Contaminants in E-Cig Vapor Also Found in Human Breath and Outdoor Air

By John Madden Posted February 20, 2014

Concentrations of VOCs in exhaled human breath


The use of electronic cigarettes in public places has been a hot topic among local government officials. City councils in New York and Chicago have already voted to regulate e-cigarette usage the same way they treat tobacco smoking, meaning vaping will soon be prohibited anywhere smoking isn’t allowed in public places. Los Angeles has announced a plan to amend its own smoke-free air law to include e-cigarettes, on the basis their vapor contains toxins and carcinogens. According to a report submitted to the Arts, Parks, Health, Aging, and River Committee by LA city attorney Michael Feuer, recent studies have also found levels of lead, chromium, nickel, and nicotine in the second-hand vapor of e-cigs. Prohibiting electronic cigarette use wherever smoking is banned, Feuer contends, is necessary in order to protect bystanders from involuntary inhalation of the vapor they emit.


Read the full report on e-cig emissions and air contaminants.


While studies on electronic cigarettes have indeed found trace elements and compounds in passive e-cig vapor, none have been detected at levels that warrant any concern to public health. Dr. Igor Burstyn’s recent study analyzed over 9,000 observations of electronic cigarette vapor content reported in various peer reviewed and grey literature studies and concluded secondhand vapor exposure poses no concern to bystanders. However, lawmakers seem to exclude these results from their proposals. Furthermore, they seem unaware that a high percentage of the constituents in secondhand e-cig vapor already exist in smoke-free air and can be attributed to natural production by the human body. After conducting some fairly extensive research, I was able to (unscientifically) compare constituents of electronic cigarette vapor with those of human breath emissions and outdoor air at three LA locations. In short, passive vapor may be no more harmful (and probably way better smelling) than vapor-free human breath and even outdoor air.




  • Five of the volatile organic compounds detected by various studies in electronic cigarette vapor have also been found in human breath emissions (acetaldehyde, acetone, butanone, formaldehyde and isoprene).


  • Five of the VOCs found in e-cig vapor were also detected in trace amounts of outdoor air at three Los Angeles locations (Acetaldehyde, Benzene, Formaldehyde, m,p-Xyelene, and Toluene).


  • Five of the metals that have been detected in e-cig vapor were also found in comparable quantities in LA outdoor air (aluminum, iron, magnesium, potassium and sulfur).


  • This shows than much of what has been detected in passive vapor studies can be attributed to natural production by the human body.


  • Even though VOCs and metals have been found in e-cig vapor, human breath and outdoor air, all have been detected at levels well within regulatory and recommended exposure limits.


E-Cigarettes Compared With Human Breath


It’s fairly common knowledge that the outdoor air in cities like Los Angeles and adjacent communities can be polluted from road traffic and factory emissions, among other sources. But not too many people realize indoor air can be polluted as well, and one of the sources may be surprising. Because the human body naturally produces several volatile  organic compounds, a person’s breath can be a source of indoor air pollution. But there is no need to go running to your local hardware store to purchase a particle respirator, at least not if you live anywhere in the United States.


A study conducted in 1999 and published online in 2011 measured human breath emissions and detected an array of volatile organic compounds, some carcinogenic while others not. Among VOCs found in human breath, five have also been detected in secondhand e-cigarette vapor. These include acetaldehyde, acetone, butanone, formaldehyde and isoprene. However, aside from formaldehyde, none were detected at any significant levels in comparison to their corresponding exposure limits.


Because the study measured human breath directly using either Teflon bags or a GC/Flame Ionization Detector, it’s hard to compare the results with those of passive vaping studies. It is important to note, however, that some of the volatile organic compounds found in e-cig vapor be attributed to natural human breath production. For example, the chart below shows a comparison of mainstream e-cig vapor with passive vapor and human breath.

formaldehyde ecigs vs human breath

Formaldehyde has been detected at almost equal levels in both mainstream e-cigarette vapor and human breath. The chart above suggests that human breath is probably a main component of the formaldehyde detected by studies on passive vaping. Interestingly, acetone measured quite on human breath emissions when compared to e-cigarette vapor measured in a smoking machine.

acetone human breath vs ecig vapor


E-Cigarettes Compared With LA Outdoor Air


What was most surprising about this research, outdoor air measured at three Los Angeles locations seems to be cleaner, in terms of VOCs, than human breath. On the contrary, results published in a 2012 South Coast AQMD study showed more than a comparable levels of trace elements, or what the media refers to as metals, in outdoor air with those of e-cigarette vapor.

metals outdoor air vs ecig vapor


Again, five of the same elements previously detected by scientists in the vapor of electronic cigarettes were also found in the air of the three measuring sites in the city of Los Angeles. But, as with VOCs in human breath, these results shouldn’t alarm anyone. Along with the levels of trace elements contained in e-cigarette vapor, these levels are extremely low and don’t even come close to approaching exposure limits.




None of the air we breath is pure, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t safe to breathe in. This research only shows that many of the constituents of e-cig vapor are also found in both vapor-free indoor and outdoor air. It’s nothing to be alarmed at. What it does suggest, however, is that the argument for banning e-cig use on the basis vapor contains dangerous chemicals and metals is now only as good (or bad) as the argument on banning flavors because they appeal to minors.The fact is that alcohol is also sold in flavors and the very air in public places, officials argue they are trying to protect, already contains many of the same elements found in e-cigarette vapor that they are using to pass these ordinances.


Cities need to find other reasons to ban e-cigarette use in public places because everything they’ve come up with so far just seems like scare tactics, just as these studies on human breath emissions and outdoor air pollution could have been used to scare people into staying home for fear of inhaling the great unknown that exists in the real world.

  • MacHelen

    I am impressed with the article! Thanks for sharing. There are harmful chemicals in the air and everyone breaths it in but may be in lesser quantities.

    For me, anything that will help in reducing the horrible harmful effects of the tobacco cigarettes is welcome. Ecigs gets a full thumbs-up from me since they are safer with reduced toxic loads.

    • I conducted this research specifically in response to all the cities banning or trying place restrictions on e-cig use based of misguided interpretations of existing studies. Hopefully we can change the minds of one or two of them, or at least raise public awareness on the issue!

      • Pepper Mint Elvis

        If you are permitting the sharing of this with law makers, I found a typo and would be glad to help you proof your work if you would like.

        • Thanks Pepper Mint. Was it in the .pdf or the article?

          • Pepper Mint Elvis

            it was the word those in the pdf if I remember correctly…

        • Found it. Thanks for reading the entire article hah!

  • afrazier5

    I NEED this environmental air data for Salt Lake City during our inversions…we are renown for having the worst air quality in the US during our inversion periods….Anyone know where to get the data?

  • John, beautifully done! I have argued at times that being in a room with an e-cig Vaper is probably less dangerous than being in a room with two non-vaping Breathers. Breathers not only cast off tons of nasty secondhand metabolic wasteproducts that their bodies are throwing out as garbage into the atmosphere, but they also have a sad tendency to spew toxic bacteria and viruses into the air and down people’s throats that can directly cause sad and painful deaths in just a matter of days. Untold millions have died because of these nasty Breathers.

    Something MUST be done!

    – MJM
    P.S. Since this is the “Research and Studies” area of ECR, I think I should add a pointer to my own analysis of the FDA study (the “antifreeze” study) at: Just click on “Book Selections” and then on “Of Vapors And Vapers” and you’ll see an excerpt from my vaping chapter that focuses on that analysis.

    • Thanks Michael! Is this what you mean by breathers? 😉

      • LOL! Close enough fer skittles ‘n beans!

        “Breathers” is actually the closing “bookend” fictional piece of TobakkoNacht. It’s a very short (700 words?) short story that I wrote in the late 1990s. I should probably put it online at some point.


        • Ahh… I thought you were just being sarcastic!

          • Sarcasm, irony, and satire are often very difficult to distinguish from reality in Krazy Antismoking World. Stanton Glantz’s Helena study alleging a massive drop in heart attacks from “protecting” people from secondary smoke came out on April 1st 2003. I spent most of the day thinking it was simply an April Fools joke. Heh, and then, at one point in the mid-90s I wrote a fairly long satirical piece titled “S.A.F.E. 4 Our Kids” SAFE stood for “Substance Abuse Free Environments” and I used the antismoking meme as a basis for attacking everything from alcohol to caffeine, outlining a *totally* outlandish program of fear and prohibition. About half the people responding to me realized it was satire. About a quarter attacked me quite seriously. And about another quarter quite seriously supported me and wanted to join my “group.” Sheeesh!

            OMG!!! LOLOLOL!!! John, MANY thank yous for starting me on this train of thought. I’d written ANOTHER satirical piece back in the 90s titled AATTAACK: Americans Against The Tobacco, Alcohol, And Car Killers. While checking to see if I’d ever put it online just now, I discovered it was picked up by the multi-billion dollar American Legacy antismoking foundation and cc’d to over a dozen muckity-mucks as a serious document of “High” importance! Hehehe… oh, this is priceless! See:

            Thank you John!

          • LOL I love where that wound up… with Glantz’s people.

      • Hmmm… and here’s a related piece I posted at the Washington Examiner about five years ago: more oriented toward smoking than vaping or breathing, but the same general principles apply.

        Ordinary exhaled human breath contains up to 3,000 VOCs (Volatile Organic Chemicals), largely the result of our bodies inhaling fresh clean air and then exhaling dirty, secondhand waste filled with metabolic toxins our bodies are getting rid of. Such toxins present a special danger for the developing brains of infants and small children and in sufficient concentrations any one of those 3,000 poisons will silently and invisibly kill a small child within minutes. The only truly safe environment for children is a hospital where newborns are whisked away from their mothers by sterilized robot mechanisms and kept in a sterilized atmosphere, breathing air untainted by human waste products, until they are 21.

        At which point we can suit them up and send them off to Afghanistan or someplace with a gun.

        The above is all true. It’s also all crazy. It’s the same kind of crazy as people like Administrator Lauve are pushing to justify an antismoking agenda. Do toxins from smoke exist? Of course they do, the same as toxins from human breath or the deadly formaldehyde in our favorite baby shampoos. I’m sure you’ve heard of the danger of the formaldehyde in secondhand smoke, right? Did you know that the level in baby shampoo is up to 87,000 times what you’d find in smoking bar or restaurant?

        People who push these fears on people to back an agenda of social engineering should be ashamed. Perhaps they should even be prosecuted under whatever law protects us from people yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater. They should NOT be running our hospitals.


        • *until they are 17 😉

          • Heh, unfortunately, yeah. Or until they are 13ish and they’ve committed some crime we think is particularly nasty… at which point we’ll arbitrarily decide it’s fine to “charge them as an adult.” I’ve often wondered just how they justify that particular sliding scale.

            – MJM

  • danny

    Another point to examine is the quantity of these chemicals to the breathof someone who has drunk a diet soda. Nutrasweet breaks down into formadihyde, methanol and acetone.