VapeRisk testing methodology explains how we label evidence behind product-claim checks, teardowns, and lab-report coverage. A page is not a test result unless it identifies the sample, method, evidence level, and limits. We do not turn a box claim, manufacturer document, or a single observed unit into a universal product finding.
What VapeRisk can and cannot measure
VapeRisk can document a specific sample’s labeling, packaging, visible construction, stated specifications, purchase or source notes when available, and reported handling conditions. Where a report says a bench check or teardown was performed, it can describe the observations made on that identified sample and the method used.
VapeRisk cannot certify that a device, battery, charger, liquid, or aerosol is safe; establish regulatory compliance; diagnose a health outcome; or treat a single sample as proof of every unit, market, batch, or production run. We do not present hands-on use, a teardown, or a claim comparison as accredited analytical chemistry, emissions testing, toxicology, or a substitute for a regulator’s review.
Evidence labels used in VapeRisk reporting
| Label | What it means | What it does not mean |
|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer claim | Information copied or paraphrased from packaging, an official product page, manual, or manufacturer statement, with the source named. | Independent verification by VapeRisk. |
| Documented observation | A photographed, recorded, or otherwise described feature of the specific sample. | A conclusion about all units or batches. |
| Bench check | A disclosed, limited check of a defined function or condition on an identified sample. | A certification, a safety finding, or a complete laboratory analysis. |
| Teardown evidence | Visible internal construction or components observed after opening the reported sample. | Proof of nominal capacity, chemical composition, or identical construction across production. |
| Third-party lab result | A result attributed to the named laboratory or source document, with its stated method and scope. | VapeRisk’s own laboratory result unless the report says so. |
Sample handling and identity
Before reporting an observation, we aim to record the product name, model, variant, nicotine label, stated capacity or puff claim, batch or lot code when available, source or purchase channel, and relevant dates. Packaging, seals, warnings, labels, and visible compliance markings should be photographed or described before destructive work. If a detail cannot be confirmed, it is marked unknown rather than inferred.
Samples are handled as evidence for that report, not as representative inventory. When the chain from source to test is incomplete, the report should say so. Different markets, revisions, flavors, charging accessories, power modes, liquid fill, storage conditions, and manufacturing lots can change what a reader should expect from another unit.
Puff-count, battery, and charging checks
Puff count: A reported puff total is meaningful only with a stated protocol. A useful report identifies the sample, mode, draw definition, stopping condition, and whether the count is observed, estimated, or a manufacturer claim. One use pattern cannot validate a universal puff total. Battery capacity, liquid volume, coil condition, airflow, power mode, draw duration, and cutoff behavior can all affect runtime. The JNR 100K teardown applies this boundary by separating the documented refill architecture from the untested 100K puff claim.
Battery: We may report a printed mAh figure, visible cell markings, physical architecture, or a disclosed sample-level observation. We do not infer nominal cell capacity from a puff total or from ordinary use. A larger stated battery does not by itself establish a larger observed puff count. The IVG Air 2-in-1 teardown shows why device and internal-cell mAh markings are reported separately.
Charging: A report may document whether an identified sample accepted charge, the connector or dock used, indicator behavior, and observed charging conditions. It does not certify charger compatibility, battery health, electrical protection, thermal performance, or long-term safety. Any abnormal heat, damage, swelling, odor, or charging behavior is a reason to stop use and follow the manufacturer’s safety instructions or seek qualified help; it is not by itself a product-wide finding.
Leak and teardown evidence
Leak checks describe what was observed on the named sample under the stated orientation, temperature, handling, and time window. A clean sample does not prove a design is leak-proof, and a leaking sample does not establish that every unit will leak.
Teardowns can support component-level observations such as enclosure layout, accessible modules, visible seals, reservoirs, wiring, or markings. They cannot confirm unseen material composition, electrical ratings, liquid contents, manufacturing consistency, or a manufacturer specification unless a suitable method and evidence are documented. Teardowns are not safety certification.
Uncertainty and confidence
Every report should separate what was seen or measured from what is inferred. We describe important uncertainty sources: sample count, product revision, test conditions, instrument limits, observer judgment, missing lot data, and the difference between an observed result and a marketed claim. When a numerical result is reported, the method, units, rounding, and material limitations belong with it. We do not imply precision that the method cannot support.
For context, the NIST guidance on reporting measurement uncertainty emphasizes describing uncertainty components and how they were evaluated. VapeRisk uses that transparency principle for published evidence descriptions; it does not claim NIST calibration or accreditation.
How we label manufacturer claims
Claims about puffs, battery capacity, liquid volume, charging, leak resistance, nicotine, performance, or safety stay labeled as manufacturer claims until a report documents separate supporting evidence. A claim may be quoted because it is relevant to a buyer or retailer, but quotation is not endorsement. Where evidence conflicts, we name the source, explain the difference, and avoid declaring a winner beyond the evidence available.
This approach is consistent with the basic consumer-protection principle that objective product claims need an appropriate evidentiary basis. See the FTC’s advertising-substantiation policy. VapeRisk is an editorial publisher, not a regulator, and this page does not make a legal determination about any manufacturer claim.
Lab-report boundaries
Analytical testing is a distinct discipline. The FDA Tobacco Products Laboratory describes specialized equipment and validated analytical methods used for tobacco-product analysis, including e-cigarette smoking machines and chemical instrumentation. VapeRisk does not represent its claim checks, hands-on observations, or teardowns as equivalent to that work. For background, see the FDA Tobacco Products Laboratory and ISO 20768, which defines routine analytical vaping-machine conditions but does not specify a product, operating mode, liquid, or aerosol analysis.
When we cite a laboratory report, we identify the originating source where possible and report only what its method and sample scope support. We do not extrapolate a laboratory finding beyond the named sample set or convert it into a health or regulatory conclusion.
Updates, corrections, and related pages
We update this methodology when a testing track, reporting template, or evidence label changes. Product pages are updated when new source material, a documented correction, or a meaningful product revision changes the evidence. Material corrections should identify what changed and why; silent rewrites are avoided where a prior conclusion could mislead readers.
- VapeRisk Labs for the reporting hub.
- Claimed vs Measured for documented teardown findings and claim comparisons.
- Battery Capacity vs Puff Count for a claim-reading framework, not a universal runtime test.
- How to Read a Vape Lab Report for questions to ask about methods, samples, and limits.
- Editorial Policy for sourcing and correction standards.
Frequently asked questions
What does “manufacturer claim” mean on VapeRisk?
It means the information came from packaging, a manufacturer source, a manual, or another named company statement. It is not presented as independently verified unless the page separately identifies supporting evidence and method.
Does a puff-count check prove the advertised number of puffs?
No. A useful check can describe the observed result for one identified sample under a stated protocol. It cannot validate a universal puff total across users, modes, batches, liquid fills, or product revisions.
Can VapeRisk certify a battery or charger is safe?
No. VapeRisk can document stated specifications and sample-level observations, but does not certify electrical safety, battery health, charger compatibility, or long-term performance.
Does a teardown show how every unit is built?
No. A teardown records what was visible in the reported sample. It does not establish the construction, materials, ratings, or consistency of all units or batches.
How does VapeRisk use third-party lab reports?
We attribute the result to the named source and report it within the stated method and sample scope. A third-party result is not relabeled as a VapeRisk test result.
What can change after a report is published?
New source documents, corrections, product revisions, clarified sample information, or better evidence can change a page. Material updates should explain what changed and preserve the distinction between a claim, an observation, and a measured result.