- Email: [email protected]
Response to “Authors miss the opportunity to discuss important public health implications”
Journal of Chromatography A, 1312 (2013) 157
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Chromatography A journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/chroma
Discussion
Response to “Authors miss the opportunity to discuss important public health implications” Ho-Sang Shin ∗ Department of Environmental Education, Kongju National University, Kongju 314-701, Republic of Korea
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 21 August 2013 Received in revised form 21 August 2013 Accepted 21 August 2013 Available online 31 August 2013
The primary objectives of our study were to develop an LC–MS/MS analytical method for TSNAs in replacement liquids of E-cigarettes and to get the concentration of four TSNAs in 105 replacement liquid brands from 11 electronic cigarette products purchased in Korean shops. The results clearly demonstrated excellent reproducibility, accuracy and sensitivity of the proposed method and quantification values of TSNAs in 105 replacement liquid brands of 11 companies. Therefore, we think that our results and discussion focused and met confidently to the primary objectives of our study. As indicated in our article, an additional goal in further study is needed to determine TSNAs in gas phase of E-cigarettes and evaluate their allegation in human health. We may also expect to know whether TSNAs compounds may also be formed from the heating of E-cigarettes. And we thank Dr Farsalinos and co-authors for pointing out that there is more one could do with the our data. We agree
∗ Tel.: +82 41 850 8811; fax: +82 41 850 8998. E-mail address: [email protected] 0021-9673/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2013.08.088
entirely with his point that a discussion for the potential impact from a public health perspective is necessary. But the comparison of TSNA concentrations in replacement liquid of E-cigarettes and main stream of tobacco can produce the estimate differing substantially from those we presented. Generally, E-cigarette manufacturers claim that their products are safe alternatives to tobacco and contain little more than water vapor, nicotine, and propylene glycol, which is used to create artificial smoke. But many consumers suspect that hazardous substances are present in addition to the nicotine content and have concerns regarding the safety of these products. In the sense, the comparison of our data with data published by an E-cigarette company is thought to be very reasonable and valuable. We expect that next study may discuss the potential impact from a public health perspective and satisfy you.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Chromatography A journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/chroma
Discussion
Response to “Authors miss the opportunity to discuss important public health implications” Ho-Sang Shin ∗ Department of Environmental Education, Kongju National University, Kongju 314-701, Republic of Korea
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 21 August 2013 Received in revised form 21 August 2013 Accepted 21 August 2013 Available online 31 August 2013
The primary objectives of our study were to develop an LC–MS/MS analytical method for TSNAs in replacement liquids of E-cigarettes and to get the concentration of four TSNAs in 105 replacement liquid brands from 11 electronic cigarette products purchased in Korean shops. The results clearly demonstrated excellent reproducibility, accuracy and sensitivity of the proposed method and quantification values of TSNAs in 105 replacement liquid brands of 11 companies. Therefore, we think that our results and discussion focused and met confidently to the primary objectives of our study. As indicated in our article, an additional goal in further study is needed to determine TSNAs in gas phase of E-cigarettes and evaluate their allegation in human health. We may also expect to know whether TSNAs compounds may also be formed from the heating of E-cigarettes. And we thank Dr Farsalinos and co-authors for pointing out that there is more one could do with the our data. We agree
∗ Tel.: +82 41 850 8811; fax: +82 41 850 8998. E-mail address: [email protected] 0021-9673/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2013.08.088
entirely with his point that a discussion for the potential impact from a public health perspective is necessary. But the comparison of TSNA concentrations in replacement liquid of E-cigarettes and main stream of tobacco can produce the estimate differing substantially from those we presented. Generally, E-cigarette manufacturers claim that their products are safe alternatives to tobacco and contain little more than water vapor, nicotine, and propylene glycol, which is used to create artificial smoke. But many consumers suspect that hazardous substances are present in addition to the nicotine content and have concerns regarding the safety of these products. In the sense, the comparison of our data with data published by an E-cigarette company is thought to be very reasonable and valuable. We expect that next study may discuss the potential impact from a public health perspective and satisfy you.