While it’s considered to be common knowledge that regular cigarettes contain thousands of chemicals, many of which are carcinogenic to humans, it’s also widely believed that not enough is known about vape products. To this effect, Italian researchers compared the chemicals passed into the human body from both e-cigarettes and combustible cigarettes by testing urine samples of the participants in the following study. Moreover, in line with other popular examinations, this e-cigarette study compiled data by using biomarkers of toxic compounds to profile urinary mercapturic acids (chemicals excreted in the urine) to confirm that traditional cigarettes were a major source of carcinogenic chemicals and worse for your health compared to beloved e-cigs, such as the Logic vape pen. Read more to break down the science behind this ingenious study!
The study
In an effort to better understand how smoking and vaping differ, a study entitled, “Urinary biomonitoring of subjects with different smoking habits. Part 1: Profiling mercapturic acids” led a team of researchers to analyze the urine samples of 67 healthy adults with different “nicotine inhalation” methods: 38 people were non-smokers, seven were vapers, and 22 smoked combustible cigarettes. Seventeen urinary mercapturic acids were quantified, along with urinary nicotine and cotinine to determine whether vaping or smoking had a more positive effect on your health.
What was the result?
The results from this e-cigarette study concluded that vapers are inhaling far fewer carcinogens than those who’re smoking traditional cigarettes, which was a major source of chemicals such as benzene and 1,3-butadiene.
Naturally, the participants who neither vaped nor smoked showed the lowest levels of chemicals in their urine, followed by those who were exclusive vapers, showing far lower levels than study participants who were smokers.
Did you find the above e-cigarette study interesting? Drop a comment below to let us know that you’re enjoying our content.
In reply to Michael Matsushima.
Hey Michael,
Thanks for the feedback. The study is referenced in the second paragraph, here is the name “Urinary biomonitoring of subjects with different smoking habits. Part 1: Profiling mercapturic acids” and it’s linked to more information > https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32278717/.
Best,
The I Love Ecigs Team
You should reference the actual study for those of us who would like to see the actual statistical differences
In reply to Dr. Karen Loughridge.
You’re welcome, Karen.
– The I Love Ecigs Team
Thank you for the information.