E-liquid lab/toxicology reports

[Kate]

I thought the test for acrolein from Ruyan eliquid found none

[rez]

I thought there were different tests if look all the way through:


ranked by Permitted Exposure Levels,* and whether
present in Ruyan® e-cigarette cartridge vapour:
Acrolein
permited: < 1 ppm
SIFT-MS: 1.3 ppm
Remarks: Need to quantify further

SIFT-MS headspace analysis - "<LOQ" = less than the limit of quantitation.

Acrolein Concentration in headspace of cartridge: 1300

[ratedPG]

Originally Posted by rez

I'm not being a smart a**, its just what i'm thinking.

No smartassery taken, Rez; actually you have good scientific inquiry and a healthy dose of skepticism. If we're pushing for acceptance of these things, we have to take nothing for granted, even pre-existing tests.

The more everything is run through the wringer and proven safe, and refined and improved, the faster the greater public will see e-cigs as commonplace, and not Different and Scary.

Originally Posted by rez

To me, any testing or reports from 1942...are a little outdated. ...Anything from 1942 is not what I personally want to base my decisions on.

I follow your logic. After all, Marie Curie died of radiation poisoning; even her papers are still so radioactive they have to be kept in lead boxes. Radio ads said &quot;Four out of five doctors smoke Camel cigarettes.&quot; As late as 1955, Operation Cue blew up a fake town complete with manniquins with a nuclear bomb, then set up picnic tables right in the middle of the fallout, and invited the press and public to a meal cooked in the irradiated kitchens, just to prove how safe it was. Some goofy stuff back then in the postwar Cold War era.

On the other hand, the perspective of half a century as proven those things to be goofy. They've been disproven and discredited. The long-term effects have had time to set in.

There's a lot of material on PG that's been published, right up until the '80s. I've tried to find a single source that will disprove the propylene glycol vapor findings of the '40s. So far, I've come up with nothing. Apparently, we can breathe this stuff for years, and just end up as 'healthy, fat, happy monkeys.'

And hey, lots of good stuff came out of that era. Interferon...penicillin...aspirin...Plexiglas...te levision...those little bobbing-head sippy-water birds...

Originally Posted by rez

So Bleach and Lysol may do those same types of things. But i dont want to heat and inhale those.

Difference being, they were tested as harmful if inhaled. Not to be simplistic, but just because they do the same thing as PG doesn't mean they are in any way chemically similar.

Originally Posted by rez

...do you mean people who use hand sanitizer should be marketed e-cigs as a way to sanitize their lungs? No disrespect but that cracks me up. ...no offense to you..

No offense taken, but I'm as serious as a heart attack. Right now, E-cigs are seen and &quot;marketed&quot; (rather badly) as only a replacement cigarette. That's it's name, it's image, even what it looks like. Any news reference to them at all refers to 'nicotine vapor.' You may not have noticed, but some people out there don't like smokers, or anything that even reminds them of smoking.
All of the emphasis of e-CIGS is placed on the additive, the nicotine; not the primary ingredient. If the primary ingredient is marketed strongly enough, the additive becomes secondary. And nicotine is only one of many, many, possible additives. Marketed as a healthy PGV (personal glycol vaporizer), not looking like cigs or referencing cigs in any way, yes, I could see a market for them for those people that use the Purell dispensers at the grocery store.

[danielle]

I dont know if this has already been posted or not and if this is the wrong place to post it I appologize. I didnt see anywhere else to post it. I found this on the net about inhalation of glycerin studies in rats.

2-Week and 13-Week Inhalation Studies of Aerosolized Glycerol in Rats

this article can be found at the following url. informapharmascience.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08958379209145307?cookieSet=1&journalCode=iht

Squamous metaplasia refers to benign (non-cancerous) changes in the epithelial linings of certain organs within the body. These cells assume a more squamous morphology. Common sites for squamous metaplasia include the bladder and cervix. Smokers often exhibit squamous metaplasia in the linings of their airways. These changes don't signify a specific disease, but rather usually represent the body's response to stress or irritation. Vitamin A deficiency can lead to squamous metaplasia.

In regards to the cervix, squamous metaplasia can sometimes be found in the exocervix, as it is composed of squamous epithelium, whereas the endocervix is composed of columnar epithelium. Squamous metaplasia in the cervix is generally a response to non-specific irritation, and has little to no potential to become malignant.

[Zep--]

The PDFs linked from the NZ Heath site did their study with the Ultrasonic atomizer (not heated up nichrome wire atomizers we use now).

So I would assume that we ARE burning something and that there is indeed real smoke of some type involved, not just "some vapor".

So those reports are pointless for the type atomizers we all (most of us) use.

Zep--

[Angela]

Thought I'd add a link to the report for the new ECOpure E-Liquid from Intellicig in here (in the interests of keeping links for all reports together i one thread)

It's VG based and they tested the vapour.... no acrolein present

http://www.intellicig.com/images/pdf...2009-04-14.pdf

[ISAWHIM]

Those reports should be provided by the manufactures, and demanded by the resellers.

I agree that there are missing studies. (The FDA will force them to provide the missing studies.)

A complete list of appropriate studies includes...
- Chemical composition of the regulated or "standardized extract", of nicotine.
- Chemical composition of each formulated recipe of flavored liquids.
- Toxicology of each ingredient. (You can get that information free, once you know the composition levels.)
- Toxicology evaluation of use. This would include the maximum dose and average dose consumed through the specific device. (Each device would require a toxicology report.) The report would have three portions... Consumed levels, Estimated absorbed levels, and Expected internal byproduct breakdown levels. (AKA: Inhaled, minus exhaled, and non-digested.)

Each device needs this last report, as each element and delivery device is not equal. Between battery controller circuits, heat elements, and storage containers used, along with design respect related to condensation and delivery of mixed air with consumption.

I would assume that the super-foggers are the worst devices, as well as the ones with the least visible fog. The ones with the most fog, because that fog is created by longer high heat and larger quantity of liquid. (There is combustion at some level, or there would not be tar/carbon on the heat element.) The ones with the low fog, may be delivering less, but may be consumed more, as the fog is not as prevalent, and all nicotine is in full strength. Unlike the super hot elements which would be burning the nicotine in the transfer process. Many short puffs, completely absorbed are just as bad as one large foggy puff, which a majority is expelled. (Each for separate reasons. The hotter puff with more heat-chemically changed byproducts.)

Eggs, flour, sugar and water are just eggs, flour, sugar and water, until you mix them, and heat them up. Then they become another substance. Just like carbon is essentially safe, and oxygen is essentially safe, but mix those two safe levels with heat, and you have carbon monoxide.

I believe that in the future, we will see more good come from this. Hopefully in design and chemical composition. It worked for tattoo inks, and for the electronics manufactures. (They have already created lead-free solder/pcb versions that are RoHS compliant.)

NOTE: This should be sticky!

[JaneDoe]

The 3, 4 Coumarin scared me. So, I did research and found that it probably came from the plant, Yellow Steinklee. This plant has been used as a tobacco substitute, even though the coumarin content makes it unsuitable. Here is an interesting article: I cannot post URL's yet, but it can be found in the GERMAN wikipedia. Just translate the page through google if you need to.

Another interesting article is here: harry tom tom paul colon slash slash medicolegal dot tripod dot com slash coumarin dot (harry tom mary).

Also, coumarin was banned as a food additive in the United States in 1978. Coumarin was banned as an adulterant in cigarettes by tobacco companies in 1997, but due to the lack of reporting requirements to the US Department of Health and Human Services it was still being used as a flavoring additive in pipe tobacco. But, according to 21 CFR 172.510, some natural additives containing coumarin are allowed in alcoholic beverages only. This information came from wikipedia, looking under Coumarin.

To defend probability that the FDA may ban e-liquid, isn't there alcohol in the liquid? It's not a beverage, but it could lead to a defense.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by JaneDoe

The 3, 4 Coumarin scared me. So, I did research and found that it probably came from the plant, Yellow Steinklee. This plant has been used as a tobacco substitute, even though the coumarin content makes it unsuitable. Here is an interesting article: I cannot post URL's yet, but it can be found in the GERMAN wikipedia. Just translate the page through google if you need to.

Another interesting article is here: harry tom tom paul colon slash slash medicolegal dot tripod dot com slash coumarin dot (harry tom mary).

Also, coumarin was banned as a food additive in the United States in 1978. Coumarin was banned as an adulterant in cigarettes by tobacco companies in 1997, but due to the lack of reporting requirements to the US Department of Health and Human Services it was still being used as a flavoring additive in pipe tobacco. But, according to 21 CFR 172.510, some natural additives containing coumarin are allowed in alcoholic beverages only. This information came from wikipedia, looking under Coumarin.

To defend probability that the FDA may ban e-liquid, isn't there alcohol in the liquid? It's not a beverage, but it could lead to a defense.

Jane Doe - which report are you referring to that contained reference to coumarin?

[Kate]

Kaston has just posted a link to this toxicology report of Gamucci eliquids - http://www.ecigaretteschoice.com/GamucciLabStudy.pdf

This is from the same lab that tested the Wicked eliquid.