New studies find carcinogens in vg and pg at high temps, even in tootle puffers
- Thread starter mikepetro
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Purpose
A recent study identified high aldehyde emissions from e-cigarettes (ECs), that when converted to reasonable daily human EC liquid consumption, 5 g/day, gave formaldehyde exposure equivalent to 604–3257 tobacco cigarettes. We replicated this study and also tested a new-generation atomizer under verified realistic (no dry puff) conditions.
Design
CE4v2 atomizers were tested at 3.8 V and 4.8 V, and a nautilus Mini atomizer was tested at 9.0 W and 13.5 W. All measurements were performed in a laboratory ISO-accredited for EC aerosol collection and aldehyde measurements.
Results
CE4v2 generated dry puffs at both voltage settings. Formaldehyde levels were >10-fold lower, acetaldehyde 6–9-fold lower and acrolein 16–26-fold lower than reported in the previous study. nautilus Mini did not generate dry puffs, and minimal aldehydes were emitted despite >100% higher aerosol production per puff compared to CE4v2 (formaldehyde: 16.7 and 16.5 μg/g; acetaldehyde: 9.6 and 10.3 μg/g; acrolein: 8.6 and 11.7 μg/g at 9.0 W and 13.5 W, respectively). EC liquid consumption of 5 g/day reduces aldehyde exposure by 94.4–99.8% compared to smoking 20 tobacco cigarettes.
Conclusion
Checking for dry puffs is essential for EC emission testing. Under realistic conditions, new-generation ECs emit minimal aldehydes/g liquid at both low and high power. Validated methods should be used when analyzing EC aerosol.
From Dr F's site:
On December 15 2016, I was asked about my predictions for 2017 about the future of vaping and I mentioned that: “Bad quality studies accompanied by impressive press statements are becoming increasingly frequent … I think we will see some interesting developments in this aspect soon.”
It took a few months but it is now time to deliver on that promise. You all remember the “hidden formaldehyde” research letter, which included a statement that e-cigarettes are 5 to 15 times more carcinogenic than smoking. The letter was accompanied by impressive media coverage through a press statement and a later award for the research group of $3.5 million for further research on this issue.
Few days ago, we published a replication study, using exactly the same e-cigarette devices, batteries and liquid as the research letter above. However, we asked vapers to try the device (a very old CE4 atomizer, tested in 0.2 V increments) and report dry puffs when detected. Dry puffs were detected at 4.2 V, so 4.0 V was the maximum realistic use voltage. We then tested the device in the laboratory at different voltage settings (both realistic use conditions and dry puffs) and we found, as expected, an exponential increase in formaldehyde emissions at dry puffs. In fact, at 5.0 V we found much higher levels of formaldehyde than the original research letter. But we did not even dare ask vapers to try that device at 5.0 V. So, we said that e-cigarettes can generate huge levels of formaldehyde, but this happens in conditions that no vaper will ever be exposed. We clarified that the 5 to 15-fold higher cancer risk is wrong. We also recommended that vapers should not use these devices (CE4s) because even in normal vaping conditions the level of formaldehyde emissions was quite high and much higher than recent devices. Of note, CE4s are not available in the European Union any more.
In 2016, another study found huge levels of aldehyde emissions from e-cigarettes. They used again a CE4 atomizer (CE4v2) at 3.8 V and 4.8 V but with 5 second puffs (puff duration is equally important to power or voltage because energy = power x time). They reported extreme emissions (up to 48,000 ug/g formaldehyde). We calculated the relative exposure from 5 mL liquid consumption (assumed daily use) compared to tobacco cigarettes and we found that 5 mL of liquid would be equivalent to 3200 tobacco cigarettes!! The authors expanded by publishing a second study, in which they performed a risk assessment analysis for vapers and passive exposure using the previous findings.
Today, we published a study replication using the same equipment, power settings and puff duration. Two experienced vapers identified dry puffs at both 3.8 V (obviously due to the very long puff duration) and at 4.8V (in fact, even at shorter puff duration, dry puffs were horrible at 4.8 V). This time, the problem was not only dry puffs; the reported results were also hugely overestimated. We found 6 to 25-fold lower levels of aldehydes at the same dry puff conditions. Furthermore, to assess aldehyde emissions from a realistic use pattern, we tested a relatively new atomizer (Nautilus Mini, which is in fact about 3-years old but has a cotton wick as all new-generation atomizers). The levels of aldehyde emissions were so low that a liquid consumption of 5 mL per day would expose vapers to 94.4-99.8% lower aldehyde levels compared to smoking 20 tobacco cigarettes. Please note, the comparison refers to 5 mL liquid consumption; the more you consume, the less the difference compared to smoking will be. The association is linear.
Both studies clearly show that it is highly important to evaluate for the generation of dry puffs when measuring e-cigarette emissions in the laboratory. Although this has been known for years (from vapers) and has been mentioned in the literature since 2013, still many (if not most) studies fail to examine this.
The field of e-cigarette research has an unusually high number of studies reporting “strange” (to say they least) results. A basic principle that should have been followed is that if the data do not make sense, don’t blame common sense but look at the data for possible mistakes. Still, many (if not most) of these studies are accompanied by press statements and widespread media campaigns. As a result, today, after so many years of research, the majority of smokers think that e-cigarettes are equally or more harmful than smoking. It would be interesting to see how the journals and editors who publish these studies will react when the findings of their publications cannot be replicated.
I would suggest everyone to stay tuned. This is NOT the end of replication studies. More is coming soon, as I promised in the past.
On December 15 2016, I was asked about my predictions for 2017 about the future of vaping and I mentioned that: “Bad quality studies accompanied by impressive press statements are becoming increasingly frequent … I think we will see some interesting developments in this aspect soon.”
It took a few months but it is now time to deliver on that promise. You all remember the “hidden formaldehyde” research letter, which included a statement that e-cigarettes are 5 to 15 times more carcinogenic than smoking. The letter was accompanied by impressive media coverage through a press statement and a later award for the research group of $3.5 million for further research on this issue.
Few days ago, we published a replication study, using exactly the same e-cigarette devices, batteries and liquid as the research letter above. However, we asked vapers to try the device (a very old CE4 atomizer, tested in 0.2 V increments) and report dry puffs when detected. Dry puffs were detected at 4.2 V, so 4.0 V was the maximum realistic use voltage. We then tested the device in the laboratory at different voltage settings (both realistic use conditions and dry puffs) and we found, as expected, an exponential increase in formaldehyde emissions at dry puffs. In fact, at 5.0 V we found much higher levels of formaldehyde than the original research letter. But we did not even dare ask vapers to try that device at 5.0 V. So, we said that e-cigarettes can generate huge levels of formaldehyde, but this happens in conditions that no vaper will ever be exposed. We clarified that the 5 to 15-fold higher cancer risk is wrong. We also recommended that vapers should not use these devices (CE4s) because even in normal vaping conditions the level of formaldehyde emissions was quite high and much higher than recent devices. Of note, CE4s are not available in the European Union any more.
In 2016, another study found huge levels of aldehyde emissions from e-cigarettes. They used again a CE4 atomizer (CE4v2) at 3.8 V and 4.8 V but with 5 second puffs (puff duration is equally important to power or voltage because energy = power x time). They reported extreme emissions (up to 48,000 ug/g formaldehyde). We calculated the relative exposure from 5 mL liquid consumption (assumed daily use) compared to tobacco cigarettes and we found that 5 mL of liquid would be equivalent to 3200 tobacco cigarettes!! The authors expanded by publishing a second study, in which they performed a risk assessment analysis for vapers and passive exposure using the previous findings.
Today, we published a study replication using the same equipment, power settings and puff duration. Two experienced vapers identified dry puffs at both 3.8 V (obviously due to the very long puff duration) and at 4.8V (in fact, even at shorter puff duration, dry puffs were horrible at 4.8 V). This time, the problem was not only dry puffs; the reported results were also hugely overestimated. We found 6 to 25-fold lower levels of aldehydes at the same dry puff conditions. Furthermore, to assess aldehyde emissions from a realistic use pattern, we tested a relatively new atomizer (Nautilus Mini, which is in fact about 3-years old but has a cotton wick as all new-generation atomizers). The levels of aldehyde emissions were so low that a liquid consumption of 5 mL per day would expose vapers to 94.4-99.8% lower aldehyde levels compared to smoking 20 tobacco cigarettes. Please note, the comparison refers to 5 mL liquid consumption; the more you consume, the less the difference compared to smoking will be. The association is linear.
Both studies clearly show that it is highly important to evaluate for the generation of dry puffs when measuring e-cigarette emissions in the laboratory. Although this has been known for years (from vapers) and has been mentioned in the literature since 2013, still many (if not most) studies fail to examine this.
The field of e-cigarette research has an unusually high number of studies reporting “strange” (to say they least) results. A basic principle that should have been followed is that if the data do not make sense, don’t blame common sense but look at the data for possible mistakes. Still, many (if not most) of these studies are accompanied by press statements and widespread media campaigns. As a result, today, after so many years of research, the majority of smokers think that e-cigarettes are equally or more harmful than smoking. It would be interesting to see how the journals and editors who publish these studies will react when the findings of their publications cannot be replicated.
I would suggest everyone to stay tuned. This is NOT the end of replication studies. More is coming soon, as I promised in the past.
Funny, I have no problems opening your links (from post #5326). But Mowgli's link is being blocked. Go figure.
Anyway, I'm all up to date, so thanks!
MB always blocks anything outside of the summaries on that site. You can safely add it to your exclusions, and that will stop. Obviously it doesn't like something there, but it's fine.
Katyayaya, I had a prob with the link originally as well (and notified Phil, who originally posted it). Now it's working without issue.
Here's the text:
Cancer risk from e-cigarettes > 50 000 (thousand) fold lower than smoking
By Dr Farsalinos
Shortly after a study in Tobacco Control identified a very low cancer risk from e-cigarettes compared to tobacco cigarettes, anew study by Italian researchers tried to calculate the risk from e-cigarette exposure and compared with smoking. The authors used measurements of particle size and mass distribution; however, and unlike the scientifically flawed argument that only particle number and size matters, they calculated the risk using the composition of the aerosol and particles using literature data. E-cigarettes were found to expose to about 100-times higher particulate matter-10 μg (PM10) compared to smoking. The fanatic supporters of the particulate matter theory (which is a total misinterpretation of science and should be considered gossip rather than serious scientific debate) would support that e-cigarettes will increase the cancer risk by 100-fold compared to smoking. However, the careful assessment of the aerosol composition of e-cigarettes showed that the cancer risk for vapers is about 5 orders of magnitude lower compared to smoking. To be exact, they identified a 57,000-fold (thousand) lower Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk (ELCR) from vaping compared to smoking. The authors expand by saying that: “… the ELCR evaluated for the mainstream aerosol of ECs results lower to the target limit reported by EPA and WHO. WHO, in fact, reports an ELCR of 1×10-5 as target value (Commission on Environmental Health, 1996), while EPA considers a target risk range of 10-6 to 10-4to be ‘‘safe and protective of public health” but ‘‘even risks slightly greater than 1×10-4 may be considered adequately protective” under specific conditions (EPA, 1991b).”
I am certain this study will generate ZERO publicity. This is very common for studies showing anything positive on e-cigarettes. After so many studies published in the past few years, smokers still believe that e-cigarettes as similarly or more harmful than smoking. Sad for public health…
Website blocked for me (mowgli's and yours above), but I have been able to open all the other links... Beats me. And thanks!
It's MB, Katya. I have the same problems. It's sensitive, which is good (but sometimes annoying).
Text appeared alright. Just the links.
Thanks, DP! Good to know I'm not the only one...
Katyayaya, I had a prob with the link originally as well (and notified Phil, who originally posted it). Now it's working without issue.
Here's the text:
Cancer risk from e-cigarettes > 50 000 (thousand) fold lower than smoking
Saturday, 21 October 2017 08:48
By Dr Farsalinos
Shortly after a study in Tobacco Control identified a very low cancer risk from e-cigarettes compared to tobacco cigarettes, anew study by Italian researchers tried to calculate the risk from e-cigarette exposure and compared with smoking. The authors used measurements of particle size and mass distribution; however, and unlike the scientifically flawed argument that only particle number and size matters, they calculated the risk using the composition of the aerosol and particles using literature data. E-cigarettes were found to expose to about 100-times higher particulate matter-10 μg (PM10) compared to smoking. The fanatic supporters of the particulate matter theory (which is a total misinterpretation of science and should be considered gossip rather than serious scientific debate) would support that e-cigarettes will increase the cancer risk by 100-fold compared to smoking. However, the careful assessment of the aerosol composition of e-cigarettes showed that the cancer risk for vapers is about 5 orders of magnitude lower compared to smoking. To be exact, they identified a 57,000-fold (thousand) lower Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk (ELCR) from vaping compared to smoking. The authors expand by saying that: “… the ELCR evaluated for the mainstream aerosol of ECs results lower to the target limit reported by EPA and WHO. WHO, in fact, reports an ELCR of 1×10-5 as target value (Commission on Environmental Health, 1996), while EPA considers a target risk range of 10-6 to 10-4to be ‘‘safe and protective of public health” but ‘‘even risks slightly greater than 1×10-4 may be considered adequately protective” under specific conditions (EPA, 1991b).”
I am certain this study will generate ZERO publicity. This is very common for studies showing anything positive on e-cigarettes. After so many studies published in the past few years, smokers still believe that e-cigarettes as similarly or more harmful than smoking. Sad for public health…
I think it was in this thread this study got bounced around a bit. It's important to note they were looking a particulate exposure, not chemicals such as formaldehyde and acrolein. While fine particulates certainly are lower than in combustible tobacco, it's not the only theoretical risk in vapor.
I do agree these types of studies are not thrown around for publicity. Still more healthcare folks are reading positive articles in the medical literature and you find many becoming more open to accept vaping as a valid risk reduction path.
They also pay close attention to the FDA-- mainly out of fear. With a doc heading it who used to own a vape shop, I am fairly certain many docs are aware of this. Seriously, with the amount of changes that have happened with controlled substances, there have been enough docs disbarred over it that I DO think many (good) docs are staying on top of what the FDA is doing, on a lot of matters. I think there were many docs who'd have LIKED to have recommended vaping but felt they couldn't, for various reasons, quite similar to another product new to the "legal regulated" market....
Just my 02. as always.... But I do see docs paying attention the FDA, and certainly their practice managers and whatnot are doing so.... No one wants to get shut down, for anything. I'm liking seeing docs be more open about it.
Anna
Just my 02. as always.... But I do see docs paying attention the FDA, and certainly their practice managers and whatnot are doing so.... No one wants to get shut down, for anything. I'm liking seeing docs be more open about it.
Anna
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
