# Harmful metals found in vapors from tank-style electronic cigarettes



## Hooked (2/10/19)

https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2019/...found-vapors-tank-style-electronic-cigarettes
27 Sept. 2019

A team of scientists at the University of California, Riverside, has found the concentration of metals in electronic cigarette aerosols — or vapor — has increased since tank-style electronic cigarettes were introduced in 2013 ... 

The high-power batteries and atomizers used in these new styles can alter the metal concentrations that transfer into the aerosol. “These tank-style e-cigarettes operate at higher voltage and power, resulting in higher concentrations of metals, such as lead, nickel, iron, and copper, in their aerosols,” said Monique Williams, a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Molecular, Cell, and Systems Biology, and the first author of the research paper that appears today in Scientific Reports. “Most of the metals in e-cigarette aerosols likely come from the nichrome wire, tin solder joints, brass clamps, insulating sheaths, and wicks — components of the atomizer unit.”

The researchers examined six tank-style electronic cigarettes and found all the aerosols had metals that appeared to originate in the atomizers. Further, they found the model with fewest metal parts in its atomizer had the fewest metals in its aerosol.

Of the 19 metals they screened, aluminum, calcium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, nickel, silicon, tin, and zinc were from components in the atomizing units. 

“Concentrations of the metals, such as lead, in the aerosols increased with more voltage,” Williams said. “Concentrations of some elements — chromium, lead, and nickel — were high enough to be a health concern. We found the concentrations of chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc exceeded the proposed permissible exposure limit from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.”

Chromium, lead, and nickel are known carcinogens. Prolonged exposure to chromium could cause gastrointestinal effects, nasal and lung cancer, respiratory irritation, and lung function impairment. Prolonged exposure to lead could produce vomiting, diarrhea, cardiovascular effects, and lung cancer. Nickel inhalation could cause lung disease, damage to the nasal cavity, lung irritation, lung inflammation, hyperplasia in pulmonary cells, and fibrosis. 

*The researchers analyzed the following six tanks and their atomizers: Kangertech Protank, Aspire Nautilus tank, Kanger T3S tank, Tsunami 2.4, Smok tank, and Clone.* [my highlights]. They collected aerosols from these brands using two methods and found the total concentrations of metals varied, ranging from 43 to 3,138 micrograms per liter with the “impinger method” of collection and 226 to 6,767 micrograms per liter with the “cold trap method.”

“When batteries with more power are used in these tank-style e-cigarettes, their atomizing units can heat to temperatures greater than 300 C, which could produce harmful byproducts,” said Prue Talbot, a professor of cell biology, who led the research team. “The presence of heavy metals, including some known carcinogens, in e-cigarette aerosols is concerning because with prolonged exposure they could cause adverse health effects.

[...]

*The National Institute of Drug Abuse, and Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products supported the study. Williams was partially supported by a predoctoral fellowship from the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program of California and a postdoctoral training grant from the National Institutes of Health.* [my highlights]

Talbot and Williams were joined in the study by UC Riverside’s Jun Li.

Reactions: Like 1 | Thanks 1


----------



## alex1501 (2/10/19)

Hooked said:


> “When batteries with more power are used in these tank-style e-cigarettes, their atomizing units can heat to temperatures greater than 300 C, which could produce harmful byproducts,” said Prue Talbot, a professor of cell biology, who led the research team. “The presence of heavy metals, including some known carcinogens, in e-cigarette aerosols is concerning because with prolonged exposure they could cause adverse health effects.



Who does that? At such a high temps your o-rings and peek insulators go to scrap, cotton burns in no time.

Reactions: Agree 3 | Winner 1


----------



## ARYANTO (2/10/19)

Now we are all hard metal fans , what next ? 
I'm going to leave my body to science thus there will be enough scrap metal in my lungs to fund a new project.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 4


----------



## Hooked (2/10/19)

alex1501 said:


> Who does that? At such a high temps your o-rings and peek insulators go to scrap, cotton burns in no time.



Exactly! We don't vape at such temps! But look at who funded the research and the results will no doubt be published in their arsenal against vaping.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RichJB (2/10/19)

It's worth noting that most of the metals they tested for are also present in cigarette smoke, with the addition of known carcinogens in cadmium and arsenic. For a truly representative test, we would need to see the results of cigarette smoke v vapour for typical daily consumption (number of cigs v ml of juice), at a temp that most users would find comfortable in vapour, and with recommended environmental limits for each metal listed.

Reactions: Like 3 | Agree 1


----------



## Jean claude Vaaldamme (2/10/19)

So anyone have a link to test where the heat on the coils was tested at say 100-140 watts? With a real instrument, not some clown on facebook?

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## RichJB (2/10/19)

Even 100W is way higher than many vapers go. I rarely vape above 35W.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Jean claude Vaaldamme (2/10/19)

RichJB said:


> Even 100W is way higher than many vapers go. I rarely vape above 35W.


Yes I only drink 1 bottle of brandy every day, but some people drink 3. 
Most people play music at their house at 500 decibels, some play it at 939 360 000 decibels, does that make it ok?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Adephi (2/10/19)

Jean claude Vaaldamme said:


> Yes I only drink 1 bottle of brandy every day,



At least thats one thing we won't argue about.

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Silver (2/10/19)

This is interesting , thanks @Hooked

I have always wondered if the manufacturer making a tank doesnt do it right - whether some of the metal from the tank could "leech" into the aerosol.

I am not a materials expert but have wondered about this for some time.

Along the lines of when you re-use a plastic bottle for a very long time that's not BPA free and some of the nasties supposedly leech into the water you are drinking. Well I have no way of testing that but its just what I have read on many platforms. I don't even know if this is a thing

But wondering if this sort of thing could actually happen if the tank or atty is not made well enough with inferior materials?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RichJB (2/10/19)

Jean claude Vaaldamme said:


> Yes I only drink 1 bottle of brandy every day, but some people drink 3.



Then you are both consuming in excess and the results of medical testing on the effects of brandy on your health will not apply to the bulk of the population. Which would make the validity of such testing questionable if it was used by govt to inform policy on alcohol sales to the public.

Instead, testing should perhaps be done on the full range of consumption, from one tot of brandy per day up to the quoted three bottles. Then consumers would have an informed baseline from which they could tailor their daily consumption to fit with the level of health risk that they are willing to face.

Curiously, many of the researchers into vaping seem reluctant to provide test results for anything other than extreme consumption or vaping conditions. One has to wonder why...

Reactions: Agree 3


----------



## Jean claude Vaaldamme (2/10/19)

RichJB said:


> Then you are both consuming in excess and the results of medical testing on the effects of brandy on your health will not apply to the bulk of the population. Which would make the validity of such testing questionable if it was used by govt to inform policy on alcohol sales to the public.
> 
> Instead, testing should perhaps be done on the full range of consumption, from one tot of brandy per day up to the quoted three bottles. Then consumers would have an informed baseline from which they could tailor their daily consumption to fit with the level of health risk that they are willing to face.
> 
> Curiously, many of the researchers into vaping seem reluctant to provide test results for anything other than extreme consumption or vaping conditions. One has to wonder why...


Not entirely true. Every vape vs cigarette youtube video I have seen they use little 5-10watt vape pen devices. These test are performed by pro vaping people. One has to wonder why they dont use proper vape gear


----------



## RichJB (2/10/19)

Exactly. We need research that reflects the risks of open system vaping. The reason cigalikes are used is because big tobacco conducts the research and big tobacco produces cigalikes, not open system hardware. They only research the products they sell.

However, this doesn't mean that cigalikes are healthier simply because they use lower wattage. The wattage must be balanced against the coil resistance. Cigalikes are capable of excessive temperatures even at lower wattages, due to their high resistance coils.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Raindance (3/10/19)

The statement that they found lead from joints in their samples seems to indicate they were vaporizing the whole device and not just ejuice.

We wont know because their methodology statement is incomplete.

Regards

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 2


----------



## Rincewind (3/10/19)

Here is the table showing the tanks/RDA's they used and the voltages, no mention of Ohms: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-50441-4/tables/1
Excerpt from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-50441-4 - Aerosol solutions were prepared using one atomizing unit. For each sample, 60 total puffs (4.3 seconds each) were taken,


----------

