Evaluation of fluoride ion residues in black tea after fumigation with sulfuryl fluoride
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sulfuryl fluoride is a colorless, odorless gas used as a fumigant against pests during the storage of durable agricultural products. It is also one of the alternatives to methyl bromide, which is banned by the Montreal Protocol. During a fumigation, the decomposition product of sulfuryl fluoride residue can also be formed in addition to the sulfuryl fluoride residue. Fluoride is actually a natural ingredient of the tea plant. However, within the growing process of the tea plant fluoride is concentrated in the old leaves when compared with the young shoots. Investigating the variation of the fluoride content in black tea before and after sulfuryl fluoride fumigation is the subject of this study. Three different brands of black teas with different fluoride concentrations purchased from local supermarkets in 2022 were fumigated with approximately 60 g/m3 of sulfuryl fluoride for 24 hours in a 1 m3 fumigation chamber. The AOAC’s recommended method for extraction of fluoride in plants (Method 975.04) was applied in this study. It was compared with the fluoride contents after fumigation in teas (41.4; 165.1 and 329.5 mg/kg, respectively). It is concluded that there is no statistically [t(7)=0,284; t(7)=0,769 and t(7)=1,419 p>0,05] significant difference in fluoride content in teas after fumigation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".