A germ-killing vapor
- Thread starter TropicalBob
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- propylene glycol
- Status
Well after an hour or two of looking around the net I cant find anything other than the original article posted by TB that says anything good about PG... Although I did find out that PG is in a ton of the products that most people use every day of there lives... Stuff like deodorant, skin moisturizers and all kinds of other stuff... I cant seem to find anything about vaporized PG and its effects on the body though.
Phil
Phil
Here's a bit more from researching the doctor and his work with PG:
Our initial conclusion on why this study isn't widely known was the correct one: Filling rooms with propylene glycol vapor is not a practical solution. No one could know then what we know now: A personal PG delivery system can be no bigger than a cigarette and quite inexpensive.
The research to find a way to rid shared rooms of germs became a war effort, and Dr. O.H. Robertson headed the "Commission on Air-Borne Infections". In a final report after he showed how effective his controlled studies had been, the commission wrote:
"On the negative side, sterilization of the air by ultraviolet light or glycol vapors does not appear to be practicable either in barracks or all hospital wards, or in theaters."
Dr. Robertson did not pursue much after his discovery proved to have no military value. He soon left the research to devote time to his passion, salmon.
But what he did learn in his PG studies was that a vapor, not an aerosol or mist, was most effective at killing germs. "As the work progressed it was found that propylene glycol in vapor form was highly bactericidal, and that the marked and rapid germicidal action of propylene glycol aerosol was due to vapor liberated from the small glycol droplets. When pure vapor was employed, it was found to be more effective than an equal quantity of propylene glycol dispersed as an aerosol," his report says.
"Propylene glycol vapor was also found to exert a lethal or at least an inactivating effect on the virus of influenza," he added, as well as many even more serious germs.
Who was this guy? "A physician and naturalist, Oswald Hope Robertson worked at the Rockefeller Institute, the Peking Union Medical College, and at the medical school of University of Chicago (1927-1951). With a broad range of research interests, Robertson contributed important work on the transmission of pneumonia, the disinfection of air with glycol vapors, and later in his career, on the physiology and ecology of salmonid fishes. He is best remembered, however, as the creator of the first blood bank, established for use by British and American forces during the First World War.
"He died in Santa Cruz on March 23, 1966, leaving his wife, Ruth, and three children."
Below is a link to the scientific first report of his discovery. Go all the way to the bottom to view pictures of bacteria in dishes of broth. He also wrote, "The susceptibility to vapor action of bacteria re-suspended in saliva was just as great as when broth was used as the suspending medium."
http://www.karr-tv.com/picrender.pdf
Our initial conclusion on why this study isn't widely known was the correct one: Filling rooms with propylene glycol vapor is not a practical solution. No one could know then what we know now: A personal PG delivery system can be no bigger than a cigarette and quite inexpensive.
The research to find a way to rid shared rooms of germs became a war effort, and Dr. O.H. Robertson headed the "Commission on Air-Borne Infections". In a final report after he showed how effective his controlled studies had been, the commission wrote:
"On the negative side, sterilization of the air by ultraviolet light or glycol vapors does not appear to be practicable either in barracks or all hospital wards, or in theaters."
Dr. Robertson did not pursue much after his discovery proved to have no military value. He soon left the research to devote time to his passion, salmon.
But what he did learn in his PG studies was that a vapor, not an aerosol or mist, was most effective at killing germs. "As the work progressed it was found that propylene glycol in vapor form was highly bactericidal, and that the marked and rapid germicidal action of propylene glycol aerosol was due to vapor liberated from the small glycol droplets. When pure vapor was employed, it was found to be more effective than an equal quantity of propylene glycol dispersed as an aerosol," his report says.
"Propylene glycol vapor was also found to exert a lethal or at least an inactivating effect on the virus of influenza," he added, as well as many even more serious germs.
Who was this guy? "A physician and naturalist, Oswald Hope Robertson worked at the Rockefeller Institute, the Peking Union Medical College, and at the medical school of University of Chicago (1927-1951). With a broad range of research interests, Robertson contributed important work on the transmission of pneumonia, the disinfection of air with glycol vapors, and later in his career, on the physiology and ecology of salmonid fishes. He is best remembered, however, as the creator of the first blood bank, established for use by British and American forces during the First World War.
"He died in Santa Cruz on March 23, 1966, leaving his wife, Ruth, and three children."
Below is a link to the scientific first report of his discovery. Go all the way to the bottom to view pictures of bacteria in dishes of broth. He also wrote, "The susceptibility to vapor action of bacteria re-suspended in saliva was just as great as when broth was used as the suspending medium."
http://www.karr-tv.com/picrender.pdf
That is amazing. We could actually be "improving" the air we breathe around us, thus reducing our chance of getting sick. What would the non-smokers think? After reading his articles - I do feel a lot better PG. Maybe this could play an important role in getting the e-cig accepted.
There were many types of viruses listed for which propylene glycol was deadly, including those that cause pneumonia and influenza.
Consider the following from medical Web sites, on the impact on just the United States of the consequences of pneumonia and flu:
"Death rate extrapolations for USA for Pneumonia: 61,776 per year, 5,148 per month, 1,188 per week, 169 per day."
"Each year, approximately 226,000 people in the US are hospitalized with complications from influenza and an average of 36,000 die from the disease and its complications."
I hope both Dr. Loi and Dr. Laugesen take note of disease incidences among test e-smokers and incorporate their findings into their clinical trial results. No reporter in a forum is going to get this news public! But if an official medical report raised the prospect of improving health with personal propylene glycol inhalers (nicotine is purely optional), well ... we might be off and running.
Imagine the benefits in crowded, close quarters, like ... an airplane.
Consider the following from medical Web sites, on the impact on just the United States of the consequences of pneumonia and flu:
"Death rate extrapolations for USA for Pneumonia: 61,776 per year, 5,148 per month, 1,188 per week, 169 per day."
"Each year, approximately 226,000 people in the US are hospitalized with complications from influenza and an average of 36,000 die from the disease and its complications."
I hope both Dr. Loi and Dr. Laugesen take note of disease incidences among test e-smokers and incorporate their findings into their clinical trial results. No reporter in a forum is going to get this news public! But if an official medical report raised the prospect of improving health with personal propylene glycol inhalers (nicotine is purely optional), well ... we might be off and running.
Imagine the benefits in crowded, close quarters, like ... an airplane.
This thread deserves 5 stars and more research. Good job guys. I read with great interest.
The world reversed
Great job on this TB, this sure looks promising; and also looks to be a relief to many a worried e-smoker.
These findings might also hold the answer to my puzzle, why my trials using EM (effective micro-organisms) only showed modest results in cleaning the atomizers.
I thought I hadn't prepared the EM well enough (have only been starting this a small while ago, just using first-round resulting EM-liquid), and I will still persue this route to make sure that isn't the cause after all... but if PG does what this study describes, it could also be a case of the cleaner (EM) being made ineffective or even partially dead by the PG it is attacking... so they might be killing each other... interesting...
Anyhow, I sure hope the positive sounds on PG hold their ground, it would/could have big consequences.
But again, the point needs to be made that while this might be good short term, again, might it also cause super-bugs to arise? We're seeing an alarming rate of super-bugs in recent years, and hte reasons are that we've becoem an 'over-cautious' society where we wipe everythign down with antibacterials, run the kids ot docs everytime htey get a cold so we can get antibiotics, etc, and we're on the verge of epidemics caused by bugs that we have no medicines to control because the bacteria and viruses have mutated to hte point where they ar4 resistent ot everythign we throw at them.
I like hte idea of PG beign a germ killer, but the cautious side of me worries about what might happen when bacteria and viruses mutate to be able to resist even the PG thrown at them, and we end up with new strains of superbugs even deadlier than the old ones.
It depends on how the propylene glycol acts as compared to conventional chemical antibiotics. If its action is physical like colloidal silver then there would be no way for bacteria and viruses to build a resistance to the effect. I'll do some research on this and see if I can find an answer. Since it's relevant to this thread here's a link to another study which might be of interest if people have the access.
Studies of the Effect of Dihydro-Streptomycin Propylene-Glycol Spray on Chronic Respiratory Disease in Chickens
Mamba, I'm not sure, but I vaguely rememeberr readign that bacterai can find a way to beat even colloidal silver- I could be wrong on that, as it was years ago when I was into natural alternatives to try to heal myself, and I was investigating claims made by naturalists concenring certain herbs and liquids- It might have been somethign else, but for some reason the colloidal silver coems to mind
Naz, this is going a bit off-course. Just because bacteria might adapt to something is not a reason to stop work on ways to kill or control them. We can't say 'It's no use, they'll just adapt.' Adaptation is not within our control, so it's not worthy of concern. We work to kill germs; they work to evolve a way to survive. That's nature. We find something new and the cycle starts again.
We can never give up, obviously.
It appears the discovery of propylene glycol's germicidal effects has not been refuted, and, indeed, was confirmed in further studies in England. It works. But it has never been practical and no one could get rich, so nothing further was done with the discovery. Now we find ourselves with personal propylene glycol vaporizers. We just might have a high-tech germ killer that Dr. Robertson never could have imagined.
We can never give up, obviously.
It appears the discovery of propylene glycol's germicidal effects has not been refuted, and, indeed, was confirmed in further studies in England. It works. But it has never been practical and no one could get rich, so nothing further was done with the discovery. Now we find ourselves with personal propylene glycol vaporizers. We just might have a high-tech germ killer that Dr. Robertson never could have imagined.
Is this actually a worry? Right now we are excited about exactly this way of using it... but PG has been around for 60 years or more now, in hundreds, thousands of different products, and with usage in all the possible ways, from part of (semi-)solids through liquid through vapour and mist...
So surely there is nothing new at all about using PG in e-cigs in this respect, as to sudden danger for superbugs or anything of the sort? If they would grow, being confronted with PG... then they would be here for a looong time allready, wouldn't they?
(And I most certainly agree with you btw Naz on the fact that making the environment too clean is just bad, in the end; no misunderstanding there... maybe this is part of thát... but I think superbugs would be here in rows and colums allready, if they would come from usage of PG, thats all)
So surely there is nothing new at all about using PG in e-cigs in this respect, as to sudden danger for superbugs or anything of the sort? If they would grow, being confronted with PG... then they would be here for a looong time allready, wouldn't they?
(And I most certainly agree with you btw Naz on the fact that making the environment too clean is just bad, in the end; no misunderstanding there... maybe this is part of thát... but I think superbugs would be here in rows and colums allready, if they would come from usage of PG, thats all)
Last edited:
Off topic? How so? We're talking abotu killing bacteria, and I brought up that they might adapt to hte PG- As well, when I speak abotu bacterai becoming super bacteria, I must dissagree that this is an irrelevent concern because thanks to our comulsions to zap everythign with antibiotics and antibacterials, we are seeign soem very very serious problems arise
Occasional use of antibacterials and antibiotics would not of course produce superbacteria and viruses- however, constant use of either or, will as the bacteria have a chance to mutate and pass alogn hteir mutaitons in numbers that will overwhelm the previousxs bacteria, and, it's quite obvious that we will be inhaling PG constantly, all day long, and I think it's not unreasonable to htink that this could result in soemthign we won't be able to control
Correct, and I'm not disputing that- however, we had succeeded agaisnt Bactarias and viruses until we started overeactign to htem and tryign to live in 'sterile' environments by constantly washign with antibacterials, wiping everythign down with antibacterials, germicidals etc, giving out antibiotics liek htey were chewable one a day vitimins etc- Now, wer'e faced with very serious medical problems as new superbacteria and viruses emerge. Before, new strains would crop up, and because we only occassionally used antibiotics, we were able to zap them with another antibiotic, but now, since hte onslaught of 'sterilize everything everyday' thinking, it's becoem a huge issue.
Germicidals are fine for occassional use, but I fear that it's constant use, such as we would be doing by esmoking, it could produce soemthign we can't control- not sure how you think this is goign off topic?
Katink:
Yeah, I'm not saying it will cause htis, as I just don't know, but think it's an important concideration that we should maybe just keep an eye out for some info on htis if available
Last edited:
Last January, while writing an article on e-smoking, I corresponded several times with the world's leading e-smoking researcher, Dr. Murray Laugesen of New Zealand. Thursday, I again emailed the doctor, asking if the studies spelled out in the first post in this thread could be as important as I think they are. I provided a link to this thread on our forum. He visited our forum and read the posts.
Dr. Laugesen replied within hours. He wrote that he is authoring a report for the World Health Organization on e-smoking and he promptly drew up an addition to the WHO report. In his emailed reply, he included a first draft of the addendum and asked if I'd like to post it. Yes, yes I would.
E-CIGARETTE USE - COULD IT PROTECT US ALL FROM THE NEXT PANDEMIC?
Murray Laugesen
Public health physician www.healthnz.co.nz
Bob Bowden, Florida contributor to e-cigarette-forum.com, raises the question whether e-cigarettes, apart from avoiding smoking and future lung cancer risk, actually confers immediate short term positive benefits, by reducing the risk of its users inhaling live viruses and bacteria from room air. This is mind-blowing enough, but could its possible benefits also protect others close by? Is the e-cigarette more than a tool for reducing harm? Is it also potentially a talisman to ward off infection?
History
That propylene glycol (PG) may protect users of the e-cigarette from airborne bacterial and viruses dates back to World War II. Air Germicide, a story in Time magazine Nov 16, 1942, reported the research of Dr. Oswald Hope Robertson at Chicago's BillingsHospital. He showed that half a part per million of PG in air could kill bacteria and viruses in that air within seconds. He found PG could protect mice from influenza virus, and that monkeys could well tolerate living in air containing PG. On the face of it, e-cigarette users might indeed be better off.
Second hand PG
For e-cigarette mist to have any chance of protecting non-users of e-cigarettes depends on whether e-cigarette users exhale sufficient PG, and this is doubtful. While the mouth smoke inhaled contains PG at 300 parts per million, in the next breath the exhaled mist is invisible and PG is only about 5 ppm. Several PG users, however, might exhale enough to maintain a viricidal concentration of PG. PG is mostly absorbed, and broken down to carbon dioxide and pyruvate, which is burnt for energy. And so PG mainly benefits the user, not the surrounding air space.
Protecting air travelers
Air travel is a weak point in defending ourselves internationally from fatal respiratory infections. Bird flu and pandemic influenza can spread globally at the speed of jet travel, as one infected person can infect many others through air-conditioned, re-circulated air. Governments are spending millions on how to contain or just even slow the spread of such epidemics. Perhaps PG should be seriously considered.
Even the tuberculosis bacillus can infect passengers seated some distance from the infected passenger on a flight between San Francisco and Hawaii, as CDC (US Centers for Disease Control) has reported.
PG is not used to sterilise aircraft air, and airlines medicating cabin air via air-conditioners could incur unwanted legal claims. Permitting the use, however, of e-cigarettes on passenger flights might at least help protect the e-cigarette user, and just possibly, those in the adjacent seat. Airlines would not need to do a thing, apart from inform in-flight staff that e-cigarette use is permissible.
E-cigarettes, being flameless, and not producing harmful gases, are not banned by laws against second-hand smoke or use in flight. Their use in the aircraft toilet will not activate the smoke alarms. And until research confirms or denies it, the PG in e-cigarette mist just might have health protection benefits for other passengers. Non-smokers desiring enhanced personal protection could use e-cigarettes containing zero nicotine.
Further research
We already know there is no way e-cigarettes can cause lung cancer. Equally, they do not cause fires. E-users would also like to know whether switching to e-cigarettes reduces coughs, colds and flu compared with smokers who have simply quit nicotine altogether. Everyone would like to know whether permitting e-cigarette use on long haul flights reduces respiratory infection risk for passengers.
Dr. Laugesen replied within hours. He wrote that he is authoring a report for the World Health Organization on e-smoking and he promptly drew up an addition to the WHO report. In his emailed reply, he included a first draft of the addendum and asked if I'd like to post it. Yes, yes I would.
E-CIGARETTE USE - COULD IT PROTECT US ALL FROM THE NEXT PANDEMIC?
Murray Laugesen
Public health physician www.healthnz.co.nz
Bob Bowden, Florida contributor to e-cigarette-forum.com, raises the question whether e-cigarettes, apart from avoiding smoking and future lung cancer risk, actually confers immediate short term positive benefits, by reducing the risk of its users inhaling live viruses and bacteria from room air. This is mind-blowing enough, but could its possible benefits also protect others close by? Is the e-cigarette more than a tool for reducing harm? Is it also potentially a talisman to ward off infection?
History
That propylene glycol (PG) may protect users of the e-cigarette from airborne bacterial and viruses dates back to World War II. Air Germicide, a story in Time magazine Nov 16, 1942, reported the research of Dr. Oswald Hope Robertson at Chicago's BillingsHospital. He showed that half a part per million of PG in air could kill bacteria and viruses in that air within seconds. He found PG could protect mice from influenza virus, and that monkeys could well tolerate living in air containing PG. On the face of it, e-cigarette users might indeed be better off.
Second hand PG
For e-cigarette mist to have any chance of protecting non-users of e-cigarettes depends on whether e-cigarette users exhale sufficient PG, and this is doubtful. While the mouth smoke inhaled contains PG at 300 parts per million, in the next breath the exhaled mist is invisible and PG is only about 5 ppm. Several PG users, however, might exhale enough to maintain a viricidal concentration of PG. PG is mostly absorbed, and broken down to carbon dioxide and pyruvate, which is burnt for energy. And so PG mainly benefits the user, not the surrounding air space.
Protecting air travelers
Air travel is a weak point in defending ourselves internationally from fatal respiratory infections. Bird flu and pandemic influenza can spread globally at the speed of jet travel, as one infected person can infect many others through air-conditioned, re-circulated air. Governments are spending millions on how to contain or just even slow the spread of such epidemics. Perhaps PG should be seriously considered.
Even the tuberculosis bacillus can infect passengers seated some distance from the infected passenger on a flight between San Francisco and Hawaii, as CDC (US Centers for Disease Control) has reported.
PG is not used to sterilise aircraft air, and airlines medicating cabin air via air-conditioners could incur unwanted legal claims. Permitting the use, however, of e-cigarettes on passenger flights might at least help protect the e-cigarette user, and just possibly, those in the adjacent seat. Airlines would not need to do a thing, apart from inform in-flight staff that e-cigarette use is permissible.
E-cigarettes, being flameless, and not producing harmful gases, are not banned by laws against second-hand smoke or use in flight. Their use in the aircraft toilet will not activate the smoke alarms. And until research confirms or denies it, the PG in e-cigarette mist just might have health protection benefits for other passengers. Non-smokers desiring enhanced personal protection could use e-cigarettes containing zero nicotine.
Further research
We already know there is no way e-cigarettes can cause lung cancer. Equally, they do not cause fires. E-users would also like to know whether switching to e-cigarettes reduces coughs, colds and flu compared with smokers who have simply quit nicotine altogether. Everyone would like to know whether permitting e-cigarette use on long haul flights reduces respiratory infection risk for passengers.
WOW TB !!! Speechless ... This is invaluable! The contacts you have in the esmoking world are great!
2 statements really stick out ...
2nd hand ECig vapor is healthy for people ?!?!?! insane!
and
WE DO ???? Didn't think we were at a point with enough research to be 100% absolutely sure ...
Thanks for posting this TB
2 statements really stick out ...
Murray Laugesen said:
2nd hand ECig vapor is healthy for people ?!?!?! insane!
and
Murray Laugesen said:
WE DO ???? Didn't think we were at a point with enough research to be 100% absolutely sure ...
Thanks for posting this TB
just did a quick search on google and found some links. thought i should post here if someone missed it.
propylene glycol as germicide - Google Search
thanks TropicalBob
propylene glycol as germicide - Google Search
thanks TropicalBob
Overall nicely written addendum. However, the last paragraph makes some statements that are a bit strong considering the current status of e-smoking. I don't think that we can say definitively that e-smoking will not cause any incidence of lung cancer with 100% certainty because we simply don't have long-term studies to prove such an assertion. If they don't cause fires then what about the occasional battery that catches on fire? One such case has already been reported on this board. No device is risk free. Cell phones probably cause more cancer than e-cigs ever will and are freely used.
I hate to sound like a broken record but none of the positive arguments about PG are valid unless we are certain that we are actually getting pharmaceutical grade PG in our cartridges and liquid. I'm amazed the e-cig has stayed under the radar this long. It is only a matter of time before government agencies take a closer look and then the regulating/banning will begin.
Last edited:
So lets hope it stays under the radar until it might be clear that it not only does no harm, but even helps to ward off other harm... whether just for the user, or even for those around him...
I must say I love the idea, the wild thought, of schools, conferences, pubs, public places actualy welcoming e-smokers, asking them in
Who knows it might come true
(Bob, do you mind me translating your writing into dutch for the boards there? Not all speak english)
I must say I love the idea, the wild thought, of schools, conferences, pubs, public places actualy welcoming e-smokers, asking them in
Who knows it might come true
(Bob, do you mind me translating your writing into dutch for the boards there? Not all speak english)
Please do translate and post. Dr. Laugesen is "The Man" for the New Zealand e-smoking trials and he gave permission to distribute his emailed reply to me. In fact, he's emailed me more info but asked that I hold off a day or two before posting.
There are perhaps three critical posts that contain the researched information and Dr. Laugesen's response. Have at it.
There are perhaps three critical posts that contain the researched information and Dr. Laugesen's response. Have at it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
