Heavy-metal screening of 22 disposable devices.

VapeRisk Lab acquired 22 disposable devices in March 2026 from regular U.S. retail (gas station, convenience, and online sources — no manufacturer samples). Aerosol from each device was collected on standard quartz filters under ISO 20768 puffing parameters and analyzed by ICP-MS at Eurofins' Madison, WI lab. The headline finding: only 4 of 22 devices cleared the FDA's draft thresholds for all four heavy metals tested.

For full methodology, see Section 5 of the PDF. All raw data is published alongside this report and is available for re-analysis under our open-data policy.

The dispersion in our results — a 78× spread on lead alone — is consistent with the hypothesis that heavy-metal contamination in disposables is driven primarily by manufacturing-side variables (alloy choice, coating quality, atomizer geometry) rather than by user behavior or storage. Devices from manufacturers with public quality-control documentation cluster strongly on the safer side; devices with no published QC data show the widest variance.

This is the same pattern Olmedo et al. (2024) identified in refillables, and the same mechanism the FDA cited in its draft guidance last September. Wednesday's PMTA enforcement action targeted four of the eleven devices that failed our screen.

For buyers: of the 22 devices we tested, four passed all four thresholds and three more passed three of four. If you're buying disposable, prefer the four "Pass" devices in the table above until further data is available. If your local retailer doesn't carry any of them, that itself is a signal worth taking seriously.

VapeRisk Lab will re-test the failing devices in our August 2026 cycle. We will also expand the screen to include carbonyls (formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein) — the parallel safety axis we know less about for high-puff disposables.