MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6921975777 · doi:10.1021/ac5015518.s001

Simultaneous Analysis of 22 Volatile Organic Compounds\nin Cigarette Smoke Using Gas Sampling Bags for High-Throughput Solid-Phase\nMicroextraction

2016· article· en· W6921975777 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Chemical Sensor Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSidestream smokeSmokeCigarette smokeGas chromatography–mass spectrometryRelative standard deviationBenzeneVolatile organic compound

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantifying\nvolatile organic compounds (VOCs) in cigarette smoke\nis necessary to establish smoke-related exposure estimates and evaluate\nemerging products and potential reduced-exposure products. In response\nto this need, we developed an automated, multi-VOC quantification\nmethod for machine-generated, mainstream cigarette smoke using solid-phase\nmicroextraction gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (SPME-GC–MS).\nThis method was developed to simultaneously quantify a broad range\nof smoke VOCs (i.e., carbonyls and volatiles, which historically have\nbeen measured by separate assays) for large exposure assessment studies.\nOur approach collects and maintains vapor-phase smoke in a gas sampling\nbag, where it is homogenized with isotopically labeled analogue internal\nstandards and sampled using gas-phase SPME. High throughput is achieved\nby SPME automation using a CTC Analytics platform and custom bag tray.\nThis method has successfully quantified 22 structurally diverse VOCs\n(e.g., benzene and associated monoaromatics, aldehydes and ketones,\nfurans, acrylonitrile, 1,3-butadiene, vinyl chloride, and nitromethane)\nin the microgram range in mainstream smoke from 1R5F and 3R4F research\ncigarettes smoked under ISO (Cambridge Filter or FTC) and Intense\n(Health Canada or Canadian Intense) conditions. Our results are comparable\nto previous studies with few exceptions. Method accuracy was evaluated\nwith third-party reference samples (≤15% error). Short-term\ndiffusion losses from the gas sampling bag were minimal, with a 10%\ndecrease in absolute response after 24 h. For most analytes, research\ncigarette inter- and intrarun precisions were ≤20% relative\nstandard deviation (RSD). This method provides an accurate and robust\nmeans to quantify VOCs in cigarette smoke spanning a range of yields\nthat is sufficient to characterize smoke exposure estimates.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.276 · 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.

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicAdvanced Chemical Sensor TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207