Add new comment

Comment: 

The unsigned comment is quoting the abstract of the paper by http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/03/05/tobaccocontrol-20... target="_blank";Goniewicz, et al that I used to get compounds to compare with the Proposition 65 list.  Their paper also compared the levels of these compounds with a nicotine inhaler (the "reference" product" they refer to in the abstract, but did not fully develop that comparison.
Here are the results computed from Table 3 in their paper:
                                   ecig   inhaler   ratio
Formaldehyde        28.2      2.0         14
Acetaldehyde            7.4       1.1          7
Acrolein                    11.5      ND          --
o-methylbenzyne      3.9       0.7         6
Toluene                      0.8       ND         --
p,m-xylene                 0.1       ND         --
NNN                            1.5       ND         --
NNK                             6.6      ND         --
Cadmium                  0.09    0.03        3
Nickel                         0.19    0.19        1
Lead                           0.09    0.04        2
ND=not detected
Looked at this way, an e-cig delivers 14 times as much formaldehyde, 7 times as much actaldehyde, 6 times as much o-methylbenzene, 3 times as much cadmium and twice as much lead as a nicotine inhaler, as well as acrolein, toulene, p,m-xylene, NNN and NNK, which were not detected in the "reference device". 
Based on these comparisons, one could use the data in this paper to conclude that nicotine inhalers would be a safer approach to delivering nicotine in a harm reduction strategy than e-cigarettes.
 
 

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.