Is Nicotine released into the air when exhaling?

[Eric in AK]

Because inhaled nicotine is over 98% absorbed6, the exhaled ‘smoke’ is propylene glycol
minus the nicotine, and any exhaled PG mist dissipates within seconds. Without the
gaseous products of combustion, the ‘smoke’ is not harmful to bystanders. The ‘smoke’
or mist is not tobacco smoke, and not from combustion – no flame is lit – and is not
defined as environmental tobacco smoke. and e-cigarette “smoking” would be permitted
under New Zealand’s Smoke free Environments Act31.

this is from NZ`s report: http://www.healthnz.co.nz/2ndSafetyReport_9Apr08.pdf

I thought I should point out a couple things about this "scientific" report, and the quote above:

• The quoted text is from the earlier version of the report (April 2008). In October 2008 a revision was released, and the quoted passage above was edited to clarify that this "98%" figure refers to tobacco smoke. The author of this supposed study says, "
  Inhaled nicotine in cigarette smoke is over 98% absorbed​
  6, and so the exhaled mist of the e-cigarette is composed of propylene glycol, and probably contains almost no nicotine; and no CO." Taken from page 21 of the October report. [Hilarious! Who the hell is writing this?! A scientist? Get real!] [Separate note: The footnote number in the cited text leads to no actual reference for its source.]​
• Health New Zealand is not a government agency. This isn't an organization that is the equivalent of either the FDA or a university biochemistry department.​
• The report contains anecdotal evidence that is tossed out there as if it lends credence to the conclusions in the report. [Example: "​
  Non-smoking bystanders do not find the mist unpleasant." WTH?]
  ​
  ​
• The laboratory tests they claim to have conducted did not include a chemical analysis of exhaled vapor. Nor, for that matter, did they include analysis of exhaled smoke from regular cigarettes.
  
  ​
  ​

Anyone who thinks that their lungs and airways are magically extracting 98% of the nicotine in the vapor while still releasing a large quantity of vapor on the exhale should probably sign up as a "scientist" with Health New Zealand, because they'd probably cite you as an authority.

Bottom line: This was a bought and paid for promotional report that has served exactly the purpose Ruyan intended: It conveys a quasi-authoritative air to the question of PV safety. The reason there were two reports? Just a hunch, but it might have had something to do with the detection of benzene in the samples they tested for the first report. Just a hunch.​

​

 

[Kate51]

I thought I should point out a couple things about this "scientific" report, and the quote above:

• The quoted text is from the earlier version of the report (April 2008). In October 2008 a revision was released, and the quoted passage above was edited to clarify that this "98%" figure refers to tobacco smoke. The author of this supposed study says, "
  Inhaled nicotine in cigarette smoke is over 98% absorbed​
  6, and so the exhaled mist of the e-cigarette is composed of propylene glycol, and probably contains almost no nicotine; and no CO." Taken from page 21 of the October report. [Hilarious! Who the hell is writing this?! A scientist? Get real!] [Separate note: The footnote number in the cited text leads to no actual reference for its source.]​
• Health New Zealand is not a government agency. This isn't an organization that is the equivalent of either the FDA or a university biochemistry department.​
• The report contains anecdotal evidence that is tossed out there as if it lends credence to the conclusions in the report. [Example: "​
  
  
  
  Non-smoking bystanders do not find the mist unpleasant." WTH?]​
  
  
• The laboratory tests they claim to have conducted did not include a chemical analysis of exhaled vapor. Nor, for that matter, did they include analysis of exhaled smoke from regular cigarettes.
  

Anyone who thinks that their lungs and airways are magically extracting 98% of the nicotine in the vapor while still releasing a large quantity of vapor on the exhale should probably sign up as a "scientist" with Health New Zealand, because they'd probably cite you as an authority.

Bottom line: This was a bought and paid for promotional report that has served exactly the purpose Ruyan intended: It conveys a quasi-authoritative air to the question of PV safety. The reason there were two reports? Just a hunch, but it might have had something to do with the detection of benzene in the samples they tested for the first report. Just a hunch.​

Excuse me, did you not go to the link provided? The text is quoted from it. The document is dated
30 October 2008
Seems to me we are talking about the same report. It was indeed paid for. Check yourself.

This version of the report includes results of further tests on mist and cartridges reported
from the laboratories since the last version on 21 October 2008. The overall conclusions
of the report are unchanged.
Source of funding and disclaimer
The Ruyan® e-cigarettes and the funds for testing them were supplied under a contract by
Ruyan (Holdings) Ltd Hong Kong, but the findings are those of the author. Neither the
author nor Health New Zealand Ltd holds stock in Ruyan (Holdings) Co. Ltd.

These tests are long and extensive, and yes, no one does them on a voluntary basis.
You seem to have found issue with the test, with the author, or with Ruyan, possibly with me for once again posting it. Why would you question the reactions of non-smoking people standing near the mist, would that not be a pertinent fact or are you simply not accepting the data. A result of what, a conspiracy theory? Perhaps you could explain more clearly and give us all some data which corroberates your assumptions.

 

[Reboot]

I am just wondering cause I have a 3 months old son and I have still been Vaping outside and not around him. And if possible I would like to stay indoors due to our freezing temp.

I really reallly need some help here!! please!! anyone..?

Unless you are blowing it in his face you should be fine. Every device I have seen is pretty much the same when it comes to this. The vapor is gone in about 8 econds. stay 3 feet away and it should never even reach your son.

Thanks sooo soo much. huge help. I ammuch relieved.

Um...so you literally meant you needed anyone to tell you it was ok. Anyone...one person says sure go ahead and you're much relieved.

I have a brand new baby, she's 3 weeks old today and I don't feel comfortable vaping around her or any of my kids for that matter. Why? Because it's safety isn't proven either way.

I'd love to believe that it is perfectly benign and that there is nothing harmful about it, but I don't. A swarm of doctors and scientific studies can swear up and down that it is perfectly ok and I still won't believe it entirely. There's no way to know yet, it'll probably take decades of use and studies before any negative side effects are discovered, if there are any to discover.

But I am a smoker, and I know for a fact that cigarettes are harmful and will kill me if I keep using them. So I'm taking a calculated risk that vaping is at least less harmful to me than cigarettes.

But my kids don't get to make that choice if I'm vaping around them. So I won't.

 

[dumwaldo]

The Ruyan study from NZ is not being accepted by the FDA, not because who funded it, but because it is not peer reviewed. The Ruyan study also did not attempt to analyze exhaled vapor from a human being. What the Ruyan study examined is what is in the vapor that is created for inhalation. Comments in the study about absorption were for reference, not conclusion.

Nobody has studied EXHALED vapor so far. There is currently a group that is putting together a study for the purpose of specifically finding out what is in the EXHALED vapor from an e-cig. Once completed the study will be peer reviewed.

Until that study is done, anything said is purely speculation.

Peace,
DW

 

[Kavik79]

Not to stir up trouble.....I haven't read the report yet (printing it to read on break), so I'm not arguing specifics here, but I've got to vent.....

-I love vaping, I've only been at it 3 weeks now, but haven't even thought about picking up a cigg since I finished the pack i was working oon when my 510 arrived in the mail.
-I love the way most people around here are so eager to help others

-BUT-
-I hate this over-protective, blind-faith mentality.
Seems to be a common thing, shown both with the discussion of the study above, and with the Original reason for this thread. People hear studies and reports and opinions that tell them what they want to hear, they accept it as an absolute truth, and if anyone questions the validity of it they get a response like Kate's above; big bold 'yelling' about needing to get your facts straight, followed by quotes and twisting people's words around.
Eric didn't say the test wasn't paid for....he said "This was a bought and paid for promotional report that has served exactly the purpose Ruyan intended".
And he's right about the fact that stating the opinion about the reaction of others around the vapor is in no way scientific at all. I'd like to just expand a bit on that example though....

Non-smoking bystanders do not find the mist unpleasant. The mist is odorless, and those close by quickly realize it does not have the odor of smoke or the irritating quality of tobacco cigarette smoke

That quote comes from the Results paragraph of Section 5: Safety of Ruyan® e-cigarette ‘smoke’ for bystanders. It's not a result, it's an opinion when made as a general statement like that, and while it could've been included as an opinion in the [bComments[/b] section below that, it never should've been stated as a result unless it was qualified by something like "Of the 10 non-smoking volunteers subjected to the vapor, none reported finding the mist unpleasant".
I have some juices people right next to me can't even smell, then I have a couple that I can't vape in my living room without my gf being offended by the smell 10+ feet away. You can't just make blanket statements of opinion and call it fact.

-I also hate that members take random people's word as law around here. Reboot is 100% right, being relieved because ONE random person on a forum said it's safe to do anything around your 3 month old?! Good lord, people don't take the word of a single doctors advice if it doesn't go along with what other doctors say, but one random person online is good enough for the safety of your child?


This isn't intended as an attack on any specific people, but I've seen this dozens of times around here and this was just too perfect of an example of both issues right in one thread. It's our personal health and safety we're talking about here, why do people not want to hear any arguments? Hell, I'd want every scrap of every report argued, questioned and picked apart until we were 110% sure of every detail in it!
Defending reports that you didn't personally oversee yourself, and taking one persons word as medical/safety advice when you have no idea of that persons qualifications, that's not going to help the common goal of what we all want.....it's going to result in a massive body of people relying on incorrect information, which will be a disaster if it turns out that information was wrong.

 

[Mustang394]

Well said Kavik!

 

[cityboy]

I'd love to see an explanation of how one's lungs or airway mucous membranes are supposedly able to extract 98% of the nicotine and leave the vapor to be exhaled. I'm really having a hard time buying that.

Maybe it is because certain things can be filtered by certain other things. Think of a coffee filter - the grounds stay in, the flavored water comes out. Magic.

Think of a cigarette. The smoke goes in, your lungs absorb the nicotene, and you exhale minus most of the nicotene. Magic.

Screen door - air comes thru - bugs dont. etc, etc.

If you are into chemistry you will know that there are many other factors that affect this "filtering" process, such as availability to bond with the components that make up your mucus membrane. We know nicotine does get absorbed from smoking, and from vaping. We feel it.

It stands to reason that there will at least be LESS coming out when you exhale.

I think the vapor is probably a better carrier than smoke.

Just my uneducated thoughts, but if you compare it to alot of other things in life it seems alot less magical, and alot easier to believe.

CB

 

[SheerLuckHolmes]

It is becoming crystal clear to me where we, as a society, are heading.

Common sense is no longer allowed, used or encouraged.

In order to make a decision for yourself, you will need:
a) the government's approval
b) No other authority will be acceptable without six other authorities approving the first and these will need six other separate authorities approving of the first six and so on.
c) six separate sources debunking any opposing view with a & b approving the avalidity of each of these sources
d) Any opposing arugments will need the above
e) When, in fact, a honest opposing argument/study is presented which has a, b & c to attest to the validity of the data being presented, only one unsubstantiated personal attack on the author will be neccessary to completely discredit and invalidate any unfortunate truths associated with said argument/studies.

This is where we are headed, and in my own unsubstantiated and un-peer reviewed opinion, we are already there.

Be prepared when venturing out to the 'approved smoker's area' to vap that you have a, b & c documentation with you in triplicate.

 

[VaporStyx]

How's this for common sense?

The babies in question are three-week and three-months old. Their lungs and immune system aren't even fully functional.

And we'll never have scientific data because of objections on testing those so young... At the very least, blow the vapor away. Better yet, vape on the other side of the room where you can still keep an eye on him.

 

[Kavik79]

Well, I made it half way through this report so far, and marked each page that contained something I had an issue with. 5 out of the 12 pages so far have their corners folded down for one or more reason per page. I'll finish reading the report, but I've already decided it means nothing as far as I'm concerned.

If you look at page 10 and 11 of the report, Table 3.1.2 states that Nicotine was not detected in the 38ml mist sample (when using 11mg/ml nic juice). It goes on to say that based on that, they assume that you only get any benefit with the larger puffs, and at a 58 ml puff their equipment was unable to return any results at that high of a concentration.
That leaves one of two conclusions:
A) They didn't provide results for a "real puff", which is what we need, since that's what we do. or
B) Their readings were off and there is nicotine in a 38ml puff, in which case, how can we trust the accuracy of any other numbers in the report?

So, basically, we're looking at a report here that in their own words "cannot obtain reliable measurements of samples that exactly mimic a smoker's puff". If they don't have equipment that can do the test accurately, what the hell are they even releasing the report for? And why is anyone bothering to defend, quote or rely on an incomplete report for something with possible health impacts?

This list could go on 5 times this long of questions I have after reading half the report.....but this is all I'm going to comment on for the time being

 

[Nuck]

I read that report months ago and it has been debated many times. It is NOT a real study and will never be submitted for peer review. You can't have anecdotal data and statements 'based on our users responses' and then pretend its science. That thing is nothing more than a press release in the pseudo form of a real study.

There is ZERO chance that 98% of the nicotine is being absorbed by the lungs. Another report that was released early and reported here by Kate showed that the actual absorption was lower than cigarettes (which sit about 10-11%)

If you are worried about exposing your children to nicotine and you've decided to avoid it, then you should wait for real data that either yourself, or some credible body you trust has reviewed. Forum users are not credible bodies

 

[dumwaldo]

Not to stir up trouble.....I haven't read the report yet (printing it to read on break), so I'm not arguing specifics here, but I've got to vent.....

-I love vaping, I've only been at it 3 weeks now, but haven't even thought about picking up a cigg since I finished the pack i was working oon when my 510 arrived in the mail.
-I love the way most people around here are so eager to help others

-BUT-
-I hate this over-protective, blind-faith mentality.
Seems to be a common thing, shown both with the discussion of the study above, and with the Original reason for this thread. People hear studies and reports and opinions that tell them what they want to hear, they accept it as an absolute truth, and if anyone questions the validity of it they get a response like Kate's above; big bold 'yelling' about needing to get your facts straight, followed by quotes and twisting people's words around.
Eric didn't say the test wasn't paid for....he said "This was a bought and paid for promotional report that has served exactly the purpose Ruyan intended".
And he's right about the fact that stating the opinion about the reaction of others around the vapor is in no way scientific at all. I'd like to just expand a bit on that example though....

That quote comes from the Results paragraph of Section 5: Safety of Ruyan® e-cigarette ‘smoke’ for bystanders. It's not a result, it's an opinion when made as a general statement like that, and while it could've been included as an opinion in the [bComments[/b] section below that, it never should've been stated as a result unless it was qualified by something like "Of the 10 non-smoking volunteers subjected to the vapor, none reported finding the mist unpleasant".
I have some juices people right next to me can't even smell, then I have a couple that I can't vape in my living room without my gf being offended by the smell 10+ feet away. You can't just make blanket statements of opinion and call it fact.

-I also hate that members take random people's word as law around here. Reboot is 100% right, being relieved because ONE random person on a forum said it's safe to do anything around your 3 month old?! Good lord, people don't take the word of a single doctors advice if it doesn't go along with what other doctors say, but one random person online is good enough for the safety of your child?


This isn't intended as an attack on any specific people, but I've seen this dozens of times around here and this was just too perfect of an example of both issues right in one thread. It's our personal health and safety we're talking about here, why do people not want to hear any arguments? Hell, I'd want every scrap of every report argued, questioned and picked apart until we were 110% sure of every detail in it!
Defending reports that you didn't personally oversee yourself, and taking one persons word as medical/safety advice when you have no idea of that persons qualifications, that's not going to help the common goal of what we all want.....it's going to result in a massive body of people relying on incorrect information, which will be a disaster if it turns out that information was wrong.

Outstanding post Kavik. This is exactly why some concerned vapers are working hard to actually be the ones to perform the study on EXHALED vapor that we all so desperately need.

Unfortunately, due to some existing hostilities towards former members of this forum it is difficult to speak openly about this here but you all should know that there ARE people out there that share this concern enough to actively do something more productive than debate on a forum using assorted 'bites' of data taken out of context.

A comprehensive study on EXHALED vapor is in the works. Once it is completed the results will become public knowledge regardless if the result is good bad or indifferent. Like I said before, until that study is done, anything said is purely speculation.

Peace,
DW

 

[Kate51]

Out of respect for cyberwolfrob, I tried to answer his question with the only evidence at my disposal, to reassure him. Not one person told him to go ahead and blow vapor in his baby's face.
Until I get my PHD, Dr. Laugeson probably has the creds to present his findings, and for me right now that's some pretty powerful findings, yes, courtesy of Ruyan Direct.
When you all get done being nay-sayers about any questions you still have, by all means go find your own credible sources to back up your advice. Until then, I know in my heart that e-cigs have saved my life. Now you all can bloody well publish your own findings. Skeptical is good. But put your links where right now just your mouth is. And give Cyberwolfrob a pat on the back for asking a civil pertinent question.
And Nuck, I took your work as presented and grew on it myself. So can you please take a bow, and do keep promoting the fine art of question, but verify. Not one of us is an expert enough to say yay or nay.
Cyberwolfrob, you do deserve more answers, and every answer does raise a new question or two. Keep up the good work! Vaping is awesome, I am betting my life on it.

 

[Nuck]

Out of respect for cyberwolfrob, I tried to answer his question with the only evidence at my disposal, to reassure him. Not one person told him to go ahead and blow vapor in his baby's face.
Until I get my PHD, Dr. Laugeson probably has the creds to present his findings, and for me right now that's some pretty powerful findings, yes, courtesy of Ruyan Direct.
When you all get done being nay-sayers about any questions you still have, by all means go find your own credible sources to back up your advice. Until then, I know in my heart that e-cigs have saved my life. Now you all can bloody well publish your own findings. Skeptical is good. But put your links where right now just your mouth is. And give Cyberwolfrob a pat on the back for asking a civil pertinent question.
And Nuck, I took your work as presented and grew on it myself. So can you please take a bow, and do keep promoting the fine art of question, but verify. Not one of us is an expert enough to say yay or nay.
Cyberwolfrob, you do deserve more answers, and every answer does raise a new question or two. Keep up the good work! Vaping is awesome, I am betting my life on it.

Kate, sometimes the best answer is "I don't know". The problem is that the OP took your post and appeared ready to act upon it without fulling considering the source of the original study and it's sketchy status.

Based on that he could then begin exposing his children to unknown levels of nicotine, the very thing he wants to avoid and the reason the question was asked to begin with.

Please take note of DW's post. There are people doing the legwork and gathering the finances to fund a proper independent study on this very issue since no manufacturers appear to be the slightest bit interested.

 

[Kate51]

That's fine, all, so in the meantime we should all just stop vaping and not say a single word more. I just shared what we had so far. Perhaps when these studies are done (what we all want, more testing), I only hope I can still bet on my own life. Your meaning is duly noted. However, until then...don't drink the water!

 

[Nuck]

That's fine, all, so in the meantime we should all just stop vaping and not say a single word more. I just shared what we had so far. Perhaps when these studies are done (what we all want, more testing), I only hope I can still bet on my own life. Your meaning is duly noted. However, until then...don't drink the water!

Not at all. It's not an either/or proposition. Those with children who want to ensure that their children are not exposed to nicotine should wait for evidence that it is safe to vape near them. Every adult has to make up his own mind based on their own comfort zone and given the scarcity of evidence currently available.

 

[Reboot]

That's fine, all, so in the meantime we should all just stop vaping and not say a single word more. I just shared what we had so far. Perhaps when these studies are done (what we all want, more testing), I only hope I can still bet on my own life. Your meaning is duly noted. However, until then...don't drink the water!

Who said that, nobody said anything of the sort.

What was said was that there isn't enough credible information available to make an informed opinion one way OR the other. In my opinion when something isn't proven, the best approach is one of caution, especially when there are children involved.

Go ahead and bet your life on it...are you willing to bet your children's life on it as well? I'm not.

 

[Winace]

Gotta chime in here as an "ex" medical professional. The amount of nicotine absorbed into the body will be different in each subject tested. Your lungs were designed to absorb oxygen and exhale CO2. They do not even do this with a 98% absorbtion rate that someone mentioned is absorbed with nicotine! This is why CPR works! You exhale a large amount of oxygen, the lings are lucky to take out 50% of what is inhaled. The absorbtion rate of nicotine will be directly related to time spent in contact with an absorbative surface and density of the inhaled vapor. Anything that would absorb 98% would actually displace the oxygen if it is that readily bondable to the lung surface (alveoli) would most likely kill you pretty quick (some inhaled poisons do this).

Now, on the plus side, when exhaled the nicotine will disipate very quickly. Just because you do not "see" the vapor does not mean it is not present. The dispersion is in a large volume of atmospheric air. Second hand inhalation would be minimal, if even tracable, and what is inhaled would have the same effect upon absorbtion, only a percentage would be absorbed. If I am not mistaken, nicotine, in small doses has a medicinal value, not a negative health impact.

The deeper you inhale, the longer you hold, and the concentration/density of vapor absorbed will all impact on how much nicotine is then exhaled. Attempting to maximize vapor will maximize wasted nicotine upon exhalation.

 

[Kavik79]

sometimes the best answer is "I don't know".

That right there is what it boils down to, you nailed it Nuck.

Kate, when you post a link to a report as a response to a question, that pretty much implies you back up what in it, especially when you get defensive about anyone questioning it. So (in my opinion) yes, cyberwolfrob was told it was okay, then you backed it up with the link.

Sure, I think it's great that he's asking the question, I think it's wonderful that he's concerned about vaping around his kid, when there are those that don't think twice about smoking around kids. I do think he deserves a pat on the back for that.....I just think anyone who takes a random internet forum response from just anyone, where their kids safety is concerned, needs a good shaking

 

[Kate51]

Just a note to DW ~ nice to bump into you, by the way ~ the testing you have referred to is very much something that needs to be done, i.e., analysis of exhaled vapor.
I would further make a point that those tests should include vapor from both PG and VG, and any other 'G' currently used, but also like to point out that folks are using components from different manufacturers, different power sources, different attomizers, different wicking materials, different nicotine density, etc.
I think you see where I'm going here.
Scientific testing sets out with a primary test subject, and a list of protocol for results of a specific brand of PV, nicotine strength, etc. which I think in fairness was done with the Ruyan testing by Dr. Laugeson. I still am going to find comfort from the published data in my quest to do no harm.
Testing for an overall in depth analysis of exhaled vapor would indeed have to be extremely comprehensive, hundreds of control components, and multiple tests in multiple labs to be anything near the answers we are all looking for.
So you can see how narrow any testing results can be deemed "inaccurate" or "inconclusive" to someone with a need to discredit them.
So while the 'best' response to the question posed would have been 'I don't know' as Nuck suggested, in my narrowed judgement (for my own comfort, of course) that after 44 years of smoking analogs I am convinced that this technology will indeed save lives, is far less stealthy to harm others around us and is still the most favored method of nicotine reduction and tobacco cigarette replacement device that has so far become available.
But I totally agree that babies, old people, and ourselves need to be fully aware of microscopic hazards posed by inhalation as humanly possible. I dread winter heating season. But then I dread fresh summer air! I also have asthma and allergies, so no one is more aware than I am regarding exposure to irritants.
So to conclude, this Thread probably represents that all answers from all posters have merit. It is not a popularity contest to vaping pros and cons. It does come down to using common sense.