MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965468013 · doi:10.1016/j.fct.2019.110727

Acetoin is a precursor to diacetyl in e-cigarette liquids

2019· article· en· W2965468013 on OpenAlexaff
Carl Vas, Andrew Porter, Kevin McAdam

Bibliographic record

VenueFood and Chemical Toxicology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
FundersBritish American Tobacco
KeywordsAcetoinDiacetylChemistryOrganic chemistryChromatographyFermentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Use of the e-liquid flavourings diacetyl and acetyl propionyl has raised concerns that they might cause respiratory diseases amongst vapers. Product surveys show that these compounds, plus a less toxic alternative, acetoin, are widely used in e-liquids. We have investigated the chemistry of acetoin, acetyl propionyl and diacetyl in e-liquids. They are reactive, with concentrations falling substantially over time. Acetyl propionyl is the most reactive, diacetyl less so, and acetoin significantly more stable. Their reactivity is pH-enhanced when nicotine is present in the e-liquid. Of major concern, we found that acetoin generates diacetyl in e-liquids. We found diacetyl formation in all acetoin-containing e-liquids, but it is not an acetoin-contaminant. Diacetyl concentrations were proportional to acetoin content, grew over time, and formation was accelerated by nicotine. E-liquids stored for up to 18 months contained significant diacetyl, and reduced acetoin levels, showing that acetoin is a long-term diacetyl source. Other reaction pathways operate, and we advance mechanisms to explain this area of e-liquid chemistry. Acetoin use in e-liquids is an inevitable source of diacetyl exposure for e-cigarette users. Acetoin, acetyl propionyl and diacetyl are avoidable hazards for vapers, and we recommend e-liquid manufacturers move away from their use in e-liquid formulations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood and Chemical ToxicologySame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207