Formaldehyde release in e-cigarette vapor

The New York Times story explained in detail


Dr Farsalinos

A study to be published in Nicotine and Tobacco Research was featured in the New York Times and has generated a lot of interest. The article mentioned that e-cigarette vapor can be the source of carcinogens, depending on the heating process.

The article is true and expected. We know that thermal degradation can lead to the release of toxic chemicals. And we know that formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and acrolein have been found in vapor. There is nothing new to it. However, this study found that levels may approach those present in tobacco cigarettes. Of course there some inaccuracies in the NYT article, such as that nicotine gets overheated (which means nothing).

Herein, I present with more detail the results of this study. Researchers used an EGO Twist battery (variable voltage) and a top-coil clearomizer (with unknown resistance, thus unknown wattage delivery). At 3.2 and 4.0 volts, formaldehyde levels were 13-807 times lower compared to tobacco cigarettes!! At 4.8 volts, formaldehyde levels were increased by up to 200 times, and reached to levels similar to tobacco cigarettes.

The main criticism to this study is that in my opinion it is highly unlikely that a top-coil atomizer like the one used in this study would be used at 4.8 volts. At a resistance of 2.2 Ohms that would represent 10.4 watts of energy delivery to the atomizer. I tried 10 watts with an EVIC battery in a Vivi Nova top-coil atomizer (for a clinical study i perfomed few months ago), and many vapers were unable to use it due to the dry puff phenomenon. Unfortunately, the researchers did not measure and could not provide any information about the resistance of the atomizers, thus it is unknown how much energy was delivered to the atomizer. In my opinion, this is crucial. Moreover, it is very important to examine new-generation (rebuildable or bottom coil) atomizers at similar conditions, since it is more likely for vapers to use such advanced atomizers for high-wattage vaping. I am certain that, due to better liquid resupply to the resistance and wick, the results will be much more favorable.

Another important point is that, although formaldehyde levels can be similar to tobacco, several other toxic chemicals are completely absent from e-cigarette vapor. For example, acrolein was completely absent although they used liquids with glycerol as the main ingredient. In fact, glycerin-based liquids had much lower formaldehyde levels in vapor compared to PG or PG/VG liquids, suggesting that they are much safer to use. As a general remark, finding few chemicals at similar levels does not mean that the risk is equivalent to tobacco cigarettes. Of course, all this information was not presented in the NYT article.

Concerning the remarks about dripping, we should admit that dripping does not allow the user to see how much liquid is present in the atomizer. The same happens with cartomizers. We currently do not know whether the elevation in formaldehyde levels happens just at the time of dry puff phenomenon, or it happens earlier (before being detected by the vaper). Clearomizer-type atomizers (also called tank systems) seem to be the future in e-cigarette use, giving consumers the ability to know when they need to resupply the atomizer with liquid.


Share Button


+1 #58 Norbert Zillatron 2014-11-05 12:33
I did a "public review" of the study in:
+1 #57 Dr Farsalinos 2014-08-12 17:15
In reality, it was a 2.8sec puff duration. They activated the e-cigarette 1 second before drawing air from it. Thus, the total activation time was 2.8sec.
+1 #56 Tom Blackwell 2014-08-12 16:58
Never mind. I see it now: In the current study, all tests were performed with the following puffing conditions: puff duration 1.8 s, puff volume 70ml, and puff intervals 17 s :lol:
+2 #55 Tom Blackwell 2014-08-12 16:50
Not only did they use a CE4 type clearo turned all the way up to 4.8 volts they also measured it in a 10 second draw!
Not only would it burn your mouth and taste so burnt and bad a human couldn't do it.
The longest I could draw from any of my devices even at the lowest settings was 7 seconds and that was due to the airflow restriction of the tank.
I could barely inhale just air for 10 seconds.
So they were not using a real world scenario instead choosing one that would produce their desired results.
0 #54 john r walker 2014-08-08 07:07
I have just taken delivery of a battery control device ('batteries not included') that allows precise control of both Voltage and Wattage, and also does checks as to the exact resistance of the particular atomizer attached to it, have also added a cartomiser designed to create a lower atmospheric pressure in the chamber, i.e should produce a lower vapor point . So far it is giving very good results at quite low power.
+3 #53 tmmhmm 2014-08-08 03:03
So I guess when someone lights the wrong end of a cigarette (filter) by mistake they say "meh what the heck I'll keep smoking it?" LOL

It's almost the same as vaping dry:)
0 #52 john r walker 2014-07-30 05:37
Dr Farsalinos
The results for A6 and the control PG/VG liquid (C2) differ only in the level of butanal produced . All the other results for these two liquids are 'not detected' . Doesn't this suggest that A6 is also likely to be based on a PG/VG and nicotine mix- just as its maker says?
+1 #51 Dr Farsalinos 2014-07-28 23:29
You are right, it is unclear how they found PEG. Based on the way they mention it, it seems that it was through the label.
+1 #50 john r walker 2014-07-28 23:18
Actually the paper states that the liquids were grouped as : " Based on the labeling information, we grouped the products into VG based (only VG; A1–A3), VG:PG based (both VG and PG mixed in various ratios; A4–A6), and PG based (only PG; A7–A10). "
0 #49 Dr Farsalinos 2014-07-28 22:48
The paper mentions that they did perform chemical analysis.

Add comment

Comments will appear after being approved by the administrator. All comments will be published, besides advertisements and spam.

Security code

Disclaimer: all presentations in this site are personal opinions of the authors or website owners. By reading and using the information provided, you agree that we are not held responsible for your choices and you are personally responsibility for using or sharing this information. No recommendations are made for using the electronic cigarette.