1 .83 .01610
8 Sweated .089495
2 5? 1958 2 .60 .16106 00
1966 V D+W .619469 C ont r
7 OF .068496 2 .33 . 06062
SP 1958 M Sweated-11ur .
1
Ga . Dealer .363982 2 .34 .08283 U-91
4 02 1966 . 010e?
Sweated .068495 1 .16
1 02 19566 0a .

LG 0391674
:'f

- 86 - .

TABLE A (Continued)

Propor - ion otin .


tion o f Contribu -
blend Percen t tion t o
ral . ron lass ype x_1 0 Niootin

3 C2 1966 S.C . .265486 1 .88 .04991


1 02 1958 S .C . Sweated .088490 1 .56 .01380
2 C2 1954 6 .198091 3 .32 .0662 2
1 02 195b 2 Dealers .088495 8 .67 .0230 3
3 C2 2956 t .268486 1 .82 .04832
4 C2 1956 6 Dealers .363982 1175 .06195
1 02 198e L Sweated .088496 1 .91 .01690
1 C2 1966 V U,n . or D+w .080496 2 .25 .01991
7 08 1965 V Dealers .619409 2 .39 .14805
3 02 1966 w Dealers .266488 3 .02 .0365 a
1 02 1958 V Sweste6-Dur . .088495 2 .21 .01956
I

LA" a
Average Nicotine Content and wontributton to Nicotine Content o f
No . I Strip (March 29, 1960) by Grads and Areas
-
Nicotine
Percent Percent contribution
Grade OR . S.C . _ £310 tl Ntootine of Strip lost s

D 2 .68 1198 2 .63 2 .96 2 .43 7 .060 .17204


N 2 .34 1.99 2 .33 2.94 2 .33 9 .735 .2287 7
NP 1 .88 -- - -- 1 .80 1 .770 .0327 4
Its 2 .19 - 2 .74 3 .62 2 .95 2 .656 .07669
NI 1 .91 2 .88 2 .40 2 .44 2 .46 20.354 .49867
B'AP 1 .84 1.40 -- 1 .61 3 .639 .06343
6112 2.66 2 .66 0 .883 .02354
8! 1.67 3.83 2 .26 2.57 2 .19 23 .893 .82325
SPP 1 .67 -- -- 1 .67 0 .880 .0147 8
8P2 3.75 3 .76 0.866 .04319
C2 8.11 1 .80 2 .11 2 .27 2 .13 28,328 .604317
Percen t
Nicotine 2 .04 - 2 .09 2 .32 2 .50 2 .86
Percen
of Str.ip 16 .814 20.354 34 .613 28 .319 -- 100 .00
IIootn s
Contribution
to Strip .34300 .41115 .80070 .70798 2 .26 3

LG 0391675
Average Nicotine 'ontent and (oatribution to Nicotine Content of
No 1 Sit rip (March 29 . 190301 by Crop Year_ a
Percent ercent Nicotine 0ontri ution A`
$hdg Crop of strip- Nicotine to Stri p

B 1963 7 .080 1 .86 0.13169


32 1964 26 .319 2 .64 0.74762
26 1966 22 .123 2 .33 0 .01646
1966 27 .434 2 .20 0 .6050 6
31
17 1968 3 .044 1 .74 _ 0,25121
18 -

TABLE ?

Average Nicotine Content of 2ach Component and Its Contribution to the


Nioottne Content of No . 28 Strip (March 29, 1960 )
Proportion Nicotine
of Blend Percen t contribution
AhdR• Grad e Crop Class z 20 Nieottne to Blend

Tenn . .238096 3 .80 .00047


1 80 1966
80 1966 Tenn. .238090 3 .18 .07871
1 .09714
1 80 1967 Lem . .238095 4 .08
1963 Lax . .496100 2 .66 . .19606
2 506
Lax. .258095 3 .17 .0764? .
1 916 1956
1966 Teen . .714285 6 .78 197000
3 .09381
1 1967 Lex . .238090 • 3 .94
1968 Lei . .238000 2 .09 1104976
1
1953 Lx . or Tenn . .476190 2 .80 .13333
2 .07906
1964 Tenn . or Paris .238096 3 .32
1
1967 Lox. .238096 3 .40 .08098
1 .20429
1966 .714286 2 .86
5 LAX. 4 .06 .19333
2 1966 Tenn . .470190
Lex . .238095 5 .61 .0889 6
1 1957
1968 Lox . .476190 3 .00 .14286
2 .14190
8Da 1963 Paris .476190 2 .98
2
1 8De 1955 Te nn .
Anj 098
5 2 . 28 .08429
1 CO 1906 5 .36 .31906
cc 1956 Liz . .988380
4 3 .62 .16762
cc 1966 Tenn . .476190
2 3 .92 .09333
1 cc 1967 Los .
Li .238095
38095 2 .67 .06357
1 CC 1968 Le 2 .90 .13809
CCs 1963 x .
Tenn .476190
2 3 .30 .0786?
CO, 1964 Paris .238096
1 4 .12 .09809
CCX 1986 Lox . .238096
1 4 .63 .10738
CCX 1966 Tenn . .238096
1 2 .76 .08647
B •1 1956 Lax . .238095
1 29 .0►i833
BTX _ 1967 Liz 238098
1
42

LG 0391676
.A )

?ABLE 6

Average Nicotine Content and Contribution to Nicotine Content o f


1 No . 23 Strip (March 29, 1960) by Orade a

Niootine
Percen t Percen t Contribution
I Grade libde . of strip

7 .143
Kiootlne to Strip _ -

BO 3 3 .69 .2636?
BOO 2 4 .?62 2 .66 .12667
BL 6 14 .288 3 .42 .48868
BLa 4 9 .624 3 .08 .29333
BD 8 19 .047 3 .29 .62664
SDO 3 7 .143 2 .88 .2057 2
is 9 21 .428 8 .26 .6986 6
cc
00e 3 7 .143 3 .06 .21714
, a* Cox 2 4.762 4 .32 .20572
Btl 1 2.381 2 .76 .0664 6
itioa
B7'X 1 --- 2 .381 3 .29 .07805

L
1
S TABL2 2

0 Average Nicotine Content and Contribution to Nicotin e


1 Content of no . 26 Strip (March 29, 1960) by Crop
6 Years
3
Nicotin e
6 Percen t Percen t Contribution 0
9 crop llhde . of Str v licot_ine to Strip
k
t
tb 1953 9 21 .428 2 .82 .60627
)6 1964 8 4 .762 3 .31 .16962
)0 1956 4 9 .524 3 .68 .3506 8
X 1966 17 40 .476 3 .39 1 .37213
1957 6 14 .286 3 .71 .63001
1958- 4 6 .624 2 .69 .2661 9
52 -- - - -
3'

09
67
09
38
47

LG 0391677
U3 0

- 87 -
8. LAND 1[

TABLE I

Non-Nicotine tiontaining Materials per 105 Pounds of Blen d

Haterii Pounds Applied Pound ; Sol i

J700 sugar 2 .00 1. 7


Inert Syrup 7 .00 6.3
Glycerine 2 .40 2. 4
Glycol 0 .80 0. 8
Flavoring 3 .75 0. 8
otal

TABLE 2

Proportion of Materials in L and N Blend

Kateria VOW Lt ou s -Percent of Total

Bright 35 30 .22
Burley 26 21 .6 9
Turd s h 20 17 .217
C .T .B . 20 17 .2 7
B.B .L . 5 4 .3 2
10 .8 9
; S 11 ? 1 -

0
TABLL 3

Nicotine Contribution for Components of L and K

Nicotin e Percen t Nicotin e


Material vontent .% of Total Contributio n

Bright No . 2 strip) 3 .11 30 .22 0 .9398


Burley (No . 30 strip) 3 .53 21 .59 0 .9621
0 Turkish 1 .36 17 .27 0 .234 5
C .T .S . 0 .52 17 .27 0 .0898
B .S .L. 0 .69 4 .32 0 .429 8
Casing 0 .00 .o .33 0 .0000
100.W .tea

LG 0391678,
LG 0391679
- 89-

LA" A
f
oo . 2CStript(MarchCont yt*QtiD OAveragNio
29,11960)nby Crop Years Content o
diootine
Peroent Peroent Contribution
of Strip Nicotine to Stria_ _
Hl41 .
4 .01 . 064
3 1953 7 .143
4 .762 3 .45 . 26489
11 .905 2 .48
2 1965
69 .047 2 .99 26064 50
29 1956 4 .23 .3021
3 1957 7 . ].43 kim

E
TAL6 7
gos onent )ton to th e
Average Niaotin• Con Cieento of . o go SO stripaM
Wst s 2 on t 1900
Niootine O-WO
looti M
„portio n
Niootine Contributio n
of island
z 10 Peroent to nien4 -
HhAe . Gran. QX!9 C144!
1967 Lox . .60606 3 .62 .21533
2 BO .30305 2 .7 8 . 08424
1 BL 1956 Lax . 3 .97 .12 0
SL 1956 Tenn . .24884 8
1 . 60606 4 .10
.07939
2 .30303 2 .62
195 8 Lox . 3 .34 . 10121
1
BI.
1956 Tenn . .30303 . 22364
BD .60606 3 .69
2 OD 1967 Tenn .
.30603 2 .17
1 BD 1968 Lem . 3 .93 .2381 8
2 an 1966 4 .21 .22758
Lsnn . .30306
1 BDZG 1986 . 30306 3 .24 8
1 cc 1966 Las . 3 .42
CC 1966 Tenn . .30303 .3336 4
1 . 90909 3 .67
3 cc% 1956 Los . 3.62 .1097 0
1956 'toM . .23454
I
2
CCY.
CCx 1987 Lox- . 608
05 3 . 67
.17212
60600 2 .84
en 1966 Lax . 3 . 01 .0912 1
2 (.30303
1 Bpi 1966 Tenn . 4 .06 . 23606
i 2 IV5S Los. .60605 . 36364
Bi1X 90909 4 .00
1bution
3 BT13L 1956 Tenn .
.30303 2 .98 . 0905 0
1 BF 1966 Dealers 2 .2 4 . 0676 8
09 "x- .30303
1 By 1967 5 75 . 11 !~
820 1957 Tenn, .303-03 .3, OKOOO
I j'
168
.67 0 33
332

11332

w
0

LG 0391880
0

- 90 -

Average Nicotine Content and Contribution to Nicotine Conten t


of No . 30 Strip (March 29, 1960) by Grade s

Nicotine
Percen t Percen t Contributio n
Grade Nhds of Stria Nicotine to Stein

SO 8 6 .0606 3 .59 .21333


81. 6 15 .1516 3 .51 .03188
BD 4 12 .1212 3 .22 .39030
BDX 3 9 .0900 4 .06 .38645
cc 2 6 .0606 3 .33 .80186
Cox 6 18 .1818 3 .73 .67818
Sri 3 9 .0909 2 .90 .28364
f Brix 5 15 .161 5 4 .0 8 .60909
9,09-09 2 .99
&Z 3 6
w 1 :
.ion

3 L= I
4
C. Average Nicotine Content and Contribution to Nicotine Oontent of
a No . 30 Strip (March 29, 1960) by Crop rear* 0
9 1 1
se t
14 Percent Percent Ocatribution
Ebda . of Stria Giootine to stri p
LB
58 1955 5 15 .1516 4 .02 .60909
V 1956 16 48 .4848 3 .46 1.67273 l
54 1957 10 30 .3030 3 .63 1 .10000
64 3968 2 6 .0606 8 .39 .14484
70
44
;1 2
.2 1
306
5A 4
1I )
768
366 6

LG 0391681
4

0
0
91

VAL= RAZIDC ZMMI

Evidence points to the fact that increasing numbers of tobacco growers

have been using waleio hydrazine for sucker control . The principal supplier
per
of the chemical is the Naugatuck Chewiual Division of the United States
8.
Rubber Company . Naugatuck, Connecticut, and is sold under the `redo name
Sou
MR--30 . Since the treatment practice results in residues of the material
fat
being left in or on the cured leaf, its presence and amount may be determined
009
by chemical analysis . Such analyses have been wade to determine : (a) The
sli
extent to which KH-30 was used on farms in 1960 in the various flue-cured and
Mal
0 Burley tobacco growing areas ; (b) The content of malelo hydrazide in tobacco
tb
strip purchased in the various areas during 1960 ; (o) and the content of
as
saleio hydrazine residue in comeroial cigarettes purchased during 1960 .

AA&I.Yl1a Prooeaures La 2 jjWA& d Nalel9 Buil d


Two analysis procedures were used in the studie' . One, adopted as the

standard laboratory procedure, was that published by Lane, Oulletrom and

Novell (J . of Apia . and To" ohm . ift, 671 (1908)) which was found capable

of giving quantitative results within 12 p .p .m . over the rand* of 0 to 100

p .p .m . walcio hydrazine . The second procedure vae a modification of the

foregoing procedure which was mor- rapid and therefore permitted a larde r

amber of eamplee to be run . It vas found to give reliable qualitatf.ve but

only semi-quantitative results . Both procedures are based on the hydrolysis

of meleis hydrazine bT concentrated alkali, after reduction with zinc ,

resulting in the formation of hydrazine which is steam distilled and


0 determined calorimetrically by reaction with p-dimethylasinobensaldshyde .

flu 2L NaleiQ Hydrazide L Growers ,),,p 1$A 2

Analyses of prsmarket samples provided data Indicating the percentage

of farms using MN-30 this year . One sample from each of the firms sampled

was analyzed for aalsio hydraside by the modified procedure . Of the flue-

oured samples, the uppermost priming was taken for analysis . Of the Burley C

samples, the 'top of the plant' sample was analysed .

The results for the flue-cured crop are presented in Table I whic h

0 j 0

LG 0391682
T

- 92 -

shoe's the number of fame sampled, the number of positive tests, and the

percent of farms using N8-30 in the respective area . The results for the

S . C . -Border Area are further broken down between the farms located in

South Carolina and those located in North Carolina . The highest percent of

farms using MR-30 (58 percent) occurred in the border area of N . C . and was

comparable to that in Osorgia (52 percent) . Use in the Middle Belt was

slightly lover (44 percent) while use in S . C ., Z . N . C ., and 014 Belts

wu about the saws and appreciably lower (17 - 22 percent) . Calculated for

the total flue-cured area . the results indicate 33 .6 percent of the fares
V1
used MH-30 .
it may
ZMA I
caleio
tut Bt WZM It Farms I& E 3 -C ured Areas during OM
will at
Parse- Positive Percent of Farm s
parches
Georgia 86 44 52 present
S. 0 . 45 s Ti
Border 1Q $
78 It puroba

Zastarn ' 1 08 24 22 oonoen

Middle 63 28 44 are eo t

Old 1 jg 17 pureha
Tota l
Area 406 136 33 . 5 weekly
Results for the Burley area are shown in Table 11 . Use by fares in T
Central Kentucky 'Ad Central Tennessee was similar (12 and 14 percent, areas .
respectively) . Only R piroent of the fame in Northern Kentucky were users . analyt
None of the farms in ,astern Tennessee were found to have used MR-30 . For somple
the total area, the results indicate only 8 percent of tb . fares were users .

Use of MR-30 in the Burley area appears to be much less than in the flue- gradet

cured cress . the p

This

probe

LG 0391683
P
9

J .-

- 93- 1
pp'' r
Z

the j kX Ora-worm j{ Burlei Areas luring IM


Farm s Positive Percent of Farm s
Area Sampled Tests using MH-3 0
'it of
East . Tenn . 106 0 0
I was Central Tenn . 71 10 14
North Ky . 90 7 8
$ Central KY . .112 1~ 12
Total
Area 388 31 8
d for
Naleie Hydratide In 1$44 Elm-cured Strju 3 1es
gyres
with so such of the 1960 flue-cured tobacco crop treated with NH-30,

it may be expected that the tobacco purobssed during the year will contain

nsleic hydratide residues . Analyses are being made to obtain data which

will show the level of maleio hydraside in flue-cured strip from the 1960

purchases . The study is not yet complete but results obtained thus far are

presented in this report .

The strip is being analyzed according to company grade and area of

purchase by the standard laboratory procedure to obtain the maleio bydraside

concentration in parts per million (p .p .m .) . The samples taken for analysis

are composites of all stemmery samples for the particular grade and area of
0
purchase for the week during which the leaf was stemmed . The results for the

weekly composites were averaged and are shown in Table III .

The results are complete for only the Georgia and S . 0 . -border belt

areas . Approximately three-fourths of the C .N .C . strip samples have been

analyzed . Less than one-third of the Middle and Old Belt samples are

. for oompl'ted .
e users . The results show that maleio hydraside residues are present in all

f lue- grades of strip from all areas of the 1960 flas-cured crop . Within an area,

the priming grades appear to contain significantly lower amounts of residue .

This can be explained by the fact that, in some of the oases, the primings

probably were removed from the plant before the MH-30 was applied .

There also appears to be signitioant differenoee between areas . It

LG 0391684
{

0
W
- 94 - "! M
might be expected that these differ*toes are related to the percent o f

farms using 110-30 in the respective areas . This is supported by Figure 1


July
which above the average maleio tydraside content for all grades within the
purob
respective 4reas plotted versus the percent of farms treated as determined
resin
by the studies on premarket samples . The obvious conclusions from these

data are that if 1{R-30 is used, our purchases will contain maleio lydrasid e
brat
residues, and if more farms are treated, the maleio hydroxide content of the
for
strip will be higher .
of P
TABI UL
Malgio 0xdraside (2,2JO 30 }M -Cured 3tr n auto
ARE A
Oradde Geor aia8C-Border Elias Middle' Olde root

D 48 39 24 42
N 56 29 26 51
Sit 46 36 26 37
EMs 43 34 19 13 6
ON-P 41 20 4 --
SP 34 27 Be (27)
Bps 3d 29 20 (17)
SP-P 2') 12 4
Ce 39 21 16 (16)
Ca-P 14 29 5 --
0,-? 91- AD U U2-
Average 38 27 17 (30 )
Study approximately three-fourths complete
Study less than one-third complet e
Waldo Srdratide JA C serciel Cigarette s
It may be concluded from the previous studies that it is only a matte r

of time before significant maleio hydratide residues will appear in commercial

cigarettes . The results reported here were obtained to sea if detectable

amounts of the residue were present in olgarettes sold in 1960 and, if so ,

at what level . The results premit comparison of our cigarettes with other

companies and will be useful as a basis of comparison for similar data

obtained in the future .

Two brands of cigarettes, one * filter and the other non-filter, from

each of the six leading cigarette companies were analysed for malefic

hydraaide by the standard laboratory procedure . The cigarettes were from

LG 0391685
0

''4 Y4:

July 26 bubo and JULY 87 Hooky Mount purchases for this year . The two

purohases were analysed separately giving two results for each brand . The

results are presented in Table IV .


It 1s interesting to note that the two results for the individual

brands are quite similar as are, in ■ ost oases, the levels in the two brands

for the same company . Liggett and Myers' cigarettes are lowest while those

of P . Larillerd and Brown and Williamson are highest .


The results show that detectable amounts of ualslo hydraside residue are
0 a .
'
already present in oosaeraial cigarettes . It is expected that the amount will

increase in the future rather than decrease . i


TABLE L 0 .
a

,Music Rrdraalde In Cosseroiel Cigarette s p 40

C912AU &jA MaleipRrdraaide . e .n .s . a


N

Liggett and Myers Chesterfield 4 2. 5


X
d
• • LNA M 1 2
3
Reynolds Camel 20 10
10 2C

• • Winston 10 9
8

American Pall Mall 6 6. 5


7 i'
• • Tareyton 6 5 .5
6

P . L crillerd 016 Gold 14 12


20

• • Kent 12 11
10

Philip Morris Philip Morris 9 9.5


10
• • Marlboro 6 6
6
Brown and Williams Raleigh 11 10 . 6
10

• • Yloer c' 13 14
15

LG 0391686
I

• {w
1

0 -(Middle)

-- 8, C . - borde r

10 23 31 40

YCHti ...4T OF FAAM9 THLAT Q

F : 31 tii t, >a ; ~rts .r ! ~+~5 : ny•rrrl•1• -its- t

LG 0391387
tl

I
- 96 -

ARSENIC 7

o1%ar /
A review of the arsenic content of certain brands of cigarettes an d
the a ]
determinations made on a number of the crops sampled for premaiketing
thos e
purposes indicate that the use of this material as an insecticide continue s
sbowl
to decline .
of t h
Table 1 shows a comparison of the arsenic content of six brands of 0
in 1 9
oisarettes purchased in Boston, Mass . by the Ar :aur D . Little Corp . i n
one p
1953 and kept in cold storage by that firm until 1950 .
Cont e
TABU
Pero t
01 DA Arsenio Content (DOE) rhe a
Chesterfield 44 .61
Lucky Strike 35 .86
Came 40.47
Old Gold 41 .56
Philip Morris 46 .3 5
Pall hall 38.68

Table 2 shows a comparison of the average arsenic content of seven

brands of cigarettes purchased over ■ six months period in the last half

of 1956 . thsss determinations were made after Dr . Hobbs pointed out that
TA 2

Brand Arsenic Content (DRS)

Chesterfield 19 .2
L and M 22 . 7
Luoi~ Strike 7 .7
Camel 14 .0
Philip Morris 1b.7
Old Gold 14 .2
Viceroy 4 .9

as a result of his work, he felt that Chesterfield cigarettes wer e

comparatively high in arsenic content . Because of these data, arsenic

determinations were made on the individual components used in the

Chesterfield and L and N blends . The results of these analyses indicated

some adjustments in the Chesterfield blend which lowered the arsenic content

to 9 .86 ppe .

LG 0391688
.. .'.w
{ UWW I

- 97-

Table 3 shows a comparison of the arsenic content of 93 brands of


11
cigarettes purchased in February June, 1960 . Thews data indicate that
the arsenic content of tobaccos now being used is considerably lower than

those being used in 1956 . This is substantiated by the data in Table 4,

sbowin, the avers,;* arsenic content of 12 randomly selected crops from each

of the flue cured belts in 1959 and 48 crops from the burley growing area 0
in 1958 and again in 1959 . The individual crop data show that approximately

one percent of the flue cured crops may be as high as 10 ppm in arsenic
Un
content . The individual burley crop data dhow that approximately three
eithe r
percent of the crops were treated with arsenate of lead as an insecticide .
referen
These treated crops had arsenic contents as high as 80 ppm .
tobacco
TABLE 31
contiou
rang' Avenge Arsenio Content in pp e
February, 1940 June . 1960 oigar,t
Chesterfield 3 .40 3 .85 it
Lucky Strike 2 .33 3 .6 3
Camel 2 .45 2 .66
4 .38 arsenal
Philip Norris 2 .64
Gld Gold 3 .59 2 .7 E unfaw o:
9ano 7 .68 7 .9 0
]Cool 3 .63 2 .05 drin,
Viceroy 3 .62 1 .93
L and K 4 .73 2 .3 0 amount .
Cent 6 .65 2 .6 6
Winston 4 .65 6 .37 Pure r
0 Parliament 7 .07 5 .4 4
Toreyrton 2 .66 3 .20 have p
Mrrlboro 6 .77 2 .93
Sales 5 .15 6 .61 to the
Hit Parade 4 .07 2 .35
Raleigh 2 .38 2 .25 is tre
Pall mail 2 .68 2 .86
Newport 2 .47 4 .1 0 detect
Oasis 3 .65 2 .80
Alpine 4 .33 2 .633 in thf
Spring 2 16 3 .30
Life 2 .38 3 .38

a cant

use o f

tobee
oosbu

aide s

LG 0391689
- 98 -
TABLE 4

Arw Year Aver&- .t . Arsenic Content (22M )


Georgia-Florida 1959 0 .9 1
9 .C .-+oorder Belt 11.59 0 .94
astern N . C . 1959 0 .6 6
Middle belt 1959 0 .5 8
Old belt 1959 0 .2 4
0
Burley 1958 2 .29
1Y Hurley 1969 3 .2 6

Unless the arsenic residues on tobacco become acute in the future,

either from renewed use as an insecticide which is unlikely, or from some

reference to the effects of this residue on the health of consumers of

tobacco products . no further reports on it will be made . We will, however,

continue to determine the arsenic residue levels on a number of brands of

oigar .ttes for r!oord purposes .

it should be pointed out that the insecticides which have replaced

arsenate of lead for use on tobacco have not received a great amount of

unfavorable publicity . The two more widely used insecticides . TDS and

indrin, which leave residues on tobacco at levels proportional to the

amount .anplied, have very low tolerance levels on products covered by the

Pure Food and Drug Act . Guthrie and bowery of North Carolina-State College

have published data showing that significant amounts of TCY are transferred

to the mein stream smoke of cigarettes . their data also show tat Bndrin

is transferred to the main stream smoke but In amounts which are not easily

detected . Significant amounts of TDE have been isolated from oi ;srette smoke

in this laboratory .

The Cntomology Deportment of North Carolina State College has devoted

a considerable amount of effort toward the development of insecticides for

use on tobacco which will control i .isects, have no dei:rimental effect on

tobacco quality . and leave no residues that will be transferred to the

combustion products of th, tobacco . At this time a number of the now insecti-

cides show some promise but only one of them has been made commercially ovailef
t

LG 0391690
I

- 99-
TOBACCO VA1U TY AND CULTURAL PRACTI STUDU 5

i The cooperative variety evaluation programs are being continued with

1 the tobacoo research organizations of the states of South Carolina, . North

Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky .

The Coker Pedigreed Seed Company of Hartevilld, South Carolina, has,

for a number of years, exerted a strong influence on the varieties planted

by the flue cured growers . This company has also forced plant breeders
in the state research organizations to compete with their higi yielding
i lines in the development of new varieties which would be acceptable to
t
both the growers and the industry . We were extended an invitation by this

e,vpany several years ago to work with then in their tobacco program but

at that time declined the imitation . t


t
0 In view of tbir present influence on the production of flue cured

tobacco, we now feel that we should work with this company in generally c

the same manner that we work with the various state organisations .

I have recently discussed with the director of their tobacco breeding

prop-am, Dr . Hoyt Rogers, our dasire to accept their previous invitation I


I
to cooperate with them . Dr . Roger . was very receptive to this and expressed
i
their desire and need to have evaluations and criticisms of their tobacco

lines . Be feels that these evaluations will be useful in guiding his


V
efforts to develop lines of tobacco that would be acceptable to th e
at e
industry as well as the growers .

We would be hopeful that we could, over an exten•ied period of time,


d
be able to discourage the development of varieties of tobacco of the type

they have released in recent years and encourage them to develop more

acceptable types of flue cured tobacco . With this purpose in mind we

will begin evaluating advanced flue cured lines of tobacco from this
,cti-
company with the 1961 crop .
,ailati

LG 0391691
SAIrC?r~•

R,-

100-

The most r .osnt promising results of the various breeding program s

has been the advancement of a few lines which have resistance to root-

knot nematodes as well as resistance to black shank and bacterial wilt .

One of these lines, which seams to be capable of competing with other lines

in more yield, is being considered for release before the 1961 season .

In the Advanced breeding Lines Test this year, conducted by N . C . State

College at b locations, this line tested as NC 8069-6, was as high in

acre yield and acre value as any of the commercially available varieties .

Its value per 100 pounis, sometimes used as a quality index, was comparable

to all of the higher ranking varieties except Hiaks . Its quality index

rating Indicated that the cured leaf is average in quality . In the Coopera-

tive Evaluation Tests conducted at 12 locations, the quality index ratin g

of this line placed it slightly below NC 76, Hicks and NO 8038-3 but

comparable to Coker 316 .

Acceptable tobaccos with resistanoe to root-knot nematodes could be

of significant value to the growers and at the same time reduce a practice
19
which tends to lower the quality of tobacco . by using such a resistant
15
variety, the growers would eliminate the necessity of using soil fumigants
seed
to effectively lower nematode populations in the soil . The monetary
0
savings to the farmer which could be realized by eliminating the need of

these fumigants amounts to several million dollars each year .


The soils in the flue cured producing areas are populated with nematodeA

to such an extent that it has been necessary to control them . Experiments

conducted to compare the quality of tobaccos produced on fumigated and non-


.3e
fumigated soils have shown, in most instances, that the use of fumigants

tends to lower quality . Extensive, but only partially effective efforts,

have been made to formulate tobacco fertilizers which would compensate for

the detrimental effects of the soil fumigants . It is felt that the

elimination of this problem with varieties having resistance to the nematodes

would have more promise of improving the quality of flue cured tobacco .

LG 0391692
mm1
9
0

i
- 101-

We have, through our cooperative work with the various state agencies,

kept fairly well informed on experimental work being conducted other than

variety development . The Agricultural Engineering Department of North


Carolina State College has recently, however, caught us looking in specifi c

data on what could conceivably be a major change in the curing process of

brt,ht tobacco . This process which is now a commercial reality has the

possibility of general acceptance by the growers .

This State College group has been working for years on ways of curing

bright tobacco other than the conventional method now used . Each year we

have had the assistance of one or more of the leaf Department supervisors

in comparing the tobaccos cured by the various new methods with tobaccos

cured by the conventional method . These c~Aaparisons have never seead to


show that any of the now methods of curing bright tobaccos bad advanced 0
to the stage that would justify sore extensive evaluations . This would

also be true of these tobaccos cured during the 1960 season .

This now method of curing, referred to as "bulk curing' is or interest .

to the growers in that it seems to offer a number of advantages over the

conventional method . This method utilises a radically different type of

barn, constructed with steel, insulated air-tight, and equipped with a hot

air furnace and fans . In curing the air is forced up through tightly

packed leaves and can be exhausted or recirculated . It is felt that this

would give closer control of the curing and drying conditio•,e throughout

the our4nr process .


Mother advantage of the bulk curing unit is in the reduction of

labor necessary to 'put in" a barn of tobacco . Hooka of rather tightly

packed tobacco veilhing from 100 to 120 pounds each replace the use of

sticks and the necessity of having 'bander .' and 'stringers' to attach the

leaves to the sticks . Two son can stand on the barn floor and place the

rooks an the tiers .

LG 0391693
M
0

- We -
The barn is such smaller in site since only one-sixth of the space

of a conventional barn is needed in the curing unit to hold a comparable

amount of tobacco . Since the been is made of metal and the furnace is in

a separate compartment outside the barn, fire hazards are sharply reduced .

The post of these bulk curing units, however, are considerably higher

than conventional barns . The units are being offered in two sites at prices

of approximately $3400 for the smaller unit and $4100 for the larger one .

They have the capacity to handle comparable or only slightly larder amounts

of tobacco and the amount of fuel and time used to cure a barn of tobacc o

is essentially the same as conventional barns . Since the initial invest-

■ snt costs are so such higher than conventional barns and the maintenance

4)osta are as yet unknown, it is questionable whether these units are

economically practical to the tobacco drovers .

The installation of these bulk caring units is being strongly encouraged

by personnel of North Carolina State College and the manufacturer of the

units, Allegheny Building Units, Inc . The first of these units was in-

stalled by a tobacco grower during the 1960 season and it has been speculate d

by versonnel of the college that close to 200 units will be purchased by

growers in 1961 .
The tobacco cured in these units sees to be flat, pressed, lading

in the texture normally used in judging tobacco and seen to he either

looking in aroma or have off-type odors .

The burley line . Greeneville 39, described in our previous report,


was released prior to the 1960 season and the data oollecta4 . in the burley

premarketing program indicate that approximately six percan! of the burley

produ^ing farms planted this variety . As previously repcrted, it is felt

that in addition to the value this, variety will have to the burley growers

who have black shank infested soils, it is capable of producing a good

type of burley tobacco undmr currently used cultural practices . It shoul d

LG 0391694
0

s :'1. . ..
P

- 103 -
be pointed out that there has been some reluctance by the Kentucky

Agricultural Pxperimsnt station to make a black shank resistant line avail-

able to the growers . The feeling there, which has considerable merit ,
th
is that the availability of black shank resistant lines would permit the
a growers to discontinue the cultural practices now used to control the

spread of black shank . It is thought that some of these cultural measures


gr
such as crop rotation contribute to the production of better quality
Tb
burley tobacco .
do
Unofficially, but for all practical purposes, Kentucky has released
cc
a new vari-ty called Kentucky 10 . This variety is a sister line to
Al
Kentucky 9, which we objected to on the grounds that it seemed to produce
tt
unusual physiological effects when smoked . This variety hu, been tested
Tt
for three consecutive years as Kentucky Experimental I and Kentucky 10 .
P1
A number of growers in Kentucky planted Kentucky 10 this year and a private
at
seed company has released the same seed as Blue Star 100 . This line dose
ei
te d not seem to be capable of utilising potassium, even when grown with heavy
b.
applications of potassium in the fertiliser, and consequently prodaces
t
leaves which appear to have a potassium deficiency .
P
A high leaf number mutation of hurley 21, which has been tested for
t:
three years but was never seriously considered for release as a commercial
r
variety, has also been released by a privately owned seed company as '21

Special' . The Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station had leveloped this

line and used it in some of their breeding work, but since its release by

the seed company they have been debating releasing it officially so that

they may got credit for its existenos . The merits of this variety are

certainly debatable .
t
I The release of these two varieties, Blue Star 100 and 21 Special,
C
marks what seems to be the entry of privately owned seed onmpanies into
I
I the release of burley varieties of tobacco . Although one or two of the
1

LG 0399695
a

- 104 -
privately owned seed companies have worked with the Kentucky Agricultural

experiment station for a number of years, they have not marketed seed
1-
from varieties other than those released by the state agency prior to W,

this year . a
i

There are two cultural practices gaining popularity with the burley t
a
growers which may effect the quality of burley tobacco in the future . t

These are the priming of burley tobacco and curing with heat . Tests con-

duotsd over a number of years on the priming of burley tobacco have rather

consistently shown that acre yields can be increased in this manner .

Although this practice has been used rather extensively in West Virginia,

the growers in Kentucky have shown little enthusiasm for the practice .

The demand for burley tobacco in recent years, however, and the limited

production which has forced the price of the lower grades to levels

approaching the better grades, has probably made this practice more
3
enticing to the growers . We presented a paper on this subject in 1956
f
before the Tobacco Workers' Conference on two years data and in 1958 before

the ®u-ley Workirst Conference on four years data . In these papers we

pointed out the undesirable effects on the chemical make-up of not only

the prim,d leaves but also on the leaves remaining on the stalk which were
al
stalk out .

The practice of unnecessarily using heAt during the curing or burley


his
tobacco seems to be gaining in popularity with the burley growers . Used 0
properly, for the control of excessive moisture in the curing barn to

prevent house-burn of the tobacco, heat is probably to the advantage of

the grower . but the practice by the growers of using the heating units to

the extent that the relative humidity I . kept at a minimum throughout the

curing process is increasing. The use of these units in this manner

usua*y results to the production of an off-type, more yellow colored,

poorly cured burley ta. ce o .

IV

LG 0391696
- lc& -

Some of these changes in cultural practices, along with the more

widespread use of maisio hydraaide for the control of sucker growth, are

somewhat discouraging . Under the existing federal tobacco program, there


is protebly very little that we can do toward controlling any of them if

they tend to increase acre yields or to remove some of the less desirable

tasks necessary for the production of burley tobacco .

LG 0391697
t
0

1-3
m

• 106 -

1VAL1ATION 0T D2Ng8TI0 AKOMATIO %%r A


to th e
The domestic aromatic tobaccos of the 1969 crop ere received from conoet
the Southeastern Aromatic Tobacco Company, Anderson, South Carolina, on 9
Jt•ne 20, 1960. The type, grade, number of bales ant. total pounds of each than t

type of tobacco is shown to the table below . fairl3

Tzps Oracle No . of Bales ?Mnd j trashy


2aasun AA-1 661 46,682 of a r
Smyrna AA-1 316 22,099
Cavalla AA-1 139 9 .649
Total 1. 77,430
be ra'
On July 20, 1960, a number of bales of each type were sampled for
bettsi
chemical analyses, and subjectively examined for body, color, aroma and
extra[
general physical condition „
thin !
This subjective examination of these domestic tobaccos indicated that

both the growers and the processor of the tobaccos after purchase from the
than
growers contribute to the comparatively lower quality of grade AA-1 of the
woos
domestic types .
norms
The growers tend to harvest their crops too infrequently and include
some
in each of the primings over-ripe tobaccos, tobaccos of optimum maturity,
tobac
and immature tobaccos . The over-ripe tobaccos, when cured, are generally
duri n
dead, trashy, brown in color, and lacking in aroma . the immature tobaccos

do not respond as well to curing, retain their green color, and usually
Turki
exhibit an undesirable off-type aroma .
Samsu
The processor of the growers product does not grade these tobaccos to
and I
the extent necessary to permit the more desirable tobaccos Included in the
data
mixture to be properly evaluated . The dead, trashy tobaccos and the green,
the a
immature tobaccos quits frequently make up the larger proportion of Grade

AA-1 of the domestic types .


the m

befoi

the

LG 0391698
w

- 10'7 -

Although these domestic tobaccos are not considered to be comparable

to the imported tobaccos in quality, the following observations can be made

concerning the three types .

The tobaccos of the Samsun type were Judged to be somewhat less desirable

than the 1958 crop . The better quality tobaccos of this type exhibited a

fairly good, delicate arooza . The large proportion of the over-ripe, dead,

trashy totacoos and the green, immature tobaccos, however, were either voi d

of aroma or exhibited varying degrees of off-type aromas .

The overall quality of the tobaccos of the Smyrna Ui= were Judged to

be rather poor with respect to the body, texture, color and aroma, but of

better quality than in previous years . There seemed to be less of the


extremes of the over-ripe and the immature tobaccos included in this crop

thin normal for this type .


The tobaccos of the Cavell& UM were Judged to be of better quality

than in previous years . This tips was poorly graded and contained an
the
excessive amount of the green and the dead tobaccos but much lose trash than

normal . This type exhibited a generally low volume of a fair aroma with
some sharp pungency expected from unaded tobaccos . It was felt that the

tobaccos of this type had some potential ability to improve considerably

during aging and were held in storage for subsequent observation and sampling .

Thirty-eight bales of imported aromatic tobaccos were sampled in the

Turkish blending room on July 20 and 21, 1960 . These tobaccos were of the

Samsun, Smyrna, Cavalla and Xanthi types . The samples of both the lomestio
, to
and imported tobaccos were subjected to certain chemical analyses and the
the
data are shown by types in Tables 1 and 2 . Table 3 shows a comparison of
-esn ,
the average data by types for the domestic and imported types .
ads
Thv comparisons of the domestic and imported tobaccos indicate that
the major difference between them to In the maturity the tobaccos attained

before harvest . the domestic tobaccos are considerably lass mature then

the Imported tobaccos . The less desirable degree of maturity of th e

LG 0391699
17

0 W

.. 108- 0

310 domestic tobaccos, shown by the higher content of alpha-amino nitrogen, is


made also expressed by the lower content of reducing and total sugars and con-

sequently, the lower content of alcohol extractable materials .

The nicotine content of the imported Cavalle type tobaccos is higher

than normal and the only Imported type higher in nicotine content than

crr.parable domestic types .

The hi, ;ber total nitrogen content of the domestic types is probably
more a reflection of the higher content of alpha-amino nitrogen than heavier

body . The water soluble said contents of the domestic Cavalla and Samsun
types, in conjunction with the other data world actually Indicate that these

tobaccos are more chatty than the comparable imported types .

In view of the physical observations and chemical data, it is felt

that the domestic tobaccos of grade AA-1 would be judged to be usable in 0


our products as generally poor to medium quality aromatic tobaccos .

P
ih than

.t h

;he
31y
sampling .
the

f the

gesti c

the

n of

mined

han

LG 0391700
s i F F' ' • • pr
q
n A • • S. w o

V 4 ••1 1 r
• r •
• h
0

0
109 -
TA 90 . 1
Ca;IiICAL A, 11 8 ANOMA' TO8A000S Mg 2X728 AND GRADES-- 1959 CRO P
Total Nit . Pr
y ot . fao lisduo ,
Semple Nit- Nit- lilt- lit- Mioo- Pet. log Total Ala .
No, roaen rogen rage rogen 0% i t Suter Suers Starch NVA _ WSA itt . H

C.9771 2 .61 0.01 1 .08 0.397 1 .26 6 .93 6 .1? 6 .72 6 .21 16 .78 3 .74 23 .94 5 .09
C-9772 2 .52 0 .02 1 .09 0.406 1 .6? 7 .06 4 .85 6 .26 4 .65 17 .00 3 .61 22 .98 6 .22
C-9773 2 .59 0 .00 1 .09 0 .399 1 .51 7 .31 4 .63 4 .94 4 .86 16 .67 3 .69 22 .72 6 .28
C-9774 2 .79 0.04 1 .06 0 .456 1 .60 7 .01 3 .76 3 .81 4 .60 17 .83 -3 .90 29 .77 5 .22
C-9775 2 .68 0 .01 1 .21 0 .434 1 .38 7 .48 4 .32 4 .61 4 .84 17 .62 3 .69 22 . 68 5 .1 8
C-9776 2 .68 0 .00 1 .28 0 .430 1 .66 7 .04 5 .76 6 .09 4 .34 17 .62 3 .88 24 .44 5 .0 8
C-0777 2 .74 0 .03 1 .23 0 .440 1 .71 7 .22 5 .34 5 .48 4 .81 17 .62 3 .76 23,45 5 .2 5
C-9778 2 .56 0 .01 1 .21 0 .408 1 .36 7 .24 6 .72 6 .05 5 .12 15 .31 3 .66 23 .94 6 .2 5
C-9799 2 .72 0 .03 1 .23 0 .467 1 .40 7 .43 4 .73 4 .96 4 .92 16 .85 3 .88 22.62 6 .11
C-9780 2 .59 0 .08 1 .15 0 .425 1 .61 7 .20 5 .03 6 .23 4 .84 17 .15 3 .83 23 .74 6 .224
C-9781 2 .67 0.05 1 .17 0.458 1 .51 7 .13 5.01 6 .63 4.64 17 .36 4 .0? 23.90 5 .1 6
C-97 .92 2 .70 0 .01 1 .19 0 .460 1 .68 7 .08 6 .71 6 .17 4 .53 17 .19 4 .09 23 .72 5 .22
C-9783 2 .68 0 .11 1 .13 0 .479 1 .48 6 .76 5 .76 6 .23 4 .90 17 .52 3 .96 24 .26 5 .12
C-9?P4 2 .70 0 .08 1 .13 0 .486 3 .34 6. 6 .68 6. 9 4 .32 17 .27 5 .83_ 26.31 5 .02 '
4 .76 1

C-9785 2 .71 0 .07 1 .16 0.444 1 .24 7 .33 7 .27 7 .66 5 .62 17 .13 3 .48 27 .36 6 .08
C-9786 2 .42 0.01 1 .12 0 .385 1 .02 7 .01 9 .71 10 .40 5 .43 16 .29 3 .43 29 .42 5 .02
C-978'7 2 .4? 0 .08 1 .43 0 .340 1 .02 6 .82 8.72 9 .41 6 .12 15 .06 3 .75 28 .14 6 .14
C-9?8P 2 .46 0 .00 1 .41 0 .346 0 .94 6 .50 9 .70 10 .27 6 .35 16 .65 3 .92 29 .27 6 .18
C-9789 2 .55 0 .01 1 .48 0.368 0 .97 6 .92 8 .63 9,33 6 .12 16 .13 3 .77 28 .47 6 .05
C-9790 2 .66 0 .01 1 .47 0.421 1 .07 6 .90 7 .47 8 .08 5 .44 16 .15 3 .89 27 .97 5 .01
C-9791 2 .49 0.01 1 .24 0.388 1 .16 6 .36 11 .40 11 .51 6 .18 15 .93 3 .82 30.33 6 .02
C -9792 2 .69 0.01 1 .48 0.433 1 .16 6 .68 9 .03 9 .40 5.11 16 .69 4 .08 29 .82 4 .91 .
C-9793 2 .40 0 .01 1 .17 0 .353 1 .04 6 .94 10.40 1C . t? 9,11 16 .02 3 .75 31 .17 4 .88
C-9794 2 .66 0 .02 1. 0 .411 1. 9 6 .90 9 .40 9 .98 6 .37 6 .63 4 .02 Z .63 5
A?5 1
C-9795 2 .94 0.01 1 .27 0.696 1 .21 7,24 2 .88 3 .39 6 .41 18 .46 3 .39 21 .97 5 .3 1
C-9796 3 .07 0 .01 1 .18 0.620 1 .25 6 .98 2 .63 2 .96 3 .90 18 .24 3 .49 24 .96 5 .12
C-9797 3 .19 0 .01 1 .24 0 .610 1 .13 7 .06 2 .28 2 .41 4 .04 18 .76 3 .68 22 .62 6,29
C-9798 3 .02 0 .01 1 .07 0 .676 1 .27 7 .49 2 .36 2 .84 4 .03 18 .99 3 .71 22 .31 6 .42
0-9799 3 .29 0 .00 1 .08 0.694 1 .41 7 .71 2 .27 2 .73 3 .69 18 .72 3 .74 23 .53 5 .38
C-9800 3 .28 0.02 1 .11 0.846 1 .10 7 .06 2 .09 2 .50 3 .87 28.91 3 .48 23.92 5 .37
C-9801 3 .20 0.03 1 .0 0 .623 1 .53 14 2 .89 3 .28 3 .94 19 .30 3 .57 23 .74 6 .41
AVERAGE 3 .14 0 .01 1 .15 0 .638 1 .27 9 .24 2 .49 2 .87 4 .27 16 .77 3 .68 23 01 633
0
- 110-
T LE M.,,,,8
CHEMICAL ANALY2tS OF IMPOaTdD TUNCIBH TO$ACQOS BY TYPE
o tT` l Nit . Prot . amino rieAua-
SamDle Nit- Nit- Nit- Nit- Nieo- Pet . ing Tota l Ala .
No . ro n rogen rocen r n %I M -Enher 8u sre 8u .tarm Starch NVA N8A Ext . DR
GRADE 3-3 SAM 1 :00 And 1 C P8
0-9822 2 .49 e .CE 1 .06 0 .288 1 .00 12 .44 5 .41 16 .77 5 .17 33 .70 4 .9 0
C-5823 2 .73 0.03 1 .13 0.360 0.89 3 .81 9 .18 10.05 4 .82 18 .04 0 .z3 31 .30 4 . vu
C-9824 2 .66 0 .06 1 .06 0.325 1 .08 4 .62 10 .17 11 .27 4 .72 18 .42 4 .48 33 .78 4 .97
C-9825 2 .89 0 .02 1 .06 0.347 0 .9b 4 .34 9.96 10.87 4 .97 15 .66 5 .36 33 .53 4 .92
C-9826 2 .77 0 .02 1 .20 0.301 1 .40 4 .98 7 .87 8 .70 4 .19 17 .32 4 .64 32 .80 6 .01
C-982? 2 .45 0 .01 1 .08 0.260 1 .22 4 .48 9 .53 10.33 4 .33 18 .86 4.32 33.96 5 .1 6
C-902 8 2 .24 0.01 1 .14 0 .217 1 .13 4 .81 10 .92 12 .01 4 .92 18 .81 4 .28 33 .42 6 .0 8
-9829 2 .09 0109 1 .01 0.196 1 .00 4 .99 11 .33 12 .2? 6 .10 19.76 4 .18 33 .48 6 .01
C .9P30 2 .34 0 .0: 0.82 0.243 0 .99 6 .60 9 .68 10 .53 4 .86 18 .24 4 .31 32 .01 5 .05 0
0 C-983 1 2 .28 0 .01 1 .06 0.180 0 .7 4 .4? 31 .89 12 .76 5 . 3 19 ..'x7
1g 4. 3a . 2a 6 .03
~YF.i1A0 . .46 A rob 0o .z7u 62- 4. 4. 65 a3 . ]z 5 .0 1
M P1
2 .35 0 .02 1 .21 0-.W9 1 .14 .4 .8 .25 6 .68 16 .19 3 .52 29 .68
C-90 .1 .3 2 .25 0 .01 1 .15 0.187 0.91 6 .84 11 .07 11 .53 5 .73 18 .34 3 .69 30 .86 5.0
2
C-3834 2 .40 0 .02 1 .19 C .243 0 .86 6 .83 9 .13 9 .78 4 .68 19 .43 3 .75 29 .12 6 .18
C-9033 2 .32 0 .01 1 .15 0 .218 0.84 6 .88 10.83 11 .02 5 .57 18 .73 3 .61 30 . 14 4 .99
C-9?,36 1 .95 0 .01 1 .11 0 .106 0 .65 4 .74 12 .88 14 .16 6 .92 18 .61 3 .22 33 .77 5 .27
C-9037 2 .99 0 .04 1 .14 0 .132 0 .74 5 .21 12 .41 13 .24 8 .88 18 .65 3 .31 33 .72 5 .12
C-9838 2 .40 0 .01 1 .24 0 .207 1 .06 8 .12 9 .69 10 .82 6 .75 19 .80 3 .70 31 .61 5 .06
C-9A39 2 .28 0.01 1 .12 0 .183 0.94 5 .90 10.94 11 .46 6 .57 19 . 51 3 .41 33 .19 5 . 12
C-384 0 2 .02 0 .01 1 .10 0 .173 0.71 4 .97 13 .69 13 .94 6 .64 16 .67 3 .36 34 .68 6 .13
C-994 1 2 .20 0 .01 1 .21 _ 0.190 0.83 6.37 11 .37 13.64 6 .27 18 . 02 3 .24 34 .64 5 .10
ME
ORADE
2 .62 0 .03 0 .99 0.3i01 .31 --Y .- 3 .03 3 .71 18 .20 4 .37 29 .71 6 .01
C-9843 2 .38 0 .01 0 .99 0.216 1 .19 6 .10 11 .33 4 .39 18.62 4 .40 32 .92 5 .01
C-9844 2 .21 0 .00 0 .92 0 .268 1 .18 6 .36 11 .49 4 .94 18 .78 4 .35 33 .32 4 .99
C-9845 2 .62 0 .00 1 .05 0.277 1 .81 6 .06 9 .30 4 .12 16.48 '4 .48 32 .62 4 .99
C-9846 2 .62 0.01 1 .12 0.206 1 .6 1 6 .67 8 .88 10.2? 4 .66 17 .93 4 .42 33 .61 6 .11
C-9847 2 .51 0 .01 1 .21 0 .200 1 .74 6 .44 9 .60 11 .25 4 .93 17 .96 4 .32 33 .76 5 .08
C-9848 2 .53 0.02 1 .10 0.259 1 .87 6 .88 8 .32 9 .40 4 .36 18.89 4 .45 31 .22 5 .0 8
C-9849 2 .82 0 .05 1 .16 0 .269 2 .40 7 .62 6.64 7 .19 3 .69 18 .97 4 .21 31 .63 6 .21
C-9850 2 .72 0 .01 1 .22 0 .274 9 .06 6 .98 9.66 10.91 3 .88 22 .65 4 .26 31 .34 6,16
C-9851 2 .71 0 .00 1-~24 0.2.88 . 2 .46 7 .24 6.76 8 .29 3 .55 18 .85 4 .22 31 .335 .

- 111 -

las M $ (Cont .)

I
A• 0
- 111 -
T
- X10 ?~ (Cont . )

Total Wit . Not . Aaino Iteduo -


Saaple Nit- Nlt- Nit- Nit- Moo- Pet . tag Total Ala .
No . r en roAgn r n Si' 11n§ lit e e are Starc
_rc h OVA NBA Mit .
GRAVE A
C-9831 2 .64 0 .00 1 .20 9 .21 10 .38 4 .67 18 .16 4 .42 33 .43 4 .941 ;
C-9853 2 .53 0 1 .20 0 .238 1 .47 6.61 9 .09 10 .38 4 .82 18 .27 4 .41 34 .48 5 .01
C-9854 2 .59 0.01
.03 1 .26 '0 .266 1 .46 6 .4E 8 .91 10 .44 4 .79 17 .22 4 .22 34 .71 4 .99
:-9855 2 .53 0 .00 1 .24 0.214 1 .69 6 .70 9.07 11 .66 5 .16 17 .96 4 .60 35 .66 4 .9E
C-9856 2 .19 0 .02 1 .08 0 .185 1 .11 4 .84 11 .99 14 .83 6 .21 17 .76 4 .2? 39 .10 4 .80
0 C-9857 1 .77 0.02 0 .90 0 .139 0 .84 3 .42 14 .87 17 .82 8 .33 17 .66 4 .23 37.82 4 .91
C-9859 ? .13 0.02 1 .06 0.206 0.54 4 .72 13 .04 16 .28 6 .66 19.03 4 .77 38 .35 4 .84 .
C-9659 1 .47 0.01 0 .73 0.154 0 .81 3 .72_ 16 .47 1714 7 .68 9 .7 3 .69 .16 5 2
o .o 1. } 13.48 1 . .3 36 . -

TABIL NC . S

COVPA5IS0N OF THE AVERAGE CHEMICAL DATA IMPORTED AND DCN£9T10 AROMATIC T0B5CC0915( ?VC
S
Total Nit . trot . Ami n Beduo-
Type and Nit- Nit- Nit- N1%- Nt ao- Pet . ing Total Alo .
Grad . rogen roam rogen rocen tine Ether Sumere, .6u aara Starch NVA NSA Ext . - PH
C A' AV TA
L T Ft
Teoorted 2 .54 0 .01 1 .10 0 .258 1 .76 6 .72 8 .72 9 .86 4 .20 18 .51 4 .36 32 .14 5 .06
ioaeettc AA- 1 3 .14 0 .01 1 .16 0 .638 1 .27 7 .24 2 .49 2 .87 4 .27 18 .77 3 .68 23 .01 6 .33
SMYRNA TYPE
Taported 2 .22 0 .02 1 .16 0 .182 0 .87 6 .59 11 .14 11 .98 5 .96 18 .60 3 .48 32 .12 6 .1 3
Domestic AA- 1 2 .65 0 .02 1 .33 0 .388 1.09 6 .84 9 .16 9 .64 5 .89 16 .16 3 .79 29 .16 6 .04
SASH TYPE
Imported 2 .46 0 .03 1 .05 0 .272 1 .04 4 .62 10 .14 11 .12 4 .85 18 .17 4 .65 33 .12 5 .01
Domestic AA- 1 2 .66 0 .06 1 .16 0 .439 1 .60 7 .11 5 .17 5 .56 4 .75 17 .11 3 .83 23 .6? 6 .17 '
XAMTHI TYPE
.l Imported 2 .23 0.01 1 .09 0 .206 1 .18 5 .36 11 .46 13 .48 6 .90 lb . 22 4 .33 38 .21 4 .96.

0
LG 0391704
- 112 -

I . IiIT11Tr _ ~0DUG112

a Since Juno, 1960 the tot:toving projects have either continued to be

worked on or have been added to the Lngineering Research and Development

program : (1) Nicotine reduction plant . (2) Nicotine recovery, (3) Develop-
174
ment of quality control instruments for measurements of burn spots from

drop-off ash, soft spots, and filling power, (4) Study of the oellulose

characteristics of tobacco grades, vwrietles, and species, (6) Design and


a:i
construction of a pilot cigarette factory, (6) Design and construction of

equipment for studying the drying characteristics of tobacco, (7) A con-

tinuing study of the effect of casing type and mode of application on the

filling paver of the blond, (0) A fundamental study of the effect of

variables on gas pressure drop through packed beds of tobacco and through
I
olprettes, and (9) Improvements in 0T8 and better controls in the 078

manufacturing process .

Because of time llsitatione . the incompleteness of aany of the projects,

and the importance of making a decision on the use of the nicotine reduction

process, only the projects on nicotine reduction and recovery have bee n

outlined in detail for this conference . A rev pages at the end of this

report will simply list the other projects and give, where possible, the
major conclusions or present status of the work .

LG 0391705
~-I'' .,r )• :

i n
- 1 13 •

II . NICOTINE REDUCTION PUN T

A . Present Status of the Pro ect .

At the last management conference (June, 1960), it was reported that

the nicotine reduction plant was completed and that preliminary tests had 0

indi :ated that the plant would give the nicotine reduction expected . Tests
had also indicated that some mechanical changes were desirable . These

included : (1) More •dequats baffling of air within the dryer, (2) More
adequate fastening of the pan to the floor to prevent buckling, (3) Installa-

tion of deeuperheaters in the steam lines to reduce temperatures and raise

humidities, (4) Relocation of wet and dry bulbs for more accurate readings .

and (b) Some changes in the discharge end of the dryer to prevent loss of

fines .
All of tine above changes have now been made and the plant is ready for

production . The desuperheaters have reduced dry bulb temperatures from

212OF to 200°F and increased available humidities from db% to 80% . The

discharge end of the dryer has been equipped with a hopper and worm to

remove fines continuously so that lase shut-down for cleanup is necessary .

sins . June, a large number of runs on the reduction plant have been
made to test out its performance, evaluate the economics of the process,

and to test the correlation of variables . This required the treatment of

about 200,000 lbs . of tobacco which hat been slowly added to the L and 9

blend from time to time . The following conclusions were drawn from these

testa : (1) The same correlation may be used on the pilot plant data is was

used on the laboratory data . The two curves are displaced from each other,
however, by the difference between batch and continuous operation . The

plant gives somewhat higher nicotine reductions for the some operating

conditions than the batch laboratory dryer . The correlation of plant data

it is shown as Figure 1 . (2) Somewhat less steam is needed In the reduction


plant than was anticipated from batch laboratory tests although labor costs
will be somewhat higher than estimated .

LG 0391706
,CORRELATION OF DATA .TAKEN ON .`NId 11M E
REDUCTION OF NICOTINE IN AGED '8URLEY`j$TRIP r-1 11"
T

14' ~

f a

80

20

I0

0 I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 to 18 20 22 24

Rf(R)(DO's (I+PA)wI, t[PN-PN( -k)](IO 2

LG 0-391707
9 t' .x1ME_ MINUTE S
Na• INITIAL NICOTINE CONTENT . % 8.0:, TOBACCO
K s FINAL. NICOTINE CONTENT, % B . A ,TOBACCO '
•s'RELATIVE' HUMIDITY %/100 ~ ;•~~ ;'
.10r14CTION OF RELA'~(VE 'TtllYfO1TY°'•i,- } *' ~"
' .D• s ; PICTITIOOS AVERAGE PARTICLE DIAMETER, ASSUMED' .11
AL • GAS'-VISCOSITY, LB :/FT/Mil
t
f 'G = • GAS MASS FLOW RATE, Ld /FT3MIN .'.~ t . _' f x
°AaAMMONIA PARTIAL PRESSURE(MTEGRATED•AVERAGE)!Mi ; .
• VAPOR PRESSURE OF NICOTINE, MM . "'`
. .W * LB .'TOO A000 /FT2 BELT AREA
.C ''RECYCLE RATI O
k s CONSTANT, 1 . 5

14 I' 18 20 22. 24 26 28 30 32 34 36

R f(R)( fMf B (I+ PA)W1 a t1PI_ PN(ZQ7-k 10~=)

LG 0391708
0

Gi

- 114 -

a . Aqvis gf th4 Process I


Since the reduction plant has not been discuened in detail since the
gum
Oct . 1959 conference, a brief review is in order for the purpose of present-
th e
ing a clearer overall picture ;
When the decision was made to go ahead and, construct a nicotine
she
reduction plant, it was . I impossible to decide lust how the plant eight be
the
used . It was thus necessary to design a plant to meet almost any specifica-
cps
tions ; i .e ., it had to have a wide range of operating conditions so tha t
of
the amount of nicotine reduction and plant capacity could be readily varied .
of
It was desired for design purposes to select a plant site which would permit
mac
all of the burley currently used in the L and K to be reduced 66% in nicotine

using two shifts per day, five days per week . This required a teed rat e 0.

of 3600 lbs ./hr . of leaf tobacco, a treatment tine of 30 minutes, an aeration


r
or cooling time of 16 minutes, a temperature of 900°T, and a relative O

humidity of 80% . ual'


To most these conditions, a gas-tight "dryer' was constructed with an of
overall length of about 240 ft . The treating section was divided into five on
separately controlled cones, and the cooling or aeration section was divided at
into three separately controlled cones . The ammonia flow to the treating ob
cones is controlled by five ratio controllers which meter the ammonia in tc
constant ratio with the steam . The dry bulb temperature is controlled by tr
steam coils, and the wet bulb is controlled by live steam . cc
The feed end of the dryer is equipped with a standard hogshead feeder, tt

a hopper . and a feed belt . The leaf tobacco goes through a rotary valve ti

which maintains a gas seal . The tobacco discharges through a rotary valve a.

at the discharge end of the dryer and is caught on a moving belt which ff

feeds a pricing cylinder located on the south end of the Cobb building . p
The dryer is maintained at about 1 b inches water pressure below

atmospheric beneath the dryer belt and about 0 .6 inches water pressure

below atmospheric above the belt .

LG 0391709
Y~V
r r~rV1~r~~

-116-

Before feeding the tobacco to the reduction plant, it is first

guardited . The cooling section re-conditions the tobacco before it leaves


:nt-
the dryer at a moisture content suitable for prising .

Any decision affecting the manner in which the plant is operated

should take into account the variables affecting the nicotine reduction,

the cost factors involved in the process, the relationship between the
Los- i
operation of the reduction plant end the blending department, and the ease

of operation of the reduction plant . The following sections discuss each


led .
of these factors, and in the last section some general recommendations are
raft
made .
otin e

0 . Variables Affecting Nicotine Reduction ;


at io n Before discussing the actual variables involved, it is well to point

out that the Percent reduction is the primary dependent vrrtable to which

all of the independent variables are related : The final nicotine content
an of the tobacco attained for a given set of operating conditions will depend
'lie on the starting nicotine content in the tobacco . For example, if one
tided starts with tobacco containing 4% nicotine and reduces it 50%, one will

obtain tobacco having a final nicotine content of 2% . If one starts with


tobacco bowing a nicotine content of 3%, the same percent reduction ; i .e .,
3. the same operating conditions, will yield a tobacco having a nicotine

content of only 1 .5% . this elementary foot Is pointed out merely to indicate
that from the viewpoint of plant operation, it is far more desirable, when

treating grades, to aim at some average vercent reduction rather than t o

aim at a constant final nicotine level for each grade . If one tries to

fulfill the latter condition, each grade must be analyzed for nicotine

prior to treatment, calculations must be made or graphs read, and the

operating conditions of the plant changed for each grade .

LG 0391710
i

I
From the parameter plotted on the absotasa in Figure 1, it is evident
parser
that the following primary variables affect nicotine reduction : (a) Ammonia
niooti
concentration in the gas, (b) tins humidity . (3) Time the tobacco is in the
graph
treating cone, (d) Belt loading ; i .e ., pounds of tobacco per square foot of
requil
belt area (bed depth), (e) Recycle ratio ; i .e ., the volume of ps reoiroulated
parcel
in the dryer per volume of gas withdrawn, (f) Gas temper. • .s+ . and if) Oss
quick :
velocity or mass rate of flow of gas through the tobacco bed .

There are thus a large number of variables which ya be altered to


Fiaur
control the amount of nicotine reduction . It is not, however, east to
redu o
control all of them at will . For example, to change the gas velooity

through the bed one must go inside the dryer and change the intake gate D . OR
setting on each of the many recirculating fans . The dryer must then be

rebalanced for air distribution and pressure . The recycle ratio can be of ni
changed, but than the dryer must as re-balanced . Each one of the exhaust aamwn
fans must be rs-adjusted . Changing the relative humidity also upsets the 0 be us
dryer balance since tblsobanges the recycle ratio . Changing the dry bulb oft t
temperature also requires readjustment of recycle ratio . Any of the above

changes can be made for long range constant operating conditions . is it


or day-to-day or month-to-month changes in perc,nt reduction, the coast
ammonia cc"oentration in the gas is the easiest variaole to change . This Pelee
simply requires that the operator change the ratio r,ontroller setting . The 5, OOC
amount of ammonia used is in any case too small Cr. significantly upset the ad3uw
dryer balance . Below reductions of 28%, no ammonia need be used . and it is the I
then easy to change the reduction by simply speeding up the dryer belt .
X. r
When ammonia is used, speeding up the belt in not oonoidered a feasible means

of altering reduction because the aeration time must also be shortened, and
cone
tb,re to danger of ammonia carry-over into the product .
As w
prof
are

LG 0391711
n

- l .7 -

Figure 2 is the graph designed for use by the operator to alter the
out
percent reduction at will . The upper part of this graph is a plot of percent
monla
nicotine reduction versus ratio controller setting . The lower part of this
the
graph is for use with no ammonia (where reductions or less than 28% are
t of
required) and shows the dryer belt speeds needed to give the indicated
-oulated
percent reductions . with the use of this curve, the operator can very
Oes
quickly •dial• the desired reduction .

Pt ur .2 shows the effect of recycle ratio on percent reduction and

?tgure 1 shows the effect of belt loading . ►'iaure D above a plot bf percent

reduction versus percent ammonia in the gas .

D . operational Control gf Nicotine Heduotion .


The conclusion to be drawn from Section C is that day-to-day control

of nicotine reduction is best done by control of ammonia concentration vhen

ammonia suet be used, and control of dryer belt speed when no ammonia need

be used . In between that* two regions, control may be obtained by cutting


off the ammonia supply from one or more zones in the treating section .
Unless nicotine analyses are made on each grade prior to treatment, it

to impossible to aim for a constant final nicotine content . It is therefore

be considered more practical to set the plant for a given percent reduction .

This Percent reduction is not greatly affected by plant capacity up to about


IV
. The 6,000 lbs ./hr . . so if it I . desired to increase the output, only minor
-t th e adjustments need be made to compensate for increased belt loading up t o

it is the maximum capacity .


.t .
Z. paotprs AffeOting Cost of th3 Prgoope :
)ls means
Before a decision is made as to h,w the plant is to be operated, serious
Cd . and
consideration should be given to the possible annual cost to the company .

As will be shown in the next section . the process could be operated at a


profit it it is felt that by such operation no undesirable taste factors

are introduced into the cigarette .

LG 0391712
OPERATING CONTROLS

( ; ; TREATING TIME., MINUTES


( HATIO CONTROLLER SETTINGS
BURLEY STRIP S

pi
80 -ELI' k . . )N•~ . _ . ° Lb:1-T 2
NH3 C,-' :CENTk;. i# : - U
HECrC_E RA! .J C13%6,3
R, :NS 8,I'4 b'S
70 1

dal :00
. .,*~
atrution

areAla - ""
i :by ou$Lie~ '

Notioa . THIS

t:Nta.A$, It
t eie a' hi T .W N MIN "F "
Lt to tbsr.tof
t
PELT LOAC'NG s. 9o TO L23 L8VFT2 f
reduction . RECYCLE RATlu :85 TO 681
RUPJ . E,6,7.9 .a1 6
to about

Perotsd, serious

the coapony .

"rated at a
TREATING TIME . M'M 1TES RATIO CONTROLLER SETTING
,ate factors

LG 0391713
Fig. 3

PER CENT NICOTINE REDUCTION


vs
RE%;YCL . RATIO

•RGC,T; .''o TIME 30 MitlUTE S


3E-T, -OA(i44G li)9 'To 11-1 LHS/FT- .
RAT;O CUNTRu,-LER ;,E TTiNG 13
RUNS 6,iu,h,8,l 2
,. : , ,tRi

LG 0391714
'V'iv •s4~. :yfi f l4 1`~~ t•+ A~ {~ Y• R 'R .• ''7~ ,L •' ~ `t t ~M . t t .

art- ~. - _- i .~ . ._~ .7_. .at. .. . . t ~ ~ • .• .sr. ._ _ ._ . y~i a,i .~ -_---

LG 0391715
. :1v'x yll~ .~

PER CENT NICOTINE REDUCTION


vs .
VAPOR AMMONIA CONCENTRATION . % BY WEIGHT
TREATING TIME - 30 MINUTES
BELT LOADING - 0 .98 TO I32 LB/FT2
RECYCLE RATIO - 5 .43 TO 6 .8 1
BURLEY STRIP S
RUNS 5,67,8,9I6,23,25,2 6

of 0 .2 03 0.4
0

*Y.
I M

Fee :are which signticaatly affect the cost of operation are as toilarsi

(1) Plant capacity or number of shifts used per day, (2) steal consumption,

and (t) A.tmonta 'consumption . ' .

Plant capacity is of cost significance largely because of labor costa Z


and start-up aid shut-down time- For example, start-up and shut-down tise

required is about one hour . On one eight hour shift, this repra :ente 12 .5%

of the working day. If two shifts are used, it represents only 6 .25% of j•'

the total time . One* the total amount of tobacco to be treated per yea r

is established, plant capacity is automatioaill fixed . steam and ammonia

consuaption, on the other band, are determined by the nicotine reduction

desired .

At this point, it In aeoeseary to distinguish between two different ^!~


types of costs : (1)'Total annual coat to the company, arA (2) . Cos t
of tobacco treated., Obviously, the less tobacco treated per year, the : '•
lees the total cost . to the company when the treatment alone is considered ..
However, the cost of treatment . R2 =Md of tobacco rapidly goes up a s
the plant capacity to reduced . Zn other words, at low capacities the annum

cost to the company is less . but the company receives such leas nicotin e

reduced per dollar spent . A typical percentage cost breakdown of the

treating process is given below to show the relative magnitudes of the

major factors affecting cost of treatment :

LG 0391717
0

LG 0391718
Fig 6
ILLUSTRATING THE EFFECT OF PLANT THROUGHPUT AND
RECYCLE RATIO ON PRODUCT COST
AND NICOTINE REDUCTION

LG 0391719
M 0 0
0
+~1i3 :.`` •r~Lua~1.i:L/1v!~a.'~44"L"5/t'
CO
M

ritbovt taking into consideration any cost factors or taste faotor a •1 4

involved in he choice of method of plant operation, the following are liste d


p
as esibla bases for Making a dsoision : (1) In any avant, IM desired

level of niootins redaction in the cigarette mast be decided upon . This

determines not only the plant operating conditions but also the plant

capacity . (2) once the above decision is ands, it then becomes a "aloe a s

to whether it is better to treat a smaller amount of barley and reftoo Is acr e


or treat a larger amount of Burley and reduce it leas, (3) In the us of (2)
It
above there are st ill fur ther pos sibiliti es : ( a ) iasp the percent Barley
in the cigarette constant and treat only a part of the Burley, sizing it with
untreated Burley . lhe.desired nicotine ., level can be reached by rsdaoing part
of the Barley less and using a larger proportion of treated Barley with a
minor proportion of untreated Burley or a part of the barley Man be reduced
to a larger . aztent•and Mai a miner, proportion of treated Burley and a major 0

proportion of Untreated Barley . is both oases, the filling power of th e


finished blend and the firmness of the cigarettes rewind constant . (b) All :<?5
R

of the Barley in the cigarette can be treated at any given level of redaction xx
keeping the total percent Barley in tbs blend constant, (o) The persent barley
in the blend can be increased, at the expense of bright and Turkish tobaooo,

to a greater or lesser "teat according to the reduction in nicotine in the

Burley in order to attain a given not reduction in the oideretts . In this


latter Method for obtaining the desired reduction, there is a very signifi .,

cant economic advantage is that the weight of the cigarette my be reduced

as the amount of Burley in the blend is increased because of the larger

filling power of Burley tobacco. u will be shown, the dollar savings by

this moth" can nor* than offset the cost of treatment .

LG 0391720
0
MIN

In au iioa°to 'seniI$sraisons oono ag blend ooroiitiogr fox1


are o ther ,possible nodes-of operations (1) (fresh Burley can be reduced
♦ Id
put up for ageing . One set of sample cigarettes has indicated that the
reduction process has no effect on rate of ageing . or (2) Only the high

nicotine consent grades of Burley in the alga ettebleod can as treated and

sized with untreated, lower niootine content Burley grades . This method doe s

not sees economically feuible because it scans low plant, snow apssi

intermittent operation, high percentage downtime, and oosp2ioated scheduling .

some consideration has oeen givi,n to synchronizing the reduction plant

operation with the blending department ; sit . as least for the present, Sit 4a
dth
felt that this would We rtekp . ?be entire cigarette sanufaoturing opesatioo :
pert
woold h . tied to the satisfactory operation of one dryer unless a ver7 :i rge :,,;
backlog of treated hogshead was maintained . This method would atse require . .
very precise and c reful scheduling of grades being treated .
or
In arQer to help answer sane of the questions I Shalt to W160- OesOerniagN Z
the effee w of treatment and blend composition on cost to :tbs QQe i .~at . `i • ;.~: ."~

reasonably . couplets and detailed economic study has been sate . Became* of
the large namber of variables involved, the study is very oesplsz . An

attempt bas oven made to reduce the proola to ita,fo 's and present the

results graphioslly . The remainder of this section is an explanation of the

results or this study for the L and K olend i

I
L and N Blend Reduced in Bicotine to Variou s
~e4 Levels by Keeping the Total Burley
Content Coaetan.t and Treating Only
A Portion of the Total Burley .
57 In We case, the filling power of the L and A blend remains constant

since' the percent Burley in the cigarette is unchanged, and the reduction

process does not affect the filling power of the Burl .ay . The question to be

answered here is this : 'Is it more economical to treat a small fraction of

the total Burley in the cigarette, reducing this fraction significantly in

LG 0391721
4 .1 . 4f.
It

ew•• ry

e
9
0

177
nicotine or to ii sos's soonosioal to= treat a lards `fraction of -tba$at
to _
Barley and reduce this iraotion lose in niootine to'obtain the s e M -nicotine .
reduction.ln the finished oidarette? e
As previously iodicated, there are two costs involved : The cost per

pound or Burley treated and the total cost {jp the ocspany . rigors

Indicates the eftso .! of treatment on the cost per pound of product if 100, y

76%, 60% and 25% of the Burley in the L and K is treated at various levehsof

niootiae reduction (abscissa) . The dotted lines are lines of constant atootLN.
level in the finished cigarette .
An example of the use of this chart . is as follows : If it is d.,ired to
!educe the niootins content at the L and K to 1 .80, one Mast operate along

the dottt±Q .Iliao labii .t 1 .80 . , If all of the Burley to to be treats ; follor
51
the 1 .80 dotted 1164, to curve (4) where it is seen to intersect U w .carve . a t
reduction. (bottM_use) . Asalliu8 . Ctrs left-head ordinate at the polar o f
0
intoe~ieotian one flu", cat thi ooss :of treatment is 3 .8 oent/lb . ;•Ourri (4)
rs nests 13sillioalbe . per year of 'Barley treated at a rate of 3470 lbs ./)
using two= shpt operation . If one wishes to obtain this ease nicotin e
red ction (1 .80%) in the L and K by treating 75% of the Burley (Mixing It with

86% untreated Burley), the 1.80 dotted line is followed to our" (2) . It

intersects at a reduction of 44% and the cost is 4 .9 cant/lo . This requires

the treatment of only 8 .76 Billion lbs . per year at a feed rate of 2800

lbs ./br . Each point on the graph has oven calculated for tae most economical

operating conditions . The graph shows that the cost per pound of tobacco

treated increases rapidly as the total mount of Burley treated becomes less .

Plaure $ shows the cost to the oospsny per year for Case I in whic h

the total Hurley in the L and K is maintained constant and various percentages
I 0
of the total Burley are treated . The graph is re`'t in the same manner as the

previous one : If the desired niootine level in the L and K is 1 ., and It•

is desired to treat all of the Burley, the dotted liae lab .led 1 .80 i s

LG 0391722
ECONOMIC ANALYSI S

CASE I -TOTAL BURLEY CONTENT OF L 81 M CONSTANT (21 .59 %)

USING VARIOUS MIXTURES OF TREATED d UNTREATED BURLE Y

SHOWING EFFECT OF REDUCTION OF PLANT CAPACITY ON COST, CENTS/LB . OF PRODUCT

3 .25 MILLION LBS./YR . I


1,855 LOS . /HR. ~ I SHIFT
25% BURLEY TREATED )

1 .95% NICOTINE IN FINISHED CIGARETT E

75 MILLION LOS . / YR .
2,600 LBS ./HR .
2SHIFTS 75% BURLE Y
c (' I TREATED "6 .50 MILLION LBS . /YR .
3,715 LOS ./NR . I
50% BURLEY TREATED
3 .25 MILLION LBS ./YR .
1,855 LBS . /HR . } I SHIFT j .-
25% BURLEY TREATE D

.75 MILLION LBS./YR .


2 .600 LBS ./HR .
75% BURLE Y
(4 TREATED - X6.50 MILLION LBS . /YR .
3,715 LOS,/ HR . 191E
50% BURLEY TREATED) ,

13 .00 MILLION LBS ./YR .


3,070 LBS ./HR . 2SHIFTS
100 % BURLEY TREATS

. NICOTINE IN FINISHED CIOARETIt


/

IS .
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
CASE I : TOTAL BURLEY CONTENT OF L a M CONSTANT (21 .59%)

USING VARIOUS MIXTURES OF TREATED AND UNTREATED PURI EY

0
1 .60°1o
NICOTINE IN CIGARETTE
. ~5I7O°, NICOTINE A
IN CIGARETT E
1 .65% NICOTINE
IN CIGARETTE,

X1 .75% NICOTINE
IN CIGARETT E
13 C kill .ION ,bS/YR i
34'~) .8E/H R
C °/o 8'.RLEY \ (II (2) 9 .75 MILLION LBS/YR .
-PEAT--o 2600 LBS/HR TWO SHIFT
75 % BUP .Er . OPERATIO N
TREATE D

Q R a~ NICOTINE IN
FIMSNEO CIGARETT E

J , .
6 .5 MILLION LSS/YR
♦ ~ 1715 LBS/ 1
5u-'a SUPLEY
1Rfnrfc•

6
a

followed to the 100% Burley curve . It again intersects at a reduction of

33x, and the annual cost to the company (left-hand ordinate) is read as

$470,000 per year . If 75% of the Burley is treated, the 1 .80 line again

intersects the 75% Burley line at a reduction of 44x, but the annual cost

has risen somewhat to $477,000 per year .

One can reduce the annual cost and keep the same reduction in nicotine

in the L and M blend if one treats only 50% of the Burley . The 1 .80 line

intersects the 50% Burley lice at a nicotine reduction of 67% and the annual

nest of treatment is now only $ :553,000 . Thus one night reduce only 6,500,000

lbs . per year of Burley 67% in nicotine, mining it in a 1 :1 ratio with


untreated Burley and reduce the annual post appreciably . flimrs Z shows,

however, that the cost of treatment is now 4 .7 Dents/lb . compared with

3 .6 Dents/lb . If all the Burley is treated .


Another case will now be considered;

Qua u
All of the Burley in the L and K Is Treated.
Percent Burley Increased at the txpense of
Bright and Turkish Tobacco s

In this case, the Burley is .:duoed to a given level of nicotine, and

the niootlns content of the cigarette is altered by increasing the percent

Burley in the bleed . There are two possibilities covered by this case : ties
IU In which, as the Burley is increased, the firmness of the L and N is

allowed to increase, no effort ceing mace to reduce the weight of the cigarette .

Cass 118 in which, as the percent Burley in the blend is increased, the weight

of the cigarette is reduced, keeping the firmness of the L and N the same .

Both of these variations will as considered from the viewpoint of economics .


First consider F urn $ in which the product cost, cents per 10 ., is

plotted versus percent nicotine reduction in the Burley at various percent


Burley levels in the finished cigarette . The upper solid line represents the

present level of Burley in the L and N (81 .59%) . At 1 .80% nicotine level in
f,i
the cigarette, the cost will be 3 .65 oents/lb ; and the reduction required wil
l

LG 0391727
ECONOMIC ANALYSI S
CASE II : ALL BURLEY IN L a M TREATED `- j

BURLEY INCREASED AT EXPENSE OF BRIGHT & TURKIS H

SHOWING EFFECT OF PLANT CAPACITY ON COST, CENTS/LB OF PRODUC T

(13 C MILLICP . L6 ./'R } I I

2 SHIFTS 47C LOS/ M R


21 5'1 Y. 6UNLE1 IN ) I I
CIGARETTE /n

% NICOTINE I N
s ol w m e i/ FINISHED CIGARETT E 05

3 2
O i
Z
73 (24 2 MILLION .BS/YR) I
0 421(
1 LAS/HR
a
.,- 140% BURLtY I N
CIGARETT E

1s 75 MILLI-IN LAS/YR I.
5000 l6' /H q
.SHIFTS
3$ 16 AUHLEY IN 2
CIGARETTE I

0
M
>
. _ _lfis C M-LLICI LB ./TR
2 SHIFTS 'ATQ LBS/H R
2I 59 '/, hUhLEt iN
CIr4ARETTE
0 0
0
!F~ .ivrvslA F1! 0
!q f

r 124

be 33% . Thl.s requires the treatment of 13 million lbs ./yr . of Burley using i .

plant feed rate of 3,4?0 lbs ./hr . If now, the Burley content is increased

31 .1% in the finished cigarette, the 1 .80 line intereeots the 31 .14 Burley

line at 2 .34 cents/lb . The reduction required is 32% and 19 .78 million lbs ./

yr . Burley would have to be treated at a feed rate of 8 .000 lbs ./hr .

The data plotted in Figure 2 is translated into annual cos. to the

company in F re 10 for Case IIA ; i .e ., when the weight of the cigarette is

kept constant . Following the dotted 1 .80% nicotine line to where it

intersects the 21 .89% Hurler line, it is found that the annual cost to the

company is 94?0000 per year . If 31 .1% Burley is used, the cost is only 0

slightly more or about 9473,000 per year. If the Burley content se increased

to 40% in the cigarette, 84 .2 million lbs ./yr . of Burley would have to be

treated to reduce the nicotine level to 1 .80% and the required reduction eould i
~xK
be 30 .6% at an annual cost to the company of $666,000 (3 shift operation) .
The curves of Firs 10 do not take into account the savings possible

if advantage is taken of the increased filling power of the blend as the

Burley content is increased . Case IIB will now be considered in which the
cigarette firmness is maintained constant by reducing cigarette weight as

the Burley in the blend is increased . If this is done, the entire economic

picture is changed as indicated in Figure 11 . Profit or lose to the company

to plotted on the ordinate versus percent nicotine reduction at various

nicotine oontsn•is in the finished cigarette while maintaining constant

cigarette firmne :e . The bottom row of points (solid iiae) represents the
present level of Burley in the L and 11 (21 .59%) as shown, and as previoua: .y

indicated, treatment of all the Burley to reduce the nicotine content of the

cigarette, for example, to 1 .80% would coot the company approzimately

1470,000 annually . If, however . the Burley content is increased to 31 .1%


in the finished cigarette (34 .3% in the blended strip), and the weight of

the cigarette is reduced to keep the firmness of the L and N constant, the•

company will then earn a profit of $463,000 per year . this is indicated i n

OM

LG 0391730
ALL BURLEY IN L&M TREATED.
BURLEY INCREASED AT EXPENSE
OF BRIGHT AND TURKISH .

2875 MILLION LBS/Y R


/15000 LBS/HR I
1476 % BURLEY IN CIGARETTE

242 MILLION LBS/Y


4210 LBS /HR
40% BURLEY IN
CIGARETTE
I
1875 MILLION LBS/YR
5000 LBS ./H R
_ 311% BURLEY IN
CIGARETT E

20 30 40 50 60 70
PERCENT NICOTINE REDUCTION IN BURLEY
ECONOMIC ANALYSI S

7 CASE II-8 : ALL BURLEY IN LaM TREATED

BURLEY INCREASED AT EXPENSE OF BRIGHT 8 TURKIS H

CIGARETTE FIRMNESS CONSTAN T

2 : .,

S NICOTINE IN
FINISHED CIGARETT E I
40 % BURLEY I N BURLEY TREATED
0
0 Op000 w in CIGARETTE _ -M]WONS.JI;ILM
N

-0 . .G -r .
.9- .-C -E) .
47 6 2875

. 0 -: -0 ---o .-,-
40 0 24 2
U.
0

I I.. I
-0 - 0
N 311 1875
% BURLEY IN BURLEY TREATED
CIGA . . M._~ ._MiLLt f4 /YR

PERCENT NICOTINE REDUCTION IN BURLEY


LG 0391735
a
6C OW M
ZI

?!aura ]I. Profit and loss values of Pigure U were aoaputed using this
curve*
Cigarette 16-A was made (Nov . 10, 1960) as an esaaple of case I in

which part of the burley is reduced in nicotine and sized with untreated

burley . 60% of the burley in the Chesterfield was replaced with burley

reduced 62% in nicotine . Cigarette 16-A was also made in which all of the
burley in the Chesterfield was replaced with treated burley reduced 62 %

in nicotine . Cigarette 14-A was made as the control .


In January, 1960, cigarette 84 .8 was sad* in which the No . 25 strip

of the Chesterfield was replaced with SD Lexington, 1986 crop aged seven

months after treatment (66 .6% nicotine reduction) . the taste panel found

little-difterenos between this cigarette, sample 25 .8 %bloh contained


untreated BD Lexington, 1966 burley aged for the same length of time, and

sample 1-? which was a control Chesterfield . These results indicate that

r treatment at least-does not retard the aging process and that, if desired,

green tobaooc say be treated and aged in the usual manner .

To suaartaes On the basis of the economic analysis aids, the most

feasible mode of operation would appear to be the one in which all of the

burley in the L and M, or a major portion thereof, be reduced 60 .46% In

nicotine and the burley content of the L and K increased a minimum of 6%,

preferably 10R, with a reduction in weight of the L and M sufficient to

bring the cigarette weight back to its original firmness .

LG 0391736
LG 0391737
♦t Lhe'lasx asasgemei conference (Juno, 1960), thefoiloring wr s
reported concerning this projects (1) ♦ pilot plant for recovering also
tine from the reduction plant condensate . by solvent extraction had been ;;
built ; (8) the ylant had been operated successfully and,disign data obtained ;
(3) An economic comparison between the solvent extraction. Wastes o f

ion exchange proses Ma presented, and . the solvent axtrsotioa proooss . ._ e


rsooaasu5ad it.r
continuous
-
operation is to be used ; (4) da oft Is taalyais
cR, . ! TcYr
was nreseatsd vhieh .shored•shatthe sale . of 4qg n1Go%ia•:'sulfate sointioa
scald possibly re000e 'tai Goss or sac aaootiae retu5ssost process or . a
~.Y~. F}~_ 1 ti..~
' : f r, ~. ., f•1) 5 i . ; ' "-c.' :f .,~' ~3v`+ FF+;s

as 30~-60¢ depGOataso th e `eperabiad soM4iale Ghosen aaa ' (6) ssr


~+.. ~~ .
g4c% aisos teM eu fat ! sol~itioa had base Mat , so :Mpablis ab ies""
` ;~ ~, 'rA.+~n wC
NiLa., k ~
. `i' ~•x!•7:.^.^s
. f 'K t: i' t It . r,! s
~a `;who bad .030sssed an tateeest la a .Lrds,' eoastGas y d aisotiaa
. .; . . Cd a~C~#
r ? r '1. JS 7~4 Ji' . . !' l,:i d' *J5 t ?+Y' tr~"
rY .~,~ X .
.JJhaa,k-1960 th ' . has nct been tA . esasastty'
~: _x- eta. for Carrying . ...
s .j;j, s'd4~: ~ ~~~~ .Y ,~~
r_-E .iy sy,~•r . _ ~?h~r3,~. ;i-~f• 1"~i ; rF•'f
moan move : . pSrt~isatalw~0rk `', siaos wtfisisat iatorsitioa has a hlwd4-
sbtainid'to assign - a .yrod►etiea plant i t anon is des ired . - the e
a+sntal weWrt`deaG
r siaee Jss► e..has
. been to work out a fey! dasaiirefa~itomat...
controle'lbr the plant--for emample, Control of final'aisotias'eoaesAtrot e a
by pH messurweats.'
2008=16 data presented at the last managesent meeting were based on-, .,

nicotine .coneentration• and condensate rates obtained on the Co . 0. $argon %


laboratory dryer used for nicotine reduction . Since then, data on the
large reduction plant have become available, and accordingly some minor
revisions in the cost of the recovery process have had to be made .
The cost of recovering nicotine sulfate will depend upon the operating

schedule . Once the estimated sales price is established, the profit margin
or yearly !noose derived from the recovery of nicotine will also depend

upon .he operating schedule . As indicated in the last report (June, 1960) ,

LG 0391738
µ•
r
t

i
• 1, i U'

0
M 0
M

.. . .188 . .. _ .

the "lee price was established by using 3-year amortisation operating one
shift per day . Nicotine reduction plant operating conditions vere take n
set 3600 lbs ./hr . feed rate and 66 .6% nicotine reduction assuming the burley

to be treated had an initial nicotine content of 3 .53% .

T ure 13 above the relationship between operating schedule (shifts

per day) and product cost (cents per lb . 40% nicotine sulfate) . Also

indicated in Harare 13 are the profit margins for the various operating

conditions . Since 3-year amortisation has been established arbitrarily for

one shift operation, the greater profit margin for two-shift operation will

%ian a shorter amortisation period (2 .2 years) . The anticipated required

selling price for the 400 nicotine sulfate is indicated as about bed/lb .

A cost breakdown for the process is as follows for 3-shift operation


assuming 66 .6% nicotine reduction and a burley feed rate of 3600 lye ./hr . :
Capital Investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $210,000
operating cost s
lined Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 .844
Direct costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 .796
Total Operating Costs $152340

Production, lbe ./jr . 40% sulfate . . . . . . . . . . . 807,000 lbs .


Production cost, osn s/lb . . . 16 4
getimated **lee prim based on one shift operation ,
cents/lb ., f .o .b . Du has
.lion 3-yr . Amortisati 53 .9
2-yr . A.ortitati . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 . 0

The above costs differ very little from the coats reported in the
on
June, 1960 report .

The nicotine recovery plant must be operated simultaneously with the

r nicotine reduction plant since the volume of condensate to be extracted

is very large and storage of condensate becomes a problem .

sting This means that the economics of recovery depends upon the operating

argi n conditions chosen for the reduction plant . For ezaeple, if only a small

reduction in the burloy to called for and a relatively small amount of


d
burley is treated, nicotine recovery becomes uneconomical . This is due t o
960) .

r4
r•• .. 'sty •.

LG 0391739
LG 0391740
0
0
0

- 129
M

a
the fact that the concentration of nicotine in the condensate becomes low

and labor costs and overhead become excessive for the amount of nicotine

recovered .

It has, therefore, been necessary to calculate the economics of

nicotine recovery for each of the points shown in all of the graphs of

Part I of this report and to re-evaluate the annual cost or profit to the
41
company for sash of the cases examined; i .e ., Cases I, IIA and its. The

next section presents the results of this economic study and is designed

to show : (1) How the annual profit or loss figures for each of the asses

is affected by nicotine recovery, and (2) Under what conditions of nicotine

reduction nicotine recovery becomes economical and under what condition s

It is not .

8 . Soo tiny StUAL 2L Nicotine Recovers }A Hs anon 11 OP-erati49 9L


Lno c n i

It should first of all be pointed out that the region of uneconomical

operation of the nicotine recovery plant L :+ defined in all calculations

which follow as : that r on gf onersticn ja which thy, profit fre ■ tbt sale
of nicotine *"rate at the anticipated sales prioa fj jqj small to amortize

4he plant in three Fears .

Case I
a
y" Iota durlei Content of th L and N
n ant .
Using a o M es f Treated
an n rem ;ed rgy

Ci,arette Veight an Firmness Constan t

Fi¢urs 34 shows the anticipated annual production of 40% nicotine

sulfate as a function of nicotine reduction in the burley at various amounts

of burley treated per year . If . for example, 100% of the burley in th e


L and M is treated . this will require the treatment of 13 million lbs ./yr .

using 2-shift operation . It the burley is reduced 60% in nicotine, 430 .000

sa

LG 0391741
at
Fig . 14 ~ .' ,,r
t
cAS -4k:-ATOTAI, -Qt wt-ty ' 0
~ ~r rJT .,L al~ .coMS~ t~FY tzr :a
77 USING tMRIOUS ; MIXTURES Of TREATOAND UNTREATED'•oaURLEY .

RETTE,. WEB AbQ ; FI SS '

YEARLY PRODUCTION OF 4096 NICOT .ME SULFATE SOLUTION


PERCENT NICOTINE REDUCTION . AT VARIOUS PLANT

001

t 'tI - t-- i "--'t


l
PERCENT NICOTINE REDUCTION IN BURLEY

LG 0391742
,L .BURLEY 00 mNT 4~ ,1 &'M CONS NT,, :(2l
.55W-
)US ; MIXTURES OF • TREATED' AND - UNTREATED', BURLE Y

3 . TTEc WEIGHT AND ` FIRMNESS CONSTANT :

ION OF 40% NICOT ;!IE SULFATE SOLUTION AS A FUNCTION O f


ICOTINE .REDUCTION AT VARIOUS PLANT CAPACITIE S

LG 0391743
r .

ibe ./yr . of, nicotine sulfate will be produced (upper curve of Figure 14) .
It only 76% of the burley to treated and the nicotine to reduced 46% ,

yearly production of nicotine sulfate will amount to only about 245,000

lbs./yr . (second curve from top) .


pilure 11 shows the effect of percent reduction and reduction plant

fees rate on the cost of producing 408 nicotine sulfate . The lower dashed

line represents the boundary line between soonaoical and unsconosicml

operation of the recovery plant . Under the conditions or Case I, it should

be noticed that only a few operating conditions fall within the region of

seceoaio operation . For example, it all of the burley to % be L and X to

treated, one must operate along the 13 million lb . burley line . At 60%
redaction of nicotine in the burley, the cost of the 40)9 nicotine sulfite
M solution produced will be about 84k/lb . which is well within the regio n
of economic operation . If, however, one moves up the curve to 40% reduc-

tion, one is now above the dotted boundary line or in the uneoonomieal

region . Similarly, if one treats only 76% of the burley, there is only
11
one point falling in the economic region, and one must reduce the nicotine

in the burley at least M% for operation of the recovery plant to be

economical .
Flaure If is a similar plot except the yearly profit from the sale

of nicotine suitste is plotted on the left-band ordinate instead of cost

per po . In order to amortise the plart in 3 years one must derive a

profit of at least $64,000 per year . This economic boundary is represented

by the horizontal dashed line . P'or example, of one treats all of the burley
and reduces it 60% in nicotine, the yearly profit will be $30,000 per year--

well above the $64,000 boundary line . If, however, only 76% of the burley
0

to treated and reduced 4'( in nicotine, the yearly *profit* will be only

12A,000 per y±ar which to too alto a margin of profit to make the investment

worthwhile . Under these conditions, it would require over 6 years to

amortise the plant .

411
0

LG 0391744
ECCONOM1 - ANAMI
CASE I -TOTAL BURLEY CONTENT IN L
USI(VO VIRIOUS MIXTURES OF 7REATEL
I I I CIGARETTE WEIGHT A l
PROOI.'CT COST, CENTS / I.B ., OF 40% NICOTINE SULFATE SOLUTION AS A

LG 0391745
M

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
CASE I -TOTAL BURLEY CONTENT IN LS M CONSTANT (21 .59 % )
USING WRIOUS MIXTURES OF TREATED 5 UNTREATED BURLEY
_I I I --} CIGARETTE WEIGHT AND FIRMNESS CONSTAN T
DST, CENTS / LB ., OF 40 % NICOTINE SULFATE SOLUTION AS A FUNCTION OF S NICOTINE REDUCTION AT ' RIOUS RJWT CAP.

3.25 MILLION LOS./YR . BURLEY TREATED


I SHIF T
25% BURLEY TREATED .

ANTICIFATEO SELLING PRICE OF 40% NICOTINE SULFATE SOLUTION (F .0


. B . DURHAM
)
BASED ON I SHIFT / DAY & 3 YR . AMORTIZATION

13 .00 MILLION LOS ./YR . BURLEY TREATED


2 SHIFTS
100% BURLEY TREATED AREA OF ECONOMICAL OPERATIO N

35 40 45 50 55
% NICOTINE REDUCTION IN BURLEY

L G 039174 6
Fig . 16

ECONOMIC ANALYSI S
CASE I - TOTAL BURLEY CONTENT IN L 81 M CONSTANT (2-1 .59'
USING VARIOUS MIXTURES OF TREATED 8 UNTREATED BURLEY
SHOWING PROFIT FROM SALE OF 40'X. NICOTINE SULFATE
-
I
I
CIGARETTE WEIGHT AND FIRMNESS CONSTAN T
18 0 . . i _
YEARLY PROFIT • THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS /YR . AS A FUNCTION OF % NICOTIAE REDUCTION

160

14

12 0

100

80

60

40

20

0 5 10 Is ?O 29) 30 .i!+ 40 45 50 55 IRC


% NICOTINE REDUCTION IN PURL E Y

LG 0391747
0
.•~1~~`•'n ~^^~•w.+f^"'~ . .'1I'~1^'r1~^"T^ 1
=._~sr/t~~l~^ . . ./'Stl~ .~~"'t ~L'^~`~'1.~

ECONOMIC ANALYSI S
SE I - TOTAL BURLEY CONTENT IN L a M CONSTANT (21 .59 %)
USING VARIOUS MIXTURES OF TREATED 8 UNTREATED BURLEY
SHOWING PROFIT FROM SALE OF 40 % NICOTINE SULFAT E

• . ... 1 ~ I i >. . 1
1 CIGARETTE WEIGHT AND FIRMNESS CONSTAN T
IT . THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS /YR . AS A FUNCTION OF % NICOTINE REDUCTION AT

13 .00 MILLION LBS ./YR . BURLEY TREATED


2 SHIFTS '
100% BURLEY TREATED

AREA OF ECONOMICAL OPERATION

9 .75 MILLION LBS./YR .


BURLEY' TREATED
2 SHIFT S
75 % BURLEY TREATED

6 .50 MILLION LBS /YR, BURLEY TREATED


I SHIF T
50 % BURLEY TREATE D

is 40 45 50 55
% NICOTINE REDUCTION IN BUHL EY

LG 0391748
4,

0 0
CMM
N RM
f~

The complete economic analysis for Case 1 is suamarised graphically

in FAgM n where lines of oonatant percent nicotine in the finished

cigarette are shown (Cashed lines) . Only these points failing ou%sija

the shaded regiod ; i .e ., to the right of the shaded boundary line ar e

eo oono. cal points of nicotine recovery . The use of this graph is illustrated

as follows :
Assume that one wishes to produce a cigarette containing 1 .70% nicotine
X
in the finished cigarette treating all of the burley . One :cast than go to

the 13 million lb ./yr . line (solid line) and operate along this line until

it intersects the dashed line labeled 01 .70% nicotine in the finished

cigarette .• This occurs at a required nicotine reduction of about 40% and

fall' outside theshaded boundary area . Therefore, under tbese .conditions,

it is ecanoaleal to recover the aioo%ine .

Taking into account the profits derived from the sale of this nicotine,

the left-hand ordinate indicates that the annual cost to the company will
be about 14W,000 per year . Tenure 8 in Section I indicates that without 0
z
nicotine recovery the cost would be 1484,000 annually-or a saving, of 0
=76,000 per year through the sale of nicotine sulfate . Under the conditions W
of Case I and as indicated by Elows ]?, under no circumstances is recovery

economical when only 60% of the burley is treated . Nlootine recovery is

also uneconomical for all conditions resulting in a final L and N nicotine

content over 1 .80% . U

From 1 :sari j7, it is evident, therefore, that for Case I the nicotine
L
recovery process becomes economical only in a few restricted areas of opsra-

Stan . Case 12 will now be considered in which all of the burl my in the L and

K to treated and the burley is increased at the expense of bright an d

Turkish tobaccos . As before, this will be divided Into Case IIA and 118 .

rigurl '8 shows the annual production of 40% nicotine sulfate as a function

LG 0391749
CASE I' TOTAL BURLEY CONTENT OF L6 M CONSTANT (21 .59°4 )

USING VARIOUS MIXTURES OF TREATED AND UNTREATED BURLEY

CIGARETTE WEIGHT AND FIRMNESS CONSTAN T

PRODUCT COSTS CORRECTED FOR EFFECT OF NICOTINE RECOVERY PROFIT S

130 MILLIONS LBS/YR .


3470 LBS/HR .
100 % BURLEY TREATE D

7 r + I

I I
975 MILLION LBS/YR
2600 LBS/HR.
75% BURLEY TREATED
TWO SHIFTS

1 S ~•///%~/ .i A % NICOTINE I N
i' ,;'/%
i ',,~/, , \ TO - FINISHED CIGARETT E
AREA OF UNECONOMICAL \-
OPERATION OF NICOTINE
RECOVERY PLANT .

165 % NICOTINE IN
~•'i j„~ // ~~ /~,'!~'', FINISHED CIGARETT E

.60% NICOTINE IN
37C FINISHED CIGARETT E
fIN SHED CIGARETTE//I / /P / / % //

350 I%
I. I . .,
130 MILLIONS LBS/YR.
3470 LBS/H R
100% BURLEY TREATE D
490. . .. . . . ( . . TWO/ SHIF .. . - 'I' . ;. . ._ .i . . .. } .. . . 4- .- . . . . .- I -
I i

Q 4R0 - Al'
In / '
A I I

470

-- i
a ` I I
N.

fA 45C , , / /,h 975 MILLION LBS/YR


2600 LBS/HR .
49 4401 75% BURLEY TREATED
TWO SHIFT S
O 430
V/
U. 4201 .'/ ; ,~•
~' •'• f'%''' A ` % / // _
NICOTINE A IN
O 'SHADED AREA IS ,`///! '\ TO FINISHED CIGARETTE
410! AREA OF UNECONOMICAL ~ I .
O . 'OPERATION OF NICOTINEI / /1/ / / `, 0 \ -i-1
f

Z dM RECOVERY PLANT ;' ' 1 r ;' / / ./i,' 11_ ._\ . ` ~

1 .60 % NICOTINE I N
N 37C • %NICOTINF IN/' FINISHED CIGARETTE
' I
G FINISHED CIGARETT E
/
360 •
J
j 350
Z /\/
Q 340
3.25 MILLION LBS/YR .
1 i ' ' i / r--•v 1653 LBS/M R
125% BURLEY TREATED
LONE SHIF T

65 MILLION'LBS R . /
290 ' // .1,3115 LBS/HR 1.',40V / % / ,/ / //
, :'
" , / / / , 50% BURLEY TREATED / /// / " / /' /
280 1 , / ' , ' / % , ' ~ONE SHIFT / / .' / , '' / / // , ' Ji / • ! ,' I

,
210! /'I / / ''//,',////''////' /// //•/// /

260i X
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

PERCENT NICOTINE REDUCTION IN BURLE Y


i I CASE a -ALL BURLEY IN La M TREATED
BURLEY INCREASED AT EXPENSE OF BRIGHT 8 TURKIS H

YEARLY PRODUCTION OF 40% NICOTINE SULFATE SOLUTION AS A FUNCTION OF '/. NICOTINE REOUCTIO t

LG 0391752
CASE a - ALL BURLEY IN La M TREATED
BURLEY INCREASED AT EXPENSE OF BRIGHT IN TURKIS H

)F 40% NICOTINE SULFATE SOLUTION AS A FUNCTION Or % NICOTINE REDUCTION AT VARIOUS PLANT CAPACITIES
I I 4

13 .00 MILLION LBS/YR BURLEY TREATED


2 SHIFTS

LG 0391753
0

W 132 r.

of percent nicotine reduction for the various plant feed rates to be

considered for Cases IIA and IIB . Figure 19 shove the cost of producin g

4$ nicotine sulfate as a function of percent nicotine reduction in the burley

at various reduction plant feed rates . As before, the bottom dashed line

represents the boundary between economical and uneconomical operation for

nicotine recovery . In Case II . a large section of each line lies in the

region of economic nicotine recovery because of the relatively large


I
quantities of burley being treated . For example, if 18.76 million lbs ./yr.

of burley are to be treated, recovery is economical with a reduction in

nicotine as low as 30% . Figure 20 shows the anticipated yearly profit

derived from the sale of 40% nicotine sulfate as a function of nicotine

reduction and reduction plant feed rate . If 18 .96 Billion pounds per year

of burley are to be treated at a reduction of bc%, the yearly profit indicated

from the sale of nicotine . sulfate would be $230,000 and the plant would

be amortized in one year .


0
Gass II A

All Burley in jk L and N Tr a t


Burley ncreased at ,t~~ ens gf aright and Turkish
Qbaoco f

Cigarette Weight Constan t

Figure 21 to a plot similar to one shown in Section I where annual in

cost to treatment to the company is plotted versus percent nicotine

reduction . Lines of constant percent burley in the finished cigarette are V

shown as solid lines, and the lines of constant percent nicotine in the

finished cigarette are shown dotted . An example of the use of this chart

follows :

If it is desired to reduce the nicotine content of the L and M :o

1 .RO% by treating all of the burley and retaining its present percentage

(21 .69%) in the L and X . the 13 million 1b . burley line is followed until

LG 0391754
Fig. 19
I
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS T
110
CASE a - ALL BURLEY IN L8 M TREATED
105 BURLEY INCREASED AT EXPENSE OF BPIGHT 81 T L
100 PRODUCT COST, CENTS /L8 . , OF 40 % NICOTINE SULFATE SOLUTION AS A FUNCTION OF 9. NIC (

95

90F
z
85
I-

75

70
24 .20 MILLION L85./YR .
BURLEY TREATE D
3 SHIFT S

60
ANTICIPATED SELLING PRICE OF 40 .4 NICOTINE SULFATE
55 BASED ON I SHIFT/DAY B 3 YR. AMC

50
2875 MILLION LBS./YR .
BURLEY TREATED
3 SHIFT S

40

0 30
0
U
25

20

IS

IU

ti

ti 10 I ;i .'0 :"., 30 45 40 45 ) 55 GO
% NICUTINU. REDUCTION IN NUHI f Y

LG 0391755
ECONOMIC ANALYSI S
CASE II -ALL BURLEY IN La M TREATED
BURLEY INCREASED AT EXPENSE OF BPIGHT S TURKIS H

ALB ., OF 40% NICOTINE SULFATE SOLUTION AS A FUNCTION OF '/. NICOTINE REDUCTION AT VARIOUS PLANT

ANTICIPATED SELLING PRICE OF 40'x. NICOTINE SULFATE SOLUTION (F .O . B . DURHAM)


BASED ON I SHIFT/DAY S 3 YR . AMORTIZATIO N

AREA OF ECONOMICAL OPERATIO N

30 4', 40 45 `+L1 55 G0 bs
°.o NICUT INt . tit OUC t ION IN NUHI FY

LG 0391756
Fig. 20
ECONOMIC ANALYSI S
CASE U: ALL BURLEY IN L a M TREATED
BURLEY INCREASED AT EXPENSE OF BRIGHT & TURKISH
SHOWING PROFIT FROM SALE OF 40% NICOTINE SULFAT E

YEARLY PROFIT, THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS/YR AS A


FUNCTION OF PERCENT NICOTINE REDUCTION AT
VARIOUS PLANT CAPACITIE S
• 1

I
280

260 1

0 24C
U.
220

z 20 C
4
0 1801 a
16 0
I- f
1400 i2C a
i
r x
a IC'O : a

} 80 x

U ,6 x

40
O X A

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 64
10
% NICOTINE REDUCTION IN BURLE Y

LG 0390757
ECONOMIC ANALYSI S
CASE U : ALL BURLEY IN L 8i M TREATED
BURLEY INCREASED AT EXPENSE OF BRIGHT IN TURKISH
SHOWING PROFIT FROM SALE OF 40% NICOTINE SULFAT E

5
YEARLY PROFIT, THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS/YR AS A /287
FUNCTION OF PERCENT NICOTINE REDUCTION A T
- VARIOUS PLANT CAPACITIE S

% NICOTINE REDUCTION IN BURLEY

LG 0391758
ECONOMIC ANALYSI S
CASE II-A: ALL BURLEY IN L8IM TREATE D

BURLEY INCREASED AT EXPENSE OF BRIGHT a TURKIS H

65 0 x
i CIGARETTE. WEIGHT CONSTAN T

PRODUCT COSTS CORRECTED FOR


625'
EFFECT OF NICOTINE RECOVER Y
PROFITS '

60 0

I
575

24 .2 MILLION LBS/YR . I I
4210 LBS/HR 3 SHIFT S
)40% BURLEY IN CIGARETTE
x Jr
z
2 6
1 .95
' 52 5 1 .90
w

165 x

I .Bo
500 .175
a :tiA :E ; AWEA I, AREA
165
J ~~i UNEf. ;fNiMICA I
SFERAT10'4 FO R
LL 475 ~J .CGT'f'E RECOVERY
0
A
UI R
O 1 .50% NICOTINE IN
z
FINISHED CIGARETTE
450
0
X
I- 28 .75 MILLION LBS/YR 1
425 5000 LBS/HR ) 3 SHIFTS
1476 % BURLEY IN CIGARETTEI
0
:7

3 400
z
z L. ..J- - i___ . .
4

375 l 1 .30% NICOTINE IN


,'FINISHED CIGARETTE
-i A , -F', .•EA IS ARF A
(,F UF4F.(• r,MICAL
) . RA(iCN FOR
N,CCTIRE RECOVER Y

U)
a
2 FINISHF ❑ CIGARETTE l
450 K
to
0
Z 128 .75 MILLION LBS/YR
{ 5000 LBS/HR t ? SHIFTS
F 425 (
1476% BURLEY IN CIGARETTE !

165 +
I, 0+I
6 L LION
5'YR
L8
~ ,3470 LBS/NR 2 SNIF S
2159°/, BURLEY IN CIGARETTE

7' VII LII LBS/YR

i iti ' 7' 5 :C0 LBS/H 4


' .°o 9JRLEf IN CIGARETTE

275- - . . . . ,

250 ---- _1 .- .--


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8 0

PERCENT NICOTINE REDUCTION IN BURLE Y


I 7966)

it intersects the dashed line labeled 01 .600 . From the bottom ordinate one

finds that this requires a nicotine reduction of about 33% and will cost

the company (left-band ordinate) about 1469,000 annually . Phi, point falls

within the shaded region and therefore nicotine recovery is no considered

economical . One can arrive at the seas final nicotine content in the L and No

however, by increasing the burley content to 31 .1% ; i .e ., the point where the

•1 .80• line intersects the 18 .75 million lb ./yr . burley line . Under these

conditions, 38% reduction in nicotine is required at a cost to the compan y

of about t393,000 per year . This point falls outside the shaded area and

therefore nicotine recovery is economical .

Case 12- B

Al Bur n VW a% M T r a SA
BurlAX ;ncreas*4 at t s of Bright anA
r Tobacco s

Clearettte t rem s Constant


2
In this case, the weight of the L and M is reduced to take advantage
rM
0U
of the increased filling power of the blend as sore burley is used .
z
Cigarette firmness is kept constant .
z
figure 22 is plotted for this case and shows the relationship between

W cost or profit to the company and percent nico tine reduction at various
a
burley contents in the oigarette . Agsin, the dashed lines are lines of

constant nicotine content in the finished cigarette and the shaded boundary

represents the dividing line between economical and uneconomical niootinw

recovery .

For the example considered in the prevl3us case, If all of the burley

in the L and K is treated keeping the percent burley in the L and K constant,
nicotin e
to produce a cigarette containing 1 .80%/will cost the company 1469,000 .

Ir . now, the burley content of the L and M is raised to 31 .1% and the

weight decreased to atve a cigarette of the saes firmness, Figure &I shows

that the company is now operating at a Profit of about 4440,000 annually .

JS'_

LG 0391761
CASE II-B . ALL BURLEY IN L&M TREATE D

COSTS CORRECTED FOR EFFECT OF NICOTINE RECOVERY I


AND FILLING POWER PROFIT S

% BURLEY BURLEY TREATE O


IN .CIGARETTE_ _MILLION ._ LBS/YRj

a
I5S.ADED ARE A
S AREA O F
U%ECONOMICAL
OPERATION O F
MCOTIP E
RECOVER Y
PLAN T
I000
;AERATION OF
J
0 NICOTINE
a RECOVER Y
y i PLAN T
0 1000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
PERCENT NICOTINE REDUCTION IN BURLEY
-134-

Under these conditions, the reduction required is 32% and Figure 20 th e


c .. indicates a profit of about 180,000 annually from the sale of nicotine . the j
sw The profit values abwn in the left-hand ordinate of Figure '2 are already

corrected for the profits from the sale of nicotine sulfate . Withoc.t this

profit, the annual n,t profit to the company would be only ;360,000 .

C . Summary :

Whether the recovery of 40% nicotine sulfate can be recommended or

not depends first of all on the way the reduction plant is operated . From

the data which have been calculated and from the graphs which have been

plotted, it is relatively easy to sake this recommendation once the schedule

of operation of tt,.e reduction plant is decided upon . The profits which

might be derived from the sale of 40% nicotine sulfate, while significant,
in
are too small to be a first consideration in deciding on how the reduction
an
plant should be operated . A solvent extraction nicotine recovery plan t
of
of sufficient size has been designed on paper and equipment orders could .
N Si t
be placed immediately once a decision is made . The plant would cost
Sic
about 1210,000 and would require about one year to put in operation .
pr c
It should be remembered, however, that the market picture is hasy and

a more thorough investidatton should be made . No communications have been pr(

made with Hapublio since last June and no definite sales price for 40%

nicotine sulfate can be established at thepresent time . All that is

definitely known is that the present market price is about 11 .20 per pound .

It is only through Indirect conversation with Republic that the 64illb,

sales price figure was established .

D . Recomasndsttons :

Tn r ;gard to nicotine sulfate recovery, it is recommended that Liggett

and Myers employ a market analyst to tnveattdate the oerrent market

ettuation and probable trend if nicotine recovery appears feasible unde r

LG 0391764
-135-

the reduction plant operating conditions cbsen . If the report is favorable,

there would appear to be several courses open to L and N

(1) A direct contract between L and H and a buyer for the nicotin e
sulfate . The buyer would offer it for resale and L and M would
a share in the net profits . Under these conditions, L and M
would have only one firm to deal with but would probably have t o
agree to furnish a minimum quantity for a specified period of time .

(2) L and M could market it directly . Since we would be producin g


40g sulfate it need only be put in drums and supplied to numerou s
buyers in areas where it would be used . It is our understanding
that most of the U .S . demand Is in this area . Profits to L and M
would no doubt be higher, but a distribution system would have t o
a be set up .

(3) The European market is probably greater than the U .S . market .


Possibly L anc X Could work through its European representative s
j .e and set up distribution centers .

ssngineering Research and Development has gone about as tar as practica l

In this matter . Some one or some group of experienced "oplo should b e


)a
apoointed to make the necessary contacts in an official capacity ; and ,
of course, legal counsel is needed in drawing up any necessary contracts .

Since the amount of 40% nicotine sulfate which L and M could produce might

amount to as such as 400,000-500,000 lbs . annually, these contacts should

probably be msde quietly and unobtrusively since this quantity woul d


nd
probably represent a sizeable percentage of the current market .
on

ind

get t

LG 0391765
0
0

- 136 -

I
!, IV . STATUS OF OTHER PROJECTS

A . quality Control Instrumenta l

1 . Measurement of Filling Powe r 0


The Imperial Tobacco Co . :.f Canada has developed a method for
0.
measurement of filling power by means of a .entrifuga . This method 1a

being tested and . If successful, filling power measurements can be made on

small samples of tobacco without the necessity for making sample cigarettes .

Initial results loo: encouraging .

2 . Soft spot Measuring Devic e

At the request of the Richmond factory, a soft spot detector was 0

-81 built for them and shipped in October .

J . Automatic Cigarette Sorte r

A number of improvements have been made in the devica for automatically

separating cigarettes into narrow weight groups . Operation is still

unsatisfactory, however, and work is continuing .

4 . Burn-Spot Measuring Devic e

Improvements .eve been made in the burn- .spot measuring device such

as automatically blowing away accumulated ash . An improved model is

being constructed ..

5 . Softening of %;Igarettea During Burning

It has been noticed that the Land K seems to soften considerably

during burning . This is no doubt due to the release of water vapor and

reabsorption of the water in that portion of the ci,aretto back of the cone

The magnitude of this effeot is probably a function of blend composition

and tobacco type . A device for measurtrg this effect has been constructed,

and this effect will be studied .

LG 0391766
- 137 -

B . CTS Manufacturing Process :

1 . Reduction In CTS Sheet Thicknes s of


As reported In the last management report (June, 1960), an appreciable p
0 reduction in burn spots from drop-oft' ash in the L and M resulted whe n hi
the CT3 sheet thickness was reduced to 0 .10 mm (free 0 .14 mm) . Because of

the necessity for reducing plant capacity to attain this thin sheet, it at

was not possible at that time to go to the recommended thinness . The sheet

has been maintained at • thickness of 0 .12 mm . Th)e has resulted in a w


signifloant drop in number of burn spate in the L and X . but there 1a still
D
room for improvement . Now that the 6th line of the CTS plant has Seen
0 completed, the sheet will be thinned to 0 .10 am as recommended .

2 . Control of CT3 Sheet Thicknes s


V
Permission has been obtained for the Industrial Nucleonics i)orporstlon

to study our process with a view toward controlling CT3 sheet thicknes s

by means of the beta-gauge . Engineering Research and Development and Plant

Engineering will work with Industrial Nuoleonloa on this problem . F

3 . bydrozyethyl Amylose as a Binde r

The first 19 claims of the patent application hkvo been allowed by

the patent office . The process claims were rejected . The term for L

responding to the patent office action expires on Feb . 23, 198) . A draft
0 amendment will probably be prep. red by Cenyon and Kenyon in January .

4 . AMF Interfnrenca Jut t

A final hearing before the Board of Patent examiners on the second

AMF interference suit took place on Nov 7, 1960 . Mr . Kenyon feels that

a deotaton will probably not be handed down until January or February

of next year .

e "Pilot* Cigarette Factor y

All of the major eyuipmennL for the p'.1,1t. ai,;aretLe fa .:Lory taua been

received fhls ey,ttpment tnuludeu dryer, mixing cylinder, :aster cylinder ,

LG 0391767
11

- 138-

cooling cylinder, and a,ttometic weigh belt . This equipment has been
F . Fu
placed in the dngineering pilot plant area : . . . .t connecting conveyor belts

have been installed . Additional equipment has been obtained from the

cigarette factory and includes a cutter, packaging machine, cigarette


cells
maker, and two wrapping machines .
varl
It is estimated that it will be sometime in March before ■ 11 of the
Soho
wiring and piping is completed and the plant is ready for cperation .
for

D . Drying Studley ,

Installation of the C . G . Sargent laboratory tray dryer in the pilot


13
plant area is complete and auxiliary equipment has been installed for pree

drying rate studies . The tray dryer will also be used to study the effect wor k

of drying temperature, time, and humidity on the filling power of eased


G. i
tobacco .

E . Filling ?ewer :

1 . Casirg Sprayed on Burley sor,

Studies are continuing on th ;i effect on filling power of separately bu r

casing the burley by spraying on the casing material . This work is still

incomplete and inconsistent results are still being obtained . This work

is being tied in with drying atudles as It is felt that the dryin g coo

conditions may very well be responsible for the inconsistent results

obtained . It has been established that prizing density to also a factor

causing variation in the filling power of cased and dried burley .

2 . Utppe4 burley

,rho Engineering Research and Development Division has worked with the

factory and with Mr . Kersey on the dipping of burley to casing solution .

rriue for no increase in filling power has been obtained by dipping the

hurtmy . It to felt that in t.hte case also, the maiuter of drying the burley

in prnbably a critical factor 'hie project will be tied In with drying

etudtev-

LG 0391768
F . Fundamental Enzinserinc Research Studios ;

1 . Cellulose Characteristic* of Tobacc o

The study of the cellulose content and degree of polymerisa ;ton of

cellulose in tobaccos is continuing and Las been extended to cover grades,

varieties, and species . Interest in this work has been expreseel by the
School of Agriculture at N . C . State College and samples are being tested

for Dr . Arthur relmen and Dr . J . A . Weybrew .


2 . Pressure Drop Through Packed Tobacco Beds

Fundamental studies are being made on the variables deternlning the

pressure drop through packed tobacco bads and through cigarettes . This

work will be valuable in dryer stuc'es .

0 . Kisosllanepu66

1 . Cut Burley Stem s

A number of tests have been run for the factory on tumble loss,

screen analyses, filling power, and burn spots for blends containing out

burley stems .
2 . Competitive Nr ► nd s

Testa are n-3w in progress to compare Liggett and Myers pr .duets with

competitive brands It has been over a year since this was do:ie .

LG 0391769
0

AC

0 - 140 -
THs INSECTICIDAL FOGGING PHOGRAK

Liver
The fogging operations are continuing in the manner as previously loo
1. OOC_
reported at our last conference .
Insect trap count reoorde sad cost or fod,ying are shown in the

following tabulation : of t b

ar Total Count from 21 Standard Pest Trap s house


same traps each year)' Cost of fog.cing

1950 3,558,510 (All houses open )


1951 26,609,894 shoul
1952 29,116,632
1963 39 .231,9?1
1954 12,270,67 2
1955 10,134,630 $234,000 (rigid program) story
1956 4,060,487 100,224 (1st flexible

1557 11,269,892 116,000 program)


196 ; 671 .581 30,116 and a
1959 9,574,930 89,000
1960 7,905,288 96 .944 1961 .

'One trap o'••-nged to a comparable house in 1958 .


The yearly costs will vary with the season . An intensely cold winter

such as 19V7-1958 will be reflected by lowered cost . in fa


type
NATUFLAL REFRIG RATION F'Oii INSMT CONTROL
store
Trap count records on various test houses indicate that fan
whiot
cooled houses continue to have the lowest tobacco beetle population . The
1.Z%,
counts in fan cooled houses are compared to those in fogged houses as well as
be re
those in njn-loaded and non-cooled houses for the 1960 season .

Fan Equipped Houses (No Fogging )

Andrews An~rews . Livengood Livengood Andrews Average


5 1W 9 9
22,12?
1~ -4-1
08; -308 -3-42
.696 .26 w9,9.39 bc2l,403
board

FoA Treated House s

Anddrrews Andrews Andrews White Cole Average on a l


-1 97 56 11 0
533,960 8680,560 587 .08 R27,486 ,9 6, 68 0 1,-& J,98 5

wit h

11
0

LG 0391770
A;
- 141 -

Iq Uo - No Fan House s
Livengood Andrews Andrews Andrews Cole Average
109 83 79 84 11 1
, 01 09,7 1,1 51,575 1,9 00 , 923,700 15,71 5500 4 f

The trap catch average in the fan cooled houses was about 24%
f
of that in the fog treated houses and about 5 .6% of that in the untreated
f
houses .

Fans are now being installed in all sections of Briggs storage and
f
should be operational by mid.-December .
p
0 Installation of fans has recently been completed in all twelve one-
n
a) story sheds in the downtown area .

a) Installation of fans in Farley, Carmichael, Bullindton, Watts, luille,

and Smith storages has been started and will probably be completed by March 1, a

1961 . ■

E" 9-r Construction Studle4 in Van Cooled House s a

Studies begun in February 1958 are continuing on seven types of floors f


U

in Can cooled houses . The object of these studies is to determine the beat

type of floor construction with respect to the keeping quality of tobacco

stored at floor level . A good floor is generally considered to be one on


0
which the moisture content of tobacco will not reach the critical value of

13%. Tobacco used in these studies is from the 1957 crop . The tobacco will

be removed and examined in February 1961 .

The types of floors are as follows :

1 . 69 concrete with asphalt-felt vapor barrier over clay . t

2 . 5! concrete with asphalt-felt vapor barrier over clay with 39

board overlay on concrete .

3 . 50 concrete with asphalt-felt vapor barrier over 60 of cinders

on clay .

35 4 . 60 re-inforced concrete floor suspended over a 3-too% air space

with controlled ventilation underend above floor . v

LG 0391771
M
- 142 -
5 . 38 board floor suspended over 3-foot air space with controlled

forced ventilation under and above floor .

6 . 36 board floor suspended over a 3-foot air space with controlled


:4 %
forced ventilation above the floor and a tightly underpinned area under the
tte d
floor providing for no natural or torced ventilation underneath .

7 . S• board floor suspended over a 3-foot air space with controlled


Id
forced ventilation above the floor and an underpinned area with numerous

permanent openings in thn underpinning walls below the floor providing for
1e-
natural free flow of air at all times below the floor .

Mlle . In August 1958, boxes of tobacco were placed on the above test floors

March 1 , and moisture readinde were taken monthly to determine thefluotuations from

month to month . This method of moisture determination was selected after

expa.iencing difficulty in making determinations on hogsheads stored on the

floors . The variations in moisture are shown in the table below .

Studies have indicated that floors may readily be compared by observing

their peak moistures in August or September . The graph shows the peak mois-
M
tures obtained on all floors . In addition, the complete moisture curve for

the board floor in A-103 is shown . This floor had controlled ventilation

above and below the floor . The suspended concrete floor in the same house

showed moisture variations not significantly different from the board floor .

The suspended concrete floor had controlled ventilation above and below

the floor also .


These studies so far have shown that :

(1) The floors with controlled ventilation above and below are the best from

re moisture control viewpoint .


(2) A concrete slab over clay with no polyethylene vapor barrier 1s the worst ..

+c e (3) A board floor with no ventilation underneath and a board floor with

ventilation under it at all times gave about the some results . The peak

moistures of both of these went above the critical 13% .

LG 0391772
- 143 -
)ple d (4) The concrete floor with 60 of cinders underneath compared fairly closely

with the concrete floor with the 3" board overlay . The insulation quality
:rolle d of these floors produced a lower peak moisture than those shown above them
ender the
on the graph . However, the cinder concrete floor reached 13% on on e

occasion .
:rolled

serous

ling for

floors

ans from

i after

er on the

observing

peak mots-

rve for

elation

as house
and floor .

low

best from

e the worst .

wit h

a peak

LG 0391773
144

NOI RM TQBACCO-ON FLOOR S

Type of Floor % Moisture


Initial
Date 8-14-58 9-18.68 12-16-68 11-11-58 12-15-5 1-16-69 2-11-69

Board, open underneath 10.6? 11 .16 11 .79 12 .01 11 .29 11 .24 11 .6 0


With fans a boy
Eoard, closed"underneath 10 .26 11 .11 1.1 . 65 12 .16 11 . E 11 .7 8
L fans abov e
board, fans underneath 10 .45 11 .19 11 .29 11 .40
.pd taps abov e
i
Fuepended oncrete, fans 10 .61 11 . 28
12 .4 1292. 11 .88-92
11 . 2,
dern•ath en3 lane e ve .61 11 _
Concret' slab with 10 .28 11 .32 12 .24 11 .35 11 .7
b 2nd•reasl
ioard J,g1d on concrete sla -104c 11 4, 11 .79 188 11 71 11 .57 _
Concrete Blab on clay 10 .77 11 .68 12 .71_ 12 .7 11 .71 12 .5312 .40

1:.MOISTUHE INTOBA000 ON TEST FLOORS (Continued)


TYaeof Floor Moistur e
Date 3-20-59 4-9-59 5-7-59 6-10-59 7-1-5 9 8-6-59 9-17-6 9
Board, open underneath 11 .00 11 .16 11 .08 11 .41 11 .21 12 .51 13 .61
11th foie -
-above-board
. closed underneath 11 .63 11 .36 11 . 1. 11 .97 -13 .93 13,69
with fang abov e
Board, fans underneath 11 .85 11 .22 10.73 10 .36 9 .90 11 .19 11
and a above _
Suspended concrete, fans 12 .16 12 .02 10 .89 0. ~ 10
0 .47
.4 11 . 11 .1
underneath and fans above ,•
Concrete Blab with 1 .30 10 .81 11 .01 11 4 12 .4 12 .64
a-Infitra mn4er sla
b laid on concrete slab 10 10, 7
Concrete _1ab ono as 1 12 .E
- 146 -
MOj B, IN TOBCQ_0N1 TEST FLOORS (Continued )

% Moistur0
1x21-a 9 11 -24-69 12-22-59 1-26-60 2-22-60 _ 3-22-60

board, ope- : : :erneath 12 .00 10 .97 10 .22 9 .97 10 .44 10 .81 10.48
11th fens a-c r
board, o1osr: underneath 12 .00 10.62 10 .38 10.38 10 .19 10 .02 9 .90
slth fans alzose
board, fans . . rneath U . 05 9 .98 9 .78 10, 9 .98 10 .33 7
e d fa a a:re .
Suspended , :r•te, fans- 11 .05 0 .78 9 .97 .1 10 .11
underneath s•:'fane abov e
Loncretp e1& . w :t5 11 .73 10 .08 9 .75 10 .19 0 9 .83 1033'
sipdere u •r sla b
F-o-ird lad •e-ner .te slab 10, S .4 9 .178 58 10 .08
Cometo s : _n cla!r 12 .20 10 .97 10 .6 10 .72 10.38 11
.01 9 .90

% MOISTURE IN TOBACCO ON TEST FLOORS (Continued )

---Type of ^ :r % Moistur e

5-19-60 6-21-80 7-20-60 8-23 .60 9-22-60 10-20-6 0


board, open -- :erneath 10 .04 11 .02 11 .43 13 .35 12 .06 11 .39
vlt face
board, clcs!_ underneath 10 .31 -10,91- 11 .24 13 .31 12 .0.3 10 .75
with fare atcr r
board, tars : :ierneath 9 .79 10 .31 19 .10 10 .81 10,18
and fan.- at
-r-Suspended c :- :re :e, fans 10.00 10 .23 10 .91 11 .79 10 .34 9 .97
underneath =: fans above
Concrete s1 . : with 10.31 11 .39 10.80 3.3 .01 11 .39 10 .41
c1ndere unlrr e1ah_
board isle :r. lab 9 .68 1`0 .69 10 .40 ~ i 38 11 1 10 .30
sonoret• e :0- : or. clay 10 .59 _,3jL 1 --11 . 13 .70 t ,57 11 .88
In

sanufac

sold da

dietrit

record
Uu

roof Is

where n
Or

water f

Du

large in

oinderi

and hoF.

LG 0391776
- 146 -

THE MOLD PROBLEM

Introduction

In the spring of 1959 bright tobaccos brought from the storages for

manufacturing purposes were found in a number of cases to have excessive

mold damage . Records wiro kept, starting on May 21, 1959, shoving the

distribution by types, grades, and crops of damaged tobacco along with a

record of storages from which damaged tobacco was obtained .

during 1969 a careful inspection of all storage houses was made . All I

roof leaks were repaired and gutters and drains were checked and repaired

where necessary .

Grading was found necessary around a number of houses to keep surface m


11
water from entering . 1

U Dunnage was found to be completely rotted or eaten by termites in a

large number of houses . In many cases hogsheads were actually resting on

cinders . In other cases, there was very little air space between cinders

and hogsheads . This dunnage is now in the process of being replaced .

Assessing dome-go

The overall damage was not as serious as had at first been thought .

Last October a report was made for the period May 21, 1969 through

September 30, 1969 as follows . I

TABL A a

Overall Damage, bright Tobacc o


W May 21, 1959 t :+c3ugh September 30, 1.959
0
Total weight al to aces Total weight o f
removed from houses damaged tobacco removed % damaged
from hogsheads tobacc o

20,778,700 335,853 1 .6 1

A comparison of Table A with Table 8 Indicates that preventive measures

are taking effect with resulting lowering of damage losses . Table o covers

the period May 21, 1960 through September 30, 1960,

LG 0391777
- 147 -

TABS U

Otarall Darr ge, Bright Tobacc o


lay 21, 1960 through September ,0 . 1960
s• for
Total weight all tobacco 1Total weight of
3cive removed from houses damaged tobacco removed damaged
from hogaheade tobrco o
:he
29,298,100 226,910 1 .0 1
ith a
The drop in loan rate as shown in Table B represents a savings of about

a . All 112,000 pounds of tobacco for the periad . May 21, 1960 through 3eptemoer 30,

,aire d 1960 .

The data of Tables A and 2 are for two comparable periods of about four

surfac e months . In Table C is given the loss percentage data for the period May 21,
11
1959 through September 3C, 1960 or about 16 months .

in a TABL 0

ing on Overall Damage, Bright Tobacc o


May 21, 19b9 through September 30, 1980
trader s
Total weight all tobacco Total weight o f
removed from houses damaged tobacco removed damaged
from ho sheads tobacc o

74,231,300 1,037,372 1 .39


ught,

oudh A study of the three Tables A, 8, and U indicates a continual decrease

in storage damage . It to believed that this rate may be dropped to

aporoximately 0 .81 by May 21, 1961 .

In Table U, are ohown the loeees in bright tobacco by crop year for

the 16 months pertod M,.y 21, 1959 throul;h September 30, 1960 .

measure s

u covers

11

LG 0391778
- 148 -

TAi)LS L

Damage ce Percent or Total Damage jjX Crop Years

May 21, 1959 through September 30, 1960

v:eigFt of [obaeco Percent of Tota


l
Crop Damaged Damaged _

37,135 3 .57
291, 425 28 .09
468,509 45 .16
224,553 21-,6 4
8,884 0 .85
6 866 0 .66
1 037 372--

In Tables E, F, 0, :i, J, and K are shown breakdowns by grade and

type for the 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1 :+67 and 1958 crops .

TABLE E

Crop Damage Analysis . 1J Grades, In pounds - 1953 crop

May 21, 1959 through September 30, 196 0

Type D 3!!BMP,SM2 3P,3PP,8P a CI,C,F .Etc . Totals

as . 45 22 4 164 2 17 0 75 2156
1997 1837 403 8 106 164 6142
9921 4345 156 25 59 14506
Du r 0 0 60 0 30 90
D•W 736 35 6518 20 _ 7932 14241
Totals 126 [i441 -7i-414 9 321 X60 3713 5

TABLE 6

Crop Damage Analysts, EU Grades, In Founds - 1954 Cry

May 21, 1959 through -jeptember 3U ; 196 0

type D N 3M,3MP .,3Ma SP, 3P_P,SI;Y tip,C M . EtcTotals

.a . 3536 9896 7452 3118 0 24002


3C 5813 4794 1 :'.5.19 980 2642 20768
Ei4C 16630 30556 41352 44730 72829 206097
Dur 4708 10167 1631 1646 1506 19723
D 4 W 5091 2041 ._- 5438 24,0 2005 1483 5

LG 0391779
- 149 -

TAFLF: G

Crop DamnK .! lnRlycle, EX 'rnree_, In pounds - 1955 crop

May 21, 1959 through September 30 196 0

T. D N : :N .!;MPSM, Sr j ? 5P2 C, .C2F .Etc . T5ta1 a

on . 0 0 40? 8 311 1 603 9 1324 8


50 0 473 8 18C 7 562 4 12169
EN C '16 60 30 863 0 51971 60^6'F
Dur 0 200 2210 7 5964 6 57229 139182
W 0 Aj7 2 ?6 .8 __33770 1745?2 24314 3
TOTAL876 8433 7601 106964 295435 468509

fABLF H

ro Daman McJ .19J1 . Y Grades . In Pal - 19


. E
May 21, 1959 through September 30, 198 0

Tyr, D N SM,3XP .SM. 5P .SPPSP, C . ,, C .F .Etc . Total ■

0* . 0 1727 1598 2911 34328 406 6 4


3C 0 3084 3329 6698 27461 405 72
F7IC 0 2179 8536 13387 30604 54706
I .Ir 0 1695 4681 6441 8868 2168 5
D•W 0 3 51 0 1747 5759 56 67 8
JOTALS 0 -1'Ej
-95 198 33196 157271-i S

LG 0391780
- 1CO -

I L'Li. J

grQn ama Ann eie,


_11 Grd~, 1n pounds - 1957 oroc
_ _2

. 1959 through
1May2 September 30, 190 0

11Dt D 1L .
Ga . 0 O 0 28,3 0 2613
Sc 0 332 39? 2003 sv 2826
ENC 0 166 0 125 1140 1431
Dur 0 44U 0 0 '309 74 9
D- V 0 0 0 0 1266 1286_
~iCala 0 938 9-7 711 2608 8W4

TA9a.E K

Crop Damage Analy@14, DZ Grades, In PoUnds - 1958 oroc

May 21, 1959 thrtatzh September 30, 1960

75 .1 1145 375 1
878 427 188 7
199 388 628
0 62 9U
0 70 n
50 22092 SINE

LG 039178 1
- 151 -
Warehouse procedure s

In September of 1959, a system of moisture spot hicks on tobacco was


bein g
begun and is still continuing . This method has enabled us to find damaged

tobacco and get it out of storage for manufacture . More Important, this
North
systom has spotted tobacco likely to go bad and has permitted us to either

use the tobacco or make provisions to prevent spoilage . Since the spot

check system was begun, nearly 4000 hogsheads have been sampled .
1963 ,
All bright tobaccos of the 1954 through 1957 crops have been reversed

L2 in storage and polyethylene file has been placed under the hogsheads to
row .
prevent moisture from the floors from reaching the tobacco . All 1953
the f
crop tobaccos have been used in manufacture .

Tobaccos of the 1958 crop are now in the process of being reversed

because spot checks show danger of spoilage of much of this in storage .

Polyethylene film is being placed under this tobacco .

Spot checkshsve shown dangerous moisture contents in 1956 crop Durham 1


and D and W types of totaocos in the C5F grades . These tobaccos are being

run through our Ouardite equipment to reduce moisture . This method was

chosen in lieu -drying to prevent breakage and excessive handling .

All new tobao, s going into our storages are now being placed over

polyethylene film .
etfec
MOISTURE VARIATIONS IN STOHAO 6 the t
To date, our storage moisture investi6ations have, or necessity, been

somewhat of an emergency nature . The main objective of these tests has been

to save tobacco from damaging . Observations during the past eighteen this
months have suggested a number of factors which may influence the moisture was
contents of a given crop of tobaooc . These factors are ; were
I
L
1 Wet or dry growing season and r
2 Mild or severe win%er s
3 wet or dry fall or spring The i
4 Ads of tobacco in storage
5 Type of tobacc o
6 Grade of tobacc o
7 Moisture content from dryer
11

LG 0391782
- 152 -
To determine the influence of these factors, the following plan is no w

being followed .
I
1 . Bright tobacco of five types, Georgia, South Carolina, "stern

North Carolina, Middle Belt and Old Belt, all of Ca grade, will be studied .

2 . Six rows of each type will be used .

3 . Five crop years will be studied as follows : 1960, 1961, 1962,


0
1963, 1964 .

4 . Each month, a moisture sample will be taken from each tier of each

row . This is a total of 18 samples per type or a total of 90 samples for

the five types .

5 . Storage temperature and humidity records will be kept .

6 . Weather data will be kept for correlation purposes .

The data obtained will be utilised as follows :

1 . Moisture curves for each type of tobacco will be plotted .

2 . Moisture variation by tier will be shown by graph .

3 . Composite crop curves will be plotted.

VAPOR BAWI STUDIES

Certain studies were begun in the fall of 1959 to determine the

effectiveness of a vapor barrier in protecting tobacco from moisture from

the floor of a warehouse .


Project

Two sections in Briggs storage, located side by side, were chosen fo r

this study . These sections are 72 and 73 . In section 72, polyethylene film
was placed over the entire floor as a vapor barrier . In section 73 no changes

were made .. Tobaccos of the 1959 crop were placed in both of these sections
and moisture tests have been made monthly since the tobacco was store d

The moisture readings are as follows ;

LG 0391783
L)

0
w
to
Y

- 153 -

With Film Without Film


2S11. Briggs 72 Briggs 73
11-59 9 .12 9 .11
12-59 9 .55 9 .26
1-60 9 .16 9 .15
2-60 9 .13 9 .76
3-60 9 .55 10 .06
4-60 9 .68 10 .66
5-80 10.21 9 .86
6-60 10 .15 9 .83
7-60 10 .48 10 .93
8-60 11 .42 11 .86
9-80 9 .96 11 .90
10-60 9 .67 11 .46
11-60 9 .99 10 .93

The data is plotted and shown as the curves for Project One . Xote

that the tobacco in section 73 gained more moisture than that in section

72 . Also the moisture loss rate is such slower . The tobacco in section 79
I
is about li higher than the original moisture content when stored . The

tobacco in 73 is about 1 3/4% higher than when stored .

Project i
A house located in town was chosen for a test . This house is located

in a group north of Lamond Avenue and is known as Garrard number 40. This

house is high above ground level and is general lya *goods house . It is

ventilated by roof fans . In this test, two types of concrete are used with

polyethylene film underneath as a vapor barrier . On the left half of the


♦.

building, two floors were placed, one on top of the other . The first or

lower floor Is .& concrete containing vermiculite which has very high

insulating value . The second is Solite concrete which also has good

insulating value, but has high strength . The vermiculite concrete would

be too soft as a surface .

The right hand site of the house contains a 100% Solite concrete floor .

Both the right and left hand floors were poured over polyethylene film .

1959 crop tobacco was stored on both sides of the house and moisture samples

have been taken every month . All tobacco is stored on 20 x 60 dunnage

strips laid over concrete . The data are as follows :

LG 0391785
LG 0391786
- 154 -

Left side Right side


0 Dets double floor singis floor

11-69 9 .36% 8.98%


12-59 9 .19 9 .13
1-60 9 .55 9 .53
2-60 9 .38 8 .86
3-60 9 .63 9 .2 0
4-60 9 .65 9 .97
5-60 9 .91 9 .91
6-60 10 .34 10 .1 2
7-60 10 .37 10 .3 6
8-60 10 .73 10 .83
9-60 9 .31 9 .0 1
10-80 8 .98 9 .37
11-60 8.87 9 .09

The data are plotted in the graph for Protect 2 .

Up to the present . there has been no significant differences among


the moisture contents of the tobaccos stored on the two sides of the house .

Of great interest . however . Is the fact that the tobacco returned to its
original moisture content in October . Also, the maximum moisture reached

vas only 10.83% which is well under the critical condition required for

the development of sold .

Project 3
Polyethylene film was placed over the earth floor on the right bond

side of Andrews 103 and over the top of the concrete floor on the left hand

side of Andrews 102 . Both of these floors were previously classified as

'beds because tobacco stored on them took up excessive moisture . both of

these storage houses have fans in the roofs . Monthly moisture tests have

been made on these tobaccos . Data on moisture contents are as follows :

LG 0391787
LG 0391788
- 155 -

Polyethylen e Polyethylen e
over concrete over eart h
Date A-102_ A-102

11-510 8 .23 8 .7 2
12-59 8 .77 8 .83
1-60 8 .77 9 .06
2-60 9 .67 9 .3 0
3-60 9 .29 9 .55
4-60 9 .60 9 .24
5-60 9 .84 10 .03
8-60 9 .95 10 .4 3
7-60 10 .19 10 .54
8-60 11 .01 11 .1 9
9-60 9 .M 9 .26
10-80 9 .93 9 .19
11-60 9 .84 8 .8 1

Theme data arc plotted in the graph for Project Three . There is very

little difference to be found in moisture values on these two floors prior

to September 1960 . The tobacco stored on the polyethylene-over-earth floor


lost moisture between September and November in an amount sufficient to

return to the original dryer moisture . The tobacco stored on the polyethylene

over-concrete failed to loose as such moisture and in November was ove r

1 1/2% higher in moisture than when stored . The reason for this difference

in the two floors is that there is no dunnage on the concrete floor and air

cannot circulate under the hogsheads . On the earth floor, there is a 1 foot

air space under the dunnage allowing for good air circulation .

NEW VAPOR BARRISH PROJEC T

A considerable amount of storage damage h ..s been experienced wit h

bright tobaccos stored in first floor sections of Briggs storage . Section 68

N has been quite bad from this viewpoint . In view of the apparent succes s

with the special concrete . polyethylene sealed, floors in Garrard 40, it

was decided to pour these same special floors downstairs In Briggs 68 .

One half of the floor has been completed and the other half is planned soon-

Tobaccos of the 1960 crop will be stored or. the floors and monthly moisture

checks will be made . Fans were installed in section 68 this past November .

LG 0391789
rM

- 156 -

COOPERATIVE PROJECTS WITH STO11D TOBACCO INSECTS LAHO :ATORY OF THE UNITSD
STATES kEPAaiTT ILL u-

1 . A study was undertaken to determine the time of day of emergence of the

tocacco moth from artificially infested tobacco . . It was found that the

period of heaviest emergence occurs approximately between 4 p .m . and


a
8 p .m . There l1Jsnmewhat lighter period in mid-afternoon between about

2 and 4 p .m .

2, Investigations were undertaken to determine the relative attraction of

the oigarette beetle to incandescent light and varying intensities of

black light . It was fount that black light attracts two and one-half
.,
very to three times as many beetles as incandescent light . Attraction to
•a prior black 113ht chances very little with increase in intensity for the ranges
•th floor studied . The percentage of females oolleoted in black light traps
it, to decreases slightly with an increase in intensity . The percentages of
Mlyethylene- females collected by incandescent traps was less than with black light
ove r traps .
fferenoe
3 . An investigation of the relative attraction of the cigarette beetle to
and air infra-red and incandescent light traps was made . It was found that
a 1 foot infra-red light attracts about one-third as many beetles as does

incandescent light .

4 . A study was undertaken to determine the percentage of emergence of the

4th ot . ;arette beetle from hogsheads of flue cured tobacco and the

percentage of beetles remaining in the tobacco . Tobacco was isolated


Section 68
and artificially infested in the spring .
cres s
It was calculated from the number of living adult beetles found in
0, 1 t
samples that approximately 57 .2% of the adult beetles of the second
88 .
summer brood emerged from the tobacco, and approximately 42 .8% of the
ned soon .
beetles remained in the tobacco . It was found that 8% of the infestation
moisture

ovember . in the hogsheads was located in the first inch . with very little found

beyond the first inch and none beyond the third inch . It is expected tha t

LG 0391790
0

- 167 -

the infestation might increase below the first Inch in 1961 in these
UK 2T =
test hogsheads .

3e of the

that the

a . and

ien Abou t

:Sion of

:let of
s. -half

.on t o

the ranges

.ape

a of

tie to

hat

oond

o& the

infestation

e found

,eotnd that

LG 0391791