Study: More On The Stuff In Vapor
A new study has taken a far more in depth look at the harmful constituents of electronic cigarette vapor. The study is one of the most comprehensive to date and provides some much needed clarity to the impact electronic cigarettes might have on the health of their users. The conclusion: Not as harmful as smoking, maybe more harmful than some experts suggest, but very promising for harm reduction.
The study comes from the individuals based in the United States, United Kingdom, and Poland. A synopsis of the study can be seen here.
The Results
Researchers identified 11 of the most popular electronic cigarette brands in Poland and obtained them from local retailers. A popular brand from the United Kingdom (Intellicig) was also tested. A Nicorette Inhaler from Johnson & Johnson was also tested as a reference to what harmful constituents might exist in a currently approved medical inhaler.
Testing was done over 150 puffs across 10 puffing sessions of each electronic cigarette brand. A puff ran about 1.8 seconds and an average volume of 70 milliliters.
Carbonyl compounds are those containing a carbon atom double bonded to an oxygen. Of 15 carbonyl compounds tested for and commonly found in tobacco smoke, only 4 were found in electronic cigarettes. Three of these were found in the inhaler, but at far lower rates.
Perhaps most concerning of the carbonyls is formaldehyde — a known and worrisome carcinogen. Interesting though is the range at which formaldehyde occurred. Although it occurred in a few e-cigs as high as 46-56 micrograms per 150 puffs, in two it only occurred at 3.2 and 3.9 micrograms (not far off from the inhaler’s 2.0 micrograms). To compare, researchers say a single cigarette can deliver far more than 100 micrograms of formaldehyde. Note: a microgram is one-millionth of a gram or one-thousandth of a milligram.
Similar trends can be found with the other 3 carbonyls found in electronic cigarettes — acetaldehyde, acrolein, and o-methylbenzaldehyde. Of the four carbonyls found, only acrolein was not found in the inhaler (though that was the case for one of the e-cigs too). At least two electronic cigarette brands tested within statistical similarity to the inhaler. This means with proper research and development, the levels of carbonyls produced by electronic cigarettes could almost certainly match those of the inhaler.
Various volatile organic compounds (VOCs), tobacco-specific nitrosamines, and metals were also tested for. Of 11 VOCs tested for, only 2 were found in any e-cigs ranging between none detected and a max of 6.3 micrograms (very little). Only two tobacco-specific nitrosamines were tested for. Neither was found in all electronic cigarettes, but both could be found in some ranging as high as 28.3 micrograms. Neither of the VOCs or tobacco specific nitrosamines found in e-cigs were found in the inhaler.
Among 12 metals tested for, only cadmium, nickel, and lead were found in electronic cigarette smoke. All three were also found in the inhaler (and in a number of cases actually tested higher in the inhaler than in select e-cig brands). Totals in this instant were again very low, measuring from non-detection to .57 micrograms in 150 puffs.
In all instances, these toxins were found a levels far lower than in conventional cigarette smoke. Formaldehyde occurs an average of 9-fold higher in cigarettes. For Acrolein, it’s 15-fold higher. For Acetaldehyde, it’s 450-fold higher.
The study further supports the theory that electronic cigarettes are far less harmful than conventional tobacco cigarettes. The researchers do say that more research is required before the leap can be made that switching to e-cigs from smoking will reduce an individual’s health risk. Still, this is yet another strong piece of the overall puzzle.
See a complete list of e-cig research here.
Nev NYC on March 12th, 2013 9:06 pm
i’d really like to believe there are very little health risks with vaping but i’m sure with more research we’ll get a definitive answer eventually.. good article but makes me think if vaping is as “safe” as most may think.. i dont know for sure how safe vaping is but it has to be better than actually smoking..
Karla Lyle (MsV8PR) on March 12th, 2013 10:54 pm
Happy to see there is someone doing some valuable intelligent research instead of making assumptions. Good to hear.
Dayvid Priddy on March 12th, 2013 11:03 pm
Obviously they are not testing juice by itself but only the mini ecig kits that come with pre-filled cartomizers! Most people don’t even use those, they use real e-cigs (vv, vw, etc) with american made juices, this article doesn’t really help or prove anything as far as I’m concerned.
mrcrunch08 on March 12th, 2013 11:39 pm
This is exactly the type of facts we need. It’s much easier to argue for or against ecigs with facts like this and it could help everyone.
Nathaniel on March 13th, 2013 12:04 am
Well I’ve obviously been mislead!
Hannah on March 13th, 2013 1:55 am
great post, love this!
Mike Z on March 13th, 2013 2:40 am
I think the testing is headed in the right direction. I too would like to see more advanced testing done with real mods and different juices. Like does the higher nicotine juice have more risks? PG vs. VG? And so on. Also, testing on different styles of wicks like silica, cotton, hemp, ceramic, or stainless steel mesh.
I will say this for me is that I have curbed my asthma, lost my “smoker’s cough, and so much more. I believe that the inherent risk of vaping over smoking is much, much less.
Thanks for sharing!
slap_maxwell on March 13th, 2013 5:15 am
Glad to see some real world testing going on. It would be intriguing to see what combos of equipment would yield…but even though most of us here are into mods, many are using cartos which would likely yield similar results no matter what type of battery was powering them…of greater interest would be comparing cartomizers to dripping attys, RBA tank attys using various wicks, etc.
I know some have expressed concern about the oxides present on (oxidized) ss mesh wicks and someone at another forum even paid out of their own pocket for tests — which did show some levels of harmful oxides (the consensus…do NOT heavily oxidize your ss mesh wicks).
Thanks for the post!
Holden on March 13th, 2013 5:53 am
Chad on March 13th, 2013 7:29 am
Great post and good reference point.
RCO67 on March 13th, 2013 7:39 am
We’re getting closer to the truth and a long way from the misleading statement of ” It’s just ater vapor”.
RCO67 on March 13th, 2013 7:40 am
We’re getting closer to the truth and a long way from the misleading statement of ” It’s just water vapor”.
Todd on March 13th, 2013 8:30 am
The more tests the better and in the end I still feel safer down this path than I did with analogs. We do need to know all the pros and cons – but so far everything looks good when I bump into it. Good info!
Ralph on March 13th, 2013 10:20 am
thank god for a synopsis. def need to watch out, im sure there will be more people trying to create faulty experiments to try to bring us down for no good reason. sad we gotta fight idiots like that. hopefully they will keep up researching to help protect us and give us more knowledge to fight off the mentally challenged fighting against ecigs
c99 on March 13th, 2013 10:48 am
interesting article
Morrinb on March 13th, 2013 6:42 pm
Quite interesting. Thanks!
Aaron on March 13th, 2013 7:00 pm
Good study. I don’t beleave Ecigs are very harmful but more and more studies will prove if so or not.
La cigarette électronique aussi sûre que les inhalateurs de nicotine vendus en pharmacie ? | Avis sur la cigarette électronique on March 15th, 2013 12:33 pm
[...] à suivre … Mise à jour du 15 mars 2013 : selon le site ecigadvanced, il s’agirait de 11 marques de cigarettes électroniques (et non 12) vendues en Pologone et [...]
Norm Tanner on March 15th, 2013 5:24 pm
Great article. HOWEVER, does ANYONE who uses ANY type of e-cig puff for only 1.8 seconds? A SHORT puff for me is at least 5 seconds. So if I do the math right am I getting 4 times the amount for an 8 second drag? (I’m sorry, I do not like the word PUFF)
Being honest about the dangers of e-cigs is important. We need more studies obviously. The article makes no mention of US e-cigs even though the study included research here. I hope they do a study soon of USA retail juices soon also.
No matter what, if I can reduce my risk at all I am happy. After almost 1 year of vaping, I am smilin’.
Philippe Caron-Boutin on March 15th, 2013 7:49 pm
great blogging
DemonFire on March 16th, 2013 5:31 am
Nice to see some actual testing. Thanks for the article!
saboinia on March 18th, 2013 1:20 pm
>:} luv luv lvu this >:}
Courtney C on March 18th, 2013 10:33 pm
Still safer than analogs!
Avon Jon on March 19th, 2013 10:00 pm
Interesting. I’m a little surprised at the chemicals found. When I started vaping I was under the impression it was just “water vapor” with 3 ingredients (PG, VG, Nicotine) and the flavor (used to make candy). Not sure how all these chemicals get int here. more will be revealed I’m sure, but they have to be significantly less harmful than cigarettes. I read another article that said a lifetime of vaping is like smoking for 2 months.
Ralph on March 24th, 2013 2:12 pm
more studies needed so we can tell of f these ignorant people
stogismkr on March 24th, 2013 6:32 pm
More studies need to be conducted, however, it can be seen that e-cigs are less harmful than conventional cigs.
Rob on March 24th, 2013 10:08 pm
The test needs to reference the type and composition of the e-liquid. I suspect that the high street brands are mainly PG based, and it is wrong to brand e-cigs as dangerous per se when it might be just one chemical in the e-liquid that is the problem. I started vaping with PG e-liquid, found it very chemical tasting and it left my mouth dry. I now use e-liquid with no PG, and as I sell it of course I would like to see a test on e-liquid with no PG. Thinking about it, if a test found PG to be very nasty and VG not at all, that would boost sales! LOL
curlypeggy on March 24th, 2013 11:24 pm
I think this is very informative. I really think that more testing should be done for a more conclusive result.
crystalT64 on March 27th, 2013 3:48 pm
i think if extensive testing is done in the end we will end up with a safer vape because that is what the manufactures need to be able to say and if there is any negative findings out there i think they will be quick to fix it. I want to know all there is to know about what i am vaping and i want them to remedy any severe issues. thanks for sharing, good article
cobaltjord on April 4th, 2013 10:07 pm
I just want to know that I am not in as much danger as I was. It is an improvement, that is obvious with my breathing, now I CAN breathe.