nicotine absorption rates?

[pyre42]

Since I am constantly defending similar issues to skeptics on other forums I've decided to compile as much information as I can on the differences between vaporized nicotine and smoked tobacco. To help save some time digging I thought I'd post here first. Any suggestions or links to research is very much appreciated.

 

[Jimi D.]

Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos will give you plenty of info.

 

[Centurion]

I think the best argument for it being self-evident that e-cigs are safer than burning tobacco is more basic than even the heating versus combusting argument, which is itself huge. But I think the easiest thing for people to grasp both factually and instinctively to make them see they are safer is that e-cigs vape nicotine extract that is USP pure which is about 99.7% nicotine typically. That is as opposed to most brands of cigarettes that include hundreds and hundreds of artificial additives including known carcinogens

More than 100 of 599 additives that might be in cigarettes are potentially harmful, with some making cigarettes even more addictive and others making it difficult for people to detect tobacco smoke in their midst, a new study contends.
Trade secrecy about the ingredients in cigarettes makes it impossible to know how many of the additives that appear on a 1994 list are actually in tobacco products today.
*see ---->abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=4508170&page=1#.UWuikdiDG40

 

[pyre42]

I'm looking for more than obvious answers. I've seen repetead numerous times that "the particles in vapor are larger than that of smoke, thereby inhibiting their ability to penetrate the lungs as deeply. Most of the nicotine vaporized is absorbed through the nose and mouth." I wish it was easier to actually find scientific data stating this, I know it's out there somewhere. I'd also like to find data discussing the same via smoke inhalation. I know big tobacco has done research on how thoroughly and quickly nicotine is absorbed, and then they tweaked their recipes to maximize it, somebody somewhere has to have links to these kind of things. Working 50+ hours a week makes it extremely hard to dig up these topics, especially when no one seems to have attempted compiling them before.

 

[Proverb31]

This may not compare exactly cigarettes to vaping, but it does compare the different nicotine replacements and mentions the absorbtion rate of nicotine in a cigarette. They did find the canon, which I suspect is a type of vaporizer, beat all others for sustained nicotine blood levels, but the candy type replacements had the fastest blood absorbtion. It is worth reading, at least I thought it was. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/hbrc/tobacco/pubs/Nicotine absorption from replacement products_51.pdf