nicotine analog vs ecig?

[zrb0529]

what's the difference in amount of absorbed nicotine from an analog to an ecig?

i would imagin the concentration would be higher via the ecig as the vapor would be easier to absorb into the blood...or am I mistaken?

[soylent]

I don't know how much you actually absorb and I'm sure it depends a lot on how long you hold it in for. I would agree that vaping probably allows your lungs to absorb more since there's hardly any other chemicals getting inhaled and you don't have things like tar blocking your intake.

The good part about vaping is you can get or create your own level of nicotine by the mg. Where cigarette levels are just rings of holes in the filter or a longer filter.

[smc]

I was always under the impression the absorption rate from analog is higher then with the e-cig. With an analog you are essentially freebasing nicotine. This is from the way they chemically treat the tobacco. I could be wrong though....

[Ez Duzit]

I was always under the impression the absorption rate from analog is higher then with the e-cig. With an analog you are essentially freebasing nicotine. This is from the way they chemically treat the tobacco. I could be wrong though....

Ding ding ding.....we have a winner.

[KevinD872]

A friend of mine orded an e-cig today and we were discussing lung issues (nothing too serious, but his reason for quitting smoking), and I told him that I thought I read somewhere that the nicotine you get from e-cigs is more readily absorbed in the mouth than lungs, and if that were true, then he could possibly still get his nicotine and do his lungs an even bigger favor by not inhaling the e-cig if he desired.

I just looked around the forum though and now I can't find that info. So I guess I'll just ask: Has it been determined how the nicotine in an e-cig gets absorbed? Lungs or mouth lining? I remember seeing some kind of debate over this in an old thread but I could swear that it was tested and determined that we get nicotine more from our mouth than lungs with the e-cig.... the opposite of how a real cigarette works. Or does it depend on the juice and PH of said juice?

[Hawkeye]

It was confirmed by several that nicotine from cigarettes is much more than from ecigs.

[smc]

I just looked around the forum though and now I can't find that info. So I guess I'll just ask: Has it been determined how the nicotine in an e-cig gets absorbed? Lungs or mouth lining?

I have not herd of such a study. I doubt it has been done. If any lab has done such a study they are most likely in china. A good place to start would be health journals.

IMO, I would think both analog and ecig have the same absorbtion rate within the mouth. The only factor that would preclude me from making this assumption is the fact nicotine is bonded to chemical(s) within an analog. As mentioned in a previous post this is done by the manufacturers to increase the absorption rate.

Peer reviewed journels would be a good place to start looking for this type of information. A quick search of Springer Link found this

Update: I found this, and it appears the paper was published/presented at a conference.

Update 2: The information (abstract) is listed in the poster session abstract on page(139 Paper) section POS5-11. This is available here.

Link to discussion of poster

[yvilla]

Here's a lengthy thread that discusses this topic:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/for...-research.html

[smc]

Abstract from the paper:

RUYAN NICOTINE ELECTRONIC INHALER/
E-CIGARETTE: BENCH-TOP TESTS
Murray Laugesen, M.B.Ch.B.*, Health New Zealand Ltd

Background: These flameless electronic devices, marketed as cigarette substitutes,
claim to provide nicotine without smoke toxicants. Is this claim justified?

Aim: To assess the Ruyan e-inhaler and its mist for safety and dose. Method
Mist, cartridge liquid, and headspace above liquid, tested in various (8) laboratories.
Smoking machine (50 mL puff for 2 seconds every 30 seconds) compares
puff chemistry of Ruyan 16 mg nicotine e-inhaler with 18 mg nicotine “mini e-cigarette”
inhaler. Propylene glycol and inhaled nicotine tested and safety reviewed.

Results: Chemistry. Ruyan mist is 82% propylene glycol, 15% water, 1% freebased
nicotine, and 2% particulates and flavours, formed without combustion.
Cartridges labeled 16 mg nicotine, contained 13 mg. Per puff nicotine was 0.009
mg. (Minibrand 0.048 mg.) Toxicology and safety. Cigarette toxicants, including
carbon monoxide were absent, or found in very low concentrations. Heavy metals
were not detectable. Trace levels of tobacco specific nitrosamines were similar to
the levels found in medicinal nicotine. Monoamine oxidase inhibitor, effect, found
in tobacco smoke extract; absent.

Conclusions: Nicotine e-inhalers varied by per-puff nicotine, but delivered much
less per puff than a regular cigarette. The inhaled mist has a safety profile akin to
a medicinal nicotine inhaler. Personal use imports should be allowed until some
brands qualify for retail sale, as cigarette substitute, medicinal inhaler, or both.
Ruyan(Holdings) Ltd Beijing funded Health NZ to carry out the tests. British
American Tobacco GR&D (UK) independently analysed the mist.
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Murray Laugesen, M.B.Ch.B., Public Health
Physician, Health New Zealand Ltd (address, phone removed)

[KevinD872]

I have not herd of such a study. I doubt it has been done. If any lab has done such a study they are most likely in china. A good place to start would be health journals.

IMO, I would think both analog and ecig have the same absorbtion rate within the mouth. The only factor that would preclude me from making this assumption is the fact nicotine is bonded to chemical(s) within an analog. As mentioned in a previous post this is done by the manufacturers to increase the absorption rate.

Peer reviewed journels would be a good place to start looking for this type of information. A quick search of Springer Link found this

Update: I found this, and it appears the paper was published/presented at a conference. I personally dismiss papers that are not peer reviewed or presented at a conference as pure bull sh$t.

Update 2: It does not appear any of this information was published. The information (abstract) is listed in the poster session abstract on page (98 for PDF) (139 Paper) section POS5-11. This is available here. Even though it was not published, this does not negate the validity of this research. Given this is a medical field I would assume much more time would be needed to prepare a scientific paper. This poster session is probably used to display early research.

I still can't find the thread I was reading the other day. Oh well. It was from early 2008 and who knows where exactly it is buried here!

Anyway, I did find this:
http://www.healthnz.co.nz/DublinBenchtopHandout.pdf

While it doesn't really answer my question, it does suggest that the delivery method of the e-cig isn't as effective as regular cigarettes in delivering nicotine into the lungs. The report suggests that in similar sized puffs, the user gets 10% of the nicotine they would get from a Marlboro Red, and this was with a 16mg cartridge.

"Site of nicotine absorption:

No deposition of
aerosol nicotine occurred on pulling mist through a
cascade impactor, indicating very small particle

size and little or no absorption from lung."

That doesn't necessarily mean you get more nicotine absorbed in your mouth lining than your lungs, but does explain the 10% of nicotine thing.