https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/e-cigarettes-release-toxic-chemicals-indoors-should-be-included-clean-indoor-air-laws-and-policies#comment-179
If you are considered a scientist, is it worse to be thought incompetent, or to be a liar?
I submitted the following comment, but I suspect it has as much chance of being approved and posted as I have of winning the Miss America pageant.
BTW: I am not a scientist by training or profession. But from all appearances, I'm a better scientist than Dr. Glantz.
e-cigarettes release toxic chemicals indoors, should be included in clean indoor air laws and policies
Submitted by sglantz on Wed, 2012-09-19 17:59
A study published in Indoor Air from the Fraunhofer Wilhelm-Klauditz-Institut in Germany examined secondhand emissions from several e-cigarettes in a human exposure chamber. Each e-cigarette was puffed 6 times and data were collected for a conventional cigarette, also puffed 6 timed.
While the e-cigarette produced lower levels of toxins in the air for nonsmokers to breathe than the conventional, there were still elevated levels of acetic acid, acetone, isoprene, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, averaging around 20% of what the conventional cigarette put into the air.
Thus, while not as polluting as a conventional cigarette, the e-cigarettes are putting detectable levels of several significant carcinogens and toxins in the air.
No one should have to breathe these chemicals, whether they come out of a conventional or e-cigarette. No one should smoke e-cigarettes indoors that are free of other forms of tobacco smoke pollution.
If you are considered a scientist, is it worse to be thought incompetent, or to be a liar?
I submitted the following comment, but I suspect it has as much chance of being approved and posted as I have of winning the Miss America pageant.
Diskin, et al. conducted a study of the concentrations of the common breath metabolites ammonia, acetone, isoprene, ethanol and acetaldehyde in the breath of five subjects over a period of 30 days. Breath samples were taken and analysed in the early morning on arrival at the laboratory. Time variation of ammonia, acetone, isoprene and ethanol in breath: a quantitative SIFT-MS study over 30 days | Health & Environmental Research Online (HERO) | US EPA
It is enlightening to compare their results for the three compounds that correspond to three of the six e-cigarette exhaled vapor compounds in the Indoor Air study.
The Indoor Air study measured a concentration of 25 mcg/m3 of Acetone, which converts to 10.39 PPB. In Diskins study, Acetone ranged from 293-870 PPB.
The Indoor Air study found 10 mcg/m3 of Isoprene, which converts to 3.54 PPB. Compare to 55-171 PPB in Diskins study.
The Indoor Air study found 3 mcg/m3 of Acetaldehyde, which converts to 1.64 PPB, compared with 2-5 PPB in Diskins study.
Therefore for these three compounds, bystanders would be in greater danger if exposed to exhaled breath of ordinary non-smoking, non-vaping citizens.
Three additional compounds were noted in the Indoor Air study. The quantities were reported as micrograms per cubic meter by the German researchers. OSHA Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) are expressed as milligrams per cubic meter. To convert to mg/m3, divide the mcg value by 1000.
2-Butanone (MEK) = 0.002 mg/m3 (OSHA PEL = 590 mg/m3)
Acetic acid = 0.014 mg/m3 (OSHA PEL = 25 mg/m3)
Formaldehyde = 0.016 mg/m3 (OSHA PEL = 0.661 mg/m3)
When all the scientific data are considered, we must conclude that bystanders are in no danger whatsoever from exhaled vapor, as the highest concentration measured represents a mere 2.4% of the OSHA PEL, and the remaining 5 compounds represent a fraction of 1% of the OSHA PEL.
BTW: I am not a scientist by training or profession. But from all appearances, I'm a better scientist than Dr. Glantz.