[|
Acknowledgments

Thanks are due to several colleagues: Miss Joan Rotoloni
for conducting the experimental work, Mr. Richard Peacock
for arranging the data analysis system, Drs. R. and C. Jarvis
(Clemson University) and Keith Eberhardt and John Mandel
for statistical analysis of the data, to Dr. Stephen Weber for
many helpful suggestions, and to Ms. Paula Garrett for word
processing the numerous drafts of this report.

12


propensity have also been found with experimental cigarette
packings differing systematically in packing density and
diameter on some but not all substrates [22].

It should be noted that the 18 selected substrates were
not totally independent of each other. For four
fabric/padding combinations, tests were conducted in the
crevice and in the flat configurations, as well as with and
without a cover over the cigarette. A number of laboratories
have shown that crevices are considerably more likely to
ignite than flat surfaces, and covered cigarettes are some-
what more likely to cause ignition than uncovered ones. (A
review of work on relative CIR of substrates is given in [13].)
Thus, it is not surprising, for example, to find that when
column 12 shows no ignitions, columns 9, 10 and 11 don't
either.

The results also indicate that differences in the ignition
propensities of these commercial cigarettes can only be
demonstrated on a smali range of substrates. What cannot
yet be determined is what percentage of the total population
of soft furnishings that might be exposed to burning
cigarettes is represented by the borderline substrates, i.e.,
what percentage of soft furnishings would resist ignition by,
e.g., cigarette packing 2, but not some of the others used in
this work.

The results furthermore indicate that, to explore differ-
ences in cigarette ignition propensity, it is more effective to
investigate a number of fabric/padding combinations than
numerous configurations of one fabric/padding combination.
For example, a fabric which ignites with PU can be
expected to ignite with cotton batting, and fabric/padding
combinations which do not ignite in the crevice need not be
tried in the flat configuration.

One of the objectives of the commercial cigarette testing
was to look for a commonality of properties of relatively low
ignition propensity cigarette packings. The data are not
“hard” in this area but some observations are presented. The
three cigarette packings at the top of Table 1 were of rela-
tively small circumference; however, one other packing with
a similar circumference had higher ignition propensity. The
two non-filter packings were among the nine more ignition-
prone cigarettes. Without thorough analysis of the physical
and chemical properties of the cigarette packings—a formi-
dable task not provided for in present plans—no properties
could be investigated for their discrete effects on ignition
propensity.

Mass Loss Data Obtained During Tests

Typical mass/time curves, one for a substrate ignition,
another for non-ignition, are shown in Figure 1. The curves
are useful during testing to assist operator judgement
whether an ignition has occurred or not. The question also
arises whether the shape of the mass loss curve obtained
on one or several substrates, or data derived from it, can be
used to predict the general ignition propensity of cigarettes.
Two mass loss curves have to be considered separately:
those for igniting substrates (with considerable inflection of

Figure 1. Mass Loss/Time
Relationship for an Igniting and
a Non-Igniting Substrate

(0)

MASS LOSS (g)

10 1 L a L |
oO 2500

TIME OF CONTACT WITH SUBSTRATE (s)

the curve), and those for non-igniting substrates, which indi-
cate total mass loss before self-extinguishment.

Mass Loss on [gniting Substrates

In the present substrates, most ignitions occurred at times
between the occurrences of 2 and 3 g mass loss. The slope
before ignition could be characterized by the time to 2g
mass loss. In addition, the times from 4 to 5 g mass loss
might characterize the substrate CIR, because at these
limes, most of the cigarette has burned out and the mass
loss is dominated by substrate smoldering. However, this
was not part of the present study, and the results are
presented here only for the record.

Table 4 shows these results for those cotton batting
crevice substrates which ignited with the cigarettes arranged
as in Table 1, i.e., by increasing ignition propensity. As can
be seen, the reproducibility in these results is poor; the stan-
dard deviations (s.d.) varied from 20 to 30 percent, and in
some cases, were as large as 60 percent. One could
hypothesize that a longer time to 2 g mass loss on any
igniting substrate would be found for those cigarette
packings with lower ignition propensity. On a strictly
statistical basis, using Pearson correlation and Spearman
rank correlation methods, there is no significant correlation
between time to 2 g weight loss and number of ignitions
[23]. The time to 4 or 5 g mass loss was also not predictive
of cigarette ignition propensity, and appears to be primarily
substrate dependent.

As mentioned before, the dobby fabric had generally
lower CIR than the California standard fabric and covered
substrates had lower CIR than uncovered ones. However, in
the present experiments, the mean time to 2 g loss was
longer for the dobby fabric than the California fabric and
longer for the covered than the uncovered substrates. This


PUBLIC LAW 98-567—-OCT. 30, 1984 98 STAT. 2927

after submission of the policy recommendations prescribed by this
section.

Sec. 6. (a) Any information provided to the Interagency Commit- Confidentiality
tee or to the Study Group under section 4 which is designated as 15 USC 2054
trade secret or confidential information shall be treated as trade “°*
secret or confidential information subject to section 552(bX4) of title
5, United States Code, and section 1905 of title 18, United States
Code, and shal] not be revealed, except as provided under subsection
(b). No member of the Study Group or Interagency Committee, and
no person assigned to or consulting with the Study Group, shall
disclose any such information to any person who is not a member of,
assigned to, or consulting with, the Study Group or Interagency
Committee unless the person submitting such information specifi-
cally and in writing authorizes such disclosure.

(b) Subsection (a) does not authorize the withholding of any infor-
mation from any duly authorized subcommittee or committee of the
Congress, except that if a subcommittee or committee of the Con:
gress requests the Interagency Committee to provide such informa-
tion, the Chairman of the Interagency Committee shall notify the
person who provided the information of such a request in writing.

(c) The Interagency Committee shall, on the vote of a majority of
its members, adopt reasonable procedures to protect the confiden-
tiality of trade secret and confidentia] information, as defined in
this section.

Sec. 7. As used in this Act, the terms “cigarettes” and “little 15 USC 2054
cigars” have the meanings given such terms by section 3 of the note.
Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act.

Approved October 30, 1984.

ATIVE HISTORY—ILR. 1880S. 1

REPORT No.
E REPORT N

017. 1Comm. on Energy and Commerce?
accompan; S. 1935 (Comm. on Governmental

S

A ‘sh.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 130 (19844:
Aug. 6, considered and passed House 7
Sept. 21, considered and passed Senate, amended, in lieu of S, 1935.
Oct. 1; House concurred in Senate amendment with an amendment
Oct. £, Senate concurred in House amendment

Oo



|
Abstract

This report covers the first project performed under the
Cigarette Safety Act of 1984, the determination of whether
and to what extent commercial cigarettes have differing
propensities to ignite upholstered furniture substrates. For
this purpose, a test protocol was developed under which
12 types of commercial cigarettes were placed on 18
substrates varying in fabric, padding, and configuration. It
was found that there are statistically significant differences
in ignition propensity among the cigarettes (at the one
percent or better confidence level) on three substrates. No
significant differences were found on the other 15
substrates. No one of the packings consistently showed
low ignition propensity on all three substrates. The mass
loss rate of both the cigarette and substrate during the
tests was recorded and did not appear to be a reliable
predictor of ignition propensity.



References

[1] Karter, M. J., and Gansarski, J. L., Fire Loss in the
United States Ouring 1983, Fire Journal, 48, Sept.
1984.

[2] Harwood, B., Trend in Cigarette-Ignited Fires,
Consumer Product Safety Commission Internal
Memorandum, March 1985.

{3] Damant, G. H., Bureau of Home Furnishings, North
Highland, CA, personal communication (1979).

[4] Macaluso, C., Cigarette Ignition Studies, in Testimony,
Subcommittee on Health and Environment, House
Energy and Commerce Committee (March 21, 1983).

{5] Krasny, J. F., Allen, P., Maldonado, A., Juarez, N.,
Development of a Candidate Test Method for the Meas-
urement of the Propensity of Cigarettes to Cause Smol-
dering Ignition of Upholstered Furniture and Mattresses,
(NBSIR 81-2363) (U.S.) Nat. Bur. Stand. (1981).

{6] Klancnik, A., Sealy, Inc., presentation to the Technical
Study Group, (March 4, 1985).

[7] Ziolkowski, J., Upholstered Furniture Action Committee.
Personal Communication, (1985).

[8] Flammability Information Package, State of California,
Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Home
Furnishings. North Highlands, CA (1983).

[9] Important Consumer Information from UFAC, Uphol-
stered Furniture Action Council, High Point, NC (1984)

[10] The Business and Institutional Furniture Manufacturer's
Association First Generation Voluntary Upholstered

Furniture Flammability Standard for Business and Institu-

tional Markets, BIFMA, Grand Rapids (1980).

{11] Shaw, A. and Gill, J. T., The Smoldering Behavior of
Selected 100 Percent Cotton Fabrics in Combination
with Three Different Batting Materials, AATCC Interna-
tional Conference, Chicago, IL (Oct. 1984).

[12] Ray, D., Consumer Product Safety Commission,
Personal Communication, (1986).

[13] Babrauskas, V. and Krasny, J.F., Fire Behavior of
Upholstered Furniture, Monograph 173, (U.S.) National
Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD (November
1985).

(14] Spears, A. W., A Technical Analysis of the Problems
Relative to Proposed Cigarette Legislation including a
Review of Relevant Patents. Testimony, Subcommittee
on Health and the Environment, Committee on Energy
and Commerce, U. S. House of Representatives, (Mar.
21, 1983).

{15] McCarter, R. J., Smoldering Combustion of Cotton and
Rayon, J. Consumer Product Flammability, 2, 346-358
(Dec. 1977).

[16) Shafizadeh, F., Bradbury, A. G. W., deGroot, W. F.,
and Aanerud, T. W., Role of Inorganic Additives in the
Smoldering Combustion of Cotton Cellulose, Industrial
and Engineering Chemistry, Product Research and
Development, 21, 97-101 (1982).

[17] Snedecor, G.W. and Cochran, W.G., Statistical
Methods, 6th Edition, The lowa State University Press,
Ames, lowa, 235 (1967).

[18] Lewontin, R.C. and Felsenstein, J.. The Robustness of
Homogenity Tests in 2 X N Tables, Biometrics, Vol. 21,
19-33 (1965).

[19] Plackett, R.L., The Analysis of Categorical Data, 2nd
edition, New York, Macmillan, Section 6.3 (1981).

[20] Federal Trade Commission, Tar, Nicotine and Carbon
Monoxide of the Smoke of 207 (number varies with
year) Varieties of Domestic Cigarettes, Federal Trade
Commission, Washington, OC (1981, 1982, 1983, 1984,
1985).

[21] Damant, G. H., and Williams, S., State of California,
Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Home
Furnishings, North Highlands, CA, Personal Communi-
cations (1985).

[22] Ihrig, A.M., Rhyne, A.L., Norman, V., and Spears, A.W.,
Factors Involved in the Ignition Propensity of Upholstery
Fabrics by Cigarettes, Lorrilard Research Center Report
submitted to Technical Study Group (June 1986).

[23] Snedecor, G. W., and Cochran, W.G., Statistical
Methods, — 6th Edition, The lowa State University Press,
Ames, lowa, 194 (1967).

[24] North, M. A., The Relative Fire Hazard of Plain and
Tipped Cigarettes, Ministry of Technology and Fire
Offices’ Committee, Joint Research Organization, Fire
Research Note No. 593 (1965).

[25] DeBardeleben, M. Z., Claflin, W. E., and Gannon, W.
F., Role of Cigarette Physical Characteristics on Smoke
Composition, Recent Adv. Tob. Sci. 4, 85-111 (1978).

[26] Behnke, W., DuPont de Nemours and Co. Cigarette

study Heat Flux and Ember Temperatures, presented
to ASTM Committee D-13 meeting (1969).



22 + 3°C (71 + 5°F) and 55 + 10% relative humidity as
present equipment permits. Testing proceeded in the same
room. The temperature and relative humidity at the time of
the test are noted on each test sheet.

Specimen Mounting

The cover fabrics were mounted with the warp direction
perpendicular to the crevice. The cover fabric was in
uniform contact with the foam so that no distortion of the
foam occurred and the fabric tension was uniform. The
fabric was pinned to the back of the foam.

The cover fabric was in as uniform contact with the cotton
batting as possible, but due to the tension needed to
achieve reasonable contact. some distortion of the cotton
batting occurred. The cotton batting was covered on ail four
edges, and the fabric stapled to an approximately 6 mm
thick (¥% in.) piece of plywood. For the crevice mockups, the
horizontal plywood/batting/fabric assembly was placed on a
wooden platform, 37 mm (1.5 in.) thick, so that the cigarette
would be above the area of maximum distortion (near the
edge) of the vertical assembly.

Sampling Procedure

The following plan has been worked out with the collabora-
jion of a NBS statistical consultant.

Cigarettes

From each of the 6000 to 8000 cigarettes per packing, 100
cigarettes were sampled and put in a tray, The 12 trays
were appropriately labeled for identification with a new
code. The 100 cigarettes were obtained by taking approxi-
mately equal numbers from each container in the shipping
box. They were randomized in each tray.

In placing the cigarettes on the substrate, care was taken
that the cigarette paper seam was not in contact with the
substrate.

Fabrics

The rolls were divided into 4 swatches, in such a way that
the entire length of the roll was sampled. Each swatch was
cut into a fourth of the total number of specimens required.
Then specimens were randomized by hand within each
swatch and kept in four separate stacks, labeled 1,2,3

and 4

Foam
The foam was cut into the appropriate number of specimens

on a band saw, taking the same number of specimens from
each sheet. All specimens were thoroughly randomized.

19

Cotton batting

Complete randomization of the cotton batting specimens
was not feasible because of the difficulty of storing large
numbers of specimens. However, in each work period the
required cotton batting specimens were taken from the rolls
in sequence until each was half depleted. The remaining
parts of rolls were stored.

Organization of the Experiment

The experiment consisted of four “replicate” tests. Each repli-
cate encompassed all 18 test configurations, carried out on
all 12 cigarette packings. Replicate #1 used the fabric stack
labeled 1, replicate #2, the fabric stack labeled 2, etc. To
ensure that bias was avoided, the 12 cigarette packings
were tested in random order within each replicate and the
random order changed from replicate to replicate.

Conducting the Test

A cigarette was lighted and allowed to burn for approxi-
mately one minute to stabilize the burn. The cigarette was
placed into the crevice so that its center was approximately
at the center of the crevice. The cigarette was placed on the
flat specimens at an approximately 30° angle with the warp.
The cigarette paper seam was on top of the cigarette. For
the ‘covered’ tests, pieces of sheeting were placed over the
cigarette; for crevice tests, the sheeting was attached by
pins to the vertical panel above the cigarette. A finger run
along the length of the cigarette ensured good contact
between sheeting and cigarette. The tests were continued
until either the weight loss/time curve was flat for several
minutes (non-ignition) or at least 5.5 g weight loss was
measured (obvious ignition).

Records

Recorded were: cigarette packing code; cover fabric,
padding; crevice or flat area; covered or uncovered ciga-
rette; temperature and humidity in test room; replicate
number, balance number, date, and weight at about 20
second intervals.

Char length was not measured because the weight loss/time
curve could be made to appear on the screen at any time
for any tests and gave a better indication of ignition or non-
ignition than an arbitrary surface char length measurement
as specified in present test procedures (upward char length
only in the UFAC tests). Surface char length does not
characterize penetration of the smolder into the padding
which can differ considerably. However, measuring this
depth exposes the operator to the fumes from the charred
material, even though it may have been extinguished by
wetting



eral Emergency Management Agency, the appointment of
whom shall be made by the heads of those agencies;

(2) four scientific or technical representatives appointed by
the Chairman of the Interagency Committee, by and with the

98 STAT. 2926 PUBLIC LAW 98-567—OCT. 30, 1984

advice and consent of the Interagency Committee, from a list of
individuals submitted by the Tobacco Institute;

(3) two scientific or technical representatives appointed by the
Chairman of the Interagency Committee, by and with the
advice and consent of the Interagency Committee, who are
selected from lists of individuals submitted by the following
organizations: the American Burn Association, the American
Public Health Association, and the American Medical
Association;

(4) two scientific or technical representatives appointed by the
Chairman of the Interagency Committee, by and with the
advice and consent of the Interagency Committee, who are
selected from lists of individuals submitted by the following
organizations: the National Fire Protection Association, the
International Association of Fire Chiefs, the International Asso-
ciation of Fire Fighters, the International Society of Fire Serv-
ice Instructors, and the National Volunteer Fire Council; and

(5) one scientific 0: technical representative appointed by the
Chairman of the Interagency Committee, by and with the
advice and consent of the Interagency Committee, from lists of
individuals submitted by the Business and Institutional Furni-
ture Manufacturers Association and one scientific or technical
representative appointed by the Chairman, by and with the
advice and consent of the Interagency Committee, from lists of
individuals submitted by the American Furniture Manufactur-
ers Association.

(b) The persons appointed to serve on the Study Group may
designate, with the advice and consent of the Interagency Commit-
tee. from among their number such persons to serve as team
leaders, coordinators, or chairpersons as they deem necessary or
appropriate to carry out the Study Group's functions under
section 4.

Sec. 4. The Study Group shall undertake, subject to oversight and
review by the Interagency Committee, such studies and other activi-
ties 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 mat-
tresses. Such activities include identification of the different physi-
cal characteristics of cigarettes and little cigars which
impact on the ignition of upholstered furniture and mattress
analysis of the feasibility of altering any pertinent characteristics to
reduce ignition propensity, and an analysis of the possible costs and
benefits, both to the industry and the public, associated with any
such product modification.

Reports, Sec. 5. The Interagency Committee shall submit one year after the
15 USC 2054 date of enactment of this Act a status report to the Senate and the
nite House of Representatives describing the activities undertaken under
section 4 during the preceding year. The Interagency Committee
shall submit a final technical report, prepared by the Study Group,
to the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than thirty
months after the date of enactment of this Act. The Interagency
Committee shall provide to the Congress, within sixty days after the
submission of the final technical report, any policy recommenda-
Termination tions the Interagency Committee deems appropriate. The Inter-
agency Committee and the Study Group shall terminate one month



between the number of ignitions on the California
fabric/cotton batting substrate and the mass loss of the
fabric/PU substrates. For example, cigarette packings 2 and
7 (with low number of ignitions) generally produced low
mass loss, but cigarette packing 9, with a higher number of
ignitions, also produced relatively low mass loss.

Effect of Ambient Humidity

Laboratories in which tobacco products are investigated
generally have closely controlled temperature and relative
humidity (r.h.) presumably because of the interest in burn
rate of cigarettes. No systematic study of r.h. effects was
included in this study. In our laboratory, the ambient condi.
tions were usually 22 + 3°C (72 + 5°F) and 55 + 10%
rh. However, there were occasional excursions outside
those limits, and r.h. ranges of 25-67% occurred at 24°C
(75°F). Table 6 shows examples of tests in which the r.h.
varied greatly. This variation did not affect occurrence of
ignition or non-ignition in these cases. Little or no r.h. effects
on cigarette temperature, and in one case on heat flux from
cigarettes, have been reported in the literature, but burn
rate has been reported to be lower at higher r.h. [24-26].


Experimental

Zz
Test Protocol Development

In order to develop a test method and protocol for the
purpose of this work, the Technical Study Group formed a
test planning team of experts. This team consisted of:
H. Cohen, Consumer Product Safety Commission
G. Damant, Chief, Bureau of Home Furnishings, State
of California
A. Klancnik, Sealy, Inc.
J. Krasny, Center for Fire Research, National Bureau of
Standards
A. Spears, Lorillard, A Division of Loews Theatres, Inc.
J. Sharman, Consumer Product Safety Commission
J. Ziolkowski, American Furniture Manufacturers
Association
The team's plan was modified slightly and accepted by the
Technical Study Group.

The test protocol adopted was based on the mini-mockup
test arrangement used by the California Bureau of Home
Furnishings [8], the Upholstered Furniture Action Committee
(UFAC) [9], and the Business and Institutional Furniture
Manufacturers Association (BIFMA) [10]. This mini-mockup
has generally been used with the cigarette placed only in
the crevice and covered with a piece of sheeting. For this
project, cigarettes were also to be placed on the flat
surfaces and both flat and crevice tests were to be
performed with and without the sheeting cover. This
arrangement provides for a range of CIR of the substrates
for each fabric/padding combination.

The selected ignition criterion was the direct observation
of sustained substrate smoldering. This differs from one
present practice, the measurement of char length on the
fabric surface. Experience in several laboratories [e.g., 11]
had shown that obvious ignition and severe smoldering can
occur even if the char length on the fabric surface is short
The char length in such cases is thus a misleading
measure. In addition, measuring the char length in the
padding, especially cotton batting, which has been extin-
guished by immersion in water, exposes the operator to
fumes and is both messy and inaccurate.

It was also decided to record the combined weight of the
cigarette and substrate versus time during the tests. This
permits calculation of the changes in weight loss rate which

accompany smoldering ignition of the substrate. The
hypothesis was that the weight loss rate before ignition
might be an indication of the ignition propensity of the ciga-
rette packings. In addition, flattening of the weight/time
curve would be a more reliable indication of self-
extinguishment than visual or tactile determination. With the
substrates used here, smoldering ignition appeared to occur
at a weight loss of about 3 g, but all tests in which ignition
occurred were continued to 5.5 g weight loss. The balances
have a capacity of 3000 g and a resolution of 0.01 g.
Further modifications were made when initial screening
tests showed the need for certain minor improvements. The
protocol used in the 864 tests is attached as Appendix B.

Substrate Material Selection

The objective of this work was to determine whether there
are statistically significant differences in the ignition propensi-
ties of selected commercial cigarette packings and to iden-
tify atypical behaviors. For this purpose, appropriate
substrates capable. of showing differences had to be identi-
fied by screening of commercial materials. However, a
substantial part of the soft furnishings used in the U. S. (an
estimated total of 340 million upholstered furniture items and
perhaps three-quarters of the 215 million mattresses [12])
may be expected to resist ignition by all commercial ciga-
rette packings [13]. Another part may be expected to ignite
from exposure to all commercial brands. The number of soft
furnishing substrates which ignite from contact with some
but not other commercial cigarette packings is thought to be
relatively small. This is not surprising since the range of
physical parameters in the roughly 200 commercial cigarette
packings is reported to be quite small [14]. This similarity
made the selection of substrates quite difficult.

The Technical Study Group agreed on the use of the
“Standard Fabric” used in the California regulatory cigarette

‘test [8]. This and the other materials are described in detail

in Appendix B. Another fabric and two paddings. a poly-
urethane (PU) foam and a cotton batting, were to be
selected by CFR atter preliminary studies.

Smail yardages of middle weight, cellulosic fabrics were
purchased locally; however, the fiber contents and weights
were unknown, since fabrics in stores generally do not have


Appendix D

APPENDIN. D

SADBRAITH

Labowtories, Ine.

QUANTITATIVE MICROANALYSES
ORGANIC ~ INORGANIC PHONE 546 1338
KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE 37921 AREA CODE 615

po aox4
2323 SYCAMORE OR

Mr. John Krasny December 11, 1985
National Bureau of Standards

Building 224, Room A363

Guithersburg, Maryland 20899 Received: November 11th

Dear Mr. Krasny:

Analysis of your compounds gave the following r

Your #, Our #, ppm Ca, ppm Mg, ppm Na, ppm k,
A M364 20 1 6 8

2 3 n n
B M3656 1 3 6

12 2 4 WW

c M3660 8 2
1

Sincerely yours,

FS, INC.

GALBAITH LABORATORIES,

Nat

Gail R, Hutchens
Rxee. Vice- President

GRU: se

LETTER AND SHIPMENTS BY US MAIL. #0 BOX 4187 OTHER CARRIERS . 2323 SYCAMORE OR. KNOXVILLE TN, 37921

ESTABLISHED 1950

22



Contents
Abstract
Introduction . . .
Experimental ... .
Test Protocol Development... .
Substrate Material Selection ..
Cigarette Packing Selection .
Results and Discussion .. .
Number of Ignitions......... cee .
Mass Loss Data Obtained During Tests . .
Mass Loss Data on Igniting Substrates .....
Mass Loss on Self-Extinguishing Substrates .
Effect of Ambient Humidity
Conclusions..............
Acknowledgements .....
References
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C .
Appendix D .

CDOREONMNNS

|
List of Tables and Figures

Table 1. Number of Ignitions By Substrate

and Cigarette Packing .............20.0005 4
Table 2. Number of Cigarette Ignitions by

Substrate Factor (California and

Dobby Fabric Substrates Only)............... 5
Table 3. Number of Cigarette ignitions

by Substrate Factor

(including Tulip Fabric)................2005 5
Table 4. Time to 2, 4, and 5 g Mass Loss

of Igniting Substrates ......... beet eens 7
Table 5. Mass Loss of PU/Fabric

Substrates, No Ignitions ................5 . 8

Table 6. Comparison of Typical
Individual Ignition Results at Greatly
Varying Ambient Conditions .........-....... 9
Figure 1. Mass Loss/Time Relationship
for an Igniting and a
Non-Igniting Substrate... ..





Conclusions

This first project performed under the Cigarette Safety Act of
1984 was intended to determine differences in the propen-
sity to ignite soft furnishings of selected, present-day,
commercial cigarette packings. Statistically significant differ-
ences among these packings at the 1 percent or higher
levels were found for three of the 18 substrates used in this
work; no such differences were found on the other 15
substrates. No one of the packings consistently showed low
ignition propensity on all three substrates. Other investi-
gators using different substrates, and in many cases
different cigarettes, have also found differences in ignition
propensity on certain substrates (3-7]. The relationship
between the substrates in this study and the existing furni-
ture population has not been determined. Therefore, the
impact of the measured differences in cigarette ignition
propensities on life safety has not been determined.

The slope of the mass loss curves was helpful in
documenting whether ignition did or did not occur.
However, two measures derived from these curves, the time
to 2 g mass loss for the igniting cotton batting substrates,
and the total mass loss for PU substrates which did not
ignite, were not predictive of ignition propensity for all
cigarettes tested.



Introduction

The Cigarette Safety Act of 1984 (Appendix A) was passed
as a rational approach to reducing the losses due to fires
caused by cigarettes inadvertently dropped on upholstered
furniture or mattresses (soft furnishings). The 1983 estimates
for smoking-caused fire losses in the United States were
[1.2]

% of %
Number __Residential___ of Total

Fires 49,000 8 2
Deaths 1,580 33 27
Civilian & 6,810 32 22
firefighter
injuries:
Property loss 290 5 4
($ millions)

While the number of cigarette-initiated fires and the prop-
erty losses associated with them are only a small
percentage of the total numbers, they account for a quarter
of the deaths and injuries. The available statistics do not
include the casualties and losses due to cigarette initiated
forest and grass fires.

Some years ago it was found that several commercial
cigarette packings' had a lower propensity to ignite soft
furnishings than certain other packings [3,4,5]. Similar
results were found in later studies [6,7]. Based in part on
the earlier studies, bills were introduced in the U.S.
Congress and several state legislatures as early as 1979
which required that cigarettes be made less ignition prone
within a certain period. This requirement gave little consider-
ation to technical practicability, cost, or means of defining
such lower propensity to ignite. A revised bill, the Cigarette
Safety Act of 1984, became law in October 1984 (Appendix
A). It requires a study of the technical and commercial feasi-
bility, economic impact, and other consequences of
developing cigarettes which will have a minimum propensity
to ignite soft furnishings. This work is guided by a Technical
Study Group constituted under the Act. As the first project,

the Technical Study Group asked the Center for Fire
Research (CFR) of the National Bureau of Standards (NBS)
to determine differences in the propensity to ignite soft
furnishings of selected, present-day, commercial cigarette
packings.

The present report describes experiments to determine to
what extent differences exist in the propensity of 12
commercial cigarette packings to ignite soft furnishings.
More specifically, the work involved the following:
modification of the test methods previously used for
evaluating the cigarette ignition resistance (CIR) of uphol-
stered furniture and mattresses for the present purpose;
specification and procurement of equipment;
selection, procurement and testing of fabrics and padding
materials which would illustrate any differences in ciga-
rette ignition propensity;
determination of the alkali and alkaline earth metal
content of substrate materials by the Consumer Product
Safety Commission's (CPSC) analytical laboratory and a
commercial laboratory;
choice and procurement of cigarette packings which held
large market shares or, on the basis of earlier work
{3,4,6,7], might be expected to show differences in igni-
tion propensity;

* carrying out of the 864 tests in the testing matrix (four
replicates of twelve cigarette packings on 18 substrates?
each); and

analysis of the combined results.

1A cigarette, packing is defined as a commercial cigarette, described by
its name, sometimes its diameter, its length, whether menthol or non-
menthol, whether filter or non-filter, and by its package type (e.g., soft
pack).

2The term “substrate” is used to describe one combination of a specific
fabric, padding, in either the flat or crevice arrangement, with or
without a cover sheet; €.g., the flat area of a piece of polyurethane
foam (PU) covered with the California Standard fabric, with the ciga-
rette covered by sheeting. The flat area with the sarie materials but
with the cigarette not covered would be a different substrate.


Appendix B.
Protocol for Measurement of the Propensity
of Cigarettes to Ignite Substrates

a
General

The Cigarette Safety Act, Public Law 98-567 of October 30,
1984, establishes an Interagency Committee and a Tech-
nical Study Group on cigarette safety. The latter group's
mandate includes undertaking necessary studies to deter-
mine the technical and commercial feasibility of developing
cigarettes that have a minimum propensity to ignite uphol-
stered furniture and mattresses. One such study is a survey
of the cigarettes currently for sale to determine whether any
possess distinguishing ignition propensity.

A protocol to determine the propensity of commercial and
experimental cigarettes to ignite various upholstered
substrates was written by a task group of the Technical
Study Group in July, 1985, i.e., before actual testing started.
It was based on test methods presently used by the Busi-
ness and Institutional Furniture Manufacturers Association
(BIFMA), the California Bureau of Home Furnishings, and
the Upholstered Furniture Action Council (UFAC). The
methods used by these organizations are very similar and
are used to determine the relative cigarette ignition resis-
tance (CIR) of furniture substrates using a standard cigarette
packing.

Basically, the proposed protocol consists of placing
cigarettes on a number of mockups consisting of an uphol-
stery fabric and padding. The fabric and padding are to be
varied to obtain a range of cigarette ignition resistance.
However, there is no reason to include extremely cigarette
ignition resistant or cigarette ignition prone substrates
because they could not be expected to differentiate
between present-day commercial cigarettes. Cigarettes are
to be ranked by the number of substrates they ignite.

The proposed protocol also provides for a major improve-
ment in defining ignition of substrates by the use of a real-
time mass loss-time curves. This obviates the use of surface
char length as a criterion of ignition. ignition is indicated if
the curve continues to show mass loss; extinguishment is
indicated by a flattening of the curve.

When testing was actually carried out, the need for certain
modifications became apparent. Below is a description of
the test protocol actually used during the testing of 12
commercial cigarette packings on 18 substrates.

17

a
Definitions

Cigarette Packing: A commercial cigarette variety,
described by its name, length, whether menthol or non-
menthol, whether with or without filter, and by its package
type.

Crevice: The junction of a horizontal and vertical uphol-
stered furniture surface. For the purpose of this test method,
the angle of these two surfaces in the mockup will be as
close to 90° as possible, considering the natural bowing of
certain substrates. Other angles may be chosen in follow-up
work.

Ignition: Continuous, self-sustaining smoldering or flaming
combustion of upholstered substrates which have been
exposed to burning cigarettes. Ignition will be determined
by operator judgment of “obvious ignition.” Later experience
has shown that with the chosen fabrics, padding, and
cigarettes, obvious ignition occurred at about 3 g weight
loss; tests were consequently discontinued at 5.5 g or more
weight loss.

Substrate: A combination of a cover fabric and a padding
material, in either the flat or the crevice area, e.g., the flat
area of a piece of polyurethane foam covered with a cotton
cover fabric. The crevice made from the same materials was
considered another substrate for the purpose of this
method, as was the flat specimen without a cover fabric.

Safety

Safety precautions consisted of the use of an effective hood,
ready availability of breathing apparatus, means of extin-
guishment of substrates by water spray and immersion in a
water bucket, and disposal of the extinguished specimen
(after shredding of the charred padding where indicated) in
a metal can with well-fitting top.



Technical
Study Group
Cigarette Safety
Act of 1984

Relative Propensity

of Selected
Commercial Cigarettes
to Ignite

Soft Furnishings
Mockups

April 1987

JOHN F. KRASNY
RICHARD G. GANN

Center for

Fire Research
National Bureau
of Standards



Results and Discussion

Three types of results were used to compare the cigarette The relative CIR of the substrates followed patterns found

packings: total number of ignitions per packing; the mass previously in a number of laboratories all over the world, as
loss rate of substrates which ignited; and the mass loss of summarized in a recent literature review [13]. Thus, crevices
substrates which did not ignite. again had somewhat lower CIR than flat areas and covered

flat and crevice substrates had slightly lower CIR than unco-
vered substrates. As previously found, cotton batting
substrates had much lower CIR than PU substrates. (In fact,

Number of Ignitions only certain heavy vinyl, wool, or thermoplastic fiber fabrics
would be expected not to ignite over cotton batting when

Table 1 lists the number of ignitions by packing and the usual test cigarette is used in a covered crevice. On the

substrate. On each substrate the maximum possible number other hand, PU would only be expected to ignite under

of ignitions is 48, that is, all four replicates of 12 packings medium weight or heavy cellulosic fabrics. The California

ignited this substrate. The maximum possible number of Standard Fabric had been chosen by the Bureau of Home

ignitions per packing is 4 replicates of 18 substrates or 72. Furnishings to eliminate PU with poor CIR from the

Tables 2 and 3 summarize these results. California market. Apparently, this effort has been quite

Table 1. Number of Ignitions By Substrate and Cigarette Packing

Substrate Specifications

Cotton Batting _ PU Foam _

CA Standard Dobby CA Standard Dobby Tulip

Cigarette flat crev. flat crev. flat crev. flat crev. crev.
Number unc. cov. unc. cov. unc. Cov. une. cov. unc. cov. unc. cov. unc. cov. unc. cov. unc. cov. Total
2 Oo 4 4 4 1.3 3°44 0 0 0 0 Oo 0 Oo 0 o 41 24
7 1 1 4 4 4.4 4 4 0.600 0 0 Oo 0 Oo 0 o 4 a7
1 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0.0 0 0 Oo 0 0 0 0 2 30
4 3.44 4 4 3.4 4 4 0.60 0 0 o 0 0 0 Oo 0 30
11 3°44 4 4 4°54 4 4 Oo 60 0 0 Oo 0 0 0 0 3 34
12 4 4 4.4 4 4 4 4 0 60 o 0 0 Oo Oo 0 Oo 1 33
3 4.4 4 °4 4°54 4 4 0 Oo Oo oO 0 0 0 0 0 2 34
5 4 4 4.4 4°54 4 4 0 Oo Oo 0 0 0 0. 0 Oo 2 34
9 4 4 4.4 4 4 4 4 0 Oo 0 0 o 60 Oo. 0 Oo 2 34
10 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.4 Oo Oo Oo 60 0 0 o oO 0 3 35
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 60 Oo 0 Oo 0 Oo. 0 2 2 36
6 4°54 4 4 4 4 4A 4 Oo 0 Oo 0 Oo 0 o 1 1 4 38
Total 35 45 48 48 44 47 47 48 Oo 0 Oo 0 0 0 o 14 3 23 389

NOTE: Maximum Number of ignitions per cigarette is 72, per substrate, 48.

*In order of increasing number of substrate ignitions.


labels with such information. In addition, two other variables
which affect the CIR of fabrics, alkali metal content and type
and amount of backcoating, could not be determined in the
store.

Samples of several fabrics which were purchased were
then tested over a variety of PU and cotton batting
substrates using several cigarette packings which might be
expected to differ in ignition propensity. One “dobby weave”
fabric/PU combination which demonstrated such differences
was chosen. However, when the materials were purchased
in sufficient quantity to conduct the tests, the differences
between cigarettes were no longer found, indicating
possible inconsistency with the previously sampled
materials. (Only one ignition—of a possible 192—was found
with the chosen dobby weave fabric/PU combination.) Such
inconsistent behavior is not unusual for upholstery materials
which are generally poorly controlled with respect to fabric
weight, backcoating and other finish concentration, and, in
some cases, even fiber content of the yarns. Since the
dobby fabric did not show the expected cigarette differentia-
tion, a third, more ignitable fabric, called the “tulip” fabric
because of its pattern, was also chosen. This fabric
performed in the actual testing as it had in screening.

The 100 percent cotton sheeting with which the cigarettes
were to be covered (as is prescribed in most soft furnishings
CIR tests [8-10]) was also purchased locally, laundered,
double rinsed, and tumble dried in home laundering
equipment.

Difficulties were also encountered in the selection of
cotton batting. For instance, both flame retardant and non-
flame retardant rolls of cotton batting were found in what
was considered one production lot by the local supplier.
Finally, untreated cotton batting was obtained from a
manufacturer who only adds flame retardant on special
order. Each of the rolls was visually inspected on the
premises—small particles of flame retardant added by this
manufacturer's process fall out if samples are shaken
vigorously. Later, samples from each roll were tested by a
colorimetric method by the CPSC laboratory and found to
contain no borate flame retardant. Borate-based flame
retardants are the most common FR agents used for cotton
batting.

Similar problems were encountered with the selection of
the PU. A foam which ignited with the sample of the dobby
fabric and with some but not all cigarette packings was
identified. However, as stated above, the combination of the
second shipment of this fabric and the selected foam did
not ignite. Another foam was chosen on basis of batch to
batch consistency and commercial availability.

Smoldering propensity of cellulosic materials is enhanced
by the presence of certain metal ions (15,16). To further
characterize substrates, the chosen cotton fabrics and
batting were submitted to the CPSC laboratory for quantita-
tive determination of Na, K, Ca, and Mg ions. The materials
were divided into several parts and samples sent to CPSC
from each part, with a duplicate sample from one of the
parts, The CPSC report is included as Appendix C. PU
samples randomly chosen from the foam shipment were
sent for the same analysis to a commercial laboratory, the

results are shown in Appendix D.

In all, about 70 experiments were needed to complete the
materials selection. Those chosen are described in detail in
Appendix B, as is the manner in which they were sampled
for the testing work.

Cigarette Packing Selection

For this work, the test cigarettes selected were (a) the one
used in most present CIR testing work [8-10], (b) several
cigarettes which on the basis of previous work might be
expected to have different ignition propensities [3,4,6,7], and
(c) a number of popular cigarettes. The final selection
included ten filter and two non-filter packings. The
cigarettes, without identifying marks, were supplied by their
manufacturers in coded containers. New codes were
assigned and only these were used in further handling.
Sampling of the cigarettes used in the tests from the 6,000
to 10,000 cigarettes per packing submitted is described in
Appendix B.



1

Technical
Study Group
Cigarette Safety
Act of 1984






Appendix A

PUBLIC LAW 98-567—OCT. 30, 1984

Public Law 98-567
98th Congress
An Act

To establish an interagency committee and a technical study group on cigarette
safety.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may
be cited as the “Cigarette Safety Act of 1984”.

Sec. 2. (a) There is established the Interagency Committee on
Cigarette and Little Cigar Fire Safety (hereinafter in this Act
referred to as the “Interagency Committee”) which shall consist of —

(1) the Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commis-
sion, who shall be the Chairman of the Interagency Committee;

(2) the United States Fire Administrator in the Federal Emer-
gency Management Agency, who shall be the Vice Chairman of
the Interagency Committee; and

(3) the Assistant Secretary of Health.in the Department of
Health and Human Services.

(b) The Interagency Committee shall direct, oversee, and review
the work of the Technical Study Group on Cigarette and Little Cigar
Fire Safety (established under section 3) conducted under section 4
and shall make such policy recommendations to the Congress as it
deems appropriate. The Interagency Committee may retain and
contract with such consultants as it deems necessary to assist the
Study Group in carrying out its functions under section 4. The
Interagency Committee may request the head of any Federal depart-
ment or agency to detail any of the personne! of the department or
agency to assist the Interagency Committee or the Study Group in
carrying out its responsibilities. The authority of the Interagency
Committee to enter into contracts shall be effective for any fiscal
year only to such extent or in such amounts as are provided in
advance by appropriation Acts.

(c) For the purpose of carrying out section 4, the Interagency
Committee or the Study Group, with the advice and consent of the
Interagency Committee, may hold such hearings, sit and act at such
times and places, take such testimony, and receive such evidence, as
the Interagency Committee or the Study Group considers
appropriate.

Sec. 3. (a) There is established the Technical Study Group on
Cigarette and Little Cigar Fire Safety (hereinafter in this Act
referred to as the “Study Group”) which shall consist of —

(1) one scientific or technical representative each from the
Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Center for Fire Re-
search of the National Bureau of Standards, the National
Cancer Institute, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Fed-

98 STAT. 2925

Cigarette
Safety Act

of 1984.

15 USC 2054
note
Establishment
15 USC 2054
note

Contracts with
US.

Establishment
15 USC 2054
note.

51-139 0 - 84 (621)

14



Appendix c

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT U.S. CONSUMER PROOUCT
SAFETY COMMISSION
Memorandum

March 24, 1987

TO: Dr. John F, Krasny, Center for Fire Research
National Bureau of Standards

THROUGH: Warren K. Porter, Director, SHL wif

FROM: Keilash C. Gupta, D.V.M., Ph.D., HSHL XY

SUBJECT: Analysis for Na, K, Ca, and Mg Content in Fabrics and
Cotton-Batting Specimens Provided by Dr. Krasny

The smoldering property of the cellulosic materials has been
reported to be affected by the presence of inorganic free radical ions.
The factors influencing the smoldering property of cellulosics are of
interest to the Commission because of their impact on the fires
resulting fron cigarettes. Samples of four fabrics and one cotton
batting provided by Dr. Krasny, of the National Bureau of Standards,
were analyzed for Na, K, Ca, and Mg content. The results are provided
in the attached table. Analysis of this data, along with data frop
other studies, will be conducted by Dr. Krasny.

The analytical procedures used were as follows:

Reference standard solutions (1000ppm) for Na, K, Ca, and Mg,
and the concentrated nitric acid and sulfuric acid were obtained
from Fisher Scientific Company. All of the glassware used was
washed with a 35% nitric acid wash. The samples were shredded into
small pieces and each subsample was analyzed in replicate. About a
gran of material was digested with 10 ml of concentrated nitric
acid and 16 m1 of concentrated sulfuric acid by heating for 4 to 6
hours until it was completely digested and the solution was clear.
Upon cooling, the digested solution was diluted with deionized
distilled water to the appropriate dilutions. The standard
solutions for each element and the reagent blanks were treated the
same as the samples and run with each batch of samples, no losses
were observed. The elements were analyzed with a Leenan's Plasma
Spec I, ICP Spectrometer. A standard curve for each element was
prepared for each batch of analysis. The elemental content of the
materials was calculated using the standard curves, dilution
factors, and the weight of material used, Reagent blanks were used
for zero correction.

Attachments

20





Table 4. Time to 2, 4, and 5 g Mass Loss of Igniting Substrates

California Fabric/Cotton Batting

crevice covered crevice uncovered
Cigarette 29 49 59 29 4g 59
No. avg. s.d. avg. s.d. avg. s.d. avg. s.d. avg. s.d. avg. s.d.
2 1043 564 1193 657 1260 669 875 531 1018 519 1085 574
7 895 168 1068 243 1133 256 1000 210 1163 327 1245 185
1 768 118 903 146 963 176 830 229 970 230 1045 277
4 718 226 873 307 903 197 680 199 800 218 830 224
11 740 179 870 252 925 213 748 128 878 138 948 149
12 958 111 1120 118 1190 163 750 176 885 230 948 «89
3 768 125 978 256 1040 158 693 106 853 137 935 146
5 738 102 898 127 953 161 663 120 813 139 850 176
9 745 162 915 243 978 157 688 116 853 149 908 188
10 853 87 1010 124 1065 120 698 105 838 103 883 116
8 993 277 1138 383 1203 114 808 140 1003 167 1068 208
6 673 84 810 150 863 142 685 145 840 199 918 174

Dobby Fabric/Cotton Batting

crevice covered crevice uncovered
Cigarette 29 4g 59 29 4g 5g
No. avg. s.d. avg. s.d. avg. s.d. avg. s.d. avg. s.d. avg. s.d.
2 1210 211 1510 137 1595 189 1573 331 1830 432 1913 398
7 1610 577 1863 714 1930 739 1448 544 1598 563 1653 507
1 1263 300 1515 379 1608 336 1065 202 1233 233 1298 160
4 1163 378 1333 430 1388 369 1083 249 1288 298 1348 332
1 1043 208 1193 267 1253 96 845 114 1015 215 1070 103
12 1275 323 1563 469 1668 231 1018 168 1195 308 1263 209
3 1013 109 1218 169 1268 196 838 389 1030 469 1100 452
5 963 260 1123 268 1193 299 918 273 1075 325 1148 318
9 943 235 1140 307 1203 263 1083 232 1238 266 1318 315
10 995 217 1230 211 1295 219 933 189 1115 225 1178 248
8 1893 786 2138 798 2035 502 1020 333 1203 340 1275 191
6 1180 205 1385 281 1453 157 770 187 953 255 1020 270

s.d. = Standard Deviation



indicates that some substrates which are more likely to
ignite can have longer ignition times than the less ignition
prone ones. A possible explanation is that a heavier fabric
may take longer to reach the paint of smoldering ignition,
but is then more likely to support continuing smoldering.

Mass Loss on Self-Extinguishing Substrates

Table 5 shows the mass loss of the fabric/PU substrates
which did not ignite. The standard errors for the mass
losses for the four replicates of each cigarette packing aver-
aged 11 percent. The averages for each cigarette/substrate

combination were normalized by dividing by the tobacco
column length measured to the overwrap. (The perforated
paper in this sleeve is heavier than the cigarette paper on
the tobacco column. The sleeve is used to connect the
tobacco column and filter.) This length, rather than that of
the whole tobacco column, was chosen because the
tobacco generally continued smoldering into the overwrap,
but did not produce an imprint on the substrate under the
overwrap. In other words, the overwrap paper prevented
heat transfer to the substrate. (This was confirmed by wrap:
ping cigarettes in overwrap paper. Those cigarettes burned
their entire length in air but self-extinguished or made
minimum imprints, with no ignition, on a low CIR substrate.)
Again, there was no statistically significant correlation

Table 6. Comparison of Typical Individual Ignition Results at Greatly Varying Am-

bient Conditions

Cigarette Fabric Padding Config. Cov/Unc Cond. Results /N

2 California cotton crevice cov 24°C 61% I
24°C 33% |

2 California cotton flat unc 24°C 61% N
24°C 33% N
7 California PU crevice unc 24°C 63% N
24°C 38% N

1 California cotton crevice unc 24°C 63% |
24°C 45% !

11 California PU flat unc 24°C 63% N
24°C 35% N

11 Dobby cotton crevice unc 24°C 63% i
24°C 35% I

3 Tulip PU crevice cov 24°C 62% |
24°C 45% N

5 Dobby PU crevice cov 24°C 65% N
24°C 38% N
8 Dobby PU flat cov 24°C 63% N
24°C 52% N

6 Dobby cotton crevice cov 24°C 60% |
24°C 38% |

6 Dobby cotton flat cov 24°C 60% 1
24°C 38% iF



Technical
Study Group
Cigarette Safety
Act of 1984

Relative Propensity

of Selected
Commercial Cigarettes
to Ignite

Soft Furnishings
Mockups

April 1987

JOHN F. KRASNY
RICHARD G. GANN
Center for

Fire Research
National Bureau

of Standards



General Requirements

Test Apparatus (specimen holder): The specimen holder
consisted of two wooden panels, each nominally 203 x 203
mm (8 x 8 in.) and nominally 19 mm (0.75 in.) thick, joined
at a right angles at one edge. Use of rough faced plywood
assures that the vertical and horizontal specimens stay in
place during the test and obviates the use of the positioning
device used in the present UFAC and other test
arrangements.

Test Enclosure: To minimize disturbance at the cigarette
location during the test, the apparatus was placed into an
enclosure, approximately 500 mm (19.5 in.) square, open
‘on top, and 610 mm (24 in.) high. The enclosure was
placed under a canopy hood. Minimum distance between
apparatus and enclosure wall was 76 mm (3 in.). The front
of the enclosure was made from PMMA, to permit observa-
tion of the test; the rest was made from plywood. Air
velocity at the cigarette location was as low as possible
consistent with smoke removal (in a vertical plume as
undisturbed as possible) and protection of the operators
from fumes during disposal of smoldering specimens.

Balance: Each test apparatus was placed on a balance,
with a 3000 g capacity, + 0.01 g resolution, capable of
taring out test apparatus weight and providing an analog
signal output to a data recorder. Visual observation of the
time-weight loss slope during the test was helpful in deter-
mining ignition. Five balances were used simultaneously.

Safety Equipment: Breathing apparatus, water spray
bottle, immersion bucket, tongs, and metal can with tight top
for specimen disposal are required.

Test Materials

Fabrics: Two fabrics varying in CIR were used. One was
the California Bureau of Home Furnishings Standard Fabric,
a 100% cotton velvet, beige, 340 g/m? (10.1 oz/yd?) without
backcoating (Pattern 8500, beige, Van Waters and Rogers,
16300 Shoemaker Avenue, Cerritos, CA 90701). The
second fabric was purchased locally; its commercial name
was “Dijon,” the color “pewter.” The dealer did not disclose
the manufacturer. It was a dobby weave, cotton warp and
filling, with a decorative filling stripe approximately 100 mm
wide, 5 mm distance between stripes. The yarn in this stripe
was 100% polyester, and was located primarily on the
backside of the fabric except for small patterns which
appeared on the front. The fabric weighed 400 g/m? (11.8
oz/yd2), When samples of this fabric were obtained for
screening, differences in the ignition propensity of some of
the test cigarettes was obtained. However, the screening
samples apparently differed from the fabric bolts obtained
for
this work, which showed no such differentiation.

A third fabric, called the ‘tulip fabric’ because of its
pattern, was also acquired locally. It had a rayon back-

18

ground, with a cotton filling stripe similar to the above fabric.
The weight was 420 g/m? (12.4 oz/yd2).

A commercial 100% cotton sheeting, white, not treated
with a flame retardant, 130 g/m? (3.8 oz/yd?), laundered
once, double rinsed, and tumble dried in standard home
laundering equipment, was used to cover the cigarette
during the burn,

The alkali metal content of all fabrics will be determined at
various places in each roll, to determine uniformity

Padding: A foam and a cotton batting padding were used.
The foam was a polyether based, polyurethane foam, 34
kg/m (2.1 Ibs/ft3), 51 mm thick (2 in.). (HD 2045, Leggett
and Platt, High Point, NC. Leggett and Platt only sells in
truck loads but the foam is available in small quantities from
jobbers, e.g., BCF Supply Co., 2335 W. Franklin Street,
Baltimore, MD 21223).

The cotton batting was approximately 40 kg/m? (2.5
Ibs/f3), Quality No. 300 from BCF Supply Co., without flame
retardant.

The alkali metal content of the batting and foam are were
determined by outside laboratories, as shown in Appendices
C and D.

Each of the two fabrics was used with each of the two
paddings, with and without cover sheet, with cigarettes
placed on a flat surface and in the crevice. This resulted in
sixteen “substrates.”

Cigarettes: 12 commercial cigarette packings, including
that which is presently used for testing upholstery CIR, as
well as cigarettes reported to have lower propensity to
ignite, were selected. Cigarettes were assigned code
numbers, and packing identities were not revealed.

Size of Test Materials

Cover Fabric: Fabrics for the vertical foam panel were

356 xx 203 mm (14 x 8 in.) and for the horizontal panel,
203 x 203 (8 x 8 in.). The longer direction was in the
warp direction. For the vertical cotton batting panel, dimen-
sions were 305 x 305 mm (12 x 12 in.), for the horizontal
panel, 305 x 254 mm (12 x 10 in.), with the longer dimen-
sion in the filling direction,

Padding: Padding for the vertical panel was 203 x 203 x
51 mm (8 x 8 x 2 in.) and for the horizontal panel, 203 x
127 x 51 mm (8 x 5 x 2 in).

Sheeting Material: Cotton bedsheeting fabric specimens
were 127 x 152 mm (5 x 6 in.).

Ambient Conditions

The cover fabrics, paddings, cigarettes, and sheeting were
conditioned for at least 24 hours prior to testing as close to


Mission and Members

The Technical Study Group on Cigarette and Little Cigar
Fire Safety was established by Public Law 98-567, the
Cigarette Safety Act of 1984, on October 30, 1984. Its mis-
sion is to:

“undertake such studies and other activities as it considers
necessary and appropriate to determine the technical and
commercial feasibility, economic impact, and other conse-
quences of developing cigarettes and little cigars that will
have a minimum propensity to ignite upholstered furniture or
mattresses. Such activities include identification of the differ-
ent physical characteristics of cigarettes and little cigars
which have an impact on the ignition of upholstered furni-
ture and mattresses, an analysis of the feasibility of altering
any pertinent characteristics to reduce ignition propensity,
and an analysis of the possible costs and benefits, both to
the industry and the public, associated with any such
product modification."

Copies of this or any other reports of the Technical Study
Group may be obtained from Mr. Colin B. Church,
Secretariat, Technical Study Group, Consumer Product Safe-
ty Commission, 5401 Westbard Avenue, Washington, D.C.,
20207.

Members

Richard G. Gann, Ph.D., Chairman
Edward Press, M.D., Vice-Chairman
Charles M. Carey

James L. Charles, Ph.D.

Harry |. Cohen

Joseph W. Cullen, Ph.D.

Craig G. Drummond

Preston H. Leake, Ph.D.

Michael D. McGibeny

E. Andrew McGuire

Wendy H. Poel

Alan Rodgman, Ph.D.

Alexander W. Spears, III, Ph.D.
Henry Tovey

Judith P. Wilkenfeld, Esq.

Past Members:
Howard Beales, III
Max Hausermann, Ph.D.


Table 1. Elemental Analysis of Fabrics and Cotton Padding Material

aaa |
Elemental Analysis (PPM)

Sample Sub Na K Ca _Mg_

Gray Dobby 1 2801 fe) 5693 2451

593-0157 2 3160 ie} 4600 2100

3 4331 16 7874 4182

4 2478 0 6737 2868

5 2270 19 4700 2260

Average" 3008 7 5921 2772

Standard Deviation* 813 10 1394 839

California Fabric 1 420 25 341 91

593-0158 2 465 25 ai 62

3 489 22 363 70

4 436 43 286 87

5 469 34 234 80

Average 456 30 287 78

Standard Deviation 28 9 66 12

Tulip Fabric 1 1353 93 357 190

593-0159 2 1504 62 324 161

3 1469 19 230 134

Average 1442 58 304 168

Standard Deviation 79 37 66 28

Sheeting Material 1 17 0 344 68

593-0160 2 0 ie) 381 66

Average 9 0 363 67

Standard Deviation 12 t) 26 1

Cotton Batting A 217 5099 1200 699

593-0161 B 164 5050 1331 698

ce 228 5467 1700 820

D 182 4632 952 553

Average 198 5062 1296 693

Standard Deviation 30 342 312 109

*Averages and standard deviations calculated at NBS.

21



successful; in the time allotted for the material screening, no
PU that would ignite with this fabric was found.)

For the sixteen California and dobby fabric substrates,
almost all the variation in number of ignitions among the
various cigarette packings occurred in the flat, cotton batting
substrates. All other cotton batting substrates resulted in at
least 47 ignitions out of a possible 48. With the same
fabrics, essentially no ignitions occurred with the PU
substrates. There was, however, some variation among
cigarette packings in the two tulip fabric/PU/crevice
substrates. (Experiments with all twelve cigarette packings
indicated that the tulip fabric would always produce ignitions
with cotton batting substrates, and not produce ignitions
with flat PU substrates.) The significance of these variations
is discussed next.

A chi square test is appropriate for analysis of single
columns in Table 1 in which the average number of igni-
tions per cigarette packing is between 1.0 and 3.0 [17,18].
Using this test on column 1, California Standard
Fabric/cotton batting/flal/uncovered, we determined that the
ignition performance of the 12 cigarette packings is
different, at a 0.00013 level of significance. Analysis of the
results in column 18, tulip fabric/PU/crevice/covered, shows
that the performance differences between cigarettes were
not statistically significant, the significance level being 0.30.
The remaining columns of Table 1 cannot be tested using
the chi square test because the average number of ignitions
is not between 1.0 and 3.0.

The remaining columns can, however, be evaluated for
significant differences in the number of ignitions by an exact
calculation, analogous to Fishers Exact Test fora 2 x 2
contingency table, based on the conditional probability
distribution of the data given the total number of ignitions
[19]. Column 2, CA standard fabric/cotton
batting/flat/covered, shows the cigarette packings to be
statistically different from each other at the 0.003 level; for
column 5, dobby fabric/cotton batting/flat/uncovered, the
significance level is 0.011. None of the remaining columns
approaches statistical significance.

The results show that there are statistically significant
differences in the ignition propensity of the chosen commer-
cial cigarette packings (which were not designed by their
manufacturers for this purpose) when tested on three of the
18 substrates. However, no one of the packings consistently
showed low ignition propensity on all three substrates.
Earlier studies found similar differences in ignition propensity
of commercial cigarette packings [3-7]. Some of the earlier
studies on commercial cigarettes were performed in the late
1970's; the tar and nicotine delivery of some of the cigarette
packings involved has changed, according to the annual
FTC reports issued since then [20], indicating changes in
their characteristics. However, both the California Bureau of
Home Furnishings and the authors believe the differences in
ignition propensity to be smaller than in earlier years [21].

There were no differences in the ignition propensities of
the cigarettes when tested on the other 15 substrates. The
results also suggest that cigarette rankings may depend
somewhat on the substrate; much more work would have to
be done to prove this point. Modest differences in ignition

Table 2. Number of Cigarette Ignitions
by Substrate Factor (California and dob-
by fabric substrates only)

No. of Ignitions* % Ignitions
Crevice 192 50
Flat 171 45
CA Fabric 176 46
Dobby 187 49
Polyurethane Foam 1 ie}
Cotton Batting 362 94
Covered 189 49
Uncovered 174 45

The maximum number of ignitions in each case is 384.

Table 3. Number of Cigarette Ignitions
by Substrate Factor
(including tulip fabric*)

No. of No. of %
Ignitions Ignitions Ignitions

Polyurethane foam 27 480 6
Cotton Batting 362 384 94
CA Fabric 176 384 46
Dobby Fabric 187 384 49
Tulip Fabric* 26 96 27
Crevice 215 480 45
Flat 174 384 45
Covered 212 432 49
Uncovered 177 432 4

“Tested over Polyurethane/crevice only; probably would
have yielded 192 (100%) ignitions over cotton batting



Table 5. Mass Loss of PU/Fabric Substrates, No Ignitions

California Fabric/Cotton Batting

Mass loss, _gimm tobacco column x 10-2”

Flat Crevice
Cigarette uncovered covered uncovered covered
No. _ avg 8d. avg. 8.0. avg. 8.0. avg. 8.0. Totals
2 0.91 36 1.21 05 1.19 31 1.66 AB 4.98
7 1.46 31 1.56 17 1.56 35 1.91 61 6.49
1 1.21 10 1.53 AT 1.65 22 2.26 22 6.65
4 0.97 10 1.34 08 1.27 10 1.87 -30 5.45
12 1.31 15 1.64 08 1.94 22 2.91 55 7.80
"1 1.33 AB 1.52 19 1.84 24 3.36 62 8.05
3 1.56 05 4.70 08 1.93 13 2.97 33 8.16
5 1.27 15 1.75 32 1.84 37 2.92 37 7.78
9 1.29 17 1.51 AS 1.12 48 1.98 39 5.90
10 1.33 26 1.81 19 2.34 27 3.27 19 8.75
8 1.40 08 1.58 10 1.85 13 2.50 23 7.33
6 1.39 10 1.69 .22 1.84 26 3.83 49 8.72

Dobby Fabric/Cotton Batting

Mass loss, g/mm tobacco column x 10-2”

_ Flat __ Crevice
Cigarette uncovered covered uncovered covered

No. avg. 8.0. avg. 8.0. avg. 8.0. avg. 8d. Totals
2 1.00 08 1.22 10 0.96 51 1.04 31 4.22
7 1.42 29 1.53 25 1.32 55 1.81 29 6.08
1 1.25 13 1.45 08 1.57 22 2.34 37 6.61
4 0.93 15 1.23 10 1.38 29 1.23 38 477

12 1.49 27 1.64 08 1.68 21 1.94 34 6.75

1 1.45 42 1.84 36 2.54 67 2.97 79 8.80
3 1.32 08 1.89 00 2.08 14 3.02 29 8.31
5 1.27 13 1.70 22 2.22 33 2.74 17 7.93
9 0.95 37 1.34 34 1.34 43 2.89 33 6.52

10 1.21 26 177 25 1.69 19 2.82 25 7.49
8 117 26 1.45 10 1.72 21 1.90 42 6.24
6 1.39 24 1.81 14 2414 43 3.49 1.0 8.83

Totals 30.28 37.72 40.98 59.63

(a) tobacco column length measured to overwrap
s.d = standard deviation