E-Cigarette Forum - Blogs - DVap

Current thoughts

DVap — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 11:44:35 GMT

The following is from a forum post I made recently. I've been involved for some time with the "Whole Tobacco Alkaloid" concept, and when reading back through my blog, I find I've spoken with a certainty that's probably misplaced... or at least overly-confident. We think we know a lot of things, we convince ourselves of this, but what do we really know about vaping when it doesn't yet have a long-term history?

In context, the comments below represent my current thinking, which supersedes my former thoughts posted in previous blog posts, at least as far as my level of certainty about things.

I guess the thoughts expressed below were brought on by recent attention to whole tobacco alkaloids, and my somewhat discomfort at being oft-quoted and trusted by so many (which I appreciate, but still find myself uncomfortable with). :)

-------------------------------------

I've been posting a lot of wet-blanket stuff, you know, "stay away from WTA unless you're really fighting analogs!" One reason for this, I suppose, is that we have to remember that the whole realm of vaping is even now rather new, and we don't know as much as we sometimes think we do. I guess I'm big on safety, and for as much as we want vaping to be safe, we're really only persuaded that vaping is safer than smoking, and that smoking is probably a good bit safer than driving really fast with your eyes closed!

The whole discussion around vaping is really about nothing less than our lives. Who here doesn't think it would be great if smoking was actually safe? I'd do a carton a day, really. I'm the first to say that if I were given my choice, I'd not vape at all, be active, get back into shape, and do all those healthy things that make my doctor tell me I can have TWO lollipops when I leave my annual physical. But I can't put down the e-cigarette yet...

We believe in harm-reduction... the idea that we can come out net-positive by replacing one bad habit with another not-so-bad habit. We know smoking is really bad for our health and longevity, but we only believe that our chosen not-so-bad habit of vaping is less bad. I really don't want anybody here to say "Well, WTA is a lot safer than smoking because DVap said...". DVap didn't say. DVap did say to go find a mountain, a meadow, a seashore, an unspoiled place and breath the air. BUT... failing to do all those good things I should be doing, and still tethered to an e-cigarette, I am simply persuaded, like many, that vaping is safer than smoking. But I wouldn't want the first of you here to take *my* word for it. I feel similarly about WTA. I believe that WTA is a safer alternative than smoking, but I don't know this.

The only thing I really know about WTA is anecdotal via the folks who have had the opportunity to try it... that WTA does take the edge off for folks who still struggle with analogs while vaping. Then again, so does snus (The Swedish stuff), and I'm far more persuaded that snus is safe than I am about vaping nicotine or vaping WTA.

So, in the end, all I'm really saying is that each of us has to do our own thinking and put our health in our own hands. Don't take my word for it, when in doubt, breath the air.

A Caution about Modeling Analog Addiction

DVap — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 21:19:33 GMT

.
Some time ago, I created a model where I theorized two things:

1. Some folks have a high predisposition to nicotine addition and others a low predisposition.

2. Some folks have a high predisposition to tobacco MAOI addiction and others a low predisposition.

Another way to put this is to suggest that some folks who smoke do it because the nicotine calms them, and others smoke because the non-nicotine MAOI's calms them.

I then crossed these two theoretical scales as if on a sheet of graph paper to create four quadrants surrounding the origin (0,0).

The x-axis was defined as predisposition to nicotine addiction/nicotine's "feel good" ability. To the left of the origin (negative x-axis values), one is less and less affected by nicotine. To the right of the origin (positive x-axis values), one is more and more affected by nicotine.

Similarly, The y-axis was defined as predisposition to tobacco MAOI addiction/tobacco MAIO "feel good" ability. Down from the origin (negative y-axis values), one is less and less affected by tobacco MAOI's. Up from the origin (positive y-axis values), one is more and more affected by tobacco MAOIs.

Numbering the quadrants thus created from 1 to 4 (starting at the lower left and numbering in a counter-clockwise manner, we get the follow quadrants:

4 | 3
-------
1 | 2

In quadrant 1, low nicotine predisposition/medicative potential meets low MAOI predisposition/medicative potential. You don't really desire or need either one.

In quadrant 2, high nicotine predisposition/medicative potential meets low MAOI predisposition/medicative potential. You really like your nicotine, and it gives you relief. You really don't care all that much about tobacco MAOIs, they hold little appear for you and they hold little sway over you.

In quadrant 3, high nicotine predisposition/medicative potential meets high MAOI predisposition/medicative potential. You like everything about smoking except the smoking. You get strong relief from both nicotine and tobacco MAIO's.

In quadrant 4, low nicotine predisposition/medicative potential meets high MAOI predisposition/medicative potential. You really aren't smoking for the nicotine, you're smoking for all the tobacco MAOI's that are making you feel better of whatever ails you.

I'll say it again since it's taken on a life of it's own since I first posted it:

THIS IS ONLY A MODEL!!!

If it helps you to understand your addiction to analogs or if it helps you to understand why regular nicotine only e-cigs work well or poorly for you, great!! If it helps you to understand why snus does such a good job for you, great!! But there's not any reality to saying, "I'm in quadrant 1", or "I'm in quadrant 3", outside of understanding this as a subjective model.

Once could argue for or against the basic premises of the model, 1) that there's variable addition/efficacy profiles in individuals to nicotine and tobacco MAOI's, and 2) that crossing these arguable scales to create quadrants results in data that has any real meaning.

It's just a tool.

Self-Indulgent Rambling...

DVap — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 10:28:44 GMT

I was making up a personal WTA batch this weekend, and I got thinking about about my blog entries over the past year and a half or so, and I got inclined to give them a re-read.

I don't know if I fully agree with everything I've had to say (well, actually, I don't), but overall, I'm not too embarrassed by anything I've posted. I think my tendency toward looking for precision made it's way into a good number of my entries, though I'm not so caught up these days with the idea of trying to give folks "exacting advice" on such topics as e-cig vs analog nicotine equivalency as I might have been in past entries.

I think these entries represent a chronological journey from from "Yes, ecigs deliver the nicotine, DAMMIT!", then onto "Nicotine is over-rated, let's talk about whole tobacco alkaloids", all the while mixing in the occasional shamelessly self-indulgent entry along with the mind-numbingly geekish experimentation type entries, and of course regular plugs for Swedish snus (You degenerates! You all know who you are over there in "what's under yer lip"... :tongue:). I'm always a bit squeamish when someone points someone else to one of my entries since, on their own, they each represent a slice of time and my effort toward understanding whatever I was trying to understand at that particular moment.

So by now, if you're still reading, you're thinking, "Great, another shamelessly self-indulgent entry", and probably with good reason.

I keep thinking I'm gonna come up with something new that nobody has thought of yet, and it's been long enough without coming up with something new that I'm starting to think I've done about all I can short of going into full-time research, but we all know how much money ~~is out there~~ isn't out there for folks who want to research on how tobacco-related products AREN'T horrible sinful things, so I'll keep the day job.

So happy vaping, happy snus'ing, happy snuff'ing up yer nose, and if you've figured out anywhere else to stick your favorite product, I don't wanna know about it. :laugh:

Vaping and Exercise - Latest Observation

DVap — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 06:01:03 GMT

I've generally noted that vaping doesn't seem to harm my capacity for exercise, but today I noted something that's worth attention.

I was biking up a closed road, starting at an elevation of 1000 feet, the hill rose steadily to 1800 feet by mile 2.7, about a 5.5 percent grade. Having vaped heavily in my car along the way to this closed road, I found that my lungs were not up to the deep breathing necessary for the chore. They were very shallow and tight. I then spent 2 miles on relatively flat road, and I was able to breath more comfortably as the oxygen demand was much reduced. This was followed by a mile and a half steeply downhill to 1300 feet where I let gravity do the work. At this point, I turned around after covering a total of 6.2 miles, and climbed back up 500 feet in a mile and a half. By this time, the breathing had seemed to work my lungs looser, and they didn't seem so shallow or tight.

So as far as I can see, during this 12.5 mile total distance of up and down hills, the pre-trip vaping certainly contributed negatively to my performance.

Still, while I suffered the tightness and shallowness, I didn't suffer the pain, fatigue, and wheezing that I would associate with analogs. and while the shallowness and tightness were a factor, they seemed to have worked themselves out by the time I turned around at 6.2 miles to return the way I'd come.

Bottom line, vaping was not good for strenuous cardiovascular exercise, but it still wasn't as bad as analogs.

The mix I'd vaped prior to hitting the road on my bike was 60/40 VG/PG with 12 mg nicotine.

I'd say the tightness/shallowness didn't really bother me on the non-strenuous sections, but on the extended uphills, I really noticed the effects. I guess by the time I turned around, I'd "worked out" the VG/PG/Nicotine effects such that the return trip was much more comfortable on the uphill pushes.

It makes sense that I should refrain from vaping in the hours leading up to strenuous exertion.

Soaking tobacco for nicotine and flavor - A chemists' perspective

DVap — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:37:05 GMT

Here's a topic I've addressed a number of times in various threads, but I thought I might discuss it here.

What can one expect from soaking tobacco in various solvents (alcohol, PG, VG) to get some real tobacco flavor and/or nicotine?

As far as getting flavor, that's a pretty easy question. If you soak and get a result that you like (either as a liquid in itself or as a flavor additive to regular eliquid) and you don't mind the extra wear and tear on your attys, you've done good. (Assuming you accept that anything that involves soaking tobacco will be less "safe" than good clean regular e-liquid).

As far as getting an appreciable nicotine concentration, soak procedures are self-limiting. What I mean by this is simply that the more tobacco you soak (your nicotine source), the more solvent it's going to take to get nicotine to come out of the tobacco.

Here's a practical example:

You have 1 gram of tobacco. It's likely that this 1 gram of tobacco contains around 20 mg of nicotine. If you use 1 mL of PG to extract it, you could get as much as 20 mg/mL, right?

Wrong.

How much of the nicotine will come out? Maybe 50% if you're feeling generous, probably less. So now we're down from 20 mg/mL to 10 mg/mL. But what's this? When we add 1 mL of PG to 1 gram of tobacco, the tobacco just slurps up the PG.

So we add more PG, say 5 mL total. Now we've got some liquid on top to extract into.. but now we're putting that 10 mg nicotine (tops!) into 5 mL of PG, so we're down to 2 mg/mL and we've still made brown goo.

You see the problem.

So I'm still vaping...

DVap — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 07:27:07 GMT

I told folks here a few weeks ago that I was going to quit vaping altogether as I start to get myself back into my old fighting condition. So here I am a few weeks later, still vaping single digit nicotine and getting back into shape at the same time.

Think about that for a moment... vaping and getting in shape at the same time. I know it's not the best thing in the world (nicotine and blood pressure... ya-de-ya and all that), but I can't even imagine trying to do that with analogs. I've put in 20 hard trail miles over the past 3 days, all the while vaping (not WHILE I was doing the miles, but before and after). I'm down 10 pounds with more to go, and oh yea.. my lungs feel great.

Madame Psychosis Summary - Pt 3

DVap — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:35:27 GMT

3. Variable Addiction & What Some of Us Need:
Consider the variety of backgrounds and personalities that convene on this forum. We all smoked because we all found some kind of satisfaction or balance from smoking.

But the �why� of smoking is complicated: some of us smoked to keep away depression or anxiety; some smoked for alertness; some for relaxation; some for boredom or ritual. Or any of a hundred other reasons.

The point is: Different brains, different baselines, different outcomes, different addictions.

What does this imply?

It suggests that the neurochemical basis of tobacco dependence is variable.

Translation: Some of us smoked for the nicotine, some of us smoked for the behavioral or social reinforcement (at least in part), and some of us smoked for the other alkaloids.

Those of us who can quit with e-cigarettes were almost certainly smoking for the nicotine plus the behavior (the hand-to-mouth ritual, the smoke visuals, the social aspect, and the ability to self-administer). These are powerful factors in tobacco dependence. But they aren't the whole picture for some of us.

The trick is figuring out your own needs. DVap summarized the �four quadrants� of tobacco dependence in this way in his blog post and in the �so are we getting it�� thread:

Quote:
I divided smokers/vapers into four basic groups based on two theoretical criteria: 1) predisposition to nicotine addiction, and 2) predisposition to tobacco MAOI addiction.

Group 1: low predisposition to nicotine addiction, low predisposition to tobacco MAOI addiction.
Group 2: high predisposition to nicotine addiction, low predisposition to tobacco MAOI addiction.
Group 3: high predisposition to nicotine addiction, high predisposition to tobacco MAOI addiction.
Group 4: low predisposition to nicotine addiction, high predisposition to tobacco MAOI addiction.

Modeling on these these four groups:
We can expect group 1 to do fine vaping modest eliquid nicotine concentrations.
We can expect group 2 to do fine vaping higher eliquid nicotine concentrations.
We can expect group 3 to find vaping alone unsatisying. Supplementing vaping with some good strong Swedish snus, not that pale imitation Camel stuff, will likely calm these folks right down.
We can expect group 4 to find vaping alone unsatisfying. Supplementing vaping with some moderate strength Swedish snus, again not that pale imitation Camel stuff, should calm these folks right down.
While we don't know for certain if the MAOIs are the true X-factor beyond all others, the use of smokeless tobacco such as snus will provide the entire spread of tobacco alkaloids. Therefore, you could replace "MAOI" with "non-nicotine alkaloids" in the above passage and it would still hold true.

This understanding that tobacco addiction is variable led to an intriguing and, dare I say, genius breakthrough: WTA liquid.

4. WTA Liquid � Confirmation of a Hypothesis
One of the major turning points in the thread occurred when DVap, using his considerable chemistry background, was able to extract the whole alkaloid fraction from tobacco. This became known as Whole Tobacco Alkaloid liquid, or WTA.

The solvent process used to extract the nicotine for our e-liquid leaves out the other alkaloids. DVap�s process, on the other hand, left them in, and maintained the original ratios as they exist in tobacco.

In other words, he kept the alkaloid �stew� just as we�ve known it from smoking.

Having confirmed the apparent safety of the resulting mixture (and diluting it considerably), he sent samples to a handful of willing testers who were having trouble with nicotine-only liquids.

The hypothesis was confirmed by the relief that almost all of these testers felt. Testimonials and discussion can be found in the pages of the original "so are we getting it..." thread, but the upshot is that WTA felt like the real thing.

This confirms, not surprisingly, the general hypothesis that what we are missing are the non-nicotine alkaloids.

The challenge?
The at-home extraction of this WTA liquid is impossible for those of us who don�t have DVap�s level of expertise. And, for understandable reasons, he has chosen not to make it commercially available.

Just soaking tobacco in PG or VG won�t extract a significant amount of any alkaloids, not even nicotine.

Many of us were cheered by the announcement that Star Scientific has been working on a �tobacco alkaloid pill�, and you can read about it here.

But for now, what can you do?

5. Conclusion
If you need just nicotine, and the behavioral act of �smoking�, vaping will be plenty.
If you need the other alkaloids in tobacco, vaping will not be enough.

For those of us in the latter group, we've spent our time in this thread trying to figure out how to regain the sense of balance we had with smoking, without reverting to cigarettes.

As many have found, the best fix to stay off cigarettes and obtain those whole alkaloids is reduced-harm smokeless tobacco � snus and snuff.

Don't think of it as "reverting" to tobacco. In reality, you are incurring far fewer risks than you were with smoking.

Give it a try, and your brain may just thank you.

See this Beginner's Guide to Snus for a start.
For recommendations, input, and guidance, visit the Smokeless Tobacco forum.
For information on �vaping snus�, TropicalBob�s discovery, this thread has the link to his Youtube video on the technique.

Relief is possible.

Back to Part 1

Madame Psychosis Summary - Pt 2

DVap — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:34:29 GMT

Part 1. The X-Factor

Does this sound familiar?
After two or three weeks of vaping, there�s a sense of depression, anxiety, lack of concentration, or other symptoms suggesting that vaping is not doing the same thing as cigarettes were. Something isn�t right.

You might have smoked two packs of 100s a day, or a half-pack of ultralights a day.
You might be vaping 36mg or 12mg.
You might have tried every solution out there to make vaping work � quality equipment, good liquid, behavior changes.
But in the end, smoking was providing something that vaping doesn�t.

Here are some experiences that may ring true.
Quote:
#10
Yes, I still got a "buzz" every morning with the first of the day and anytime I went a longer than normal period without. Ecigs don't provide that. Like my tobacco, it didn't take me long to locate and buy the highest strength nic (75mg) I could find to reproduce the same effect. I found out I could get myself feeling oogy, but that's as far as it went, no "buzz", the feeling of calm, brain stimulus [�] I've described to my wife (a lifetime non-smoker) it's kind of like being in a mental desert. Just kind of a constant mood instead of the rewarding uplift, satisfying focus I got after having a smoke.
Quote:
#14
The "relax" factor is there but the "concentration" factor is not.
I Enjoyed a Cigarette. I don't enjoy Vaping. It is something i do to keep my Nicotine Level up and to stop me from smoking an analogue.
Quote:
#33
I felt satisfied and "normal" vaping once. It involved using 48mg liquid non-stop (no breath of fresh air between drags) for over an hour straight.
�
Otherwise, I was useless at work (terrible concentration/focus issues) unless I had a cigarette every now and then. And I'd develop a horrendous headache that at first I thought was caused by too much nicotine.. until I discovered that just a couple of drags from a cigarette made it disappear instantly. Hmm...
What confuses me is that my brother consistently smoked three or four packs of full flavor cigs a day... in some cases, unfiltered rollies.. and yet he is satisfied on 24mg and gets a buzz from 36mg�.
Quote:
#86
Hopelessness, lack of motivation, lack of appetite, poor concentration, etc. Nicotine alone helps but still leaves me in a very bad place, even after months without tobacco of any kind.
Quote:
#34
I could never quit using e-cigs, not even close. I could vape for an hour straight and I still needed a cig.
Quote:
#305
I'm now into my fourth month of vaping and I'm still having one or two cigarettes a day. The crazy thing is that they taste a bit foul now, and I no longer enjoy smoking them. But they satisfy (minimally) a need for something I'm not getting in the vapor.

This is just a small sample.
Many posts pointed out that there is a group that just can�t vape enough. Or they find themselves unable to break the habit of smoking. Or nicotine alone just doesn�t feel good.

Maybe you�re trying to increase your nicotine � 24, 36, even 48mg or more to find that buzz, that clarity or calm from cigarettes. We think more nicotine will be the solution. So we keep vaping more and using higher-milligram levels, thinking we�ll feel satisfied finally. Some of us vape ourselves sick trying to find it.

That�s a sign something is missing.

The key:
Tobacco is more than just nicotine.

[Note: I left out the usernames in case people didn't want to be cited - I couldn't decide whether or not to totally anonymize, so I left the post numbers for reference.]

2. The Rest of Tobacco
Why do smoking cessation treatments fail so badly for so many?

Tobacco research took a wrong turn somewhere, as DVap put it.
Smoking cessation treatments focus entirely on nicotine replacement, or in the case of Chantix (varenicline) and Wellbutrin (Zyban, bupropion), on the nicotinic receptors in the brain.

Nicotine is the most common (90%) alkaloid in tobacco, but there are others: anatabine, anabasine, nornicotine, and several more.
Some of these (such as anabasine) work in a similar manner to nicotine. We don�t fully understand how the chemical �stew� works in synergy.

What we do know is that these other alkaloids are psychoactive: they all exert some action on the brain. It follows that they were all, to some extent, part of the psychological and physical sensations we craved in tobacco.

One particular group of psychoactives in tobacco stands out: the beta-carboline alkaloids, which act as MAO inhibitors (MAOIs). The ones in tobacco are known as harman and norharman.
They exist in tiny quantities in tobacco smoke, but multiple that by 20-40+ cigarettes per day, every day, and over time they have a considerable effect.

MAO inhibitors vary in their chemical structure (as well as in side effects and drug interactions, etc.), but virtually all MAOI-acting chemicals have some kind of antidepressant action.

Monoamine oxidase (MAO) is an enzyme present throughout the body and brain that breaks down excess neurotransmitters such as dopamine, serotonin, norepinephrine, and phenethylamine.

So, an MAOI both raises and prolong the rush from nicotine, by inhibiting the breakdown of dopamine which is released by nicotine.
By increasing the brain concentration of serotonin and norepinephrine, MAOIs also act as antidepressants.

For those who find anxiety, stress, insomnia or depression a problem after switching from smoking to vaping, this offers a very plausible explanation.
(And for those who find digestive disorders, such as constipation, a particular problem after switching from smoking to vaping, there is a good reason: Serotonin receptors in the gut also regulate digestion and elimination. This is why antidepressants are often used for irritable bowel syndrome [IBS].)

kinabaloo posted some information about MAOIs and addictiveness here.

One interesting point is that in several animal studies, nicotine alone is not especially addictive � it�s difficult to get rats or monkeys to self-administer nicotine (i.e. become dependent upon it). When given in conjunction with an MAOI, the self-administration of nicotine jumps.

Translation: With an MAOI in the mix, nicotine feels a lot better.

Moreover, long-time smokers show a significant inhibition of MAO in the body and brain � almost as much as people taking a pharmaceutical MAOI antidepressant.

Translation: We smokers have gotten used to having MAO inhibition, and a higher level of certain neurotransmitters. We've been taking a psychoactive drug all these years. And we stopped it when we switched to vaping.

So, are the beta-carboline MAOIs the main piece we are missing when we switch from smoking to vaping? It�s a very plausible explanation at this point. Keep in mind that it is only a good hunch. There�s much unknown about how the other alkaloids work.

The major point remains: There are components to tobacco other than nicotine.

That remaining 10% of the alkaloids in tobacco are, in a sense, the essential puzzle pieces for some.

Onto Part 3

Madame Psychosis Summary - Pt 1

DVap — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:32:16 GMT

Madame Psychosis graciously agreed to summarize some of the major observations and conclusions arrived at via a group effort in several very long and sometimes tedious threads, particularly the "so-we-getting-we-not-nicotine" thread (often referred to as the "are we getting it or not" thread). This thread is worth a read in it's own right, but is very long.

-Dvap
---------------------------------

I�ve elaborated some points, condensed others, eliminated a great deal of the wonderful conversation within the thread, but this topic is much too important to overlook.

The basic ideas:
* The thread started with the initial question: are we getting nicotine? DVap has summarized the issues and data so far in his very useful overview here.
* The thread changed direction into the question: what aren�t we getting? Why aren�t all of us satisfied with vaping? If this sounds like your concern, read on.

Here�s what it came to:
1. The X-Factor:
Many of us feel that we are �missing something� after switching to vaping, where we only get nicotine.

2. The Rest of Tobacco:
Significant research confirms that the non-nicotine alkaloids in tobacco are psychoactive and are an important contributor to tobacco�s effect � and to why many of us smoked.

3. Variable Addiction & What Some of Us Need:
Tobacco dependence is multi-dimensional, and individuals vary in what they �got� from smoking. Numerous anecdotes show that for some people, these non-nicotine alkaloids in tobacco can be just as important as, if not more important than, nicotine. They are part of the mental, psychological, and physical sense of balance/normalcy that many of us got from smoking.

4. WTA Liquid � Confirmation of a Hypothesis
Dvap�s extraction of a whole alkaloid spread from tobacco (�Whole Tobacco Alkaloid� liquid or WTA), and its preliminary success in testers, confirms that a major part of the sensation and satisfaction of smoking comes from the wide range of alkaloids beyond nicotine.

5. What You Can Do
There are a few solutions available to those who find vaping cannot satisfy them. WTA liquid is not commercially available, nor can it be extracted by DIY methods. The safest and most widely available solution is Swedish snus and other reduced-harm smokeless tobacco.

This thread served as the discussion home for those of us seeking the �X-factor� � those of us who are still seeking sanity without cigarettes.

Onto Part 2

A word about nicotine purity/storage

DVap — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:53:52 GMT

(From a post I just made to the DIY Eliquid Forum.)

Much is made of trying to find the optimal storage conditions for nicotine concentrates to be diluted into working eliquids. Similarly, much is also made of finding concentrates with good pure nicotine.

These are good things, but ultimately, I wonder how much they really matter.

Consider this image from Exogenesis. This is from his vapor trapping experiments where he set up an apparatus to auto-vape e-liquid and electrostatically condense the vapor for nicotine determination:

On the left, you see eliquid made from pharma grade nicotine. On the right you see the same liquid after it's been atomized and condensed.

No matter how well we source and store the stuff, the stuff on right is what we're vaping, not the stuff on the left. After all, the last thing we do before we inhale our precious liquid is heat it up aggressively in a stream of air containing about 20% oxygen.

I'm not out to make a big deal about this inescapable fact of vaping, but it's at least something to consider when we might be tempted to worry excessively about our concentrates getting a slight yellow/brown tinge.

A very interesting study from way back

DVap — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 07:29:45 GMT

(The following is a post I made to the forums that I think is quite interesting, so I've reproduced it here).

This study from 1976 monitors plasma nicotine between 9 AM and 4 PM. It compares smoking a cigarette hourly with chewing a 4 mg piece of nicotine gum hourly (back then, nicotine gum was not yet approved but it was the same principle used currently...nicotine bound to an ion exchange resin with a buffer).

The second page (page 1044 of the journal) shows a very interesting graph (table 1) comparing plasma nicotine concentration for the cigarette versus the gum.

We can see the rapid plasma nicotine spike after each cigarette is smoked, and the equally rapid plasma nicotine drop as the acute dosing ends after 5 minutes of smoking. The effect of what appears to be about a one hour (or less!) half-life is dramatically illustrated.

With the gum, plasma nicotine starts up slowly and just keeps rising through the day without the dramatic drop off seen with cigarettes. By the end of the day, the gum has built up a plasma nicotine level comparable to the cigarettes, but without the dramatic drop offs.

Simply looking at the data between 9 and 10 AM gives a deceptive picture. (I'll call it the "Eissenberg Fallacy", if I may be so snarky). The cigarette appears to beat the gum handily. But keep monitoring throughout the day, and the tortoise... I mean the gum... catches up with the hare... I mean the cigarettes... and provides a comparable peak plasma nicotine level, but without the deep dropoffs between doses.

I'm glad I found this study, it really illustrates what I've been trying to get at. I believe the behavior of ecigs would approximate the behavior of the gum as demonstrated in this study.

Bottom line, you can't just test for an hour and get the whole picture.

Sometimes a mod just works...

DVap — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 22:18:27 GMT

I don't know the guy behind the subject of this post, so there's no back-scratching going on here, but I'm suitably impressed to enthusiastically endorse his 510 cart mod.

Many cart mods focus on coming up with better filler materials to try to provide better wicking to the atty bridge. Some work better than others but none of them provide what I would personally call a "satisfying result".

Enter SCOTTYBALLS and his "Zero Filler Mod" (ZFM).

Very simply, this mod recognizes that the best wicking cart filler is no filler at all.

The mod uses a silicone plug that fits snugly into the top of filled cart. The plug has a hole cut in the middle that the atty bridge penetrates when installed. A length of straw inside the cart provides a support for the silicone plug to keep it from being pushed down into the cart.

What we end up with is this: The atty bridge is in constant contact with the cart liquid, it does not have to rely on a solid medium to transfer liquid from the cart. You might ask, wouldn't this flood the coil? No, it doesn't. The bridge appears to soak up liquid in equilibrium, once soaked, it acts as a plug.

Here are the advantages as I've experienced them:

1. Consistant and strong vapor.

2. Invulnerable to cart flooding. In my experience, liquid simply does not get sucked in the vapor channels of the mouthpiece.

Then only disadvantage is that you either must pull out the silicone plug to refill or use a syringe. The hole in the silicone plug is just too small for direct filling from your liquid bottle.

I would give the best filler mods a score of 8/10. I give SB's ZFM mod a 9.5/10.

Try it! I cut the plugs myself, but if you're someone who shouldn't be around sharp knives, SB sells pre-cut plugs at a modest price.

Cotinine testing

DVap — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:58:55 GMT

I recently posted the results of my urine cotinine test using a Nicalert test strip. My vaping had been pretty steady around 2.5 - 3 mL per day of 15 mg/mL eliquid with no exposure to any other nicotine source or 2nd hand smoke in more than 2 weeks.

I maxxed the strip at level 6, which indicates a urine cotinine level of 1000+ ng/mL.

Since urine cotinine is known to be around 6 - 10X more concentrated than plasma cotinine, I'll compromise and use a figure of 8X, this means that my plasma cotinine from regular vaping of 15 mg/mL eliquid was 125+ ng/mL.

But how much more than 125 ng/mL? Of course, I needed to know more. :D

So I bought ten cotinine test kits as described here.

These are inexpensive kits that give a basic positive/negative result at a stated cutoff of 200 ng/mL urine cotinine.

These wouldn't seem to be very useful since I've already maxed out a Nicalert strip at level 6 (1000+ ng/mL) for cotinine in urine.

But, there's nothing to stop me from diluting my urine with distilled water to extend the range of the test.

Here's what my pee had to say:
__________________________

Distilled water:
Result: negative

Undiluted urine:
Result: Positive (>200 ng/mL)

5X diluted urine:
Result: Positive (>1000 ng/mL)

10X diluted urine:
Result: Positive (>2000 ng/mL)

20X diluted urine:
Result: Positive (>4000 ng/ml)

40X diluted urine:
Result: Negative (>4000 ng/ml, <8000 ng/mL)
__________________________

So, not only have I confirmed my Nicalert result of >1000 ng/mL, but I've narrowed the urine cotinine range to between 4000 and 8000 ng/mL.

Using 8X as the divider to get plasma cotinine, I get 500 - 1000 ng/mL plasma cotinine.

My eliquid concentration is only 15 mg/mL, and my consumption in the past day was a little up.. perhaps 3 - 3.5 mL.

I'm gettin' it.

Ecigs as placebos?

DVap — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:20:06 GMT

CNN.com has reported that Dr. Thomas Eissenberg at Virginia Commonwealth University's Institute for Drug and Alcohol Studies has completed a study on e-cigarette nicotine delivery. A quote attributed to Dr. Eissenberg by CNN.com states that,

"They are as effective at nicotine delivery as puffing on an unlit cigarette."

I'm posting tonight to offer my criticism of his study insofar as I understand it via the CNN.com story and the study design as described at ClinicalTrials.Gov.

The study results have not yet been published, so my information is limited, but assuming the quote highlighted above attributed to Dr. Eissenberg by CNN.com is an accurate distillation of the study conclusions, I have something to work with.

Here are the items I gleaned from the study design that are of interest:

The ecigs used in the study were NJoy and Crown 7 ecigs with a nicotine concentration of 16 mg/mL in the eliquid.

The study was limited to "naive" subjects. By naive subjects, I mean that the subjects (stated enrollment goal of n=32) were precluded from having past experience with ecigs.

(The following 4 "arms" or roughly "study groups" were defined. I assume that each arm was comprised of n=8 individuals):

The subjects were to take 10 puffs from their preferred cigarette brand, allowing 30 seconds between each puff.

The subjects were to take 10 puffs from their preferred cigarette brand (unlit), allowing 30 seconds between each puff. Referred in the study as "sham smoking".

The subjects were to take 10 puffs from a Crown 7 ecigarette, allowing 30 seconds between each puff.

The subjects were to take 10 puffs from an Njoy ecigarette, allowing 30 seconds between each puff.

Plasma nicotine concentrations were determined at the following intervals:

Baseline (prior to puffing).

t= 5 minutes post puffing.

t= 15 minutes post puffing.

t= 30 minutes post puffing.

t= 45 minutes post puffing.

I believe that the study will report that sham smoking and both brands of ecigs deliver either no nicotine or insignificant nicotine as opposed to the lit cigarette which will be found to deliver a dose which I believe will show a maximum plasma concentration (in ng/mL) at 5 minutes post puffing time range up to perhaps as high as 10 - 15 ng/mL, dropping down to perhaps 6 - 9 ng/mL by 45 minutes post puffing. (These numbers are based on "back of envelope" scribbles I've done).

My expectation that both brands of ecigs and sham smoking will be shown to be insignificant in nicotine delivery -vs- smoked tobacco stems from the quote attributed to Dr. Eissenberg by CNN.com.

Here's what I know irrespective of Dr. Eissenberg's study. Ecigarettes deliver nicotine to the vapor at a high efficiency. This is to say that if 5 uL of 16 mg/mL eliquid is vaporized in an ecig, then approximately 80 ug (micrograms) of nicotine will be delivered to the vapor. I first studied this late last year by drawing vapor into a tube (trap) immersed in liquid argon (temperature ~ -300�F). I found approximately 50% of the nicotine in the liquid recovered from the trap. This test was done with a very limited volume of eliquid, and it provided good starting point from which to develop an improved trapping methodology. Along came Exogenesis with some fine home research using an electrostatic vapor condenser. His results were most interesting as he recovered ~ 90 - 100% of the nicotine from the liquid into the condensed vapor. This recovery was reproducible over multiple liquid volumes, nicotine concentrations, atomizer conditions, and even eliquids (both PG and VG). Exo discovered that vaporized and condensed eliquid consistently went from clear (unvaped) to a light amber colored condensate (vaped and condensed). With nicotine being well-known for it's tendency to oxidize, the amber color after application of heat (vaping) comes as no surprise. It is certain that a percentage of the nicotine was oxidized to nicotine-like products by the heat of vaping. The determination method was titrametric analysis. Using this determination, it would be expected that both unoxidized nicotine and any oxidation products would all be determined as nicotine. This is a limitation of the titrametric determination being non-selective to basic nitrogen containing compounds. A more specific GCMS determination would be cost-prohibitive owing to the experimenter's lack of outside funding. While we can't easily say what percentage of nicotine made it to the condensate unoxidized, we can say with some certainty that the nicotine in the eliquid survived to the condensate as one basic nitrogen compound or another. Presumably, there will be at least an appreciable nicotine survival since a cigarette delivers nicotine by burning tobacco (pyrolysis) at a temperature sufficient to combust the tobacco. This may be a bit over-simplified as nicotine that is in the burning coal of a cigarette will be pyrolised (ashed) and it is actually the temperature of the coal in close proximity to yet unburned tobacco that vaporizes (releases) the nicotine into the stream of tobacco smoke.

Many forum members either have experienced personally, or read accounts of vapers who have literally vaped themselves sick... from... too much nicotine. I am familiar with the odor of pure nicotine. It is faintly "fish-like" possibly owing to the pyridine ring in the structure. Now here's the neat part, knock the nicotine down to say 24 - 36 mg/mL with propylene glycol and inhale the propylene glycol/nicotine via an ecig. It... tastes... like... (wait for it)... nicotine.

So why does Dr. Eissenberg appear to conclude that ecigs do not deliver nicotine?

Several points come to mind, all of which have been covered in gory detail in some of the threads I've been involved in, and also summarized at one time or another in previous posts I've made to this blog.

1. Cigarette smoke delivers nicotine to the lungs where it very quickly and completely is taken up into the bloodstream. It produces a quick "peak concentration" in mere minutes.

2. Ecigs are generally believed to deliver a more gradual nicotine dose. While lung absorption might not be nearly as efficient as cigarettes, the carrier (propylene glycol condenses in the mouth, throat, and respiratory tract in general where it is "slow absorbed" and even swallowed and absorbed. Some nicotine is also likely exhaled with the vapor. Simply stated, a study that cuts off at t=45 minutes may not account for much of the nicotine. Nicotine has a relatively short half-life (often quoted at anywhere from 30 minutes to 2 hours, it varies by individual), let's assume an hour. An acute dose will halve in concentration roughly every hour. (Vapers will generally concede the point that cigarettes are much faster to absorb). I believe that a superior plasma test would be testing for cotinine (a major nicotine metabolite). After 8 hours, an acute nicotine dose will have dropped to perhaps less than 0.5% of it's peak concentration. Cotinine has a much longer half-life than nicotine (approximately 24 hours) and provides a measure of overall starting nicotine dose.. testing cotinine smooths out the results. Let's say I smoked a cigarette down to the butt, and it gave me a peak plasma nicotine concentration of 40 ng/mL. 8 hours later, the nicotine concentration will have dropped through 8 half-lives, it will be at a miniscule ~ 0.16 ng/mL. Nicotine goes away quickly, so measuring it provides a bit of a slippery moving target. Here's the neat part. Nicotine is metabolized to cotinine, and cotinine halves every 24 hours or so. While the nicotine is basically gone after 8 hours, the cotinine that it becomes will take 24 hours to halve it's concentration. So after 8 hours, the plasma cotinine concentration is roughly proportional to the entire dose of nicotine, whether absorbed quickly or relatively slowly.. and the cotinine won't be cut in half for an entire 24 hours. So measure the cotinine, not the nicotine to approximate the entire nicotine dose.

3. Does 16 mg/mL eliquid (as used in the study) provide an apples to apples correspondence to cigarettes puff per puff? I used to think it didn't but now I'm willing to entertain that it might after evaluating Exo's vapor trapping experiments.

4. NJoy and Crown 7? Not the best ecigs out there, not by far. How about a 510 atty well-prime vaping like we all know it can and hooked up to a fully charged 3.7 volt, 3 amp hour li-ion battery pumping out the full 4.15 volts in the hands of someone who knows the difference between good vapor and lousy vapor?

5. I mentioned this on the thread in the news section, but it bears repeating, I find it disturbing that Dr. Eissenberg's study was limited to a "naive" population. We all know that ecigs have a learning curve, and it takes us some time to develop our know-how and context of what is good and bad ecig performance. To study "Naive" vapers and then make an overarching statement about the nicotine delivery of ecigs is akin to, as YoMike cleverly stated on the news thread,

Why test NAIVE users, is the data really meaningful for anything?

Sort of like testing the new Titleist golf ball for distance with people that never have swung a club in their life.

Gone fishin'

DVap — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 05:16:28 GMT

I've been a bit low-key lately, for a number of reasons:

1. I've run to ground most of the theories and speculation I've been throwing around since September. E-cigs deliver the nicotine (with thanks to Exogenesis for his excellent research.. he's far outdone my original research), nicotine isn't the be-all, end-all of addiction/satisfaction... it's the whole tobacco alkaloids, and snus seems to be a hit among a growing number of folks who previously struggled with just vaping as a replacement for smoking.

It's encouraging to see folks who found themselves at a disadvantage while vaping and ready to fall back to smoking discover snus and report that they're feeling "ok" again.

2. I swore back in November that I would take a break in December, and I never really did so now that's it's January, I'm catching up on my promise to myself to slack awhile.

3. If I don't take a break, my wife will kill me.