Lungs versus mouth?

[Stubby]

Cigarettes deliver the nicotine in a different manner. Quicker, hard hitting... Freebase.

Freebase nicotine

The Secret of Marlboro's Success: Freebase Nicotine | Center for Media and Democracy

Even with maximum exposure vaping methods, we'll never get that same nicotine rush and ahhhh factor. Still, I'm grateful to have this method. Beats the crap out of a nasty patch or disgusting gum.

The whole freebase nicotine thing is by and large part of the propaganda campaign of anti-tobacco fanatics. The reason you get such a fast hit with cigarettes is because getting nicotine via the lungs is the fastest way to get it to your brain in short order. Freebasing could increase the amount you get, but not the speed. It could actually be a good thing as you could smoke less and still get the needed nicotine. All other forms of tobacco use, pipes, cigars, smokeless tobacco, the nicotine is delivered via the mucus membrane, therefore slower. Well... assuming you don't inhale pipes or cigars.

If the nicotine in e-liquid is absorbed via mucus membrane then inhaling would not do much in the way of getting more nicotine and is largely phycological.

 

[Elapid]

Tobacco cigarettes have over 10,000 identified chemicals in them, some added during manufacture. Ammonia is one of the added elements that increase the absorption speed of the nicotine. This gives the brain an instant hit of nicotine meaning that each puff could be considered a dose making one cigarette a couple dozed doses of nicotine. The E-cig has virtually none of these chemicals meaning the absorption of nicotine is considerably slower than with a cigarette. I know when I get up in the morning driving to work I vape constantly to satisfy the craving. I don't know how the nicotine gets into the blood stream, I just know it does. With vaping I can satisfy my addiction; my lungs are clearer, it cost me much less than smoking, and I'm a happy camper.

 

[Stubby]

Tobacco cigarettes have over 10,000 identified chemicals in them, some added during manufacture. Ammonia is one of the added elements that increase the absorption speed of the nicotine. This gives the brain an instant hit of nicotine meaning that each puff could be considered a dose making one cigarette a couple dozed doses of nicotine. The E-cig has virtually none of these chemicals meaning the absorption of nicotine is considerably slower than with a cigarette. I know when I get up in the morning driving to work I vape constantly to satisfy the craving. I don't know how the nicotine gets into the blood stream, I just know it does. With vaping I can satisfy my addiction; my lungs are clearer, it cost me much less than smoking, and I'm a happy camper.

Ahhh..... no. First off, cigarettes have about 4,000 identified chemicals. But then burning anything has about the same amount. There is nothing special about tobacco in that regard. I believe Michael Siegel has mentioned 10,000 potential chemicals... or something like that.... whatever that means. He goes off into La La land at times. Ammonia does not increase the speed, but it may increase the volume of nicotine delivered, but there are a lot of unanswered questions about that. From what I have read it was added to tobacco when light tar and nicotine cigarettes where introduced. It was found that if you lower the tar of tobacco you also lower the nicotine, and hence the satisfaction. Ammonia was supposedly added to increase the nicotine delivery while still keeping the tar at low levels. Actually not such a bad thing as far as health goes. It is very questionable whether it really works. If it does perhaps they should add a whole lot more ammonia so we could smoke a whole lot less and still get our nicotine.

Are you starting to get the drift as to how silly the whole ammonia issue is?

Every report I have read on ammonia in tobacco (it does occur naturally in case you're wondering) that isn't part of some anti-tobacco group, but actually appears to have some science behind it, ends up saying... Yes, they have added ammonia, but the actual effects are questionable. The anti-fanatics hocked on to the ammonia issue and have blown it way out of proportion. Now it appears some PV fanatics are doing the same. Why I don't know.

Just as a side note, I smoked high quality RYO tobacco for many years. It did not have any added ammonia and it was just as additive as any commercial cigarette. I've said it before and I'll say it again, cigarettes deliver such a fast hit because the nicotine is absorbed via the lungs. That's the fastest route to the brain. You're getting a slower uptake of nicotine with PV's because it appears it is delivered via the mucus membrane.

 

[wolflrv]

Rather non-scientifically:

1) Vaping IS different from smoking and that is a good thing.
2) Adjust nicotine and pg/vg levels as appropriate to find your personal satisfaction level.
3) Use Stonewalls or Snus for the first month or two if you find you are still lacking/craving some other "unknown" substance.
4) Take your blood pressure often and enjoy watching it go down to normal..!

 

[Elapid]

Stubby you are correct on your reply. I read somewhere there were 4,000 identified chemicals in cigarettes out of a total estimated to be 10,000, I did post that wrong. Some of the chemicals are added to tobacco to intensify the uptake of nicotine be it volume or speed, I don't know which and not sure it matters. Smoking vs. Vaping is difficult to compare as the only common element we know of is nicotine. I'm sure the nicotine from combustion has different characteristics than nicotine vaporized. I think that the levels are the same, as some who have been tested report no significant drop in blood levels between smoking and vaping. I also think that the structure of vaporised nicotine is slower at either getting into the blood stream or across the blood brain barrier. I know I have to vape more to get the same satisfaction I did with that first morning cigarette. There are some bio-chemist on board that are talking about the various structures of nicotine, I don't understand much of what they are discussing, but I'm sure they will shed some light on this.

 

[davielawson]

I have read over most of the comments on this thread an nobody seems to fully understand the absorption of nicotine.

The absorption of nicotine from tobacco smoke, which is carried on tar is mainly through the lungs. There are a number of reasons for this but mainly due to the ionisation state of the nicotine on the tar.

Nicotine from inhaled air which is not in an ionised state is absorbed through the oral mucosa. Electronic cigarettes will almost always be absorbed through this route, but this is dependant on the ingredients and of the eliquid.

PET studies have been carried out by Nicorette to confirm this. As PET is hugely expensive I cant imagine another company investing in such a trial for a long time!

If the ingredients in the ejuice change the pH of the liquid, the ionisation state of the nicotine will also change (provided that ejuice is acidic and not basic). Ionised nicotine is not readily absorbed through the oral mucosa and so will only be readily absorbed through the lungs due to the large blood supply.

Impactor type methods do not fully determine the site of absorption as they merely measure particle size and base the absorbance on this alone. If phosphoric acid is used in the impactor then the nicotine will be in an ionised state when analysed, and so an accurate picture cannot be gained by this method.

In my personal opinion the Ruyan study did not accurately determine the absorbance or site of absorbeance of the nicotine, as this was not the aim of the study. Oddly enough the figure of 98% given in the Ruyan report has no reference and so cannot be relied upon.

 

[sjohnson]

PET costs are not necessarily hugely expensive.

On one hand,

the cost of the radiopharmaceutical was approximately $700 per dose with modest levels of production (12 doses per day). In addition, the average cost of PET scans (technical scan and professional charges) ranged from approximately $900 to $1400.

Not cheap, but not grossly expensive, either. http://www.ajronline.org/cgi/reprint/177/1/31.pdf

That study, however, reached that value using "standard" PET practice and standard PET radiopharmaceuticals obtained from an off-site, commercial compounding nuclear pharmacy. A research facility, using custom positron emitters made on-site through a captive cyclotron and compounding specialized radiopharmaceuticals for research could easily produce PET studies costing more. I would make a guess that this would be true for a vape study.

I'm not in disagreement with the conclusion regarding vape studies, but as a Certified Nuclear Medicine Technologist I didn't want people to be scared away from an indicated test due to (incorrectly) perceived cost. Note that if your physician determines a need for one of the expensive research PET studies, there is a Federal registry where your case can be submitted and usually, cost approved for Federal funds covering the expense of that procedure.