hi everyone, i'm ruades. as you can see, today we're not in the regular studio, we are in valencia, in the university of valencia specifically, with doctor miguel de la guardia. we'll talk with him about the study that has been published in the media during the last weeks about the vapour of the e-cigarette and that question that most of us have asked many times: does the passive vaper exist? for those who haven't heard about this study, here you have a short video published by efe agency
containing a quick summary and the main conclusions of the research. you'll find out what's all about and we'll start with the interview afterwards.don't miss it, it will be very interesting. scientists from the university of valencia have made the first spanish study about the e-cigarette. this research reveals that, from a scientifc point of view, tobacco and e-cigarette are completely different products and dismisses the figure of the passive vaper.
the main conclusions of this study prove that the vapour generatedby the e-cigarettes has no impact in closed environments, and thatit contains 700% less nicotine than the tobacco smoke. miguel de la guardia, professor of analytical chemistry andleader of the project: - the amount of nicotine that we exhale in the case of vaping is much more smaller:between 450% and 700% lower
than smoking. besides being almost non-existent, the nicotine contained in the exhaled vapour becomes diluted in the airso quickly that its impact in closed environmentis none. - i can be vaping next to my wife and she won't even notice. i doesn't smell. - i smoked two packs of cigarettes daily.
now i vape and my health has improved in a 100%. the group solutions and innovation on analytical chemistry from the university of valencia has performed this ground-breakingresearch in our country taking samples from both the tobacco smoke and the e-cigarettes vapour. - what methodology did you use to analyse the smoke and the vapour? - our objective in this research was the figure of the passive vaper.
either if i make the decission of smoking, or if i make the decission of vaping, both are perfectly legal, but they concern me. i believe that the legislation muststart introducing laws when this involves third parties. it's obvious that the passive smoker exists, it causes a rarefied atmosphere. but, has anyone taken the time todetermine if the passive vaper also exists? that was the gap that we thougt it was missing
when we got a financial proposal to perfoma study about composition, as we had already done many other researchs about composition, even certification of produtcs used for vaping. but when we got this proposal, we focused on the exhaling, on the passive vaper. studying all the vapour, all the smoke that comes out from the mouth of the smoker,
which is the secondary smoke, the exhaled one. we picked that and analysed it, but we also put a series of filters with a capturing system, the same we use to sample atmospheres, and we put them 50 centimetres, 30 cm, 20 cm,
5 centimetres from the mouth of the vaping. obviously, from a 30 centimetres distance we couldn't event detect the nicotine. we did detect some microgrammes of propylene glycol, and about 10 microgrammes of glycerin. but as we moved away to 30 or 50 centimetres it was not possible to detect them, so
we could only talk about a passive vaperwhen he is 5 centimetres from my mouth. well, that distance is not a reasonable distance. my airways are not so close to my interlocutor. - what is the e-cigarette for you? - i'm not a smoker, so when someone first came to our laboratory asking if we could perform a study about the vaping liquids,
the first i asked was: 'what is that?' fortunately, today the informationis accessible everywhere, so we quickly got the background and started doing some studiesregarding the composition of the vaping liquids. we came to the conclusion that mostly these are aqueous dissolutions of glycols (glycerol and propylene glycol) and propanetriol. the purpose of these glycols
is to create a soft mist, the 'smoke effect' and also a nicotine dissolution. there might be people against this, but for me, the e-cigarette is a system serving the smoker to lose his habit. it's obvious that the smoking habit,
that can go up to a daily packet, has a psychologycal reason, and that psychologycal reason has a chemical translation, which is the molecule of nicotine. the nicotine molecule affects ournervous system and creates that need. in my personal experience, i have seen friends and partners that have quit smoking, and their withdrawal is very hard, a real dependency situation. to fight this dependency situation, there are pharmaceutical ways, like the patches, the gums
and all these kind of products that supply the organismthe nicotine dose that avoids the absence of the molecule. the vaping system also provides this nicotine dose, but with very significant advantages. because it provides it within doses that you can control,so that you can keep reducing it and come to a placebo effect, and at the same time you don't have to quit the smoker habits.
we shouldn't forget that smoking is also a way of moving the hands, is a way of being in society. breathing out the smoke, having your hand busy while you gesture, but most of all, the oral pleasure oftake something into the lips. the e-cigarette can keep these practices, that come from the common cigarette. from my point of view, it would be a great tool
to quit the habit of smoking. - what were the basis of the study, what parameters did you try to analyse and compare? - we tried to find out what the habits were, what was the common use of the e-cigarette so we could recreate similar conditions. in that sense, if we used the tobacco as a reference, despite the fact that the tobacco indsutry didn't helped on the funding, was because it had the nicotine in commonand because they both
are go through a heating process. maybe we missed one thing: testing the machines used in the nightclubs or even in the theatre, which produce mist and which, at the end, do the same thing: from a mix of water and glycols, and sometimes adding ethanol too, they get this white smoke effect. these machines weren't available, so these are objective measurements.
i mean, what is the concentration that we notice in the exhaled vapor, and what is the concentration captured by a filter located in front of the mouth of the vaper. - in a chemical level, â¿do you considerthat there are any similarities between the vapour of the e-cigarette and the tobacco smoke? - the similarities are minimal, or even non-existent. one is smoke with a richness of phases,
we're talking about vapour gases and suspended particles. while in the case of the vaping liquid there are no suspended particles. further, there are no gases either, there are only vapours. so, we have the nicotine and we have the glycols. and the glycols are very minimal inside the tobacco, but they are the main element here. what they do have in common is the nicotine. - and between the vapour of the e-cigarette and the smoke of the tobacco?
- completely different. - what other substances have you found in the vapour? any thing remarcable, like acroleins or nitrosamines? - we haven't found anything else. furhter, we searched for acrolein, obviously, and in the conditions we used, we didn't find it. although, obviously, we can't forget that when we insistenly heat up the glycerin, even if the glycerin becomes rancid for a long time getting to desestabilize, can generate acrolein, but that is not the case.
- what about the nitrosamines? - we haven't seen them. - when you analysed the liquids, could you determine what average proportion of scent they have in relation to the base? - we find a difficult issue here, because there are mixes that come already prepared, and there are other mixes that you have to prepare. in the mixes already prepared, at least the ones that we analysed, they had no scents. we did these tests on demmand from people who wanted
to have the composition certified and none of the samples they brought to us had any scent. anyway, it's obvious that when we talk about scents we're talking about trace levels. - but in any case, let's say an example of a 30 millilitre liquid. how much can that have, 1 millilitre, 2 or 5 as tops, of scents? - if it had 5 millilitres of scent, it would be 5 millilitres or 1 millilitre of a dissolution of a scent,
so we'd be talking about microlitres. the amounts would be microlitres of scents. it all depends on how sensationalist we want our conclusions to be, because there are molecules, thay if we only name them, like the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, they already lead to fear 'there is copper, there is chromium in the water!' we need to talk of levels of concentration. causing an injustified alarm is as bad as living in the ignorance.
if we think that in the act of heating, specially heating with flame, a lot of decomposition products are generated, even from food like fats, we would end up forbidding the barbecues and forbidding everything, because the moment we add a smoke scent to a smoken product, or the simple act of smoking a salmon,
we are adding some traces. so, i think we need to be reasonable. we have to take care of the health, we have to legislate for a healthier life, but we need to avoid that this causes a social alarm. we must study and research, we must make decisions, that's why we choose politicians in democracy, that's what the legislative instances are for.
but please, let's make these decisions based on data. - according to your research data, do you think it's accurate to forbid the use of e-cigarettes in closed environments, like bars, restaurants, etc.? - from the point of view of the basic composition of glycerin, propylene glycol and nicotine, as i see it there is no reason to forbid it.
maybe what is causing some social alarm are the scents. we don't have the data, we don't know if these scents are introducing some degradation molecule, but it would be the same as forbidding the use of cologne. and in any case, if we look at the glycerin and the propylene glycol, then we should have forbidden the use of artifical mist in parties, clubs and theatres. before forbidding anything, i think what it has to be done is to obtain the data. obtain the data and analyse them seriously, with a team as multidisciplinary as possible,
to get contrasted data of which we know their origin and to evaluate them at a toxicologial, pharmaceutical, medical level and from there, we make the decisions. i think that the the prohibition of vaping has been based more upon prejudices, but this is a bad way of legislate. - following the study, has any pharmaceutical company, or any tobacco company, or anyone from the health area contacted you? - it looks like the tobacco companies are quite self-suficient in their job,
because we are not novices in the study of nicotine. many years ago we published a research, it was a method of infrared spectroscopyto determine nicotine in the tobacco. when we were doing the research, we felt insecure because the packs of cigarettes said that they contained 1 milligramme per cigarette and we were finding 18.
and of course, we thought that our methodology was wrong. fruther, we picked low nicotine cigarettes, we analysed them and saw they had the same contents than the mother brand, or sometimes even more, being the same brand but without this "low nicotine" tag. so at the end, with the help of some friends,because in spain we work like this, we got to contact with a chemist who was working in a tobacco company who told us: 'no, don't worry, you see, the number printed in the pack is what is left
in the smoker's lung after having smoked in standard conditions'. 'but yes, these levels of concentration that you are finding in milligrammes per gramme of tobacco are in fact what they have'. in that study, that has already been published, one of the conclusions was that the tobacco with low nicotine and the normal one had in fact the same amount of nicotine,so we shouldn't be talking about low nicotine tobacco. what's curious is that many lawyers asked us to send them this research, i imagine that among other things, to sue the tobacco companies.
when we were doing those studies, and they were published on international magazines, i don't know if the tobacco companies read them, but i'm sure they never contacted us and they never fund them. further, this 'filter effect' that the tobacco has over the nicotine was a very interesting work, because we somked a cigar with a smoking machine, and we smoked the first portion, the second, the third, the fourth... and we evaluated the amount of nicotine
that was left in the remainder of the tobacco, and we compared it with the amount that had been burnt, and we came to the conclusion that there was a migration, that there was this filter effect. but the tobacco companies never took an interest in this, i imagine that they were looking at other things, like advertising or sells. - did that change when you started studying the e-cigarettes? did anyone from these areas has contacted you? - no, the people who have approached
this university, and we should rememeber that it is a public one, belonging to all the spanish and paid with all our taxes, and therefore we have a public service attitude; scientific interest, yes, but also public service. so, the people who have approached us have been mostly e-cigarettes companies. in some cases, for auto-protection, to ask us to validate some analysis data that they had about their products, and in other cases, like this study, to find out more about some specific issue.
i am very sorry about this, i would really like to work for everyonte. as the hard rock cafe says: 'love all, serve all', i think that's how the public university should work and it would be so enriching to work not only with one client, but with all kinds of clients. i would like to clearify the methodology of this work: the moment when any public or private institution gets interested in a project and they command it to us, i give them the right to speak and vote during the process of designing the experiments
and the right to discuss what we are going to do. at that moment, we evaluate, discuss, etc. but from that moment on, our autonomy is absolute. because the data are undeniable. - one of the arguments that the anti-vaping collective use to criticise the studies that support the e-cigarette is the funding: sometimes it comes from the tobacco industry, other times it comes from the e-cigarette industry, but any time that any of them participates in the funding
these researches are automatically distorted, according to them of course. what do you think about this? - the best way to get out of this criticism... it's true that in spain we say 'the one who's paying, is the one in charge'. but that can't be true in the field of scientific research. the one who pays has to take the risk that the data won't side with them. professor kolthoff, an historic analytical chemist,
said 'theory guides, experiment decides'. when we sit to discuss an experiment it's important to have different points of view and to make a plan in which all the interests, both legitimate and illegitimate, are safe. but once you have guaranteed that the study can give you trustable data and that it fits to the conditionsin which a product is used, what you have to do is to wait for the results. and the results are undeniable. afterwards you can interpret them, you can extrapolate them...
but the data are as they are. we could say that the scientific seriousness of a group is proved when they give details like what dose? for how long? which product? what's the amount? that is how you can evaluate. if you say: 'we found here some molecule" well, but in what conditions?
how regularly? at what level of concentration? - we are now in the regular recording studio and i just have a couple of things left to say.first, obviously, i have to publically thank miguel de la guardia for having us and for doing it so well. and second, and this for all of you: i want to ask you to help us spreading this video, you see it is a smash hit! share it on facebook, groups, any social network, forums...anyway, please,
help us to leak this out and make it visible to everybody all over the world, because as you have seen, we can shut many mouths with it. that's it, we end up here for today, it's been a pleasure as alwayas and this time, more than ever, happy vaping and see you soon!