NST L IMST. OF ST4N0 4 TECH RXC.

I 'ill i1i1'MI"ii"lll|i

A111D4 lElE4fi

PUBUCATIOHS

Test IVIe-thocIs for QUantify the Propensity

U.S. Department of Commerce

Technology Administration

National Institute of

Standards and Technology

August 1993

NIST Special Publication 851

4&.

1*.

Nisr

-QC

100

.U57

//851-2

19S3
Fire Safe Cigarette Act of 1990

Under the Cigarette Safety Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-567), the Technical Study Group on Cigarette and Little

Cigar Fire Safety (TSG) found that it is technically feasible and may be commercially feasible to develop

a cigarette that will have a significantly reduced propensity to ignite furniture and mattresses. Furthermore, they found that the overall impact of such a cigarette on other aspects of the United States

society and economy may be minimal.

Recognizing that cigarette-ignited fires continue to be the leading cause of fire deaths in the United

States, the Fire Safe Cigarette Act of 1 990 (P.L. 101-352) was passed by the lOlst Congress and signed

into law on August 1 O, 1990. The Act deemed it appropriate for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety

Commission to complete the research recommended by the TSG and provide, by August 1 O, 1993, an

assessment of the practicality of a cigarette fire safety performance standard.

Three particular tasks were assigned to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Building

and Fire Research Laboratory:

• develop a standard test method to determine cigarette ignition propensity,

• compile performance data for cigarettes using the standard test method, and

• conduct laboratory studies on and computer modeling of ignition physics to develop valid,

user-friendly predictive capability.

Three tasks were assigned to the Consumer Product Safety Commission:

• design and implement a study to collect baseline and follow-up data about the characteristics of

cigarettes, products ignited, and smokers involved in fires,

» develop information on societal costs of cigarette-ignited fires, and

• in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, develop information on changes

in the toxicity of smoke and resultant health effects from cigarette prototypes.

The Act also established a Technical Advisory Group to advise and work with the two agencies.

This report is one of six describing the research performed and the results obtained. Copies of

these reports may be obtained from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,

Wasi-iington, DC 20207.
2

B B

Thomas J. Ohiemiller ^ Kay IVI. Villa

Emil Braun ^ Keith R. Eberhardt ^

Richard H. Harris, Jr. ^

J. Randall Lawson ^ and Richard G. Gann ^

^ Building and Fire Research Laboratory ^ Computing and Applied Mathematics Laboratory

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899

^ Current Affiliation: American Textile

Manufacturers Institute

U.S. Department of Commerce

Ronald H. Brown, Secretary

Technology Administration

Mary L. Good. Under Secretary for Technology

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Arati Prabakhar, Director

August 1993

NIST Special Publication 851
National Institute of Standards and U.S. Government Printing Office

Technology Washington: 1993

Special Publication 851

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol.

Spec. Pub. 851

166 Pages (Aug. 1993)

CODEN: NSPUE2

For sale by the Superintendent of

Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, DC 20402-9325
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

List of Tables v

List of Figures vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ix

L INTRODUCTION 1

A- Perspective on the Current Projects 1

B. General Considerations Regarding Test Methods 3

1. Applications 3

2. Output 3

3. Figure of Merit 4

4. Validity 5

5. Long-Term Utility 6

H TEST METHODS DEVELOPED IN THE PRESENT STUDY 7

A- Cigarettes Used in the Present Study 7

1. Series 100 Experimental Cigarettes 7

2. Series 500 Experimental Cigarettes 11

B. Mock-Up Ignition Test Method 13

1. Previous Use of Mock-ups 13

2. Fabric Considerations for a Mock-Up Test Method 14

3. Other Mock-up Materials 26

4. Mock-up Configuration 28

5. Enclosure Design; Air Flow Considerations 30

6. Test Variables 33

7. General Description of the Mock-Up Ignition Test Method 36

8. Interlaboratory Study of the Mock-Up Method 37

C. Cigarette Extinction Test Method 70

1. Prior Alternative Methods 70

2. Approaches Examined in This Study 71

3. Standard Materials 83

4. Enclosure Design 85

5. General Description of the Test Method 85

6. Interlaboratory Study of the Test Method 85

iii
III. CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE USE OF THE TWO TEST METHODS . . 99

A. Mock-Up Ignition Test Method 99

B. Cigarette Extinction Test Method 102

C. Allowable Material Variability 102

D. Standardization of Test Methods 104

E. Effectiveness of the Methods 104

IV TESTING OF COMMERCIAL CIGARETTES 106

A. Introduction 106

B. Rationale for Commercial Cigarette Choices 106

C. Test Procedures 107

D. Data and Analysis 107

V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 110

VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Ill

VII. REFERENCES 112

APPENDIX A: Reevaluation of Experimental Cigarettes Used in the

Cigarette Safety Act of 1984 A-1

APPENDIX B: Mock-Up Ignition Test Method Procedure B-1

APPENDIX C: Estimate of Oxygen Supply Paths to a Cigarette Coal

atop a Flat Upholstery Substrate C-1

APPENDIX D: Metal Ion Content of Fabrics: Test Method and Results D-1

APPENDIX E: Cigarette Extinction Test Method Procedure E-1

APPENDIX F: Representative Thermogravimetric Data for Test Method Materials F-1

iv
LIST OF TABLES

Page

1. Description of Series 100 Experimental Cigarettes 9

2. Ignition Propensity of Series 100 Experimental Cigarettes 10

3. NIST Comparison of Series 100 and 500 Cigarette Weights 11

4. Cigarette Industry Comparison of Series 100 and 500 Cigarette Weights 12

5. Comparison of Ignition Propensities for Series 100 and 500 Cigarettes 13

6. Specified Nominal Properties of Fabrics 17

7. Cation Content of Fabrics Used in the Preliminary

and Main Interlaboratory Studies 21

8. Potassium Content of West Point Pepperell Cotton Ducks Over a Four Month Period . 22

9. Sensitivity of Ignition Susceptibility to Content in Fabrics 23

10. Ignition Susceptibility of Different #8 Cotton Duck Fabric Samples 23

11. Measured Areal Densities of Fabrics Used In Interlaboratory Study 25

12. Measured Air Permeability of Fabrics Used in Interlaboratory Study and in TSG Study 25

13. Sensitivity of Ignition Susceptibility to Foam Properties 26

14. Measured Air Permeability of Polyurethane Foam By ASTM D 3574 27

15. Properties of Polyethylene Films Used in Conjunction with Duck #4 27

16. Percent Ignitions on Various Substrates for Selected Cigarettes 29

17. Effect of Air Flow Disturbance on Cigarette Ignition Propensity 32

18. Estimated Sensitivity of Mock-up Test Outcome to Test Variables 35

19. Description of Interlaboratory Study Cigarettes 40

20. Variables in Analysis of Preliminary Interlaboratory Study 44

V
21. Summary of Test Results for Preliminary Interlaboratory Study 46

22. Summary of Test Results for Main Interlaboratory Study, Mock-Up Ignition Method . . 55

23. Observed Repeatability and Reproducibility Standard Deviations for Mock-Up

Ignition Method, Main Interlaboratory Study 65

24. Mock-Up Ignition Method: Calculated Repeatability and Reproducibility Limits for

Various Assumed Numbers of Replications and Ignition Propensities 69

25. Large Glass Bead Non-Reactive Substrate Test Results for Selected Cigarettes

and Air Speeds 75

26. Re-test of Selected Cigarettes on Large Glass Bead Substrate 75

27. Variability of Filter Paper Areal Density and Thickness 83

28. Summary of Test Results for Interlaboratory Study of Cigarette Extinction Method ... 87

29. Observed Repeatability and Reproducibility Standard Deviations for Cigarette

Extinction Method Interlaboratory Study 96

30. Cigarette Extinction Method: Calculated Repeatability and Reproducibility Limits for

Various Assumed Numbers of Replications and Full-Length Burn Proportions 97

3L 95% Lower Confidence Bounds for the Long-Run Ignition Probability 101

32. Results of Commercial Cigarette Testing 108

33. Percent Ignitions or Full Length Burns on Test Method Substrates 109

34. Averaged Smoke Component Yields from Commercial Cigarettes 109

A-1. Selection of Cigarettes for Reevaluation Study A-3

A-2. Reevaluation of Eight of the Thirty-Two Experimental Cigarettes A-4

C-1. Calculated Mass Flux of Oxygen From Foam to Coal C-3

D-1. Cation Content of #4 Cotton Duck D-2

D-2. Cation Content of #6 Cotton Duck D-3

D-3. Cation Content of #10 Cotton Duck D-4

vi
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

1. Photograph of a Test Chamber Containing a Mock-Up Assembly and a Cigarette 38

2. Comparison of Ignition Rates for the Preliminary Interlaboratory Study of the

Mock-up Ignition Test Method 48

3. Environmental Conditions Reported by the Laboratories Participating in the

Preliminary Interlaboratory Study of the Mock-up Ignition Test Method 49

4. Comparison of Ignition Rates for the Main Interlaboratory Study of the

Mock-up Ignition Test Method 60

5. Environmental Conditions Reported by the Laboratories Participating in the

Main Interlaboratory Study of the Mock-up Ignition Test Method 62

6. Plot Showing Empirical Relation of Reproducibility Variance to Repeatability

Variance for the Mock-Up Ignition Test Method 68

7. Free Burning Rate of Various Cigarettes Suspended in Quiescent Air as a Function

of the Fraction of the TSG Mock-Up Failures 72

8. Schematic Representation of the Test Assembly for the Glass Bead/Rod Substrate Tests 74

9. Drawing of the Cigarette Thermal Transfer Test Assembly 77

10. Typical Average Temperature-Time Trace for a Cigarette Burning on a Glass Fiber

Filter Paper in the Cigarette Thermal Transfer Test Assembly 78

11. Estimated Energy Transferred to a Substrate from a Smoldering Cigarette Burning

in the Thermal Transfer Apparatus as a Function of the Fraction of TSG

Mock-Up Failures 79

12. Smoldering Rates of Three Experimental Cigarettes as a Function of the Number of

Filter Papers Making up the Substrate Assembly 81

13. Number of Filter Papers Causing Extinguishment of the Cigarette as a Function of the

TSG Failure Fraction 82

14. Photograph of a Test Chamber Containing a Mock-Up Assembly and a Cigarette 84

15. Comparison of Full Burn Rates for the Interlaboratory Study of the Cigarette

Extinction Test Method 93

vii
16. Environmental Conditions Reported by the Laboratories Participating in the

Interlaboratory Study of the Cigarette Extinction Test Method 94

17. Plot Showing Empirical Relation of Reproducibility Variance to Repeatability

Variance for the Cigarette Extinction Test Method 98

B-1. Schematic of Test Chamber Components B-7

B-2. Schematic of Vacuum Draw Apparatus B-8

B-3. Location of Cigarette on Mock-Up Method Substrate Assembly B-9

E-1. Details of the Filter Paper Holder Support Structure E-7

E-2. Brass Holddown Ring and Cigarette Motion Restrainers E-8

F-1. TG Behavior of Two Samples of Cotton Duck #4 F-2

F-2. TG Behavior of Two Samples of Cotton Duck #6 F-3

F-3. TG Behavior of Two Samples of Cotton Duck #10 F-4

F-4. Derivative TG Data: Two Polyurethane Foam Samples from Top and Bottom of

Original Bun F-5

F-5. TG Data for Two Samples of Polyethylene Film F-6

F-6. TG Data for Two Samples of Whatman Filter Paper F-7

viii
TEST METHODS FOR QUANTIFYING

THE PROPENSITY OF CIGARETTES

TO IGNITE SOFT FURNISHINGS

Thomas J. Ohlemiller^ Kay M. Villa^'^ Emil Braun^ Keith R. Eberhardt^

Richard H. Harris, Jr.^, J. Randall Lawson^, and Richard G. Gann^

^ Building and Fire Research Laboratory

^ Computing and Applied Mathematics Laboratory

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

^ Current Affiliation: American Textile Manufacturers Institute

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Cigarette ignition of soft furnishings (upholstered furniture and mattresses) continues to be the

leading cause of fire deaths in the United States. In 1990, the nation experienced 1220 lost lives,

3358 serious civilian injuries, and $400 million in direct property loss from 44,000 cigarette-initiated

fires in structures. This publication describes the research performed and the results obtained in responding to two tasks under the Fire Safe Cigarette Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-352):

"(1) develop a standard test method to determine cigarette ignition propensity, and

(2) compile performance data for cigarettes using the standard test method developed under

paragraph (1)"

as part of an assessment of the practicability of developing a performance standard to reduce cigarette

ignition propensity. This research builds on previous studies directed by the Technical Study Group

(TSG) under the Cigarette Safety Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-567) and related work performed by the

cigarette industry.

The principal content of the report is documentation of the selection, development and final form

of two test methods for cigarette ignition propensity. They are intended to fulfill two potential roles:

(a) the basis for a possible performance standard, and (b) assistance to the cigarette industry in meeting the goals of any such regulation and in quality assurance testing. Both methods have valid

links (comparable to many current fire test methods) to many real-world fire scenarios of concern. Both incorporate most of the relevant physics and chemistry of such ignitions, while replicating the

real-world hazard to differing extents. They are both performance tests, as contrasted with product

design specifications. Both tests offer the use of a graded measure of performance, where acceptable

levels can be set by the regulator. The research and this report do not address specific regulatory

criteria.

ix
The Mock-Up Ignition Test Method uses three types of simulated upholstery cushions, each with a different cigarette ignition susceptibility. Each 20 cm x 20 cm assembly (substrate) consists of a top

layer of one of three weights of cotton duck fabric (#4, #6, and #10, in increasing order of ignition

susceptibility); a 5 cm thick piece of a polyurethane foam; and, in the least susceptible substrate, a

thin layer of thermoplastic film in between. Tests are conducted in a plastic enclosure to eliminate

variability due to laboratory air currents. A test begins by placing a lit cigarette on the mock-up. The

performance measure is whether or not the mock-up is ignited (char propagation over 10 mm from

the burning tobacco column). Either self-extinction of the cigarette or the cigarette burning its entire

length without igniting the mock-up assembly are counted as non-ignitions. A complete test series

consists of 48 replicates of each cigarette on each substrate.

The Cigarette Extinction Test Method replaces the more complex substrate of the Mock-Up Ignition

Test Method with standard cellulosic filter paper. Otherwise, the test procedure is similar. The three

substrates used consist of 3, 10, or 15 layers of the paper. The test determines whether a selected

substrate absorbs enough heat from the cigarette coal to extinguish the cigarette. Performance with

this method was roughly correlated to prior direct measures of cigarette ignition propensity. Here,

increased reproducibility of test materials is gained at the cost of direct simulation of the real-world

fire scenario. Sixteen replicates of each cigarette are performed on each substrate.

Only flat substrates were selected, although many real-world ignitions are expected to occur in furniture crevices. The TSG studies showed a higher fraction of crevice ignitions for a cigarette of

high ignition propensity, but no consistent difference in ignition susceptibility between the two

configurations for cigarettes of moderate-to-low ignition propensity. Potential variability of contact

between the cigarette coal and the surfaces of the crevice substrates introduces an operator dependence that is undesirable.

All testing is performed without externally-imposed air flow. This is operationally the simplest

approach and is highly relevant. In the real world, the orientation of any flow relative to the cigarette

coal is unknown but probably random. Many ignitions may occur deep in a crevice, and the air flow

there is likely to be very small. While cigarette industry studies showed some cigarettes undergoing

substantial changes in rankings of ignition performance under varying air flows, greater flow

differences between mock-up and chair tests in the TSG studies did not preclude a good correlation

between these two types of tests. The existence of this correlation strongly implies that there will be a real-world benefit in moving toward cigarettes which perform well in the two test methods

developed here. Should further information on real-world ignitions indicate a significant fraction due

to low ignition propensity cigarettes in external air flow conditions at the ignition location, it may be

appropriate to supplement the results of the current methods with those of tests conducted in the

presence of a comparable flow.

The two test methods were developed using experimental cigarettes manufactured by the cigarette

industry for this purpose. The cigarettes varied widely in performance, from some having ignition

propensities comparable to current commercial cigarettes to others that rarely or never ignited any

of the test substrates in both this and cigarette industry studies.

The two methods were shown to be of useful reproducibility in a nine-laboratory study. The study

involved cigarette industry, state and federal agency, and private testing laboratories, and conformed

to ASTM guidelines. Five of the available experimental cigarettes were tested, based on their

expected ignition performance.
The repeatability (a measure of variability within a laboratory) decreases as the square root of the

number of replicates. Thus, for production quality assurance testing, a fine degree of resolution is possible. By contrast, the reproducibility (a measure of variability between laboratories) approaches

a non-zero limit for a large number of replicates. Typically, for both of these test methods, the

ASTM reproducibility limit of the percentage of ignitions or the percentage of cigarettes burning

their full lengths on a given substrate was ca. 40 percent. This value defines the limit of resolution

for use in any future regulations.

The study showed that the lab-to-lab variability of results was comparable to that for other fire test methods currently being used to regulate materials which may be involved in unwanted fires. The

results were generally insensitive to the date and time of day of testing, the particular test enclosure

used, and the operator skill level. All labs conformed sufficiently to the temperature and humidity

criteria for the conditioning and test rooms that this was not an important factor in the results. The

three substrates in each method were all statistically distinct from each other, as were the five

cigarette types.

Since the results show that the methods can effectively differentiate the ignition propensities of

various cigarettes with acceptable precision, specifications for the test materials were developed. All

four types of materials were deemed likely to be available, with long-term consistency, in the foreseeable future. For the fabrics, the areal density and potassium ion content were determined to be the

major parameters affecting ignition susceptibility. Analysis of within-lot samples, lot-to-lot samples,

and samples from two manufacturers showed that the normal production variations were within the

acceptable limits demonstrated in the interlaboratory study. There is a long history of a large demand

for cotton duck fabrics for both commercial use and military procurement. The polyurethane foam

is representative of foam products used in the residential furniture market. Experiments showed that

the effect of expected foam property variations (within nominally similar formulations) is minimal.

Differences between brands of purportedly the same polyethylene film resulted in a significant change

in test method results. However, specification of the areal density should ensure use of a proper

material. The filter paper is a long-time, high-purity standard material for numerous chemical

methods. Variations in the areal density, thickness and thermal conductivity are minimal. It was

estimated that "fresh" substrate materials did not age substantially over about 6 months or longer.

There are data to "calibrate" the methods at the high and low ends of the ignition propensity scale. The commercial cigarette data in the TSG studies establish an indication of performance for the

cigarettes associated with then-current fire losses. In the two new test methods, this performance is seen as a large number of ignitions on the #4 cotton duck or full-length burning on the 15-layer

paper substrate. This establishes the test results for the high ignition propensity end of the scale. The TSG work, the current research, and cigarette industry studies demonstrate that there are experimental cigarettes that never or rarely ignited a variety of substrates. In the two new test methods, this behavior is observed as few ignitions on the #10 cotton duck or few full-length burns on 3 layers of filter paper. In between these extremes, one would like to expect a reduced number

of fires as fewer ignitions are measured in the laboratory. The TSG correlation of mock-up results with chair tests indicates that such results can be expected to be indicative of performance for

significant portions of the real-world furniture population, at least for coarse changes in test performance. If considering small increments, however, one must keep in mind the accuracy limits

of the methods as discussed above.

xi
For a product standard, there is a preference at present for using the Mock-Up Ignition Test Method,

because it is capable of better distinction among cigarettes of high ignition propensity. However,

routine measurement of the relative ignition propensity of cigarettes is feasible using either of the

two methods. The mock-up ignition method requires about 3 staff days to perform the 144 tests; the

cigarette extinction method, with its simpler substrates and 48 tests, about 1 staff day. A rationale

has been developed to reduce the number of tests for cigarettes of expected very high or very low

ignition propensity.

It is common practice, upon development of a fire test method for professional use, to proceed with

its adoption as a voluntary consensus standard in either the ASTM or the National Fire Protection

Association (NFPA). This report contains sufficient documentation of the two test methods and

interlaboratory evaluations of each. Thus, all necessary materials for initiating the standardization

process are now available.

Twenty current commercial cigarettes were tested using the two methods. Fourteen of these were

the best-selling packings, comprising nearly 40 percent of total sales in 1990. These cigarettes did not

vary widely in their physical characteristics. They showed consistent ignitions on all substrates using

the Mock-Up Ignition Method and consistently burned their full length on all substrates tested in the

Cigarette Extinction Method.

Also tested were six other packings, each having one or two physical parameters (e.g., low

circumference, paper porosity, tobacco density) which deviate from the best-sellers in a direction

which prior research would suggest as likely to lower ignition propensity. All six of these packings

showed reduced ignition propensity in the Mock-Up Ignition Test Method. Four of these packings

rarely ignited the most difficult-to-ignite substrate; the other two ignited it in 40-70% of the tests. Three of the four packings showed reduced ignition propensity on the middle substrate as well. While the Cigarette Extinction Test Method is less sensitive to changes in ignition propensity, three

of the packings showed markedly fewer full-length burns. All these differentiations are outside the

variability of the test methods. The average values of tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide yields for

these six packings were no larger than the averages for the 14 best-selling cigarettes.

xii
TEST METHODS FOR QUANTIFYING THE PROPENSITY

OF CIGARETTES TO IGNITE SOFT FURNISHINGS

Thomas J. Ohlemiller, Kay M. Villa, Emil Braun, Keith R. Eberhardt,

Richard H. Harris, Jr., J. Randall Lawson, and Richard G. Gann

ABSTRACT

Research funded under the Fire Safe Cigarette Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-352) has led to the development of two test methods for measuring the ignition propensity of cigarettes. The

Mock-Up Ignition Test Method uses substrates physically similar to upholstered furniture and mattresses: a layer of fabric over padding. The measure of cigarette performance is ignition or non-ignition of the substrate. The Cigarette Extinction Test Method replaces the fabric/padding assembly with multiple layers of common filter paper. The measure of performance is full-length burning or self-extinguishment of the cigarette. Routine measurement of the relative ignition propensity of cigarettes is feasible using either of the two methods. Improved cigarette performance under both methods has been linked with reduced real-world ignition behavior; and it is reasonable to assume that this, in turn, implies a significant real-world benefit. Both methods have been subjected to interlaboratory study. The resulting reproducibilities were comparable to each other and

comparable to those in other fire test methods currently being used to regulate materials which may be involved in unwanted fires. Using the two methods, some current commercial cigarettes are shown to have reduced ignition propensities relative to the current bestselling cigarettes.

Key words: Fire, cigarettes, cigarette test method, ignition, upholstered furniture, statistical analysis

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Perspective on the Current Projects

Cigarette ignition of soft furnishings (upholstered furniture and mattresses) continues to be the

leading cause of fire deaths in the United States.[l] In 1990, the nation experienced 1220 lost

lives, 3358 serious civilian injuries, and $400 million in direct property loss from 44,000 cigaretteinitiated fires in structures. These figures continue a slow downward trend (except in property loss,

which is increasing) with cause(s) suggested but not established.

As a means to accelerate reducing these losses, the Cigarette Safety Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-567)

created a Technical Study Group on Cigarette and Little Cigar Fire Safety (hereafter, TSG) and

directed it to:

"undertake such studies and other activities as it considers necessary and appropriate to determine the technical and commercial feasibility, economic impact, and other consequences

of developing cigarettes and little cigars that will have a minimum propensity to ignite

upholstered furniture or mattresses."

1
In its final report [2], the TSG concluded that:

"It is technically feasible and may be commercially feasible to develop cigarettes that will have

a significantly reduced propensity to ignite upholstered furniture or mattresses."

However, in assessing the commercial feasibility, the TSG membership also noted that:

"A valid and reliable test method is needed to measure the reduced ignition propensity of

improved cigarettes."

"... the current mockup method is usable for research measurements of the relative ignition

propensity of cigarettes. However, because of the lot-to-lot variability of the fabrics and

paddings used, this method should not be used as the standard test method."

"None of the several alternative candidate test methods for measuring the cigarette ignition

propensity of soft furnishings was usable in its current state of development."

These statements reaffirm what has been found for many products: desired performance must be

measurable. This quality allows a specifier to declare what is expected of the product, the

manufacturer to produce a desired commodity, and the vendor to demonstrate compliance with the

specifier's demands. A standardized performance measurement or test method makes this possible.

It then becomes the role of society to determine the level of performance it desires and how much

it is willing to pay. It is noteworthy that several state legislatures have delayed mandating less fire- prone cigarettes for lack of a quantitative test method.

Recognizing this as a key link to reducing fire losses, the Congress enacted the Fire Safe Cigarette

Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-352), noting that:

"It is appropriate for the Congress to require by law the completion of the research described

in the final report of the Technical Study Group on Cigarette and Little Cigar Fire Safety and

an assessment of the practicability of developing a performance standard to reduce cigarette

ignition propensity, and

it is appropriate for the Consumer Product Safety Commission to utilize its expertise to complete the recommendations for further work and report to Congress in a timely fashion."

Accordingly, the Act directed that the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Center for

Fire Research [now the Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL)], at the request of the

Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC):

"(1) develop a standard test method to determine cigarette ignition propensity,

(2) compile performance data for cigarettes using the standard test method developed under

paragraph (1), and

(3) conduct laboratory studies on and computer modeling of ignition physics to develop valid,

user-friendly predictive capability."

2
This publication describes the research performed and the results obtained in responding to the first two tasks. NIST has developed two test methods with sound links to the real-world fire scenarios of

concern. These methods were shown to be of useful reproducibility in a nine-laboratory evaluation.

The methods were then used to evaluate a sampling of the most popular current commercial

cigarettes, as well as some whose physical properties suggest they might show reduced ignition

propensity. The completion of the third task is described in a companion report.

B. General Considerations Regarding Test Methods

There are several ways of describing test methods and the features that are necessary for their use

in professional fire safety practice. The following sections describe these in the context of the current

program.

1. Applications

The test methods developed here are intended to fulfill two potential roles. The first role is to serve

as a practical basis for a possible performance standard. As stated earlier, a regulation presupposes

the existence of a practical test method. It is not feasible to make cigarette ignition propensity assess- ments on a recurring basis by testing each cigarette type on all soft furnishings in the commercial marketplace because:

• The upholstered furniture market is extremely diverse and not well-defined in terms

of the materials used and their market shares.

• Usage may cause soft furnishings to respond differently to contact with lighted

cigarettes, perhaps as a consequence of such factors as fabric wear, the use of

cleaning fiuids, or alkali metal accumulation.

• The resources needed for such an approach would be prohibitive.

A second role for an ignition propensity test method is to assist the cigarette industry in meeting the

goals of any such regulation. This has two potential applications:

• Guidance in product development, in which the test results are used to indicate

progress toward more desirable ignition behavior; and

• Quality assurance on the production line, in which sample cigarettes taken at intervals are checked to ensure they meet the regulatory requirement.

2. Output

The output of a test method can be continuous, discrete, or pass/fail. In this order, the methods

produce a decreasing amount of information to the regulator, product developer, and performance

monitor. An example of the first is automobile gas mileage testing, where any value of miles per

gallon may result from the dynamometer test measurements. The regulator then selects a value from

the continuum as the acceptable product characterization. In test methods with discrete output, only

3
a fixed number of results are possible. An example might be marksman ratings, which are based on

the number of "hits" from a selected number of shots fired. Another example is tire traction ratings

which place all results in a small number of categories. In each of these two examples, one obtains

qualitative information about the performance of the product, relative to both the scale for evaluation

and to other products. By contrast, a pass/fail test only provides an indicator of acceptability. For

example, if you cannot read the eye chart correctly, you won't qualify for a driving license.

It is possible for a single type of test apparatus to be used in multiple modes. Consider the

upholstered furniture mock-up experiments performed under the TSG program [3]. One could

perform 10 ignition tests for a given cigarette on each of 3 mock-up constructions. A possible

continuous output could be the mean time for ignition to occur, taking into account those tests that

did not result in ignition. A discrete measure could be the number of tests that led to ignition. A

pass/fail use might dictate that no cigarette burn longer than 1 minute on the mock-up.

As can be seen from the above examples, all of these types of methods are acceptable in everyday

usage. However, it is preferable but not mandatory for product regulation that a test method provide

a graded measure of performance. In this context it then becomes important to quantify the level of precision warranted by the measurements. This includes both the degree to which a single tester

will reproduce the same result in multiple tests (repeatability) and the range of results that would be

obtained when different testers perform the procedure (reproducibility). This will be discussed

further in a later section.

3. Figure of Merit

Test methods may also be grouped by what it is that they measure. A design or property test measures

a physical or chemical feature of the product. Thus, utilizing such a test method one might

(improperly) extrapolate the results of the TSG study [2] and require that all cigarettes should be

fabricated of tobacco below a prescribed packing density, be of less than a prescribed circumference,

and be fabricated using paper of air permeability below a prescribed value. Alternatively, an index

could be prescribed combining these factors. This kind of test presumes that the other descriptors

of the product do not affect the desired performance. The result of a prescriptive regulation based on a property test is a (partial) description of the product.

By contrast, a performance test simulates the conditions of the (undesirable) outcome of the product's

use. The TSG furniture mock-up testing is a convenient example. A regulation based on this kind

of test would not directly dictate the physical nature of the cigarette. However, it might impose

subtle limitations. For example, a 5 cm x 5 cm mock-up surface could not support a 15 cm long

cigarette while exposing the fabric to the coal. Very long cigarettes would thus be discriminated

against by the method, possibly restricting their introduction into the marketplace.

The degree to which a performance test replicates the potential hazard leads to further considerations. Ideally, the test should mimic the actual cigarette-initiated fire conditions as closely as

possible. Since the critical elements of these conditions are simply the cigarette and its immediate

environs, this would seem to be readily achievable. One need only abstract the region of the

upholstered chair, sofa or mattress that influences the ignition process and incorporate it in the test, effectively achieving a full-scale simulation of the real-world hazard. In practice, these environs are not unchanging; they may vary appreciably with furniture design and materials, as well as with the

4
chance aspects of cigarette contact. Thus one or more realistic examples are chosen, an approach

embodied in the use of upholstery mock-ups. A test consists of placing a lit cigarette on some smallscale configuration of a cushion covered by an upholstery fabric and observing the consequences. If a smolder zone develops in the fabric and spreads continually away from the cigarette coal, the

cigarette has failed the test. Successful tests such as this incorporate most of the relevant physics and

chemistry, while not necessarily replicating the real world hazard exactly.

The other general orientation which a performance test method could take is to measure some aspect

of the cigarette which has been shown to correlate with its tendency to ignite upholstered furniture.

Such correlating features of the cigarette are not readily discerned. It is certainly useful to have some

insights into the physics of the ignition process in order to pursue this approach. Ihrig et al [4] examined a large number of upholstery fabrics and a small number of cigarettes. They inferred that

only the total radiative heat output of a cigarette (joules/cig.) was a useful predictor of ignition

propensity. Gann et al [3] examined a wide variety of experimental cigarettes as part of a detailed

study of the physics of the ignition process, but found no single performance parameter which gave

a strong correlation with ignition propensity. The current study has been more successful in finding

a performance measurement that correlates with ignition propensity, as described below.

4. Validity

The results of a performance test method must be linked to the real world; e.g., for cigarette testing,

there must be a direct correlation between the test method outcome and the real-world propensity

to cause cigarette ignitions. As is often the case, this is a difficult matter here, because the actual

condition (and thus ignition susceptibility) of in-use upholstered furniture cannot be well characterized.

For nearly all fire tests, the needed degree of reality is demonstrated by physical similarity between

the test method and the real-world hazard and/or by use of the physical principles that determine fire initiation and growth. The principal basis for relating mock-up and full-scale behavior of furniture

ignition by cigarettes is reported in reference 3. That study, while necessarily limited in the range

of materials, chair configurations and number of test replicates, nevertheless established that:

• upholstery mock-ups can differentiate among cigarettes, and

• mock-up ignition behavior has shown a statistically-significant correlation with the

behavior of full-scale chairs containing the same fabric and padding in the TSG study

[2].

Evidence is presented in Section II.B that the substrates chosen for the Mock-Up Ignition Test Method are appropriate to represent actual upholstered furniture. The similarity of the two methods

(with their different performance measures) in rating the performance of both experimental and

commercial cigarettes (Section TV) lends credence to the validity of both.

5
5. Long-Term Utility

While the previous study revealed a set of mock-up material combinations capable of differentiating

among cigarettes, it did not provide the necessary assurance of long-term test method reproducibility.

The upholstery materials used there and, in fact, upholstery materials in general are not subject to any kind of quality control which bears on their ignitability by cigarettes. On the contrary, there have

been indications that even a fabric such as California Standard cotton velvet [5], long used to assess the cigarette ignition resistance of flexible cushioning materials, has been inconsistent in its behavior

[3]. One of the signiHcant concerns of the present study has been to assess the factors which need

to be controlled to assure long term consistency in mock-up response to cigarettes. The result of this work is a "Mock-Up Ignition Test Method" in which the substrates consist of cotton duck fabrics and

a polyurethane foam. The details of the work which led to this method are presented in Section II.B.

To reduce further the dependence on substrate materials whose properties may be hard to assure on

a long-term basis, a substantial effort has also been invested in developing a second test method. This

"Cigarette Extinction Test Method" uses standard cellulosic filter paper as the sole material in contact

with the tested cigarette. This method determines whether a selected number of layers of filter paper

absorbs enough heat from the cigarette coal to extinguish the cigarette. Reproducibility of test materials is gained at the cost of evident physical similarity to the real-world fire scenario. Thus, a correlation with upholstery ignition measurements, as in Section IV, is necessary to establish the

method's validity. A detailed description of this method is given in Section II.C.

6
n. TEST METHODS DEVELOPED IN THE PRESENT STUDY

A. Cigarettes Used in the Present Study

1. Series 100 Experimental Cigarettes

Series 100 refers to the series of cigarettes whose ignition propensities were measured in the previous

study [3] (referred to throughout this report as the TSG study). They thus enable connecting the test methods developed in this study with the prior results. The 32 cigarettes were manufactured by the

cigarette industry with then-current hardware at slower speeds. They varied systematically in five

parameters at two levels, reported to be at the extremes of that equipment, with all other properties

stated by the manufacturers to be identical, but not specified. The variable parameters and their

values were:

• tobacco blend (Burley or flue-cured),

• tobacco expansion (nonexpanded, 60 cuts^nch; or expanded, 30 cuts/inch),

• cigarette circumference (nominally 21 or 25 mm),

• cigarette paper permeability (nominally 10 or 75 CORESTA units), and

• cigarette paper treatment (untreated or treated with approximately 0.8% sodium

potassium citrate).

It should be noted that these experimental cigarettes may differ substantially from current commercial

practice in having limiting values of some design parameters and in having no specification at all for

other potentially pertinent parameters such as humectant or flavoring additive levels.

Tkble 1 gives the experimental cigarette designations with respect to the five parameters and the

assigned cigarette numbers. Detailed information on the cigarettes can be found in the tables and

appendices of Section 2 of reference 3, 3. Table 2 gives the ignition behavior of the TSG cigarettes

summed over the four mock-up configurations used there.

The Series 100 cigarettes have been kept in cold storage (approximately -18 °C) since the end of the

TSG study in 1987. Because approximately 4 years had elapsed between the two studies, changes in the cigarettes were possible. NIST thus undertook a reevaluation of the ignition propensity of the

cigarettes on the same fabrics and padding materials used in the original TSG study. These had been

stored in a nominally climate-controlled room ( « 21 °C, 30-60 % R.H.) since the end of the TSG

study. There was not enough of the original batch of the California Standard cotton velvet to allow

reevaluation of all 32 Series 100 cigarettes, so a subset of eight was chosen representing (a) ignition

propensities that evenly spanned the entire range of ignition rates and (b) a distribution of values of

each of the five design factors listed above. Those chosen were numbers 101, 103, 106, 108, 120, 129,

130, and 131.

Details of the results of the reevaluation can be found in [6], which has been included as Appendix

A to this report. For three of the substrates, the data are consistent with the hypothesis of no change

7
in the ignition properties of the cigarettes. However, there were some increases in ignition for

cigarettes 101, 103, 129, and 130, with most being on the denim substrate. In the original evaluation,

these four cigarettes tended to self-extinguish on the denim mockup, whereas in the reevaluation,

mock-up ignitions tended to occur. The initial suggestion was that the change was due to deterioration of the denim fabric. However, Lorillard performed measurements of smolder proclivity

using their published method [4], as well as weight, density and air permeability on the denim fabric,

and determined that those properties had not changed with storage.

This result prompted a closer investigation of the two sets of ignition experiments. Three main

differences were noted in the test methods:

• The original lab was not available for use in the reevaluation, so another test lab was

used. The canopy hood in this lab had a slightly lower draw. This was not thought

to be a serious problem because the smoke was being carried from the test chambers

in a manner similar to the original study.

• A technician with no previous experience in ignition testing conducted the reevaluation tests. As a check, re-tests of cigarettes 101, 103, and 130 on the denim substrate were performed by the same operator who had performed the original TSG evaluation. The same tendency for more ignitions was noted.

• The original evaluation of the denim mockup was done in August, when the relative

humidity in the test lab was 50 to 60 percent. The reevaluation was done in January

and February, when the relative humidity was 30 to 40 percent. Other data indicate

that a decrease this large can increase the number of ignitions. This suggests that the

differences seen with certain cigarettes (101, 130) might be caused by this parameter.

This particular substrate would be expected to be more sensitive to ambient humidity

than the others in the TSG study since it virtually surrounds the cigarette with

cellulosic materials-two cushions which form a crevice plus a cover fabric.

8
Table 1. Description of Series 100 Experimental Cigarettes

Packing Description

Experimental Tobacco Packing Paper Paper Circus^

Oeslgnatioa Blend density Porosity AddiUvc <«)

101 BNLC-21 Burley Non-Expanded Low Citrate 21

102 BNLN-21 Burley Non-Expanded Low No Citrate 21

103 BNHC-21 Burley Non-Expanded Higli Citrate 21

104 BNHN-21 Burley Non-Expanded High No Citrate 21

105 BELC-21 Burley Expanded Low Citrate 21

106 BELN-21 Burley Expanded Low No Citrate 21

107 BEHC-21 Burley Expanded Higli Citrate 21

108 BEHN-21 Burley Expanded High No Citrate 21

109 FNLC-21 Flue-Cured Non -Expanded Low Citrate 21

110 FNLN-21 Flue-Cured Non-Expanded Low No Citrate 21

111 FNHC-21 Flue-Cured Non -Expanded High Citrate 21

112 FNHN-21 Flue-Cured Non-Expanded High No Citrate 21

113 FELC-21 Flue-Cured Expanded Low Citrate 21

114 FELN-21 Flue-Cured Expanded Low No Citrate 21

115 FEHC-21 Flue-Cured Expanded High Citrate 21

116 FEHN-21 Flue-Cured Expanded High No Citrate 21

117 BNLC-25 Burley Non-Expanded Low Citrate 25

118 BNLN-25 Burley Non-Expanded Low No Citrate 25

119 BNHC-25 Burley Non-Expanded High Citrate 25

120 BNHN-25 Burley Non-Expanded High No Citrate 25

121 BELC-25 Burley Expanded Low Citrate 25

122 BELN-25 Burley Expanded Low No Citrate 25

123 BEHC-25 Burley Expanded High Citrate 25

124 BEHN-25 Burley Expanded High No Citrate 25

125 FNLC-25 Flue-Cured Non-Expanded Low Citrate 25

126 FNLN-25 Flue-Cured Non-Expanded Low No Citrate 25

127 FNHC-25 Flue-Cured Non-Expanded Low Citrate 25

128 FNHN-25 Flue-Cured Non-Expanded High No Citrate 25

129FELC-25 Flue-Cured Expanded Low Citrate 25

130 FELN-25 Flue-Cured Expanded Low No Citrate 25

131 FEHC-25 Flue-Cured Expanded High Citrate 25

132 FEHN-25 Flue-Cured Expanded High No Citrate 25

9
Table 2. Ignition Propensity of Series 100 Experimental Cigarettes [3]

InMA Aita UtUfftmttOti ptunDCT Of i^fiiiiofii tn tcsifi rractton oi l^mom

101 13 0.65

102 12 0,60

103 17 0.85

104 19 0.95

105 6 0.30

106 1 0.05

107 11 0.55

108 7 0.35

109 15 0.75

110 16 0.80

111 19 0.95

112 20 1.00

113 6 0.30

114 4 0.20

115 14 0.70

116 12 0.60

117 18 0.90

118 18 0.90

119 20 1.00

120 20 1.00

121 14 0.70

122 7 0.35

123 15 0.75

124 15 0.75

125 18 0.90

126 17 0.85

1 T7 I Z / 1 (¥1

128 20 1.00

129 10 0.50

130 4 0.20

131 15 0.75

132 12 0.60

10
2. Series 500 Experimental Cigarettes

The remaining supply of several of the TSG cigarettes was insufficient for use throughout the present

study, especially in the round robins. This led NIST to request from the cigarette industry a new lot of experimental cigarettes. Since the Series 100 cigarettes had shown a near-continuum of ignition

propensities, the new Series 500 cigarettes were to be comparable in the five properties described

earlier. Approximately 10,000 of each were supplied by the industry and placed in freezers until

conditioned for test usage.

Since the need for the current project was specimens with a breadth of ignition propensities, it was

not necessary to assume, nor was it assumed, that the counterpart cigarettes would be identical.

Only a modest effort was made to characterize the new samples. A random selection of eight

cigarette types to be used in the test method development was conditioned at 55 ± 5 % RH. Forty

of each were weighed and the mean and standard deviation were determined. These weights and

standard deviations for both series are shown in Table 3. Table 4 shows the weight and standard

deviations provided by the cigarette industry for the Series 100 and 500 cigarettes. It should be noted

that there are some significant differences in (a) cigarette weights between the two series in each

table, (b) the weights in the two tables, and (c) the standard deviations in the two tables. The

sources of these differences are not known.

l^ble 3. NIST Comparison of Series 100 and 500 Cigarette Weights

Cigarette Identity Weight (mg) Std. Dev. (mg)

101 831 14

501 826 19

103 835 36

503 824 17

106 640 9

506 592 17

108 565 40

508 588 15

120 1090 42

520 1065 27

129 836 47

529 845 32

130 841 7

530 842 30

131 959 22

531 844 22

11
The same eight cigarette types were also tested to ascertain that they would demonstrate a range of

ignition performance and to gauge how useful the TSG data would be in estimating their

performance. The cotton duck/polyurethane foam mock-ups were the same as those described below

for use in the Mock-Up Ignition Test Method, and 24 replicates were performed on each. The new

and old ignition data are shown in Table 5. Clearly, the cigarette/substrate combinations do show a range of ignition propensities suitable for intra- and interlaboratory evaluation of the methods being

developed. There is a general similarity of the two data sets, although they do not correlate exactly.

It was not determined whether the differences were due to variations in the cigarettes, materials,

apparatus, or laboratory conditions. It should be noted that variations between the two limited data

sets are essentially within the reproducibility of the Mock-Up Ignition Test Method assessed in this report (see below).

Table 4. Cigarette Industry Comparison of Series 100 and 500 Cigarette Weights

Cigarette Identity Weight (mg) Std. Dev. (mg)

101 873 5

501 840 3

103 882 10

503 841 0

106 613 5

506 615 3

108 612 5

508 612 6

120 1131 6

520 1104 1

129 846 5

529 853 3

130 862 4

530 849 2

131 936 1

531

1 855 4

12
Table 5. Comparison of Ignition Propensities for Series 100 and 500 Cigarettes

Series 100 Cigarettes Series 500 Cigarettes

L-lg. iNO. Number of

Ignitions

% Ignitions lAO Cig. INo. Number of

Ignitions

% Ignitions

106 1/20 5 506 9/72 13

130 4/20 20 530 0/72 0

108 7/20 35 508 24/72 33

129 10/20 50 529 12/72 17

101 13/20 65 501 70/72 97

131 15/20 75 531 47/72 65

103 17/20 85 503 71/72 99

120 20/20 100 520 72/72 100

B. Mock-Up Ignition Test Method

This section begins with a brief review of the past use of upholstered furniture mock-ups. It continues with a detailed discussion of the individual factors considered in the final design of this test method, which uses mock-ups to measure ignition propensity of cigarettes. The method itself is delineated in Appendix B.

1. Previous Use of Mock-Ups

As noted above, an upholstery mock-up is a reproduction of the upholstered furniture ignition

problem. This has led to the widespread use of mock-ups in conjunction with the assessment of the

vulnerability of upholstery materials to cigarette ignition. Much of this work is reviewed in reference

[7]. Essentially all of the early work in this area was focused on the assessment of the cigarette

ignitability of upholstery materials with a particular emphasis on fabrics. One standard test method

for upholstered furniture ignition, NFPA 260, for example, uses a single cigarette type and a single

type of polyurethane foam to test fabrics and divide them into classes dependent on the extent of

smolder spread away from the cigarette coal [8].

More recently, the cigarette type has been varied to discern the extent to which its parameters affect

mock-up ignition. Ihrig et al. [4], tested four cigarettes on mock-ups constructed from 33 commercial

cellulosic upholstery fabrics of varied weight and construction; the underlying cushioning material was

either cotton batting or a single polyurethane foam. The mock-up configurations included flat, 90°

crevice and 20° crevice (a crevice configuration involves two separate foam-covered cushions brought

together at the angle indicated). The principal cigarette variables were circumference and tobacco

packing density. From a statistical analysis of their results, the authors concluded that the fabric

variables (alkali metal ion content, weight and density) dominated the behavior of the ignition

process; only the total radiative heat output of the cigarette had a significant impact of the likelihood

13
of ignition. They also found that fabrics gave a graded ignition response (i.e., other than 0% or 100%

ignitions) only over a rather narrow range of properties.

In a subsequent study, Ihrig et al. [9] studied separately the impact of varying the characteristics

of the polyurethane foam. Here only two cigarettes and three fabrics were used, and all results were

for the 90° or 20* crevice mock-up configurations. The principal foam variable influencing mock-up

ignitability was found to be air permeability. It is probable that the sensitivity to this parameter is greater in the crevice configurations used than it is in a flat mock-up. Once again, the sensitivity of

the ignition behavior of the system was inferred to be greater for a mock-up variable (foam air permeability) than for the cigarette variable examined (radiative heat output per cigarette).

The potential impact of cigarette modifications on the ignition of upholstered furniture mock-ups may

be underestimated in these studies in that the cigarette designs were not varied as much as those in the TSG study [3]. However, these studies do illustrate the point that the ignition or non-ignition

of a mock-up is dependent on both the cigarette design and the mock-up materials. Rhyne and

Spears [10] applied this point to actual furniture using the model developed in Ref. 9 and various

assumptions about the distributions of fabric and foam materials in the real world.

As will be seen below, variation in the properties of the fabric used in the mock-up provides a useful means of discrimination among cigarette ignition propensities.

2. Fabric Considerations for a Mock-Up Test Method

The previous work revealed some of the advantages, sensitivities and limitations of mock-up testing

for research purposes. However, the present program is the first extensive effort to pursue a standard test method for cigarette ignition propensity. Thus, comparatively little attention has been

given in previous work to the issue of the long-term reproducibility of the ignition behavior such

mock-ups produce.

The principal focus in this study of mock-up systems capable of long-term reproducibility has been

the consistency of the fabric. It is the fabric which most closely interacts with the cigarette and whose

ignition (when the substrate is a polyurethane foam) sets the stage for all subsequent behavior of the

mock-up. Both chemical and physical features of a fabric influence its smolder propensity.

It has long been known that the principal chemical feature affecting the smoldering ignition

propensity of a cellulosic fabric is its content of alkali metal and alkaline earth cations [11].

Sodium and potassium ions are particularly prevalent in such fabrics [4]. Potassium ions, in particular, are present naturally in cotton; sodium ions appear to be commonly used in fabric dying processes.

Both are also introduced from perspiration and soiling [3]. These metal ions are present in the fabric

in the form of organic and/or inorganic salts. It has not been generally appreciated in the past that

the anion associated with the metal cation has a substantial influence on the effectiveness of the

metal in catalyzing fabric smoldering. Thus, in reference [4] the total sodium and potassium ion

content in 33 fabrics was reported along with fabric ignition temperatures and yarn "smolder

proclivity" (total time an individual yarn from a fabric smoldered); the correlation between these two

measures of smolder propensity and the total metal ion content showed a lot of scatter, possibly

because the metal ions were present in a variety of salts.

14
The smoldering ignition propensity of a fabric is also influenced by its physical characteristics; this is particularly true when the ignition source is a cigarette. The influence of contact with the mock-up

surface on the cigarette coal was examined to a limited extent in this study. It was apparent that the

heat loss into the fabric can temporarily slow or even completely stop the smoldering process in the

cigarette coal; the magnitude of the disturbance depends on the cigarette design and on the thermal

capacitance of the fabric. The fabric thickness, density, heat capacity and thermal conductivity all play

a role in determining this effective thermal capacitance. Thus, fabric structure needs to be closely

controlled in any standardized material to be used in mock-up testing.

Criteria Used to Identify Suitable Fabrics. Discussions with representatives of the fabric and furniture

industries made it clear that there is no practical way to characterize quantitatively the relative

popularity of the thousands of upholstery fabrics used in the soft furnishings at risk to fire. If sales

records are kept by individual fabric manufacturers or their customers, they are not publicly available.

Therefore, identifying a set of test fabrics representative of the real-world was not a feasible

undertaking and alternative approaches were pursued.

The ideas in the preceding paragraphs were blended with other considerations to arrive at the

following selection requirements for suitable test fabrics:

• susceptibility to ignition from smoldering cigarettes, making the likely candidate fabrics to be cotton, linen, modacrylic and acrylic;

• differentiation of the ignition propensities of various types of cigarettes;

• capability to provide reproducible test results;

• ready availability now and in the future, with essentially constant cigarette ignitability

in successive batches.

• manufacture such that their chemical and physical properties can be reproduced

(inter- and intra-bolt);

• consistency of surface characteristics, so that surface contact between the cigarette

and fabric surface remains constant along the length of the cigarette tobacco column

and across the length and width of the fabric bolt;

• no preference for smoldering ignition in one orientation (Le., warp or weft yarns),

making fabrics with similar warp and weft yarn construction preferable;

• freedom from finishes (e.g., for flame retardancy, durable-press, or crush resistance),

since (a) perfectly even finish surface characteristics and adhesion are difficult to obtain in commercially produced fabrics and (b) some finishes may promote or prevent smoldering ignition of the fabric; and

• weight in range representative of fabrics that are commonly used in the commercial

upholstery fabric marketplace (0.17-0.85 kg/m^; 5-25 oz/yd^). Fabrics below about

0.34 kg/m^ (10 oz/yd^) tend to wear rapidly; those above 0.85 kg/m^ (25 oz/yd^) are very difficult to shape to an article of furniture.)

15
Air permeability of the fabric was not one of the chosen criteria for three reasons: (1) this parameter was found to be relatively minor in the statistical model of Ihrig et al. [4]; (2) there is reason to believe that the oxygen coming through the fabric is a minor contributor to the oxygen needs of the

cigarette coal; see Appendix C; (3) the primary means of oxygen permeation through the fabric is believed to be diffusive, whereas air permeability measurements are based on air flow resistance.

The levels of cations in the fabric were also not included in the criteria. The original intention was

to control this level by doping to a cation level which assured sustained smolder propagation; the

cotton ducks that were ultimately used have such a cation level in their as-received state (see below).

To survey for appropriate fabric criteria and potential fabrics for use in a cigarette test method, NIST

consulted with:

• research and test labs (California Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal

Insulation, Department of Defense - Natick Textile Research Labs, Consumer

Product Safety Commission),

• textile and furniture trade associations (American Textile Manufacturers Institute,

American Furniture Manufacturers Association),

• textile mills (Glen Raven Mills, Mt. Vernon Mills, Graniteville Mills, J.B. Martin, and

West Point Pepperell, Inc.),

• a textile distributor (Douglas, Inc.),

• NIST test method development staff, and

• a company which supplies standardized fabrics (Test Fabrics, Inc.).

Each of these parties has experience with either developing flammability test methods/standards or

standardized fabrics or producing, using or distributing commercial fabrics. Each party was asked to

list criteria important to developing a standardized fabric for test method use, describe problems

associated with the production of standardized fabrics, and suggest possible fabric types for use in the

test method anticipated here.

Cross-referencing the suggested practices and fabric types against the needed fabric characteristics

noted above led NIST to the selection of cotton ducks as the candidate fabrics. These have a simple

physical structure (plain weave) subject to control of weave details and air permeability, a long history

of manufacture, conformance to a military specification [12], and at least limited usage as upholstery fabrics. They present a smooth surface to the cigarette coal, minimizing variations in heat

transfer from the coal to the fabric. They are also made from a single component, raw cotton. Having no pile such as that in the fabric used for testing by the State of California ("California

velvet"), they require no added finish to achieve a uniform physical appearance. These fabrics were

thus judged to be excellent candidates for use in a mock-up method.

The physical properties of the 100% cotton fabrics examined in this study are summarized in Thble

6; only a subset of these was ultimately utilized in the test method (Duck #4, #6 and #10). All were

manufactured by West Point Pepperell Mills of West Point, Georgia (now known as Wellington Sears

16
1 7 Company) '

. Since all are made from raw cotton (Texas, short staple) it is expected that their

chemical composition is nominally similar. (The metal cation content was checked separately, as noted below.) The cotton was card cleaned using mechanical agitation only. No lubricants,

surfactants or sizing were added to the cotton during the cleaning, carding, roving, spinning or the

weaving processes. The yarns were made using open-end spinning frame technology. The fabrics are known as "greige" goods because they have no finishes or dyes.

Table 6. Specifled Nominal Properties of Fabrics

FABRIC

DESIGNATION

AREAL

DENSITY

YARN COUNT

(PER INCH)

YARN

PUES

AIR PERMEABILITY*

Duck No. 4

Style S/01 400240

0.83 kg/m^

(24.5 oz/yd^)

31 X 24 4x4 5.1 - 10.2 X 10-3 m^/s/m^

(1-2 ft^/min/ft^)

Duck No. 6

Style S/01600230

0.72 kg/m^

(21.2 oTjyd^)

36x 26 3x3 5.1 - 10.2 X

10-3 (1-2 ft^/min/ft^)

Duck No. 8 0.61 kg/m^

(18 cfzjyd^) 34x27 3x3 5.1 - 10.2 X 10-3 m'/s/m^

(1 - 2 ft'/min/ft^)

Duck No. 10

Style S/01 102020

0.50 kg/m^

(14.7 oijyd^)

40x28 2x2 10.2 - 20.4 X

10-3 m^/s/m^

(2 - 4 ft^/min/ft^)

Duck No. 12 0.39 kg/m^

(11.5 oz/yd^)

46x35 2x2 20.4 - 30.6 X

10-3 m^/s/m^

(4 - 6 ft'/min/ft^)

Twill 0.52 kg/m^

(15.3 oz/yd^)

40x28 2x2 10.2 - 20.4 X

10-3 m'/s/m^

(2 - 4 ft^/min/ft^)

* Measured by Federal Method 5450 (contained in Federal Test Method Standard 191A, July 1978)

The chief differences in these fabrics should reside in their physical properties, since chemically they

are raw cotton with comparable metal ion contents (see below). It is likely that the most important

difference is the areal density, which varies by a factor of two. The potential heat sink effect to a

cigarette coal thus varies by this same factor among these fabrics. The air permeabilities vary by a

factor of three but, as will be seen, the mock-up configuration which was used is flat, and its ignitability should be relatively less sensitive to this parameter since more of the cigarette coal's periphery is exposed to ambient air. (Fabric permeability ranked fourth in order of importance as a controlling variable in the ignition of a flat mock-up in reference [4]. Fabric weight and total sodium/potassium ion content were the two dominant parameters.)

The fabrics can be purchased from Wellington Sears Company, 3202 34 Street, Valley, AL

36854; telephone no. (205) 768-1222.

Certain products or manufacturers are identified in this report in order to provide sufficient

definition of procedures, equipment, and materials. In no case does such identification imply

endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology nor is the item identified

necessarily the most appropriate for the purpose.

17
In anticipation of the fabric ignitability behavior discussed below, it is worth pointing out here that

the ease of ignition of the cotton ducks in Table 6 is the opposite of what one might expect from

previous literature results. The review of previous work [7] notes that cigarette ignition resistance

decreases with increasing fabric weight. As will be seen below, the observable behavior of the fabrics

in Tkble 6 is opposite to this trend; the heavy ducks ignite less readily than the lighter ducks. A

plausible explanation of this is as follows.

The observed behavior in both situations (previous literature and here) is not the ignition event itself, which occurs close in to the cigarette coal, but rather the sustained smolder spread away from the

cigarette coal (if and only if this spread can occur). The previous literature, with the possible

exception of one experimental cigarette used in reference 4, is all based on commercial cigarettes

which qualify as strong local ignition sources. The coal combustion for these cigarettes is sufficiently

robust to overcome the heat losses to essentially the whole spectrum of fabric weights used in upholstered furniture; that is, they provide a sufficient heat flux to the fabric to ignite it locally in essentially all cases. However, among the commercial fabrics on which the previous literature is based, the heavier fabrics have a lesser surface-to-volume ratio, which yields a lesser heat loss rate and a greater tendency to propagate smoldering once it is locally initiated. Thus, given a strong

igniter such as a commercial cigarette, a population of varying fabrics (having diverse levels of areal

density, metal cation content and weave structure) will show a tendency for the observable part of

the cigarette ignition process to be enhanced by increased fabric weight. The areal density or fabric

weight effect will be most pronounced for those fabrics whose other parameters (metal cation content or weave structure) tend to be marginal in sustaining smolder propagation.

Here, however, the focus is shifted more specifically to whether local smoldering ignition of the fabric occurs. The cigarettes used are not necessarily strong igniters, but the cotton duck fabrics will smolder readily if ignited. Many of the experimental cigarettes used here are so disturbed by the heat

loss they experience when in contact with the fabric that they go out. Others survive, but the coal

is weakened in the area of contact with the fabric. Thus, in this case the transient heat sink effects

of the fabrics are paramount. Heavier fabrics are greater heat sinks and therefore more ignition

resistant.

Additives as a Possible Means of Smoldering Ignitability Control. Because commercial fabrics can show significant lot-to-lot variability in chemical and physical parameters, a substantial effort was made in the present study to develop a set of controlled fabrics. The cotton ducks in Table 6 were

the basis for this development. As noted above, the cotton ducks have the necessary physical

property control. As a means to render them completely specifiable with regard to cigarette ignition

propensity, controlled doping with alkali metal and alkaline earth salts was investigated.

Appropriate salts must provide unambiguous self-sustained smolder propagation in the fabric when

present above some minimum level. Above this minimum, they must also yield a differential

ignitability response in the fabric when exposed to experimental cigarettes having differing ignition

propensities (as judged by their behavior in the TSG study, reference 3). In practice, this last requirement probably translates into an ignition temperature which is in just the right range for some

(not all) cigarettes to be able to induce in a fabric and which decreases continually with increased salt concentration. At the beginning of this study the identity of a suitable metal salt was unknown; and,

as noted above, the important role of the anion was not known either. A variety of salts suggested

by the limited literature in this field was examined:

18
• potassium chloride,

• potassium acetate,

• calcium acetate,

• sodium bicarbonate,

• mixtures of sodium borate with boric acid,

• potassium acetate with boric acid, and

• potassium acetate with diammonium phosphate.

All of these potential additives eventually were rejected because none could produce cigarette

differentiation when present in the cotton ducks at levels sufficient to assure evenly propagating, self- sustained smolder. Furthermore, a problem with locally nonuniform deposition of the salts in the

cotton ducks compounded the difficulty of the search and was not completely solved. Laundering

and acid-washing of the fabrics prior to salt treatment proved insufficient to assure uniform

penetration by the aqueous salt solutions. Commercial scrubbing followed by doping with commercial

padding equipment probably could have resolved these difficulties, which may have been caused by

natural waxes in the cotton.

Interestingly, the salts naturally present in raw cotton show no evidence in their smolder behavior of

local non-uniformity problems, and tests showed that the unaltered fabrics in Table 6 could provide

cigarette differentiation. Consultation with personnel at the USDASouthern Regional Laboratory [13]

together with information from a standard reference text [14] indicated that the dominant salt in raw cotton is potassium malate. This salt is not commercially available. Limited studies with small

quantities produced in our laboratory indicated that it could yield cigarette differentiation behavior

similar to that seen with the cotton ducks in their "as-received" states. The non-availability of this

salt, coupled with the lack of commercially scrubbed fabrics as hosts (even in small-scale laboratory

studies) led to the termination of this approach to test fabric production.

Since the cotton ducks possessed all the desired properties of a controlled fabric for a mock-up based

test method, including the desired cigarette differentiation in their as-received state, further

development was pursued with these as-received cotton ducks as the fabrics of choice. Given this,

it was necessary to assure that they could continue to meet the necessary criteria as to availability and

invariant ignitability.

Continued Availability of Cotton Duck Fabrics. The simple plain or basket weave construction and

desirable properties (high abrasion resistance, strong tear and tensile strengths) of cotton ducks make

them highly sought-after products. For example, the U.S. Department of Defense has developed a number of specifications for cotton ducks which results in highly standardized fabrics. The military uses large quantities of these fabrics in products such as upholstery (camp seating slings), backpacks,

tenting, sandbags, and medical stretchers. Commercially, cotton ducks are commonly used as an

upholstery fabric in director's chair canvas slings. They have also been used in upholstered furniture,

but this use is driven by home fashion trends. Currently they are featured as upholstery fabrics in a number of mail order and furniture periodicals [15].

As a result, these fabrics are produced in bountiful supply by textile companies throughout the world.

In fact, cotton duck fabrics have been produced continuously for more than 200 years. There are approximately 34 million m^ of cotton ducks (greater than 50% cotton content) sold annually in the

United States. This information provides a high degree of assurance that cotton ducks will be readily

available and produced in a consistent and standardized manner.

19
Metal Ion Content Over Time. Since cotton ducks are made from raw cotton, their content of alkali metal and alkaline earth ions is potentially variable with soil, fertilization and growth conditions.

Blending of raw cotton from various regions (of Texas) and crop years tends to counteract this

variability. Recognizing the potential problems here, NIST sought to develop information on the

extent of variability of cation content in cotton ducks. This process was greatly simplified by

determinations that:

• the alkali metal ions are comparable in smolder promotion tendency and much more

potent than the alkaline earth cations [16] and

• potassium ions are present in dominant concentrations in the cotton ducks and the

relative fractions of the other metal ions varied little (Table 7),

The premise adopted was that the potassium ion concentration is the determining chemical factor in ignition susceptibility of these fabrics. The malate anion is equally important in setting the general

level of activity of the potassium. Since this is the dominant anion in cotton [13] it is expected to correlate with the potassium level, barring any major genetic modifications to future cotton strains.

NIST then worked with West Point Pepperell (WPP) to examine the long-term reproducibility of the

potassium ion content of the ducks. WPP staff utilized the NIST sample extraction technique

(Appendix D) and atomic absorption spectroscopy to analyze samples from their mill for potassium

ion content over a period of 4 months. (A reorganization of the company prevented a longer analysis

period.) The results are shown in Table 8. Each duck was sampled in three locations during one day

of each month reported; the standard deviations shown are for these three measurements. There is only one case (Duck #6 in June, 1992) of highly variable results. Otherwise the spatial variability on a given day is ± 6% or less. The long-term variation tends to be greater but, except for the one

case of Duck #6 (June, 1992), the variation is not very large. Duck #8 shows the greatest variation, a 23% increase from 4700 to 5800 ppm, from April to May, 1992.

20
Table 7. Cation Content of Fabrics Used in the Preliminary

and Main Interlaboratory Studies

Rolf Niiftihpr

[Cation] (ppm ± one Standard Deviation)

Na* Ca^^

<20 4575 ±133 607 ±19 691 ±26

A dR* <10 4243 ±37 582 ±6 683 ±5

<15 4477 ±75 567±12 607 ±56

A ^0 <20 4546 ±125 566 ±29 575 ±44

A <25 4528 ±55 558±5 569±21

<20 4510±44 564 ±3 564±16

<20 5667 ±185 653 ±13 ^ ACt 1 -t ^ 748±13

<35 5900±107 656±12 727 ±25

6-71 <30 5742 ±102 633 ±19 690 ±37

6-73 <15 4439 ±143 578±14 650±11

10-57' <50 4445 ±88 607±9 708 ±16

10-58 <60 4214±71 580±10 691 ±17

10-59* <20 4422 ±94 605 ±14 698 ±22

10-61 <60 4224±111 590±12 665 ±3

10-63 <70 4069 ±162 575±19 663 ±33

Used in preliminary interlaboratory study; otherwise used in main interlaboratory study

21
Table 8. Potassium Content of West Point Pepperell Cotton Ducks Over a Four Month Period

TIME DUCK NO.

POTASSIUM

LEVEL (ppm)

April, 1992 5200 ± 220

H tt 6 5200 ± 260

n n 8 4700 ± 200

n n 10 5500 ±190

May, 1992 4 5400 ± 170

n II 6 5600 ± 80

11 H 8 5800 ± 230

n II 10 6000 ± 200

June, 1992 4 5800 ± 270

n II 6 8200 ± 2200

It II 8 5600 ± 50

II It 10 5700 ± 35

July, 1992 4 6000 ± 170

It It 6 5500 ± 340

II tt 8 5800 ± 250

„ . 10 6000 ± 24

Effect of Ion Content Variation on Mock-Up Ignitability. Table 9 shows the results of limited testing

(5 replicates, 3 cigarette types) using ducks #4, #6 and #10 from the analyzed lots described in Table

8. The ignition propensities are comparable despite the noted variations in the potassium ion content

of the fabric. The widest variations in potassium content were not included in this testing.

22
Table 9. Sensitivity of Ignition Susceptibility to K'*' Content in Fabrics; 5 Replicates

f

Fabric [K+] (ppm)

Percent Ignition for Cigarette

#506 #529 #503

Duck #4 5400 0 0 100

n 6000 0 0 100

Duck #6 6000 0 20 100

8200 0 0 100

Limited testing was also done on a #8 duck from another manufacturer, obtained through the

American Textile Manufacturers Institute (ATMI). Analysis showed this fabric to contain ~ 100 ppm

of sodium, 3500-5100 ppm of potassium, 450 ppm of calcium, and 320 ppm of magnesium. This was compared to WPP duck #8, which Table 8 shows to contain 4700 to 5800 ppm of potassium. The

other, less critical metals were not greatly different from those in the WPP duck (Table 7). Six TSG

cigarettes of differing ignition propensity again showed comparable ignition propensities on the two

ducks (Table 10). (Comparable, as used in this context, means that any differences in ignition

propensity were below the typical levels of scatter seen in these tests; this issue is discussed more

thoroughly in the context of the round robin studies below.)

Table 10. Ignition Susceptibility of Different #8 Cotton Duck Fabric Samples

(Percent Ignition in Six Replicates)

Cigarette Number WPP Duck ATMI Duck

106 0 0

114 0 0

108 0 0

129 17 33

101 100 100

120 100 100

The cation content of all fabrics used in the interlaboratory testing described below was monitored

along the length of the fabric bolts used by the method described in Appendix D. Depending on the

bolt length, anywhere from 3 to 10 samples were taken along the length of a given bolt and analyzed

for sodium, potassium, magnesium and calcium content. A summary of this cation content is shown

in Table 7. The numbers are the average of the samples taken on each bolt of fabric (± one

23
standard deviation). Appendix D contains the cation content for all the individual samples tested.

The most variable fabric is duck #6, with potassium levels ranging from about 4400 ppm to 5700 ppm

in the bolts used in the main interlaboratory study (described below in Sect. B.8). This is a substantial

range (ca. 30% referred to the smaller number), but it did not result in any extraordinary variability

in the interlaboratory results obtained with this duck. The implication thus is that variations in metal

cation content comparable to those seen in Table 7 (which in turn are comparable to those seen over

the four-month period shown in Tbble 8) are not detrimental to the reproducibility of the mock-up

test method discussed below.

The potassium levels in Tables 7 and 8 may seem high compared to many (not all) of the 33

commercial fabrics analyzed in the work of Ihrig [4]. However, this misses the role of the anion in shifting the catalytic effectiveness of the cation. Unfortunately, anion measurements were not made

in reference 4. Thus, the relation of those results to the present levels, in terms of ignitability

enhancement, is unknown.

For the best long-term reproducibility it is preferable that the potassium ion levels not be in a domain

where the ignition behavior is sensitive to small changes in potassium level. The above results

indicate that the potassium levels in the cotton ducks are indeed well above the sensitive region. The

sensitive region for potassium acetate, noted in cigarette industry studies, was ca. 2000 ppm.

Physical Variability of Cotton Duck Fabrics. Areal density is believed to be the most important

physical property affecting ignition susceptibility of the cotton ducks. The variability of this property

along the length of the fabric bolts used in the interlaboratory studies described below is indicated

in Table 11. The standard deviations and coefficients of variation are based on five samples from

along the length of each bolt.

Air permeability measurements performed in accord with ASTM Method D 737-75 [17] were made on samples from several of the same bolts by the United States Testing Company. Five samples

from each bolt were measured; the results (± the standard deviation) are shown in Table 12. The

test method, apparatus, and pressure drop were fundamentally the same as that used to set the

nominal air permeability specifications in Table 6. This small degree of physical variability in the

cotton ducks was further reinforcement of the appropriateness of these fabrics for use in the

interlaboratory study.

Also shown in Table 12 are the measured air permeability values for the three principal fabrics used

in the TSG study [3]. The large variability of the Splendor fabric is the result of one particular

sample; a coefficient of variation closer to that of California Velvet typified the other three samples

measured here. It is of interest to note that the TSG fabrics have permeabilities that are ten to twenty times higher than the cotton ducks used here. This will not preclude similar types of ignition

behavior from being exhibited by the two groups of fabrics, as will be seen below.

24
T^ble 11. Measured Areal Densities of Fabrics Used In Interlaboratory Study

Duck Number-Bolt Number Area] Density (g/m^) Coefficient of Variation (%)

4-48 820 ± 17 2.0

4-52 806 ± 25 3.1

4-56 803 ± 14 1.7

6-67 712 ± 9 1.3

6-71 705 ± 18 2.6

10-58 506 ± 18 3.5

10-63 496 ± 6 1.1

Tkble 12. Measured Air Permeability of Fabrics Used in

Interlaboratory Study and in TSG Study

Duck Number-Bolt Number

or Fabric Name Air Permeability* Coefficient of Variation (%)

4-52

(8.89 ± 0.15)xl0-^ m'/s/m^

(1.75 ± 0.03 ft^/minyft^) 1.7

4-56

(8.74 ± 0.91 )xl0-^ m^/s/m^

(1.72 ± 0.18 ft^/min/ft2) 10.5

6-67

(5.54 ± 0.25)xlO-' m'/s/m^

(1.09 ± 0.05 ft^/min/ft^) 4.6

6-71

(5.54 ± 0.15)xl0-^ m^/s/n?

(1.09 ± 0.03 ft^/min/ft2) 2.8

10-58

(10.72 ± 0.71)xlO-^ m^/s/m^

(2.11 ± 0.14 ft3/min/ft2) 6.6

10-63

(11.53 ± 0.61 )xlO-^ m^/s/m^

(2.27 ± 0.12 ft'/min/ft^) 5.3

Splendor

0.12 ± 0.04 m^/s/m^

(24.1 ± 7.7 ft^/min/ft2) 32.0

Blue Denim

(6.81 ± 0.30)xlO-2 m'/s/m^

(13.4 ± 0.6 ft^/min/ft2) 5.0

California Velvet

0.12 ± 0.01 m^/s/m^

(23.2 ± 2.5 ft^/min/ft2) 11.0

Data obtained by United States Testing Company using ASTM D 737-75

25
3. Other Mock-Up Materials

Two other expendable materials are used in the mock-up method. The principal one is a polyurethane foam which is used to mimic the typical cushioning material in upholstered furniture.

A second material is a polyethylene film used between the fabric and foam in one mock-up

configuration for reasons explained below.

Polyurethane Foam. The polyurethane flexible foam used in these test method development studies

had the same formulation as that used in the TSG study. The foam is based on a polyether polyol

and TDI; the manufacturer's (Vitafoam, Inc., High Point N.C.) designation is 2048.^ It has an indent

flexural rating of approximately 21.8 kg (48 lbs) and a nominal density of 32 kg/m^ (2.0 Ib/ft^). The

nominal air permeability (ASTM D3574 [18]) is 2.0 x lO"'' m^/s (4.25 ft /min). The foam is representative of foam products used in the residential furniture market.

The sensitivity of the cigarette ignition process to foam properties was examined by substituting

another common upholstered furniture foam. This foam had a similar TDI/polyether formulation,

but a nominal density of 24 kg/m^ (1.5 Ib/ft-^) and a nominal air permeability of 2.4 x lO'-^ m^/s (5.0

ft^/min). Flat mockups were made with duck #8 and the two foams. TSG cigarettes nos. 108 (7/20

TSG ignitions), 129 (10/20 TSG ignitions), 102 and 116 (both 12/20 TSG ignitions) were tested on

the mockups using six replicates per cigarette/mock-up condition. See Table 13.

Table 13. Sensitivity of Ignition Susceptibility to Foam Properties

(Percent Ignitions in Six Replicates)

Cigarette Number Ignitions (Heavier Foam) Ignitions (Lighter Foam)

108 50 33

129 50 17

102 100 100

116 100 100

Since the foam density variation in this experiment is substantially larger than would occur within any

well-specified foam batch (± 5%) and since the effect here was small, it was concluded that the role

of foam property variations (within nominally similar formulations) is minimal. It should be sufficient to specify the general formulation and nominal density.

From consulting with experts on polyurethane foams, it was determined that the greatest (± 5%)

variation in foam density occurs vertically in a bun. The air permeability varies similarly; see Table

14. In the interlaboratory testing described below, the foam samples were varied randomly from top

^ The foam was obtained from TEDCO, 2335 W. Franklin Street, Baltimore MD 21223;

telephone no. (410) 945-6158. TEDCO identifies this foam as style #2045.

26
to bottom of the bun. As will be seen, the impact on the inter- and intra-lab variability was at an

acceptable level. This means that the density and permeability range typical of current foam

manufacturing practice are an acceptably small source of scatter in mock-up ignition behavior.

Table 14. Measured Air Permeability of Polyurethane Foam By ASTM D 3574

(Average of 3 to 4 samples at each location.)

1 roam uun Location Air rermeabiiity

A Middle (1.83 ± .02)xl0-^ m^/s

(3.89 ± .04 ft^/min)

A Top (2.00 ± .03)xlO-^ m^/s

(4.24 ± .06 ft^/min)

B Middle (1.80 ± .01)xlO-^ m^/s

(3.82 ± .03 ft^/min)

B Top (2.01 ± .02)xl0-^ m^/s

(4.26 ± .03 ft^/min)

Polyethylene Film. In one of the mock-up configurations ultimately included in the test method

described below, a polyethylene film was placed between the fabric and foam as an additional heat

sink to make the mock-up more ignition resistant. Inadvertently, different films were used in the

preliminary and the main interlaboratory studies described below. Table 15 lists the properties of the

two films.

T^ble 15. Properties of Polyethylene Films Used in Conjunction with Duck #4

Property Poly-America, Inc. (Preliminary RR)

Warp Bros, Inc. (Main RR)

Thickness (mm) 0.15 ± .007 0.13 ± .005

Density (g/cm^) 0.79 1.15

Areal Density (g/cm^) 0.012 0.015

Melting Points (°C)* 118, 124 115, 122

Two distinct peaks for crystalline regions were found for each polymer film.

As will be seen below in comparing the preliminary and main interlaboratory results, these property

differences (most likely the areal density difference) were sufficient to yield differing ignition

propensity measurements on two cigarettes in the interlaboratory studies. The film to be used in the

27
test method is specified similar to the one manufactured by Warp Brothers, Inc. under the trade name

Poly-Film; it was obtained from Read Plastics, Rockville, MD 20852. The reason for this preference

emerges from the interlaboratory studies described below.

4. Mock-Up Conflguration

Several issues were considered in deciding how the mock-up assemblies were to be configured. These

affect the degree of replication of the real-world situation, ease of fabrication, and reproducibility of

test results.

The first issue concerns fabric/foam contact. Wrapping the fabric around the foam (totally or

partially), as done in earlier studies, makes it difficult for the test operator to obtain reproducible, even and constant tension of the fabric over the foam. The resulting variation in surface contact

between the fabric and foam changes the local thermal capacitance of the mock-up, which in turn

affects its susceptibility to ignition. This is especially important for the cotton ducks, which are extremely flat and maintain very good surface contact with the foam in a flat configuration, but for

which side wrapping of the fabric around the foam would produce a significant surface contact

problem.

A second issue concerns whether the mock-up should mimic a crevice or a flat area of upholstered

furniture. The greatest realism would doubtless come in some degree of crevice configuration.

However, the crevice design introduces reproducibility problems. Accurate placement of the two

cushions to form the crevice is important so that the intersection line is even and repeatable. This

difficulty is compounded by the sensitivity of a cigarette's ignition propensity to its placement relative to both surfaces. Tests at CSIRO in Australia have indicated that the outcome of a crevice test (ignition or nonignition) can be heavily influenced by how firmly the operator places the cigarette in the crevice [19]. This introduces a potentially strong operator dependence that is undesirable.

Third is the desired degree of ignition susceptibility of the particular mock-up to the heat produced

by the cigarette. In the TSG full-scale furniture tests [3, 3], the commercial cigarette, a strong igniter,

generally showed a higher fraction of ignitions in the crevice configuration. Apparently the cigarette

coal generated enough heat to overcome the high thermal capacity of two fabric surfaces and the

restricted oxygen flow to the combustion zone. The four experimental cigarettes, with lower benchscale ignition propensities and presumably lower heat transferred, showed no consistent trend

between crevice and flat configurations. Various crevice substrates in the full-scale chairs produced

higher, similar or lower fractions of ignitions than the flat systems comprised of the same fabric and

padding. These results suggest that the flat configuration might better differentiate among cigarettes

of high ignition propensity than the crevice; on the other hand, Ihrig et al. [4], using four cigarettes on thirty fabrics, found the crevice to discriminate among their cigarettes while a flat mock-up did

not. For the cotton ducks used in this study, limited experiments were performed to see if a crevice

mock-up would aid in discriminating among the high ignition propensity cigarettes. The crevice

mock-up was found to be more ignitable and thus not helpful in seeking the desired discrimination.

For cigarettes of lower ignition propensity, there is no clear advantage of either configuration.

A fourth consideration is the surface size of the mock-up. This should be large enough to accommodate any reasonable length cigarette, while being small for ease of maintaining uniformity

of contact between the fabric and the lower layer(s) of the substrate.

28
For these reasons, it was decided to test in only the flat configuration. In addition, a square, flat brass frame (20 cm outer edge, 2.54 cm wide) was developed for placement on top of the fabric to assure that it remained in excellent contact with the foam below. The use of the frame is distinctly

more reproducible than anchoring the fabric edges with pins. The frame also guarantees that the

cigarette is placed in the same mockup location from test to test. The hot cigarette coal is placed

in the center of the mockup and the non-ignited tip (filter) of the cigarette is oriented toward one

of the right-angled comers of the frame.

The mockup was enlarged, compared to the mockups used in the TSG study, to 20.3 cm x 20.3 cm

(8" X 8"). This provides an ample-sized mockup for almost any cigarette length and eliminates the

need to determine the warp or weft orientation of the fabric with respect to mockup orientation.

Placing the cigarette on the mockup at a 45° angle assures that the smoldering cigarette tobacco

column will make equal contact with the warp and weft yams of the fabric.

With this flat configuration, consisting simply of a square of cotton duck held in good contact atop

a square of polyurethane foam (5.1 cm thick), a series of screening tests was performed to determine

the degree of ignition propensity differentiation provided by the various fabrics. Table 16 summarizes

the results.

Table 16. Percent Ignitions on Various Substrates for Selected Cigarettes

Flat Conflguration; 4 to 6 Replicates

Fabric -»

Cigarette # and

TSG Ignitions |

Duck #6 Duck #8 Duck #10 Duck #12

106 (1/20) 0 0 33 67

114 (4/20) 0 0 33 67

113 (6/20) 0 0 50 100

108 (7/20) 17 0 50 100

129 (10/20) 25 50 67 100

101 (13/20) 100 100 100 100

120 (20/20) 100 100 100 100

Table 16 shows that these fabric/foam mock-ups do provide varying degrees of differentiation of the

cigarettes. Ducks #6 and #8 were similar to each other. Duck #10 was more readily ignited. Duck

#12 (and the twill fabric in Table 6) provided only minimal differentiation among the weakest igniting

cigarettes. Duck #4, when assessed with a different set of TSG cigarettes (114, 108, 107, 101, 124,

and 125), showed a transition from non-ignition to ignition not greatly different from that of Duck

#6.

29
It was also desirable to have at least one mock-up which would be resistant to all but the most

ignition prone cigarettes (e.g., TSG rankings of 15/20 through 20/20). It is well known that polyester

battings used in upholstered furniture act as a heat sink and absorb the energy from a smoldering

cigarette. This suggested the use of a similar concept, the use of a thin, high density heat sink

material in better thermal contact with the fabric than is the case with low density batting. This was

incorporated into a mock-up consisting of the heaviest fabric, duck #4, and a thin thermoplastic film to serve the role of added heat sink. The Poly-America film listed in Table 15 served this role. Generally, cigarettes with a TSG test result of 16/20 ignitions and above are required to ignite this substrate though there was at least one anomaly (cigarette 102, with a TSG rating of 12/20 gave six ignitions in six replicates). The Warp Brothers PE film used in the main round robin proved even more ignition resistant.

5. Enclosure Design; Air Flow Considerations

The reason for enclosing the mock-up during a test is to isolate it from random, uncontrolled air currents which could lead to non-reproducible ignition behavior. A very simple open-top enclosure was utilized in the previous study [3]. This was reasonably effective, but it did not completely prevent

eddies induced by the laboratory ventilation system from causing occasional visible disturbances of

the smoke plume issuing from a cigarette on top of a mock-up. The flow disturbances were measured

at up to 8 cm/s. The data from those mock-up tests correlated well with those from full-scale tests in which the air flow disturbances were similarly random (in time and orientation) but of somewhat

greater magnitude (12-13 cm/s) [3].

The mock-up enclosure used in the present study is a modification of that designed by the cigarette

industry for their own round robin testing. Figure B-1 in Appendix B shows a schematic of the

enclosure and the associated smoke exhaust hood. The flow in the neighborhood of the cigarette is sufficiently low that the smoke plume rises totally undisturbed (visually) up into the chimney. Since

the cigarette plume must act as a weak pump carrying some air out of the box, some replacement air must flow down the outer portions of the chimney, but its velocity is too low to measure. The oxygen

level at the height of a burning cigarette drops no more than 0.1 to 0.2 % (below normal ambient

levels) when a cigarette burns its full length in this box.

The cigarette industry has expressed concern about the role of ambient air flow and its potential

ability to modify the ignition propensity of cigarettes. Changes of greatest concern would manifest

themselves as alterations in the rank ordering of the cigarettes' ignition propensities at different air velocities. Of lesser concern is the potential for all ignition propensities to increase uniformly.

Assessment of any changes in ignition propensities must consider the reproducibilities of both the

study that generates such information and of the cigarette ignition test methods themselves. The

former has not been addressed; the latter is discussed below in light of the interlaboratory study

results. For the present, it is important to note that shifts in relative ignition propensity must be

substantial (Le., 35% or more) to be judged significant. Cigarette industry staff have made several

presentations of their studies of the air flow effects on ignition propensity. The most thorough and

meaningful of these, in light of the above caveat, is discussed here.

In reference [20], Adiga et al. report on the effects of steady, low velocity flows impinging on

cigarettes in the same direction as that in which the coal is moving. (This head-on flow impingement

is the worst case with regard to impingement angle [21]. The steady, uni-directional nature of

30
the flow can also be expected to yield a greater impact on the cigarette coal than does a randomly

fluctuating flow that includes some flow reversals.) The peak flow velocity used there (5 cm/s on

their "breeze tunnel" centerline) gave a flow velocity on the cigarette centerline of approximately 1 cm/sec (4 mm from the wall surface). This is about the same as the average buoyancy-induced

velocity level reported by R. Flack (in a study for the cigarette industry) in the crevice region (4 mm

from surface) of a chair previously heated by a ca. 37 °C heater simulating a person [22]. These

real chair results also showed substantial flow fluctuations, including some flow reversals. While these

are very low velocities, they are comparable in magnitude to those measured very near the top of a cigarette coal during natural smolder when mounted horizontally in free space [23]. Presumably

the presence of a horizontal surface below the cigarette coal lowers the local plume velocity even more and renders it susceptible to alteration by small ambient velocities.

The impact of a flow disturbance on the cigarette coal is most likely to be one of increasing the coal

temperature somewhat since oxygen transport to the coal will be enhanced. Heat losses will also be

somewhat enhanced, but this effect should be smaller since the radiant component is not directly

affected. The magnitude of any change in the coal temperature is not readily estimated, however, even from an ignition model because the mass transfer processes in the critical region of contact

between coal and fabric are very complex. The impact on the fabric ignition process itself {Le., the

runaway acceleration of fabric char oxidation reactions) may not be negligible. This runaway is somewhat retarded by oxygen depletion below the coal [3], and air flow could affect this.

The overall consequences of very low ambient velocities such as were noted above are ambiguous at present. The impact of disturbing the air in the NIST enclosure was examined experimentally. A

small fan of the type used to vent electronics cabinets was mounted in one corner of the enclosure

at mid-height. The fan speed was controlled with a variable transformer and its RPM was set with

precise repeatability using a stroboscope. The fan blew upward so as to effect throughout the

enclosure volume a large, recirculating eddy-like flow which passed over the cigarette atop a mock-up

with the flow generally impinging head-on. The flow velocity fluctuated from 4 to 13 cm/s (unidirectional), blowing the smoke plume over at an angle that varied from 30° to 90° off vertical.'* Even though some smoke accumulated in the enclosure in these circumstances, the oxygen level at the height of the cigarette did not drop more than 0.2% below ambient except when mock-up ignition was well along. Table 17 shows there was no significant effect of this flow.

When the fan RPM was doubled, yielding flow velocities that fluctuated in the range from 10 to 25

cm/s, cigarettes 108 and 508 did respond with a significant increase in the number of mock-up

ignitions. Cigarettes 106, 130, 506, 508 and 529 did not; the other cigarettes all yielded essentially

100% ignitions under all conditions.

These flow velocities must be regarded as approximate since they were at the low end of the

capability of the anemometer used. The plume behavior was very clearly altered over its full height, however.

31
l^ble 17. EfTect of Air Flow Disturbance on Cigarette Ignition Propensity

Duck #6, Percent Ignitions

Cigarette #

(TSG Ign. Frac) Replicates No Flow Flow

Double

Flow

106 (1/20) 4 0 0 0

130 (4/20) 4 0 0 0

108 (7/20) 4 25 25 75

102 (12/20) 4 100 100 100

121 (14/20) 4 75 100 100

109 (15/20) 4 100 100 100

128 (20/20) 4 100 100 100

506 16 0 0 0

508 16 0 0 56

529 16 12 25 19

530 16 0 0 0

Adiga et al. [20] used the Series 500 cigarettes and cotton ducks stated to be comparable to those

used here. Their polyurethane foam was 25% lower in density than that used by NIST; but, as noted

above, we have found little effect of such a density difference. They also found a rather minimal

response from cigarettes placed atop duck #6, although cigarettes 530, 505 and 529 did show some

ignitions (10-30 %) at a steady, head-on airflow velocity of approximately 1 cm/s (cigarette

centerline); with no flow these three cigarettes gave no ignitions. The lighter cotton ducks (#8, #10,

#12) showed an increasing response to the same air flow, with the response being greatest for the

lightest duck. In all cases, however, while the absolute number of ignitions went up, the relative

ranking of the tested cigarettes remained similar to that seen with their TSG analogs. This type of

result, an upward shift in number of ignitions with small changes in relative cigarette ignition

propensity rankings, implies that testing with or without an ambient flow would produce little practical

difference. In assessing results of this type one has to bear in mind the degree of reproducibility of

the test and the limits this imposes on the ability to make distinctions in cigarette ranking. The

reproducibility of the mock-up test method developed here is discussed in the context of the

interlaboratory study below.

Adiga et al. [20] also examined the influence of air flow on the ignition behavior of the Series 500

cigarettes with two other fabrics, a blue denim and California Standard velvet. These are nominally

32
the same as two of the fabrics used in the TSG study, except that they were doped with potassium

acetate in this study to enhance their ignitability,^ The doped California velvet proved to be too

readily ignited by most of the Series 500 cigarettes to provide much information on air flow effects. The behavior on the blue denim was more complex. There was an increase in ignitions as the

potassium level was increased, even in the no-flow case. At any given level of potassium, the

presence of a steady air flow (ca. 1 cm/s at the cigarette centerline) enhanced the number of ignitions

still further. The most distinctive anomaly in all of this is the observation that three of the cigarettes

[505 (BELC-21), 506 (BELN-21), and 508 (BEHN-21)] showed a relatively stronger response to the

air flow, and this tended to alter their ranking substantially relative to the other cigarettes tested.

These are cigarettes whose TSG analogs exhibited low ignition propensities. Evidently, in the

presence of the particular air flow conditions of this experiment, these cigarettes on this fabric lose

their diminished ignition propensity and tend toward the behavior seen with high ignition propensity

cigarettes. A physical explanation for this is lacking at this time. The extent to which this result

would carry over to the real world is also not known at this time. As noted above, greater flow

differences between mock-up and chair tests in the TSG study did not preclude a good correlation

between the two types of tests.

In view of the information at hand, it has been judged appropriate to select the no-imposed-flow case

as preferable since it clearly is simplest and, on balance, seems quite relevant to the real world. In

the real world, the orientation of any flow relative to the cigarette coal is unknown but is probably

random; it will depend on where and in what orientation the cigarette happens to fall. Many ignitions

may occur down in a crevice-like crack, such as is formed by the seat cushion and the side of the

chair; and the air flow there is likely to be very small (smaller than the values measured by R. Flack

[22]). Thus, even cigarette designs such as those noted above as having lost their low ignition

propensity in some particular sets of circumstances are expected to exhibit low ignition propensity in many real world conditions. Should more information on the response of cigarettes to real world

conditions be developed in the future, it may be appropriate to supplement the no-imposed-flow test behavior with other data.

6. Test Variables

In order to optimize the test method specification, a list of parameters was compiled, prior to

finalizing the method, with advice from the Technical Advisory Group, to identify possible sources of test variability (Table 18). These were classified by source: substrate type, test environment, test operator and test procedure. Based on the extant data at the time of initial list compilation, each

parameter was assigned by NIST a sensitivity level that indicated its possible impact on the test outcome. For a standardized test method, it is desirable to have as many variables as possible

determined to be "not sensitive."

In the TSG study the California velvet was used over cotton batting in a flat mock-up

configuration. The blue denim was used in a crevice mock-up configuration with a cover

cloth over the cigarette. Neither ignites readily in a simple flat mock-up configuration over

polyurethane foam as used by Adiga et al.

33
Based on the various experimental results described above and careful, detailed specification of the

test procedure, NIST subsequently moved several of the variables in the "B" and "C" columns to the

"A" column. These included:

• additives and impurities of the materials and their physical properties;

• fabric tension, retention method, and configuration; and

• mockup location in the box.

Others were assigned as variables to be assessed during the interlaboratory study:

• the operator variables,

• materials conditioning, and

• relative humidity and temperature in both the conditioning and test rooms.

The series of items under "cigarette ignition procedure" was resolved based upon data from NIST and

the cigarette industry. These studies combined to establish a procedure that had minimal impact on

ignition propensity:

• ignition by a gas lighter with a fixed flame size,

• a cigarette pre-burn, in the vertical orientation, to a length of 15 mm subsequent to

ignition and prior to cigarette placement on the substrate,

• transport in a vertical orientation of the cigarette to the test chamber, so as not to dislodge the ash.

Since no significant changes in ignition propensity had been observed during the course of this study,

it was presumed that "fresh" substrate materials did not age substantially over a year.

Table 18 is instructive in that it indicates the large number of variables which must be considered and

controlled in order to assure a reproducible test outcome. Most are handled in a prescriptive manner

by restrictions on materials and by a very explicit test procedure.

34
Tkble 18. Estimated Sensitivity of Mock-Up Test Outcome to Test Variables

A = Not sensitive if carefully controlled; B = Expected to be sensitive; C = uncertain of sensitivity

VARIABLE A l. c VADIARI IT AA ft

SUBSTRATE enclosure materials X

Fabric external air flow X

fiber content X internal air flow X

additives X mock-up location in box - X

impurities X relative humidity X

existence and variation in backcoating X temperature X

existence and variation in fiber coating X OPERATOR

yam twist X experience level X

warp & fill count X glove use in handling mock-ups X

air permeability X mechanical handling of fabric X X

weave type X handling of cigarette X

pile depth X cigarette placement on mock-up X

areal density X ID of cigarettes X

Foaa TEST PROCEDURE

air permeability X allowed cigarette shelf life X

chemical formulation X allowed materials shelf life X

»ge X cigarette conditioning X

thickness X mock-up conditioning X

additives X retrieval of components for test X

inorganic content X cigarette ignition procedure

cell size X cigarette smolder line X

density X draw rate on cigarette X

Moclmp ignition time and flame location X

dimensions X movement to lest box X

fabric tension X orientation of cig. during free bum X

randomization of materials X ash retention X

# sides covered by fabric X placement of cig on mock-up X

fabric retention method {e.g., pins) X X door closure speed X

configuration (crevice, fiat..) X definition of ignition X

TEST ENVIRONMENT number of replicates X

enclosure size X

35
7. General Description of Mock-Up Ignition Test Method

This test method depends on seven components which are considered to be criticah

• a test operator skilled in basic laboratory techniques,

• an environmental room/chamber for preconditioning the cigarettes and mock-up

assemblies,

• an environmentally-controlled test room,

• a cigarette lighting apparatus,

• a test chamber,

® a furniture mock-up assembly, and

• the cigarette to be tested.

A photograph of a test chamber containing a mock-up assembly and a cigarette is shown in Figure

1. The test procedure is fully described in Appendix B. The following gives a brief description of

the test method.

This test procedure begins with the operator preparing the mock-up assemblies in a conditioned

environment. Clean, gloved hands are used at all times during the test procedure when handling

mock-ups and cigarettes (to preclude salt contamination). The mock-ups and cigarettes are conditioned for at least 24 hours at 55 ± 5 % relative humidity (RH) and 23 ± 3 °C. After

conditioning, the test materials may be moved from the conditioning room/chamber to the test room

in sealed plastic bags just prior to testing. The test room is conditioned to the same relative humidity

and temperature levels as the conditioning room. (Note the test room conditioning was specified

somewhat differently in the preliminary interlaboratory study). The vacuum draw ignition apparatus

is calibrated to a flow of 1000 cc/min. The mock-up assembly is placed into the test chamber's center

and a cigarette test specimen is selected and weighed. If the cigarette weight falls within the required

test range for that lot of specimens, a pencil mark is placed on the seam side, 15 mm from the tip.

The vacuum draw apparatus is started and the cigarette is placed into the apparatus holder. A

butane gas cigarette lighter with a pre-set, 15 mm high flame is ignited and held to the end of the

cigarette for three seconds. The lit cigarette is carefully removed from the ignition apparatus and is moved to the test chamber where it is placed into a cigarette holder located on the center of the

mock-up assembly. The chamber door is closed, and the cigarette is allowed to burn down to the 15

mm mark. At this point, the cigarette and holder are removed from the mock-up. The cigarette

holder is placed into the test chamber's corner and the cigarette is carefully placed diagonally across the mock-up assembly with the ash located at the center of the mock-up. A stopwatch is started to measure the burning time of the cigarette. If the ash falls off at any point in this process, another

cigarette is selected; and the process starts again as above. The cigarette is allowed to burn until one

of the following occurs:

• self-extinction of the cigarette,

36
• the cigarette burns its entire length without igniting the mock-up assembly, or

• ignition of the mock-up assembly.

An ignition is defined as a char zone propagating away from the burning tobacco column by at least 10 mm. The stopwatch is stopped upon observing any of the three final test conditions described

above. If the mock-up ignites, it and the cigarette are carefully extinguished. The test results are recorded.

8. Interlaboratory Study of Mock-Up Method

a. Preliminary Considerations

All test methods have some random variation that cannot be controlled easily. Tests performed on

materials considered to be identical under presumed identical test conditions do not, in general,

produce identical test results. This random behavior is generally attributed to the operator,

equipment used, calibration of the equipment and environmental changes. Controllable variabiHty

is kept to a minimum by a good written test procedure.

Standardized techniques have been developed for the evaluation of test method variability and

precision. Precision, as defined by ASTM, is a concept related to closeness of agreement among test results obtained under prescribed like conditions from a measurement process being evaluated

[24]. The approach used to evaluate the precision of a test procedure is an interlaboratory study

(ILS), referred to also as a round robin. The guide used for planning the interlaboratory studies

reported in this report was ASTM E691, Standard Practice for Conducting an Interlaboratory Study

to Determine the Precision of a Test Method [25].

Results from an interlaboratory study generally provide information on repeatability, i.e., a measure

of variability within a laboratory, and reproducibility, i.e., a measure of variability between laboratories. In addition, interlaboratory studies are often used in the process of test method development since

a properly designed experimental plan can help to identify areas of variability which may require

additional control. In the work reported here, interlaboratory studies were used for improving the

test procedures as well as for evaluating precision and reproducibility.

In planning the interlaboratory test programs reported here many factors were considered. Certain

of these were viewed as vitally important. Each of these key requirements was taken from ASTM

E691:

• A properly designed ILS will be as simple as possible in order to obtain estimates of

within- and between-laboratory variability that are free of unnecessary interferences.

• The design should include at least six laboratories.

• Laboratories participating in an ILS must be qualified to conduct the test procedure.

37
Figure 1. Photograph of a test chamber containing a mock-up assembly and a cigarette.

38
The test method should be subjected to a ruggedness test prior to being used in a major ILS. A ruggedness test is generally a small ILS which uses two or more

laboratories for evaluating and adjusting requirements in the test method to enhance

its function and to identify areas of variability which may need improvement.

• No fewer than three materials, in this case cigarettes, should be used in designing an

ILS, and the materials should represent different levels of property measurement.

• The numbers of tests in an ILS should be of sufficient number to obtain a good

estimate of repeatability.

b. Selection of Cigarettes for Interlaboratory Study

As described above (Section II.A), the cigarettes for the round robin studies were selected from the

Series 500 set; there were insufficient cigarettes from the Series 100 set for this purpose. Series 500,

like Series 100, includes 32 different cigarette designs {i.e., variants of tobacco type, packing density,

paper citrate content and paper porosity); a smaller subset was chosen for use in the interlaboratory

studies.

The size of the subset to be used in the ILS clearly affects the total testing load to be imposed on

all participating laboratories, and a compromise between cigarette design diversity and test load was

sought. These concerns led to the choice of a three-week test program for the mock-up ignition

method and a one-week plan for the cigarette extinction method. The experimental plans were

designed to use a balanced selection of five different cigarette types for the study.

Eight of the thirty-two cigarettes in the 500 Series were initially selected as candidates to be used in the ILS. (See Sect. II.A.) These initial cigarette types were chosen to reflect the range of designs

found in this group of experimental cigarettes. Packing parameters used in the selection included

tobacco type, expanded vs. nonexpanded tobacco, wrapping paper porosity, paper citrate content and

cigarette circumference. This initial selection of cigarettes consisted of types identified with the

following numbers: 501, 503, 506, 508, 520, 529, 530 and 531.

The second phase of selection, which picked the five cigarettes to be used in the interlaboratory

study, was based on the range of ignition performance. Tests were conducted to identify the ignition

propensity of the eight cigarettes using the three mock-up assemblies selected for the interlaboratory

study. The results are shown in Table 5 (Section II.A). On the basis of these results, the following

cigarette types were chosen for the interlaboratory study: 501, 503, 529, 530 and 531. Cigarettes 501

and 503 have relatively high ignition propensities; cigarette 531 has an intermediate ignition

propensity and cigarettes 529 and 530, relatively low propensities. The choice of these five cigarettes

provides a range of performance which can be used to evaluate the test procedure appropriately.

This range of ignition propensity covers that from the population of the experimental cigarettes

supplied by the industry for this study. Prior NIST work [3] has shown that the high end of this range was typical of current commercial cigarettes, while the lower end tends to cause few ignitions on any

of the tested substrates. Table 19 provides a description of each cigarette type used in the

interlaboratory study.

39
Table 19. Description of Interlaboratory Study Cigarettes

Cigarette Ibbacco Tobacco Paper Paper Circumference

Designation Type Expansion Porosity Additive (mm)

501 BNLC-21 Burley Non-Expanded Low Citrate 21

503 BNHC-21 Burley Non-Expanded High Citrate 21

529 FELC-25 Flue-Cured Expanded Low Citrate 25

530 FELN-25 Flue-Cured Expanded Low None 25

531 FEHC-25 Flue-Cured Expanded High Citrate 25

c. Logging and Randomizing Mock-Up Materials

Logging of Samples. Several systems were implemented to track mock-up materials from product

lots. Log books were maintained for the receipt and identification of all materials. Similarly, records were kept on all materials sent to the individual laboratories participating in the interlaboratory study.

Fabric bolts were prepared in runs of approximately 64 linear meters (70 linear yards), and the bolts were numbered sequentially. Each bolt was given an identification number. When a bolt was

selected for cutting, the fabric was laid out and marked into 20.3 cm x 20.3 cm (8" x 8") samples.

Every sample was identified with a duck number, a bolt number and two additional numbers which

indicated the length and width position of the sample in the individual bolt. All numbers identifying a test sample were entered into a permanent log book. The fabrics were handled by gloved personnel

and maintained in closed plastic bags prior to mock-up preparation. At approximately 10 meter

intervals, a sample was randomly selected from across the width of the goods for ion chromatography

analysis.

The polyethylene film samples were tracked, prepared and identified in the same manner as was used

for the fabrics. At approximately every 3 linear meters (10 linear ft), a sample was taken for product

analysis testing.

The polyurethane foam order consisted of three buns from a sequential production lot. NIST sent an observer to the production plant to verify how the foam was formed, cured, cut and packaged.

The lots were marked to indicate the orientation of the foam as it was received off the production

run. The packages were disassembled at NIST, and individual foam samples from two of the buns were identified by length and width from the section of the production lot. Every foam piece was

logged into a permanent record book. The foam was maintained in closed cardboard boxes.

Randomization of Samples. Fabric samples were randomized according to the following procedure.

First, the total number of a cotton duck fabric samples (e.g., duck #4) needed for testing throughout

nine laboratories was determined. That number was apportioned, for nearly even distribution, from

the number of possible samples obtainable from each bolt of that duck. The appropriate number of

samples from a given bolt, was taken randomly and then distributed randomly among the nine

laboratories. Laboratory sample logs were prepared by NIST to track samples being sent to the labs

40
(duck no., bolt no., length and width position of sample on the bolt). Test laboratories were

instructed to randomize the samples for any given fabric type.

The polyethylene film samples were randomized in the same manner as the fabrics.

Eleven subsections of polyurethane foam were selected at random from the production lot. The

individual samples from the foam subsection were identified with two symbols. The foam pieces were

then randomly distributed throughout a large, clean room. A number of NIST staff members were

asked to randomly select five pieces of foam from the room and place the foam into cardboard boxes.

This was then repeated in turn for each foam subsection. At the end of this process, each box

contained 55 pieces, 5 pieces from each of the 1 1 subsections. The test laboratories were instructed

to take one box of foam for a given day's testing and to randomize those foam pieces prior to

testing.

d. Preliminary Interlaboratory Study

A preliminary interlaboratory study was conducted for evaluation and further refinement of the mockup ignition method. This study was not designed to validate the new procedure but rather was

designed as a screening round to evaluate the effectiveness of the written test protocol and to further

study the test method on a multi-laboratory basis. This preliminary round also met the need for a ruggedness test prior to conducting a complete ILS. Three laboratories participated in the

preliminary study: Consumer Product Safety Commission, Engineering Laboratory; National Institute

of Standards and Technology, Building and Fire Research Laboratory; and Philip Morris USA,

Research Laboratory.

In June, 1992, a memo was sent to each participating laboratory providing basic information about

the planned study. This memo included a draft of the test method and identified areas where the

laboratories might have to make modifications to their test facilities needed for successfully

conducting the study. Emphasis was placed on the need for tight control over environmental

conditions in the specimen conditioning room/chamber and in the test room. The requirements called

for the conditioning room/chamber to be maintained at 50 ± 5% relative humidity (RH) and 23 ±

3 °C and the test room to be maintained at 55 ± 10% RH and 23 ± 3 °C.

Test Operator Training. Each laboratory sent two test operators to NIST for training in July, 1992.

One trainee was to be experienced with cigarette ignition testing and the other was to possess only

general laboratory skills with no fire test experience. This difference in operator skills would be one

of the variables in the ILS. During this training session operators also received detailed instructions on how to report test results. All test operators received a test workbook which contained a copy

of the test procedure, a daily weather information form, a test procedure checklist, a fifteen day

experimental plan and a daily experimental plan specific to each operator. This book also contained

a sample, fiUed-in worksheet as a guide for the operators and a set of blank individual test worksheets

for reporting all tests. In addition, each laboratory received a computer disk containing a program

for entering their daily test results. The computer data were used as a backup for the workbooks and

also facilitated preparation of a computer-readable data base for use in the data analysis.

Test Chambers and Accessories. Test chamber kits with square brass frames for holding the

fabric/film flat on the foam substrate and cigarette holders were prepared at NIST Several weeks

before testing was to begin, the test chamber kits with all accessories and two butane cigarette lighters

41
were shipped to each of the laboratories. The chamber kits provided enough materials to construct

five complete test chambers, although only four were needed for the study. Each laboratory

assembled their own chambers using directions supplied with the kits.

Test Materials: Cigarettes. Before shipping test cigarettes to the laboratories, NIST took a random

sample of cigarettes from each lot and weighed them to determine the acceptable weight range for

cigarettes to be tested. The test weight range was plus or minus two standard deviations from the

mean value of the sample. A weight range table was prepared and sent to each laboratory with the

cigarettes. The participants were instructed to use only cigarettes that fell within the weight ranges

specified in the table. All cigarettes that exhibited weights outside of the specified ranges were to be discarded.

Cigarettes were randomly selected from each lot for each laboratory and packaged for shipping.

Approximately 200 cigarettes of each test type were shipped to the laboratories by two-day delivery.

This quantity provided enough cigarettes to allow for losses resulting from specimens that were out

of the acceptable weight range or were damaged and for retests if materials were discarded from

aborted tests.

Test Materials: Mock-Ups. The three mock-up assemblies described earlier in the text were used:

duck #4 with a layer of polyethylene film placed between the fabric and polyurethane foam, duck #6

placed directly atop the polyurethane foam, and duck #10 placed directly atop the polyurethane

foam. The experimental plan required each substrate to be tested with each cigarette type 48 times

(24 times by each operator). Approximately 280 sets of fabric and foam for each type of mock-up

were randomly selected for each laboratory and shipped to them for testing. This provided approximately forty extra mock-up assemblies for each type used in the study. The excess assemblies allowed

the laboratories to replace damaged materials or rerun aborted tests.

Laboratory Visits. During the month of August, 1992, the ILS coordinator visited each of the

participating laboratories. These visits included a review of lalxjratory arrangements for testing, an

air flow calibration check for each test chamber, a standard relative humidity calibration for each

laboratory, and a review of the test program protocol and test method. The visit also provided

opportunities for discussing any last minute questions which the participants had before beginning

the test program. The preliminary test program began during the last week of August; and all laboratories had completed the test program by the end of September, 1992.

Nature of the Preliminary Test Round. This preliminary test program was carried out using the

mock-up ignition method described above. The interlaboratory test plan was developed with

assistance from the NIST Statistical Engineering Division, using ASTM E691-87 [25] as a guide. The

factorial design used had the following structure:

• 3 Laboratories

• 2 Operators per laboratory

• 5 Cigarette types

• 3 Number of substrates

• 4 Number of test chambers

• 48 Replicates per cigarette per mock-up

• 3 Weeks of testing

• 720 Total cigarette tests per laboratory

42
Within the factorial experimental design, the following variables were tracked for possible study:

• Operator skill level - experienced or unexperienced

• Tune of day - morning (AM) or afternoon (PM)

• Test chamber number - 1, 2, 3 or 4

• Mock-up assembly type - 1, 2 or 3

• Q)nditioning room relative humidity and temperature

• Test room relative humidity and temperature

• Cigarette ignition propensity

General Tfest Plan. All tests were to be performed in the prescribed randomized order as specified

in the individual operator workbooks. A single cigarette type was tested by both operators on any

given day. Both operators conducted their specified tests simultaneously. Each operator was assigned

a pair of test chambers to be used during the morning hours and then switched to their co-worker's

test chambers during the afternoon. Mock-up assemblies were tested in the order specified in each

operator's workbook. The plan resulted in each cigarette/mock-up assembly being tested twice on

each day. Individual test results were to be recorded in the workbooks as each test was completed;

and each operator was required to complete a daily summary sheet containing all the information on

laboratory operations, conditioning room/chamber control and environmental control in the test room. At the end of each day, operators were requested to transfer their data from the workbook to the

computer disk data file.

Analysis of Results. When the test workbooks and computer disks were received at NIST, each was

carefully reviewed for accuracy. A small percentage of errors of various types was found in the

booklets and computer files. The workbooks showed some missing data and showed some mixed

units, generally in temperature measurements. The computer files exhibited typos, transposed

numbers and mixed units. These irregularities were corrected on the computer files (by reference

to the workbooks) before the data were transferred onto combined laboratory computer files and

submitted to the NIST Statistical Engineering Division for analysis.

The combined data file contained 2160 (= 720 x 3) lines of data, corresponding to 720 ignition tests per lab for each of 3 labs. Each line of data consisted of the values of 13 variables. The names used

for these variables and a description of the information they represent are summarized in Table 20.

43
Table 20. Variables in Analysis of Preliminary Interlaboratory Study

Viariable Name Description

TST_RSLT Test Result, coded as: I=Ignition, N=Non-Ignition,

S =Self-Extinguishment

LAB Laboratory Number (1-3)

CIG_TYPE Cigarette Type (Coded as 1-5, representing Series 501,

503, 529, 530, 531, respectively)

SUBSTRAT Fabric/Film/Foam Substrate Identifier

1 = Number 4 Cotton Duck

2 = Number 6 Cotton Duck

3 = Number 10 Cotton Duck

Auxiliary Categorical Variables:

CHAMBER Test Chamber Number (1-4)

TST_BLK Test Block (Week of testing, or equivalent group of five

test days = 1, 2 or 3)

OPERATOR Operator (E=Experienced, I=Inexperienced)

AMPM Time of Day (A=AM, P=PM)

DATE Date of test (MMDDYY)

Auxiliary Continuous Variables:

TSTTEMP Test Room Temperature

TSTRH Test Room Relative Humidity

CNDTEMP Conditioning Room Temperature

CNDRH Conditioning Room Relative Humidity

Except for DATE, all of the variables in Table 20 were studied in the statistical analyses. The DATE

variable was used primarily in the process of checking the data files.

In reporting the test results (TST_RSLT), the laboratories made a distinction between two distinct

types of non-ignition outcomes, as follows. For a cigarette which extinguished before the entire

tobacco column was burned, the outcome was coded as S, for Self-Extinguishment. Alternatively,

when the tobacco column burned all the way to the end without igniting the fabric substrate, it was coded as N, for Non-Ignition.

The test results for the preliminary round are summarized by LAB, CIG_TYPE, and SUBSTRAT

in Table 21. The distinction shown there between Self-Extinguishment and Non-Ignition was not

used formally in the statistical analysis of the results. Instead, a simpler presentation and analysis were obtained by combining the two types of non-ignition. Thus, a derived variable, named "IGN," was defined as follows:

44
IGN = Y if TST_RSLT = I (ignition) = N if TST_RSLT = N or S (non-ignition).

A graphical summary of the test results for the preliminary interlaboratory study, based on the derived

variable, IGN, is shown in Figure 2. In this figure, the height of each vertical bar represents the

proportion of test runs resulting in ignition (IGN=Y) obtained by the corresponding laboratory for

the substrate and cigarette indicated. The 15 bar charts are arranged in a pattern with three rows, corresponding to the three substrates (mock-up configurations) used in testing, and five columns

corresponding to the five cigarette types tested. The order in which the cigarettes are shown is based on the total number of ignitions for each cigarette type, with cigarettes having the highest ignition

propensity on the left and those having the lowest ignition propensity on the right. (Cigarettes 503

and 501 actually had the same number of ignitions in the preliminary interlaboratory study. Cigarette

503 is shown first in Figure 2 based on the fact that 503 had the most ignitions in the main interlaboratory study described below. Except for the tie between cigarettes 503 and 501 in the preliminary

round, the ordering of the cigarettes based on total number of ignitions was the same in the two

rounds of interlaboratory tests of the mockup ignition test method.)

It should be observed from the summary shown in Figure 2 and Table 21 that the lab-to-lab variation

in the proportion of ignitions is not excessive in comparison with the amount of variation that is commonly found in fire testing. (See below in discussion of main interlaboratory study.) In fact, the

largest deviation of any single lab value from the mean proportion of ignitions was about 0.15, which

occurred for cigarette 529 on substrate 3 (duck #10). Thus, based on this simple criterion, the

mockup ignition test method showed promise of utility.

The participating laboratories were instructed to control the test environment so as to maintain the

temperature and humidity variables within defined limits. The data showing the actual range of these

variables in the preliminary round are summarized graphically in Figure 3.

45
l^Me 2i. Susnmary of Test Results for Preliminary Interlaboratory Study

1 Test Results

Cigarette Substrate Laboratory Ignitions Non-Ignitions Self-Extinguishments

1 48 0 0

1 2 40 8 0

3 36 12 0

1 48 0 0

1 2 2 48 0 0

3 48 0 0

1 48 0 0

3 2 48 0 0 — 3 48 0 0

1 47 1 0

1 2 35 13 0

3 42 6 0

1 48 0 0

2 2 2 48 0 0

3 48 0 0

1 48 0 0

3 2 48 0 0

3 48 0 0

1 0 0 48

1 2 0 0 48

3 0 0 48

1 3 0 45

3 2 2 0 0 48

3 3 0 45

1 13 0 35

3 2 8 0 40

3 21 0 27

46
1^ Results

Cigarette SBbstrete Laboratory Ignitions Non-Ignitions Self-Extingoistiments

1 u nu *to

1 2 0 0 48

3 0 0 48

1 n n HO

4 2 2 \j 0 HO

3 n 0 48

1 0 0 48

3 2

r\

yj HO

3 1 nu 47H /

1

1 2 0 17 31

3

-J 34 11

1 45 1 2

5 2 2 37 0 11

3 46 0 2

1 47 0 1

3 2 45 0 3

3 47 0 1

47
s g

8uo|||uO| tp uofpodoid uofliuOi I/O uoipodoid

s

<5

I

J

suoinuBi JO uopjodojcj 8UO{1|L0| JO UOjUOCtoid

I

uoMuDi JO uonjocfcuxj suonuOl JO uonjodojd

suotu>-<B| JO uofljodojcj suomuSi JO uoftjockud

uo|||uB| JO uoRiOdoJcj •uoniuBi JO uofpodOJd uofituBi JO uoBJOctoid

48

cs
8

c

"co

ys. o

c

8

O)C

'co

'a

T3C

(O) exi^Bjadiuai

—r

in

I ' " I " ' I " '

I ' " I " '

I ' I

' '

' I " 'I " 1

(%) AjipimnH sa!IB|9u

COa,

0)E

8

c

E

» 8

(O) ©jnjBJ9duj9i

I " 'I " '

I

'

' I

'

" I " '

I " 'I

(%) AjipiiunH 0ARe|9u

49

I

il-i I

u

1

a

a?

B o 2 a

C Q, W 3

I
In Figure 3, the distributions of the environmental variables are represented by box plots. Box plots are constructed so that the rectangular boxes contain the range covered by the central 50% of the

data, with a line drawn in the interior of the box to represent the median of the data. The "whiskers"

(vertical lines) attached to the central 50% boxes extend to the upper and lower limits of all the data,

except that values far away from the central portion are identified as "outliers" and are plotted

separately with "+" symbols. (The statistical software used to produce these box plots identifies an

outlier as any data value whose distance from the median exceeds 1.5 times the length of the box.)

Also indicated in Figure 3, by the space between the horizontal dashed lines, are the target ranges

for the environmental variables stated in the instructions for conducting the testing. Comparing the

locations of the box plots with the dashed lines shows how successful, or not, the labs were in maintaining the environmental conditions within the target ranges. For example, the plot in the

upper left-hand comer of the figure shows clearly that temperature in the testing room of Lab 1 was

always a bit higher than the target range. The same plot shows that, while the temperature varied

more widely in Lab 2 than in Lab 1, the temperature in Lab 2 was inside the target temperature

range approximately two-thirds of the time.

For all three labs, the humidity in the conditioning rooms tended to stay just above 55%, which was

the upper limit of the target range. As mentioned in Section II.B.S.e below, this fact influenced the

decision to change the target range for humidity in the main interlaboratory study.

A statistical analysis was undertaken to ascertain whether a significant portion of the variation in the

ignition results could be attributed to variation in the four environmental variables: TSTTEMP,

TSTRH, CNDTEMP, and CNDRH. The statistical procedure used was logistic regression analysis,

implemented by the CATMOD procedure in SAS*. This analysis proceeded by first fitting a full model in which IGN was modeled as a function of the variables LAB, CIG_TYPE and SUBSTRAT,

plus the four continuous environmental variables. This model was compared with a reduced model

in which the environmental variables were omitted. The overall result of this analysis was that none

of the environmental variables showed a statistically significant effect on ignitions, based on the

criterion that the significance probability, or "p-value," was greater than 0.05.

By contrast, the other three variables, LAB, CIG_TYPE and SUBSTRAT were all statistically

significant well below the 0.05 significance level. This result was not unexpected. The five cigarettes were selected for testing to represent a range of ignition behaviors. Similarly, the three substrates were designed to elicit a range of ignition responses. The finding of significant variation between

labs, while not particularly desired, is nonetheless a common occurrence in interlaboratory studies of

test methods of all kinds. General experience with interlaboratory studies at NIST has been that a

statistically significant difference between laboratories can be detected more often than not.

The statistical analysis also investigated whether the ignition results were significantly affected by the

four categorical variables: CHAMBER, TST_BLK, OPERATOR, and AMPM. Both logistic

regression and the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test procedure were used for this purpose, again

implemented by the CATMOD procedure in SAS®. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel procedure was

implemented in a way which tests for a significant association between ignition results (IGN) and each

SAS® statistical software, Version 6. SAS® is a registered trademark of SAS Institute Inc., SAS Circle, Box 8000, Cary, NC 27512-8000.

50
categorical variable while controlling for the effects of LAB, CIG_TYPE and SUBSTRAT For

sample, when applied to the OPERATOR variable, these procedures test whether the difference

in ignition results between the experienced and inexperienced operators was greater than would be

expected due to random variation. As was the case for the environmental variables, these tests were

all nonsignificant, using a significance level criterion of 0.05.

Results from the preliminary ILS showed that the test procedure could be successfully replicated in more than one laboratory. The results from the three laboratories also indicated that the test procedure could be expected to be acceptably repeatable within a laboratory and reproducible

between laboratories. The findings from this study pointed the way to the main ILS.

e. Main Interlaboratory Study

The main interlaboratory study was similar to the preliminary version, but a number of changes were made based on findings from the earlier study. The same factorial experimental design was used,

expanded to include nine laboratories.

With this test round, as before, each new laboratory was shipped test chamber kits which they

assembled. With this shipment they also received the square brass frames and cigarette holders for

each chamber. An operator training program was held in September, 1992 for all participating

laboratories. Again, each laboratory was asked to provide an operator experienced with cigarette fire testing and an inexperienced tester. During the training session, each operator acquired hands-on

experience with the mock-up ignition method and the cigarette extinction method. Both test methods

were included in the training because an ILS for the cigarette extinction method was planned to follow the ILS for the mock-up ignition method.

Based on the satisfactory performance of the test cigarettes and mock-up assemblies in the

preliminary round, each was retained for the main ILS. Each of the participating laboratories was

shipped approximately 200 cigarettes of each type, as used in the preliminary study. The three sets of mock-up test materials that duplicated those used in the preliminary study were also shipped to each laboratory. However, the original lot of polyethylene film had been depleted. Additional

polyethylene film was ordered from the retail supplier, and they inadvertently substituted a nominally

similar material, which was included in the shipments to the nine laboratories. The film difference was discussed in Section II.B.3.

An additional 125 cigarettes with a separate designation ("P) were sent to the labs with the other

cigarette lots and an extra box of fabric and foam substrate materials was shipped to each laboratory.

These additional cigarettes and mock-up materials were provided to give the test operators an

opportunity to practice running the test before beginning the main study. The practice tests would

only be run after a visit by the interlaboratory study coordinator. Test operators were instructed to use cigarette "P and the extra box of fabric and foam materials to run twelve practice tests. After

completing the practice tests with cigarette "F," each lab would report their results to NIST by FAX.

As was done with the preliminary ILS, the interlaboratory coordinator visited each laboratory to review laboratory environmental conditions and control, check test chamber functioning and provide

a relative humidity calibration for the lab. Also the coordinator met with laboratory management and

test operators to review the test protocol and to answer last minute questions. All laboratory visits

51
were completed by the middle of October, 1992. Most laboratories began testing the practice

cigarette materials shortly after the coordinator visit was completed. Upon receiving the reports by

FAX on the practice round, NIST reviewed the data; and laboratories were given permission to start the main round. All laboratories completed their assigned test work and submitted their data to NIST by the middle of December, 1992.

Impact of Preliminary Round: Environmental Conditions. In the preliminary study, the conditioning

room and test room environments had different specifications. Conditioning room/chamber relative

humidity was to be controlled at 50 ± 5 %. The test room was to be controlled at a level of 55 ±

10% RH. This difference in environmental conditions appeared to create some confusion within the

participating laboratories. Therefore, discussions with the laboratories and a review of test results

brought about agreement on a change to the required conditions. When the test procedure was

rewritten for the main ILS, it included a single new environmental requirement for both conditioning

room and test rooms: 55 ± 5% RH. This modification of the procedure also allowed the cigarette

company labs to operate under conditions normal to their needs, and it also allowed laboratories

using test procedures requiring relative humidities of 50% to maintain their normal laboratory

conditions.

Impact of Preliminary Round: Selecting Cigarette Test Weights. In the preliminary ILS, NIST

sampled and weighed each test cigarette lot to establish the range of cigarette weights to be tested. In the main study, this process was transferred to each laboratory. The laboratories were shipped

approximately 200 cigarettes of each type and were instructed to follow this same procedure in

determining the proper weights of cigarettes to be tested from each lot.

Impact of Preliminary Round: Cigarette Self-Extinction. In the preliminary ILS, it was found that

certain types of cigarettes had burning characteristics that resulted in self-extinction shortly after they were ignited. Such a cigarette would often go out before being laid onto the mock-up assembly;

hence it was discarded and the test was re-run. Even if one of these cigarettes burned long enough

to be placed onto the mock-up, it would soon self-extinguish. It became apparent that this portion

of the test procedure could be modified to indicate a self-extinction at any point after a cigarette was

properly ignited. During the main ILS, it was specified that if a cigarette should self-extinguish at any point after being properly ignited, even if it had not been placed onto the mock-up, the test was

complete. Data from such cases were recorded as self-extinctions.

52
Participants and Procedures. Nine laboratories participated in the main interlaboratory study. This

group included industry, state and federal government laboratories and an independent testing

laboratory. The list of participants follows:

• American Tobacco Company, Research Laboratory

• Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company, Research Laboratory

• Bureau of Home Furnishings, State of California

• Consumer Product Safety Commission, Engineering Laboratory

• Diversified Testing Company

• Lorillard, Research Laboratory

• National Institute of Standards and Technology,

Building and Fire Research Laboratory

• Philip Morris USA, Research Laboratory

• R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Research Laboratory

[Note that this listing does not correspond to the identification numbers, 1 through 9, which appear

later in the report. Those numbers were assigned randomly for anonymous presentation of the

results.]

As stated above, several changes were made to the test procedure based on experiences gained from

the preliminary ILS. The preliminary study also indicated how the recording and reporting of data

could be streamlined, and these changes were made in the main study. Each tester in the program

received a booklet containing copies of the test procedure and other ILS guidelines. They also

received three separate workbooks for recording data, one for each week of the three-week test program. Each laboratory received three computer disks for putting the test results into computerreadable form. The following instructions were given on new procedures for recording and submitting

data to NIST for analysis: Test operators were directed to record all data in their workbooks as they

prepared and completed each test. At the end of each day they were to enter their data into the

computer, which would then print out a daily summary for each operator. These summary sheets were to be FAXed to NIST at the end of each day. At the end of each week, the weekly workbooks

and the weekly computer disks were to be mailed to NIST by two-day delivery. This method of

acquiring data helped to reduce the time needed for assembling the test data and preparing it for

analysis.

Purpose and Methods of Analyzing Results. Information provided in the daily FAX report from the

laboratories was used by NIST to evaluate laboratory progress. It also provided information necessary

for preparing data files for each laboratory. As the ILS progressed, not all of the laboratories

consistently submitted the daily FAX reports. Some labs would accumulate several days of testing

before FAXing the reports to NIST As the test results were submitted to NIST, they were organized

into appropriate data files used for review of accuracy and for analysis. These files were compared

to the data recorded in the test workbooks, and corrections were made as needed. Again with this ILS, there were missing data in the workbooks and incorrect units reported. The computer files again

showed typos, transposed numbers and mixed units. There were 6,480 test results returned from the

main ILS. Of these data, approximately five percent contained errors of the types discussed above.

One operator in each of two laboratories failed to enter all the ignition data in the lab workbooks;

however, all data were entered into the computer files. Less than 0.3 percent of the ignition data were missing from the workbooks.

53
A few cases were noted in which laboratories ran some of the test replications on the wrong mock-up

configuration, compared to what was called-for in the test plan. The result was that the number of

tests actually conducted differed from the intended number (48 replications) by ± 2, for some

combinations of cigarette type and mock-up configuration. These cases are reflected in rows of Table

22 for which the total number of Test Results reported (Ignitions + Non-Ignitions -I- SelfExtinguishments) sums to 46 or 50, instead of 48. In all cases, the total number of tests performed

by the laboratory was correct.

Raw Data. As noted, the combined computer file contains 6480 lines of data, corresponding to 720

ignition results per laboratory for each of 9 laboratories. The 720 results per laboratory arise from

48 tests of each of 5 cigarettes on each of 3 substrates (720 = 48 x 5 x 3).

The raw data on each line of the computer file represent the same set of thirteen variables described

previously in Table 20. There are two minor changes in the data for these variables compared to

their descriptions in Table 20: the LAB variable has a range from 1 to 9 in the main round, rather

than 1 to 3, as in the preliminary round; and the variable OPERATOR no longer differentiates one

of the operators as "Experienced" and the other as "Inexperienced," but rather codes the two

operators simply as number "1" and number "2," in no particular order. This change was made

because it was impractical, and seemed unnecessary, to recruit truly inexperienced operators at each

of the nine laboratories for the main round evaluation. Generally, both operators at each lab had

some previous experience in testing ignition propensities of cigarettes or had sufficient acclimation

after the first several days of testing to be regarded as experienced.

A summary of the test results, by LAB, CIG_TYPE and SUBSTRAT, is presented in Table 22. Note

that identifying numbers were assigned independently to the laboratories in the preliminary and in the

main rounds of the interlaboratory evaluation so, for example, laboratory number 3 in the preliminary

round is not the same as number 3 in the main round. In Table 22, the ignition results are recorded

in three categories, as given by the variable TST_RSLT As was done for the preliminary round, the

two types of non-ignitions were combined into a single category for the statistical analyses. Thus, as before, the test results were analyzed in terms of the derived variable IGN, which simply records the

results as ignition (IGN=Y) or non-ignition (IGN=N).

A graphical display of the data in Thble 22 is shown in Figure 4, where, for each cigarette (by

columns) and substrate (by rows) the proportion of ignitions is represented by a vertical bar for each

laboratory. The cigarette types are shown from left to right in order of decreasing ignition propensity,

with cigarette 503 having the most ignitions (in the left-most column of plots) and cigarette 530

having the fewest ignitions (in the right-most column). The three mockup configurations are shown

as rows in the figure, with the least ignitable substrate (duck #4) as the top row and the most

ignitable (duck #10) as the bottom row of the figure. For several cigarette and substrate combinations, all laboratories showed either 100% ignitions (charts near the lower left corner of the figure) or 0% ignitions (those near the upper right corner). Cases with intermediate ignition percentages

fall near the diagonal (upper left to lower right) in the figure.

54
Table 22. Summary of Test Results for Main Interlaboratory Study, Mock-Up Ignition Method

Ttst Results

Cigarette

Typ* Substrate Laboratoiy

IgnitioQs Non-Ignitions

Self- ExtinguishI

' ments

1 2 46 0

2 5 43 0

3 1 47 0

4 3 45

1 5 1 47

6 3 45 0

7 6 42 0

8 16 34 ___________

0

9 11 37 0

1 48 0 0

2 48 0 0

3 48 0 ______

0

4 48 0 0

501 2 5 48 0 0

6 48 0 0

7 48 0 0

8 46 0 0

1 9 48 0 0

1 48 0 0

2 48 0 0

3 48 0 0

4 48 0 0

3 5 48 0 0

1 6 48 0 0

1

7 48 0

1

8 48 : 0

1 9 48 0 0

1

55
Test Results

Cigarette

Type Substrate Lai>oratory

lgnitioD$ Non-Ignitions

Self- Extinguishnients

1 20 28 0

2 26 22 0

3 19 29 0

4 33 15 0

1 5 22 26 0

6 19 27 2

7 21 27 0

8 34 14 0

9 36 12 0

1 48 0 0

2 48 0 0

3 46 0 0

4 48 0 0

503 2 5 48 0 0

6 48 0 0

7 48 0 0

8 46 0 0

9 48 0 0

1 48 0 0

2 48 0 0

3 50 0 0

4 48 0 0

3 5 48 0 0

6 48 0 0

7 48 0 0

8 50 0 0

9 48 0 0

56
Test Results

Cigarette

lype Substrate Laboratory

Ignitions Non-Ignitions

SMeii- Extinguishmerits

1 0 0 48

2 0 0 48

3 0 0 48

4 0 0 48

1 5 0 0 48

0 0 48

7 0 0 48

g 0 0 48

9 0 0 48

1 1 0 47

2 3 1 44

3 6 0 42

4 3 0 45

529 2 5 0 0 48

6 3 1 44

7 0 0 48

8 6 0 42

9 11 0 37

1 10 0 38

2 15 0 33

3 18 0 30

4 13 0 35

3 5 u 43

6 14 0 34

7 12 0 36

8 20 0 28

9 24 0 24

57
Test Results

Cigarette Substrate Laboratory

Ignitions Non-!^nitions

Self. Extinguish* ments

1 0 0 48

2 0 0 48

3 0 0 48

4 0 0 48

1 5 0 0 48

6 0 0 48

7 0 0 48

8 0 0 48

9 0 0 48

1 0 0 48

2 0 0 48

3 0 0 48

4 0 0 48

530 2 5 0 0 48

6 0 0 48

7 0 0 48

8 0 0 48

9 1 0 47

1 0 0 48

2 0 0 48

3 1 0 47

4 0 0 48

3 5 0 0 48

6 0 0 48

7 1 0 47

8 3 0 45

6 0 42

58
59

Auxiliarv Variables. A statistical analysis was undertaken to detect possible dependence of the

ignition results, through the variable IGN, on the eight auxiliary variables described in Table 20. It was not the purpose of this analysis to develop a detailed understanding of such dependencies from

the interlaboratory study data — a designed experiment in a single laboratory would be better for that

purpose. Rather, the purpose of the analysis of the auxiliary variables was to reveal features of the

data that might point to any major problems with the execution or performance of the method in

different laboratories.

The ranges of environmental conditions experienced by the laboratories are shown in Figure 5, using

box plots to represent the range of data from each laboratory. Details of the interpretation of box

plots are described later in this Section. The figure shows that most labs had at least a few

temperature and/or humidity readings outside the target limits. Except for the temperatures in lab

8, the labs generally had most of their readings within the prescribed limits, or very nearly so.

Various statistical techniques were applied to investigate whether the ignition results were strongly

influenced by the four environmental variables or by the discrete auxiliary variables, CHAMBER,

TST BLK, OPERATOR and AMPM. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was again used for the

discrete variables. Conclusions from this test procedure showed no significant relation of IGN with

CHAMBER or TST_BLK {i.e., "week"), but did indicate the existence of possible effects due to both

OPERATOR and AMPM.

In the case of OPERATOR, a statistically significant difference between the two operators was shown

only for lab 4. In lab 4, the two operators obtained the same number of ignitions for 9 of the 15

cigarette/substrate combinations, but in each of the remaining six cases, the number of ignitions

obtained by Operator 1 was always greater than the number obtained by Operator 2. The difference

between the two operators was not large: Operator 1 obtained a total of just 12 more ignitions than

Operator 2, out of 360 tests by each operator. It was mainly the consistency of the difference across the six cases that led to the attainment of statistical significance. In this study no attempt has been

made to determine whether this observed difference can be traced to any differences in test procedure used by these two operators.

The variable AMPM, which indicates whether a test was run before or after noon, also showed a

statistically significant, but small, effect. Overall, there was a slightly higher percentage of ignitions

in the PM (47.4%) compared to the AM (45.7%). The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel procedure, which

identified this effect, is sensitive to both the size of the AM-PM difference and the consistency of

its direction, while controlling for the LAB, CIG_TYPE and SUBSTRAT variables. While no

satisfactory physical explanation was found for this overall effect, the following illustrates the kind

of minor ambiguities that remain in the data. In a sub-analysis using data from lab 6 only, the

increased ignition rate in the PM was also associated with an increase (of about 1 °C) in the average

temperature of the test room (TSTTEMP). It is not possible with the information at hand, however,

to establish a causal link between the two increases.

An attempt was made to perform a global analysis of the effects of all the study variables through the use of a detailed logistic regression model. This model-fitting exercise was not completely successful

because of the large number of cells in the data matrix where the percentage of ignitions was either

0% or 100%. This feature of the data leads to a requirement of "infinite" parameter values in the

model, with the additional result that the significance probabilities computed by the statistical software are not reliable, and therefore may not be worth pursuing.

61
I

'co

c

(q) 8jn)ei8clLuei.

i

8

D)C

'co

•e

c:

"I I I I I

(%) ^piLunH e/vsB|9U

i

zi

3

o

«o

£5

o

c

eiOi

•3

Oh

COE

8

+++

^ 8

(O) ejn}ej9dui8i

- »

(0E

I

c

- CO

- CM

- eo

+ 4+

"I I I '"I I

- CO

CM

(%) AjipiuinH ©ARcpu

62

1ce

i-i o

i

I §
A readily interpretable result from the global analysis pertains to the environmental variables. In the

global model, the logarithm of the odds ratio in favor of ignition (IGN) was modeled as a function

of all the variables (except DATE) in Tkble 20, together with several interactions. In this fitted model, the regression coefficients for all four environmental variables had the expected signs (though none had a statistically significant magnitude): the two temperature coefficients (for TSTTEMP and

CNDTEMP) were positive, implying that increasing temperature increases the odds in favor of

ignition, and the humidity coefficients (for TSTRH and CNDRH) were both negative, implying that

increased humidity decreases the odds in favor of ignition.

Overall, the logistic analyses showed some indications of small, but possibly real, dependencies

between the auxiliary variables and the ignition results. However, they did not reveal any major

problems in the data. These indications are consistent with the general observation there will always

be some means by which the test results could be improved by further refinements to the test method

protocols.

Primary Variables. It is possible, and of some interest, to test whether the three primary explanatory

variables in the data set, namely LAB, CIG_TYPE and SUBSTRAT, show statistically significant

effects on the ignition results. In short, the IGN variables shows statistically significant effects due

to all three of the primary explanatory variables.

For the LAB variable, statistically significant differences between labs were shown for essentially all cigarette/substrate combinations where the percentage of ignitions was far enough away from both

0% and 100% to allow differences to show. Specifically, significant between-laboratory differences were identified for cigarette types 503 and 501 on the duck #4 mock-up, for cigarette 529 on the

duck #6 mock-up, and for cigarettes 529 and 530 on the duck #10 mock-up. These individual tests, for each cigarette and substrate, were combined into an overall test by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

procedure with the result that the overall hypothesis that there is no between-laboratory variation

is rejected. The magnitude of the between-lab variability is summarized below through the estimation

of repeatability and reproducibility standard deviations.

The significance test for differences between cigarette types was also carried out using the CochranMantel-Haenszel procedure. The results showed that all five cigarette types have ignition rates that are statistically different from each other, with p-values less than 0.001 in each case. Turning to

substrates, the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel procedure also showed significant differences between the

ignition results across all three mock-ups.

Repeatability and Reproducibility. In ASTM standard E-691, "Standard Practice for Conducting an

Interlaboratory Study to Determine the Precision of a Test Method" [25], the summary precision

statement for a test method under evaluation is based on statistical calculations of repeatability and

reproducibility limits for the method. Recall that repeatability refers here to the consistency of test results from a single laboratory; reproducibility refers to the consistency of results among different

laboratories. The calculation formulas described in ASTM E-691 are appropriate for test methods

that yield measurements on a continuous scale, rather than the categorical "yes/no" outcomes that

characterize the IGN variable of this study, and cigarette ignition testing generally. However, the

repeatability and reproducibility measures can be adapted to categorical data applications, as will be

described.

63
In ASTM E 691, the repeatability standard deviation is defined as the best estimate of the withinlaboratory standard deviation of single measurement results. At the present stage of development,

the definition of what constitutes a "single" measurement result for the Mockup Ignition Test Method

has not been specified, except that it is understood that a single measurement result is the proportion

of ignitions in some number (to be specified) of replications of the operation of placing a single type

of lighted cigarette on a single type of mockup. For a cigarette having ignition rate P (a number

between 0 and 1) on a given substrate, the standard deviation of the observed proportion of ignitions

in m replications is equal to [/'('i-P)/m]'^^ based on standard properties of the binomial distribution.

Some mathematical simplicity will be gained in what follows by initially taking m to be equal to the

total number of replications actually conducted by each laboratory; m = 48 in the case of the mockup ignition method. Further calculations using a simple statistical model will then allow comparisons

of repeatability and reproducibility values that could be expected assuming different values of m.

Applying this approach to data for any substrate and cigarette type, the best (quasi-likelihood)

estimate [26] of the repeatability standard deviation, is

where p represents the mean proportion of ignitions across the nine laboratories and m has been

set equal to 48. As defined, 5^ is the best estimate of the pooled within-laboratory standard

deviation, in that it combines information across all laboratories.

Using the convention that a single measurement result is defined as the proportion of ignitions in

m = 48 replications, the number of single measurement results per laboratory is 1 in this study, and

so the reproducibility standard deviation, 5^, as defined in ASTM E 691, is simply the betweenlaboratory standard deviation.

i=l 8

where p^ represents the proportion of ignitions for laboratory / and / = 1, 2, ... 9.

The repeatability and reproducibility standard deviations for the main round interlaboratory

evaluation are summarized in Table 23.

64
Table 23. Observed Repeatability and Reproducibility Standard Deviations

for Mock-Up Ignition Method

Main Interlaboratory Study; m=4S Replications per Laboratory

Cioarette

I.D. Substrate

Average

Proportion of

Ignitions

Repeatability S.D.

s

Reproducibility S.D.

1

i. 0 110 0 045 0 102

501 2 1 000 0yj 0

1 000 0 0

1X 0 532 0 072 0 145

503 2 1 000 0 0

1 000 0 0

1

J. 0 000 0

529 2 0 076 0 038 0 074

0 303 0 066 0V/* 117 XX/

1 0.000 0 0

530 2 0.002 0.007 0.007

3 0.025 0.023 0.043

1 0.000 0 0

531 2 0.949 0.032 0.042

3 0.979 0.021 0.021

As previously mentioned, the repeatability standard deviation is a function of the average proportion

of ignitions, p, for each cigarette type. In Table 23, it is apparent that the reproducibility standard

deviation also depends on p to some extent. In order to provide a succinct summary of the data, it of interest to combine the estimates of repeatability and reproducibility across the substrates and

cigarette types in this study.

ASTM Standard E 691 [25], in section 21.3, Variation of Precision Statistics with Property Level, gives

the following general guidance in formulating precision statements for test methods where the repeatability and reproducibility depend on the level of the property being measured.

"Quite often the values of and Sj^ will be found to vary with the values of the

property level, x [corresponding to ourp].... The manner in which the statistics vary

with the property level should be shown in presenting the precision information in the

65
precision statement of the test method. The statistician should recommend the most

appropriate relationship to present, using Practice E 177 as a guide."

ASTM E 177 [24], in section 28.5,4, recommends summarizing the relationship of the method

precision to the property level "by a simple formula, or by a plot." For repeatability, the definition

above specifies 5^ as a simple function of the property level, p. This relationship can be extended to accommodate the reproducibility standard deviation by use of a simple statistical model for what is variously called "extra binomial variation" [27] or "over dispersion" [26] or simply "heterogeneity"

[28].

In this model, the between-laboratory variance, or reproducibility variance 5^^, is related to the

within-laboratory variance, or repeatability variance 5^, as follows:

5^^=^(l-£)(l.^(m-l)]

m

= 53l+^(m-l)]

The quantity [1 + y>(m — 1)] in the above expression is called the "heterogeneity factor" in Finney's

classic text on probit analysis [28]. The parameter <p in the heterogeneity factor plays the role of a

correlation coefficient among replications performed within the same laboratory.

This model suggests that Sj^ should vary roughly as a constant multiple of S^. Figure 6 shows this approximate relationship for the data in Table 23, along with a least squares straight line through the

origin given by

= (3.72)5^2.

Figure 6 shows that the simple statistical model gives a satisfactory summary of the relationship of

5^ to and, therefore, to p. Identifying the slope of the least squares line in the Figure, 3.72, with

the heterogeneity factor, [1 + ^(48-1)], yields the estimated value tp = 0.058.

In terms of this model, then, the repeatability and reproducibility standard deviations can be

approximated for any case of interest by using the formulas

66
p(i-p)

m

(1)

[l*y>(m-l)]

m

where p is the assumed ignition rate, m is the assumed number of replications per test result, and y)

is the parameter for the heterogeneity factor, as estimated from relevant data {tp - 0.058 for the

Mock-Up Ignition Test Method ILS.)

In Table 24, these formulas are used to calculate "repeatability limits," defined as 2.8x5^ and

"reproducibility limits," defined as 2.8x5^, for the mock-up ignition method. The factor "2.8" in the

definition of the repeatability and reproducibility limits is recommended in ASTM E 691 as a means

to generate approximate 95% probability limits for the possible difference between two measurement

results {Le., proportions based on m replications) obtained within the same laboratory (repeatability

limit = 2.8x5^) or in different laboratories (reproducibility limit = 2.8x5^^). For example, from Table

24 the reproducibility limit calculated as 0.39 for m = 48 runs means that, if the proportion of

ignitions is obtained for m =48 runs on the same cigarette/mock-up combination in each of two

laboratories, then one might expect that the difference between the two proportions will be less than

about 0.39 if the average cigarette ignition rate is near p = 0.5.

In interpreting the values in Tkble 24, the reader should bear in mind the statements in ASTM E 691

[25] that repeatability and reproducibility limits "should be considered as useful general guides," but

"not exact mathematical quantities which are applicable to all circumstances and uses."

Table 24 allows one to compare the repeatability and reproducibility limits corresponding to several

values of m, the assumed number of replications per "single measurement result." It is clear from the

table, and from the formulas, that is more strongly affected by increasing the number of

replications than is 5^. This fact is highlighted in Table 24 by inclusion of the case where m = 9600

runs is assumed. In general, the repeatability decreases as the square root of m whereas the

reproducibility approaches a non-zero limit for large m, which reflects the between-lab component

of variability. This behavior shows the limitation to how much the reproducibility precision can be

improved by increasing the number of replications within each laboratory.

67

Table 24. Mock-Up Ignition Method:

Calculated Repeatability (r) and Reproducibility (R) Limits

for Various Assumed Numbers of Replications (m) and Ignition Propensities (p)

p

m = 16 m - 32 m = 48 m = 96 m = 9600

r R r R r R r R r R

0.05 or

0.95

0.15 0.21 0.11 0.18 0.09 0.17 0.06 0.16 0.006 0.15

0.20

0.10 or

0.90

0.21 0.29 0.15 0.25 0.12 0.23 0.09 0.22 0.009

0.20 or

0.80

0.28 0.38 0.20 0.33 0.16 0.31 0.11 0.29 0.011 0.27

0.30 or

0.70

0.32 0.44 0.23 0.38 0.19 0.36 0.13 0.33 0.013 0.31

0.40 or

0.60

0.34 0.47 0.24 0.41 0.20 0.38 0.14 0.36 0.014 0.33

0.50 0.35 0.48 0.25 0.41 0.20 0.39 0.14 0.36 0.014 0.34

m: Assumed numter of replications per laboratory

p: Assumed long-run proportion of ignitions for cigarette and substrate combination under test

r: Repeatability limit = 2.85^ where is calculated from Equation (1) R: Reproducibility limit = 2.8Sj^, where is calculated as from Equation (1), with <p = 0.058.

Results from the main ILS show that the mock-up ignition test method can effectively differentiate

the ignition propensities of various cigarettes, albeit at a limited degree of resolution. The most

important limiting factor affecting the resolution of the test method is measured by the reproducibility

limits. In Table 24, the repeatability limits (r) summarize the precision of the test method under the

most favorable conditions for obtaining low variation (same lab, same equipment, short time period, same operators, etc.), whereas the reproducibility limits (R) measure the long-term stability of the test method.

The repeatability limits calculated in Table 24 represent the theoretical minimum amount of statistical variability that is inherent in data recorded as binary outcomes (ignitions vs non-ignitions). The

amount by which the reproducibility exceeds the repeatability of this, or any, test method measures

the degree to which unknown or uncontrolled influence factors affect the test results in the long

69
term. Data from the nine laboratories in the ILS show that the ratio of repeatability to

reproducibility limits is Rlr = Sj^S^. = V3.72 = 1.9 for the mock-up ignition method. See Figure 6.

This ratio is comparable to the Rlr ratio for other fire test methods currently being used to regulate

materials which may be involved in unwanted fires. For example, ASTM E648 (Standard Method

for Critical Radiant Flux of Floor Covering Systems) has an Rlr ratio of 1.1 to 1.6 [29]; ASTM

E662 (Standard Test Method for Specific Optical Density of Smoke Generated by Solid Materials)

has Rlr ranging from 1.2 to 4.0 [30]; and ASTM E1354 (Standard Test Method for Heat and

Visible Smoke Release for Materials and Products Using an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter) has

Rlr =1.8 for ignition delay time [31].

C. Cigarette Extinction Test Method

As previously mentioned, an ignition propensity test method need not directly simulate the upholstery

material ignition process. Many flammability tests are imperfect representations of the hazard under

consideration. This is because full simulation of the fire of concern is often not possible at bench

scale, is too costly, or is otherwise impractical. Thus, a cigarette ignition propensity test method could

measure, e.g., heat release rate, were it shown to correlate with real-world ignition performance. Such

a method can be useful in practice, at least over the range of cigarette designs for which it has been

calibrated; and it may also be more convenient to apply.

As can be inferred from the discussion in Section II.B, the substrate requirements for a cigarette

ignition propensity test method may be more readily met on a long-term basis if upholstery materials are avoided. This prompted the pursuit of alternative methods in this study. This section of the

report describes the work performed in developing such a test method for the measure of cigarette

ignition propensity.

1. Prior Alternative Methods

The search for a method for the evaluation of cigarette ignition propensity that is free of upholstery

materials has been ongoing intermittently for over ten years. In 1981, Krasny et al [32] reported

a series of experiments that ultimately led to the development of a test method that employed alpha

cellulose paper as a surrogate substrate. As possible indicators of cigarette ignition potential, they

compared four measures of cigarette behavior to mock-up test results obtained for the same cigarettes on a variety of upholstered furniture substrates. These measures were:

• static burning rate of the cigarettes,

• surface temperature of the cigarette bum cone,

• burning behavior of the cigarettes in contact with heat sinks, and

• burning behavior of the cigarettes on alpha cellulose paper.

They concluded that weight loss rate from the cigarette/paper system was a good measure of cigarette

ignition propensity, while there were shortcomings with the other three measures. Thirty

commercially available cigarettes were evaluated by this test method. Reasonable agreement was

found between cigarette propensity to ignite upholstered furniture substrates and weight loss rate of

the cigarette/paper system. Subsequent work that was part of the TSG study [3, 3] with low ignition

70
propensity cigarettes showed that the alpha cellulose paper would not smolder, and the cigarettes

would all self-extinguish. This resulted in no recorded weight loss and, therefore, no discrimination

between cigarettes.

By 1985, Norman [33] had investigated several methods for assessing cigarette ignition propensity.

He used four experimental cigarettes and measured:

• the heat transfer rate to a receiver below the cigarette coal and the total heat release

of a cigarette smoldering in air,

• the weight loss rate of various cigarette/substrate systems, and

• the imprint of a cigarette smoldering on a block of polyurethane foam.

While Norman could not correlate free-bum heat transfer data for cigarettes burning in air to ignition

propensity and the weight loss rate was dependent on specific characteristics of the substrate, the

foam imprint method appeared to hold some promise. Gann et al [3] further pursued this latter method. Rather than measure the volume of the imprint, they measured the weight loss of the foam

block after removal of the charred remains of the cigarette. They also recorded weight loss vs. time

of the cigarette/foam system during the cigarette smoldering process. They found only a weak

correlation between weight loss and cigarette ignition propensity as measured by the number of

ignitions on a selected group of fabric/foam substrates.

Gann et al. [3] also investigated the possibility of using a heated glass plate to characterize cigarette

ignition propensity. By adjusting the temperature of the glass plate, they found that cigarettes could

be made to smolder their entire length. Commercially available cigarettes smoldered their entire

length at ambient conditions. Low and moderate ignition propensity cigarettes would smolder their

entire length only when the temperature of the glass plate was raised to between 86 and 97 " C. As

with the case of the alpha cellulose paper, they noted that "No difference between the low and

moderate cigarettes was evident."

2. Approaches Examined in This Study

It has been previously shown [3] that cigarettes with a wide range of ignition propensities are

possible. Thus, a useful test method needs to be able to discriminate over this wide potential. Mockup-based test methods accomplish this by using a range of substrate assemblies. The alternative

methods investigated in this study accomplish this by either changing surrogate substrate characteristics or by measuring a critical cigarette property. The search for an acceptable indirect test method

involved the use of various non-reactive and reactive substrates.

The Series 100 cigarettes were used in these experiments. Recall that they were effectively calibrated

as to ignition propensity on both mock-ups and full-scale chairs in the TSG study. Thus they can

serve here to calibrate candidate alternative test methods. The properties of these cigarettes and

their ignition performance seen in the TSG study are listed in Section II.A.1.

71
V

OQ

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75

Failure Fraction on TSG Mockups

1.00

Figure 7. Free Burning Rate of Various Cigarettes Suspended in Quiescent Air as a Function

of the Fraction of the TSG Mock-Up Failures.

72
Cigarette free-bum rate. In order to characterize baseline cigarette performance and revisit the

possible use of a no-substrate test method, the burning rates of certain of the experimental cigarettes were determined under what is called "free-burn" conditions. Cigarettes were allowed to smolder

while suspended horizontally in a quiescent atmosphere. All cigarettes tested in this configuration

smoldered their entire length. In Figure 7, the burning rates of 16 of the TSG experimental

cigarettes are plotted as a function of the ignition fractions of these cigarettes on the TSG mock-up

substrates. The average bum rate for all cigarettes was 5.9 ±1.9 mm/min. The scatter clearly

exceeds the slope of a least squares line through the data. Therefore the free bum rate of a cigarette

cannot be used by itself as a predictor of ignition propensity.

Non-Reactive Substrates. Non-reactive substrates are those that do not generate or absorb heat

chemically when heated by a cigarette. An example of such a substrate from previous work is a glass

plate. Aside from the heated glass plate previously reported, research efforts were directed at investigating three types of non-reactive substrates. These were: a bed of glass beads, a set of glass

rods, and a non-woven glass fiber paper system.

Glass Beads. Figure 8 shows a schematic representation of a test setup that was used for the

evaluation of glass beads as a suitable substrate for a secondary test method. The test setup

consisted of a Pyrex funnel with a 125 mm diameter opening. A wire screen was suspended

in the funnel such that a space of 25 mm existed between the screen and the lip of the

funnel. This space was filled with glass beads, either 6 mm or 2 mm in diameter. Initial tests were conducted in a quiescent atmosphere. Subsequent tests were conducted with an imposed air flow through the glass beads, which served to disperse the flow evenly. This flow was perpendicular to the direction of cigarette smoldering. An attempt was made to find an

air flow necessary to force a cigarette to smolder its entire length.

Preliminary tests were conducted on a selected subset of the TSG cigarettes at three air flows, as listed in Table 25. The air speeds through the bed of glass beads (calculated from the

measured volumetric flow and the bed cross-section) were very small: 0, 0.44, 0.89 cm/min.

Table 25 shows that for cigarettes 106 and 129, the number that burned their entire length

increased somewhat in going from 0 cm/min to 0.44 cm/min. However, the same two

cigarettes, when tested at 0.89 cm/min, showed a decrease in the number of cigarettes burning

their entire length. Cigarettes 106, 129, and 130 were retested at the intermediate airflow

rate of 0.44 cm/min. The retests showed somewhat erratic results, as can be seen in Table

26.

It became clear as more replicate tests were performed that cigarette performance depended

a great deal on the contact characteristics of the cigarette/glass bead interface and that a

reliable and reproducible contact profile could not be assured with the glass bead system.

Thus this approach was not pursued further.

73
Glass Beads

20 mm

Nichrome gauze

Air

m

125 mm diameter Funnel

Nichrome gauze support for glass beads

250 ml Flask

Figure 8. Schematic Representation of the Test Assembly for the Glass Bead/Rod Substrate Tests.

74
Table 25. Large Glass Bead Non>Reactive Substrate Test Results

for Selected Cigarettes and Air Speeds

Cigarette

Designation

0 cm/min 0.44 cm/min 0.89 cm/min

# Burn/ w Tested Bura Time

(s) #Buni/# Tested Bum Time

(s) # Bum/

# Tested Bum Time(s)

101 5/5 800 + 60 5/5 730 ± 40

103 5/5 590 ± 40 5/5 600 + 20

106 0/5 340 ± 130 5/5 665 ± 110 3/5 480 ± 200

108 5/5 570 ± 70 5/5 520 ± 95

120 5/5 725 ± 30 5/5 690 ± 45

129 1/5 520 ± 405 3/5 880 ± 100 1/5 390 ± 345

130 0/5 100 + 60 0/5 635 ± 225

131 5/5 640 ± 53 5/5 720 ± 85

Total 26/40 33/40 4/10

l^ble 26. Re-test of Selected Cigarettes on Large Glass Bead Substrate;

Air Speed = 0.44 cm/min

Cigarette

No.

# Bum/

# Tested

Bum Time

(s)

106 1/5 540 ± 100

129 3/5 740 ± 25

130 0/5 145 ± 130

Glass Rods. The bed of glass beads was replaced by a pair of parallel glass rods, which were

positioned on the supporting screen described above. The cigarette was placed on the rods

parallel to their length, and the rods were spaced to ensure minimal contact between the

cigarette and the glass rods. Air flowed upward past the smoldering cigarette as in the

previous experiments. All the test cigarettes self-extinguished. This avenue of research was

not pursued any further, although several test variables could have been adjusted that might

have improved the discrimination capabilities of the test setup. These include: varying the

temperature of the imposed airflow, replacing the glass rods with other materials, and altering

the temperature of the supporting rods.

75
Non-Woven Glass Fiber Paper. In all cases, cigarettes burned their entire length when placed on a single sheet of non-woven glass fiber filter paper (with the paper suspended horizontally

in air). The effective thermal inertia of this glass fiber filter paper was sufficiently low that

it extracted heat from the burning cigarette less effectively than did the glass beads. While

it was expected that multiple layers of this filter paper would reduce the likelihood of a

cigarette burning its entire length, no such effect was observed. Instead, cigarettes such as 106 would continue burning even when supported on 10 layers of glass fiber filter paper.

This result suggested that it might be possible to use this type of filter paper to measure the

heat transfer from a smoldering cigarette to a substrate material. An apparatus (Figure 9) was designed and constructed that consisted of a PMMA (polymethylmethacrylate) box with

outside dimensions of 90 mm by 125 mm by 25 mm. A sheet of the glass fiber filter paper

served as a cover. Three thermocouples were placed along a long diagonal of the box in an

air gap approximately 12.7 mm deep between the box cover paper and the interior base of

the box. The thermocouples were wired in parallel to monitor the average temperature of

the three sensors.

Figure 10 shows a typical plot of the results from a single test. The graph shows the

temperature-time history resulting from a complete cigarette burn. Several attempts were made to summarize and interpret the results of a single test. The best correlation to cigarette

ignition propensity was an estimated heat transfer to the air gap. This involved computing

a number proportional to an approximate measure of the heat content of the air in the gap,

as follows:

where

Tp|j= Peak temperature (°C)

Tpij = Time of peak temperature (min)

Figure 11 summarizes the results for 16 different cigarettes, plotting the estimated heat

content as a function of percentage mock-up ignitions from the TSG study [3]. While the

data suggest that a correlation exists, the method requires further investigation and refinement. It was found that results could be dramatically affected by the specific location of the

cigarette on the glass fiber filter relative to the thermocouples. Also, in order to yield repeatable results, the holder assembly needed to be cooled to ambient conditions between tests

(this could take 20 to 30 minutes). Additional work along these lines was not pursued

because of the success of the reactive substrate method described below.

76
Figure 9. Drawing of the Cigarette Thermal Transfer Test Assembly.

77
Figure 10. Typical Average Temperature-Time Trace for a Cigarette Burning on a Glass Fiber

Filter Paper in the Cigarette Thermal Transfer Test Assembly.

78
1 1

•

1

250 • •

1 u0 200 • *>

L

Produ< 150 •

• •

«

VB •

100 •

•

•

• • •

50

0

1 1 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00

Failure Fraction on TSG Mockups

Figure 11. Estimated Energy Transferred to a Substrate from a Smoldering Cigarette Burning

in the Thermal Transfer Apparatus as a Function of the Fraction of TSG Mock-Up

Failures.

79
Reactive Substrates. Reactive substrates undergo significant chemical change when heated by a

cigarette coal. In the present study, the need was to identify reactive substrates that had advantages over the foam/fabric assemblies. Thus, these materials had to be:

• easily obtained now and in the future;

• well-characterized;

• highly uniform, both within a sample and batch-to-batch;

• smooth-surfaced; and

• available in large quantities.

After screening tests were conducted on several substrate materials (e.g., lens paper, different grades

of filter paper, bond paper, etc.), Whatman #2 filter paper emerged as the choice. The idea for

using an alpha cellulose substrate had originated with Krasny in 1981 [32]. He used multiple layers

of alpha-cellulose to support the cigarette. Since the smoldering promoter ion concentration is very

small in these papers, any charring of the substrate is limited to the cigarette/substrate contact area. When the cigarette extinguishes, the substrate will not continue to smolder.

Here, it was initially assumed that the smoldering rate of a cigarette in contact with the substrate

could be used as an indicator of ignition propensity. That is, the heat loss to the pyrolyzing paper

would slow the burning rate of a cigarette; and at some magnitude of heat loss, the cigarette would

self-extinguish. Since a single sheet of the paper is thermally-thin (small temperature gradient

through its depth), more layers would extract more heat. Preliminary experiments were aimed at developing a relationship between cigarette burn rate and substrate thickness as defined by the

number of filter layers in the substrate assembly. It was expected that as the number of filter paper

layers increased, the burning rate would decrease. As was true for all the work performed in this program, tests were conducted in a enclosure system comparable to that used in the mock-up testing

program described in the TSG report [3].

Figure 12 shows the smoldering rates of three TSG cigarettes as a function of the number of filter papers in the substrate assembly. There is a general downward trend in the data for a given cigarette.

The changes, however, are not sufficient to discriminate even among cigarettes of distinctly differing

ignition propensities, such as cigarette 106 with a TSG rating of 5% ignitions and cigarette 112 with

a TSG rating of 100% ignitions.

However, it was noted that, as the number of filter paper layers was increased, specific cigarettes

would not burn their entire length. Therefore, further work was directed at whether there was a

relationship between the maximum number of filter papers in a substrate assembly that just allows

a cigarette to burn its entire length and its ignition propensity as defined by the TSG ignition

probabilities. A simple apparatus consisting of layers of filter paper on a metal ring was used to test the hypothesis. The preliminary data (3-5 replicates) in Figure 13 show that such a relationship does

exist. The correlation covers a wide dynamic range: TSG ignition probabilities from 5% to 100% and

1 to 20 layers of filter paper.^

Note that there is nothing to be gained by going to an indefinitely greater number of sheets.

The heat from the cigarette can penetrate only so far in the time available. It is estimated

that 25-30 sheets constitute a thermally thick medium.

80
10

B -

Number in () are TSG

failure fractions

2 -

Cig 106 (0.05)

_0 Clg 101 (0.65)

Ci« 112 (1.00)

Note: Cig 106 only burn 1/2

1/3 of total length

10

Number of Filter Paper Layer*

Figure 12. Smoldering Rates of Three Experimental Cigarettes as a Function of the Number of

Filter Papers Making up the Substrate Assembly.

81
20

1 1 1 1 1

15 •

h

«>s10 •

o

u •

5 • • z •

0

1 t 1 1 1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Failure Fraction on TSG Mockups

1.0

Figure 13. Number of Filter Papers Causing Extinguishment of the Cigarette as a Function of

the TSG Failure Fraction.

82
Further testing showed that some cigarettes had a tendency to roll across the surface of the filter paper during a test. This altered the estimate of cigarette ignition propensity, A modified substrate

holder assembly was developed. The holder assembly held folded filter paper such that each side of

the filter paper stack was set at an angle of 20** from the horizontal. This helped ensure that

cigarettes would not roll across the paper surface.

Because of the costs involved in manufacturing the 20" holder assembly and the tendency for filter paper separation to occur at the crevice joint, restraints were developed instead for the flat holder

assembly. The final system is shown in Figure 14. It is composed of a brass hold-down ring with two

sets of small metal rods to prevent a cigarette from rolling (yet without applying excessive pressure on the cigarette) and a plastic filter paper support structure. Each set of metal rods are spaced for a small range of cigarette diameters. As additional cigarette diameters are encountered, appropriately

spaced metal rods can be added.

3. Standard Materials

Paper Substrate. The cigarette extinction test method uses multiple layers of Whatman #2 filter paper as the substrate material. It is a well-characterized material, having a well-defined porosity and

filtration speed and a smooth surface finish. A single sheet has an areal density of 9.8 x 10"^ kg/m^,

with low variability (Table 27). It is made from a single material (alpha-cellulose) and should be

obtainable indefinitely into the future. It is also readily available in a variety of shapes and sizes. Because of the lengths of currently manufactured cigarettes, it was felt that the standard 150 mm

diameter size would be sufficient for cigarette ignition propensity measurements. The precut material

reduces handling damage that might occur if each technician had to cut the paper to size.

The data in Table 27 were obtained by averaging six samples taken at random from six different boxes

of Whatman #2 filter paper.

Table 27. Variability of Filter Paper Areal Density and Thickness

Areal Density Thickness

Box (kg/m^) (mm)

A (10.02 ± .18)xl0-2 0.195 ± .004

B (9.74 ± .10)xl0-2 0.182 ± .003

C (9.80 ± .13)xl0-2 0.181 ± .005

D (9.58 ± .13)xl0-2 0.184 ± .005

E (9.71 ± .18)xl0-2 0.183 ± .004

F (9.68 ± .32)xl0-2 0.187 ± .005

Overall: (9.76 ± .15)xl0-2 0.185 ± .005

83
Figure 14. Photograph of a Test Chamber Containing a Mock-Up Assembly and a Cigarette.

84
Substrate Description. The test method concept originally involved determination of the actual

number of filter paper layers necessary to just allow the cigarette to bum its complete length. To

reduce the testing burden on the participating laboratories as well as to reduce the amount of filter paper used in each cigarette evaluation, the interlaboratory evaluation was performed with three

specific numbers of layers. This also enabled using a statistical design comparable to the one used

for the mock-up ignition test method. The substrates comprised 3, 10, and 15 layers of Whatman #2

filter paper. In practice, the original concept may have application as well.

4. Enclosure Design

This test method simply replaces the fabric/foam substrate with an alternative substrate assembly.

Since it has been demonstrated that the enclosure used in the mock-up ignition test method

adequately protects the cigarette-substrate system from laboratory induced air flows, that enclosure was also employed in the cigarette extinction test method.

5. General Description of the Test Method

Appendix E gives a detailed description of the cigarette extinction test method. In brief, the test method measures whether a type of cigarette continues smoldering after being placed on substrate

assemblies that have different thermal absorptivities. The appropriate number of layers of Whatman

#2 filter paper are mounted on the support structure described above and placed in the enclosure.

The cigarettes and substrate assemblies are conditioned at a relative humidity of 55 ± 5% and a temperature of 23 ± 3 °C. Cigarettes are ignited and pre-burned to a 15 mm mark as described for

the Mock-Up Ignition Test Method. The principal determination is whether the cigarette bums its full length or not.

6. Interlaboratory Study of the Test Method

a. Participants and Procedures

The nine laboratories participating in this phase of the interlaboratory study were the same as previously listed for the main ILS. See the list of participants in Section II.B.8.e. The general test protocol for this phase of the ignition propensity study followed that outlined for the ILS of the

mock-up extinction method. The only major differences were that (a) a different method was being

studied and (b) fewer replicates were performed. The latter was proposed since the substrate

variability, thought to be a potential factor in the precision in the mock-up method, was minimal here.

The reduced test plan used only that portion of the plan specified for each laboratory in the first week of testing during the main ILS. The following outlines key parameters pertaining to each

laboratory in this study:

• 5 cigarettes

• 3 filter paper substrates (3, 10 and 15 sheets thick)

• 16 replicates per cigarette per substrate

• 2 operators

• 4 test chambers

85
1 week test period

Each laboratory received 25 boxes of filter paper, four plastic filter paper supports and brass holddown rings, 100 coded cigarettes, plus instructional manuals and lab workbooks for each operator.

Each laboratory already had in their possession test chamber enclosures, cigarette lighters, cigarette

holders, etc. from the mock-up ignition interlaboratory test program. Similar procedures were

followed to ensure timely arrival of test data to NIST via the R'^ng of daily summary sheets. At

the end of the one-week test program, workbooks and data disks were returned to NIST. These were

reviewed for consistency between the workbooks, disk data files, and daily summary sheets.

Discrepancies were noted and resolved to ensure an accurate set of data files from each laboratory.

b. Analysis of Results

Raw Data. As was done for the previous interlaboratory studies, the data for the cigarette extinction

test method were organized into a single computer file for analysis. For this study, the resulting

computer file contained 2160 lines of data, corresponding to 240 ignition results per laboratory for

each of 9 laboratories. The 240 results per laboratory arise from 16 tests of each of 5 cigarettes on

each of 3 substrates.

As was the case for the main ILS of the Mock-Up Ignition Method, there were a few cases in the

ILS of the Cigarette Extinction Method where laboratories ran some test replications on the wrong

mock-up configurations. This resulted in some cases where the number of results reported for a given cigarette type and mock-up configuration differ, again by ± 2, from the desired number of 16

replications.

The raw data on each line of the computer file represent essentially the same set of thirteen variables

described in Tkble 20, with the familiar changes that (a) the LAB variable ranges from 1 to 9, and

(b) the OPERATOR variable codes the two operators as number "1" and number "2." These

differences were discussed in more detail in Section II.B.8.C. Another difference from Thble 20 is that the TST_BLK variable was not used because this study was done in a single week of testing.

A summary of the test results, by LAB, CIG_TYPE and SUBSTRAT, is presented in Table 28. The

identifying numbers for the laboratories are the same as those used in Table 22. The test results for

the extinction method were reported in two categories, full-length burns and self-extinguishments.

86
l^ble 28. Summary of Test Results for Interlaboratory Study of Cigarette Extinction Method

Substrate Test Results

Type

CNn \L^XJt nf111 Layers)

i,<o liula Full-Length

Bums

SelfExtinguishments

1 11 16 0

9 16 0

"XJ 16 0

4 16 0

<; 16 0

16 0

7 16 0

Ofi 16 0

Q 16 0

11 16 0

16 0

16 0

4 16 0

501 10 5 16 0

6 16 0

7 16 0

« 16 0

Q 16 0

11 16 0

2 16 0

% 16 0

4 16 A

15 5 16 0

6 16 0

7 16 0

8 16 0

9 16 0

87
Substrate Test Results

Cigarette

Type

(No. of

Layers)

Laboratory Full-Length

Bums

SelfExtinguishments

1 16 0

2 16 0

i 16 0

A4 16 0

c 16 0

6 16 0

1 16 0

o8 16 0

ny 16 0

i1 16 0

2 16 0

3 16 0

4 18 0

503 10 5 16 0

6 16 0

/ 16 0

oO 16 0

oy 16 0

1 16 0

2 16 0

i 16 0

4 14 0

15 5 16 0

O 16 0

7 16 0

8 16 0

9 16 0

88
Substrate

(No. of

Layers)

Test Results

Cigarette

Type

1 ITT ~ 1 CB t'Vl T Full-Length

Bums

SelfExtinguisbments

1 7 9

2 8 8

3 11 5

4 9 7

3 5 8

oo

6 10 6

7 8 8

8 8 8

9 13 3

1 0 16

2 1 15

. 3 0 16

4 0 16

529 10 5 0 16

6 1 15

7 0 16

8 1 15

9 5 11

1 0 16

2 0 16

3 0 16

4 0 16

15 5 0 16

6 0 16

7 0 16

8 1 15

9 2 14

89
Substrate Test Results

Cigarette

TVne

(No. of Laboratory FuH-Length

Bums

SelfExtinguishments

1 2 14

2 0 16

3 0 16

4 0 16

3 5 0 16

6 2 14

7 1 15

8 1 15

9 2 14

1 0 16

2 0 16

3 0 16

4 0 16

530 10 5 0 16

6 0 16

7 0 16

8 0 16

9 0 16

1 0 16

2 0 16

3 0 16

4 0 16

15 5 0 16

6 0 16

7 0 16

8 0 16

9 0 16

90
Substrate Tbst Results

Cigarette

Type

(No, of

Layers)

Laboratory FuJI-Length

Burns

SelfExtinguishments

1 16 (J

2 16 0

3 16 0

4 16 0

3 5 16 0

6 16 0

7

1 c15 -a1 8 lo A

9

1

A

lo U

1

1 A 14 2

2 16 0

3 15 1

4 13 3

531 10 5 16 0

6

1 c16 A

(J

7 ID 1

8 lo A

U

9 1j 1

1 lU 6

2

1 113 3

3 14 I

4 1j I

15 5 15 1

6 14 2

7 16 0

8 15 1

9 15

91
A graphical display of the data in Thble 28 is shown in Figure 15, where, for each cigarette (by

columns) and substrate (by rows) the proportion of full-length bums is represented by a vertical bar

for each laboratory. The cigarette types are shown from left to right in order of decreasing ignition

propensity, as determined by the results of the main interlaboratory study of the Mock-Up Ignition Test method (see Figure 4). A comparison of Figure 15 with Figure 4 shows that, except for

cigarettes 501 and 503 which are tied in Figure 15, the relative positioning of the cigarettes was the same in both the studies. The three mock-up configurations are shown as rows in the figure, with

the greatest heat-sink substrate (15 layers of filter paper) as the top row and the least heat-sink

substrate (3 layers of filter paper) as the bottom row of the figure. The stronger the heat sink ability

of the substrate, the more difficult it is for a cigarette to bum its full length on that substrate.

Auxiliary Variables. A few statistical procedures were run to check for any interesting or large effects on the test results associated with the available auxiliary variables. No statistically significant effects were found associated with the temperature and humidity variables over the ranges occurring in these

tests. For comparison with the previous interlaboratory studies, box plots showing the ranges of the

temperatures and humidities during testing are given in Figure 16.

The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to check for significant effects on ignition results due

to the discrete variables. No significant effect was found due to OPERATOR; however, the tests on AMPM and CHAMBER did achieve statistical significance. For the AMPM variable, lab 7 showed

a significant effect. Detailed study of the data for lab 7 revealed that the significant difference that was picked-up by the overall Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test procedure was entirely due to the results

for cigarette 529 on the 3-layer substrate. In that case, there were 7 ignitions and 1 self-extinguishment in the AM and just the opposite, 1 ignition and 7 self-extinguishments, in the PM. Using

Fisher's Exact Test for the resulting 2x2 contingency table yields a significance probability of 0.01. No other aspect of the data for this case looks unusual, so the decision was made to accept the data

as-is. It is relevant to note that, since a large number of significance tests were conducted on this data set, one would expect a few cases to show statistical significance simply due to the expected

amount of random variation in the data.

For CHAMBER, the statistically significant effect flagged by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was

for lab 3 only. Within the data for lab 3, the significance was caused by the results for the 16 tests of cigarette 529 on the 15-layer substrate. The significance probability for this case was 0.01 by

Fisher's Exact Test. Again, nothing else unusual was found regarding the data in question, and the

existing data were used in the repeatability and reproducibility summary without modification.

Primary Variables. Statistical tests were carried out to examine whether these interlaboratory study

data reveal differences between the labs, cigarette types and substrates. For labs, there is a

statistically significant difference only for cigarette 529 on the 10-layer substrate. The fact that only one case showed a difference for the Cigarette Extinction Method is at least partly due to the fact that only 16 replications were done per laboratory, rather than the 48 in the main ILS of the MockUp Ignition Method. With fewer data, fewer significant differences are likely to be found, even if the long-run differences are about the same.

92

i
•UJDQ unj JO uoRXXlaixj

•HOOOOOOOOt^C

SLurtQ lind JO uonjodoj^

suing ur>j ^ noflxadond ixms IKU JO uoRJOCfcxid

5

ujnQ iirtd JO uoftxxlojci SLung yfvj jo uoftXXlQJcj uing urijj jo uofpodcxicj

Lung un^ jo uo|ix>clcud B^rig ur\j jo uofuodo^d v^^JTig iind JO uofpodojd

.23 o w t- la « 2

6 3 u o

i-ung urvj jo uonxxlajd BLung lind JO uotuodoicj ujng iind jo uofuodoud

93

2
I

c

°c

o

T3

c

(O) 8J1)eJ8dLU31

i

I

c

'co

T3

c

8

I I" 4.

1+ + o

"I '"I

(%) A^ipimnH eARBiey

'0

I ^

(3 oE

U-4—

»

C

c

a.

'3

't: Ph

8

cr

(O) ejrqejaduiei

- o>

- <o u i

in

COE

o

o

C£

D>C

94

- CO

(%) AiipiujnH aARBieu

1

2

a

I

»5 O V9

61

2 «

c
Except for the fact that cigarettes 503 and 501 gave identical results (100% full-length bums for all labs and all substrates) the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel procedure showed that the cigarettes differ

from each other: 501 and 503 having higher full-length burn proportions than 531, which is higher

than 529, which is higher than 530. Similarly, the observed differences in full-length bum proportions

between the three substrates are all statistically significant according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

procedure.

Repeatability and Reproducibility. The summary shown in Tables 29 and 30 follows the same

methodology described previously for Tables 23 and 24. The only difference in detail is that, in the

interlaboratory study for the Cigarette Extinction Method, the number of replications per lab was m=16, compared to m=48 in the Mock-Up Ignition Method. Therefore, in Table 29, the

repeatability standard deviation is calculated as 5^ = \p(l-p)/16f^.

The model for extra-binomial variation used previously for the Mock-Up Ignition Method ILS was

also applied to these data. The observed relation between the reproducibility variance, 5^^, and the

repeatability variance, 5^, for the Cigarette Extinction Method ILS is shown graphically in Figure 17. The slope of the least squares line in the Figure is 1.146. Setting this value equal to the

heterogeneity factor, [1 + ^(16-1)], and solving for <p, yields the estimate =0.0097. The resulting

summary of repeatability and reproducibility limits is shown in Table 30.

Because the estimate of the correlation parameter, y>, was somewhat smaller for the Cigarette

Extinction Method, where ^=0.0097, compared to the Mock-Up Ignition Method, where ^=0.058,

the values of the reproducibility limits (R) are somewhat smaller for the Cigarette Extinction Method,

Table 30, compared to the Mock-Up Ignition Method, Table 24. In contrast, the repeatability limits

(r) are exactly the same in Tables 24 and 30 because both use the same formula for as given by

Equation (1) of Section II.B.S.e.

95
T&hle 29. Observed Repeatability and Reproducibility Standard Deviations

for Cigarette Extinction Method Interlaboratory Study

m=16 Replications per Laboratory

Cigarette

I.D.

Substrate

in

Layers)

Average

Proportion of

Full Length

Bums

RepeatUDlUiy 0»mJ* Reproducluuiiy o^Lft

•1 1 000 nu 0u

sni 10 1 000 0

1 ^ 1 000 0 0

1 000 nu

•Jyjj 10 1 000 0 0

1 s 1 000 0 n1/

J 0 0 194 0 1 1Q

529 10 0.056 0.057 0.101

15 0.021 0.036 0.044

3 0.056 0.057 0.058

530 10 0.000 0 0

15 0.000 0 0

3 0.993 0.021 0.021

531 10 0.944 0.057 0.066

15 0.882 0.081 0.110

96
Table 30. Cigarette Extinction Method:

Calculated Repeatability (r) and Repi-oducibility (R) Limits

for Various Assumed Numbers of Replications (m) and FuU-Length Bum Proportions (p)

p

m = 16 m = 32 m = 48 m = 96 m = 9600

r R r R r R r R r R

0.05 or

0.95

0.15 0.16 0.11 0.12 0.09 0.11 0.06 0.09 0.006 0.06

0.10 or

0.90

0.21 0.22 0.15 0.17 0.12 0.15 0.09 0.12 0.009 0.08

0.20 or

0.80

0.28 0.30 0.20 0.23 0.16 0.20 0.11 0.16 0.011 0.11

0.30 or

0.70

0.32 0.34 0.23 0.26 0.19 0.22 0.13 0.18 0.013 0.13

0.40 or

0.60

0.34 0.37 0.24 0.28 0.20 0.24 0.14 0.19 0.014 0.14

0.50 0.35 0.37 0.25 0.28 0.20 0.24 0.14 0.20 0.014 0.14

m: Assumed number of replications per laboratory

p: Assumed long-run proportion of full-length bums for cigarette and substrate combination under test

r: Repeatability limit = 2.8Sp where is calculated as in Table 24. R: Reproducibility limit = 2.8Sj^, where is calculated as in Table 24, with <p = 0.0097

97

III. CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE USE OF THE TWO TEST

METHODS

A. Mock-Up Ignition Test Method

The mock-up method developed here broadly meets the criteria described in Section I for an

acceptable test method. It is a performance-based method that employs a cigarette/substrate

combination bearing a strong (although not perfect) similarity to the real-world fire safety hazard.

The relation between the test results and real upholstered chair ignition behavior is traceable through

the use of cigarettes calibrated in the TSG study. The test output is quantitative and provides

differentiation among cigarettes of varied ignition propensity. Through choice and control of

materials it should provide a stable standard of performance for the foreseeable future.

As is generally the case with fire tests, this method has potential limitations that are a consequence

of incomplete knowledge of the real-world scenarios. First, in the apparatus, the ambient atmosphere

is perturbed only by the cigarette plume. This case is believed to be a highly relevant analog for real- world accidental ignitions occurring in a chair crevice. As noted previously, if further information on

real-world ignitions indicates a significant fraction occurring in external air flow conditions at the

ignition location, it may be appropriate to supplement the results of the current method with those

obtained in the presence of a comparable flow. This would require a method development process

comparable to that described in this report. A second limitation is the small number of upholstery

substrates used to relate mock-up behavior to real-world chairs [3]. It is presumed that this correlation is representative of the aggregate furniture market. The existence of this correlation

virtually assures that there will be some real-world benefit in moving toward cigarettes which perform

well in this test method. Should sufficient evidence emerge in the future that a large fraction of the

furniture at risk does not follow the correlation that was demonstrated in the TSG study, it may be

appropriate to replace one or more of the Mock-Up Ignition Test Method substrates.

The interlaboratory study demonstrated the level of lab-to-lab reproducibility one can expect of this method. Table 24 above shows that this level cannot be made substantially greater with a very large

number of replicates; conversely, this level does get significantly less desirable if the number of

replicates is reduced substantially below 48. The achievable lab-to-lab reproducibility is an

appropriate measure of how finely a test method can differentiate among test subjects for regulatory

purposes. It is apparent, then, that the mock-up method cannot make fine distinctions in ignition

propensity among cigarette designs. With 48 replicates on a given mock-up, the proportion of

ignitions obtained by two separate laboratories can be expected to differ by up to about 0.4. This

places a limit on the de^ee of resolution possible for regulatory use of the method. Finer distinctions

than this could be made only within a single laboratory, presumably for product development

purposes. In that case, a number of replicates greater than 48 would appreciably improve the

differentiation; see Table 24.

Three mock-ups were included in the interlaboratory study and all were found to differ significantly

in ease of ignition. The results in Figure 4 above show the response of this set of mock-ups to a broad spectrum of experimental cigarette designs, though all are of a conventional construction.

Given the limitation above on the resolution of the test in differentiating ignition propensity, it is apparent that cigarettes of high ignition propensity gave effectively the same response on two out of

three of the mock-ups. A cigarette of low ignition propensity also gave effectively the same response

99
on two (different) mock-ups. This does not mean that one mock-up can be omitted from the entire

test set, because the duplication of response occurs on differing mock-up pairs with differing

cigarettes. It does, however, suggest the possibility of the need for fewer replicates on at least one

mock-up, and possibly on two, for some cigarettes.

Figure 4 shows that the duck #4 mock-up is, for the set of cigarettes examined, consistently harder

to ignite than the other two mock-ups; and, in turn, the duck #6 mock-up is harder to ignite than

the duck #10 mock-up. If a cigarette were tested first on the duck #4 mock-up and gave all ignitions

in 48 replicates, it should be possible to do fewer replicates on the other two mock-ups to verify that

there were no unexpected reversals in ignition behavior. This could provide significant labor savings on what is otherwise a rather labor-intensive test protocol.

Performing fewer than 48 tests will result in some loss of information, and a corresponding increase

in statistical uncertainty regarding the long-run ignition rate that would be observed for those mockups. The (within-lab) statistical uncertainty, for any number of replications, can be quantified by use of confidence bounds on the ignition probabilities for a given cigarette on a given mock-up, as follows.

If a cigarette is tested on, e.g., the duck #4 mock-up, and all 48 replications result in ignitions, then

a 95% lower confidence bound on the long-run ignition probability is (1-0.95)^'''*^ = 0.94. Speaking

loosely, one can be 95% confident that the ignition probability (in the same laboratory) is greater

than about 0.94. With that result, it may be sufficient for some purposes to know that the ignition

probability on the duck #6 and duck #10 mock-ups would be about 0.6 or higher, since the degree

of interlaboratory resolution is about 0.4, as noted above. If so, then only n=6 runs would be

required, because (1—0.95)^''^ = 0.61. That is, if 6 runs were conducted resulting in 6 ignitions, then

the 95% lower confidence bound for the ignition probability would be 0.61. There can be, of course, no guarantee that 6 runs on a more ignitable mock-up would necessarily result in 6 ignitions. If one

or more non-ignitions did occur, it would be appropriate to run a full set of 48 replications for each

of the three mock-ups.

Table 31 shows the relationship between the number of runs and the corresponding lower confidence

bounds in the case of 100% ignitions. The table is useful for comparison and to help decide whether

the increased uncertainty due to running fewer than 48 replications is acceptable for a particular

purpose.

These same arguments can be made for any cigarette and mock-up combination where a 100%

response, either ignitions or non-ignitions, is obtained. It is the choice of the regulator whether this trade-off is implemented in any adopted test method.

100
l^ble 31. 95% Lower Confidence Bounds

for the Long-Run Ignition Probability

Assuming that n Tests Result in n Ignitions

1 n — Number of Run^ liiwer CVinfTdencfi Bound

4 0 47

8 0.69

12 0.78

24 0.88

36 0.92

48 0.94

Informal reports of in-progress cigarette industry studies imply that some upholstery fabrics will respond to contact with a lit cigarette in a substantially different manner from that seen with the

cotton ducks used in this method. Even if this is verified, the possible results of employing the MockUp Ignition Test Method developed here are as follows:

• Some cigarette designs will produce fewer ignitions (than the current market

cigarettes) both in the test and when in contact with furniture containing fabrics which

behave like the cotton ducks used here. The test method in this case is a true

indicator of less fire-prone cigarettes.

• Some cigarette designs will produce fewer ignitions in the test, but will not produce

a reduced number of ignitions when in contact with furniture containing fabrics which

is dissimilar in response to cotton ducks. It seems implausible that such designs would

show greater real-world ignition propensity than do current commercial cigarettes.

• Still other cigarette designs will produce a number of ignitions, both in the test method and when in contact with furniture containing fabrics which behave like the

cotton ducks used here, comparable to current commercial cigarettes. For these, the

test method is again a true indicator of expected fire performance.

• Some designs will produce a number of ignitions in this test that are comparable to current commercial cigarettes, but will produce a reduced number of ignitions when

in contact with furniture containing fabrics which is dissimilar in response to cotton

ducks. These designs would not likely be pursued; but, if they were, they would

unobtrusively reduce fire losses.

The result of the second and fourth occurrences is an uncertainty in the degree to which real-world

fire losses are reduced.

At present there are insufficient data available to estimate what fraction of real-world furniture might

contain fabrics differing substantially (i.e., beyond the reproducibility of the test method) from cotton

101
ducks in their ignition behavior. If further data become available indicating that such fabrics are a

significant fraction of the real-world population, it would be an option to supplement the results of

cigarette testing using this method with results based on other carefully-chosen fabrics.

B. Cigarette Extinction Test Method

An analog to most of the discussion in the preceding section applies to this method as well. The

potential limitation on the imposition of an external air flow manifests itself in both methods. Since

the filter paper is a surrogate material, the pertinent consideration is the degree of differentiation

of cigarette ignition propensity. This is reflected in the numbers of layers selected for the test substrates. For instance, were there an interest in better discrimination among cigarettes of high

ignition propensity than is shown in Figure 15, one might be inclined to select 20 or 25 layers to replace the 15 in the first substrate. However, limited data indicate that this increase has no effect on the burning behavior of cigarettes in this test series. Thus, this method is less appropriate than

the mock-up method for distinguishing initial progress from current market cigarettes toward those

of lower ignition propensity.

The limit on the degree of resolution for this method is similar to that using mock-ups. Table 30

shows that the level of lab-to-lab reproducibility is about 0.4 for 16 replicate tests. Only modest

improvement is achievable for a reasonably larger number of tests. It is apparent that the Cigarette

Extinction Test also cannot make fine distinctions in ignition propensity among cigarette designs.

Again, this places a limit on the degree of resolution possible for regulatory use of the method. As

above, finer distinctions could be made within a single laboratory by using a number of replicates

greater than 16.

It is also possible to calculate how one might use fewer tests on a substrate, having measured 100%

ignitions on a substrate of higher thermal capacitance. For example, after 16 full-length bums in 16

tests on the 15-layer substrate, a 95% lower confidence bound on the long-run full-length bum

probability is (1-0.95)^^^ = 0.83. In other words, one can be 95% confident that the full-length

bum probability within the same laboratory is greater than about 0.83. ^th that result, it may be

sufficient for some purposes to know that the full-length burn probability on the 10-layer and 3-layer

substrates would be about 0.6 or higher, since the degree of interlaboratory resolution is about 0,4, as noted above. If so, then only about n=6 mns would be required, because (1—0.95)^^^ = 0,61.

That is, if 6 mns were conducted resulting in 6 full-length burns, then the 95% lower confidence

bound for the full-length burn probability would be 0.61. It is, of course, possible that in the 6 tests, one or more self-extinguishments might occur. It would then be appropriate to mn a full set of 16

replications for each of the three substrates. Note that the savings in resources with this method is somewhat smaller than with the mock-up method.

C. Allowable Material Variability

The lab-to-lab reproducibility seen in each ILS for the two test methods (Figures 4 and 14) is a result

of the variability of the test operators, the laboratory environment, the substrate materials, and the

products being tested. Measuring variations in the cigarettes is part of the purpose of testing.

Therefore, in order to assure that the test reproducibility is maintained at the observed level, the

substrate material variability limits existent in the present study must be applied to all future

102
materials. This may be a more stringent requirement than necessary but, without further study, there

is no justification for looser controls on the materials.

For the Mock-Up Ignition Test Method, the most critical material is the fabric. Acceptable fabrics

must be 100% raw cotton ducks which meet the physical requirements of reference 12.^ Open-end

spinning should also be specified to ensure similarity to the fabrics used in the interlaboratory studies.

Since reference 12 does not explicitly specify such details as yam count and yam plies and the

influence of these structural parameters on cigarette ignitability has not been extensively explored,

the values listed in Table 6 should be adhered to. Where the limits on other properties are narrower

for the cotton ducks actually used in this study, those narrower limits must apply. Thus the

acceptable areal density and air permeability ranges are those given in Tkbles 11 and 12. Reference

12 contains no specification on metal ion content of the fabrics. The data in Table 7 for duck #6

suggest that potassium ion levels in the range from 4400 to 6000 ppm are acceptable. Comparison

of the potassium levels in the various ducks in Tables 7 and 8 suggests that all of the ducks can

generally be held in this range for an extended production period, though conclusions about multiyear variability obviously cannot be made on the basis of the present study. Sodium is potentially as

catalytic to smoldering ignition as is potassium; thus it should (and probably naturally will) be held

to the negligible levels seen in Table 7. Calcium and magnesium cations are weak smolder promoters;

Table 7 suggests an acceptable range of both is 500 to 750 ppm. Cotton ducks should be stored in the dark at room temperature or below and at a humidity low enough to preclude any microbial

action. Under these circumstances, shelf life should be at least one year.

As noted previously, the Mock-Up Method using duck #4 in combination with a polymer film as an added heat sink is sensitive to the properties of that film. Table 15 lists the properties of the Warp

Brothers Poly-Film used in the main ILS. In reviewing the results shown in Figures 2 and 4, a film

Uke this is preferred. The areal density is believed to be the most critical property here (along with

the heat capacity of the film, which has not been measured but should be fixed by the composition).

An areal density change from 0.015 to 0.012 g/cm^ (Poly-America film) caused a substantial change

in the ignition proportions of cigarettes 501 and 503. Cigarette 501, in particular, decreased from an

ignition proportion range of 0.7-1.0 to 0-0.3 when the higher areal density film was used. This

sensitivity suggests that the areal density should be held at 0.015 g/cm^ ± 5 percent.

The polyurethane foam in the Mock-Up Method probably serves more of a physical role (part

insulator, part heat sink, part oxygen inflow inhibitor) than a chemical role (source or sink of

chemical energy). The foam does not smolder during the fabric ignition process or soon thereafter. In this study, substitution of another foam with a 25% lower density and a 17% greater air permeability had no great effect on the ignition proportions seen. Thus there should be no

difficulties introduced by allowing the typical ± 5% within-batch variations in foam density and the

level of air j)ermeability variations seen in Table 14. Reference 9 indicates that there is a weak

correlation between the number of urea bonds in the foam formulation and ignitability. The number

of urea bonds is proportional to the water level in the foam formulation which is unknown for the

foams in this study. The study reported in reference 9 also indicated that ignitability is an order of

magnitude more sensitive to foam air permeability than to urea bond levels. Since these two foam

properties are somewhat related (water is added as a foam blowing agent), the preceding restriction

Reference 12 accepts recycled cotton as raw material. That is undesirable here because of

the possibility of chemical contamination which could affect ignitability by cigarettes.

103
on foam density variations should suffice, provided the foam is a polyether/TDI formulation typical

of current technology. The foam also should contain no inorganic fillers. Polyurethane foams show

substantial color changes when exposed to typical room lighting. The possibility of significant

alterations via this mechanism or via slow aging should be precluded by storage under an opaque

covering at room temperature for no more than six months before use.

The filter paper is the only critical material used in the Cigarette Extinction Test Method. The paper

used here is Whatman No. 2 filter paper, a staple for qualitative analysis. The nominal ash content

specification is 0.06%. Here again the critical property is the areal density, since the principal

function of the paper is to serve as a heat sink. It is likely that the thermal conductivity also plays a role here, especially in the substrates with the greatest number of paper sheets. This should be

proportional to the density of the paper. The data in Section II.C.3 are for the filter papers used in

the present study. The areal density and thickness determine the paper density as well. The

variability of these properties shown there is acceptable.

Appendix F includes thermogravimetric data on all of the materials used in both test methods. These

data are included as general guidance in assessing the suitability of candidate new batches of material.

Any new batch of a given material should behave in substantially the same manner as the example

in Appendix F for that type.

It is possible that a performance specification could be developed for mock-up materials based on

a standardized, non-cigarette ignition source, such as a small black body or a carbon dioxide laser. This might obviate the need for all of the prescriptive limitations on materials given above. Other

work in this program has shown that the smoldering ignition process is sensitive to such variables as the size of the spot on a mock-up surface which is heated. Thus any such performance test would

require careful study of the sensitivity of the output (e.g., ignition delay time for a range of peak

incident heat fluxes) to test variables. Since the materials specifications above appeared to be

sufficient, this alternative approach has not been pursued to completion.

D. Standardization of Test Methods

It is common practice, upon development of a fire test method for professional use, to proceed with

its adoption as a voluntary consensus standard in either ASTM or the National Fire Protection

Association (NFPA). Because these processes generally take several years, this is not possible under

the Fire Safe Cigarette Act of 1990, which expires September 10, 1993. This report contains

sufficient documentation of the two test methods and interlaboratory evaluations of each so that the

methods could be submitted to ASTM or NFPA for formal approval. The relevance to fire safety

is contained here and in reference 3. Thus, all necessary materials for initiating the standardization

process are now available.

E. Effectiveness of the Methods

It will be the role of the regulator to determine which (if any) future cigarettes are tested, by whom,

how frequently, and to what requirements. The last of these is likely to be based, in part, on the

additional degree of life safety desired. The findings of the TSG demonstrated that measurements

104
using mock-ups are reasonable indicators of full-scale performance [2]. The work to date provides

modest guidance in relating performance under these new methods to real-world performance.

There are data to "calibrate" the methods at the high end of the ignition propensity scale. The

current commercial cigarettes are associated with the fire losses of today. The commercial cigarette

data in Section IV of this report and the data on older commercial cigarettes in reference 3 establish

typical performance for these cigarettes. In the two new test methods, this is seen as a large number

of ignitions on the #4 cotton duck or full-length burning on the 15-layer paper substrate. This

establishes the test results for the high ignition propensity end of the scale.

Both the current work and cigarette industry studies [20] demonstrate the performance of cigarettes

that never or rarely ignited a variety of substrates. The correlation of mock-up results with chair tests in reference 3 indicates that such results can be expected to be indicative of real-world performance

of such substrates. In the two new test methods, this behavior is observed as few ignitions on the

#10 cotton duck or few full-length bums on 3 layers of filter paper. This indicator of test results for

the low ignition propensity end of the scale is less quantitative than the high end indicator mentioned

earlier.

In between these extremes, one would like to be able to predict a reduced number of fires as fewer

ignitions are measured in the laboratory. The full-scale tests in reference 3 support this. At least for coarse changes in test performance, real-world savings seem highly likely. When considering

smaller increments in test performance, however, one must keep in mind the accuracy limits of the

methods as discussed above.

105
IV. TESTING OF COMMERCIAL CIGARETTES

A. Introduction

Having completed the development of standardized testing procedures, NIST has evaluated a sample

of current commercial cigarette types, its second obligation under the Fire Safe Cigarette Act of 1990.

The results of this performance testing:

• demonstrate the utility of the method for routine testing of production cigarettes,

• provide baseline data for comparison with commercial cigarettes of the future, and

• present examples of the recommended reporting format for the ignition propensity

data.

B. Rationale for Commercial Cigarette Choices

The cigarettes were chosen with two objectives in mind: (a) to incorporate packings which comprise

a signiOcant portion of the consumer market, and (b) to include several packings judged likely to yield a lower ignition propensity compared to the best sellers. After reviewing available physical

characteristic data, fourteen packings in the former category were tested and six in the latter.

Consumer market data were obtained from the February 10, 1992 Maxwell Consumer Report. This

includes complete sales data only through 1990, and it is the 1990 data which were used. The

Maxwell Report data indicate that the fourteen packings chosen comprised 38% of the market in

1990.

These best selling brands do not vary widely in physical parameters such as packing density, paper

permeability or tobacco rod circumference. Thus a second, smaller group of cigarettes was identified

which do show more substantial deviations in their physical parameters. The particular emphasis was on cigarettes having two physical parameters which deviate in a direction which the TSG study [3]

would suggest as likely to lower ignition propensity, e.g., lower paper porosity, circumference, tobacco

density. [Since the data on which these decisions were based were identifled as confidential and

proprietary by the cigarette industry, they are not tabulated in this report.] The six selected packings

comprised less than one percent of the market in 1990.

Samples of these cigarettes were obtained courtesy of the Tobacco Institute Testing Laboratory

( Ti'IL), Rockville, Maryland. This laboratory is responsible for the official tar and nicotine ratings

of all commercial cigarettes. It contracts to have packs of cigarettes purchased from around the

country once each year, in the first quarter of the calendar year. The cigarettes tested in this study were from surplus packs purchased in the first quarter of 1992; typically the quantity obtained was

80-100 packs of each type. The cigarettes were in opened packs which had been sealed in plastic

bags after l lTLs sampling and stored at room temperature. TTiey were also stored at NIST in this manner until removed for conditioning.

106
C. Test Procedures

The cigarettes were tested nominally using the two procedures described above. However, it was

expected that many of these packings would be of very high ignition propensity. Therefore, the full complement of replicates (48 or 16) was performed first for the duck #4 and 15-layer substrates. If 48 ignitions in the Mock-Up Ignition Method were observed, then 8 replicates were performed on

the remaining substrates. (This is more than the minimum of six called for in Section II.A-, since it

is based on an earlier estimate of the reproducibility of the test methods.) Also, for certain of the

top fourteen packings (4 through 9 in Table 32), additional tests were run on Duck #6 before the

decision was made to limit the testing to eight replicates. If 16 full-length bums in the Extinction

Method were noted, then no further testing was performed.

One of the packings in the group of six selected as less ignition prone (packing C in Tkble 32) had

a tendency to self-extinguish during the vertical free-bum period prior to placement on the substrate.

Thus, on duck #6, 13 of the 35 extinguishments occurred during this vertical free-bum. When an

additional 24 replicates were run with this duck using a horizontal cigarette orientation during the

free-bum interval, 12 caused ignition and 12 self-extinguished on the mock-up. This increase in ignition rate from 27% to 50% is comparable to the repeatability of the method (Table 24) and was

not considered sufficient to revise the test procedure. Note, however, that this cigarette was run only

with a horizontal free-bum for the tests on duck #10 and the three filter paper substrates.

D. Analysis of Data

Table 32 shows that the top 14 best-selling packings behaved in a virtually identical manner, with

packing #7 exhibiting 2 self-extinctions on the duck #4. Both test methods indicate they are strong

igniters; neither method reveals any differentiation among these packings. Reference to the

interlaboratory study results for the Mock-Up Ignition Method (Figure 4) indicates that all of these

cigarettes are stronger igniters than the 2 strongest experimental cigarettes (503 and 501) used in that

study.

The 6 packings chosen as likely to be of lesser ignition propensity did in fact show this tendency to varying degrees. Both methods reveal the same qualitative picture: a monotonic increase in the

number of ignitions or full-length bums as one moves toward the lighter fabrics or fewer filter layers.

Of particular note is that 4 of these packings (A, C, E, F) showed few or no ignitions in 48 replicates on the #4 duck. Compared to the Mock-Up Ignition Method, the Extinction Method does not seem

to pick up the reduced ignition propensity of one of these (packing E) and also does not distinguish

as strongly the performance of cigarettes A and D from the 14 best-selling packings. Packing C

shows a persisting tendency toward a lesser ignition propensity, even on Duck #10; the Extinction

Method does not show this on the 10- or 3-layer substrates. These observations are consistent with

those in the interlaboratory study, which indicated that the Mock-Up Method is capable of better

distinction among cigarettes in the upper/middle part of the ignition propensity range.

107
Table 32. Results of Commercial Cigarette Testing

Cicarette

Mock-Up Ignition Test Method Cigarette Extinction Test Method

Duck #4^ Duck #6 Duck #10 15 Layers^^ 10 Layers 3 Layers

11 48/0/0 8/0/0 8/0/0 16/0 z 48/0/0 8/0/0 8/0/0 16/0

J 48/0/0 8/0/0 8/0/0 16/0

A 48/0/0 12/0/0 8/0/0 16/0 D 48/0/0 12/0/0 8/0/0 16/0

O 48/0/0 12/0/0 8/0/0 16/0

7 46/0/2 16/0/0 8/0/0 16/0

8 48/0/0 16/0/0 8/0/0 16/0

9 48/0/0 16/0/0 8/0/0 16/0

10 48/0/0 8/0/0 8/0/0 16/0

11 48/0/0 8/0/0 8/0/0 16/0

12 48/0/0 8/0/0 8/0/0 16/0

13 48/0/0 8/0/0 8/0/0 16/0

14 48/0/0 8/0/0 8/0/0 16/0

A 2/5/41 44/0/4 8/0/0 6/10 15/1 6/0

B 35/1/12 44/0/4 8/0/0 15/1 6/0 6/0

C 0/0/48 13/0/35 4/0/4 2/14 8/8 16/0

D 22/1/25 35/0/13 8/0/0 14/2 15/1 6/0

E 0/31/17 46/0/2 8/0/0 15/1 16/0 6/0

F 0/6/42 38/0/10 8/0/0 3/13 8/8 16/0

Table 33 provides a further check of consistency between the two methods, and thus further

affirmation that the measured cigarette performance is consistent across diverse substrates. Here,

the ignition strengths of the five cigarettes from the interlaboratory study and five of the second

group of commercial cigarettes are tabulated. [The fourteen best-selling commercial packings showed

nominally 100% ignitions on all six substrates and thus the data are not informative.] Cigarette C

is omitted because the testing was performed using two different pre-burn procedures. The rows are

in order of decreasing average of the six values in the row; the columns are arranged similarly. The

averages from the interlaboratory study are for 432 replicates (9 labs x 48 each) for the cotton duck

substrates and 144 replicates (9 x 16) for the filter paper substrates. The number of replicates for

the commercial cigarettes are far fewer and shown in Table 32.

Results for the Mock-Up Ignition Method are shown in the sequence: Ignitions/NonIgnitions/Self-Extinctions.

Results for the Cigarette Extinction Method are shown in the order: Full Burn/Partial Burn.

108
I^ble 33. Percent Ignitions or Full Length Bums on Test Method Substrates

CTTUCTU ATI? _k. CIGARETTE ;

.5 Layers

UUCK

#10

10

Layers

Duck

#6

15

Layers

Uuck

#4

B 100 100 100 92 94 73

503 100 100 100 100 100 53

501 100 100 100 100 100 11

D 100 100 94 73 88 46

E 100 100 100 96 94 0

531 99 98 94 95 88 0

A 100 100 94 92 38 4

F 100 100 100 79 19 0

529 57 30 6 8 2 0

530 6 3 0 0 0 0

There is a generally consistent decrease in ignition strength from the top left corner of the matrix to the lower right comer, especially considering the reproducibility of the data established in the

interlaboratory study. Perhaps the largest single departure from the general pattern in the Table is for either cigarette 501 or cigarette D tested on the duck #4 substrate. However, these cigarette

ignition propensities are quite comparable to each other. The two duck #4 values are within the

established interlaboratory reproducibility of each other, and both cigarettes yield similar results on

all the other substrates.

As in the TSG studies [3], it is of interest to determine whether reduced ignition propensity

necessarily results in increased yields of undesirable smoke components. The mean values and

standard deviations for the two sets of commercial cigarettes tested here are shown in Table 34. The

entries in Table 34 were compiled from data contained in reference [34]. These data were

generated by the Tobacco Institute Testing Laboratory. The results show that reduced ignition

propensity has been achieved with no significant increase in these three smoke components.

Table 34. Averaged Smoke Component Yields from Commercial Cigarettes (mg per cigarette)

Cigarettes Tar (mg) Nicotine (mg) Carbon Monoxide (mg)

1-14 14.4 ± 4.2 1.04 ± 0.27 13.7 ± 2.2

A-F 11.7 ± 4.8 0.98 ± 0.38 12.5 ± 6.2

109
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The research funded under the Cigarette Safety Act of 1984 (P.L.98-567) and the Fire Safe Cigarette

Act of 1990 (RL, 101-352) has led to the development of two test methods for measuring the ignition

propensity of cigarettes.

• The Mock-Up Ignition Test Method uses substrates physically similar to upholstered

furniture and mattresses: a layer of fabric over padding. The measure of cigarette

performance is ignition or non-ignition of the substrate.

• The Cigarette Extinction Test Method replaces the fabric/padding assembly with

multiple layers of common filter paper. The measure of performance is full-length

burning or self-extinguishment of the cigarette.

The 14 best-selling commercial cigarette packings and six other commercial packings were examined

using the two methods. Both methods showed reduced ignition propensities for five of the six specialty cigarettes relative to the best sellers.

For a product standard at present, there is a preference for using the Mock-Up Ignition Test Method

because it is capable of better discrimination among cigarettes of high/moderate ignition propensity.

However, routine measurement of the relative ignition propensity of cigarettes is feasible using either

of the two methods.

Improved cigarette performance under both methods has been linked with reduced ignition behavior

in full-scale chairs constructed using fabrics that differ substantially from the materials in the test methods. It is reasonable to assume that this implies an analogous benefit of reduced ignitability is to be found in the real world population of upholstered furniture. However, the precise incremental

life and property savings that would accrue from the use of the test methods described here in

conjunction with a particular test criterion has not been established.

Both methods have been subjected to interlaboratory study. The resulting reproducibilities were

comparable to each other and comparable or superior to most currently-used standard fire tests.

110
VI. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the helpful assistance of numerous persons who helped make this study possible. The Consumer Product Safety Commission funded this program. Throughout this study, there were many helpful interactions with CPSC staff, especially Bea Harwood, James Hoebel,

and Roy Deppa, who also served as technical monitor for the NIST work.

Michael Smith and Hartley Abraham performed the majority of the cigarette testing with assistance

from Jack Lee, Russell Loy, Arnold Liu and Ronald McCombs. Henry Wheelock designed and

fabricated much of the test apparatus. John Shields provided extensive help in efforts to prepare

doped fabrics and in characterization of the ignition process. Robin Breese assisted in thermal

analyses and plotting the data. Dick Zile, Lauren DeLauter, Gary Roadarmel and Roy McLane

helped with the randomizing of the materials samples. John Krasny provided helpful discussions

throughout the study.

Lisa Oakley, of the NIST Statistical Engineering Division, assisted with statistical computing and

preparation of statistical graphics for this report; Dr. Raghu Kacker, also of the NIST Statistical

Engineering Division, participated, along with Magdalena Navarro, in designing the interlaboratory

studies and the NIST experimental work that preceded them; and Dr. Terry Kissinger of the

Consumer Product Safety Commission provided helpful suggestions on the statistical analyses.

Various people in industry provided useful information in specific areas. Dr. Alexander Spears of

Lorillard coordinated the cigarette industry manufacture of the Series 500 experimental cigarettes and

also the transferring of the commercial cigarettes from the Tobacco Institute Testing Laboratory to NIST. Wayne Smith of West Point Pepperell was especially helpful in providing data on the

potassium content of cotton ducks. Hardy Poole of the American Textile Manufacturers Institute

provided alternative cotton ducks for assessment. Paul Weinle, Hugh Talley, and Bill Jones, Mike

McDonnell, Joe Guerriera and many others who provided property information on materials are

gratefully acknowledged.

Finally, the authors wish to thank the members of the Technical Advisory Group under the Fire Safe

Cigarette Act of 1990 for helpful comments on this text and to the staffs of the nine laboratories that

participated in the interlaboratory study.

Ill
VII. REFERENCES

[I] Miller, A.L., "U.S. Smoking Material Fire Problem Through 1990: The Role of Lighted

Tobacco Products in Fire," National Fire Protection Association, Quincy MA, 1993.

[2] "Toward a Less Fire-Prone Cigarette," Final Report to the Congress, Technical Study Group

on Cigarette and Little Cigar Fire Safety, Cigarette Safety Act of 1984, available from the

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 1987.

[3] Gann, R.G., Harris, Jr., R.H., Krasny, J.E, Levine, R.S., Mitler, H.E., and Ohlemiller, T.J., "The Effect of Cigarette Characteristics on the Ignition of Soft Furnishings," NBS Technical

Note 1241, National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD, 1987.

[4] Ihrig, A., Rhyne, A., Norman, V. and Spears, A., "Factors Involved in the Ignition of

Cellulosic Upholstery Fabrics by Cigarettes," / Fire Sciences 4, 237 (1986).

[5] California Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation, Technical Bulletin 117.

"Requirements, Test Procedure and Apparatus for Testing the Flame Retardance of Resilient

Filling Materials Used in Upholstered Furniture."

[6] Harris, Jr., R.H., Navarro, M., Gann, R.G., and Eberhardt, ICR., "Reevaluation of

Experimental Cigarettes used in the Cigarette Safety Act of 1984," NIST Report of Test FR

3984, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 1991,

[7] Babrauskas, V. and Krasny, J., "Fire Behavior of Upholstered Furniture," National Bureau of

Standards Monograph 173, 1985.

[8] "Cigarette Ignition Resistance of Components of Upholstered Furniture," NFPA 260-1989,

National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, published annually.

[9] Ihrig, A., Rhyne, A. and Spears, A., "Influence of Flexible Polyurethane Foams on Upholstery

Fabric-Foam Mock-ups Ignitions by Cigarettes", /. Fire Sciences 5, Nov/Dec, 1987, p. 392.

[10] Rhyne, A. and Spears A-, "Sensitivity of a Cigarette Ignitability Index to Hypothetical Shifts

in the Distribution of Upholstery Furniture Fabrics", /. Fire Sciences 8, Jan/Feb, 1989, p. 3.

[II] McCarter, R., "Smoldering Combustion of Cotton and Rayon,"/. Consumer Prod. Flamm. 4,

1977, p. 346.

[12] CCC-C-419G, December 15, 1989 "Federal Specification - Cloth, Duck, Unbleached, PliedYams, Army & Numbered," available from U.S. Army Natick Research, Development and

Engineering Center, Natick, MA 01760-5014.

[13] Donaldson, D., USDA Southern Regional Research Laboratory, personal communication.

[14] Mauersberger, H., ed., Mathews Textile Fibers, Sixth Edition. J. W^iley & Sons, New York,

(1954), p.225.

112
An informal sampling of references to the use of cotton ducks and duck-like fabrics identified

the following: IKEA, 1992 catalog; The Crate and Barrel, 1992 Spring and Summer catalog;

Mario Furniture Inc., 1992 spring sale literature; Ethan Allen Inc., spring sale event literature;

Metropolitan Home magazine, April, 1992, p. 136; Better Homes and Gardens magazine,

March, 1993, p. 131.

Norman, V., Lorillard, Inc., presentation to the Technical Advisory Group, Fire Safe Cigarette

Act of 1990, April 16, 1992.

asTM Method D 737-75, "Standard Test Method for Air Permeability of Textile Fabrics,"

American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1980.

ASTM Method D 3574-91, "Standard Test Methods for Flexible Cellular Materials-Slab,

Bonded, and Molded Urethane Foams," American Society for Testing and Materials,

Philadelphia, PA

Dowling, v., Division of Building, Construction and Engineering, CSIRO, Australia, personal

communication.

Adiga, K-, Pham, M., Noonan, K, and Honeycutt, R., "The Implications of Modest Air Flow on Cigarette Ignition of Soft Furnishing Mockups," report submitted to the Technical

Advisory Group on October 15, 1992 by Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation.

Countryman, C, "Some Physical Characteristics of Cigarettes as Fire Brands," Report

prepared under U. S. Forest Service Contract 43-9AD6-1-617 (1981).

Flack, R., University of Virginia, report to the Technical Advisory Group, January 28, 1993.

Robinson, D., "Aerodynamic Characteristics of the Plume Generated by a Burning Cigarette,"

Paper presented at the International Conference on the Physical and Chemical Processes

Occurring in a Burning Cigarette, sponsored by R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., held at Wake

Forest University, April, 1987.

ASTM E 177-90a, "Standard Practice for Use of Terms Precision and Bias in ASTM Test Methods," American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA 1990.

ASTM E 691-87, "Standard Practice for Conducting an Interlaboratory Study to Determine

the Precision of a Test Method," American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,

PA, 1988.

Cox, D.R., and Snell, EJ., Anafysis ofBinary Data, 2nd edition, London: Chapman and Hall,

1989, section 3.2.

D. A- Williams, "Extra-Binomial Variation in Linear Logistic Modch" Applied Statistics, Vol.

31 (1982), No. 2, pp. 144-148.

Finney, D. J., Probit Analysis, 3rd Edition, London, Cambridge University Press, 1971.

113
ASTM Method E 648-91, "Standard Method for Critical Radiant Flux of Floor-Covering

Systems," American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.

E 662-83, "Standard Test Method for Specific Optical Density of Smoke Generated by Solid

Materials," American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA

E 1354-90, "Standard Test Method for Heat and \^ible Smoke Release for Materials and

Products Using an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter," American Society for Testing and

Materials, Philadelphia, PA.

Krasny, J., Allen, P., Maldonado, A. and Juarez, N., "Development of a Candidate Test Method for the Measurement of the Propensity of Cigarettes to Cause Smoldering Ignition

of Upholstered Furniture and Mattresses," National Bureau of Standards, NBSIR 81-2363,

1981.

Norman, V, "Some Considerations Concerning the Heat Output of Cigarettes," Presentation

to the Technical Study Group, March, 1985.

"Tar, Nicotine, and Carbon Monoxide of the Smoke of 534 Varieties of Domestic Cigarettes,"

Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC, 1992.

114
APPENDIX A

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Report of Test

FR 3984

May 1991

"Reevaluation of Experimental Cigarettes used in

the Cigarette Safety Act of 1984"

Richard H. Harris, Jr., Magdalena Navarro, Richard G. Gann

Building and Fire Research Laboratory

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Keith R. Eberhardt

Computing and Applied Mathematics Laboratory

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Submitted to:

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Washington DC 20207

A-1
Introduction

Under P.L. 101-352, the Fire-Safe Cigarette Act of 1990, one of the tasks assigned to NIST was to develop a valid test method for the ignition propensity of cigarettes. In a previous study [A-1], under

the Cigarette Safety Act of 1984, 32 experimental cigarettes that vary systematically in five design

parameters were extensively studied to determine their ignition propensity on soft furnishings. The

evaluation was done with bench-scale mock-ups and on full-scale furniture. Analysis of the test results indicated an agreement between the bench-scale and full-scale tests. Since these experimental

cigarettes are well characterized, it is desirable to use these cigarettes in the new study. However,

these cigarettes have been stored in freezers since the completion of the first study. To determine

if the cigarettes have changed during storage, a reevaluation was undertaken using fabric and padding

materials retained from the first study.

Statistical Selection of Cigarettes

The original characterization of these cigarettes involved testing on four substrates, which in turn were composed of combinations of 3 fabrics and two paddings. Due to the limited availability of one

of the fabrics (California standard), it was impossible to repeat the entire experimental series using

all 32 types of cigarettes on all 4 substrates. There was only enough material available to perform

ignition tests for 8 of the 32 cigarettes on all 4 substrates, using 5 replicates for each case.

The selection of 8 cigarettes from the available 32 amounts to choosing exactly a 1/4 fraction of the

available cigarette types. In making the selection, we attempted to achieve two objectives:

(1) to choose cigarettes whose ignition propensities evenly span the entire range of ignition rates observed in the previous testing, and

(2) to choose cigarettes in a balanced fashion — so that each of the five design factors that define

the cigarette types would be equally represented among the 8 selected cigarettes.

The statistical theory of fractional factorial experimental design [A-2] can be used to satisfy the

second objective. In particular, a 1/4 fraction of the (full) 2^ factorial design that defines the 32

cigarettes would consist of 8 cigarettes for which:

• 4 have Burley tobacco, and 4 have Flue-cured;

• 4 have Expanded tobacco, and 4 are Not expanded;

• 4 have paper of Low permeability, and 4 have High permeability;

• 4 have Citrate, and 4 have No citrate; and

• 4 are 21 cm in circumference, and 4 are 25 cm.

In addition, in a fractional factorial experimental design, a second level of balance would be achieved.

For example, among the 4 cigarettes with high citrate, 2 would be 21 cm in circumference and 2

would be 25 cm; similarly, the 4 low citrate cigarettes would have 2 at 21 cm and 2 at 25 cm

circumference. In an analogous way, each pair of factors would exhibit this kind of balance, with the

result that each level of one factor would be combined with each level of the other factor in an equal

number of cases.

A-2
There are many ways that this kind of fully balanced fractional factorial selection could be made from

the 32 cigarette types available. It was initially hoped that one or more of these fractional factorial

selections would yield a set of 8 cigarettes that would also satisfy the first objective of uniformly

spanning the ignition rates that had been obtained in the previous experiment. Ultimately we found

that it was not possible to achieve both of the stated objectives exactly, and so a compromise set of

8 cigarettes was found that was imperfectly, but nearly, balanced and which does exhibit quite uniform

coverage of the ignition rates. It was felt that for the purposes of this reevaluation experiment, the

need to use cigarettes that uniformly represent the full range of previously observed ignition rates was more important than achieving a perfectly balanced fractional factorial arrangement.

Table A-1 displays the extent to which balance in the above sense was achieved in the final compromise set of cigarettes chosen.

Table A-1. Selection of Cigarettes for Reevaluation Study: Balance on Cigarette Design Factors

and Coverage of Levels of Previous Numbers of Ignitions

Cigarette

Number

Tbbacco

Type

Packing

Density

Paper

Permeability

Citrate Circumference

Previous

Number

of

Ignitions

106 B E L N 21 1

130 F E L N 25 4

108 B E H N 21 7

129 F E L C 25 10

101 B N L C 21 13

131 F E H c 25 15

103 B N H c 21 17

120 B N H N 25 20

Balance

Achieved

5 B

3 F

5 E

3 N

4 L

4 H

4 N

4 C

4 21mm

4 25mm

Results and Conclusions

The eight statistically-selected cigarettes were tested for their ignition propensity on the same

substrates and in the same manner as the previous study. In addition to the storage factor, two other

differences were a change in the canopy hood used and the technician who performed the tests.

The results of the testing are shown in Table A-2 below.

A-3
Tkble A-2. Reevaluation of Eight of the Thirty-two Experimental Cigarettes

Number of Ignitions

CA/CB

Unc/fiat

SPL/PU

Unc/flat

SPL/PU^

Unc/flat

Denim/PU

Crev./cov. Tbtal

Cig.

Id. Prev. Now Prev. Now Prev. Now Prev. Now Prev. Now

106

BELN21

0 u 1 1 u 0 U 0 1 1

130

FELN25

3 4 1 1 0 2 0 5 4 12

108

BEHN21

3 2

A4 3 0 0 U 1 7 O

129

FELC25

5

c5 3 5 2 5 U 1 lU 16

101

BNLC21

3 4 5 5 5 5 0 5 13 19

131

FEHC25

5 3 5 5 5 5 0 0 15 13

103

BNHC21

5 4 5 5 5 5 2 5 17 19

120

BNHN25

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 20 20

Tbtals 29 27 29 30 22 27 7 22 87 106

Maximum number of ignitions per cigarette is 20, per substrate 40. CA/CB California test fabric/cotton batting.

SPL/PU 100% cotton Splendor fabric/polyurethane 2045.

Denim/PU 100% cotton Denim fabric/polyurethane 2045.

Unc./flat Uncovered cigarette on a flat mockup.

Crev./cov. Covered cigarette in mockup crevice, a Cigarette with filter with one half of the tobacco column

removed before lighting.

If no real change in ignition propensity occurred, then the numbers of ignitions in the "Previous" and

"Now" columns of Tkble A-2 should be the same, except for statistical fluctuations.

A-4
For each of the 8 cigarette types, and for each of the 4 substrates shown in Table A-2, we calculated

the difference between the number of ignitions in the current study ("Now"), minus the number of

ignitions in the "Previous" study. If these differences represent only statistical fluctuations, then they

would form a statistical population centered near zero. The Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test [A-3] was

adopted as a formal statistical test procedure to evaluate whether the observed differences indicate a change in ignition propensity or only random noise. This is a non-parametric test procedure that

is valid for use with data that do not follow the commonly assumed Gaussian distribution. Validity

for non-Gaussian data was an important consideration because the difference data from this experiment clearly exhibit a non-Gaussian pattern of variation.

The results of the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test are that the observed differences in numbers of

ignitions show a statistically significant tendency (p = 0.04) toward increased ignitions after the

storage period. Inspection of Table A-2 shows that the increased ignitions come almost exclusively

from the denim substrate, which suggests the possibility that the statistically significant difference is due entirely to the denim substrate. This is consistent with the observation of Rogers and Hayes [A4] that unless denim is stored free of finishing materials in the dark and in a temperature controlled

environment, it will deteriorate with time.

To evaluate the hypothesis of no change in ignition propensity for the non-denim substrates, the

Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was recomputed using only the other three substrates (CA/CB, SPL/PU,

and SPL/PU-half cigarette). In this case, the differences in ignition numbers were not significantly

different from zero (p = 0.47). That is, the data for the three non-denim substrates are wholly

consistent with the hypothesis of no change in ignition propensities of the experimental cigarettes,

compared with the previous study.

It was noted that cigarette number 129 showed noticeable increases in the number of ignitions for

both of the conditions involving the SPL/PU substrate. This suggests the possibility of a real change

in ignition propensity for this particular combination of cigarette and substrate. In pursuing this observation, it is pertinent to note that cigarette 129 showed a relatively small increase in ignitions on the denim substrate both in comparison to its increase for the two SPL/PU substrates and also

in comparison to the increases for other cigarettes on the denim substrate. Thus any physical

explanation of a change in ignition propensity for cigarette 129 would seem to call for a unique

cigarette-substrate interaction on SPL/PU. The reevaluation experiment was designed as an overall

test for possible changes in the experimental cigarettes. It was not designed to generate sufficient

data to evaluate unique effects for each cigarette and substrate combination. As it happens, the

largest single observed difference (2 ignitions in the previous study versus 5 ignitions now) is not

significant at the standard 5% level of significance (p = 0.08). Here, the significance calculation was

obtained using Fisher's Exact Test for a 2x2 contingency table [A-5]. Based on all these considerations, it does not seem profitable to pursue further the observed increase in ignitions for cigarette

129 on SPL/PU.

Summary

Overall, we interpret the results of this study as showing that the ignition propensities of the

experimental cigarettes have not changed during storage but that the denim substrate has changed

in ignitability.

A-5
Acknowledgements

The authors thank Rajauhn Lee for performing the cigarette ignition tests for this project.

References

[A-l] Gann, R.G., Harris, R.H., Krasny, J.E, Levine, R.S., Mitler, H.E., and Ohlemiller, TJ., The

Effect of Cigarette Characteristics on the Ignition of Soft Furnishings," NBS Technical Note

1241, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 1988.

[A-2] Box, G.E.P., Hunter, W.G., and Hunter, J. S., Statistics for Experimenters, John Wiley and

Sons, New York, 1978, Chapter 12.

[A-3] Snedecor, G.W. and Cochran, W.G., Statistical Methods, 7th ed.. The Iowa State University

Press, Ames, Iowa, 1980, pp. 141-143.

[A-4] Rogers, R.E. and Hays, M., "Effect of Storage on Fabrics," Textile Research, pp. 22-35, April

1943.

[A-5] Placket, R.L., The Analysis of Categorical Data, 2nd ed., Macmillan, New York, 1981, Section

6.3.

A-6
APPENDIX B

MOCK-UP IGNITION TEST METHOD PROCEDURE

Scope:

The purpose of this test procedure is to provide a method for measuring the propensity of cigarettes

to ignite specified types of substrate assemblies.

Apparatus and Equipment:

1. Test chambers of the design shown in Figure B-1 shall be constructed for testing the cigarette/substrate combinations.

2. A vacuum draw apparatus consisting of the following type shall be used for igniting the test cigarettes: See Figure B-2.

The vacuum draw apparatus is composed of a cigarette holder, particulate filter, rotameter, trap, pressure gauge, shut-off valve and a vacuum pump. The cigarette

holder (a plastic drying tube) shall have a flexible diaphragm with a hole cut to a size

appropriate for holding a cigarette and making a tight seal around the filter end. The

holder must be mounted in a secure fastener which will hold the cigarette firmly in a horizontal position for lighting. The particulate filter, composed of a plastic drying

tube 150 mm long and 20 mm in diameter filled with glass wool, shall be adequate to remove smoke from the combustion gases to prevent contamination of all downstream

assemblies. The filter shall be changed regularly to insure that gas flow is unobstructed and that contamination is not allowed to pass this point. A rotameter capable of

measuring 1000 ml/min, air, shall be used for adjusting flow through the vacuum draw

system. A 250 ml impinger trap is used in the system to dampen flow variations. A

vacuum gauge capable of measuring to at least 800 mm Hg shall be positioned before

the pump in order to track apparatus operating pressure. The electric pump shall be

capable of producing a vacuum of 500 mm Hg with a flow rate of at least 23 1/min.

A Cole-Parmer Air Cadet pump model 7530-40 or equivalent is found to be suitable.

3. An environmental conditioning room or chamber shall be maintained which provides area adequate for conditioning cigarettes and test substrate materials. This room shall be capable

of maintaining a relative humidity of 55 ± 5 % and a temperature of 23 ± 3 *C.

4. A constant humidity box of a size to hold 4 to 6 substrate assemblies and more than one 250

ml beaker of conditioned cigarettes is necessary in test rooms where humidity and

temperature control is difficult. A shallow tray with a 15 mm deep layer of saturated solution

of sodium bisulfate and water has been found to provide the appropriate conditioning

environment. (NOTE: This solution is highly corrosive.)

B-1
5. The conditioning room and test rooms shall be monitored by a recording hygrothermograph

(Cole-Parmer Model 8368-00 or equivalent). A Vista Scientific Corporation, battery operated

psychrometer or equivalent is used to measure relative humidity in the constant humidity box

and to calibrate the hygrothermograph.

6. Chemical or canopy hoods are needed for removing combustion products from the test room.

Air flows through these hoods shall be at a level which is necessary to remove cigarette and

substrate combustion products while not being high enough to influence combustion processes

in the test chambers.

7. Clean plastic or rubber gloves shall be provided for test operators when handling test substrate materials and cigarettes.

8. A laboratory balance capable of weighing to 0.001 g with a repeatability of ± 0.003 g is required for weighing cigarette specimens.

9. A butane gas lighter capable of producing a stable luminous flame no longer than 20 mm is required for igniting test cigarettes.

10. Water spray bottles or 25 mm diameter wax candles may be used for extinguishing smoldering

substrate assemblies. Appropriate fire-proof waste containers shall be used for disposal of

the ignition test materials.

Calibrations:

The following are guidelines for basic calibrations of test equipment used in this standard. Time

intervals stated in this method for calibrations are considered to be the minimum. Calibrations of

equipment shall be carried out at any time when equipment or test conditions indicate that evaluation

and recalibration may be necessary.

1. The ignition test chambers shall be checked before use to insure that the front door seals

properly and that air movement in the test area does not introduce transient air movement

in the test chambers. Door seals are checked visually to insure that they are closed flush

against the chamber's side wall and the latching device secures the door tightly. All

construction seams shall be inspected to insure that they are air tight and no cracks shall be

visible on any surface of the test chamber. If leaks are detected, measures shall be taken to insure that these areas are again made air tight.

Stability of air inside of test chamber shall be determined by making a substrate mock-up and

placing it and a lighted cigarette on it in the test position. Observe air movement in the

chamber to insure that smoke being emitted by the cigarette is rising vertically and is not

showing turbulence within 150 mm above the lit end of the cigarette. If turbulence is noted:

1) the test chamber shall be checked for leaks, 2) the test chamber location shall be evaluated

for excess air flow in the laboratory, and 3) air flow rate of the exhaust system shall be

evaluated as the source of disturbance. Air flow in the test chamber shall be maintained to

B-2
produce a near laminar vertical smoke stream to a minimum distance of 150 mm above the

cigarette.

2. The vacuum draw apparatus for igniting cigarettes shall be calibrated each week before the

beginning of testing. A soap film, bubble flow meter shall be connected to the inlet of the

vacuum apparatus at the cigarette attachment point. The vacuum pump is started and

adjusted to provide an air flow of 1000 ± 50 ml/min. This flow and range of variation shall be noted and recorded in the laboratory's calibration records for the vacuum system's

rotameter.

3. The humidity and temperature sensors used to record environmental conditions in the

conditioning room/chamber and test room shall be checked for accuracy each week. This

shall be accomplished by comparing their results with a calibrated psychrometer and

thermometer. A record of calibration adjustments shall be kept for each hygrothermograph

used in the conditioning and test rooms.

4. The laboratory balance shall be calibrated each week. The calibration is checked by leveling

the balance and weighing a calibrated 1.00 g mass. If the balance is found not to be within

specifications, make adjustments as needed to bring the device into compliance. Record the

results in your laboratory's calibration files.

Test Specimens and Substrates:

Cigarette test specimens and the test substrates are sensitive to contamination. At all times when

these materials are handled, clean plastic or rubber gloves shall be worn.

1. Cigarette test specimens shall be protected from physical or environmental damage while in

storage. It is important that the specimens not be crushed or deformed in any manner. Measures shall be taken to insure that the specimens are not contaminated by foreign

materials while in storage and they shall be protected from degradation by insects. If the

specimens are to be stored for more than one week, they shall be placed in a freezer reserved

for the sole protection of the cigarette specimens.

2. Suitable constituent materials for the mock-ups are only those specified in the main body of

this report. Bulk materials must be cut to size and then randomized in such a manner as to ensure that samples from any part of the material batch are equally likely to be incorporated

in any given mock-up assembly.

3. Substrate materials consist of 200 x 200 mm (8x8 in) cotton duck fabric swatches and 200

X 200 X 50 mm (8 x 8 x 2 in) polyurethane foam cushions. The substrates are formed by

squarely laying the cotton duck fabric flat on top of the foam cushion. Substrate construction

may vary by placing various membranes or films, of equal dimensions as the fabric (except

thickness), squarely between the cotton duck and foam cushion. All wrinkles shall be

smoothed to produce a level test assembly with good contact between the layers.

B-3
Cigarettes and substrate materials are conditioned at 55 ± 5% RH and 23 ± 3 *C for 24

hours prior to ignition testing. While conditioning, the cigarettes are contained vertically,

with filter up, in clean 250 ml polyethylene or glass beakers with a maximum of 20 cigarettes

per beaker to assure free air access to the specimens.

The substrates, composed of fabric, foam and possibly film materials, are positioned to allow

air to circulate around the sides and top of the material. The substrates shall be placed on

clean, dry surfaces while being conditioned.

If the laboratory conditioning room cannot meet the required environmental conditions, a

controlled humidity box may be used. Humidity is maintained by the addition of water and

chemicals to a holding tray located inside the box. Air in the box must be circulated by means

of a small fan in one corner. If a relative humidity box is required, the RH and temperature

must be measured with a calibrated wet/dry bulb hygrometer. A battery-driven fan instrument

such as a Vista Scientific Corp. psychrometer, or equivalent, has been found to be suitable.

Humidity measurements are made in the morning and evening of test day and recorded.

Exhaust systems should be checked daily to insure that they are working. All products of

combustion should be removed from the laboratory work area.

Personnel shall be instructed on general emergency procedures in the laboratory and on

procedures to handle an uncontrolled fire.

Appropriate fire extinguishment equipment shall be provided in each fire test laboratory to extinguish test specimens and to suppress a small fire which may exceed normal controlled

limits.

An appropriate waste container shall be used in each fire test laboratory for safe disposal of

specimens and test assemblies after being exposed to heat and fire.

Procedure:

Turn on the exhaust system designated for removal of test combustion products 30 min prior

to beginning ignition testing.

Do not start additional test preparations until relative humidity and temperature in the test room are stabilized within the following respective ranges 55 ± 5 % RH and 23 ± 3 **C. Record the relative humidity and temperature in your laboratory log.

Wear clean, plastic or rubber gloves when handling cigarettes and substrates.

B-4
4. Adjust the ignition source, a disposable butane gas lighter, to provide a flame no less than 15

mm in length and no longer than 20 mm.

5. K the testing room is separated from the conditioning room, individual substrate assemblies

shall be placed into plastic bags and sealed in the conditioning room. They may then be

transported to the test room. Test cigarettes may also be transported to the test room in

sealed plastic bags.

If the relative humidity and temperature in the test room cannot be maintained at the

specified test conditions, the substrates shall be placed in the above mentioned humidity box

prior to testing.

6. Immediately before selection and ignition of a cigarette for testing, a substrate assembly is removed from its conditioned environment and placed inside the test chamber at the geometric center of its bottom. The square brass frame is placed onto the substrate to maintain

fabric flatness. Make sure that the fabric is flat against the foam surface by lightly smoothing

with a gloved finger. Do not use fabrics that will not lay flat against the foam.

7. Without delay, remove a cigarette from the humidity box. Weigh the cigarette and record the

results. Discard the specimen if its weight is more than two standard deviations of the mean

obtained from weighing 50 random selected cigarettes of the same design and similarly

conditioned. If the cigarette weight is within specifications, a mark is made on the cigarette's

paper seam 15 mm from the tobacco end. The mark is made with a #2 or softer graphite

pencil. The cigarette filter is inserted into the vacuum draw apparatus rubber diaphragm and

held in a horizontal position. Start the vacuum draw apparatus, and make sure the center of

the rotameter's indicator ball is within ± 50 ml/min of 1000 ml/min. Immediately ignite the

cigarette with a preadjusted butane lighter.

The ignition flame is held to the tobacco end of the cigarette for three seconds to achieve

uniform ignition. The lit cigarette is then removed from the diaphragm, held vertically, coal

up, under a 600 ml beaker and moved to the test chamber. With the chimney on the test chamber covered, the door is opened, and the lit cigarette is placed vertically, filter down, into a holder located on the center of the substrate assembly. Simultaneously, the door is closed

gently and the chimney cover removed. Smoke from the cigarette should pass directly out

of the chamber stack. If the cigarette should self-extinguish while in the cigarette holder and

before removal to be placed onto the test substrate, terminate the test and identify the results as a self-extinguishment. When the cigarette has burned to the 15 mm mark, simultaneously cover the chimney and carefully open the chamber door. With care, the cigarette is removed

from the holder, and the holder is placed in a front comer of the test chamber. The

cigarette, with ash still attached, is gently placed onto the top of the substrate assembly so

that the coal is located at the geometric center of the surface and the cigarette angled 45°

to the fabric warp (Le., diagonally). See Figure B-3. The cigarette paper seam shall be

turned up. Do not drop the cigarette onto the substrate, and do not press the coal onto the

substrate. Without delay, simultaneously remove the chimney cover, and gently close the

door. A stopwatch is started. If the ash falls off during any part of the transport or

positioning process, immediately extinguish the cigarette and begin with paragraph 7 in this section.

B-5
8. The burning cigarette and substrate are observed. The smoke plume near the cigarette

should remain undisturbed; if not, note your observations on the test sheet. A time record

is kept from when the cigarette is placed onto the substrate assembly until either:

(1) self extinguishment (the coal goes out before the tobacco column is consumed),

(2) non-ignition (the tobacco column burns to the end without causing the substrate

to smolder),

(3) borderline ignition (ignition appears, but a char does not propagate more than

10 mm, then goes out, while the tobacco column bums to completion), or

(4) ignition (the substrate starts to smolder, and the char propagates away from the

burning tobacco column by at least 10 mm).

The first three of these observations are considered to be non-ignitions. The fourth is the

only outcome that is considered to be an ignition.

It may be helpful to darken the room intermittently to observe if ignition is occurring.

Record ignition time on the test sheet. After recording the ignition time, observe the

substrate for 2 to 3 minutes to insure that smoldering has begun. Observations are also made

to document the area of fabric char expansion to at least a 10 mm point from where ignition

occurred.

9. Smoldering substrates are extinguished with water from a squirt bottle or by prodding the

smoldering area with a candle. The time at which extinguishment occurs is recorded. It should be noted that candles are generally used when specimens are to be retained for further

study. If candles are used for extinguishing, be sure that all combustion processes have

stopped before storing the test assembly. All substrates used in testing are stored in metal

containers until they are disposed of in a safe and acceptable manner as determined by the

testing facility.

10. After a test is completed, leave the test chamber door open to allow air to circulate

throughout its volume. After the chamber has been cleared, preparations may begin for

additional testing.

B-6
i 1 ti

COi

cr—

—) u_ i<o < Oq 5 X uj ^ P U o o

j2oSau§6I

(4-1 Oa

<uo

C/3

PQ

B-7
Cigarette

Diaphragm/Holder

Trap Flow Meter

Filter

Valve

Figure B-2. Schematic of Vacuum Draw Apparatus.

B-8
Test Frame

Substrate Assembly

Figure B-3. Location of Cigarette on Mock-Up Method Substrate Assembly.

B-9

APPENDIX C

ESTIMATE OF OXYGEN SUPPLY PATHS TO CIGARETTE COAL

ATOP A FLAT UPHOLSTERY SUBSTRATE

The physical system considered here is a lighted cigarette smoldering atop a flat mock-up consisting

of a fabric over a polyurethane foam. The issue of concern is the relative importance of oxygen

supply to the cigarette coal via two paths: (1) from ambient air above the fabric plane and (2) from

ambient air contained within the polyurethane foam below the fabric plane. If the coal receives an

appreciable portion of its oxygen supply from below the fabric plane then the ability of oxygen to penetrate the fabric will be important to the behavior of that coal.

This system is three-dimensional and time-dependent; this precludes any exact approach to assessment

of the oxygen supply pathways of interest. It will be necessary to make estimates based on the

information available.

The total oxygen demand of the smoldering coal is easily calculated from its mass burning rate and

the overall stoichiometry of the smolder process. The mass burning rate of the TSG cigarettes in free

bum varied in the range 5.7 - 15.5x10"^ g/s [C-1]. A cigarette studied by Baker [C-2] appears to fall close to the middle of this range (taken here as 10x10"^ g/s), using the smolder velocity he reports

and an estimated packing density of 0.3 g/cm^. The TSG study showed that the smolder velocity of

a cigarette placed on a horizontal substrate of the type considered here will slow down about 20-25%.

Thus the oxygen demand is slowed proportionately. For Baker's cigarette we thus estimate the mass

burning rate on the substrate to be approximately 7.5 - 8.0x10"^ g/s. The stoichiometry of free bum

cigarettes has been measured by Muramatsu for a variety of tobacco blends; the results fall in the

range 1.4 - 1.9x10"^ moles of oxygen per gram of tobacco consumed [C-3]; this converts to a range

of 0.45 - 0.61 grams oxygen/ gram of tobacco. Then the oxygen demand for the coal smoldering on

the substrate is estimated to be in the range 3.4 - 4.9x10"^ grams of oxygen/second.

Baker measured the oxygen concentration profiles around his cigarette coal in free burn [C-2]. These

profiles can be used to estimate the amount of oxygen diffusing from the air above the fabric plane

to the coal. These profiles will be changed by the proximity of the substrate; to a first approximation

all oxygen which Baker's profiles would show reaching the coal from below (in free bum) is blocked

by the presence of the substrate. In addition, the profiles are such that the gradient of oxygen above

the coal is substantially less than elsewhere because of the rising smoke plume. Thus, the significant

diffusive routes through the oxygen boundary layer on the coal are from the sides and from the front. Inspection of the oxygen profiles presented in reference F-2 suggests that an average oxygen diffusion

length on the sides of the coal is 2.8 mm for a distance from 4 mm behind the paper burn line to 4

mm beyond it. Then the mass of oxygen diffusing through these boundary layer profiles is calculated

as follows.

C-1
where m^jy is the mass of oxygen entering the coal by diffusion from the sides; AgQ is the cigarette

surface area through which this oxygen enters (1/4 of the periphery and an 8 mm length yields an

area of 1.0 cm^); p is the gas density in the boundary layer; D is the diffusivity of oxygen in the

boundary layer; AY is the oxygen mass fraction change across the boundary layer; Ax is the boundary

layer thickness. Using a mean boundary layer temperature of 150 "C, one makes the following

estimate of m^D'.

msD * (1.0)(7.9xl0-^)(0.41)(0.2/0.28) = 2.3x10-^ g

02/sec

The oxygen entering the front of the coal is more difHcult to estimate from Baker's profiles; here it

is taken to be comparable to the rate above but modified by the lesser area for diffusion from that

direction (0.5 cm^, the cross-sectional area of the cigarette). This means that the above value is multiplied by 1.5 to get an estimate of the total oxygen inflow from the ambient air above the fabric

plane (designated m^^):

"^AFP 3.4x10"^ g O2/ sec

It should be noted that this number is comparable to the estimate above of the total oxygen demand

of the coal.

Consider next the issue of oxygen supply to the coal from below the fabric plane. There is essentially no pressure force to cause air to flow upward from the cells of the polyurethane foam, through the

fabric and into the cigarette coal. The air within the foam cells is being heated from above; only the

finite spatial extent of the heated zone in the lateral (fabric plane) direction implies the application

of a weak buoyancy force acting over the very short height of the thermal layer in the foam. This

is opposed by the flow resistance of the foam and the fabric. Diffusion of oxygen is less inhibited in

the foam because its very open cell structure poses little blockage. Thus oxygen diffusion out of the

foam is the main process of interest here. We have no information on the diffusion of oxygen

through the less porous structure of a fabric so it will not be included here; the result will be an

overestimate of the supply of oxygen able to diffuse out of the foam and to the cigarette coal.

The relaxation time of the diffusion process in the foam is short compared to the time required for

the coal to move a distance equal to its own length. This means that the oxygen profiles in the foam

will be little affected by the fact that the cigarette coal is trying to move slowly over the top of the

fabric. Then these profiles can be accurately estimated using the solution to a simple transient

problem: diffusion into a sink of finite radius from a semi-infinite medium. This problem is treated

in reference C-4; the solution for the spherically-symmetric oxygen concentration profiles as a function of distance from the sink (the cigarette coal) and time (here, time since the coal made

contact with the substrate) is as follows:

^iSl = (£) erfd-^)

Here C is the mass concentration of oxygen at radius r at time t; Cq is the initial concentration of

oxygen in the foam (essentially same as ambient); Cj is the concentration maintained from time zero

C-2
onward at the surface of the oxygen sink (here =0); a is the radius of the oxygen sink (taken here

as 0.35 cm, comparable to the radius of the cigarette); erfc indicates that the error function

complement is to be evaluated for the quantity in the brackets.

The oxygen flux of interest is that into the sink (coal) at r = a. This is given by the following:

or

Here the derivative is found from the equation above to yield the following:

m^^j, = Ina'^DiC^ - + ^-]

Using a value of oxygen diffusivity of 0.15 cm^/s in the much cooler and slightly obstructed space

filled by the foam, one finds that this reduces to:

m„p = 3.15jc/0-'[2.86 + —

]

1/2

This can then be used to calculate the diffusion flux from the foam space to the coal as a function

of time after placement of the cigarette on the substrate. See Table C-1 below.

Table C-1. Calculated Mass Flux of Oxygen from Foam to Coal

Time (s«:) TMBFP 02/sec)

< 1.1x10"^

10 1.0x10-^

30 9.8x10"^

100 9.5x10"^

300 9.3x10-^

Since this starts as an infinite diffusive flux at time zero, it is apparent that in only a few seconds it settles down to a nearly constant, low oxygen supply rate. Recall that this does not account for the

diffusive resistance of the fabric for which we have no estimate. The actual flux to the coal is thus

C-3
expected to be smaller than that above, which is already only about 1/4 of the oxygen supply available

from above the fabric plane. The implication is that changes in fabric diffusion resistance with

changes in fabric structure or weight can be expected to be secondary in their impact on the behavior

of the cigarette coal.

Ignition of the fabric itself, below the cigarette coal, probably relies significantly on the above ojqrgen

flux, at least until the reaction zone can spread outward slightly to the point of getting more oxygen

from above the fabric plane. Variations in fabric diffusion resistance would not affect this appreciably; the above estimate does not depend on fabric diffusion resistance.

REFERENCES

[C-1] Gann, R., Harris, R., Krasny, J., Levine, R., Mitler, H. and Ohlemiller, T, The Effect of

Cigarette Characteristics on the Ignition of Soft Furnishings," NBS Technical Note 1241, U.S.

National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg MD, 1987.

[C-2] Baker, R., Beitr. z. Tabakforsch. Int'l, 11, 1982, p .181.

[C-3] Muramatsu, M., Umemura, S., and Okada, T, Nippon Kagaku Kaishi, 10, 1978, p.l441.

[C-4] Crank, J., The Mathematics of Diffusion. Oxford at Clarendon Press, London, (1956) p. 98.

C-4
APPENDIX D

METAL ION CONTENT OF FABRICS:

TEST METHOD AND RESULTS

The test method for alkali metal and alkaline earth ions in the cotton duck fabrics consisted of an

acid extraction process followed by analysis of the resultant solution by ion chromatography.

Extraction:

100 ml of 4.6 mM HNO3 poured into 125 ml plastic bottles.

2.5 X 2.5 cm fabric samples immersed.

Overnight extraction with agitation at ambient temperature.

5.0 or 10.0 ml aliquot diluted to 50 ml in at least 18.3 megohm-cm water for ion

chromatography analysis.

Method C-207 from the following source:

Heckenburg, A,, Alden, P., Wildman, B., Krol, J., Romano, J. Jackson, P., Jandik, P. and Jones, W., Waters Innovative Methods for Ion Analysis, Millipore Corporation,

Manual #22340, 1989

Conditions:

Instrument: Waters ILC-1 Ion/Liquid Chromatograph.

Eluent: 0.1 mM EDTA/3.0 mM HNO3.

Column: IC-Pak C M/D.

Flow rate: 1.0 ml/min.

Injection: 100 jiL.

Standard: 1.0 ppm of Na+, K+, Mg+^, and Ca+l

Detection: Conductivity.

The results for samples from the three cotton ducks used in this study are shown in the following

tables.

1.

2.

3.

4.

Analysis:

1.

2.

D-1
Table D-1. Cation Content of #4 Cotton Duck

Cation Content (ppm)

Sample ID Na+ K+ Ca

4-46-10-1 <10 4608 612 698

A A£. Af\ ^

4-46-40-2 <10 4688 622 /13

A AC "71 O 4-46-72-2 <20 4429 586 663

A AO 1 A C 4-4o-lU-5 <10 4273 580 681

A AO A A i 4-48-44-1 <10 4201 577 680

A AO ^O ^ 4-48-78-3 <10 4254 588 689

4-50-1-1 <20 4475 574

/' /'f\ 660

4-50-30-1 <10 4372 554 555

4-50-75-1 <10 4535 579 ^co 652

A CA 1 1 1 C 4-50-112-5 <20 4525 561 562

A CI 1 I 4-D2-1-3 <10 4600 579 coc

A CO I/; c 4-D2-36-J <20 4646 579 616

4-52-68-2 <10 4457 571 co^ 586

4-52-72-3 <10 4372 515 CA1 501

A CI 1 A/C O 4-52-106-2 <10 4654 587 CTC 575

4-54-1-2 <20 4587 555 545

y| Cy( 1 O 4-54-1-3 <10 4477 550 CA1 591

4-54-31-2 35 4463 562 581

4-54-66-3 21 4544 563 549

4-54-77-3 22 4569 560 581

4-56-35-6 <20 4527 565 565

4-56-66-1 <10 4447 566 583

4-56-90-3 <10 4550 566 545

4-56-121-5 <10 4514 559 563

D-2
Tbble D-2. Cation Content of #6 Cotton Duck

Cation Content (ppm)

sample LU Na+ K+ Ca

O-OD-4-1 <10 5571 655 loo

0-0J-3U-Z <10 5423 633 733

O-OJ-oU-3 <10 5659 658 755

<20 5905 649 743

O-OJ-lZl-J <20 5775 669 HAS 745

0-0/-1-4J 25 5872 675

tin TO o o-o l-SZ-Z <10 6029 651 743

0-0/-OU-J 29 5846 661 11 A '34

32 5766 642 692

A AT 1 0 1 O o-oZ-lzl-Z <10 5986 652 It o /IZ

fi AO "JA /I t>-Oi/-30-4 <10 4443 565 Dj /

1

0-0^7-01-1 44 4514 579

A AQ 0^_A <20 4950 596 ozz

A_AQ ion 7 o-oy-izu-j 22 4383 551

A Tl OA AO o- / 1-Zo-oZ <10 enan J /y/ d4U

6-71-64-4 <10 5813 642 710

6-71-90-2 29 5765 644 685

6-71-131-1 <20 5591 604 640

6-73-34-5 <20 4276 562 640

6-73-60-4 <10 4501 588 662

1 6-73-91-6 <10 4540 583 649

D-3
Table D-3. Cation Content of #10 Cotton Duck

Cation Content (ppm)

Sample ID Na+ K+ Ca+2

10-57-4-3 <10 4474 610 716

10-57-34-1 <10 4551 614 704

10-57-65-2 <10 4471 608 736

10-57-91-4 <10 4463 609 705

10-57-121-3 <10 4562 617 717

10-57-152-3 47 4326 593 683

10-57-182-3 <10 4510 618 709

10-57-182-3 <10 4312 593 682

10-57-216-3 49 4384 602 719

10-57-243-4 22 4393 601 710

10-58-33-3 58 4194 573 684

10-58-61-2 28 4172 576 689

10-58-61-2 51 4318 594 715

10-59-2-23 <10 4342 612 718

10-59-32-4 <20 4369 605 695

10-59-61-3 <10 4522 616 739

10-59-90-2 <20 4465 611 707

10-59-123-1 <10 4348 585 661

10-59-149-1 <10 4481 613 694

10-59-180-3 <10 4274 581 690

10-59-216-1 <20 4559 622 698

10-59-241-1 <10 4435 600 680

D-4
Table D-3. (cont) Cation Content of #10 Cotton Duck

Cation Content (ppm)

Sample ID ir+ K Mg Ca

10-61-32-4 57 4064 577 669

10-61-59-3 <10 4190 579 660

1 10-61-86-1 <10 ^ XV/ 4225 595 667

1 10-61-124-3 <10 A^^ A AHA 605 665

\ 10-61-156-2 <10XV 4365 594 666

10-63-31-43 121 4081 575 678

10-63-63-33 74 4155 542 605

10-63-96-33 95 4110 593 671

10-63-123-4 95 4110 593 671

10-63-161-1 55 4206 584 687

D-5

APPENDIX E

CIGARETTE EXTINCTION TEST METHOD PROCEDURE

Scope:

The purpose of this test procedure is to provide a method for measuring the propensity of cigarettes to ignite specified types of substrate assemblies.

Apparatus and Equipment:

1. Test chambers of the design shown in Figure B-1 shall be constructed for testing the cigarette/substrate combinations.

2. A support holder for the substrate-cigarette assembly shall be constructed; see Figure E-1.

3. A vacuum draw apparatus consisting of the following type shall be used for igniting the test cigarettes: See Figure B-2 of Appendix B.

The vacuum draw apparatus is composed of a cigarette holder, particulate filter, rotameter,

trap, pressure gauge, shut-off valve, and a vacuum pump. The cigarette holder (a plastic

drying tube) shall have a flexible diaphragm with a hole cut to a size appropriate for holding

a cigarette and making a tight seal around the filter end. The holder must be mounted in a secure fastener which will hold the cigarette firmly in a horizontal position for lighting. The

particulate filter, composed of a plastic drying tube 150 mm long and 20 mm in diameter filled with glass wool, shall be adequate to remove smoke from the combustion gases to prevent

contamination of all down stream assemblies. The filter shall be changed regularly to insure

that gas flow is unobstructed and that contamination is not allowed to pass this point. A

rotameter capable of measuring 1000 ml/min, air, shall be used for adjusting flow through the

vacuum draw system. A 250 ml impinger trap is used in the system to dampen flow variations.

A vacuum gauge capable of measuring to at least 800 mm Hg shall be positioned before the

pump in order to track apparatus operating pressure. The electric pump shall be capable of

producing a vacuum of 500 mm Hg with a flow rate of at least 23 1/min. A Cole-Parmer Air

Cadet pump model 7530-40 or equivalent is found to be suitable.

4. An environmental conditioning room or chamber shall be maintained which provides an area adequate for conditioning cigarettes and test substrate materials. This room shall be capable

of maintaining a relative humidity of 55 ± 5% and a temperature of 23 ± 3 °C.

5. A constant humidity box of a size to hold two to three boxes of filter paper and more than one 250 ml beaker of conditioned cigarettes is necessary in the test room if humidity and

temperature control are difficult.

E-1
6. The conditioning room and test rooms shall be monitored by a recording hygrothermograph

(Cole-Parmer Model 8368-00 or equivalent). A Vista Scientific Corporation battery-operated

psychrometer or equivalent is used to measure relative humidity in the constant humidity box

and to calibrate the hygrothermograph.

7. Chemical or canopy hoods are needed for removing combustion products from the test room.

Air flows through these hoods shall be at a level which is necessary to remove cigarette and

substrate combustion products while not being high enough to influence combustion processes

in the test chambers.

8. Clean plastic or rubber gloves shall be provided for test operators when handling test substrate materials and cigarettes.

9. A laboratory balance capable of weighing to 0.001 g with a repeatability of ± 0.003 g is required for weighing cigarette specimens.

10. A butane gas lighter capable of producing a stable luminous flame no longer than 20 mm is required for igniting test cigarettes.

11. An appropriate fire-proof waste container shall be used for disposal of the ignition test materials.

Calibrations:

The following are guidelines for basic calibrations of test equipment used in this standard. Time

intervals stated in this method for calibrations are considered to be minimum. Calibrations of

equipment shall be carried out at any time when equipment or test conditions indicate that evaluation

and recalibration may be necessary.

1. The ignition test chamber shall be checked before use to insure that the front door seals

properly and that air movement in the test area does not introduce transient air movement

in the test chamber. Door seals are checked visually to insure that they are closed flush

against the chamber's side wall and the latching device secures the door tightly. All

construction seams shall be inspected to insure that they are air tight and no cracks shall be

visible on any surface of the test chamber. If leaks are detected, measures shall be taken to insure that these areas are again made air tight.

Stability of air inside of the test chamber shall be determined by mounting a single filter paper

in the substrate assembly holder and placing it together with a lighted cigarette in the test position within the test chamber. Observe air movement in the chamber to insure that smoke

being emitted by the cigarette is rising vertically and is not showing turbulence within 150 mm

above the lit end of the cigarette. If turbulence is noted: 1) the test chamber shall be

checked for leaks; 2) the test chamber location shall be evaluated for excess air flow in the

laboratory; 3) air flow of the exhaust system shall be evaluated as the source of disturbance.

Air flow in the test chamber shall be maintained to produce a near laminar vertical smoke

stream to a minimum distance of 150 mm above the cigarette.

E-2
2. The vacuum draw apparatus for igniting cigarettes shall be calibrated each week before the

beginning of testing. A soap film bubble flowmeter shall be connected to the inlet of the

vacuum apparatus at the cigarette attachment point. The vacuum pump is started and

adjusted to provide an air flow of 1000 ± 50 ml/min. This flow and range of variation shall be noted and recorded in the laboratory's calibration records for the vacuum system's

rotameter.

3. The humidity and temperature sensors used to record environmental conditions in the

conditioning room/chamber and test room shall be checked for accuracy each week. This

shall be accomplished by comparing their readings with a calibrated psychrometer and

thermometer. A record of calibration adjustments shall be kept for each hygrothermograph

used in the conditioning and test rooms.

4. The laboratory balance shall be calibrated each week. The calibration is checked by leveling

the balance and weighing a calibrated 1.00 g mass. If the balance is found not to be within

specifications, make adjustments as needed to bring the device into compliance. Record the

results in your laboratory's calibration files.

Test Specimens and Substrates:

Cigarette test specimens and the test substrates are sensitive to contamination. At all times when

these materials are handled, clean plastic or rubber gloves shall be worn.

1. Cigarette test specimens shall be protected from physical or environmental damage while in

storage. It is important that the specimens not be crushed or deformed in any manner. Measures shall be taken to insure that specimens are not contaminated by foreign materials

while in storage, and they shall be protected from degradation by insects. If the specimens

are to be stored for more than one week, they shall be placed in a freezer reserved for the

sole protection of the cigarette specimens.

2. Substrate materials consist of 150 mm diameter circles of Whatman #2 filter paper.

Substrates are formed by placing multiple layers of filter paper into the holder assembly. The

filter paper should be placed in the holder assembly with the brass ring on top of the

specified number of filter papers to ensure good contact between the layers.

Conditioning:

1. Cigarettes and substrate materials are conditioned at 55 ± 5 % RH and 23 ± 3 **C for at

least 24 hours prior to ignition testing. While conditioning, the cigarettes are contained

vertically, with filter up, in clean 250 ml polyethylene or glass beakers with a maximum of 20

cigarettes per beaker to assure free air access to the specimens.

E-3
2. The substrate filter paper sheets are supplied in boxes of 100 sheets. These boxes shall be

opened and placed in the conditioning room along with the cigarettes. There is no need to remove the sheets from the box as long as the top of the box is completely opened. The

boxes are positioned to allow air circulation around each box. Each box of filter papers

should be conditioned for a minimum of one week prior to use.

3. If the laboratory conditioning room cannot meet the required environmental conditions, a controlled humidity box may be used. Humidity is maintained by the addition of water and

chemicals to a holding tray located inside the box. Air in the box must be circulated by means

of a small fan in one corner. If a relative humidity measurement is required, the RH and

temperature must be measured with a calibrated wet/dry bulb hygrometer. A battery-driven

fan instrument such as a Vista Scientific Corp. psychrometer, or equivalent, has been found

to be suitable. Humidity measurements are made in the morning and evening of each test day and recorded.

Safety:

1. Exhaust systems should be checked daily to insure that they are working. All products of

combustion should be removed from the laboratory work area.

2. Personnel shall be instructed on general emergency procedures in the laboratory and on

procedures to handle an uncontrolled fire.

3. Appropriate fire extinguishing equipment shall be provided in each fire test laboratory to extinguish test specimens and to suppress a small fire which may exceed normal controlled

limits.

4. An appropriate waste container shall be used in each fire test laboratory for safe disposal of

specimens and test assemblies after being exposed to heat and fire.

Test Procedure:

1. Turn on the exhaust system designated for removal of test combustion products 30 min prior

to beginning ignition testing.

2. Do not start test preparations until relative humidity and temperature in the test room are

stabilized within the following respective ranges 55 ± 5 % RH and 23 ± 3 *C. Record the

relative humidity and temperature in your laboratory log.

3. Wear clean, plastic or rubber gloves when handling cigarettes and substrates.

4. Adjust the ignition source, a disposable butane gas lighter, to provide a flame no less than 15

mm in length and no longer than 20 mm.

E-4
5. If the relative humidity and temperature in the test room cannot be maintained at the

specified test conditions, the filter papers shall be placed into plastic bags and sealed in the

conditioning room. They may then be transported to the test room. Test cigarettes may also

be transported to the test room in sealed plastic bags.

If the relative humidity and temperature in the test room cannot be maintained at the

specified test conditions, the filter papers shall be placed in the above mentioned humidity

box prior to testing.

6. Immediately before selection and ignition of a cigarette for testing, a substrate assembly is removed from its conditioned environment and placed inside the test chamber at the

geometric center of its bottom. The brass ring is placed onto the filter paper substrate. Do

not use filter papers that will not lay flat in the holder assembly.

7. Without delay, remove a cigarette from the humidity box. Weigh the cigarette and record the

results. Discard the specimen if its weight is more than two standard deviations of the mean

obtained from weighing 50 randomly selected cigarettes of the same design and similarly

conditioned. If the cigarette weight is within specifications, a mark is made on the cigarette's

paper seam 15 mm from the tobacco end. The mark is made with a #2 or softer graphite

pencil. The cigarette filter is inserted into the vacuum draw apparatus rubber diaphragm and

held in a horizontal position. Start the vacuum draw apparatus, and make sure the center of

the rotameter's indicator ball is within ± 50 ml/min of 1000 ml/min. Immediately ignite the

cigarette with a preadjusted butane lighter.

The ignition flame is held to the tobacco end of the cigarette for three seconds to achieve

uniform ignition. The lit cigarette is then removed from the diaphragm, held vertically, coal

up, under a 600 ml beaker and moved to the test chamber. With the chimney on the test chamber covered, the door is opened, and the lit cigarette is placed vertically, filter down, into

a holder located on the center of the substrate assembly. Simultaneously, the door is closed

gently and the chimney cover removed. Smoke from the cigarette should pass directly out

of the chamber stack. If the cigarette should self-extinguish while in the cigarette holder and

before removal to be placed onto the test substrate, terminate the test and identify the results as a self-extinguishment. When the cigarette has burned to the 15 mm mark, simultaneously, cover the chimney and carefully open the chamber door. With care, the cigarette is removed

from the holder, and the holder is placed in the front corner of the test chamber. The

cigarette, with the ash still attached is gently placed onto the top of the substrate assembly

so that the filter end of the cigarette is placed between the appropriately sized cigarette antiroll fingers; see Figure E-2. The cigarette paper seam shall be turned up. Do not drop the

cigarette onto the substrate and do not press the coal onto the substrate. Without delay,

simultaneously remove the chimney cover and gently close the door. A stopwatch is started.

If the ash falls off during any part of the transport or positioning process, immediately

extinguish the cigarette and begin with paragraph 7 in this section.

E-5
8. The burning cigarette and substrate are observed. The smoke plume near the cigarette

should remain undisturbed; if not, note your observations on the test sheet. A time record

is kept from when the cigarette is placed onto the substrate assembly until either:

9.

(1) self-extinguishment (the coal goes out before the tobacco column is consumed),

(2) total burn (the tobacco column burns to the end).

It may be helpful to darken the room intermittently or use a dark background behind the test chamber to observe if the cigarette continues to bum. Record the time that the cigarette

stops burning on the test sheet. After recording the time, observe the substrate assembly for

1 to 2 minutes to insure that smoldering has stopped. Measurements are made to document

the length of unburned cigarette for those not burning to the filter. Record this measure- ment to the nearest mm.

After a test is completed, leave the test chamber door open to allow air to circulate

throughout the chamber volume. After the chamber has been cleared, preparations may

begin for additional testing.

E-6
Figure E-1. Detaik of the Filter Paper Holder Support Structure.

E-7
0.25

o o

0.12^

Dimensions (inches) Material; Brass w/Steel Pins (1/16")

Figure E-2. Brass Holddown Ring and Cigarette Motion Restrainers.

E-8
APPENDIX F

REPRESENTATIVE THERMOGRAVIMETRIC DATA

FOR TEST METHOD MATERIALS

Samples of all of the test materials were subjected to thermogravimetric analysis in a Mettler TA

2000C Thermoanalyzer. All tests were run with the samples in aluminum oxide crucibles 8.0 mm CD

by 4.5 mm depth. Sample weight in all cases was 2.0 ±0.1 mg. For the cotton ducks this required

four to five pieces of yam removed from near the location where metal ion concentrations had been

measured; these yam pieces were laid in an open, cross-wise array on the bottom of the crucible.

The polyethylene film and filter paper samples were in the form of disks on the bottom of the

crucible. The polyurethane foam was in the form of a few small chunks, ca. 1 mm, removed with a tweezers from well beneath any previously exposed surface of the foam block being sampled. The

heating rate was 5 °C/min. and the atmosphere was 100% nitrogen (< 100 ppm of oxygen). Samples were run up to 80 °C and held there until dry; they were then heated at the noted rate to 500 °C.

The results are shown in Figures F-1 to F-6. In most cases the original data (weight vs. temperature)

plus a numerically-derived rate of weight loss are both shown. Samples from two sources of each

material are shown. For the polyurethane foam two buns were sampled, as well as two locations

within each bun. For the cotton ducks, the potassium level in the adjacent material is reported. Note

that the only material showing appreciable variability is the polyethylene film.

F-1
100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

-I—I—

|—1—I—I—I

I

I I I—I—

I—I—I—I I

I

I—I—I—I—

[-

Fabric 4-50-75-1 [K'^ = 4480ppm

Fabric 4-56-90-3 [K%4510ppm

N2 atmosphar*

Haating rata = s'*C/mln

_l I I I I I I J I I I I I L—I L- _l I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I L. 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Temperature (°C)

0.0015

0.0012

0.0009

0.0006 -

0.0003

Fabric 4-50-75-1 [K%4480ppni

Fabric 4-56-90-3 [K%4510ppm

Atmosphera

Heating rate =5 C/mIn

100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Temperature (°C)

Figure F-1. TG Behavior of Two Samples of Cotton Duck #4.

F-2
100

90

80

70

I so

50 'S• 40

a

E 30

20

1 0

0

~i—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—Ir~

Fabric 6-73-34-5 [K%4440pprn

Fabric 6-71 -90-2 [K%5740ppm

pm

I

atmosphere

Heating rate = S^C/min

_J I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I L- 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Temperature (°C)

450 500

o

0.0015

0.0012

0.0009

0.0006

0.0003 -

Fabric 6-73-34-5 [K %4440 ppm

Fabric 6-71-90-2 [K% 5740 ppm

Atmosphere

Heating rate =5 C/mIn

100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Temperature ("C)

Figure F-2. TG Behavior of Two Samples of Cotton Duck #6.

F-3
100

90

80 ^ 70

i 60

t 50

0 40

a

1 30

(A 20

1 0

0

-I—1—!—1—I—I—I—I—I—1—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—1r

Fabric 10-63-161-1 [K'^ = 4070

Fabric 10-58-12-1-2 [K'^4210ppm

atmospher*

Heating rate = 5''c/min

_l I I I I I I I I t I 1 I t I I I I I I u 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Temperature (°C)

o

0.0015

0.0012

0.0009

^ 0.0006

0.0003 -

I

' ' ' '

I

Fabric 10-63-161-1 [K] = 4070ppm

Fabrlc10-58-12-1-2 [K*] =4210ppm

Atmosphere

Heating rate - s" C/mln.

100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Temperature ("C)

Figure F-3. TG Behavior of Two Samples of Cotton Duck #10.

F-4
0.002

0.0016

0.0012

o^ 0.0008

13

0.0004

PU FOAM B-2 TOP (Bun #2)

PU FOAM B-2 MID (Bun #2)

PU FOAM • TOP

PU FOAM • MID

'^2 5°C/min

100 150

Temperature ("C)

o

0.002

0.0016

0.0012

^ 0.0008

0.0004

PU FOAM M-2 TOP (Bun #3)

PU FOAM M-2 MID (Bun #3)

PU FOAM - TOP

PU FOAM - MID

'2

5°C/min

100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Temperature (**C)

Figure F-4. Derivative TG Data: Two Polyurethane Foam Samples from Top and Bottom of

Original Bun.

F-5
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Temperature (°C)

0.0025

5

T3

100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Temperature (°C)

Figure F-5. TG Data for Two Samples of Polyethylene Film.

F-6
100

90

^11 1—1—1—1—1—

1—I—I—1—1—1—1—1—>—1—]—'—1—'—'

80 1 \

Whatman RItsr Paper Bx. #1

(wt.

%) 70

60

-

• Whalman RIter Paper Bx. #2 \

M^eight 50 - atmotphar*

Haating rat* x S^C/mln \

•

Q. 40

E

(0 30

20

1 0

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l_J i 1—1 1 1 L.J L 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Temperature (°C)

0.002

150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Temperature ("C)

Figure F-6. TG Data for Two Samples of Whatman Filter Paper.

F-7

NiST-114

(REV. 9-92) ADMAN 4.09

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

MANUSCRIPT REVIEW AND APPROVAL

:e:RB use ONLY) ERB CONTROL NUI^BER

PUBUCATION REPORT NUMBER

DIVISION

INSTRUCTIONS: ATTACH ORIGINAL OF THIS FORM TO ONE (1) COPY OF MANUSCRIPT AND SEND TO: THE SECRETARY, APPROPRIATE EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD.

PUBUCATION DATE NUMBER PRIN

TITLE AND SUBTITLE (CITE IN FULL)

TEST METHODS FOR QUANTIFYING THE PROPENSITY OF CIGARETTES

TO IGNITE SOFT FURNISHINGS

CONTRACT OR QRANT NUMBER TYPE OF REPORT AND/OR PERIOD COVERED

AUTHOR(S) (LAST NAME, FIRST INITIAL, SECOND INITIAL)

Ohlemiller, T. J.; ViUa, K. M.; Braun, E.; Eberhardt, K. R.; Harris, Jr., R. H.; Lawson, J. R.; and Gann, R. G.

PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (CHECK (X) ONE BOX)

NIST/QAITHERSBURG

NIST/BOULDER

JILA/BOULOER

LABORATORY AND DIVISION NAMES (FIRST NIST AUTHOR ONLY)

Building and Fire Research Laboratory, Fire Science Division (865)

SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (STREET, CITY, STATE, ZIP)

RECOMMENDED FOR NIST PUBUCATION

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH (NIST JRES)

J. PHYS. & CHEM. REF. DATA (JPCRD)

HANDBOOK (NIST HB)

^;><^ SPECIAL PUBUCATION (NIST SP) TECHNICAL NOTE (NIST TN)

e^COMM

MONOGRAPH (NIST MN)

NATL STD. REF. DATA SERIES (NIST NSRDS) FEDERAL INF. PROCESS. STDS. (NIST FIPS) UST OF PUBUCATIONS (NIST LP) NIST INTERAGENCY/INTERNAL REPORT (NISTIR) XX

LETTER CIRCULAR

BUILDING SCIENCE SERIES PRODUCT STANDARDS

OTHER

COMMENDED FOR NON-NIST PUBUCATION (CITE FULLY) U.S. FOREIGN PUBUSHING MEDIUM

PAPER

DISKETTE (SPECIFY)

OTHER (SPECIFY)

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

ABSTRACT (A 1500-CHARACTER OR LESS FACTUAL SUMMARY OF MOST SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION. IF DOCUMENT INCLUDES A SIGNIFICANT BIBUOGRAPHY

OR UTERATURE SURVEY, CITE IT HERE. SPELL OUT ACRONYMS ON FIRST REFERENCE.) (CONTINUE ON SEPARATE PAGE, IF NECESSARY.)

Research funded under the Fire Safe Cigarette Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-352) has led to the development of two test methods

for measuring the ignition propensity of cigarettes. The Mock-Up Ignition Test Method uses substrates physically similar

to upholstered furniture and mattresses: a layer of fabric over padding. The measure of cigarette performance is ignition or non-ignition of the substrate. The Cigarette Extinction Test Method replaces the fabric/padding assembly with multiple

' layers of conmion filter paper. The measure of performance is full-length burning or self-extinguishment of the cigarette.

Routine measurement of the relative ignition propensity of cigarettes is feasible using either of the two methods.

Improved cigarette performance under both methods has been linked with reduced real-world ignition behavior; and it

is reasonable to assume that this, in turn, implies a significant real-world benefit. Both methods have been subjected to interlaboratory study. The resulting reproducibilities were comparable to each other and comparable to those in other

fire test methods currently being used to regulate materials which may be involved in unwanted fires. Using the two

methods, some current commercial cigarettes are shown to have reduced ignition propensities relative to the current best- selling cigarettes.

IkEY WORDS (MAXIMUM 9 KEY WORDS; 28 CHARACTERS AND SPACES EACH; ALPHABETICAL ORDER; CAF

Key words: Fire, cigarettes, cigarette test method, ignition, upholstered fiiri

MTAUZE ONLY PROPER NAMES)

tiiture, statistical analysis

UVAILA BlUTY

UNUMITED I

1 FOR OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTION. DO NOT RELEASE TO NTIS. ORDER FROM SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS. U.S. QPO. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20402 ORDER FROM NTIS, SPRINGFIELD, VA 22161

NOTE TO AUTHOR(S) IF YOU DO NOT WISH THIS MANUSCRIPT ANNOUNCED BEFORE PUBUCATION,

PLEASE CHECK HERE. |

|

lELECTRONIC FORM




» o ^ m'

S" 03c

TJ

W

=• 3' m CD ccn

(DOO

O Z C 03 Q) •(/) 3" o

CD 3 _ c ^ s5 ^ 3 a. M '* - i w 3

0) (D 0o3-3Oo

(Q