Study of third hand nicotine from e-cigarette

[rurwin]

I think people are over-reacting to what is after all a high-school student's project. Certainly the reporting is bad, but the project itself is only as flawed as any number of e-cig studies have been. If a high-school student can match a mediocre career scientist, that's not a bad thing. Are people expecting too much here? By all means point out the inaccuracies and decry the effect the article has on vaping, but please don't condemn a child for doing her best.

 

[Stosh]

I think people are over-reacting to what is after all a high-school student's project. Certainly the reporting is bad, but the project itself is only as flawed as any number of e-cig studies have been. If a high-school student can match a mediocre career scientist, that's not a bad thing. Are people expecting too much here? By all means point out the inaccuracies and decry the effect the article has on vaping, but please don't condemn a child for doing her best.

That's right, the kid matched some of the brightest minds of the ANTZ scientists....

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

I think people are over-reacting to what is after all a high-school student's project. Certainly the reporting is bad, but the project itself is only as flawed as any number of e-cig studies have been. If a high-school student can match a mediocre career scientist, that's not a bad thing. Are people expecting too much here? By all means point out the inaccuracies and decry the effect the article has on vaping, but please don't condemn a child for doing her best.

I think the criticism is directed primarily against the judges for their decision to award a prize for this kind of pathetic propaganda masquerading as science. If the student-in-Q had simply done the experiment and we'd read about it in some unrelated context, nobody would be picking on an 18 y.o. young woman.

Clearly, however, she made the decision to embrace a certain outlook (the word "pander" comes to mind) and was richly rewarded by the National Institutes of Health - quite likely over some competitors who were attempting to do what appears to be real science.

 

[rurwin]

Clearly, however, she made the decision to embrace a certain outlook (the word "pander" comes to mind) and was richly rewarded by the National Institutes of Health - quite likely over some competitors who were attempting to do what appears to be real science.

Sorry I can not agree. It is absolutely necessary that science is done. The choice of experiment is not determined by the political bias of the scientist. We can not choose to not do an experiment because we might not like the result.

While her experiment was flawed in that it did not use exhaled vapour, it otherwise produced interesting data -- which surfaces were most likely to retain nicotine. It is a pity the results were not quantified, but I imagine that requires very expensive equipment. It would also raise the question of how to replicate a real room and real vaping conditions, which is a whole new level of complexity.

While one might argue that the experiment is meaningless because there is no need to know the result, I imagine a good number of high-school projects would be the same. I know mine was.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

Sorry I can not agree. It is absolutely necessary that science is done. The choice of experiment is not determined by the political bias of the scientist. We can not choose to not do an experiment because we might not like the result.

While her experiment was flawed in that it did not use exhaled vapour, it otherwise produced interesting data -- which surfaces were most likely to retain nicotine. It is a pity the results were not quantified, but I imagine that requires very expensive equipment. It would also raise the question of how to replicate a real room and real vaping conditions, which is a whole new level of complexity.

While one might argue that the experiment is meaningless because there is no need to know the result, I imagine a good number of high-school projects would be the same. I know mine was.

If she had done the same thing with caffeine, would you have reacted in the same way? (The molecures are very similar, I believe.)

Frankly I wouldn't have had a problem if she had chosen caffeine. But had she done so, the NIH probably wouldn't have decided to recognize her study, over that of many other students'. As the saying goes: "Your tax dollars at work."

 

[rurwin]

If she had done the same thing with caffeine, would you have reacted in the same way? (The molecures are very similar, I believe.)

Yes.

If Dr. Farsalinos perchance reports that there are significant quantities of known toxins in a significant number of eliquid flavourings, will you accept it?

 

[Stosh]

The winner in question was subjected to repeated lessons, teaching that being within a 1/2 mile of an area where a combustible cigarette was smoked anytime within the past week was a deadly risk. After a while the brainwashing is effective.

Then they see classmates vaping to reduce their smoking, and researching how it may be equivalent to what they have been taught is a no-brainer. And then you're surprised the teachers view the research with approval???...

 

[Vocalek]

Sorry I can not agree. It is absolutely necessary that science is done. The choice of experiment is not determined by the political bias of the scientist. We can not choose to not do an experiment because we might not like the result.

While her experiment was flawed in that it did not use exhaled vapour, it otherwise produced interesting data -- which surfaces were most likely to retain nicotine. It is a pity the results were not quantified, but I imagine that requires very expensive equipment. It would also raise the question of how to replicate a real room and real vaping conditions, which is a whole new level of complexity.

Sorry, but I don't think the results are useful. How would that knowledge be applied? Only allow vaping in rooms containing certain surfaces?

Most of the nicotine contained in a puff of vapor is absorbed in the airways of the vaper. Exhaled vapor contains so little nicotine that German researchers had to modify their experiment and capture exhaled vapor directly into a 10L glass jar to aggregate sufficient nicotine to measure (4 to 7 mcg / m3)

It seems very doubtful to me that sufficient nicotine from exhaled vapor could collect on any surface to present a danger to health.... especially in view of the fact that the nicotine would require the presence of a catalyst such as nitrous acid to create carcinogens.

 

[aubergine]

I don't fault the kid for producing a flawed science project.
I fault those who exploited it.

A question was raised that I think is important - would we grant credence to a valid study from a friendly source that showed significant levels of toxins in e-cigarettes?

That's about integrity.

I would. If they were really significant (comparable to cigarette toxicity - and I think that's very unlikely) I'd drop off the bandwagon and quit ecigs. I'd no longer have a horse in this race, really. I'd inform my daughter, who vapes as heavily as I do. It would matter to me.

I've not seen the levels found in Dr. Farsalinos' study; have they been released? Is there anyone who would rather see them suppressed than suffer an honest blow? I like to think not.

 

[AgentAnia]

I think the criticism is directed primarily against the judges for their decision to award a prize for this kind of pathetic propaganda masquerading as science. If the student-in-Q had simply done the experiment and we'd read about it in some unrelated context, nobody would be picking on an 18 y.o. young woman.

Clearly, however, she made the decision to embrace a certain outlook (the word "pander" comes to mind) and was richly rewarded by the National Institutes of Health - quite likely over some competitors who were attempting to do what appears to be real science.

Herewith adding more "likes" to your post.

 

[AgentAnia]

Random (but slightly related) thought: It's a fact that exhaled breath from every human contains formaldehyde. Has anyone researched the amount of (exhaled) formaldehyde existing as a residue on surfaces in a room?

 

[rothenbj]

I think people are over-reacting to what is after all a high-school student's project. Certainly the reporting is bad, but the project itself is only as flawed as any number of e-cig studies have been. If a high-school student can match a mediocre career scientist, that's not a bad thing. Are people expecting too much here? By all means point out the inaccuracies and decry the effect the article has on vaping, but please don't condemn a child for doing her best.

That might be true, but her research qualified for her to gain a full time internship at UCSF, after she finishes her prerequisites, obtaining a mechanical engineering degree.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

Yes.

If Dr. Farsalinos perchance reports that there are significant quantities of known toxins in a significant number of eliquid flavourings, will you accept it?

Yep. Although I don't believe the word significant may be fairly used. We can get into that in some detail.

Your point, I take it, is that as long as the scientific method is used, it's science - so we shouldn't criticize it?

 

[aikanae1]

I think people are over-reacting to what is after all a high-school student's project. Certainly the reporting is bad, but the project itself is only as flawed as any number of e-cig studies have been. If a high-school student can match a mediocre career scientist, that's not a bad thing. Are people expecting too much here? By all means point out the inaccuracies and decry the effect the article has on vaping, but please don't condemn a child for doing her best.

I think the problem is the student didn't use science. It was poorly designed. That seems to be a common problem is that there is lack of attention to methodology to the extent that a lot of time and money are wasted on useless studies that really should be thrown out.

That is why some publications will no longer accept studies funded in full or partially from tobacco companies; they were poorly designed, lacked thourgh methodoly which resulted in hidden bias and were not applicable. However I don't see that as a finger pointing at just tobacco funded studies, but all fingers should be pointed at most industry funded studies. I have seen examples were 3/4 of medical studies from the US were thrown out due to poor design by large reviews. The US used to be the leader in medical science 20 years ago.

So in my mind, patting this student on the back for a poorly designed and executed study was boaderline criminal in it's attempt to decieve and mislead that this had value. There is little understanding of science for just this type of shennanigans. Someday, maybe, they will extend fraud to include such studies. One can only hope.

This might be entertaining; http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/04/anti-smoking-groups-and-policy-makers.html

You do realize that Gantz is an engineer and not a scientist or doctor. Very few in the FDA / CDC have any scientific background.

 

[350ZMO]

Might be interesting to compare the actual levels of nicotine to that in say a tomato?

Determination of the Nicotine Content of Various Edible Nightshades (Solanaceae) and Their Products and Estimation of the Associated Dietary Nicotine Intake - Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (ACS Publications)

 

[rothenbj]

Yep. Although I don't believe the word significant may be fairly used. We can get into that in some detail.

Your point, I take it, is that as long as the scientific method is used, it's science - so we shouldn't criticize it?

You can always change the metrics to establish significance.

 

[TomCatt]

I think the problem is the student didn't use science. It was poorly designed. That seems to be a common problem is that there is lack of attention to methodology to the extent that a lot of time and money are wasted on useless studies that really should be thrown out.

That is why some publications will no longer accept studies funded in full or partially from tobacco companies; they were poorly designed, lacked thourgh methodoly which resulted in hidden bias and were not applicable. However I don't see that as a finger pointing at just tobacco funded studies, but all fingers should be pointed at most industry funded studies. I have seen examples were 3/4 of medical studies from the US were thrown out due to poor design by large reviews. The US used to be the leader in medical science 20 years ago.

So in my mind, patting this student on the back for a poorly designed and executed study was boaderline criminal in it's attempt to decieve and mislead that this had value. There is little understanding of science for just this type of shennanigans. Someday, maybe, they will extend fraud to include such studies. One can only hope.

This might be entertaining; http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/04/anti-smoking-groups-and-policy-makers.html

You do realize that Gantz is an engineer and not a scientist or doctor. Very few in the FDA / CDC have any scientific background.

Who would you suggest fund the billions of USD required yearly for requisite industry studies?

 

[rurwin]

Sorry, but I don't think the results are useful. How would that knowledge be applied? Only allow vaping in rooms containing certain surfaces?

Most of the nicotine contained in a puff of vapor is absorbed in the airways of the vaper. Exhaled vapor contains so little nicotine that German researchers had to modify their experiment and capture exhaled vapor directly into a 10L glass jar to aggregate sufficient nicotine to measure (4 to 7 mcg / m3)

It seems very doubtful to me that sufficient nicotine from exhaled vapor could collect on any surface to present a danger to health.... especially in view of the fact that the nicotine would require the presence of a catalyst such as nitrous acid to create carcinogens.

It's the first in a series of experiments. The knowledge gained here would be useful in designing the next one now that it is known how different surfaces aggregate "nicotine".

The reason I put nicotine in quotes is that I don't trust this experiment to have measured it. I'd have to see the original write-up. It may be they observed condensed VG and reporters or ill-informed researchers called it nicotine.

One e-cig does not leave a significant deposit, but several people have mentioned how their truck windshields have accumulated a film of vapour residue. If that film contains significant nicotine, and if it remains toxic for the weeks and months necessary to form it, and if you had a baby crawling over it all day long, you might have reason to be concerned. That's a lot of ifs, but the science has not been done, other than the very first tentative studies, like this one, and none of those published numbers.

We're not talking carcinogens here; that study has not been done and I'm pretty sure one would find nothing to worry about.

There is no such thing as a biased experiment, only a biased report and biased journalism. It seems to me that this one has been hijacked by people with an agenda. All experiments are flawed to some extent. This one has at least one major flaw, but it isn't published in a peer-reviewed journal; it's a high-school project. It would be utterly amazing if it didn't have flaws.

 

[Katya]

Yes.

If Dr. Farsalinos perchance reports that there are significant quantities of known toxins in a significant number of eliquid flavourings, will you accept it?

He did and we do embrace it. He recently found diacetyl and related diketones in 69% of eliquids he randomly tested. The paper will be published soon. He also agreed (somewhat) with the NYT hit piece about formaldehyde in vapor. I couldn't be happier that he's looking into those issues because it helps us all! I want to know exactly what I can do to protect myself from any unnecessary dangers that may be associated with vaping.

https://soundcloud.com/vp-live/smoke-free-radio-episode-3

Summary:
Out of 159 liquids tested, 69% of liquids were found to contain diacetyl. Even from vendors that claimed their e-liquids were diacetyl free. The levels of diacetyl found were not discussed.

Dr. Farsalinos:

first of all, we don't want to create panic. even if diacetyl is present, the level of risk is much less compared to smoking. but their use is an avoidable risk because it is a flavoring. 31% were diacetyl free. although the risk is small, because it is an avoidable risk there is no reason to impose that risk on the customers. what i suggest to vendors is ask flavoring suppliers for proof of the absence diacetyl in the flavoring, which means testing the results. testing is absolutely necessary because otherwise no one can know if it's diacetyl free.

Formaldehyde release in ecigarette vapor The New York Times story explained in detail

Nobody wants to know more about possible dangers of vaping than vapers do.

The study quoted by Tom is a junior high, politically motivated (and rewarded) Science Fair project.

Dr. Farsalinos is a respected cardiologist and a researcher.

 

[Katya]

NIDA Director Nora D. Volkow, M.D. stated that non-users can be exposed to nicotine residue from just one e-cigarette. Exactly what does she mean by "one e-cigarette"? There is not a one-to-one correlation between a conventional cigarette and an e-cigarette.

Does that really surprise you? Did you watch the Senate hearings?

Senator Harkin, the chairman of the committee, apparently never heard about Sottera, Inc. v. FDA ruling (and when quickly informed by his aide, instantly proclaimed it a "bad decision." ), expressed mild displeasure with our Constitution and the court system, ordered Zeller to "do something about it now" (flavors), and made other utterly idiotic pronouncements like "I don't know what it is but I think it goes into the wall so it must be attractive to kids (about an USB charger--I'm paraphrasing here).

Those are the people who will decide the fate of e-cigarettes.

God help us.