http://www.casaa.org/files/Virgiania Commonwealth University Study.pdf wanted to post this on another thread but would'nt let me. thought you guys would be intrested
results of Thomas E. Eissenberg, VCU e cig study & hello
- Thread starter srfn143
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
He's doing another study, btw: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...s-experienced-electronic-cigarette-users.html
Welcome to ECF
Welcome to ECF
Last edited by a moderator:
Pasta, he has conceded they study may have been flawed in that regard and is doing another one. I have no doubts I am getting nicotine. I believe others have shared their results in the thread I've linked to. Shoot, maybe it was a different thread...
Last edited:
Thanks for the information. As PastaMonster suggests, this study seems to indicate that little or no nicotine is actually being absorbed by the user. This is interesting in the fact that some users report experiencing the symptoms of nicotine overdose at times.
It is generally agreed, although not yet proven, that nicotine is not absorbed as readily through vapor as it is through smoke. The time interval of 30 seconds, and the number of "puffs" being 10, may have some impact on this as well. In the short term, the simple satisfaction in the act of "smoking" may be enough to quell the urge to smoke. This is indirectly addressed in the statement that "denicotinized cigarettes have also been
shown to suppress tobacco abstinence symptoms for as long as 96 hours." If the user feels as though it is satisfying their urge to smoke, it could possibly do so in the short term. However after a period of time >96 hours, the lack of nicotine will likely cause withdrawl symptoms.
The statement "However, under the acute conditions reported here, the two electronic cigarettes did not suppress nicotine/tobacco abstinence symptoms fully, relative to own-brand smoking." is not surprising. Although e-cigarettes mimick smoking, there is a noticeable difference. We often refer to starting e-smoking as similar to changing brands.
I mostly agree with the conclusions presented in this study. I do wish, however, that better e-cigarette units were chosen. The units used were of inferior quality and do not offer the performance experienced vapers require. I understand that the study was trying to simulate the act of smoking as closely as possible, and that was likely the reason those particular units were used. But, form does not necessarily translate to function. In this case the function is to produce vapor in satisfying quantity and quality in order to replace the smoke present in burning tobacco.
We do need more studies on this subject, and I appreciate any information that can be provided, so thank you for sharing and giving us the opportunity to learn more about it. Hopefully others will follow the suggestions of the authors and perform additional research.
It is generally agreed, although not yet proven, that nicotine is not absorbed as readily through vapor as it is through smoke. The time interval of 30 seconds, and the number of "puffs" being 10, may have some impact on this as well. In the short term, the simple satisfaction in the act of "smoking" may be enough to quell the urge to smoke. This is indirectly addressed in the statement that "denicotinized cigarettes have also been
shown to suppress tobacco abstinence symptoms for as long as 96 hours." If the user feels as though it is satisfying their urge to smoke, it could possibly do so in the short term. However after a period of time >96 hours, the lack of nicotine will likely cause withdrawl symptoms.
The statement "However, under the acute conditions reported here, the two electronic cigarettes did not suppress nicotine/tobacco abstinence symptoms fully, relative to own-brand smoking." is not surprising. Although e-cigarettes mimick smoking, there is a noticeable difference. We often refer to starting e-smoking as similar to changing brands.
I mostly agree with the conclusions presented in this study. I do wish, however, that better e-cigarette units were chosen. The units used were of inferior quality and do not offer the performance experienced vapers require. I understand that the study was trying to simulate the act of smoking as closely as possible, and that was likely the reason those particular units were used. But, form does not necessarily translate to function. In this case the function is to produce vapor in satisfying quantity and quality in order to replace the smoke present in burning tobacco.
We do need more studies on this subject, and I appreciate any information that can be provided, so thank you for sharing and giving us the opportunity to learn more about it. Hopefully others will follow the suggestions of the authors and perform additional research.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
