19 harmful chemicals in e-cigarettes

NewsGuard 100/100 Score

It's no easy task to quit smoking and the lure of an e-cigarette, which claims to mimic the smoking experience without the harmful chemicals, seems a dream come true for many smokers. According Philip McAndrew, MD, Loyola University Health System physician and smoking cessation expert, that dream can quickly turn into a nightmare with no FDA product regulations. The truth is little is known about the chemicals e-cigarette smokers are inhaling. What is known is there is an increase in the number of adolescents smoking them.

"In our culture we have this idea that something new is something better no matter how little we know about it or how little it's regulated," McAndrew said. "There is no clear evidence that e-cigarettes help with smoking cessation and the lack of FDA regulation has led to the use of at least 19 harmful chemicals in the devices, some that are cancer-causing carcinogens."

The e-cigarettes contain nicotine, but also a high concentration of propylene glycol, which is a hazard if inhaled. This chemical is what provides the "smoke." There is no research on the effects the chemical has on the lungs when inhaled at this concentration. What is known is that The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health lists propylene glycol as an inhalant risk and recommends immediate fresh air if the chemical is inhaled.

"E-cigarettes are really a wolf in sheep's clothing. People think it's a safe alternative to cigarettes, but the reality is we don't know. There are so many important safety questions we don't have answers to. We don't know who is producing them, exactly what chemicals are in them, if the construction of the devices are safe and the effects these chemicals can have on a person's health," McAndrew said.

The City of Chicago's recent ban on e-cigarettes use is similar to the ban on regular cigarettes and requires retailers to keep electronic cigarettes behind the counter like traditional cigarettes. McAndrew believes this is a good start, but more needs to be done with regulations.

"We were seeing a decline in the number of adolescents smoking, but according to the Centers for Disease Control the number of middle school and high school students who have tried e-cigarettes doubled in a year. This is a tremendous health risk. The kids see them as a cool, new tech device, but what they really are is an inroad to a nicotine addiction," McAndrew said.

McAndrew also doesn't see them as an effective tool for smoking cessation.

"I am a firm believer in methods that have been proven effective to help people quit smoking such as oral medication, nicotine replacement that is regulated and counseling. That triad has the best percentage of not only helping people to quit but to stay that way," McAndrew said. "E-cigarettes do not separate the nicotine from the oral fixation which is extremely important when a person is trying to stop smoking."

Comments

  1. Douglas Hicks Douglas Hicks Jamaica says:

    Lots of money moving to E-Cigs and away from NRT, money shows what will work. Tobacco use down, E-cig use up, NRT sales down. Crunch the data, we need REAL data.

  2. Douglas Hicks Douglas Hicks Jamaica says:

    "we don't know" Tired hearing that phrase from people paid to know, seven years, still "we do not know". What rubbish, they know but the answer does not fit into THE PLAN.

  3. Krisztian Pifko Krisztian Pifko Hungary says:

    More science and less fairy tales please. Even if it is true, 19 harmful chemicals are still ~381 less than what is found in lit tobacco. E-cigs are meant for harm reduction, not smoking cessation, might be an idea to read first on the subject before writing garbage. "We don't know" is so WHO 2009. Medicinal scaremongering at its best.

  4. B Peterson B Peterson United States says:

    "What is known is that The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health lists propylene glycol as an inhalant risk and recommends immediate fresh air if the chemical is inhaled"
    The same thing is claimed for many common compounds (including water).

    The fact that e-cigarettes do not separate nicotine from "the oral fixation" is what has kept me from smoking tobacco for the past 3 years.  I used Wellbutrin, patches, gum and other "approved" methods to try to quit smoking 1.5 packs a day with no success whatsoever.

  5. Tom Blackwell Tom Blackwell United States says:

    "19 harmful chemicals in e-cigarettes"
    1} Propylene glycol
    2) nicotine

    it seems you missed the other 17 that the title mentions.

    about your FDA approved methods:

    Ingredients in the Nicorette QuickMist Spray (FDA Approved):
    - 1mg Nicotine
    - Propylene glycol
    - Anhydrous ethanol (Basically really pure alcohol)
    - Trometamol (Pain Reliever)
    - Poloxamer 407 (Degreaser - Cleaning Solution)
    - Glycerol
    - Sodium hydrogen carbonate (Antacid)
    - Levomenthol (Menthol - anaesthetic)
    - Mint flavour
    - Cooling flavour
    - Sucralose (Low Calorie Sweetener)
    - Acesulfame potassium (Low Calorie Artificial Sweetener)
    - Hydrochloric acid - (Enough Said.They approved this for consumption)
    - Purified water


    Wait a minute!  did you read that list? so Propylene glycol is ok if it's in the FDA approved Nicorette QuickMist Spray but it's a harmful chemical if it's in ecigarettes?
    You can't have it both ways.
    So is the FDA approving these evil and harmful chemicals for our consumption or is this little editorial total BS?

    let me drop a little knowledge on you and your readers:


    Ingredients in Vaping products (E-liquid):
    - Propylene Glycol - UPS Rated (Same as above)
    - Vegetable Glycerin - USP Rated (Glycerol is what Nicorette lists)
    - Nicotine (Or 0mg Nicotine if you prefer) (Same as above)
    - Mint flavor (or the flavor of your choice)

    So which one is safer now?
    Make sure you take your time and read the ingredients in both before you get back to me

  6. Mark Jaye Mark Jaye United States says:

    Forgive me for the repeat comments.  However, this article is so lacking in data that it relies 100% on innuendo.  The innuendo: Using the term nicotine, propylene glycol and carcinogens, in the same sentence.  The writer would have you believe that because they occur in the same sentence, they must be related.

    The article mentions 19  carcinogens.  (By the way, "cancer-causing carcinogens" is redundant since carcinogen denotes cancer-causing.)  You name nicotine and propylene glycol.  Neither of which is a carcinogen.  And yes, I do know of what I speak.  Nicotine is not directly carcinogenic.  A simple google search will confirm this.  But I've also included links below to two recent peer-reviewed e-cig vapor studies.  Propylene glycol is also not a carcinogen.  Again, google propylene glycol and it will be painfully obvious the author is wrong again.

    So, where are the other 17 "cancer-causing carcinogens?"  You wrongly name only two, and infer there are others.  

    The author should lose their press credentials or whatever it is this site requires of its writers.  This article is written under the guise of public interest, yet it does exactly the opposite, by specious arguments against a product that is already improving the lives of millions of former tobacco smokers.

    ntr.oxfordjournals.org/.../ntr.ntt203.short
    publichealth.drexel.edu/.../ms08.pdf

  7. Rob Heyes Rob Heyes United Kingdom says:

    Just the usual rubbish trotted out by smoking cessation people, nothing to see here, move along.

  8. David Moger David Moger United Kingdom says:

    Can you please point us to the research that states that inhaling PG is a health problem. All the research I have seen and the FDA say it is safe. Have Niccorette had it tested before they put it in their spray?  Oh sorry that is made by a big pharma company so you cannot suggest that it is dangerous in Nicorette.

    • Gabriel Johnson Gabriel Johnson United States says:

      OSHA lolcheck it out you'll see safe is under .5 ppm and its way over that in an e cig!!!

      • Mike Reed Mike Reed United States says:

        The following is the abstract from a study done by the following doctors: O. H. ROBERTSON, CLAYTON G. LOOSLI, THEODORE T. PUCK, HENRY WISE, HENRY M. LEMON and WILLIAM LESTER, JR. It is entitled: TESTS FOR THE CHRONIC TOXICITY OF PROPYLEXE GLYCOL AND TRIETHYLENE GLYCOL ON MONKEYS AND RATS BY VAPOR INHALATION AND ORAL ADMINISTRATION "With a view to determining the safety of employing the vapors of propylene glycol and triethylene glycol in atmospheres inhabited by human beings, monkeys and rats were exposed continuously to high concentrations of these vapors for periods of 12 to 18 months. Equal numbers of control animals were maintained under physically similar conditions. Long term tests of the effects on ingesting triethylene glycol were also carried out. The doses administered represented 50 to 700 times the amount of glycol the animal could absorb by breathing air saturated with the glycol. Comparative observations on the growth rates, blood counts, urine examinations, kidney function tests, fertility and general condition of the test and control groups, exhibited no essential differences between them with the exception that the rats in the glycol atmospheres exhibited consistently higher weight gains. Some drying of the skin of the monkeys' faces occurred after several months continuous exposure to a heavy fog of triethylene glycol. However, when the vapor concentration was maintained just below saturation by means of the glycostat this effect did not occur. Examination at autopsy likewise failed to reveal any differences between the animals kept in glycolized air and those living in the ordinary room atmosphere. Extensive histological study of the lungs was made to ascertain whether the glycol had produced any generalized or local irritation. None was found. The kidneys, liver, spleen and bone marrow also were normal. The results of these experiments in conjunction with the absence of any observed ill effects in patients exposed to both triethylene glycol and propylene glycol vapors for months at a time, provide assurance that air containing these vapors in amounts up to the saturation point is COMPLETELY HARMLESS.

        and yeah I'm sure OSHA is completely up to date with info... "during the 1970s the agency had one inspector per 30,000 workers; now it's one per 60,000. The fact is that the agency essentially has no enforcement authority. Moreover, over the past decade, OSHA has issued only one new health standard to clarify the maximum safe exposure level for a chemical--and this was done under a court order."

  9. Stormy Stroud Stormy Stroud United States says:

    I'm confused. I'm an e-juice maker, and considering there are ONLY 3 ingredients (nicotine is optional), where are these "19 carcinogenic ingredients" coming from?? I know EXACTLY what is in the juice I make. Pretty much every e-juice maker in the US uses the same ingredients, and the majority of us get these ingredients from the same US based suppliers.

    The ingredients are 1) propylene glycol, which  is considered generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, used in pharmaceutical and personal care products, is USP certified, and Kosher. Propylene glycol is a solvent in many pharmaceuticals, including oral, injectable and topical formulations, such as for diazepam and lorazepam that are insoluble in water, use propylene glycol as a solvent in their clinical, injectable forms. 2)  Vegetable glycerin metabolizes differently than sugar and is used in low carbohydrate foods for sweetness and moisture. Unlike sugar, glycerin does not contribute to tooth decay. Many household products, including lotions, shampoo, and toothpaste, contain vegetable glycerin. Glycerin is added to these products because it is a humectant; a substance that attracts moisture to the skin. Vegetable glycerin is FDA approved, USP certified, and kosher 3) Flavoring. The flavoring is the same flavoring used by the medical AND food industries and are FDA approved, USP certified, and kosher. Nicotine IS FDA approved and used in most  smoking cessation products. That's it. There is no tobacco or carcinogens in any of this.

    So again I ask, where are these other chemicals coming from? And did you actually do ANY research before writing this garbage piece? As far as health risks, take 5 minutes to do a Google search and you'll find a lot of research that has been released just within the past year, one of which was done by Drexel University that shows no, ZERO, health concerns for second-hand vapor. You might want to actually try doing a little research before spreading false information around.

  10. Stormy Stroud Stormy Stroud United States says:

    You are terrified to approve any comments that prove you article is garbage aren't you?

  11. JP Massaro JP Massaro United States says:

    First of all, where is your proof, Dr. McAndrew? If you cite the 2009 FDA study I am going to laugh at you and suggest to your superiors and your medical board that your license to practice be revoked posthaste. That study was flawed and no one has ever been able to replicate the results, and people have tried. What you are doing is blatantly lying to the American people without scientific medical facts so that big pharma will keep funding you and your hospital. You keep prescribing NRTs that are 95% ineffective, Mr. Expert. What does that say about you?

    Maybe you should read what the ACSH said in the following article:
    acsh.org/.../

    Incidentally, they also said e-cigarettes were the #2 top unfounded health scare of 2013 here:
    http://acsh.org/2014/01/top-13-health-scares-2013/

    And you say there is no research, and not enough is known? Again, please visit this site. OVER TWO DOZEN STUDIES CONDUCTED THUS FAR.
    http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php

    And Michael Siegel at Boston University?
    www.nytimes.com/.../with-e-cigarettes-whats-not-to-like

    Shame on you, doctor. The FDA is a joke organization that doesn't know their a** from a hole in the ground. Experimental medications and NRT treatments can, and have killed people. Electronic cigarette total deaths to date in the last 11 years since their creation? ZERO.

    I'm a user of these products and I have felt 200% better after switching from tobacco to e-cigs. Thousands of other people worldwide are saying the same thing. Please, just stop.

  12. Jake Jacobsen Jake Jacobsen United States says:

    Real analysis of actual data-
    "In summary, analysis of the current state of knowledge about the chemistry of contaminants in liquids and aerosols associated with electronic cigarettes indicates that there is no evidence that vaping produces inhalable exposures to these contaminants at a level that would prompt measures to reduce exposure by the standards that are used to ensure safety of workplaces."
    Just trying to save the good doctor from having to do any real research.

  13. Giancarla Eble-Maccanti Giancarla Eble-Maccanti Switzerland says:

    And where are the 19 harmful Chemicals? Check this pik out and learn.  Until you`ve learned whats the thru,... schut your mauth because it smels like schit when you talk.
    www.facebook.com/photo.php

    • Gabriel Johnson Gabriel Johnson United States says:

      Please learn to spell and use proper grammar in the future if you want someone to consider your comments intelligently!

      • ha
        Mike Reed Mike Reed United States says:

        well with the comments your posting, it's obvious that nobody thinks you are intelligent either gabe. you don't have the knowledge to look into anything besides an outdated OSHA study "Date Last Revised: 05/08/2007" maybe find some viable information before you tap away on they keyboard and you wont look like a pretentious idiot.

  14. Michael Jones Michael Jones United Kingdom says:

    Dont you know that Propylene Gylcol is used in air conditiong units in Hospitals because it has anti-bacterial properties so saying that you must get fresh air after inhaling PG is stupid and just shows that the writer doesn"t know a thing about what he"s saying and just copying what Pharmaceutical companies have told him to say.To put it bluntly he"s a dumb nut.

  15. Mike Reed Mike Reed United States says:

    This whole article is a plethora of outdated information and avoidance of the truth. Do not take a word of what this article states to heart, because any truthful study will reveal a surprisingly different story.

  16. Franklin Farrell Franklin Farrell United States says:

    !9 chemicals in Ecigs over 7000 in real cigs hummm

  17. Johan Nortje Johan Nortje South Africa says:

    First of all, the title of this article is misleading. If you are going to name it something, make sure you hold true to the title.
    Secondly, Propylene glycol is only toxic if inhaled or eaten in HUGE quantities over a very short period of time. No way you'll inhale a liter in an hour!!! If you are going to write an article, make sure that the BS you post is at least a little factual.
    I have done my research and this article is the biggest lie I have read so far.

  18. Leigh Fennell Leigh Fennell Canada says:

    E cigarettes are not a wolf in sheep's clothing if the effects are not fully known. The analogy of a wolf in sheep's clothing denotes a proven danger

The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News Medical.
Post a new comment
Post

While we only use edited and approved content for Azthena answers, it may on occasions provide incorrect responses. Please confirm any data provided with the related suppliers or authors. We do not provide medical advice, if you search for medical information you must always consult a medical professional before acting on any information provided.

Your questions, but not your email details will be shared with OpenAI and retained for 30 days in accordance with their privacy principles.

Please do not ask questions that use sensitive or confidential information.

Read the full Terms & Conditions.

You might also like...
Piquin chili's health benefits spotlighted due to high antioxidant content