Fatal Dose of Nicotine?

[Vocalek]

The oft quoted number for a fatal dose of nicotine is 30 to 60 mg for an adult. That sounds way too low for a fatal dose in consideration of the following:

• I have seen reports of clinical trials involving a 42 mg. nicotine patch. Nobody died.
• I have known people who, when under stress, were smoking as much as 5 packs a day. They did not die, despite the fact that theoretically this would have exposed them to about 100 mg. of nicotine.

The origin of the 30 to 60 is an "estimate" taken from a book published in the 1980s. I don't have access to the book itself to determine how they went about making this estimate.

This estimate is being used as the basis for statements that liquid containing nicotine should be banned.

The average content of nicotine per bottle, 360 mg. (20 ml x 18 mg/ml), is of concern because the fatal dose of nicotine is estimated to be 30-60 mg for adults ad 10 mg for children. Thus these
these refill bottles are extremely dangerous and should be replaced by sealed, tamper-proof, leak resistant cartridges.

This information is from Inchem.org

7.2.1 Human data
7.2.1.1 Adults
The mean lethal dose has been estimated to be 30
to 60 mg (0.5-1.0 mg/kg) (Gosselin, 1988).
7.2.1.2 Children
The lethal dose is considered to be about 10 mg
of nicotine (Arena, 1974).
7.2.2 Relevant animal data
Dog: oral LD50: 9.2 mg/kg
mouse: oral LD50: 3.3 mg/kg (RTECS, 1985-86)
rat: oral LD50: 50 mg/kg

Nicotine (PIM) Main risks and target organs

So any chemists out there that can give comparative toxicity info? How does an LD50 for a rat usually compare to the LD50 for an adult human?

 

[cappadoc]

You cannot compare LD50 across different species. They are too many metabolic variables.

The reason the 42mg patch and the 5PAD smoker did not die is because nicotine has a serum half life of around 2 hours. The toxic dose would have to be given in under an hour to be fatal. If given over 2 hours, the LD50 would be doubled.

The patch is 42mg/24 hours=<2mg/hour. The 5PAD smoker was getting somewhere around 5-10mg/hour depending on how they smoked (constant chain smoking vs binge), so they were unlikely to have more than 20mg circulating at any given time.

 

[Vocalek]

OK, that helps! Thanks. So the thing we need to keep in mind is: Don't drink the liquid!

Is there any other household substance we might have sitting around that a mouthful of which would likely be fatal, or is our e-cigarette liquid the most toxic substance allowed to be sold to consumers?

I was thinking that products such as drain cleaner (and even some houshold plants) are pretty toxic, but we don't require them to be sold in 1-use sealed packages. Instead we require them to carry warning labels: Keep out of reach of children and pets.

 

[Gristle]

Vehicle Ethyl Glycol based antifreeze. Sold in gallon jugs with a semi child reistant cap .

 

[zoiDman]

Isn’t Nicotine poisoning similar to Alcohol poisoning?

By that I mean, I may be able to drink 750ml of 80 Proof Rum, given enough RC Cola, in the course of a day and be in no shape to drive but alive.

But if I Turned the bottle skyward and drank the entire bottle I might be at Serious risk of doing bodily harm.

 

[cappadoc]

The same is true of most poisonings, but certainly not all. Your body can metabolize many substances given enough time.
Ethylene glycol, for example, has a cumulative effect. The more you ingest over any time period, the more damage it does.
Tylenol overdoses are like alcohol and nicotine. If the dose is given enough time to be metabolized, it is no longer deadly. But too much over too short of a time and it's bye bye liver.

 

[zoiDman]

Time is a Big Factor in certain times of poisonings. Also Body Mass plays a large role.

A 100kg Adult may be able to stomach, pun intended, a 40mg Nicotine one time dose with no longer term effects. Whereas the same dose may lethal to a 18kg child.

 

[guido61]

The origin of the 30 to 60 is an "estimate" taken from a book published in the 1980s. I don't have access to the book itself to determine how they went about making this estimate.

This estimate is being used as the basis for statements that liquid containing nicotine should be banned.

While they are there, why not to ban some fertilizers, disinfestant, pesticides? (if I do not recall wrong, tobacco produces nicotine to protect itself from bugs...)
Arent they as dangerous as a bottle of e-liquid?

 

[Randyrtx]

The average content of nicotine per bottle, 360 mg. (20 ml x 18 mg/ml), is of concern because the fatal dose of nicotine is estimated to be 30-60 mg for adults ad 10 mg for children. Thus these
these refill bottles are extremely dangerous and should be replaced by sealed, tamper-proof, leak resistant cartridges.

Where was this statement published?

 

[Vocalek]

Where was this statement published?

Etter JF, Bullen C. Electronic cigarette : users profile, utilization, satisfaction and perceived efficacy. Addiction 2011

Electronic cigarette: users profile, utilization, satisfaction and perceived efficacy - ETTER - Addiction - Wiley Online Library

The sad thing is that Etter and Bullen are publishing information that is very positive for e-cigarettes. I happen to disagree with their conclusion.

Did you know that a 2-year old could die if s/he eats about 42% of a tube of Colgate for Kids toothpaste? (Comes in kid-friendly flavors). Yet we don't call for toothpaste to come in sealed one-serving sizes.

Yes, a bottle of liquid containing nicotine could poison someone.

So can drain cleaner and many other household products. The answer is to put warning labels on and provide child-proof packaging for households that need it.

 

[Randyrtx]

I didn't read the whole thing yet but it looks to be very favorable other than that.

There are many things in our homes that are dangerous or deadly. The double standard where nicotine is concerned is getting old.

 

[LibertariaNate]

If they banned everything that could potentially kill someone this would be a sad world indeed.

There are many things in our homes that are dangerous or deadly. The double standard where nicotine is concerned is getting old.

No kidding!

 

[zoiDman]

I didn't read the whole thing yet but it looks to be very favorable other than that.

There are many things in our homes that are dangerous or deadly. The double standard where nicotine is concerned is getting old.

But isn’t there a need for multiple standards?

Household Bleach and Drain Cleaners are toxic. No one disagrees with that. But they are not sold with the intention of Human Consumption. So do they need that same labeling as something that is meant to be ingested?

If a product is sold to be the public to be consumed, isn’t there a need for dosage guidelines and warnings? Not to prevent and overdose, that is just going to happen occasionally. No but as liability protection in a civil or even criminal suit against the manufacture?

Joe Smoe brings a lawsuit against Clorox because he drank bleach and feels that there should have be more adequate warnings and the case probably won’t be heard. (Unless he brings it in California.)

But the same Joe Smoe OD’s on his favorite Banana Raspberry e-liquid and the lawyers are going to beat a path to his door to be the firm to bring the suit to court.

And by the way. How is the State and Federal Governments going to Tax e-Liquids if they don’t have special labeling and standards applied to e-Liquids?

 

[Randyrtx]

But isn’t there a need for multiple standards?

Household Bleach and Drain Cleaners are toxic. No one disagrees with that. But they are not sold with the intention of Human Consumption. So do they need that same labeling as something that is meant to be ingested?

If a product is sold to be the public to be consumed, isn’t there a need for dosage guidelines and warnings? Not to prevent and overdose, that is just going to happen occasionally. No but as liability protection in a civil or even criminal suit against the manufacture?

Joe Smoe brings a lawsuit against Clorox because he drank bleach and feels that there should have be more adequate warnings and the case probably won’t be heard. (Unless he brings it in California.)

But the same Joe Smoe OD’s on his favorite Banana Raspberry e-Liquid and the lawyers are going to beat a path to his door to be the firm to bring the suit to court.

And by the way. How is the State and Federal Governments going to Tax e-Liquids if they don’t have special labeling and standards applied to e-Liquids?

I agree in principle, but consider: as you said, bleach is sold to be used in a specific way, not ingested. Medications are intended to be ingested with a specific dosage, not the entire bottle at once. E-liquid is intended to be used to refill carts in a specific way, and ingested by means of inhaling the vapor, not by drinking the contents of the bottle.

The double-standard comes into play when other products that have harmful properties when used in ways other than as intended, do not require extraordinary means to prevent misuse. It isn't reasonable to require that e-liquid alone be required to be distributed only in "tamper-proof, single-use cartridges" and not in bottles.

 

[Vocalek]

And considering the fact that the majority (5,400 in 2009) of nicotine poisonings in children <5 years are caused by ingesting cigarettes, and considering that even though only 1 mg. of nicotine is delivered via smoke, the unsmoked cigarette contains ~20 mg. of nicotine, for the safety of the children, cigarettes should be sold in tamper-proof, single-puff packages. Try not to burn your eyebrows when you light up.

 

[zoiDman]

... It isn't reasonable to require that e-liquid alone be required to be distributed only in "tamper-proof, single-use cartridges" and not in bottles.

I’m not sure this came into play. If you read my post I don’t think I advocated doing anything of this sort.

I don't have any problem with child proof caps. I understand the purpose from a liability stand point. Single use cartridges? I must have missed where that came from.

I'll tell you though what I would like to see. And that is some Voluntary Improvements to the way that e-liquids are packaged.

Not so much as that it will stop some kid from chugging down a 30ml bottle of 36mg e-Liquid because it has a Big Red Cherry on it. No, I would like to see vendors of juice label their products more responsibly Before a Government agency steps in and Mandates it.

It’s more a matter of When that it is If someone is going to become seriously ill from an e-Liquid. And there is going to be a law suit. And there is going to be people with signs in the streets. And there is going to be e-Mails to Elected Officials calling for bans. It isn’t going to help any cause but to have Government step in and do what it thinks it does best. Tax and Regulate.

I would think from a Responsible e-Liquids vendors point of view, that they would want better labeling to help shield them from potential liabilities and legal litigation

Nicotine is a Potentially Dangerous Chemical. Why is it not treated like one?

Pop Quiz: Your Brother-in-laws daughter is found semi-comatose on the bedroom floor with a empty bottle of e-Liquid at her feet. Do you induce vomiting or not?

I can just see some Greasy Lawyer in a $1,500 suit telling a jury that if his Client's bottle of e-Liquid had had such Simple, Rudimentary Information on it that Little Suzy would still be with us today.

So that’s my rant on better labeling for e-Liquids.

 

[zoiDman]

And considering the fact that the majority (5,400 in 2009) of nicotine poisonings in children <5 years are caused by ingesting cigarettes, and considering that even though only 1 mg. of nicotine is delivered via smoke, the unsmoked cigarette contains ~20 mg. of nicotine, for the safety of the children, cigarettes should be sold in tamper-proof, single-puff packages. Try not to burn your eyebrows when you light up.

I think you will see a change in the this statist due to the Exponential grow in e-Cigarette use since 2009.

BTW - A majority percentage is 50.01% higher. What were the other causes of Nicotine Poisoning and what were there percentages?

 

[Randyrtx]

I’m not sure this came into play. If you read my post I don’t think I advocated doing anything of this sort.

I don't have any problem with child proof caps. I understand the purpose from a liability stand point. Single use cartridges? I must have missed where that came from.

I'll tell you though what I would like to see. And that is some Voluntary Improvements to the way that e-liquids are packaged.

Not so much as that it will stop some kid from chugging down a 30ml bottle of 36mg e-Liquid because it has a Big Red Cherry on it. No, I would like to see vendors of juice label their products more responsibly Before a Government agency steps in and Mandates it.

It’s more a matter of When that it is If someone is going to become seriously ill from an e-Liquid. And there is going to be a law suit. And there is going to be people with signs in the streets. And there is going to be e-Mails to Elected Officials calling for bans. It isn’t going to help any cause but to have Government step in and do what it thinks it does best. Tax and Regulate.

I would think from a Responsible e-Liquids vendors point of view, that they would want better labeling to help shield them from potential liabilities and legal litigation

Nicotine is a Potentially Dangerous Chemical. Why is it not treated like one?

Pop Quiz: Your Brother-in-laws daughter is found semi-comatose on the bedroom floor with a empty bottle of e-Liquid at her feet. Do you induce vomiting or not?

I can just see some Greasy Lawyer in a $1,500 suit telling a jury that if his Client's bottle of e-Liquid had had such Simple, Rudimentary Information on it that Little Suzy would still be with us today.

So that’s my rant on better labeling for e-Liquids.

Sorry, I added the "single-use" part myself erroneously. This is what I meant to quote from:

The average content of nicotine per bottle, 360 mg. (20 ml x 18 mg/ml), is of concern because the fatal dose of nicotine is estimated to be 30-60 mg for adults ad 10 mg for children. Thus these
these refill bottles are extremely dangerous and should be replaced by sealed, tamper-proof, leak resistant cartridges.

I totally agree with child-proof caps, or any regulations that would make liquid handling safer. I don't agree with banning distribution of all e-liquid bottles in favor of prefilled carts.

That's where I see the double standard.

ETA: I think we're in agreement Zoid on better/safer packaging with warnings.

 

[Vocalek]

Remember, this is only for children <5:

Cigarettes 5400
Chewing Tobacco 782
Unknown Tobacco 631
Snuff 421
Filter Tips (Butts) 124
Cigars 81
Other Types Tobacco 54

Nicotine Pharmaceuticals 677

Source:
2009 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers' National Poison Data System (NPDS : Informa Healthcare - Clinical Toxicology - 48(10):979 - Summary

There were no deaths. The only known death in recent years was from a nicotine pharmaceutical. I don't know which product.

 

[zoiDman]

I totally agree with child-proof caps, or any regulations that would make liquid handling safer. I don't agree with banning distribution of all e-liquid bottles in favor of prefilled carts.

That's where I see the double standard.

I gotcha...

And I see now where you were coming from.

And I agree. I don't feel that e-Liquids should Only be sold in Cartidges. Less Child friendly graphics. Better saftey information. Childproof caps. Yes.

Only in Cartridges. NO.