MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2783540242 · doi:10.1111/add.14117

Tuibur: tobacco in a bottle—commercial production of tobacco smoke‐saturated aqueous concentrate

2018· review· en· W2783540242 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Sreenath Madathil, Nachimuthu Senthil Kumar, Doris Zodinpuii, Rajendra Bose Muthukumaran, Rebecca Lalmuanpuii, Belinda Nicolau

Notice bibliographique

RevueAddiction · 2018
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueVibrio bacteria research studies
Établissements canadiensMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTobacco productToxicologyEnvironmental healthConsumption (sociology)Distribution (mathematics)SmokeProduction (economics)Tobacco smokeBusinessAgricultural economicsMedicineWaste managementMathematicsEngineeringBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Certain forms of tobacco that are relatively unknown in the scientific community have been used widely for centuries. One such form is tuibur 1, 2, a tobacco smoke-saturated aqueous concentrate prevalent in north-eastern India 3. The highest prevalence of tobacco consumption in India occurs in the northeastern province of Mizoram 4, 5, where the Aizawl District also leads the incidence rates of all tobacco-related cancers in the country 6. Yet references to tuibur use are rare and restricted mainly to local publications 3, 7-12. This commentary aims to raise awareness and stimulate research on this tobacco product about which little is known. We describe its production and distribution with the support of photographs to contextualize this knowledge for readers. Historically, women smoked tobacco in waterpipes made of bamboo (Fig. 1), and would offer the leftover tobacco-infused water from the pipe reservoir to their husband 10. Users keep a small amount (5–10 ml) of liquid in the mouth for many minutes several times throughout the day; some may also swallow a portion of the liquid 13. Increased demand for the product moved production from households to makeshift sheds located near natural water sources (Fig. 2). Indeed, concern over its environmental and health impact may help to explain why tuibur is produced in small batches in artisanal facilities 14-16. The production of a fresh batch of tuibur starts early in the morning. First, water is alkalized by being filtered through tobacco ash from the previous batch (Supporting information, Fig. S1). Alkaline pH maintains an unprotonated form of nicotine that is absorbed easily through the oral mucosa 1. This solution is then poured into the lower chamber of a device (Fig. 3) with a rudimentary water educator (aspirator). A pipe is inserted into this chamber with one end just below the water level, and sealed with mud (Fig. 3). The upper half of the device, the combustion chamber, is connected to the lower chamber through a filtered opening at the bottom. Dried tobacco stalk is placed in the combustion chamber and set to smoulder (Supporting information, Fig. S2). Subsequently, this chamber is sealed with wet tobacco ash. The pressure from a stream of water creates a suction in the smaller pipes, which ensures that tobacco smoke bubbles through the alkaline solution. The process is complete when the tobacco stalk has burned completely, which takes anywhere from 12 hours to 3 days, depending upon the amount of tobacco stalk used. ‘Crude’ tuibur from the lower chamber is then pipetted out and filtered again through tobacco ash (Supporting information, Figure S3). This ‘commercial’ grade tuibur is sold in bulk to distributors, who bottle and sell it in local markets with a statutory pictorial warning. Tuibur consumption is highly addictive, and deeply entrenched in the culture of the region. In addition, the rudimentary character of tuibur production has potential environmental consequences, which may compound health impacts. At a time when tobacco control is a global priority, we argue that this deleterious habit merits more research attention. None. We are grateful to the producers of Tuibur who welcomed our visit to their production site. We also thank Drs G. Castonguay and A. Levine for providing helpful comments on the manuscript. B. Nicolau holds a Canada Research Chair in Life Course Oral Epidemiology and received a Shastri Scholar Travel Subsidy Grant to support her visit to University of Mizoram. Figure S1 Preparation of feedstock for tuibur. S1a: Filtering water through tobacco ash to make it alkaline; S1b: filling the alkaline feedstock to lower compartment; S1c: inlet pipe for tobacco smoke to lower chamber. Figure S2 S2a and S2b: Dried tobacco stalk loaded into the upper chamber; S2c: burning of tobacco stalk in the upper chamber. Figure S3 S3a: Pipetting out of tuibur from lower chamber; S3b: filling containers with tuibur for transportation; S3c: tuibur sold in local market. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,974
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,038
Tête enseignante GPT0,335
Écart entre enseignants0,297 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations17
Publié2018
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAddictionMême sujetVibrio bacteria research studiesTravaux en français237 207