This latest study was published in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, which gave a report on the chemical composition of e-cigarette vapor, then compared those results with tobacco smoke. However, since the authors, Dr. Rana Tayyarah and Gerald A. Long, are employed by Lorillard Tobacco, the finding in presenting their data would be voided by many journals or conferences, no matter how valid the experimental techniques and results are. It would be like a vaping review site selling a product, then reviewing it and saying it’s the best. Many would say that it’s biased, but proof is proof, and it won’t hurt my feelings to share it with you all.
For this study, the authors used standardized machine-puffing to measure constituents of e-cig vapor. Many of those against vaping have claimed that there is this and that in the vapor, but none of them can ever deliver any proof. This study examined what is exactly in vapor, and the results showed that vapor contains what you would expect.
[blockquote cite=”http://acsh.org/2015/02/machine-puffed-e-cigs-yielded-vapor-containing-exactly-youd-expect-much-else/” float=”left” align=”left”]They found nicotine, propylene glycol or glycerin, water, and flavors. Aerosol nicotine was 85 percent lower than cigarette smoke. Mainstream cigarette smoke (the same stuff a smoker inhales while smoking) had about 1,500 times more harmful and potentially-harmful constituents (HPHC) than e-cigarette aerosol, or puffing on room air. In sum: 1. HPHCs from e-cigs was equivalent to room air; 2. no cigarette-smoke-derived HPHCs were detected in e-cig vapor; 3. these results support those who advocate for the relative safety (“reduced exposure to toxicants”) of e-cigarettes, both for vapers and for bystanders.[/blockquote]
Although the study comes from Big Tobacco, it has truth and shows what everyone has advocated for years. There’s not much to e-liquid, and there’s no reason to include anything else in it. This study won’t help us much in a fight against those against us because of who conducted the study, but it is a positive for vaping. I’m sure we would all enjoy seeing positive studies by Big Tobacco than we would seeing another negative from another paid media company.
Here’s the article address if you’d like to read it.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230014002505