This module provides very useful information - mostly obtained from Tobacco Company Documents and not known by the majority of people - that is needed to develop a fundamental understanding of the Effects of Menthol on Tobacco Smoking.
In this module:
Applying Menthol to
Tobacco
Amounts of Menthol in
Cigarettes
Cool
Sensation Concentration Dependent
Menthol and Nicotine
"Impact" Studies
Some Other Interesting
Mentholated Cigarettes
As we have learned (in the module on Menthol Chemistry and Many Uses) menthol can almost completely vaporize at room temperature. This volatility of menthol creates a major production problem in controlling the amount of this substance added to cigarettes. Liggett and Myers had a brand of cigarettes called "10 by 10" - the pack had half menthol and half non-menthol in the same package. The arrangement didn't work - the menthol moved or equilibrated making all the cigarettes taste the same (Philip Morris (PM) document #2055557893).
Spud Hughes, the gentleman that discovered menthol cigarettes initially had contracted with Bloch Brothers Tobacco Co. (of Mail Pouch chewing tobacco fame) to make Spud Menthol Cigarettes for him. Once a week Lloyd Hughes would visit the factory to blend the menthol with the tobacco. Axton Fisher Tobacco Co. (Louisville, KY) bought the recipe from Spud (1926) and they applied the menthol directly to the tobacco using jet spray and re-spray of the whirling mixture, saturating it evenly. By the way they claimed that the machine operator applying the menthol hadn't had a cold since first being exposed to menthol. Some tobacco companies such as Brown and Williamson (B&W) on at least two occasions did measure the factory air for levels of menthol just in case any toxic effects would be reported (B&W document #570313008).
Menthol has been applied to tobacco in three different ways: it can be added directly to the tobacco in a solution of alcohol, introduced into the cigarette filter or applied to the paper side of the cigarette pack foil. Gallaher Corporation (1998), Britain's hleading tobacco company, applies menthol to their five mentholated cigarettes by placing it onto the foil backing in which cigarette packets were wrapped. It is their hope that the menthol will vaporize and eventually permeate the cigarettes (//www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhealth/27/0011320.htm).
On July 11, 1963 Philip Morris filed a for a patent on a cigarette filter which could incorporate a stable flavorant (such as menthol) which was released by displacement as the attached filler rod (the tobacco portion) is smoked. The menthol was part of a complex of a cyclodextrin or a tri-o-thymotide complex (PM document #1000307881). Riehl et al. (1972) have shown that cigarettes initially containing menthol on the filter do not distribute the menthol between the filter and tobacco rod in the same proportions as cigarettes which have all their menthol initially placed on the tobacco. (Tilford F Riehl became the Vice President for Research & Development at Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co. - his famous comment: "we blend for taste not nicotine".) At least one non-tobacco company Baumgartner Papiers SA marketed a mentholated cavity filter. To learn more about the promotion of this filter - Baumgartner Cavity Filter.
A Philip Morris (PM) study (February 19, 1985) determined consumer acceptability of Benson and Hedges 100mm cigarettes (menthol on foil) relative to Benson and Hedges cigarettes (menthol on filter/filler). There were several benefits associated with the menthol on foil application method: 1) it was possible to make smaller production runs which would eliminate putting the menthol cigarettes in cold storage 2) the was minimal cleanup (changeover from mentholated filler to standard filler) and 3) there was also a belief that higher levels of menthol on ultra low tar products could be obtained. Because of the large amount of variation in the results, the menthol on foil was not be recommended as comparable method to apply menthol to filler/filter (PM document #2051990760_0771). In another PM study (March 17, 1977; document #2058005852) it was concluded if the menthol was placed on the foil, a minimum of two to three weeks would be required before shipping to allow the menthol to distribute itself throughout the packages.
Approximately 90% of all cigarettes contain a very small amount of menthol. Mentholated cigarettes contain from 0.3% to 0.7% of the tobacco weight in menthol; a heavily mentholated cigarette would have around 1% menthol (JR Reid, 47th Tobacco Chemist's Research Conference). (So if had 100mg of tobacco the range of menthol content would be 0.3 to 07 mg; for the very high menthol around 1mg.) The values reported for total menthol in a cigarette may not be entirely correct if you include the menthol that may be added to the filter and the packaging foil. For example, this analytical summary for Viginia Slims Lights Menthol 100 (March 5, 1986) menthol, mg/cigarette, smoke 0.60, filler (contents of rod) 3.16 and filter 1.26 (PM document #2040064126_4130).
| Brand | Puff Count | Menthol Micrograms/puff | Smoke Menthol (mg) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kool 85 | 7.4 | 60 | .44 |
| Salem 85 | 7.9 | 73 | .58 |
| Newport 85 | 8.0 | 57 | .46 |
| Salem Lights 100 | 9.4 | 48 | .45 |
| B and H 100 | 10.4 | 65 | .68 |
| Virginia Slims Lights 100 | 9.6 | 65 | .62 |
| B and H Lights 100 | 10.5 | 64 | .67 |
| Marlboro 85 | 9.0 | 68 | .61 |
Perfetti and Gordin (1985) provided information on smoke menthol (mg) and percent pack menthol for three 'tar' categories. The average smoke menthol delivery for full favored menthol (FF-M) was 0.54 +/- 0.05, full favored low tar menthol (FFLT-M) 0.52 +/- 0.09 and for ultra low tart menthol (ULT-M) 0.30 +/- 0.09 (average results on 25 brands). The average applied menthol (percent pack menthol) for each tar category was 0.39 +/- 0.05 for FF-M, 0.67 +/- 0.12 for FFLT-M and 0.94 +/- 0.21 for ULT-M products. {Percent pack menthol is defined as the mg of menthol that is extracted from a cigarette divided by the total weight in mg of tobacco contained in the cigarette multiplied by 100. This assumes that the menthol contained in a cigarette was initially placed on the tobacco. Additionally, it was assumed that all cigarettes within a pack had the same load of menthol.}
A Pierre Lorillard study (document #81361070_1088, September 19, 1973) looked at the menthol, nicotine and dry tar content on a puff by puff basis for Kool, Newport, Bel Air, Benson & Hedges 100 and Salem. Smoke machines smoked five cigarettes per brand at approximately eight puffs per cigarette. It was found that the menthol concentration of Kool increased at a rapid rate on the last two puffs while Newport leveled out at the same stage. The other cigarettes tested seemed to also show an increase in menthol on the last few puffs. For all the brands there was a constant increase in nicotine concentration with each puff. It was obvious that Kool had the largest amount of nicotine than Newport and Alpine. (From PM document #2022244800, May 24, 1972 - king size Kool has the highest nicotine delivery of all the king-size cigarettes available today - menthol or non-menthol. The 100mm Kool is not the highest in nicotine delivery but the ratio of nicotine to tar puts it in a tie for the top place.) Brands with more Burley tobacco showed an increased menthol delivery. This occurred because Burley tobacco burns faster so the tobacco rod would deliver more menthol into the smoke. Another factor considered that effects the transfer of menthol to the smoke was the initial amount of menthol placed in the tobacco. A higher level of menthol would cause a higher total delivery of menthol but would not cause the sharp increase of menthol in the last two puffs.
The cool sensation that results from the application of menthol to the skin or mucosal surfaces is apparent when low or threshold concentrations of menthol are used and is related to a direct stimulation of cold receptors. At higher concentration menthol can have both an irritant and local anesthetic actions when used (Eccles, 1994).
Studies with mentholated cigarettes have found that a different sensation may be experienced when a person smokes a slightly mentholated cigarette compared to a heavily mentholated one. Brown and Williamson's people (February 17, 1987) were concerned that Kool was loosing market share to Newport and looked at possible reasons (document #621079918). Besides different packaging and marketing one basic difference which could explain part of the reason was first time smokers had a hard time adjusting to Kool - it was felt that Kool's menthol level was too high for starters. An analytical and subjective evaluation study of three mentholated cigarettes was conducted to determine the correlation between menthol in smoke and cooling effect. It was found that Newport which contained lower levels of menthol had an equivalent effect of either Alpine or Salem. It was concluded the equivalent cooling effect that Newport delivers was a result of added peppermint oil that increases the overall effect (Philip Morris document #2022242164, February 13, 1963) - we doubt if this interpretation is correct.
A study carried out by Philip Morris (document #2031421329_1336) April 15, 1991, evaluated 18 different cigarettes with various tar per puff, nicotine per puff and menthol per puff combinations on nicotine "impact or strength" and menthol perception in 39 menthol smokers. It was concluded that each of the three variables (but especially nicotine and menthol) interact to affect nicotine impact and menthol perception and all three need to be taken into account when predicting impact perception. This information suggested that in order to increase the nicotine impact of a half-nic menthol to that of a regular menthol cigarette, the menthol per puff would need to be increased up to about .07 (almost sure this value is milligrams since other tobacco company documents report menthol concentration per puff in micrograms and have values ranging from 34.4 to 85.0 micrograms which would be .034 to .085 milligrams). It was realized that increasing the menthol per puff would increase the menthol perception and needed to be taken into account.
Another Philip Morris document (#2028812249) , March 29, 1995, reported on the effects of menthol and nicotine interaction on perceived "impact". It was mentioned that little was known about the subjective interactions between menthol and nicotine in cigarette smoke - specifically the effects of menthol on nicotine-derived "impact". Cigarettes containing combinations of nicotine (0.08, 0.41 and 0.91 mg/cigarette) and four levels of menthol (0.00, 0.41, 0.85, 1.95 mg/cigarette) were used. Twenty smokers (from within the company) smoked each of the 12 cigarette types and rated "impact" on a 7-point scale. It was found that menthol increased "impact" for the low nicotine delivery cigarettes (0.08 and 0.41 mg/cigarette) as a function of the menthol content. The affect of menthol was most pronounced for cigarettes with the lowest nicotine delivery. Low and intermediate menthol levels (0.41 and 0.85 mg/cigarette) to cigarettes delivering 0.91 mg nicotine/cigarette decreased impact. The addition of the highest level of menthol (1.95 mg/cigarette) reduced the differences among cigarettes, irrespective of nicotine delivery. It was concluded that menthol has a pronounced effect on nicotine derived "impact" and should be taken into account when targeting cigarettes for degree of perceived "impact". (INBIFO Institut fur biologische Forschung GmbH. Koln 30 March 1995.)
In another study (1975) the menthol cigarette preferences of blacks and whites were looked at (PM document #2062951249_1265). It was concluded that based on strength ratings, it would appear that menthol delivery may be an important determinant of subjective strength (or smoke impact) in menthol cigarette. The sensory expressions resulting from small variations in menthol delivery may be greater than those resulting from small variations in nicotine delivery. It was felt that these findings, if true, had practical consequences; in that it may be possible to increase smoke impact in low delivery menthol cigarettes by utilizing higher menthol delivery levels than usual.
Concord Menthol (PM document #2501008196, also 2500002401) had an adjustable filter. Touted as the first cigarette ever that lets the smoker adjust the menthol flavor from rich to mild. By twisting the arrow on the filter the smoker can adjust the menthol flavor - rich when wanting a cool rich low tar and mild when wanting a light refreshing ultra low tar.
Reynolds Tobacco (RJR) introduces "Salem Pianissimo" in Japan (PM document #20638753111 (June 29, 1995). This mentholated cigarette was suppose to reduce side stream smoke coming off at the lit end of the cigarette and put down the remaining scent of smoke by changing the combustion rate of cigarette paper. According to a RJR survey, 80% of Japanese smokers were concerned that the sidestream smoke bothers people around them and that the scent of smoke remains in their hair, clothes and in their rooms.
Northwinds (PM 1981, document #2048741135) was promoted as suddenly - a new cigarette that cools like no menthol can. Studies on cooling agents led to the discovery of a very active cooling compound referred to as 'coolant agent 10' (or MPD). This compound has been used in cosmetics, soaps, dentifrices, mouthwashes, chewing gum, tobacco and medical plasters. Coolant agent 10 resembles menthol in its ability to cause a subjective sensation of coolness but it differs in other respects being a colorless liquid with only a faint minty odor (Eccles, 1994).
Eccles R, Menthol and Related Cooling Compounds, J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 46: 618-630, 1994.
Perfetti TA and HH Gordin, Just Noticeable Difference Studies of Mentholated Cigarette Products, Tobacco Science 29: 57-66, 1985.
Riehl TF LL Shockley and ML Reynolds, Tobacco Science 17: 10-11, 1973.