“They are as effective at nicotine delivery as puffing on an unlit cigarette,” said Dr. Thomas Eissenberg, from the Virginia Commonwelth University’s Institute for Drug and Alcohol Studies.

This quote was from a CNN article titled “Study: ‘Electronic cigarettes’ don’t deliver”. This article was apparently released before the actual study was released.

When available, we recommend all e-smokers and those with a vested interested in electronic cigarettes and public health, read The Study of Electronic Cigarettes by Dr. Thomas Eissenberg from the Virginia Commonwealth University.
UPDATE: Due to potential copyright issues, the link to this study has been removed

According to Dr. Eissenberg’s graphs:

UPDATE: Graph removed due to potential copyight issues

The study subjects were not getting much nicotine in their systems, but their cravings for a cigarette were decreased as compared to the “Sham”…..even if it wasn’t significantly.

Please note that they used 16 mg/ml e-liquid in the cartridges and the participants were instructed to take 10 puffs from the chosen e-cigarette with 30 seconds between each puff. Individual usage would likely change the results of not only the nicotine content, but presumably of the craving for a cigarette. As the study itself notes, “Variability in product design may influence vapour content and chronic use and/or more intensive puffing (ie, more puffs, greater puff volume) may influence nicotine delivery.”

Based on this study, there appears to be very little danger from nicotine in electronic cigarette vapor. It also appears that the electronic cigarette may not be a suitable quit smoking device.

Good thing the Instead Electronic Cigarette is a smoking alternative. Read, enjoy, and decide for yourself if you want to keep smoking tobacco cigarettes or try an electronic cigarette.

* Clinical information about this study, named “Evaluating the Acute Effects of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Devices Marketed to Smokers” can be found at ClinicalTrials.gov.
* This Study on Electronic Cigarettes was published in Tobacco Control, February 2010 Vol 19 No 1

The testing on the American made Instead brand e-liquid is complete.  The testing was done by Alliance Technologies and performed on both the liquid and the vapor.  Below is a summary chart of the findings:

The testing shows no detection of either Diethylene Glycol or Ethylene Glycol.  Diethylene Glycol or DEG was the compound the FDA detected in 1 sample from 1 company.  Dietheylene Glycol is toxic and is a solvent as well as sometimes used in antifreeze, among other things.  Ethylene Glycol is even more toxic and is a common ingredient in antifreeze.  Propylene Glycol has a very low toxicity and is generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the FDA for use in food.  The EPA stated “the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol.”  Glycerin is used in medicine and food.

To download and view the complete report, visit Lab Test on Instead American Made E-Liquid

Testing done by ANALYZE Inc, a premier independent consulting laboratory has determined that the vapor produced from the electronic cigarettes they tested do not contain any detectable levels of carcinogenic TSNAs. They tested electronic cigarettes marketed by NJoy and found that “there is no evidence that carcinogenic TSNAs are present in the aerosol”.

This is contrary to the FDA study which held a press release in mid 2009 to announce they had found carcinogens present in electronic cigarettes. So why this discrepancy? Well it appears the FDA testing was done on the liquid and not the vapor, which is what consumers inhale. As Jack Leadbeater, CEO of NJOY says, “In July the FDA released study information about the constituents of our electronic cigarettes that may have inadvertently misled the media and consumers about their health risks…. the FDA analysis evaluated only the contents of the cartridges used with our products, and not the constituents of the aerosol or vapor to which users are actually exposed or the potential health risk, if any, that may be posed by that exposure.”

You can download the actual vapor test HERE.

We at Instead Electronic Cigarettes believe this test is an important step in producing the science behind the technology to give smokers reliable information so they can make a decision for themselves.

On October 1st, we had reported in our blog post Tobacco Kills. E-Cigarettes, Not Sure. So Smoke Tobacco, Siobhan DeLancey, Press Officer at FDA, stated:

“There are no long-term studies on the health effects of just nicotine, minus the tobacco component. We know what smoking tobacco does to the body over the long term,” DeLancey said. “What we want to see are well-designed clinical studies. Personal reports are not enough,” DeLancey said.

A recently published study done in 1996 on the long term effects of inhaled nicotine is now available.

The Department of Medicine, University Hospital, Tronheim, Norway, found:

“Tobacco smoking has been reported to be associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer, particularly of the lungs. In spite of extensive research on the health effects of tobacco smoking, the substances in tobacco smoke exerting these negative health effects are not completely known. Nicotine is the substance giving the subjective pleasure of smoking as well as inducing addiction. For the first time we report the effect on the rat of long-term (two years) inhalation of nicotine. The rats breathed in a chamber with nicotine at a concentration giving twice the plasma concentration found in heavy smokers. Nicotine was given for 20 h a day, five days a week during a two-year period. We could not find any increase in mortality, in atherosclerosis or frequency of tumors in these rats compared with controls. Particularly, there was no microscopic or macroscopic lung tumors nor any increase in pulmonary neuroendocrine cells. Throughout the study, however, the body weight of the nicotine exposed rats was reduced as compared with controls. In conclusion, our study does not indicate any harmful effect of nicotine when given in its pure form by inhalation.”

Please note this study was not done on the electronic cigarette. The e-Liquid in an electronic cigarette is not pure nicotine. The e-Liquid is generally comprised of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, water, and flavorings. No long term studies have been done to show the electronic cigarette vapor is safe to humans. The product has been used worldwide for about 5 years and in the US for over 2 years. To date there are no reported serious side effects.

If you are now wondering about the propylene glycol, studies have been done on the inhalation of propylene glycol by the EPA and “the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol.” But again, please note that this was not a study of long term, direct inhalation of PG.

It is clear that in the current quest for public health, there is some serious misinformation going on. It appears that there is a clear lack of understanding between the differences of combustion and vaporization and that it is no longer the burden of the accuser to show proof that the electronic cigarette vapor is in fact dangerous.

One “public health” organization, who we will not name, hasn’t even updated their own research links page regarding scientific studies since 2005. Considering this, it is no wonder they are trapped in a bubble and not seeing the electronic cigarette for what it is and that is an alternative to something that kills over 400,000 Americans per year.

All we ask is that those in the public health sector keep an open mind to the technology, base decisions on the most current science available, and work with the electronic cigarette industry rather than against it, to make sure smokers have all the necessary information to make a decision for themselves.

The current studies and science on the electronic cigarette is not perfect, as it never is. And yes, more testing needs to be done. And yes, in the meantime this is an alternative to smoking tobacco which kills a good percentage of it’s users.

One thing has become evidently clear: Most people, including the “scientifically based public health organizations”, do not understand the difference between combustion and vaporization. While we can completely understand a typical person would not, we are baffled as to why those with concerns about second hand smoke do not understand the fundamental basics between smoke and vapor, which means, they simply do not understand the difference between combustion and vaporization.

The electronic cigarette uses a vaporizer. No fire is needed to power the vaporizer. A battery is used to power the vaporizer.

The electronic cigarette consists of three parts: The mouthpiece, the atomizer (or vaporizer) and a lithium ion battery. When the entire unit is assembled, the user creates an inhaling motion which activates the battery. The battery powers the vaporizer and the vaporizer heats the liquid housed in the mouthpiece. The liquid itself is composed of nicotine, propylene glycol and flavorings. Please note that the liquid does not have to contain nicotine and many eSmokers are currently using non-nicotine liquids in their electronic cigarettes.

Propylene glycol makes up between 75% and 89% of the products on the market. Propylene glycol is commonly found in products including and not limited to: Consumer products and food products, including and not limited to deodorants, pharmaceuticals, moisturizing lotions, toothpastes, inhalers and fat-free dairy products.

1. Affects to Users. The FDA recently studied two brands of electronic cigarette liquid (1) and the report noted that the two brands tested contained low amounts of nitrosamines which are also found in many products including nicotine replacement therapies such as the gum, the patch and the Nicotrol Inhaler. The Commit Lozenge is the only nicotine product that does not contain nitrosamines. (2) Nitrosamines are also found in meats purchased from the local grocery store and increase in toxicity levels based on the temperatures at which they are cooked. They can also be found in beer and are finally, injected into food products like bacon.

A peer review of the FDA study, noted that according to the manufacturer’s information of the Nicotrol Inhaler, the user receives more nicotine than with an electronic cigarette. (3) A further study found users of the electronic cigarette will receive 1/3 of the nicotine than with a tobacco cigarette. (4) Please remember, this is based on nicotine content in the liquid and there are a variety of nicotine levels available, including zero nicotine liquids.

The review of the FDA report also found, as the liquid is vaporized and not ingested, that the only impurities found in the inhaled vapor at trace levels were cotinine or β-nicotyrine and “There is no indication in the published scientific literature that cotinine or β-nicotyrine are carcinogenic or have toxicity ratings of concern.” (4) Further studies on the vapor produced by vaporization are currently underway to insure these findings can stand up to further peer review.

2. Affects to Bystanders. In September of 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), determined that “the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol.” It was also noted that “A review of the available data has shown propylene glycol to be negative for carcinogenicity in studies [and] therefore, no further carcinogenic analysis is required.” (5)

Propylene glycol vapors and mists have been studied since the early 40’s on all types of specimens from monkeys, rats, human adults and human children. It IS the base ingredient in most anti-bacterial air products found in hospitals. (6) Also found was “Lacking any active ingredient or any gaseous products of combustion, the PG mist or ‘smoke’ is not harmful to bystanders. The ‘smoke’ or mist is not tobacco smoke, and not from combustion – no flame is lit – and is not defined as environmental tobacco smoke.”(4)

Philip Morris conducted a study on their tobacco cigarettes finding that combustion releases a minimum 4,000 by-products including Carbon Monoxide, Arsenic, Hydrogen Cyanide and Formaldehyde to just name some of the worst ones. (7) With vaporization, studies have shown that these chemicals are simply not present because a much higher rate of burning of 1000 degrees is needed, where the vaporizer of an electronic cigarette only reaches between 40 and 65 degrees. (4)(1)

To date, there is no evidence that nicotine is present in the vapor from liquids with or without nicotine. “Inhaled nicotine in cigarette smoke is over 98% absorbed, and so the exhaled mist of the e-cigarette is composed of propylene glycol, and probably contains almost no nicotine; and no CO.” (4) Again, further studies on the vapor produced by vaporization are currently underway to insure these findings can stand up to further peer review.

Another interesting study, for those with concern to Second Hand Smoke should review, is the burning of incense. One study notes “that incense use is associated with increased risk of squamous cell carcinomas in the respiratory tract, especially in the upper part. This association is consistent with a large number of studies identifying carcinogens in incense smoke, and given the widespread and sometimes involuntary exposure to smoke of burning incense, these findings carry significant public health implications”.(8)

While there are differences of opinion on the real damage that can be done by second hand smoke from combustion, there are also amazing studies that have been done on vaporization and confusing the two needs to stop. It is very clear that many of the local smoking ordinances that are popping up and include electronic cigarettes in the definition of “smoke”, are simply wrong, misguided and are not based on any scientific fact whatsoever.

Public health organization need to make the distinction between combustion and vaporization and stop referring to the vapor of an electronic cigarette as “smoke” or as the Non-Smokers Rights Association was quoted today in the Inland Daily Bulletin as saying: “Despite the insufficient amount of testing, Tegen said the organization believes the electronic cigarette should not be considered as a substitute for smoking tobacco cigarettes and is concerned about the risks of inhaling second-hand smoke from the electronic version.”

It’s not smoke Ms. Tegan. It’s VAPOR! There is a huge difference and if your organization would like to study this further, you might just see the electronic cigarette for what it truly is: Something that non-smokers can embrace so that smokers no longer bother them with their second hand smoke.

References:

1. http://www.e-cig.org/pdfs/2009-FDA-Evaluation-of-Ecigs-nJoy-and-SE-results.pdf
2. http://www.e-cig.org/pdfs/TSNA-Study-in-Smokeless-Tobacco-Products.pdf
3. http://www.e-cig.org/pdfs/Response-to-the-FDA-Summary.pdf
4. http://www.e-cig.org/pdfs/2008-NZ-Report.pdf
5. http://www.e-cig.org/pdfs/EPA-Approval-of-PG.pdf
6. http://www.e-cig.org/pdfs/1946-Synopsis-On-PG-As-Disinfection-Vapor.pdf
7. http://www.e-cig.org/pdfs/1999-PM-Component-Anaylis-Combustion.pdf
8. http://www.e-cig.org/pdfs/National-Institute-of-Health-Incense-Burning-Study.pdf

I’ve heard about the blind following of main stream media for sometime, but until now I didn’t realize how deep it ran. It runs deep.

Here are a few of the media head lines after the FDA press release on electronic cigarettes yesterday:
* Electronic cigarettes unsafe, linked to cancer – NOT TRUE – no cases or examples of electronic cigarettes causing cancer exist
* Health officials in the nation have said that the testing of two leading e-cigarette brands has shown that they contain cancer causing chemicals and other toxins, including a major compound used in antifreeze. – NOT TRUE – one cartridge from one company had diethylene glycol (DEG) in it, which is found in antifreeze
* FDA: E-cigarettes are as dangerous as tobacco cigarettes – NOT TRUE – this is crazy

Here is what they actually found:
* Out of 18 cartridges, 1 had diethylene glycol (DEG) in it at less than 1%. One.
* Tobacco specific nitrosamines (TSNA) and tobacco specific impurities were detected in both products at very low levels (taken from the FDA Electronic Cigarette Evaluation conclusion). Makes sense if the nicotine was taken from tobacco. Many FDA approved NRTs have Tobacco specific nitrosamines in them. Also, not all the samples contained TSNA.
* Since 100% of tobacco cigarettes contain multiple carcinogens and only 50% of the electronic cigarette cartridges tested contained detectable levels of carcinogens (and even then it was at “very low levels” according to the report), what is the FDA saying about it’s relative safety compared to tobacco cigarettes.

Here is what they did:
* They received the electronic cigarette test results back on May 4th, 2009.
* They postponed a scheduled press conference from May 5th, 2009 to July 23rd, 2009 at which time they released their findings.
* They tested 14 cartridges from Smoking Everywhere (including zero nicotine) and 4 from Njoy, but didn’t test zero nicotine from Njoy. The FDA has been sued by both these companies.
* They used the Nicotrol Inhaler as a “control” but didn’t test it for anything except nicotine.

For all you “journalists” here are some good questions to ask the FDA:
* Why was the report not released until now?
* Did you test any cartridges other than the 18 you published?
* Why didn’t you test the Nicotrol Inhaler for diethylene glycol or tobacco specific nitrosamines?
* Why didn’t you test the zero nicotine from Njoy?
* How many reported illness from electronic cigarettes have there been?
* How many reported deaths from electronic cigarettes have there been?
* Based on your testing, are electronic cigarettes safer and healthier than tobacco cigarettes to the user and the surrounding public? Or alternatively, are e-cigarette more dangerous or as dangerous as burning tobacco?
* Why was no American made e-liquid tested?

It is important to note for anyone who doesn’t know much about the electronic cigarettes, is that the e-liquid is a separate thing from the device. The e-liquid ingredient list can be reworked to make sure there are no cancer causing substances or even impurities. We need time and support to do this, not misleading press conferences. As an example, rather than propylene glycol (which is where many suspect the DEG came from), you can use food grade vegetable glycerin (VG) as the base. Another good question…..why didn’t the FDA test e-liquid with a VG base. This is a distinct advantage over tobacco cigarettes where it has been proven very difficult to make a combustible product safer or healthier.

Responsible suppliers and manufacturers in the industry are very concerned about the quality of the product and the safety of the users. But calling for a ban on electronic cigarettes because of this limited testing is like pulling all beer off the market because 1 bottle had a mouse in it.

So how did 1 sample with DEG and 5 samples with tobacco specific nitrosamines turn into “electronic cigarettes contain cancer causing antifreeze”? Presentation. Oh yeah….and lack of questions.

But why would the FDA want to skew public perception over the e-cigarette? Well, considering the very large $$$$ involved in NRTs (Nicotine Replacement Therapies) sold by the pharmaceutical and the fact that the FDA receives a lot of it’s funding through pharmaceutical companies, one could speculate that those selling competing products want total control over the market. Conspiracy theory? Maybe. But follow the money trail.

What the FDA wants to do is compare the electronic cigarette to nothing. Therefore, any issues with it are worse than nothing. They need to be compared to tobacco cigarettes. E-Cigarettes are used in the same fashion by the same group of people; tobacco smokers.

The FDA has told anyone with any adverse effects to report them by:
* Regular Mail: use postage-paid FDA form 3500 available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/HowToReport/DownloadForms/default.htm and mail to MedWatch, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852-9787
* Fax: (800) FDA-0178
* Phone: (800) FDA-1088

I agree. Those with adverse effects should report them. But the method by which they ask for feedback (the mock scientific data in press release form) makes it appear like the FDA wants issues to give them a reason to pull the e-cigarette off the market. For the sake of the thousands and thousands of e-smokers who find it a suitable alternative to burning tobacco, I hope this is not the case.

It is always our intention to keep you as up to date on the testing of the electronic cigarette.  We want to make very clear INSTEAD Electronic Cigarettes does not promote these as a quit smoking device or that electronic cigarettes are 100% healthy.  They still (in most cases) contain nicotine.  It is a smoking alternative and as with anything you choose to put in your body, it is your choice.  We can only tell you what we have found, from our personal experience and the experiences of our customers.  When you compare what is in a tobacco cigarette vs. a nicotine cartridge, the contrast is obvious.

Upon investigation, we have found that three separate laboratories have done testing on mice.  LPD Laboratory Services of Blackburn MicroTech Solutions LTD out of Lancashire, UK, Bontek Compliance Laboratory of Shenzen, China, and Health New Zealand LTD out of Christchurch, New Zealand, have all done testing on mice with positive results.

As far as clinical trials on humans, there has been one officially done and that was through Health New Zealand LTD and Auckland University.  The Clinical trials were done from April of 2008 through August of 2008.  The study was done on 48 smokers to test for overall satisfaction of the product as well as health effects both good and bad.  According to Auckland University’s website, the study has been completed and the data is being analyzed.  As soon as it is available, we will post the findings.

We do find it extremely interesting that Kiwi forum members are noting the e-cig has been approved for use.  Hmmm…. We wonder if someone let the cat out of the bag somewhere on the island down under – under???

Either way, if you are still concerned about the safety of the nicotine cartridges, it is your health so go with your gut feeling.  We can tell you that we, and our customers are very happy with the product.  But as smoking was your choice, so is making the switch.

e-Cigarettes are all about the nicotine while eliminating various harmful and often toxic substances that come with (or are added to) traditional tobacco. Here is a list of additives in traditional cigarettes:

• Acetanisole
• Acetic Acid
• Acetoin
• Acetophenone
• 6-Acetoxydihydrotheaspirane
• 2-Acetyl-3- Ethylpyrazine
• 2-Acetyl-5-Methylfuran
• Acetylpyrazine
• 2-Acetylpyridine
• 3-Acetylpyridine
• 2-Acetylthiazole
• Aconitic Acid
• dl-Alanine
• Alfalfa Extract
• Allspice Extract,Oleoresin, and Oil
• Allyl Hexanoate
• Allyl Ionone
• Almond Bitter Oil
• Ambergris Tincture
• Ammonia
• Ammonium Bicarbonate
• Ammonium Hydroxide
• Ammonium Phosphate Dibasic
• Ammonium Sulfide
• Amyl Alcohol
• Amyl Butyrate
• Amyl Formate
• Amyl Octanoate
• alpha-Amylcinnamaldehyde
• Amyris Oil
• trans-Anethole
• Angelica Root Extract, Oil and Seed Oil
• Anise
• Anise Star, Extract and Oils
• Anisyl Acetate
• Anisyl Alcohol
• Anisyl Formate
• Anisyl Phenylacetate
• Apple Juice Concentrate, Extract, and Skins
• Apricot Extract and Juice Concentrate
• 1-Arginine
• Asafetida Fluid Extract And Oil
• Ascorbic Acid
• 1-Asparagine Monohydrate
• 1-Aspartic Acid
• Balsam Peru and Oil
• Basil Oil
• Bay Leaf, Oil and Sweet Oil
• Beeswax White
• Beet Juice Concentrate
• Benzaldehyde
• Benzaldehyde Glyceryl Acetal
• Benzoic Acid, Benzoin
• Benzoin Resin
• Benzophenone
• Benzyl Alcohol
• Benzyl Benzoate
• Benzyl Butyrate
• Benzyl Cinnamate
• Benzyl Propionate
• Benzyl Salicylate
• Bergamot Oil
• Bisabolene
• Black Currant Buds Absolute
• Borneol
• Bornyl Acetate
• Buchu Leaf Oil
• 1,3-Butanediol
• 2,3-Butanedione
• 1-Butanol
• 2-Butanone
• 4(2-Butenylidene)-3,5,5-Trimethyl-2-Cyclohexen-1-One
• Butter, Butter Esters, and Butter Oil
• Butyl Acetate
• Butyl Butyrate
• Butyl Butyryl Lactate
• Butyl Isovalerate
• Butyl Phenylacetate
• Butyl Undecylenate
• 3-Butylidenephthalide
• Butyric Acid]
• Cadinene
• Caffeine
• Calcium Carbonate
• Camphene
• Cananga Oil
• Capsicum Oleoresin
• Caramel Color
• Caraway Oil
• Carbon Dioxide
• Cardamom Oleoresin, Extract, Seed Oil, and Powder
• Carob Bean and Extract
• beta-Carotene
• Carrot Oil
• Carvacrol
• 4-Carvomenthenol
• 1-Carvone
• beta-Caryophyllene
• beta-Caryophyllene Oxide
• Cascarilla Oil and Bark Extract
• Cassia Bark Oil
• Cassie Absolute and Oil
• Castoreum Extract, Tincture and Absolute
• Cedar Leaf Oil
• Cedarwood Oil Terpenes and Virginiana
• Cedrol
• Celery Seed Extract, Solid, Oil, And Oleoresin
• Cellulose Fiber
• Chamomile Flower Oil And Extract
• Chicory Extract
• Chocolate
• Cinnamaldehyde
• Cinnamic Acid
• Cinnamon Leaf Oil, Bark Oil, and Extract
• Cinnamyl Acetate
• Cinnamyl Alcohol
• Cinnamyl Cinnamate
• Cinnamyl Isovalerate
• Cinnamyl Propionate
• Citral
• Citric Acid
• Citronella Oil
• dl-Citronellol
• Citronellyl Butyrate
• itronellyl Isobutyrate
• Civet Absolute
• Clary Oil
• Clover Tops, Red Solid Extract
• Cocoa
• Cocoa Shells, Extract, Distillate And Powder
• Coconut Oil
• Coffee
• Cognac White and Green Oil
• Copaiba Oil
• Coriander Extract and Oil
• Corn Oil
• Corn Silk
• Costus Root Oil
• Cubeb Oil
• Cuminaldehyde
• para-Cymene
• 1-Cysteine

This is only the A – C list. If you would like, here is D – M and M – Z.

Here is a list of known toxins in cigarettes:

e-Cigarettes do provide users with nicotine, which has been proven to be addictive. It may even have some long term effects. However, tobacco cigarettes contain so much more potential to kill, it seems like comparing an air gun to a rocket launcher.

The question of exactly how safe or unsafe an e-cigarette is, is still being answered.  However, a German professor by the name of Dr. Bernd Mayer has put together some information.  If you can speak German, then enjoy his paper on electronic cigarette safety.  If not, then here is a rough translation of his observations:

Appraisal more u?ber the pharmacology and toxicology of an electrical cigarette to the smoker curing O. Univ. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Bernd Mayer Institut fu?r pharmaceutical sciences pharmacology and toxicology Karl Franzens university Graz, university University of 2 A-8010 Graz, Austria assigns of: Renatus Derler Utschgraben 79 A-8600 Oberaich Austria background Mr. Renatus Derler plans the Einfu?hrung of a “electrical cigarette to the smoker curing” (patent specification EP1618803) in the European market and me asked to provide an appraisal more u?ber the health relevant aspects of this product. In the context of my technical authority I will judge in the following pharmakologischen and toxicological effects of the product which can be expected. Free market and juridische aspects extract themselves from my authority and remain unberu?cksichtigt therefore. Operational principle the substantial components of the “electrical cigarette” are with nicotine solution of soaked filters and an electrical atomizer for the electricalthermal evaporation of the nicotine solution. Condensed steam is inhaliert more u?ber a Mundstu?ck, whereby the process of smoking is simulated. The technical details and the structure of the electrical cigarette are in detail described in the godfather writing EP1618803. B. Mayer – appraisals electrical Zigarette/2 composition of the nicotine solutions sound patent specification EP1618803 are offered four filters soaked with differently concentrated nicotine solutions. In the highest dosage the solution 6 evaporated electricalthermally contains % nicotine, in which lowest dosage 0,1 % contain. as additive the solutions of 80 – 90 % propylene glycol (1,2-Propandiol). Daru?berhinaus contain the solutions pharmakologisch/toxikologisch negligible quantities (! 5 %) of taste materials and Antioxidantien. As quantitatively relevant inhalierte contents materials nicotine and propylene glycol are therefore to be rated. Nicotine nicotine is the main alkaloid in the sheets of the tobacco plant (Nicotina tabacum). Pure nicotine is, a water-soluble Flu?ssigkeit colorless at room temperature. The pharmakologische effect of nicotine is based on stimulation of nikotinischer acetyl choline receptors in vegetative ganglia (vegetative effects e.g. increase of blood pressure and gastrointestinal Motilitaet), in suprarenal body Mark (promotion of the Adrenalinausschu?ttung) and in the brain (central exciting effect). While the central exciting effect fu?hrt to psychological and physical nicotine dependence, the substantial effect injurious to health of nicotine on a narrowing caused by stimulation of sympathetic ganglia of blood vessels and from this resulting arterial hypertonia, Thrombosen and significantly increased risk is based fu?r to myocardial infarction and ischemic Insult (impact accumulation). Propylene glycol The bivalent alcohol propylene glycol (1,2-Propandiol) is a colorless Flu?ssigkeit innocuous with u?blicher use. The substance is contained in numerous food, Kosmetika, medicaments and tobacco goods as auxiliary material. Canned goods fodder fu?r small animals enthaet up to 13 % propylene glycol. With mentioned applications propylene glycol serves as preservative, solution mediator, emulsifying agent or damp retaining means. As food additive it carries the designation E 1520. Apart from allergischen reactions, which can be released by almost all materials, and easy irritations of the Konjunktiva propylene glycol is toxicological harmless. At the rat the LD50 20 – 25 g/kg, according to 1.5 – 1.9 kg/75 kg amounts to, thus several orders of magnitude more u?ber the propylene glycol content of the “electrical cigarette”. The additive of propylene glycol is to be rated therefore with present level of knowledge as toxicological irrelevant. B. Mayer – appraisals electrical Zigarette/3 quantitative comparison with conventional cigarettes cigarettes contain nicotine per Stu?ck up to 1 mg. With on the average 15 Zu?gen per cigarette maximally 0,067 mg nicotine per course are thus inhaliert. Typical substitution preparations contain 2 to 4 mg (chewing rubber) or 25 – 100 mg (depot plaster with continuous release more u?ber 16 to 24 hours). The “electrical cigarette” contains per tube (according to 20 cigarettes and/or. to 300 Zu?gen) 1,05 – 1,1 g solution, whereby after use a remainder volume of 0.15 – 0,2 g (Renatus Derler, personal report), so that per tube about 0,9 g solution fu?r the inhalation is verfu?gbar, the 0,9 mg (0,1 %) to 54 mg (6 %) nicotine remains contained. With 300 Zu?gen per tube thus 180 (6 %) becomes, 120 (4!%), 60 (2 %) and 3?g (0,1 %) nicotine per course inhaliert. The more highly proportioned solutions (6 – 2 %) therefore contain compared with handelsu?blichen cigarettes larger and/or comparable nicotine quantities, whereas with consumption of the 0,1 %-igen solution only 1/20 (5 %) of the nicotine quantity contained in cigarettes one inhhaliert. The “electrical cigarette” should therefore on the one hand to strong smokers sufficiently nicotine to the Verfu?gung place, on the other hand however by gradual reduction of the nicotine content an almost complete curing make possible. Toxicological evaluation of the “electrical cigarette” due to the nicotine content as with all forms of the therapeutic nicotine substitution also with the “electrical Zigarettte” the toxic effects of nicotine, stated above, mu?ssen to be beru?cksichtigt. Like other nicotine substitution preparations the “electrical cigarette” is contraindicated therefore with young people, pregnant women, nonsmokers and persons with cardiovascular illnesses. It appears essential to arrange this information for the consumer in generally more understandable and easily accessible form (on an enclosing note and/or as text on the packing). Apart from the nicotine content the “electrical cigarette” is to be evaluated however as toxicological harmless. Comparison with the consumption of tobacco goods of 58328 male cancer deaths in Germany in the year 1995 became 50 – 70 % caused by the cigarette smoking, whereby the rate with laryngeal cancer 80 % and with cancer of the lungs 75 – 90 % amounted to (Becker, N. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 127, 9-19, 2001). Main cause fu?r the increased cancer risk in addition, fu?r other subsequent sequences of smokers (e.g. bronchitis and Emphyseme) is a unu?berschaubare number of foreign matter, which with the burn of tobacco smoke (developing temperature 850 – 950 °C) and by pyrolysis of B. Mayer – appraisals electrical Zigarette/4 zigarettenpapier to be formed. In the gaseous phase of tobacco smoke so far more than 500 chemical compounds were identified, in the particle phase (condensate) more than 4000, 69 carcinogenic materials recognized among them and a multiplicity more toxically, partly highly reactive substances (Marquardt & shepherd, text book of the toxicology, Stuttgart, 2004). In the “electrical cigarette” the nicotine solution electricalthermally one evaporates, so that no active burn takes place. In contrast to the tobacco smoke inhalierte steam contains therefore neither tar, nor condensate or Carbon monoxide. As is the case for other nicotine substitution preparations therefore no increased risk is to be expected fu?r the illnesses specified above. In the comparison to the consumption of tobacco goods the health risk of the “electrical cigarette” is substantially lower therefore. From medical view the “electrical cigarette” is nachdru?cklich recommended to the smoker curing. Comparison with other forms of the nicotine substitution compared with other forms of the nicotine substitution has the “electrical cigarette” several substantial advantages. Particularly to emphasize are the better to be dosedness and thus adjustment to the need of the smoker. The rate of the nicotine release from depot preparations (plasters) is not controllably, chewing nicotine chewing rubbers fu?hrt frequent to unerwu?nschten points of the nicotine plasma concentration and appropriate side effects (among other things more violently, very more unpleasantly sip on). The “electrical cigarette” makes however the accurate adjustment for the nicotine dose possible to the current need. A further advantage is the Verfu?gbarkeit of four filters with removing nicotine content. This makes the concerning in the course for curing possible a gradated reduction of the nicotine dose. Finally also the psychological advantage should be mentioned, from which I could u?berzeugen myself personally. The “electrical cigarette” simulates the process of smoking u?beraus “life-genuinly”: one holds (something u?berdimensionierte) a cigarette in the hand, one can on it pull, it develops a smoke-similar steam and at the point simulates a red light the glow. Under Beru?cksichtigung of the craze behavior of smokers and their motor Bedu?rnisse (“hold something in the hands” and “by something nuckeln”), this simulation of smoking appears more gegenu?ber as substantial advantage different nicotine substitution preparations. It is only to befu?rchten that flight companions and other surpervisors will be heavy to u?berzeugen in nonsmoker zones of it that but one does not smoke this only simulated. Summary B. Mayer – appraisal electrical Zigarette/5 as with other nicotine substitution preparations is limited the toxicity of the “electrical cigarette” to the effects of nicotine. Since no burn process takes place, the load with other toxic and above all carcinogenic foreign matter contained in the tobacco smoke is void. The health risk is substantially lower therefore than with the consumption of tobacco goods. Apart from the nicotine content the “electrical cigarette” is to be evaluated as toxicological harmless. In contrast to other forms the “electrical cigarette” permits the accurate adjustment of the nicotine dose to the nicotine substitution to the need. The Verfu?gbarkeit of four filters with removing nicotine content makes a gradated reduction for the nicotine dose possible in the course of curing. The simulation of smoking should unterstu?tzen curing also psychologically better than chewing rubbers or plasters. To the smoker curing the “electrical cigarette” can be recommended unreservedly. However the product – like all other forms of the nicotine substitution – is contraindicated with young people, pregnant women, nonsmokers and persons with cardiovascular illnesses. Daru?ber mu?ssen the consumers in generally more understandable and easily accessible form to be informed. Graz, on 6 March 2006 O. Univ. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Bernd Mayer