Any interest in determining nicotine--by DVAP

[DVap]

I got some good results for this determination.

I used a 4801 with automatic battery for this, one of the two atty intake holes was taped since I like the stiffer draw. I vaped for the full 5 seconds until the automatic cutoff kicked in, and continued the vape for about a second after to clear the vapor from the cart/atty. Since spit could affect the weighing, I vaped through a short length of flexible tube attached to the cart. I handled the e-cig with a pair of nylon gloves, and vaped 10 times with a 5 second rest between. Here are the results for 3 tests.

test 1: 64 mg/ten vapes
test 2: 55 mg/ten vapes
test 3: 61 mg/ten vapes

Average: 60 mg/ten vapes or 6 mg/vape.

These results were in the 2nd and 3rd decimal place. To check to see if evaporative losses would be significant, I left the e-cig on the balance for a minute, and checked for any weight loss. The only observed loss was a few digits in the 5th decimal place.

So for a 5 second vape on the particular 4801 I was using, 60 mg of liquid is consumed, or ~6 uL (I guessed 5 uL from informal vape testing).

(This assumes a fully loaded cart... we might expect to drop down some as the cart becomes more dry).

This leads me to another approximation. If we assume that we get 20 hits from an analog, what liquid strength (assuming 40% absorption of nicotine) will allow us to take 20 hits and get the same nicotine absorption as an analog?

Ultra light (0.5 mg): ~10 mg
Light (0.7 mg): ~ 15 mg
Full Flavor: (1.0 mg): ~ 20 mg

This is to say that if we take the same number of 5 second hits per day off our e-cigs as we did off our analogs, that for ultra-lights, lights, and full flavor smokes, we'd be "balanced" by vaping 10 mg, 15mg, and 20mg e-liquid respectively.

Another piece of the puzzle drops into place!

[Vaporer]

I saw the # of puffs listed many places at different times.
They stated 10-15 puffs per analog.
I decided to check that and I consistantly was a 12 puff smoker with .6mg Salem Ultra Lights.

[DVap]

Some time back, I put up an offer to test e-liquid for anyone who might want a determination. If you're wondering about having e-liquid tested, please check the "Nicotine Determination" entry on my ECF blog.

Thanks

[DVap]

I saw the # of puffs listed many places at different times.
They stated 10-15 puffs per analog.
I decided to check that and I consistantly was a 12 puff smoker with .6mg Salem Ultra Lights.

Was that 12 puffs down to the butt?

I guess if your puffs per analog vary to the low side of the 20 I quoted, you'd need to adjust the e-liquid strength upward to get the 1:1 correspondence.

In the end, most of us don't vape exactly like we smoked, so probably a more useful measure is to look at mL/day of e-liquid as outlined previously in gory detail.

[Vaporer]

It was close enough to start melting the filter face when you put it out. Maybe a 1/8"-3/16" from it. The article also stated that it was dependant on the persons inhaling habits. Some took short puffs with a deep inhale, some long puff with a shorter inhale and heavy smokers went long and deep.

Got to thinking, that was the regulars. If I were to smoke 100's abt 20 would be close. They draw a little harder too. Being smaller dia I'd say it all comes out in the wash.

[exogenesis]

Great stuff DVap

So 0.006 ml of juice is taken from the e-cig per 5 second draw.

I guess it'll be proportional to the draw time / volume ?

So what's an 'average' draw time, and dwell time between draws?

For me it's somewhere between 1.5 & 2.5 secs on a ciggie, say 2 secs, with 5 sec dwell.
and between 3 to 5 secs on an e-cig, say 4 secs, with 10 sec dwell.

Say 20 draws on a full ciggie for 140 secs total for getting around 1mg nic.
In the same 140 secs, vaping 36mg I'd do 10 draws and 0.06ml juice containing about 2 mg nic,
but you found half is destroyed so thats 1 mg again.

But then there's that inefficiency of nic. release to the body with PG vapour versus smoke,
but maybe that's just an ng/ml of blood rate thing, rather than a total amount nic. actually adsorbed.

- or do we exhale a greater proportion of the inhaled nicotine with PG vapour than smoke?
(is/was that one of your experiments, I remember it getting mentioned).

Actually I think Vaporer is right, it's probably nearer 12 to 15 draw for a ciggie.

Also wondering what the effect of slow gentle draw versus stronger drawing is.

Then there's the high-voltage vaping question = possibly more nic. adsorbed per vape
(smaller VG particles ?)

Good job nicotine-users generaly 'auto titrate', otherwise we'd never get it right.

btw it'll have to be a lot bigger syringe than 50ml to do a realist volume-rate 5 sec draw,
- I mean for your simplified collection method.

Keep it up, it's good to have the factual data.

[TheLizinator]

Hey all! I found this info on "Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) evaluation of a third-generation electrically heated cigarette smoking system (EHCSS)" in a science journal article which I have to BUY (umm I spent all my discretionary income on vaping this month LOL), but wanted to share this 'cause it's very interesting and relevant to our discussions here. Would love to hear your take on it.

Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) evaluation of a third-generation electrically heated cigarette smoking system (EHCSS)





References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.


Kimberly Frost-Pinedaa, Barbara K. Zedlera, Qiwei Lianga and Hans J. Roethig, a,

aPhilip Morris USA, Research Center, Clinical Evaluation, 4201 Commerce Road, Richmond, VA 23234, USA


Received 4 January 2008. Available online 28 June 2008.

Abstract
This sub-study of a randomized, controlled, forced-switching, open-label, parallel-group, clinical study compared environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) produced when 60 male and female adult smokers switched to a third-generation electrically heated cigarette smoking system (EHCSS), continued to smoke a conventional cigarette (CC), or stopped smoking (No-smoking). Concentrations of air constituents including respirable suspended particulate (RSP), carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia and total volatile organic compounds (TVOCs) and ETS markers including solanesol-related particulate matter (Sol-PM), ultraviolet absorbing particulate matter (UVPM), fluorescent particulate matter (FPM), nicotine and 3-ethenyl pyridine (3-EP) were measured in a ventilated, furnished conference room over a 2-h period on separate occasions for each smoking condition. When the EHCSS was used, concentrations of CO and most ETS markers were in the same range as during no-smoking. Concentrations of ammonia were reduced by 41% and concentrations of other selected constituents of ETS were reduced by 87–99% in the air of a room in which EHCSS cigarettes were smoked as compared to concentrations in the same room when conventional cigarettes were smoked. Switching from conventional cigarette smoking to the EHCSS resulted in substantial reductions in concentrations of several markers of environmental tobacco smoke.

Keywords: Environmental tobacco smoke; Biomarkers; Cigarettes; EHCSS; Exposure; Smoking; Side-stream smoke; Mainstream smoke

Article Outline
1. Introduction
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Subjects
2.2. Study design and conduct
2.3. ETS test room
2.4. ETS measurement
2.4.1. Air constituents
2.4.2. ETS markers
2.5. Test products
2.6. Data analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
References




Fig. 1. EHCSS lighter/heater.



View Within Article





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


Table 1.
Chemical and gravimetric measurement limit of quantification





View Within Article



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


Table 2.
Area under the curve of real-time concentrations of selected airborne constituents obtained by continuous measurement by study group (mean from two air sampling station data)



RSP, respiratory suspended particles; TVOC, total volatile organic compounds.



View Within Article



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


Table 3.
Concentrations from gravimetric and chemical analysis of selected airborne constituents by study group (arithmetic mean ± SD)



BLLOQ, below lower limit of quantification; RSP, respirable suspended particulates; Sol-PM, solanesol particulate matter (LOQ 8.4 μg/m3); UVPM, ultraviolet particulate matter (LOQ 2.2 μg/m3); FPM, fluorescent particulate matter (LOQ 1.0 μg/m3); 3-EP, 3-ethenyl pyridine (LOQ 1.0 μg/m3); and nicotine (LOQ 1.8 μg/m3).



View Within Article



Corresponding author. Fax: +1 804 274 3982.
Sponsored Links
Particulate & Gravimetric
Method 5 to OTM-28 & CTM-039
Analyses, tared filters & supplies
ENTHALPY ANALYTICAL, INC.

Thermal desorption tubes
The largest TD tube manufacturer
Standard and custom tubes available
Thermal Desorption Tubes by Camsco

Smart Smoker Free Trial
Get your Smart Smoker Kit Today
14 Day Free Trial. Ltd Time Offer
GetSmartSmoker.com



Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
Volume 52, Issue 2, November 2008, Pages 118-121



Liz in Indy

[kinabaloo]

I got some good results for this determination.

I used a 4801 with automatic battery for this, one of the two atty intake holes was taped since I like the stiffer draw. I vaped for the full 5 seconds until the automatic cutoff kicked in, and continued the vape for about a second after to clear the vapor from the cart/atty. Since spit could affect the weighing, I vaped through a short length of flexible tube attached to the cart. I handled the e-cig with a pair of nylon gloves, and vaped 10 times with a 5 second rest between. Here are the results for 3 tests.

test 1: 64 mg/ten vapes
test 2: 55 mg/ten vapes
test 3: 61 mg/ten vapes

Average: 60 mg/ten vapes or 6 mg/vape.

These results were in the 2nd and 3rd decimal place. To check to see if evaporative losses would be significant, I left the e-cig on the balance for a minute, and checked for any weight loss. The only observed loss was a few digits in the 5th decimal place.

So for a 5 second vape on the particular 4801 I was using, 60 mg of liquid is consumed, or ~6 uL (I guessed 5 uL from informal vape testing).

(This assumes a fully loaded cart... we might expect to drop down some as the cart becomes more dry).

This leads me to another approximation. If we assume that we get 20 hits from an analog, what liquid strength (assuming 40% absorption of nicotine) will allow us to take 20 hits and get the same nicotine absorption as an analog?

Ultra light (0.5 mg): ~10 mg
Light (0.7 mg): ~ 15 mg
Full Flavor: (1.0 mg): ~ 20 mg

This is to say that if we take the same number of 5 second hits per day off our e-cigs as we did off our analogs, that for ultra-lights, lights, and full flavor smokes, we'd be "balanced" by vaping 10 mg, 15mg, and 20mg e-liquid respectively.

Another piece of the puzzle drops into place!

Nice experiment.

I assume a 30% absorbtion (incl atty loss); that and the fact that a cig is more like 12 puffs is why I put the numers as closer to:

Light (0.7 mg): ~ 24 mg
Full Flavor: (1.0 mg): ~ 36 mg

E-liquid volumes and strengths compared to cigarettes

Some earlier thoughts on the nicotine discrepancy (21 august):
The Nicotine Discrepancy

I had previously estimated the ml juice used per puff at about 0.015 ml

Technical Repository - Facts and Figures

Any other suggestions on improving these figures, let me know.

[kinabaloo]

I have always though that patches would provide a simpler, cleaner and more calculable source of DIY nic, if push comes to shove; though a bit expensive.

A DWater, PG, VG and ethanol blend should be a reasonable solvent, with hopefully not too much binder to burn up on the coil.

[kinabaloo]

TheLizinator: curious that there was significant ammonia with e-cigs; perhaps that's one (ultimate) product of the nicotine loss? The bulk of the nic molecule forming perhaps water, CO2 and perhaps some carbon ash?