The research is here:
A rapid method for the chromatographic analysis of volatile organic compounds in exhaled breath of tobacco cigarette and electronic cigarette smokers
The comment (by Dr. Farsalinos) is here:
New study proves there is no second-hand vaping: e-cigarette aerosol contains less volatile compounds than normal exhaled breath
Dr. Farsalinos had written:
The study has some methodological problems. In the Sampling section, they mention: “People inspired and expired deeply three times, then retained the breath for 20 s and blew into the Bio-VOC body through a disposable cardboard mouthpiece at their highest capacity”. Obviously, smokers or vapers do not hold their breath for 20 seconds before exhaling the breath. Thus, the study probably overestimated the absorption rate of VOCs present in cigarette smoke or e-cigarette aerosol.
Obviously Dr. had failed to notice that original research was not about breath exhaled after draw, but breath exhaled after 30 minutes after smoking/vaping (checking for residual effects). Big difference. His acquisitions of “methodological problems” are based on his not understanding of original article.
Another example. Dr. Farsalinos had written:
As I said, not all VOCs are toxic but, interestingly, there were cases of toxic compounds present in the exhaled breath but not in the e-cigarette aerosol. For example, isoprene, which is listed as a carcinogenic compound in California Proposition 65 (I hope the CEH is reading this comment), is present ONLY in exhaled breath (even in normal exhaled breath), but not in e-cigarette aerosol.
I wonder why he failed to notice that isoprene is produced by human body and Isoprene is the most abundant hydrocarbon measurable in the breath of humans
Isoprene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why am I writing this? Just to show that e-cig science and e-cig quasi-scientific propaganda are two different animals.
A rapid method for the chromatographic analysis of volatile organic compounds in exhaled breath of tobacco cigarette and electronic cigarette smokers
The comment (by Dr. Farsalinos) is here:
New study proves there is no second-hand vaping: e-cigarette aerosol contains less volatile compounds than normal exhaled breath
Dr. Farsalinos had written:
The study has some methodological problems. In the Sampling section, they mention: “People inspired and expired deeply three times, then retained the breath for 20 s and blew into the Bio-VOC body through a disposable cardboard mouthpiece at their highest capacity”. Obviously, smokers or vapers do not hold their breath for 20 seconds before exhaling the breath. Thus, the study probably overestimated the absorption rate of VOCs present in cigarette smoke or e-cigarette aerosol.
Obviously Dr. had failed to notice that original research was not about breath exhaled after draw, but breath exhaled after 30 minutes after smoking/vaping (checking for residual effects). Big difference. His acquisitions of “methodological problems” are based on his not understanding of original article.
Another example. Dr. Farsalinos had written:
As I said, not all VOCs are toxic but, interestingly, there were cases of toxic compounds present in the exhaled breath but not in the e-cigarette aerosol. For example, isoprene, which is listed as a carcinogenic compound in California Proposition 65 (I hope the CEH is reading this comment), is present ONLY in exhaled breath (even in normal exhaled breath), but not in e-cigarette aerosol.
I wonder why he failed to notice that isoprene is produced by human body and Isoprene is the most abundant hydrocarbon measurable in the breath of humans
Isoprene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why am I writing this? Just to show that e-cig science and e-cig quasi-scientific propaganda are two different animals.
