Date: 07/07/2025
Source: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (2024–2025)
The Essentials
Study type & scope: Analysis of 20 disposable e-cigarettes in Mexico (Svarch-Pérez et al., 2024), claiming extreme levels of benzene, toluene, and xylene (BTX).
Main finding (critique): Core methodological errors — unit miscalculations, invalid exposure comparisons, and exaggerated scaling — inflated reported BTX levels by up to 100,000 times.
Economic/policy outcome: Instead of informing policy, the flawed study risked misleading regulators and wasting resources on exaggerated alarms.
Impact evaluation: An independent critique by Sussman, Gómez-Ruiz, and Farsalinos found the study’s results and conclusions to be invalid, recommending retraction.
Equity & trust: Highlights systemic failures in peer review and editorial oversight, threatening the credibility of science in sensitive health debates.
Why It Matters
This episode underscores the fragility of public trust in science. When flawed evidence is published in reputable journals, it risks distorting regulation, misguiding public opinion, and undermining genuine public health efforts. The critique is not a defense of vaping but a defense of rigor — a reminder that science without precision becomes performance.
Behind every unit conversion and every calibration lies a social responsibility: policies, risks, and lives hinge on such details. When rigor collapses, what is lost is not just accuracy but the very trust that makes science meaningful.
What Changes in Practice
Health/Regulation – Regulatory bodies should resist impact-driven claims and demand reproducibility, transparency, and alignment with exposure science standards.
Industry/Innovation – Legitimate toxicological assessments of nicotine products must be performed by qualified labs with validated protocols, ensuring credibility for both consumers and innovators.
Society/Environment – The narrative on chemical risks must account for background exposures (ambient BTX levels) to realistically contextualize risks, thereby avoiding misplaced alarmism.
Scenarios and Next Steps
Short term (1–2 years): Retractions, corrections, and adoption of stricter peer-review protocols for chemical exposure studies.
Medium term (3–5 years): Creation of standardized, internationally accepted methods for analyzing vaping aerosols and contextualizing findings within environmental exposure baselines.
Long term (5–10 years): Rebuilding public trust through systemic reform in scientific publishing — privileging reproducibility and rigor over sensational impact.
The Takeaway
When science loses precision, it doesn’t just fail in the lab — it risks failing society.
For Further Reading
Read the full analysis here → claudioteixeira.substack.com/p/flawed-vaping-study