TSNA comparison chart

[wHack]

I have noticed alot of users on the forum complaining that no side by side comparison of e-liquid and cigarettes was made by the FDA. So I decided to go ahead and do one. Mind you my comparison is only a rough estimate but it should make the comparison clear enough.

First I used the TSNA levels for e-liquid reported by the FDA in there recently released study, I went ahead and used the high values just so no one would accuse me of trying to exagerate the differences. Then I used the TSNA levels for nicorette gum found by Osterdahl BG as reported in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology once again the high values. And lastly I found some numbers for Marlboro and Camel full flavor cigarettes, these values vary depending on where you find them but the ones I used are pretty standard.

The kicker here is these values where all in ppb(ng/g) or ppm(ug/g) this is unfair as the amount that is consumed to roughly equal a cigarette varys. So I approximated the weight of a rough equivalent to a cigarette and multiplied the values to get TSNA content per cigarette equivalent in ng's the right side of the chart is the ng's of TSNA's per cigarette equivalent. So even by the FDA's supplied numbers eliquid is very safe relative to other options.

 

[Ridewithme38]

I need this printed on one side of a business card with the Defination and links on the other! You'd be amazed how many people think E-Cigarettes are the worst thing ever since the Damn FDA Report

 

[Drunkwaco]

Very nice
good job

 

[kinabaloo]

I have noticed alot of users on the forum complaining that no side by side comparison of e-Liquid and cigarettes was made by the FDA. So I decided to go ahead and do one. Mind you my comparison is only a rough estimate but it should make the comparison clear enough.

First I used the TSNA levels for e-Liquid reported by the FDA in there recently released study, I went ahead and used the high values just so no one would accuse me of trying to exagerate the differences. Then I used the TSNA levels for nicorette gum found by Osterdahl BG as reported in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology once again the high values. And lastly I found some numbers for Marlboro and Camel full flavor cigarettes, these values vary depending on where you find them but the ones I used are pretty standard.

The kicker here is these values where all in ppb(ng/g) or ppm(ug/g) this is unfair as the amount that is consumed to roughly equal a cigarette varys. So I approximated the weight of a rough equivalent to a cigarette and multiplied the values to get TSNA content per cigarette equivalent in ng's the right side of the chart is the ng's of TSNA's per cigarette equivalent. So even by the FDA's supplied numbers eLiquid is very safe relative to other options.

This looks interesting - but not sure which table is most relevant. Can you explain more the difference.

Would it be possible to do a per puff comparison?

ps: how about losing the decimal places too so it is easier to compare the numbers.

 

[wHack]

I posted this here because I'm not alowed to open a new thread in General Discussion. Hopefully someone can move this to an appropriate discussion as I think alot of members would be interested to see the numbers when realistically compared, and as far as I've seen no one has done this yet.

I realize that the weights are by no means exact and if anyone has more accurate weights I'd be glad to plug them in. Also any other info on the TSNA content of other nicotine delivery systems would be nice. Anyway people wondering what you guys think, and if anyone can think of a way to make this more accurate.

 

[wHack]

kinabaloo sorry it's not the easiest to read I don't really consider it done as it's not that carefully worked out.

As for per puff comparisons that doesn't work out to be easy to estimate. What portion of the wieght of a peice of nicorette is equivalent to a puff. How much does a puff of an unsmoked cigarette weigh. What is the weight of eLiquid in a puff. See what I mean.

To break down the chart:
Left Side: Parts Per Billion basically the percentage of TSNA's by weight.
Middle: Approximate weight of the equivalent of a cigarette in Grams
(1 cigarette ~ 1g, 1 piece gum ~ 1.5g, 1 drop liquid ~ .05g)
Right: Calculated TSNA's per cigarette equivalent (avg use)

It seems to me that the right side is the most pertinent because if you still use the equivalent of say a pack a day with any of the three systems then you can see the relative difference in the daily consumption of TSNA values you would consume by multiplying the right hand values by 20.

 

[Ridewithme38]

SMOKELESS TOBACCO AND ORAL CANCER: A REVIEW OF THE RISKS AND DETERMINANTS -- Rodu and Jansson 15 (5): 252 -- Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine)

?

 

[wHack]

Ok slightly updated version puts them in order from highest to lowest TSNA content per cig and rounds off the zeros making it easier to read.

 

[Tom09]

STOP! wHack, from where did you grab those numbers for TSNAs in eliquid? The MRM numbers in the FDA report (= Westenberger 2009) are not related to actual TSNA concentrations but part of the analytical method. The MRM table just documents that Westenberger (2009) did follow the method of Wu et al. (2008), as referenced below the table on page 7 in Westenberger (2009). You find the same numbers in this method paper (Wu et al. 2008): “For each analyte, two ion transition pairs were used under multiple reaction mode (MRM). These ion pairs are 178/148 and 178/120 for NNN, 190/160 and 190/106 for NAT, 192/162 and 192/133 for NAB, and 208/122 and 208/106 for NNK.” (Numbers bolded by me are the numbers put up in OP's table.) wHack, the numbers in your table have nothing to do with actual concentrations!

Actual TSNA concentrations were not obtained, since they were below the limit-of-quantitation (LOQ). „Detected“ TSNA in Table 1 (on page 4 in Westenberger 2009) corresponds to „analyte was detected but at a level less than the limit-of-quantitation“. So, LOD < actual concentration < LOQ. LOQs were given as: NAB (LOQ = 21 ppb); NAT (LOQ = 21 ppb); NNK (LOQ = 75 ppb); NNN (LOQ = 24 ppb). With this, we only have the maximum TSNA contents for the tested carts. In case all four TSNAs were detected this would be < 141 ppb or TSNA < 141 ng/g. The limit-of-detection (LOD) is not given in Westenberger (2009), but we know that he applied quite sensitive methods. And so we only know that the actual concentrations for the tested samples are less than LOQ.

It should be noted that these results are absolutely in line with actual TSNA concentrations determined and reported for Ruyan carts, already. For instance, a value of 8 ppb (or 8 ng/g) was given in Laugesen et al. (2008). You find a comparison to NRT gum and cigarette on page 7 of the linked conference presentation (Laugesen et al. 2008), too.

 

[wHack]

Ok I'll have to change it but that means using FDA data I can put in the LOQ values with a statement that FDA testing only confims some value less than the LOQ values which means less than 7ppb per 0.05ml eLiquid

 

[Tom09]

wHack, I’m all fine with this. My point was just not to risk damaging one of the strongest arguments in favor of ecigs. In most of NJOY’s carts TSNAs have not even been detected, detection of four TSNA’s in SE carts does translate to TSNA < 141 ng/g (we just don’t know how low, Westenberger/FDA refused to list the detection limits) or < 7ng per 0.05 ml eliquid. It's OK for running in terms of a worst case scenario. You may add some actual analyses from Laugesen’s report on Ruyan’s charts (TSNAs = 8.2 ng/g), too. There is also the possibility (made in a review released by NJOY) that TSNAs in vapor might even be less than what is in the fluid, but this can well be ignored for the worst case scenario.
Your values picked for cigarettes were determined for unburned tobacco or for the smoke?

 

[wHack]

Unburned tobacco I would assume as it came from a chart with snus levelsand other tobacco products. The real point of this was to show how ridiculous the FDA actions where even with their own results in a basic chart and to show that due to the quantity used that e-Liquid is on a different scale and that ng/g isn't even a fair comparison as one use of e-liquid is about 1/20 the weight of one use of a cigarette so all of the numbers need to be cut down I plan on working something bigger and more detailed in time but thought this was a neat way to show how big of a difference there is.

As for worst case that's fine for this pupos and what I had intended on using just so there was no room to accuse me of playing with the numbers. I'll probably get back to ths on monday.

 

[wHack]

This is updated I'm going to work on more material but this one now serves it's purpose of showing even if th FDA assumed the worst from thier findings how rediculous a public health warning about TSNA content really was.

 

[wHack]

can't get to healthnz.co.nz does anyone have a copy of the reports?

 

[Ridewithme38]

How did you figure weight per cigarette? Is it general accepted that two drips is a cigarette no matter the mg per ml? Are you taking into account that the nicotine absorbed by vaping is roughly 10% the amount absorbed through a cigarette? roughly equating to 1ml of juice at 10mg/ml(1/2ml for 20mg/ml juice etc.) equaling 1 cigarette, if a cigarette's are averaged to be 1mg of nicotine per...

 

[wHack]

I decided to do it by puffs because if I did it by nicotine then 0mg would require an insane quantity of fluid to equal one cig . But seriously most e-cig users don't smoke 10x more to compensate for lower absorption and when they switch down to lower nic levels the don't multiply their usage to compensate. I wanted this to be more of a chart to show the scale of what a user might be exposed to if using the different products at a similar useage level. I figured 1 drop to be about one cigarette mileage may vary. 1 drop of low viscosity fluid weighs ~ 0.05g.