The Lab-Crafted Thermal Failure
"Critical Appraisal of Exposure Studies of E-Cigarette Aerosol Generated by High-Powered Devices", by Sébastien Soulet and Roberto A. Sussmann.
Key Finding
A significant portion of preclinical exposure studies using high-powered, low-resistance (sub-ohm) devices operate under airflow regimes inappropriate for this device class. As a result, they frequently generate overheated, failure-mode aerosols that do not reflect routine human use.
Evidence at a Glance
Common laboratory regimen: 3-second puffs, 55 mL, every 30 seconds (CORESTA CRM81/RM81-like), equivalent to ~1.1 L/min airflow.
Engineering requirement: For sub-ohm devices, airflow closer to ~10 L/min is needed to prevent coil overheating.
Observed outputs: Elevated aldehydes and, in some cases, carbon monoxide—signals consistent with thermal failure, not typical vaping.
Scope: The paper evaluates methodological validity, not clinical efficacy or safety.
Why This Matters for Policy
Scientific Validity
If the experimental agent is an aerosol, then invalid aerosol generation invalidates downstream risk inference. Toxicology built on failure modes cannot be generalized to real-world exposure.
Regulatory Integrity
When laboratory-induced artifacts are treated as “typical vaping,” regulatory risk is shaped by invalid proxies rather than by representative evidence.
Equity Implications
Mischaracterizing alternatives to smoking disproportionately affects populations already bearing the highest burden of combustible tobacco use—those with fewer resources, fewer cessation options, and higher baseline risk.
Policy Implications
Evidence weighting must account for the validity of aerosol generation, not toxic endpoints alone.
Failure modes should not be silently generalized to standard exposure conditions.
Methodological shortcuts carry human costs by reinforcing policies that may prolong smoking rather than reduce harm.
Recommended Actions
For Regulators & Public-Health Agencies
Require exposure studies to report:
Delivered (measured) power at the coil
Airflow rates
Device and coil specifications
Operational regime (optimal vs. overheating)
Explicitly distinguish extreme or failure conditions from representative use in risk assessment.
For Journals & Research Funders
Tighten reporting standards and checklists to reduce irreproducible or engineering-invalid exposure studies.
Prioritize replication studies that map airflow × power × resistance to valid vs. overheating zones.
For Standards Bodies & Laboratories
Develop device-class–specific protocols (pods ≠ sub-ohm).
Implement pre-calibration workflows to prevent “screen watts” from substituting for delivered watts.
For Journalists & Opinion Leaders
Interrogate methods before amplifying results
When reporting on vaping studies, explicitly ask how the aerosol was generated: airflow, delivered power, device class, and operating regime. Toxicological findings without methodological context are not facts—they are poorly grounded claims.
Avoid generalizing failure scenarios as typical of use
Aerosols produced under extreme or overheating conditions should not be described as representative of everyday vaping. When studies probe limits or failure modes, this distinction must be made explicit to audiences.
Distinguish plausible risk from manufactured risk
Not every alarming result reflects a real-world exposure. Responsible science journalism does not elevate experimental artifacts into population-level conclusions.
Contextualize social and distributive consequences
Frames that collapse all alternatives to combustible smoking into a single risk category obscure who bears the cost of oversimplification: populations with higher smoking prevalence, fewer cessation options, and greater structural vulnerability.Resist moral certainty where technical uncertainty persists
When methods are contested or incomplete, journalism should clarify limits—not replace them with moralized conclusions. Explaining uncertainty is not a weakness; it is a public service.
Bottom Line
A toxicological result is only as credible as the aerosol that produced it.
When laboratory protocols turn thermal failure into “evidence,” policy inherits the error—and vulnerable populations pay the price.
For Further Reading:
The issue is that the human user finds overheated vapour repulsive; we have a name for it, 'dry hit', and it is something to be avoided because it is highly unpleasant.
If researchers or NGOs/regulators spoke to real users, this would be obvious, but they don't.