Retention and Distribution Patterns of Phenolic Compounds in Cigarette Filters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To study the effects of filter structure on the retention and distribution patterns of phenolic compounds in cigarette filters, the retention rates of normal acetate filter to phenol, o-cresol, m/p-cresol, hydroquinone, resorcin and catechol under ISO and Health Canadian Intense(HCI) smoking regimes were compared, and the spatial distribution patterns of the 7 phenolic compounds in filter were investigated. The retention behavior in peripherally grooved acetate filter, paper-acetate combined filter and ventilated cavity acetate filter was also investigated under ISO smoking regime. The results showed that: 1) The retention rate of normal acetate filter to phenolic compounds under ISO smoking regime ranged from 49% to 87%, and that to phenol and o/m/p-cresol was higher than to the others. Under HCI smoking regime, the retention rate to phenol and o/m/p-cresol increased to a certain extent, while that to the others decreased. 2) The filters in the order of retention rate to phenolic compounds were: normal acetate filter ≈ peripherally grooved acetate filter paper-acetate combined filter ventilated cavity acetate filter. 3) Acetate filter possessed obvious retention selectivity to phenolic compounds, which was the result of the interaction between phenolic compounds and filter materials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".