E-Cigarettes Emit Toxic Vapors, Says Study (upi.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from UPI: All electronic cigarettes emit harmful chemicals, and levels of those toxic compounds are affected by factors such as temperature, type and age of the device, a new study finds. In laboratory tests, scientists found that the heat-related breakdown of propylene glycol and glycerin -- two solvents found in most e-cigarette liquids -- causes emissions of toxic chemicals such as acrolein, acetaldehyde and formaldehyde. All three are either respiratory irritants or carcinogens, the investigators said. The researchers also found that levels of harmful chemicals in e-cigarette vapor increase between the first few puffs and later puffs as the device gets hotter, and with each use of the device.The new study was published July 27 in the journal Environmental Science and Technology. "Advocates of e-cigarettes say emissions are much lower than from conventional cigarettes, so you're better off using e-cigarettes," study corresponding author Hugo Destaillats said in a Berkeley news release. "I would say, that may be true for certain users -- for example, long-time smokers that cannot quit -- but the problem is, it doesn't mean that they're healthier. Regular cigarettes are super unhealthy. E-cigarettes are just unhealthy," he explained. The FDA will start regulating e-cigarettes like tobacco on August 8, 2016.

Comments

Always question a study...

[Izuzan]

That does not give the temp they are burning the e juice at.

Burning PG will give off harmfull chemicals. But ecigs dont get hot enough unless you are sitting there with the button pressed.
With the advent of temperature controll in ecigs the temperature does not get anywhere close to burning the PG.

Re:Always question a study...

[bluefoxlucid]

There are good points all around this discussion, and a lack of organization. Let's try to clear this up a bit.

Different e-cigarette juices contain different carriers. Some specifically exclude chemicals which produce formaldehyde or, particularly, acetaldehyde, largely because acetaldehyde is known to cause popcorn lung in chronic, high exposure. Most high-quality formulations list their contents in full; and the content of lower-quality formulations is often known, but not readily-listed. High-quality formulations often don't contain chemicals producing acetaldehyde, and use propylene glycol as a carrier; lower-quality formulations also often omit those compounds, but frequently do not.

Different e-cigarettes have different temperatures and control mechanisms as well. They may prevent overheating, or they may reach high temperatures, or they may be designed for brief activation intervals with no temperature controls. Fast-reaction circuits necessarily draw high current, and will overheat without temperature management; thus cheap, fast-reaction circuits intended for brief activation will most often overheat and cause reactions, converting benign substances such as propylene glycol into dangerous substances such as formaldehyde.

Finally, gaseous vapors produce visual distortion when diluted. If you suck in 2cc of suspended smoke or vaporized PPG and then blow it out into the air, it will expand to a liter or more and demonstrate itself as a gray cloud. The real measures are temperature and mass of substance; the substance changes its standard volume at pressure and becomes diluted when diffusing through atmosphere, and so these are poor measurements.

Thus it is wholly-possible to engineer a substantially-safe e-cigarette, if examining specific concerns of e-cigarettes (conversion of chemicals to dangerous chemicals; high-temperature vapor irritating the throat and lungs; basic chemical content). This requires engineering of the compound itself and the delivery device.

Re:It's a feature

[drinkypoo]

This is a device that was designed to emit toxic vapours.

Nicotine may be a toxin, but in the amounts in which it's consumed, that's the least concern about the effects upon the body. However, these devices weren't intended to emit other toxic vapors.

It's like saying that fireplaces pose a fire hazard or that an electric outlet carries the risk of electrocution. It's what it's supposed to do.

False. A fire hazard is an uncontrolled fire. A fireplace is designed to control a fire. An electric outlet is not designed to electrocute you. It's designed to deliver power to an appliance. Granted, some of them are not very well designed to explicitly not electrocute you, but that's a separate issue.

The idea of the vaporizer is to deliver as clean a smoking experience as possible. If you put water-based herbal extracts into them, that's what you're doing. What's interesting is that these other things aren't that clean, either. Anyone remember transparent cigarette papers? They were everywhere for a while, I went through a couple of packs myself on the basis that I was already smoking tobacco so who cares, but what was found is that only the center of the cherry is hot enough to burn the combustion byproducts into something harmless, which meant that you were getting a bunch of toxics from them even worse than smoking paper.

'Carcinogenic compounds'.

[queazocotal]

Clicking through to the article finds - for example - they are refering to Glycidol.
NIOSH in the USA recommends a limit of 25ppm over a 8 hour shift for workers.

The first link I find says 350l/hr are breathed, meaning 3000l/ work day.
This is about 4.5kg of air. 1ppm is 4.5mg, so 25ppm is 110mg.
It showed about 2 micrograms per puff in the graph at http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2016...

In order to exceed the NIOSH recommendations for worker safety for glycidol, you need to take _HALF_A_MILLION_ puffs.
PER DAY.

So, yes, they have found novel compounds in the vape, but at least some of these are considered 'safe' in other context at levels way above what is found in the smoke.

Re:'Carcinogenic compounds'.

[chiefcrash]

there is nothing healthy about butter

FALSE

Butter is rich in fat-soluble vitamins
Butter contains short and medium chain fats, which are the healthy fats
Butter is an excellent source of the 4-carbon fatty acid butyrate
Dutch researchers found that raw butter fat protects against calcification of the joints — degenerative arthritis — as well as hardening of the arteries, cataracts and calcification of the pineal gland

The list goes on. There's plenty healthy about butter, so long as it's in moderation...

If a cigarette doesn't "smoke", is it harmful?

[drunken_boxer777]

I am always amazed by the people "smoking" e-cigarettes in places where smoking is not allowed. I've seen people use them in restaurants where smoking is prohibited, inside a school, and I even saw someone use one on an airplane.

Just because it doesn't create smoke like a conventional cigarette doesn't mean that the vapors and your exhalations aren't harmful. Stop using them in places where smoking is banned. Thank you.

Re:If a cigarette doesn't "smoke", is it harmful?

[drunken_boxer777]

With a nick like this I have to ask: Pissed that they banned public drinking but public smoking is still ok?

Nick was inspired by one of my favorite Jackie Chan flicks, not two of my pastimes rolled into one.

Strawman: I'm not advocating for a ban on e-cigs in public. I only ask e-cig users not to vape in places where smoking is banned.

False equivalence: If the mere act of drinking was harmful to others, then it would be equivalent and I'd certainly have no basis to oppose bans in restaurants and airplanes. (I'm indifferent that public drinking is not allowed in most places.)

Re:If a cigarette doesn't "smoke", is it harmful?

[kqs]

Second-hand cigarette smoke has not reliably been shown to increase cancer risk or cause respiratory damage to healthy individuals even when those individuals are children raised in smoker households.

I'm no scientist, but whenlots of scientists say something sciencey, and statisticians back them up, I tend to believe it, even if it's something I wish were untrue. You may make different choices. (I picked that link because I've been using Politifact a lot the last few months and while I sometimes disagree with their results I like that they explain their process and carefully list their sources.)

The secondhand smoke numbers are not as solid as, say, measurements of gravity; it's a very hard thing to measure directly, so the studies are mostly doing indirect statistical analyses. So it's always possible that there is another factor there that we are overlooking. But the vast preponderance of evidence points one way, and it's not the way you say it does.

Re:If a cigarette doesn't "smoke", is it harmful?

[bluefoxlucid]

Counterpoint. This is only the largest study; there are a lot of less-interesting studies that try to reproduce a lot of studies which, as you pointed out, do exist and do show a lot of good data that second-hand smoke causes health issues. My problem is with this:

the vast preponderance of evidence points one way, and it's not the way you say it does.

There *is* a vast preponderance of evidence pointing one way, in the same way that there's a vast preponderance of evidence that video games make kids into murderers or that homosexuality can be cured by therapy akin to torture. There's also a significant failure rate in reproducing those same studies; a full examination of the evidence shows only weak statistical linkage, if any.

I actually rewrote that claim multiple times before posting. It would be incorrect to say that second-hand cigarette smoke has been shown *not* to cause any health effects, in spite of the rather large and statistically-sound study released recently; it has *not* *reliably* been shown to cause any health effects. There is no overwhelming body of evidence; there is a lot of difficult analysis that's hard to control for, and a lot of outcomes that don't reproduce well. The level of certainty is about even with chance.

There is also a lot of evidence that high-carbohydrate diets (above 40% of calories) cause arterial build-up, and high-fat diets do not. The original consensus is based on flawed statistics, and current studies don't yet reconcile a concrete position.

There is also emerging literature suggesting AHA-recommended levels of sodium cause heart attacks. Below 1350mg/day will likely cause your heart to stop (too much potassium will do this, too); while high levels of sodium (up to 6,000mg/day) have no detrimental effect after about 3 days. Your kidneys release hormones to restore homeostatic balance and pump all that sodium out of your blood, but it takes a few days and you have high blood pressure until then. Keeping people on diets long-term is hard, and flaky; modern research looks at high-sodium-intake societies and compares heart attack rates with low-sodium-intake societies, which has its own problems.

The thing is we have cancer groups, the USDA, CDC, and AHA ignoring new literature and doubling-down on old literature. We also have economists contradicting the BLS on things like minimum wage. Every large organization takes a position and uses evidence to back it up; the whole of evidence necessarily outpaces them, because shifting your position as a large entity requires a much stronger degree of certainty than doing it as a small entity.

Sigh, this again

[RevDisk]

It's already covered in the UK govt report: https://www.gov.uk/government/...

Flip to page 75. The report is fairly well written, and surprisingly not someone trying to prove pre-defined results via poorly conducted experiments.

This is only applicable to mechanized vaping tests. Essentially, you need to burn the vaping chemicals rather than atomize them. As someone that quit vaping, I can testify that you know when your vaping unit get cranked to the max while being in your pocket and fried the coils, along with some of the nicotine liquid. It is extremely unpleasant. Theoretically a person could continue to try to inhale the results, but it would be a spectacularly unpleasant experience. It's extremely noticeable

. It's called a 'dry hit' and it's pretty rare under normal circumstances. I've had... three, maybe? It's certainly not good for you, but probably not as bad for me as my old pack a day of cigarettes would be if I continued smoking.

Re:Sigh, this again

[lawaetf1]

It's really interesting how vaping is different from cigs in terms of addiction. I switched from cigs to 12mg vaping and that was fine for a while.. but then, oddly, I found I could no longer handle 12mg! I couldn't understand it, I would walk to work, puffing along the way like I always do, and then find I was having trouble swallowing, terribly anxious amongst other symptoms. Looked up "nicotine overdose" and bingo. Switched to 6mg and now down to 3. Every attempt I made to "cut down" with cigs failed miserably. Somehow vaping gives you a glide path away from the addiction.

Re:Sigh, this again

[CaptnCrud]

The problem with the gum and patches is that they don't really cover the physical/tactile aspect of smoking.

The real acid test is having a few beers and see if you crave a smoke. With gum and patches....no way, and I think most people that smoke can tell you that. Vaping on the other hand lets you follow through the motions if you feel the urge. Honestly after 2 years, I can walk through a cloud of cigarette smoke and not even be phased (to either smoke or vape), its really pretty awesome if you had a hard time quitting.

Hitler kicked one million dogs

[Pseudonymous Powers]

Advocates of e-cigarettes say emissions are much lower than from conventional cigarettes, so you're better off using e-cigarettes. I would say, that may be true for certain users -- for example, long-time smokers that cannot quit -- but the problem is, it doesn't mean that they're healthier. Regular cigarettes are super unhealthy. E-cigarettes are just unhealthy.

Dude, if they're less unhealthy, that means that they're healthier. You just contradicted yourself.

Well, I guess he's from Berkeley, so they wouldn't have released it if it didn't involve at least some doublethink.

I too think e-cigarettes are an annoying and asinine way for people to keep doing something they know they shouldn't. And who knows what further problems we may eventually figure out they may cause. But that doesn't mean we get to lie about them. It makes it really hard to get behind a movement when its participants are spewing propaganda along with their actual science.

Concert Venues?

[Fluffymuffin Cocobut]

So dance clubs, concert venues, most Broadway shows - those are all death traps? Because most of those places go through *gallons* of propylene glycol a night - as where most eCig users are puffing 50ml every 3-6 months. THINK OF THE BROADWAY ACTORS

And in other news: Water is wet

[RogueWarrior65]

All kidding aside, people have been throwing hissy fits over second-hand smoke for years. Why isn't anyone complaining about (and legislating control of) second-hand pot smoke? Or are people too stoned to do anything about it?

Re:So in other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

>Replying to myself: remember, these are the people who approved aspartame

You do realize that the LD50 of aspartame is high enough that you will die of water poisoning (or possibly caffiene poisoning) before you die from aspartame poisoning from drinking Diet Coke.

>by firing the FDA employee who cared about the studies and replacing him with someone who would play ball

Sounds like the FDA did the right thing. Based on its use as a sweetener, it's safer than the water it sweetens.

Here, you can do your own verification:

http://web.uvic.ca/~saroy20/chem361/aspartame.pdf
LD50 Oral - rat - > 10,000 mg/kg

http://static.diabetesselfmanagement.com/pdfs/DSM0310_012.pdf
Diet Coke contains 125 mg per 236 ml (or 530 mg/l)

http://www.newsmax.com/US/average-weight-man-woman-obese/2015/06/15/id/650546/
Average weight of American female: 166 lbs (75 kg)

Aspartame required to reach LD50: 750 grams
Litres of Diet Coke required to cause aspartame based death: 1415 litres. Same sitting.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/water-intoxication-just-how-much-h2o-does-it-take-kill-person-312958
LD50 of water: 6L / 165 lbs (75 kg), or 80 mg/kg.

Death would occur from water intoxication before 0.5% of the required total is consumed.

Everyone can quit even long time smokers

[dadelbunts]

I went from smoking 2 packs a day for 10 years to, nothing. Started vaping a couple of years ago, gradually moved the niccottene content lower and lower, and now i dont even vape anymore. The concept that somene just CANNOT quit is plain wrong.

Re:So in other words...

[Curunir_wolf]

So you're disparaging an organisation that wants to restrict something for both 1) wanting to restrict freedom 2) for not having restricted the same freedoms for two different things in the past?

Well, he's right. The commonality here being what the pharmaceutical companies want. If big pharma wants to sell something, the FDA says it's safe. If big pharma wants something off the market, the FDA says it's dangerous and needs regulations so strict it's effectively a ban.

Re:It's a feature

[WolfWithoutAClause]

He had her at least once.

Yet Another Study in Mental Acrobatics

[gringer]

Research reports like this on e-cigarettes annoy me. Ordinarily I might suggest that the press releases are making things appear more shocking than the paper, but it seems like the paper writers have also overemphasised the results of this study. This research appears to be a presence/absence experiment, rather than an actual harm experiment. The thought process seems to follow something like the following:

1. E-cigarettes contain some nasty toxic chemicals in detectable quantities
2. These toxic chemicals are nasty and toxic, and cause damage in high concentrations
3. Therefore, E-cigarettes are bad and shouldn't be used

The problem is that studies of this sort aren't actually demonstrating harm. It's like saying that air contains carbon monoxide, so we shouldn't breathe it. In the paper, there are a few weasel words used that encourage thoughts like this:

Chemical analysis of e-liquids and vapors emitted by e-cigarettes led to the identification of several compounds of concern due to their potentially harmful effects on users and passively exposed nonusers... compounds are considered possible or probable carcinogens

The researchers say that they'll do the actual harm testing as an additional step:

The researchers are working on a follow-up study focusing on the health and environmental impacts of e-cigarettes.

Or, in the paper:

These chemical emissions are associated with both cancer and noncancer health impacts that will be quantitatively evaluated in an ensuing paper.

But until that's done (and has meaningful results) it's difficult to make a good case that E-cigarettes are doing the wrong thing and should be avoided.

Re:It's a feature

[netwiz]

These studies suck. What was the coil temp? 3.8v? What was the power level? I'll say this, for most light-use coils, 3.8v will torch the ever living hell out of the fluids, burn the wick, and impart a foul taste so bad you'll throw the coil/wick assembly away if it's a replaceable unit. Example, I have a 0.16 ohm quad-coil unit set to 75w, and it's putting 3.46v through the coil to get that rated power. They've got to be pushing over 450F on the coil, and at that temp, it will burn a cotton wick, rendering the coil useless unless it's rebuildable. These studies are funded by people that have a vested interest in either A) government overreach, B) the tobacco industry itself, or C) the nanny state (but I repeat myself).

None of this is valid. I've run the output of my vaporizer (a Wismec Reuleaux RX200 with a SMOK TFV4 tank) through the local gas spectrometer at the college around here, and damn if there aren't all of five chemicals: water, vegetable glycerin, flavor, menthol, and nicotine. Exactly what's on the label. Surprised? I'm not.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.