MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Carbonyls emissions during vaping of herbal tea sticks

2025· article· W4416636872 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Efthimios Zervas, Niki Matsouki, Chara Tsipa, Ζωή Γαρείου

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIndoor Air Quality and Microbial Exposure
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropionaldehydeButyraldehydeFlavorFormaldehydeNicotineMethanethiol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Herbal tea sticks can be vaped using heated tobacco products devices. Although they are very recently appear in the market, their market share is expected to grow in the future. This work focuses on the carbonyls’ emissions from four herbal tea sticks, of two different flavors, with and without nicotine (Unicco-flavor Lemon (L_Un), Ccobato-flavor Lemon (L_Cc), Unicco-flavor Peach (P_Un), Ccobato-flavor Peach (P_Cc)). Tea sticks are heated using IQOS and LIL heated tobacco products (HTPs) devices. The emissions are generated using a peristaltic pump, under ISO and Health Canada Intense puffing regimes. The carbonyls are collected in an acidified DNPH solution and analyzed by HPLC-UV. Acetaldehyde, Propionaldehyde and Butyraldehyde were found above the detection limit, while the emissions of Formaldehyde and of the other carbonyls were below the detection limit. The results show that the dominant carbonyl is acetaldehyde, followed by butyraldehyde and propionaldehyde. The HCI/CAN puffing regime leads, in general, to an increase of emissions. The presence of nicotine in the tea stick, the stick flavor and the HTP device used for heating did not significantly affect the emissions. erj;66/suppl_69/PA3768/F1 F1 F1 erj;66/suppl_69/PA3768/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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0030.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.236 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIndoor Air Quality and Microbial ExposureFrench-language works237,207