Health risks of e-cigarettes emerge - ScienceNews

[DaveP]

This current article reeks of anti-ecig propaganda, especially when it talks about formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. But as they begin to talk about high voltage and particle size and how that allows particulates of vapor to enter deeper into the lungs, the article begins to sound like real science.

I've always thought the safest method of vaping is to hold the vapor in the mouth and only inhale enough to be able to exhale through the nose, exposing more mucous membranes to the nicotine in the vapor. I've long held the opinion that lower voltages produce safer vaping.

I really wish more unbiased studies were funded so that we could get ALL of the real truth about ecigs without the negative speculation.

"https://www.sciencenews.org/article/health-risks-e-cigarettes-emerge"
(Copy and paste the URL to link to the article)

Vaping pollutes lungs with toxic chemicals and may even make antibiotic-resistant bacteria harder to kill
by Janet Raloff
4:31pm, June 3, 2014

<snip>

But the higher temperatures also can trigger a thermal breakdown of the solvents, producing the carbonyls, explains Maciej Goniewicz of the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, N.Y. If users of second-generation e-cigarettes maximize the power on their devices while using vaping liquids containing a solvent mix of glycerin and propylene glycol, formaldehyde levels can reach that found in tobacco smoke, his team reports May 15 in Nicotine & Tobacco Research.


Such compounds in smoke are mainly a concern if they make it all the way into the lungs. Many biologists think particle size and count are key, says Glantz. Vapers can inhale huge numbers of very small aerosols — the most toxic size — that can then deposit into the lung’s tiniest airways, which are pivotal to moving air into the body.


The median diameter of vaping particles falls around 200 to 300 nanometers, based on unpublished data from Jonathan Thornburg and others at RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C. That size “is right in line with conventional tobacco smoke,” Thornburg says.

The mass of particles in the vapors is about 3 milligrams per cubic meter of air, he says, or about 100 times as high as the Environmental Protection Agency’s 24-hour exposure limit for levels of fine air particles. Thornburg’s group’s analyses predict that some 40 percent of these inhaled particles would deposit in the lungs’ smallest, deepest airways.

 

[sonicdsl]

These are some of the things Dr. Farsalinos is looking into if I understand correctly. Hopefully he, or someone else trustworthy, will study this soon!

 

[DrMA]

I will say this again: there are no particles in vapor. Particles refer to tiny bits of solid matter, whereas vapor is comprised solely of small liquid droplets.

Any research that claims to have measured particles or particle size in vapor using optical or opacity-based methods is knowingly lying and maliciously distorting science to fulfill the predetermined ANTZ agenda.

Ott, we already know that RTI and all the other Research Triangle fellows mentioned in the article are FDA shills and ANTZ of the lowest, most malevolent species.

 

[Cool_Breeze]

If all the energy and money that is being spent to counter e-cigarettes was spent on R & D for safe vaping we wouldn't see articles like this.

 

[Nikkel]

I've always thought the safest method of vaping is to hold the vapor in the mouth and only inhale enough to be able to exhale through the nose, exposing more mucous membranes to the nicotine in the vapor.

From the perspective of a non-vaper, that would be the most dangerous method of vaping. It would expose the non-vaper to the maximum amount of air pollution. Vapers are selfish. They are acutely concerned with their own safety and tend to have little or no regard for the safety of others who share their atmosphere.
From the perspective of a non-vaper, the safest method of vaping would be for the vaper to inhale deeply and hold it in as long as possible so that the maximum amount of chemicals, particles, and carcinogens are absorbed into the body of the vaper, so that the minimum amount would be exhaled into the atmosphere.

 

[Nikkel]

If all the energy and money that is being spent to counter e-cigarettes was spent on R & D for safe vaping we wouldn't see articles like this.

Such articles constitute the "R". They are immediately discounted by most vapers, juice sellers, and mod sellers because they suggest there are dangers.

 

[Kent C]

And tbaker is 'moved on'?

 

[AndriaD]

Such articles constitute the "R". They are immediately discounted by most vapers, juice sellers, and mod sellers because they suggest there are dangers.

No, they're discounted immediately by those folks because they're 99.999% drivel. NO PARTICLES! They're talking about something that doesn't exist as if it were actually a real thing. That is disinformation at the highest level.

Andria

 

[DrMA]

Such articles constitute the "R". They are immediately discounted by most vapers, juice sellers, and mod sellers because they suggest there are dangers.

No matter how many idiots make measurements to "show" the earth is flat, it makes that notion no less nonsense than finding particles in vapor. Neither constitutes "research", they're both quackery and should be summarily dismissed, just like we've done here.

 

[rurwin]

The mass of particles in the vapors is about 3 milligrams per cubic meter of air, he says, or about 100 times as high as the Environmental Protection Agency’s 24-hour exposure limit for levels of fine air particles.

But it isn't 24 hours.
It's maybe 300 puffs of 4 seconds per day, or 20 minutes per day. That's 1/72 of a day.
So I'm exposed to about the EPA's exposure limit, and the "particles" are at least almost entirely safe for inhalation. Whereas the EPA's limit is based on solid particles that may not break down in the lungs. I'm happy with that.

Edit:
The EPA limit is 50 micrograms per m³ averaged over 24 hours*, so the "about 100 times" is reaching rather. They missed a trick though, since the limit averaged over a year is only 15 micrograms per m³. "200 times the annual limit" would have sounded even more dramatic.


---
* http://web.viu.ca/krogh/chem302/Atmospheric Aerosols.pdf

 

[DaveP]

The article sounded far too biased to me, also. Hence the reason I posted the link in plain text instead of URL. Web sniffers may pick it up due to structure, but hopefully not.

At any rate, it's just the type of article that ANTZ would propagate. My amazement is based on why the heck the FDA is still supporting the cash cow state of tobacco if ecigs are so iffy. There's no mystery surrounding tobacco. It's a proven killer.

 

[Nikkel]

I will say this again: there are no particles in vapor. Particles refer to tiny bits of solid matter, whereas vapor is comprised solely of small liquid droplets.
Any research that claims to have measured particles or particle size in vapor using optical or opacity-based methods is knowingly lying and maliciously distorting science to fulfill the predetermined ANTZ agenda.
Ott, we already know that RTI and all the other Research Triangle fellows mentioned in the article are FDA shills and ANTZ of the lowest, most malevolent species.

Unadulterated malarkey, no matter how many times you say it.
Here is an analogy:
There are no fish in water. Fish are large animate objects composed of complex proteins, whereas water is composed solely of tiny inanimate molecules of hydrogen and oxygen. Any research that claims there are fish in water is bogus.

 

[Nikkel]

no particles!

no fish!
-------------

 

[Nikkel]

The article sounded far too biased to me, also. Hence the reason I posted the link in plain text instead of URL. Web sniffers may pick it up due to structure, but hopefully not.
At any rate, it's just the type of article that ANTZ would propagate. My amazement is based on why the heck the FDA is still supporting the cash cow state of tobacco if ecigs are so iffy. There's no mystery surrounding tobacco. It's a proven killer.

Try to resist the inclination to see research that suggests vaping might be harmful as being bogus. Realize that suppressing this information won't make it go away. It is in our best interest that we learn the truth, good or bad, about vaping.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

 

[sonicdsl]

Good:

BMC Public Health | Full text | Peering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks

Electronic cigarettes, contrary to tobacco, do not stiffen the arteries

No adverse effects on blood and oxygen supply to the heart by electronic cigarette use

Evaluation of the cytotoxic potential of e-cigarette vapor on cultured cardiac cells: a new study

http://casaa.org/uploads/DublinEcigBenchtopHandout.pdf

Bad:

(Might be some issues with flavorings (diacetyl etc, and high wattage on others)...report isn't complete as of the time of this writing).

 

[Cool_Breeze]

Perhaps 'particle' was a poorly chosen term.

 

[DaveP]

Perhaps 'particle' was a poorly chosen term.

Nothing is completely pure, even water, especially water. If you freeze water, it becomes a solid and can be smashed into particles. I'll buy that atomized ecig vapor contains particles, just not in the solid form we think about. We think atomized droplets when we think vapor. Vapor is wide dispersion of the components of a liquid.

http://chemistrycrazymax.wikispaces.com/Particulate+model+of+matter

The particles in a liquid are farther away from one another than the particles in a solid . However, the particles in a liquid are still held closely together. Thus, like solids, liquids have a fixed volume and cannot be compressed.

Unlike solids, however, the particles in a liquid are not fixed in regular positions and are able to slide past one another. This is why a liquid has no definite shape.

 

[Nikkel]

Bad:

(Might be some issues with flavorings (diacetyl etc, and high wattage on others)...report isn't complete as of the time of this writing).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

 

[rurwin]

Particle does not mean molocule, in either interpretation.

Particle is generally assumed to be solid, like the particles in cigarette smoke. The vast majority of particles in vapour are liquid and have known and safe composition.

One of Glantz's papers** says this:

Czogala et al49 conducted a chamber study of secondhand exposure to e-cigarette aerosol compared with cigarette smoke, finding that, on average, bystanders would be exposed to nicotine but at levels 1/10th that of cigarette smoke (e-cigarette aerosol, 3.32±2.49 μg/m3; cigarette smoke, 31.60±6.91 μg/m3; P=0.008). Both e-cigarette aerosol and cigarette smoke contained fine particles (PM2.5), with e-cigarette aerosol particle concentrations ranging from 6.6 to 85.0 μg/m3. E-cigarette aerosol was not a source of exposure to carbon monoxide, a key combustion element of conventional cigarette smoke.

That is at odds with the 3mg/m³ figure by a factor of five hundred. Can we read the paper that 3mg figure came from? No.

based on unpublished data from Jonathan Thornburg and others at RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C.

We can, however, make a guess. The 3mg figure appears to be somewhat in line with the mass of eliquid vapourised. One might suppose then that this figure is for liquid particles, which will be mostly VG and PG. The smaller figure of 6.6 to 85.0 μg/m3 would then be the concentration of solid particles, and this is one tenth of the concentration in cigarette smoke.

If we were to scale* the highest of those figures to compare it with the EPA limits, we would get 1.1 μg/m³ averaged over 24 hours. That compares to the EPA limit of 50 μg/m³ for 24 hours, and 15 μg/m3 averaged over a year. We are therefore under those limits by more than a factor of ten even if we use the highest concentration figure published by ANTZ and a more stringent limit than they invoke.

They don't say what the particles are composed of, but they are not heavy metals. Here's data from the same Glantz paper:

Cadmium, ng ND–0.022 … 0.003
Nickel, ng 0.011–0.029 … 0.019
Lead, ng 0.003–0.057 … 0.004

The range is for an e-cigarette, the final figure on each line is for a nicotine inhaler, which we might assume is perfectly safe. In each case it is for 15 puffs, maybe 15 litres of air. Let's scale that up to m³.

Cadmium: 1.5 ng = 0.0015 μg/m³
Nickel: 1.9 ng = 0.0019 μg/m³
Lead: 3.8 ng = 0.0038 μg/m³


---
* 300, 4 second puffs per day = 20 minutes of breathing vapour. So we divide by 72.
** circ.ahajournals.org / content / 129 / 19 / 1972.full

 

[Nikkel]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates
"Atmospheric particulate matter – also known as particulates or particulate matter (PM) – are tiny pieces of solid or liquid matter associated with the Earth's atmosphere."