04-17-2010, 07:42 AM
Joe... thanks for re-opening this thread.
Wouldn't you know, Vic would be the first kid back on the swings.
In the spirit of the question "so are we getting it or are we not?", Exogenesis' thread on nicotine uptake from liquid to vapor is required reading.
Also, trying not to toot my own horn too loudly, this blog post might be informative.
Also, this thread started by ipfo238 about a "tobacco alkaloid pill" under development is interesting reading. Really dovetails closely with what we'd been discussing, experimenting with, and testing on this thread before it's temporary closure.
From ipfo238's post:
I don't think they know too much we've not already figured out here.
Originally Posted by web url: ca.sys-con.com/node/922837 Rock Creek is exploring processes for the extraction of alkaloids from zero-nitrosamine tobacco for the purpose of using those alkaloids in the development of a generic nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), as well as a potential non-nicotine nutraceutical product. The nutraceutical would supply a dietary supplement for adult smokers who seek to minimize nicotine craving using a non-nicotine product. These development efforts are based in part on earlier research cited as support for the patents Star Scientific previously obtained for the use of tobacco alkaloids in treating various neurological conditions, including depression.
Curtis Wright, IV, MD, MPH, Medical Director of Rock Creek, stated, "We have acquired a large body of knowledge about why people smoke, and why smokers have been so unsuccessful in multiple quit attempts. We believe an appropriate strategy involves both an over-the-counter product and a parallel dietary supplement that may be of value in minimizing nicotine cravings."
Rock Creek and Star Scientific recently have developed a prototype nutraceutical product. The prototype combines minor alkaloids of tobacco with other ingredients typical of botanical-based, dietary supplement products. Contracts for initial benchtop and animal toxicity testing have been entered into by Rock Creek. Additional toxicity testing is expected to begin in the next few months. If those testing results and consumer acceptance studies of this product are favorable, Rock Creek anticipates using the brand name CigRx(TM) when it begins its test marketing effort. During the intervening period Star Scientific will be exploring a joint venture with either a pharmaceutical company or a marketing and distribution partner in order to be in a position to achieve broad market penetration with the new nutraceutical product.
04-17-2010, 01:10 PM
Im so glad that this has re-opened - it has been my bible for the past 3 months - It is very informative
04-17-2010, 01:30 PM
04-17-2010, 03:34 PM
This thread took place the first time around before I realized I was craving something besides nicotine. I have read much of it already and am excited that it is open again.
Sanity is overrated. I'd rather be happy.
04-17-2010, 04:26 PM
Okay so I made it to page 59 before skipping ahead to the back of the book. Could someone catch us up with a synopsis on what happened with the WTAs? It's been 4 hours or so since I started reading and well... I'm hungry now!
Cliff notes on the other 100 pages please
04-17-2010, 04:50 PM
04-17-2010, 06:11 PM
Just throwin' this out there, but what's the possibility of someone deeply involved in the development of this thread being granted temporary moderator rights to eliminate irrelevant/redundant posts and whittle it down to pure education. It was our idea to try and form a new one with that basis in mind, but it's really too large of an undertaking. Working out the original would be time consuming, but easier. Devilooman is one of probably many who would be willing to read through the entire contents if the rubbish were removed. I think even I have 1 or 2 (maybe 300) posts that wouldn't be considered critical. Heck, with just the elimination of mine, the amount of reading would be greatly shortened. Condense it and it will be read......
04-17-2010, 07:00 PM
Great idea TV.
One thing I have noticed and I dont know if its possible.
When a post is deleted, the entry still stays with a blank text box, usually "Deleted by poster". It would be nice, if when deleted, it removed the whole post entry and renumbered the remaining. That would open a lot of server space, but I dont know if thats an option. Even if a mod deletes it, the blank entry still holds a slot.
04-17-2010, 08:48 PM
Here is a summary I wrote up about the whole "Are we getting it" issue. This summary was sent to Madame P for her project to pull together various summary data surrounding this thread. She's currently on the busy side, so she's not really yet had a chance to get the various information pulled together.
This represents my read on the "data" that's out there.
Efficacy of E-Cigarettes in Nicotine Delivery
A commonly asked question among e-cigarette users is, "how much nicotine am I getting from my e-cigarette?".
Unfortunately there is a lot of bad information out there based on flawed studies, and worse, there is a lot of misinformation out there as well. It's bad enough when the information we are fed is based on flawed research, but far worse when the information we are fed is being made up on the spot.
A hallmark of a flawed study is the comparison of plasma nicotine levels from an e-cigarette to that of an analog. The design of such studies typically attempt to compare plasma nicotine levels generated from vaping versus smoking. In these studies, several factors conspire to make the e-cig look bad:
- Selection of inexperienced vapers but experienced smokers as study participants.
- Selection of inferior vaping hardware.
- Selection of vaping nicotine concentration (typically 16 - 18 mg/mL) while allowing the smoker to use his/her own brand up to and including full-flavor cigarettes.
- Monitoring of short-term plasma nicotine level versus the more indicative longer term blood or urine cotinine level.
Item 1 is very obvious in how it skews the study results. Vaping takes time to learn. We all learned to smoke, and we should expect a learning curve for vaping as well.
Item 2 is fairly obvious as well. New vapers might select a kit purchased from a mall kiosk, but among experienced vapers, these products aren't much used. 510's, 901's, and other good hardware are the norm.
Item 3 represents either a deliberate or non-deliberate hand-cuffing of the e-cigarette versus the analog. If the smoker can "choose his hardware", I.E. his/her preferred brand, shouldn't the vaper be permitted to choose nicotine level (E.G. 24, 30, 36 mg)?
Item 4 is the most technical consideration here. Vapers have long suspected that while analogs deliver nicotine quickly, e-cigarettes deliver the nicotine more gradually. By testing blood plasma levels of rapidly metabolized nicotine, the analog is at an automatic advantage. Since nicotine is metabolized to cotinine (which takes around 10X longer to metabolize than nicotine), it makes sense to monitor cotinine, not nicotine, to get a sense of the over-all (chronic) nicotine exposure.
In contrast to these studies, the community of ECF members and others have a large body of empirical observations about e-cigarette nicotine delivery. An empirical observation is simply something we notice. When enough individuals notice the same thing, it lends credibility to the particular observation.
One such empirical observation that occurs time after time, especially among those fairly new to vaping, and who are finding their correct nicotine concentration is the symptoms of nicotine overdose: rapid pulse, rushing head, jittery body, and nausea are among the common symptoms after a particularly intense period of vaping too high a nicotine level. The cure? Stop for awhile or cut down the nicotine level. Raise your hand of this has happened to you while vaping. If your hand isn't raised, don't worry, talk to enough ECF forum members, and you'll find quite a few raised hands.
Beyond the empirical, there is the experimental. This is an area that is generally unavailable to most vapers, but in the ECF forum, a large population is represented, and among this population, there are scientist and researchers with the knowledge and know-how to perform serious e-cigarette experimentation.
In the fall of 2009, I started such a research project. I've been an analytical chemist for over 2 decades, and I found myself asking, "If the e-liquid has x mg/mL of nicotine in it, how much of that nicotine actually makes it into the vapor we inhale?" Using a trap surrounded by liquid argon, I was able to condense vapor and measure the nicotine/alkaloid concentration of the condensed vapor using a titration method I'd developed and validated for the determination of nicotine concentration in e-liquid. While I didn't consider this procedure "exhaustive", I still was able to account for around 50% of the original nicotine having found it's way into the vapor. ECF member Exogenesis, experienced in laboratory work in his own right, picked up where my research left off. He developed what can be described as an "automated electrostatic vapor condenser". In results that he published to the ECF forums, Exogenesis sucessfully demonstrated better than 90% delivery of nicotine from liquid to vapor. This high efficiency was demonstrated at various e-liquid nicotine concentrations from single digit mg/mL all the way up to the high end of generally acceptable e-liquid nicotine concentration.
More recently, after Dr. Thomas Eissenberg at VCU published a study critical of the ability of e-cigarettes to deliver nicotine (heavily criticized by both technical and non-technical ECF forum members), the thought to use NicAlert test strips to answer definitively "Are vapers getting levels of nicotine comparable to that of smokers?" become more popular. NicAlert strips are urine test strips that test for cotinine (nicotine's major metabolite). The strips quantitate nicotine at one of seven levels (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Level 3 (100 - 200 ng/mL) is considered the low end for a "tobacco user", while level 6 (greater than 1000 ng/mL) is considered pretty regular tobacco use. After vaping only 15 mg/mL for a couple weeks prior to testing, I tested at level 6. I maxxed the test strip.
Interestingly enough, Dr Eissenberg, the researcher who kicked up the dust with his study criticizing e-cigarette nicotine delivery posted a message to the ECF forum that he spent some time one evening with a good quality e-cigarette recommended by forum members. He vaped for a couple hours and used a NicAlert test strip the following morning. His result (after vaping for only a couple hours on a good e-cigarette), level 5 (500 - 1000 ng/mL).
As Doctor Eissenberg found out, seemingly counter to his study conclusion, and as many ECF forum members are certain, E-cigarettes delivery nicotine very well.
But there's much more to be considered in whether e-cigarettes will ultimately work for any individual...
04-17-2010, 09:05 PM
Peak -vs- total
Take a piece of graph paper.
-Draw a horizontal line 2 blocks wide.
-Now from the center of the line, count up twelve vertical blocks and make a dot.
-With a straight edge, draw two lines, each connecting one end of the vertical line with the dot.
You've just drawn a triangle.
-Draw another horizontal line 7 blocks wide
-Now from the center of the line, count up 4 blocks and make a dot.
-With a straight edge, draw two lines, each connecting one end of the vertical line with the dot.
You've just drawn another triangle.
Which is higher? The first, it's twelve blocks high versus 4 blocks high for the second.
Which is wider? The second, it's seven block wide versus 2 block wide for the first.
Which is bigger? Neither, they both have an area of 12 square blocks.
If we label the x-axis "time" and the y-axis "absorption", we can see that the concept of "more" depends very much on how we interpret the data.
The fallacy of peak nicotine concentration as a measure of absorption comes about from equating "higher" with "more".
Last edited by DVap; 04-17-2010 at 09:09 PM.
Tags for this Thread