MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Carbonyls emissions in different brands and flavours of heated tobacco products

2024· article· en· W4404097940 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Efthimios Zervas, Niki Matsouki, Chara Tsipa, Evi Bekou, Maria Makrygianni

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTobacco productFood scienceChemistryBusinessProcess engineeringWaste managementEnvironmental scienceEngineeringMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heated tobacco products have been launched in a variety of brands and flavours; however, published data covering carbonyl emissions not cover all the different brands and flavours. This work focuses on the carbonyls emissions from 5 heated tobacco products (HTPs) brands: IQOS, LIL, PULZE, ILUMA and GLO and 3 different flavours per brand (IQOS and ILUMA:Yellow Selection-Silver Selection-Turquoise Selection, LIL: Regular-Marine-Roxo, PULZE: Rich Bronze-Ice-Capsule Polar and GLO: Classic Tobacco-Arctic Click-Scarlet Click), under ISO and Health Canada Intense (HCI/CAN) puffing regimes. The carbonyls are collected in an acidified DNPH solution and analyzed by HPLC-UV. Seven carbonyls were detected: Formaldehyde, Acetaldehyde, Propionaldehyde, Butyraldehyde and Crotonaldehyde and Acrolein/Acetone together. The results (Fig 1, Fig 2) show that the HCI/CAN puffing regime leads in general to an increase in carbonyls emissions. Acetaldehyde is the dominant carbonyl, followed by Propionaldehyde, Butyraldehyde, Formaldehyde and Crotonadehyde. The impact of the brand is more significant comparing to the flavour. Fig 1. Emission of acetaldehyde erj;64/suppl_68/PA4032/F1 F1 F1 Fig 2. Emission of propionaldehyde erj;64/suppl_68/PA4032/F2 F2 F2

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact→French-language works237,207→