This seems like a shill study because someone unhappy with cigarettes declining sales helped fund development of their neat-o 3D printed testing device. It is a

This seems like a shill study because someone unhappy with cigarettes declining sales helped fund development of their neat-o 3D printed testing device. It is already a red-flag that they say "3D printed"... they didn't 3D print the (likely) massively expensive electro-optical sensing device, from what I can tell they 3D printed the little sample slides that go in, and that is what costs a dollar. I'm sure that will save some shekels but otherwise... Saying "e-cigarettes" is nonsensical. There are 1000s of varieties of vaporizers and liquids. I'd wager if you take some bright, sketchy liquid from the corner vape shop and combine it with a $10 generic imported vaporizer there is going to be some significant deviation with impurities/toxins relative to e.g. JUUL or other products sold by a company that frankly has something to lose if they get sued. As far as I understand, most of the unexpected chemicals are coming from vaporization or reactions based on the flavorings that were never designed for that. Or vaporizers that are poorly constructed and burn glue/adhesives/etc from the device as well as the liquid. So again you'd want to focus on those individual components or chemicals, and it makes no sense to generalize "e-cigarettes" by analysis of any one (for better or worse). Also, not intuitively buying without far more evidence that vaporizing glycol/glycerine, nicotine, and water shares a rough equivalence in DNA damage potential to the raw combustion products of unfiltered cigarettes. There are some 7000 chemicals in tobacco smoke, and the list of the known carcinogens is over a page long on Wikipedia... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cigarette_smoke_carcinogens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cigarette_smoke_carcin...