Another on particle size; translation?

[ABx009]

I found this study while trying to find the one that I'm sure everyone is already familiar with (that the particles produced in vapor are ultra-fine, compared to smoke, and speculates that that could cause problems)
Electronic cigarette aerosol particle size distribution measurements. - PubMed - NCBI

Could someone help with the translation? This looks like it's saying that the ultra-fine particles were due to a method that dilutes the liquid, and when you use another method for measuring particle size, the particles are as big or bigger than in smoke.

I'd also be interested in any extrapolation that can be offered (what it means to us).

 

[ronnbert]

I have always heard that the vapor molecules were bigger than smoke particulates, explaining why the nicotine is better absorbed in the mouth/nose instead of in the lungs like smoke. I will have to read the article when it is not 3 am though. Getting pretty droopy eyed. Thanks for the link though, will investigate further!

 

[Archer74]

I read something similar to this and they say "these particle size are small enough to get in to the deeper areas of the lungs"
and the first thought that came to my mind was, "why are they comparing a rain cloud to a dust cloud?"
Just what is in ecig vapor and what is in smoke? smoke have solid particles, does ecig vapor have solid particles? ecig vapor doesn't magically turn from liquid to gas and condense into a tiny solid particle does it?

 

[ABx009]

I read something similar to this and they say "these particle size are small enough to get in to the deeper areas of the lungs"
and the first thought that came to my mind was, "why are they comparing a rain cloud to a dust cloud?"
Just what is in ecig vapor and what is in smoke? smoke have solid particles, does ecig vapor have solid particles? ecig vapor doesn't magically turn from liquid to gas and condense into a tiny solid particle does it?

I was responding to the IFLScience article that brought up the whole "tiny particles are bad for you" thing again. The idea reported was that it gets deeper into the lungs and puts a burden on the lungs regardless of the contents. Just pointing out that the whole premise was wrong seemed a better track.

I have always heard that the vapor molecules were bigger than smoke particulates, explaining why the nicotine is better absorbed in the mouth/nose instead of in the lungs like smoke.

I also pointed out that critics also state the opposite problem (that it doesn't deliver nicotine as efficiently, and so it couldn't possibly work, as if that were the only factor in why people would switch)