- Status
OK, Cheers. Sorry about broken link. Probs because I was trying not to make it a link 
This looks like a clickbait smear campaign. Remember popcorn lung or formaldehyde or antifreeze?
I would have been Nice if the funding for this Study didn't come from someone with such a Financial Interest in the results.
Acknowledgments
This study is supported by the Cigarette Restitution Fund (State of Maryland; grant PHPA-G2034). P.O. was supported by the Alfonso Martín Escudero Foundation (postdoctoral fellowship 2014). A.A. was supported by the American Heart Association Tobacco Regulation and Addiction Center (grant 1P50HL120163). A.N.A., M.H., and P.O. are supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences/National Institutes of Health (grant 5P30ES009089).
Environmental Health Perspectives – Metal Concentrations in e-Cigarette Liquid and Aerosol Samples: The Contribution of Metallic Coils
But I guess as Big as the e-Cigarettes market has become, it is Hard to Find someone who doesn't have a Financial Interest.
Another version of the story:
Lead, arsenic and other toxins inhaled when smoking e-cigarettes
It's an interesting thing, particularly since she used vaper's own devices (although HOW they are used/tested is a consideration).
Like Rossum said, I'm not sweating it too much. Still, reducing these metals would be a good idea if practical. Lead in particular is surprising, I don't think they use lead-based solder or metals. In the juice??? why?
Of course, you can probably find trace lead in orange juice. Probably from all those gun nuts (@Rossum) target practicing near the orange groves. 
Lead, arsenic and other toxins inhaled when smoking e-cigarettes
It's an interesting thing, particularly since she used vaper's own devices (although HOW they are used/tested is a consideration).
Like Rossum said, I'm not sweating it too much. Still, reducing these metals would be a good idea if practical. Lead in particular is surprising, I don't think they use lead-based solder or metals. In the juice??? why?
Of course, you can probably find trace lead in orange juice. Probably from all those gun nuts (@Rossum) target practicing near the orange groves.
You can find traces of anything in just about everything. Our ability to find stuff at parts-per-billion (and even lower) concentrations has induced much paranoia because we neglect the perspective that, "The dose makes the poison".
do they say what power setting they use on each device? or the resistance of the coil? or the condition of the coil or the particular eliquid used? Were they creating dry puff conditions? Do they directly compare with cigarette emissions? Are they saying the metals they detected were also in the liquid bottle? did they compare the concentrations to the ambient air drawn through the atomizer? I'll wait for Dr. F's comments. If this is so serious how was it overlooked for 10 years?
It wasn't. We've been talking about different wires and their potential toxicity for a very long time. I even asked the good doctor directly about that four years ago:
Evolv Technology Owners Discussion Thread
His response:
Evolv Technology Owners Discussion Thread
I'm still waiting for Dr. Farsalinos to do that wire study, but he has no money, apparently.
Agreed on antifreeze--that was a blatant lie.
Somewhat agreed on popcorn lung, but I don't use e-liquids with diketones myself anymore--easily avoidable potential danger.
Formaldehyde and other nasties? Not quite.
New studies find carcinogens in vg and pg at high temps, even in tootle puffers
Last edited:
The test subject was first generation cigalikes correct? It's been so long since I have used them. I remember filling them but I don't recall a removable coil. I had the pass through and battery but not a coil? They were made by Njoy. Someone refresh my memory. Do the Big T have the "coil" in each eliquid filled tank? Would the increased levels be due to the liquid sitting with the metal?? Just thoughts swirling in my head. Cigarettes have metals too.
Pretty sure the air around here has lead and other metals in it. Maybe not as bad as some places but don't sweat the small stuff.
I plan not to not until it's definitively discovered one way or another as far as "toxicity." I think the study is interesting but far from definitive and I just have trouble worrying too much ahead of time until "more is known." There's only so much worry I can handle. Etc.
This in no way reflects my thoughts on whether certain metals are safer than others, I imagine some will be identified. My point is, until and unless they are, it's not worth spending my worry on it.
Anna
This in no way reflects my thoughts on whether certain metals are safer than others, I imagine some will be identified. My point is, until and unless they are, it's not worth spending my worry on it.
Anna
I haven't seen anything about temps, isn't that what has been a potential problem stated in the past?
Suggestion
Read this from Dr. F Published Jan. 2018...(it's long, but shows many contradictions in studies - you can short-cut by reading the last few sentences of each study :- ) but reading the whole thing will help with some of the emotional/biased responses in some of the links above.)
It lists all? the studies done on carbonyl emissions - many contradicting each other. Many methods used not at all like real life experiences.
Carbonyl Emissions in E-cigarette Aerosol: A Systematic Review and Methodological Considerations
Conclusion:
Carbonyl emissions in e-cigarettes represent an important research topic that has generated a lot of interest. The present review identified different methodologies used in the laboratory assessment of carbonyl emissions. Of particular concern is the large diversity of puffing patterns used, which makes comparisons difficult while in some cases the puffing regime was unrealistic. While varying puffing patterns is understandable considering the diversity of e-cigarette device performance and functional characteristics, it seems that choice of puffing regimes was not based on these parameters. The variability of reported units of carbonyl emissions can also create confusion and may be difficult to interpret. A reasonable recommendation would be to report values per amount of liquid consumption. [my note: this is compared to puff counting - which is not what vapers use. and liquid consumption comparisons are lower in carbonyls than the studies that used puff counting]. Additionally, analytical methods need to be accurately validated since the possibility of false positive and false negative results is of concern due to the complexity of ingredients in flavored liquids. [my note: some studies found no increase from flavored vs. unflavored. Some found differently] Finally, it is particularly important that laboratory studies ensure that no dry puffs are generated under laboratory conditions; otherwise testing realistic conditions relevant to true human exposure cannot be ensured and the findings could be misleading and misinformative for consumers and regulators. [my note: this is likely the most significant since none of us go past one dry hit, whereas some studies continued testing regardless. I personally haven't had a dry hit since going to bottom coils - 2011?] A result of these research discrepancies is that the reported carbonyl emissions varied from extremely low (lower not only compared to tobacco cigarette but also compared to environmental levels) to extremely high (up to orders of magnitude higher than tobacco cigarettes. Further research should consider all these concerns in order to improve research quality and find ways to reduce thermal degradation and carbonyl emissions from e-cigarettes.
Read this from Dr. F Published Jan. 2018...(it's long, but shows many contradictions in studies - you can short-cut by reading the last few sentences of each study :- ) but reading the whole thing will help with some of the emotional/biased responses in some of the links above.)
It lists all? the studies done on carbonyl emissions - many contradicting each other. Many methods used not at all like real life experiences.
Carbonyl Emissions in E-cigarette Aerosol: A Systematic Review and Methodological Considerations
Conclusion:
Carbonyl emissions in e-cigarettes represent an important research topic that has generated a lot of interest. The present review identified different methodologies used in the laboratory assessment of carbonyl emissions. Of particular concern is the large diversity of puffing patterns used, which makes comparisons difficult while in some cases the puffing regime was unrealistic. While varying puffing patterns is understandable considering the diversity of e-cigarette device performance and functional characteristics, it seems that choice of puffing regimes was not based on these parameters. The variability of reported units of carbonyl emissions can also create confusion and may be difficult to interpret. A reasonable recommendation would be to report values per amount of liquid consumption. [my note: this is compared to puff counting - which is not what vapers use. and liquid consumption comparisons are lower in carbonyls than the studies that used puff counting]. Additionally, analytical methods need to be accurately validated since the possibility of false positive and false negative results is of concern due to the complexity of ingredients in flavored liquids. [my note: some studies found no increase from flavored vs. unflavored. Some found differently] Finally, it is particularly important that laboratory studies ensure that no dry puffs are generated under laboratory conditions; otherwise testing realistic conditions relevant to true human exposure cannot be ensured and the findings could be misleading and misinformative for consumers and regulators. [my note: this is likely the most significant since none of us go past one dry hit, whereas some studies continued testing regardless. I personally haven't had a dry hit since going to bottom coils - 2011?] A result of these research discrepancies is that the reported carbonyl emissions varied from extremely low (lower not only compared to tobacco cigarette but also compared to environmental levels) to extremely high (up to orders of magnitude higher than tobacco cigarettes. Further research should consider all these concerns in order to improve research quality and find ways to reduce thermal degradation and carbonyl emissions from e-cigarettes.
I remember thinking, months ago, that there are millions of electric stove burners and space heaters with massive amounts of wire glowing red hot, far hotter than wire vaporizing e liquid, in enclosed indoor spaces. If vaping coils are creating concerning levels of metals shouldn't that be a much bigger problem with stoves and space heaters which have been arouond for 100 years?
Last edited:
I was just going to post this as well --
Study: Lead and other toxic metals found in e-cigarette 'vapors'
Here's a response that does a great job of putting things into perspective.
smear tactic against vape industry alert!!! • r/electronic_cigarette
And here is what Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos had to say about it on his facebook page -
He will be speaking at the E Cig Summit later this year
Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos M.D » E-Cigarette Summit 2018
Study: Lead and other toxic metals found in e-cigarette 'vapors'
Here's a response that does a great job of putting things into perspective.
smear tactic against vape industry alert!!! • r/electronic_cigarette
And here is what Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos had to say about it on his facebook page -
He will be speaking at the E Cig Summit later this year
Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos M.D » E-Cigarette Summit 2018
Last edited:
the "first-gen" pen type test was their first test released in february last year. the newest report, is on random mods/tanks and the exhaled vapor (they call aerosol). they dont list mod type (store bought or home made), they dont list coil type (nico/ss etc), they dont list ejuice brand type, etc. apparently all random with widely varying ranges of levels. sounds way too generalized to me.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
