Study finds popular e-cigarettes contaminated with toxic fungus

Just sayin’ …

The study, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, analyzed 75 e-cigarette products (37 single-use cartridges and 38 refillable e-liquids) from 10 of the top-selling brands. They found that 23 percent of the samples had trace amounts of endotoxin found in Gram-negative bacteria — a type of bacteria associated with E. coli and chlamydia. Eighty-one percent contained glucan, a type of polysaccharide found in the cell walls of most fungi.

Higher concentrations of endotoxins were found in fruit-flavored products, indicating that the raw materials used to make the flavor may not have been properly pasteurized. Tobacco- and menthol-flavored products were more likely to have glucan as well as the cartridge samples, which had 3.2 times the amount compared to refillables.

Very little offered how and what procedures were used to conduct the testing.


They wanted to say popcorn lung so bad!
“Previous studies by Harvard researchers have also shown that chemicals commonly found in e-cigarette flavors are linked to severe respiratory disease”


yea, there’s a whole lot of info missing in this so called “study”


I remember reading a couple “studies” that mentioned what fungals pg is supposed to protect our lungs from, but both were like this one offering very little meat. I take it all with a grain of salt these days. Neither side is offering us much info I trust.


The study described is presently appearing (full text) here:

Some notable excerpts:

Although no scientific evidence supports a hypothesis that current observed levels of endotoxin and glucan in ECs raise health concerns, adverse responses of respiratory and immunological systems to exposure to endotoxin and glucan in epidemiologic studies (responses such as reduced lung function; increase in nonatopic asthma, bronchial hyper-responsiveness and peripheral leucocyte count; inflammation; and airflow obstruction) suggest the potential effects on the inhalation exposure route during EC smoking. … Cartridge ECs contained wicks made of cotton or other fibers . Endotoxin and glucan are biological contaminants of cotton fibers; thus, contamination of cartridge wicks may be a source of endotoxin and glucan contamination and might contribute to higher concentrations of glucans in cartridge ECs than in e-liquids. … Raw materials used to manufacture flavors might be a source of microbial contamination, but contamination during the manufacture of flavors, other EC components, or finished EC products is also possible. … We tested only for contamination of samples from cartridges and e-liquids … We did not test multiple samples of the same product to assess variation among different batches or packages of the same product. … we identified endotoxin and glucan in samples from cartridges and bottles of e-liquids, but we did not evaluate contamination of aerosols inhaled by users. Finally, we analyzed small numbers of products that were selected from popular brands.

There may well be more in the way of microbial risks to be quite legitimately concerned about. One (and perhaps the only) solution is to filter to less than 2.0 Microns, discarding filter and all pre-filter materials.


Damn …
I wonder, do they want us to smoke again?
The hospitals are full of smokers …


Agreed with the above posts, but the story caught my eye, and couldn’t NOT post it.


so we can get STD’s from vaping already??? wtf


Glu·can (glo͞o′kăn′ -kən)
Any of various polysaccharides that are polymers of glucose and are components of the cell walls of plants, algae, fungi, and bacteria.

Then, seeing as how I’m a :100:% NET maker and vaper… I can tell you for a fact that … I LOVE ME SOME GLUCAN! :kissing_heart::dash:

Making tasty NET is all about breaking down some cell walls in plants. The more you break it down, the better it tastes! :yum: Hail Glucan!

This study was basically a “class project”… take it with a grain of salt. :smirk:


The sky is falling and we have trouble in River City.
Here we go again. Nothing new. I hear the cash register ringing for the ANTZ.
These toxins are and have always been present and will always continue to be present.
Might want to read about these “new” dangers (you notice that these studies don’t make the front page):
Bacterial endotoxin was detected in menstrual effluent from infertile women
Bacterial endotoxin adhesion to different types of orthodontic adhesives
Evidence against a bacterial endotoxin masking effect in biologic drug products by limulus amebocyte lysate detection.
A selective sorbent for removing bacterial endotoxins from blood]
To name a few.
re: -------------------------------------------------See pg 62 ACTIVISTS VS. JUUL Funding anit-vaping


So they didn’t actually find fungus?
fungus is everywhere in trace i’d actually be surprised if it wasn’t in e-liquid in trace amounts anyways. There’s way more in the air you breathe in your home i’m sure

1 Like

You mean there are std’s in the air? That explains my crabs! :joy::lollipop:


Dam if only we heated the eliquid to kill it all.

Ps sarcasm level 100


Follow the money:

Harvard, over the past decade, has been under tremendous financial pressure from shrinking funding sources for their extravagant campuses and highly paid staff. Much of their recent research has been debunked or taken down from publication in reviewed journals as “junk science” and it has caused statements like these following ones by their directors as they attempt “damage control”

“Faculty members must not be induced by financial interests to give outside sponsors or other organizations or individuals authority to direct their studies or to restrict or unreasonably delay the release or publication of research results,” the policy reads.

The Corporation mentioned public trust as one of the most important factors for the University to consider in evaluating projects.

“The University should therefore scrutinize with special care any agreement that may appear to compromise public trust,…

Earlier this year, conflict of interest questions received national attention next door at the Harvard Medical School.

TRADITIONALLY, government funding for scientific research has been granted to institutions via a merit-review process–in which peer committees review grant proposals and award money to the most qualified applicants.

However, recent actions by Congress threaten the peer review process. Congress has begun to legislate research funds directly to institutions, thus bypassing the review process and seriously threatening the future quality and integrity of academic research.

Recent controversy over CIA sponsorship of the research of two Harvard professors foreshadows the kind of damage that politics brings to the funding process. The CIA reserves the right to censor work which it sponsors; but censorship of research findings runs counter to the policies and spirit upon which universities are based. While the CIA is not Congress, the CIA funding episodes suggest that Congress might ask in the future for similar freedom-constraining privileges in return for research grants.

Universities must stand firmly behind the peer-review process if quality scientific research and the merit basis of the funding system is to be preserved.

Researchers across Harvard face a difficult climate when funding their research. Federal research funding, long a mainstay of academic institutions, has been largely stagnant in recent years. Institutional support from Harvard, while present, will never fully meet the needs of often-expensive medical and public health research.

At the Harvard School of Public Health, professors are taking a different path to supporting their research. In increasing numbers, they are turning to private corporations for funding and assistance.

While this arrangement offers a new source of much-needed funding, it also raises challenging ethical and management questions for the school.


Sadly, Harvard is also the one that did the pure nic study that said without the additives in tobacco that they could find no evidence that nicotine was addictive.


Funny you should say that…

“These are low levels of exposure — lower than in tobacco products or traditional cigarettes and lower than in the occupational environment. So this is pretty low-level exposure, but it’s not trivial.”


maybe the crabs jumped out of your e-liquid?


David Christiani, a Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health professor, says:
“There … need to be studies that figure out what the sources and roots of contamination are. And lastly, the human health effects.”

It seems that the money/fame attaches to those willing to conduct patently “back to front” research methods.