E-Cig Vapor can Contain Toxic Metals

[Captain.Heroin]

http://www.newsweek.com/vaping-news...xins-inhaled-when-smoking-e-cigarettes-818733

Electronic cigarettes may have been deemed safer than traditional smoking by the American Cancer Society, but that doesn?t make it a risk-free habit. Past research has found that oils used to vape contain toxins, and a new study shows that the latest e-cigarette devices might leak dangerous amounts of metal, including lead, which could have serious health risks.

In a study published in the February 2017 issue of Environmental Research, public health expert Ana Mar?a Rule of Johns Hopkins University found that liquids used in the first generation of e-cigarettes could be potentially toxic and carcinogenic. However, things have changed in just one year as companies constantly offer new, more sophisticated devices. Plus, Rule was often met with questions about the safety of inhaled aerosol.

?A lot of people were asking, ?You found these metals in the liquid, but what does this mean?? Are they getting into the vapor that I?m inhaling??? Rule explained to Newsweek.

So, the team began a new project studying the latest devices, called Mods, as well as the aerosol inhaled by smokers.

For this study, 56 daily e-cigarette smokers lent their devices to Rule?s lab, where scientists tested the vaping liquid, liquid inside the e-cigarette tanks, and the aerosol. They looked for 15 different metals including lead, chromium, nickel and manganese, which are the most dangerous, according to Rule.

Some of the refilling dispensers did contain small amounts of metal. However, liquids in the e-cigarette tanks and aerosols contained higher levels. Rule believes the heating coils found in the tanks could somehow be transferring metal into the aerosol. This is alarming as aerosol is inhaled by users.

The data showed that nearly 50 percent of aerosol samples contained lead in quantities above the Ambient Air Quality Standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency. In addition, the concentrations of nickel, chromium and manganese found in nearly half of the aerosol samples exceeded the limits. Every e-cigarette in the study was different, so the amounts varied per model. This variety, explained Rule, is one of the study's strengths.

?Every person that came into our study brought in their own device,? she said. ?We think it?s representative of what people are vaping in the country.?

Arsenic also was found in some of the e-liquid samples, both in the chamber and refills, as well as some vapor samples.

Now that exposure has been established, the next steps are to determine if, and how, it impacts the body. Rule hopes this study, and corresponding research, will push the Food and Drug Administration to begin regulating e-cigarette pens. She believes quality control and newer, safer devices are issues that need to be addressed.

?Maybe there?s another way to heat or isolate the liquid from the heating element,? she said. Although she doesn't believe vaping is safe, Rule asserts there needs to be better devices for those who insist on the habit. ?There?s got to be a safer way to do it," she said.

I'm glad I don't vape nictoine.

 

[S.J.B.]

I'm glad I don't vape nictoine.

The metals aren't coming from the nicotine. It sounds like they're coming from the device itself.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

Did you read the whole article? They found arsenic in the liquid itself. This is a toxic element, as I'm sure you know.

As per the other elements; how would you go about knowing your vaping device isn't leeching metals into the vapor? A lot of users prefer higher temps/larger vape clouds, etc.

 

[S.J.B.]

Did you read the whole article? They found arsenic in the liquid itself. This is a toxic element, as I'm sure you know.

The researchers showed that the concentrations of toxic metals were generally orders of magnitude higher in e-liquids that were in the tank of the device compared to the dispenser. But yes, arsenic was an exception, although it was only found in 1 out of 10 samples, and the researchers did not determine whether it came from toxic (i.e. inorganic) or relatively non-toxic (i.e. organic) arsenic compounds. I don't know where the arsenic is coming from but I doubt it is from the nicotine itself. In any case, I wouldn't assume that nicotine-free vape liquids, or cannabis concentrates of various forms for that matter, would be any less likely to contain trace metals such as arsenic.

As per the other elements; how would you go about knowing your vaping device isn't leeching metals into the vapor? A lot of users prefer higher temps/larger vape clouds, etc.

These studies seem to indicate that one's device almost certainly is leeching metals into the vapour to some degree. The question is whether it is actually a concern or not. This recent risk analysis surveyed the studies done on the metals that one is exposed to by vaping and argues that if you are using e-cigarettes as an alternative to tobacco smoking, the (relatively low) concentrations of metals you are exposing yourself to ought to be significantly less harmful.

That said, I would be apprehensive about using massive tanks with very high temperatures, given how little we actually know about long-term toxicity at this point.

 

[Vastness]

Something I think is relevant here that might not be obvious to everyone is that they only looked at older "cig-a-like" style e-cigarettes, where the heating element and e-liquid is stored within a single disposable unit which is not refillable.

From the linked study:

For their study, the researchers selected five leading brands of so-called first generation e-cigarettes, which are referred to as cig-a-likes because they resemble traditional cigarettes. (Newer ones look like small cassette recorders with a mouthpiece. In the newer devices the liquid is added from a dispenser prior to use. In contrast, the liquid in first generation e-cigs is stored in the cartridge together with the coil, which increases the liquid’s exposure to the coil even in the absence of heating.

These types of vaping device are typically a lot cheaper, and one would expect manufacturing standards to be lower. The study's findings are a concern, sure, and definitely warrant further investigation, but I think there is good reason to think that higher quality, refillable devices are likely to be less dangerous as far as exposure to heavy metal vapour goes.



EDIT: Seems I am mistaken, see posts below - the study I link to above is actually an older one. Editing my post because I don't want to be responsible for spreading misinformation.

 

[Limpet_Chicken]

IMO one other thing that should be taken note of is for those who make up their own vape liquid which is a good idea, OTC liquids contain glycerine, which IMO is a really bad thing to put in something going to get vaporized by heat. Glycerine can be dehydrated either thermally or chemically to acrolein, a powerfully lachrymatory agent, toxin, carcinogen and generally foul, stinking, caustic stuff.

 

[S.J.B.]

Something I think is relevant here that might not be obvious to everyone is that they only looked at older "cig-a-like" style e-cigarettes, where the heating element and e-liquid is stored within a single disposable unit which is not refillable.

That was an older study, the study which is the main focus of the article is linked in my earlier post and does not focus only on cig-a-likes.

 

[JessFR]

Ugh. You know, even if there are problems with some ecig products, I've yet to see any good evidence that there's any reason the underlying technology can't be made perfectly safe.

Even if all this stuff is true, with some brands of eliquid and ecig devices, it's frustrating that this information will be used to try and convince people to ban it.

I find it most suspicious that according to a lot of people, a habit that looks a lot like smoking, but technically has nothing in common with smoking except for the nicotine, which isn't carcinogenic. Would just so happen by complete coincidence to have all the same health risks as the activity it's meant to replace.

Which is either an astounding coincidence. Or people just hate smoking and whatever they imagine big tobacco to be, so they make up and imagine health problems because in their mind if it's at all like smoking it has to be just as unhealthy.

Sounds to me like what we probably need is better regulation over the production of ecigs and eliquid. But I have this horrible feeling that regulation will actually mean prohibition.

 

[Vastness]

That was an older study, the study which is the main focus of the article is linked in my earlier post and does not focus only on cig-a-likes.

Oh yes, my mistake. Would be interested to see the actual study in more detail, don't see it linked anywhere just yet though.



^JessFR, I agree, there is surely no inherent reason that the technology can't be made safe. I take an optimistic view of apparently biased or negative coverage of the health risks of vaping however (although I don't really see any definite bias in the article in question) which is that people are now just very wary, for good reason, of anything that resembles smoking now that the undeniable health risks of actual combustion-cigarettes have come out, as well as the undeniable and indefensible misinformation campaigns waged by big tobacco in the past.

I think this is a good thing on the whole, and I think that modern human society on the whole has less appetite for things that are clearly destructive to health, as well as less appetite for authoritarian, prohibition-based approaches to governing society (ie - just banning shit for arbitrary reasons). For these reasons I think that if these trends continue it is unlikely in this instance that increased regulation will lead to outright prohibition, especially taking into account the still considerable, but fading capitalistic influence of big tobacco which has a vested interest in finding a way to stay relevant and profitable in a post-cigarette world. Hopefully I am right...

 

[S.J.B.]

Would be interested to see the actual study in more detail, don't see it linked anywhere just yet though.

Here is the older study, and the newer study.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

made perfectly safe.

nicotine is harmful for everyone. it suppresses hormones in both men and women, and is itself carcinogenic.

 

[JessFR]

nicotine is harmful for everyone. it suppresses hormones in both men and women, and is itself carcinogenic.

Could you provide some evidence of nicotine being carcinogenic? If you want you can add evidence of the health implications of the hormone thing but I'm mainly looking for the carcinogen evidence. Hormone suppression in itself, even if it's true, isn't inherently evidence of some kind of tangible health problem.

EDIT: I wound up looking myself. At most, nicotine might still warrant further investigation into carcinogenic properties. Most of the evidence is consistent with the underlying assumption you'd make given the nature of the compound, which is that it's not carcinogenic. There are one or two studies that suggest possible carcinogenic properties, but they haven't been repeated and contradict other studies.

In short. Nicotine probably isn't carcinogenic, but the truth is probably that its probably in need of more research.

One of the problems is that all the interest groups that outright want to prove that nicotine itself is bad as part of their wider desire to stop all forms of smoking because they feel the activity itself is morally wrong, compounded by the interests that wish to prove there is no danger at all because of the money they make in the area, have polluted the available information.

Right now, the evidence of nicotines dangers seems very limited, and if there are dangers, how great they are is still very unknown. But just assuming nicotine must be bad because of some wider generalized anti smoking agenda is not helping the search for the truth.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

Tobacco use is considered the single most important man-made cause of cancer that can be avoided. The evidence that nicotine is involved in cancer development is reviewed and discussed in this paper. Both tobacco smoke and tobacco products for oral use contain a number of carcinogenic substances, such as polycyclic hydrocarbons and tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines (TSNA), which undoubtedly contribute to tobacco related cancer. Recent studies have shown that nicotine can affect several important steps in the development of cancer, and suggest that it may cause aggravation and recurrence of the disease. TSNA may be formed from nicotine in the body. The role of nicotine as the major addictive component of tobacco products may have distracted our attention from toxicological effects on cell growth, angiogenesis, and tumor malignancy. Effects on cancer disease are important aspects in the evaluation of possible long-term effects from sources of nicotine, such as e-cigarettes and products for nicotine replacement therapy, which both have a potential for life-long use.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4553893/

read it, it's a worthwhile read. it shows that nicotine is genotoxic as well as interfering with certain chemotherapy regimens.

2/3rds of rats with subcutaneous nicotine injections developed neoplasms. None of the control did.

 

[BehindtheShadow]

It's funny I know how bad it is but I can't stop....
Ugh disgusting habit that I love so much

 

[JessFR]

It's funny I know how bad it is but I can't stop....
Ugh disgusting habit that I love so much

Yeah I know how you feel, I love it too.

Tobacco use is considered the single most important man-made cause of cancer that can be avoided. The evidence that nicotine is involved in cancer development is reviewed and discussed in this paper. Both tobacco smoke and tobacco products for oral use contain a number of carcinogenic substances, such as polycyclic hydrocarbons and tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines (TSNA), which undoubtedly contribute to tobacco related cancer. Recent studies have shown that nicotine can affect several important steps in the development of cancer, and suggest that it may cause aggravation and recurrence of the disease. TSNA may be formed from nicotine in the body. The role of nicotine as the major addictive component of tobacco products may have distracted our attention from toxicological effects on cell growth, angiogenesis, and tumor malignancy. Effects on cancer disease are important aspects in the evaluation of possible long-term effects from sources of nicotine, such as e-cigarettes and products for nicotine replacement therapy, which both have a potential for life-long use.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4553893/

read it, it's a worthwhile read. it shows that nicotine is genotoxic as well as interfering with certain chemotherapy regimens.

2/3rds of rats with subcutaneous nicotine injections developed neoplasms. None of the control did.

I think that was one of the studies I found when I looked it up myself.

It's certainly interesting. And cause for concern. But it's still just one study. And in fairly sure there are others that contradict parts of it. In short, I think we need more data. It's probably just not known yet for sure how carcinogenic it really is yet.

But even if it turns out that nicotine is carcinogenic in isolation, it seems extremely doubtful that it wouldn't still be substantially safer than using actual tobacco products.

This is very unfortunate. If nicotine has any carcinogenic activity, even mild, even if it's only a maybe. That'll be used as justification to ban ecigs in places with a prohibitions mindset. Here in Australia the nicotine for ecigs is already banned. They didn't even wait for there to be evidence. But then Australia's about as extreme as you get when it comes to public safety and health.

What's frustrating to me, I support the concept of having a public health system. But the existence of the public health system here is the number one excuse for making people's personal choices societies business.

You cant choose any lifestyle or hobby that might put you in danger because the health system will have to pay for it.

Except alcohol, that's practically encouraged cause Australian has a serious alcohol problem. But I digress.

 

[Limpet_Chicken]

IMO there are only two regulations that ought to be imposed (on the liquids). One being that they contain the concentration of nicotine that they claim they do, and the other being use of propylene glycol-only diluent, since as I mentioned, dehydration of glycerine (most if not all off the shelf liquids are a mix of PG and glycerine) produces acrolein, which is HIGHLY toxic stuff, and a teargas to boot, to put it in perspective, the IDLH values taken from wikipedia for acrolein and for phosgene gas are identical, at 2ppm (parts per million), I've handled the pure, distilled stuff (acrolein, not liquid phosgene, I avoid phosgene at all costs in my lab, its lethal stuff, and insidious as hell) and believe you me, one encounter with it and you will remember it until the day they stick you in a hole in the ground and mutter a few religious platitudes over your corpse.

It stinks like something the devil himself shit out, it burns one's eyes and respiratory tract, and once, as a kid, after preparing a quantity of the stuff, I made the mistake of dumping the unused acrolein down the sink, and flushed it with water. Turned the tap the wrong way, sending hot water down the drain, sending a horrendous, stygian belch of hellspawned virulence shitting in reverse up out of the drain, caught the full blast of vapor right in the face and it sent me reeling, choking, tearing up, coughing out
a stream of terms that no pre-teen should ever have heard, much less spoken, that was near enough as foul as the gust of acrolein I'd just got in the face.

Its reactive, toxic as hell, probably carcinogenic directly, plus its metabolic fate is, primarily, reaction with glutathione, an important detoxifier of free radical species and toxins of other sorts as well as drug metabolism. It stinks something nasty, too, and I KNOW that stench, taste and choking sensation caused by acrolein, and especially on higher e-fag voltage settings, the more I can smell and taste and choke on it.

In fact, before I switched to making liquids with propylene glycol only, I'd often have to throw away half a tank full of liquid,
because enough acrolein had built up to make the remainder completely intolerable to inhale.

 

[LucidSDreamr]

i remember being desperate and hitting a pen with dried up cannabinoid solution to the point of hitting the plastic it was so dry. can't have been good for me

 

[Captain.Heroin]

This is very unfortunate.

It would be natural, since nicotine is a defense for the tobacco plant against insects. It doesn't smoke itself, etc.

I think everyone deserves an informed decision. Clearly the risk should be lower than traditional cigarettes but it warrants further in-depth study.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

i remember being desperate and hitting a pen with dried up cannabinoid solution to the point of hitting the plastic it was so dry. can't have been good for me

likely very bad smoke but I can't imagine it would be that damaging. eating/orally ingesting plastic is very damaging to the liver.

 

[JessFR]

It would be natural, since nicotine is a defense for the tobacco plant against insects. It doesn't smoke itself, etc.

I think everyone deserves an informed decision. Clearly the risk should be lower than traditional cigarettes but it warrants further in-depth study.

Not inherently. Morphine and as I recall capsaicin also both serve the same function and neither of them are carcinogenic. And causing cancer in a predator isn't exactly a fast way of preventing being eaten. Lots of deadly substances have wound up being useful. Atropine, scopolamine, various plant cardiotoxins plus the abovr mentioned morphine and capsaicin are all used in plants to kill things but have found safe medical purposes. Botox is one of the deadliest poisons around and a safe use was found.

Personally, I still doubt that nicotine is toxic. But given the above mentioned studies I'm sufficiently concerned that I think more information is needed assuming it isn't already available and I've simply yet to find it.

It wouldn't be the first time flawed or misleading studies have suggested carcinogenic properties that weren't actually true. But to me given the that I see little logical reason on pharmacological grounds for nicotine to be carcinogenic, and the obvious political motivation for some to prove such a claim, I'd want much better evidence to prove nicotine is carcinogenic than a study that conflicts with previous studies. Like I said, more data would be preferable.