I question the methodology used in this testing. Did they let the wick rest and recover between simulated puffs or did they dry burn the wick? From the results that showed an increase in harmful stuff when more simulated puffs were applied, it leads me to believe they dry burned the wick. A dry burn is going to cause your results to be skewed by introducing chemicals that would normally not be present. For a dripper system, you have to apply more eliquid after a few puffs. For a tank system you have to let the wick recover and absorb more eliquid.

There is also a question of what voltage and wattage settings they used. Using higher voltage and wattage settings than what a normal consumer would use will also result in chemicals becoming present that are not normally seen, thus skewing the results.  We saw this occur in the faulty study conducted by Mr. Jensen, Dr. Luo, et.al., that was published in 2015.

Using faulty testing methods that do not properly mimic consumer behavior, violates research study protocols and is dishonest to both the scientific community and the world at large.