New Study Suggests E-Cigs Less Harmful Than Tobacco Cigarettes

[yuttynutt]

I'm not sure if this is true or not but I stumbled upon this today http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/groups/grimmarmy-d2564-e-cigs-news.html I posted the link to the GrimmArmy Group news so as not to dually post but it is the latest post by me, I just thought it would be appropriate to share with everyone and not just the Army.

 

[Vocalek]

Link doesn't work. Perhaps a forbidden word was in the midst of the link and was replaced by the "..."

 

[yuttynutt]

http://www.cspnet.com/news/tobacco/...ggests-e-cigs-less-harmful-tobacco-cigarettes I just put the straight link to the article hope this works

 

[SpringzVz]

Read that too. It references the study was done by Indoor Air and is purchasable? It does back up one of my long lived beliefs that the chineese production methods of eliquid should be abandoned and PG left in the past.

 

[Neloish]

Makes me glad I use VG, but could a chemist explain how PG breaks down into formaldehyde? I would think that formaldehyde would have to be in the PG in the first place.

C3H8O2=C0+HO, 0C3H8O2 = -1C0 + HO. C2H5 + O2 =CO2 + H2O ...... CH3OH + O2 = CH2O + H2O, 2CH3OH + O2 = 2CH2O + 2H2O. CH3CO2H + NaHCO3 ...

 

[Tom09]

The referenced CSP (Convenience Store Petroleum) news story (OP) recaps a blog post by Michael Siegel (June 29, 2012, The Rest of the Story), where Siegel breaks down a recent scientific publication authored by Schripp et al. (Indoor Air, 2012; follow the link in Siegel’s blog). While there is certainly no problem with Siegel's general conclusions like

“Based on the findings in this study, there is every reason to believe that electronic cigarettes are much safer than tobacco cigarettes and that if smokers can quit smoking via the use of these products, they are greatly improving their health.“

I do have a problem with the developing perception of the following mistake, unintentionally introduced in Siegel‘s relatively quick shot analysis:

The only compound of significant concern was formaldehyde, but its levels were between 5 and 10 times higher in tobacco smoke than in the electronic cigarette vapor. One hypothesis is that formaldehyde may result from the heating of propylene glycol. My sense is that in the long-run, electronic cigarettes that use glycerin as an excipient may become the standard. Using glycerin would probably avoid the production of most of the volatile organic compounds detected in this study, and would also alleviate any concerns about respiratory irritation.

Basically, Siegel here jumps from Schripp’s detection of formaldehyde to an uncalled condemnation of propylene glycol and somehow to the implication of an apparent superiority of glycerol. This, in turn, obviously leads to user perceptions expressed in terms like „glad I use VG“ or „PG should be left in the past“.

We should certainly have a look into the actual paper (i.e. Schripp et al. 2012). Among other things, this study monitored the concentration of formaldehyde produced by a person sitting in a test chamber, taking ten puffs from various PG-based liquids or smoking an analog cigarette. Schripp‘s discussion starts off with a reference to Ohta et al. (2011, Determination of Carbonyl Compounds Generated from the Electronic Cigarette [...], Bunseki Kagaku 60, 791-797). The latter authors reported the formation of formaldehyde in an experimental (simplified e-cig) setup, apparently produced by the oxidation of ethylene glycol, of propylene glycol as well as of glycerol (only abstract of the Japanese article here). Certainly note that the alleged formation of formaldehyde is not specific to PG. Schripp et al. simply discussed Ohta et al.’s proposal in relation the PG-based liquid-derived vapor sampled in their test chamber study:

Ohta et al. (2011) proposed the formation of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and methylglyoxal in the ecigarette due to the oxidation of propylene glycol during contact to the active heating coil. However, continuous monitoring only showed a slight increase of the formaldehyde concentration in the 8 m³ emission test chamber before and during consumption of the three liquids (see Table 4 and Figure 2). This might be caused by the person in the chamber itself, because people are known to exhale formaldehyde in low amounts (Riess, 2010) and the increase was already observed during the conditioning phase (Figure 2). Furthermore, the release of formaldehyde was also below the limit of detection in the small-scale experiments. The expected rise of the formaldehyde concentration in the chamber from smoking a conventional cigarette with a peak value of 114 ppb is shown in Figure 2. Other indoor pollutants of special interest, such as benzene, were only detected during the tobacco smoking experiment. The rising concentrations of acetic acid and acetone during e-cigarette operation may also be attributed to the metabolism of the consumer.

Figure 2 (Schripp et al. 2012) attached

​

Take home:
1. Formaldehyde produced by a person vaping (10 puffs & repeat) can not be discriminated from formaldehyde produced by normal respiratory action.
2. This study bears no evidence, what so ever, on condemning propylene glycol or claims of glycerol superiority.
3. If you are really worried about formaldehyde pollution you should instruct your ANTZ roommate to stop breathing out.

 

[Kurt]

Makes me glad I use VG, but could a chemist explain how PG breaks down into formaldehyde? I would think that formaldehyde would have to be in the PG in the first place.

C3H8O2=C0+HO, 0C3H8O2 = -1C0 + HO. C2H5 + O2 =CO2 + H2O ...... CH3OH + O2 = CH2O + H2O, 2CH3OH + O2 = 2CH2O + 2H2O. CH3CO2H + NaHCO3 ...

I'm a chemist and I am not sure what this is saying. Some of it looks something like combustion. Where did you get it? Not saying it is wrong, I'm just not following.

The metabolites of PG are acetic acid, lactic acid, pyruvic acid, and propionaldehyde. The acetic acid is by the ethanol metabolism path, which goes through acetaldehyde. So anyone that has had something to drink will be exhaling acetaldehyde, which causes that sour stinky breath of a drunk...besides ethanol itself. Formaldehyde could also be a metabolite, but that would imply the presence of formic acid, and that is not listed. But I would not be surprised.

Thermal decomposition of PG seems to be only possible at temps > 230 C and high pressure. Can I get CH2O from PG in a curved arrow formalism of thermal decomp? Maybe. But since the study did not find differences with normal respiration CH2O, it seems the amount is either zero or extremely low.

The metabolite for VG seems to only be glucose. There is no natural reason to metabolize PG into anything useful for the body. But fats and oils are normal foods, and metabolize to fatty acids and glycerol, so the body has found a way to use the glycerol too: make glucose energy.

Aldehydes are potentially toxic to the body. They are too reactive and cannot be used in a useful way. Tey tend to attack the nervous system, particularly the ocular system. If you drink diet soda, you are forming a LOT of formaldehyde in vivo, from metabolism of the methyl ester part of aspartame. Do not drink diet sodas, ever.

I'm happy to not use PG because it dries me out too much. Pyruvic acid is not problem. Acetic acid is no problem, but acetaldehyde could be. Lactic acid is not a danger, but does produce muscle pain (its the burn of pushing muscles). Propionaldehyde gives me pause. Its not easily oxidized in the body as acetaldehyde is. These are things to consider, but not what I would call very concerning. The safety track record of PG in all food and inhalation applications is quite good, even if it does irritate the mucus membranes of some people.

Have to say, however, that I like VG even more now! It is very natural, while PG is not at all natural, and the body is kind of messy about metabolizing it, regardless of what it does thermally on a heating coil. VG is in fact a food for the body, grown from the earth, neat and tidy metabolism to glucose, no aldehydes, no acids, just glucose. the body understands VG perfectly, like it understands fats and vegetable oils.

And more and more vendors are getting away from PG due to the aversions some people have. they don't want to deal with that anymore. I can't say VG is the future of vaping, but I'm very thankful for its presence. I would not be vaping if it weren't for VG. This is just icing on the cake for me...and a sweet cake it is!

 

[Neloish]

@ Kurt thank you for the breakdown.

 

[rolygate]

I'm waiting for a vendor to introduce a 98% VG, 2% PG liquid. There would be certain benefits to this:

- The 2% of PG would deal with any bacterial issues in the liquid. VG may be bacteriostatic but PG is bactericidal and virucidal.

- The PG inclusion would be of benefit to most people, but especially to those with smoking-related issues where the lungs are more vulnerable to infection and where there are questions as to the suitability of 100% VG.

- A 2% PG inclusion should not be detectable by those with 'normal' levels of intolerance/sensitivity to PG. It should have zero throat drying effect for example, especially as such effects would be balanced out by the VG.

To put this into perspective, 2% is about 1 drop in 2ml.

Such a liquid could be marketed as 'improved VG' or something similar.

 

[Vocalek]

The American Diabetes Association and American Heart Association have issued a joint statement in favor of the use of non-nutritive sweeteners, with certain caveats.

AHA And ADA Cautiously Endorse Non-Nutritive Sweeteners - Forbes

 

[Kenny D]

roly, won't juice vendors custom make a VG/PG blend if asked? Thought I saw that on some of the juice vendors sites.

 

[yuttynutt]

roly, won't juice vendors custom make a VG/PG blend if asked? Thought I saw that on some of the juice vendors sites.

There are alot of vendors who will do a custom blend sometimes you just have to leave it in the comments when you order.

 

[Kurt]

I'm waiting for a vendor to introduce a 98% VG, 2% PG liquid. There would be certain benefits to this:

- The 2% of PG would deal with any bacterial issues in the liquid. VG may be bacteriostatic but PG is bactericidal and virucidal.

- The PG inclusion would be of benefit to most people, but especially to those with smoking-related issues where the lungs are more vulnerable to infection and where there are questions as to the suitability of 100% VG.

- A 2% PG inclusion should not be detectable by those with 'normal' levels of intolerance/sensitivity to PG. It should have zero throat drying effect for example, especially as such effects would be balanced out by the VG.

To put this into perspective, 2% is about 1 drop in 2ml.

Such a liquid could be marketed as 'improved VG' or something similar.

Roly, if the juice uses a normal flavoring, this will introduce some PG to the juice. There are 0% PG flavorings, but not a lot of them. Of course, you know this, having had this conversation some years ago, but I wanted to put it out there for any new readers. I personally can generally get away with a 10% flavor in my DIYs. Beyond that is usually too much PG, and the chapping starts.

Where did you find the info on PG and VG antimicrobial effects? I was not aware of the VG effect.

 

[Vocalek]

I was just reviewing the study and have sent an email to the author:

According to Tab 1 in your article accepted for publication in Air Quality, two of the e-cigarettes used a liquid that contained 1.8 mg / mL. I have never seen liquid of that low strength on the market. Is it possible that the nicotine content was 18 mg / mL? Some vendors state nicotine content in percent. A nicotine concentration of 1.8% is equivalent to 18 mg / mL, and this is a popular strength that some vendors consider “medium” and some consider “high.”

 

[Petrodus]

That reminded me of something ...
It's true that ya seldom ever see a "mainstream" e-cig vendor
stating "high" is over 18 mg. Appears to me the "Standard" has
been set for the future ... no higher than 18 mg for mainstream
e-smokers.

Any others want to jump in here ?

 

[rolygate]

Here are the current popular strengths plus one that has been recently added:

0mg
6mg
12mg
18mg
24mg
36mg
45mg

What people want to call those strengths is up to them.

Intellicig just added a new 45mg strength, as their clinical trials showed that beginners with a mini were not getting sufficient nicotine at strengths below that. It looks as if they will also get a pharmaceutical license to sell that strength, so presumably it can't be that dangerous - in a mini.

Cynics might say, no doubt, that it has to be used as their mini isn't all that good. I'd say it would most likely apply to any mini.

Not sure I'd want to use 45mg in a 5 volt device that works efficiently though

 

[Vocalek]

OK, I have been doing some research. Table 4 in the Schripp article lists the concentrations (expressed as micrograms per cubic meter) of 20 chemicals found in cigarette smoke during the emission chamber test measurement. It also shows the concentrations of the same chemicals when the participant was in the chamber but not using either a lit cigarette or an e-cigarette. They referred to this condition as "Participant Blank." Testing was also performed using three types of liquids: Apple no nicotine, Apple w/ 1.8 mg/ml (sic) nicotine and Tobacco flavor with the same nicotine strength.

Except for one chemical, Isoprene, which was present at 8 mcg/m3 in the Participant Blank condition, all chemicals were less than 1 mcg/m3 for the Participant Blank condition. I extracted the six chemicals that were also present in the vapor at values greater than the Participant Blank condition. I took the highest measurement found for each of these, which in each case was e-cigarette 3. I then looked up the OSHA Permissible Emission Level (PEL) for each. OSHA PELs are expressed as PPM, so I found a formula that will convert mcg/m3 to ppm. I had to find the molecular weight of each chemical to use the conversions formula.

The concentrations expressed as µg/m3 can be converted to ppm by applying the following formula: ((µg/m3 * 22.4136 * (temperature in deg Celsius+273.15) * (760) / (molecular weight * 273.15 * atmospheric pressure in mmHg) / 1000.

Finally, I calculated the percent of the PEL that the quantity measured in e-cigarette 3 represented.

The chemicals found in e-cigarette vapor were
2-Butanone (MEK)
Acetic acid
Acetone
Isoprene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde

In each case, the chemical was present at a percent well below 100% of OSHA PEL. Most were present at less than 1%:
0.0007
0.0563
0.0021
0.1770
14.2889
0.0008

Also, I decided to calculate the % of OSHA PEL for the quantity measured of each chemical in cigarette smoke. Surprise! All of these were well below 100% as well.

0.0064
0.2734
0.0053
2.3925
76.8333
0.0326

Well, then I got curious. Is there ANY chemical found in cigarette smoke that is present at or above hazardous levels? So I looked up the hazard levels for all the other chemicals present in smoke. Hmmm... interesting. Eight of those chemicals did not have an OSHA PEL and were considered not hazardous. The rest were all well below the hazard level.

For example, the OSHA PEL for 3-Ethenyl-pyridine* is 1 ppm. When I converted 24 µg/m3 to ppm, the answer was 0.005511838 ppm.

No wonder the EPA refused to designate environmental tobacco smoke as an air pollutant.

 

[Vocalek]

The German researchers have made it into the ranks of the Anti-THR Lie of the Day for claiming that e-cigarettes cause "passive vaping" without

a) Defining what exactly that means,
b) Comparing the quantities of chemicals found to the quantities specified by OSHA as Permissible Exposure Limits, and
c) Making their conclusion fit the facts instead of their agenda.

The passive vaping fable | Anti-THR Lie of the Day