Problems for Particulate Profs
Italian profs pronounce problems resulting from second-hand ultrafine particles, something Clive Bates debunked as an issue back in 2014
-
by Dave Cross
Share on:
This “study aims to evaluate the impact of e-cig second-hand aerosol on indoor air quality in terms of ultrafine particles (UFPs) and potential inhalation exposure levels of passive bystanders,” write the Italian authors.
Despite being welcomed by anti-vaping campaigners, the study only looked at aerosol produced by just two people. They studied and measured 15 different e-liquid characteristics in terms of the UFPs number, concentration, and size distribution. We are left to guess at what the undefined “natural ventilation” or a “realistic exposure scenario” entails.
They demonstrated that vaping produces particulates in orders or magnitude lower than smoking – but failed to differentiate on the type of particulates measured.
“In the size range 6-26 nm, particles concentration in e-cig second-hand aerosol were from 2- (Dp = 25.5 nm) to 3800-fold (Dp = 9.31 nm) higher than in tobacco smoke highlighting that particles exhaled by users and potentially inhaled by bystanders are nano-sized with high penetration capacity into human airways.”
If that sounds worrying then that was probably the aim as Clive Bates noted five years ago: “Opponents of e-cigarettes have determined that ‘ultrafine particles’ or ‘particulates’ are an issue they can work with. But this campaigning gambit, it turns out, involves a crude scientific sleight of hand.”
Stanton Glantz was one of the first to propose that particulates presented a problem, to which Clive quotes Dr Farsalinos saying: “However, this is a direct mis-presentation of evidence, since there is not even a single study indicating that particles emitted from e-cigarettes represent a risk factor for cardiovascular disease.”
“The important and obvious point for scientists and non-scientists alike is that it is not just the size of the particles that matters, but what they are made of. That is how reactive and toxic the surface chemistry is and whether they are liquid and likely to be easily absorbed or solid and likely to lodge in lung tissue. There is a big difference between the soot from diesel engines, emissions from power stations, photochemical smog or biomass burning (including the hot reactive organic particles in tobacco smoke) and the relatively benign components of an e-cigarette vapour droplet.”
Clive’s full article is linked below.
Related:
- “Evaluation of Second-Hand Exposure to Electronic Cigarette Vaping under a Real Scenario: Measurements of Ultrafine Particle Number Concentration and Size Distribution and Comparison with Traditional Tobacco Smoke” by Palmisani et al. - [link]
- “Scientific sleight of hand: constructing concern about ‘particulates’ from e-cigarettes”, Clive Bates – [link]
Dave Cross
Journalist at POTVDave is a freelance writer; with articles on music, motorbikes, football, pop-science, vaping and tobacco harm reduction in Sounds, Melody Maker, UBG, AWoL, Bike, When Saturday Comes, Vape News Magazine, and syndicated across the Johnston Press group. He was published in an anthology of “Greatest Football Writing”, but still believes this was a mistake. Dave contributes sketches to comedy shows and used to co-host a radio sketch show. He’s worked with numerous start-ups to develop content for their websites.
Join the discussion
Harm Reduction For The Rich
The United Kingdom risks becoming a harm reduction country only for the wealthy, according to Michael Landl of the World Vapers’ Alliance
-
by Dave Cross
CAPHRA Highlights Tobacco Control Flaws
The Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates highlights the flaws in tobacco control which has led to the rise of black market in Australia
-
by Dave Cross
A Missed Opportunity at COP10
The Smoke Free Sweden movement says that COP10 was a missed opportunity to save millions of lives
-
by Dave Cross
COP10: Promote Tobacco Harm Reduction
Experts with Smoke Free Sweden are emphasising the urgent need for a Tobacco Harm Reduction approach at COP10
-
by Dave Cross
