Diacetyl exposure graphed.

[skoony]

Here's an article from Daily Drip. The graph compares exposures for e-cigs to cigarettes
and, factory workers. The author requests that his math be checked. I didn't find any
glaring discrepancies.
Everybody is talking about vaping and "popcorn lung" again, so here's a graph

Regards
Mike

 

[Rossum]

Using the "average" is a bit misleading. Most of the e-cigs tested had zero or trace amounts. Nobody is worried about trace amounts (except of course those trying to advance an anti-vaping agenda). But when we look at some of the worst offending liquids that have as much as 1000µg/ml of diketones and multiply that by the 20-30 ml/day that some people vape, then we do get a total exposure that's "worse than smoking" when it comes to diketones. Is that dangerous? I don't know, but I prefer not to be the guinea pig that finds out.

 

[skoony]

Using the "average" is a bit misleading. Most of the e-cigs tested had zero or trace amounts. Nobody is worried about trace amounts (except of course those trying to advance an anti-vaping agenda). But when we look at some of the worst offending liquids that have as much as 1000µg/ml of diketones and multiply that by the 20-30 ml/day that some people vape, then we do get a total exposure that's "worse than smoking" when it comes to diketones. Is that dangerous? I don't know, but I prefer not to be the guinea pig that finds out.

I see your point Rossum. That's still based still based on the NOISH safe exposure limits that are
admittedly arbitrarily low. I for one would think a 20 to 30 ml per day usage would have to be
on the uber high end of the consumption rate for vapers. How many at that rate are actually
using diketones in their juice. Its my impression high end users tend to be shying away from
flavors in general as they seem to be more interested in vapor production. A lot of flavors
are PG or alcohol based which tends to negate said vapor production.
Mass consumption of any adult related product usually has negative results associated with
it and as such I believe one should look more towards the average usage of a product or, at
least make sure extreme usage doesn't skew the results.

Regards
Mike

 

[Marc411]

Diacetyl is found in very common areas every day but discussed minimally. The coffee industy is produces a fair amount and is the focus of studies, I wonder when the FDA will shut down Starbucks.

Just google Diacetyl found in barista or Diacetyl found in in coffee shops.

 

[Rossum]

I see your point Rossum. That's still based still based on the NOISH safe exposure limits that are admittedly arbitrarily low.

Huh? I didn't mention NIOSH limits. I compared the numbers from a high-diketone juice to the numbers given for cigarettes in the article you posted.

I for one would think a 20 to 30 ml per day usage would have to be on the uber high end of the consumption rate for vapers. How many at that rate are actually using diketones in their juice. Its my impression high end users tend to be shying away from flavors in general as they seem to be more interested in vapor production. A lot of flavors are PG or alcohol based which tends to negate said vapor production.
Mass consumption of any adult related product usually has negative results associated with
it and as such I believe one should look more towards the average usage of a product or, at
least make sure extreme usage doesn't skew the results.

OK, I consider myself reasonably average, at least among the folks here at ECF. I vape around 6ml a day. If I were to use a juice that had 1000µg/ml of diketones, I'd still be getting as much as a pack-a-day smoker. I'll pass on that, thanks.

 

[skoony]

OK, I consider myself reasonably average, at least among the folks here at ECF. I vape around 6ml a day. If I were to use a juice that had 1000µg/ml of diketones, I'd still be getting as much as a pack-a-day smoker. I'll pass on that, thanks

How many juices contain that much? The good Dr. nor the ones that did this study found nothing close
to that amount. You also have to consider how many are actually using such juice at that amount
juxtaposed against accepted daily exposure limits which are arbitrarily low whether there mentioned
in the study or not. At any rate any diacetyl exposure from e-cigarettes pales when compared to
the exposure rates the workers encountered when chucking 50 pound bags of powdered diacetyl
in to the mixing vats daily.

Regards
Mike

 

[Rossum]

I really wish you (and maybe Jman?) would stop with the meme about bags of powdered diacetyl. It makes ECF look ignorant. Diacetyl is a LIQUID at anything resembling room temperature. It's certainly possible that diacetyl was a COMPONENT of some powdered flavoring that was dumped into vats, but if it was powdered, it wasn't diacetyl per se.

 

[KentA]

Its my impression high end users tend to be shying away from
flavors in general as they seem to be more interested in vapor production.

Hey, I object to that.
I'm not low end.

 

[zoiDman]

How many juices contain that much? ...

Hard to say seeing that there are Many OEM's/Retailers who do Not Post Test Results like this...

BTW - I removed the Vendors Name and e-Liquid type so as Not to be Accused of Singling them Out. I actually Applaud them for Publically Posting the Results here on the ECF so User's can decide what they want to use.

 

[Kent C]

Diacetyl is found in very common areas every day but discussed minimally. The coffee industy is produces a fair amount and is the focus of studies, I wonder when the FDA will shut down Starbucks.

Not likely...

For example, coffee processing workers can be exposed to natural diacetyl levels well above the OELs [22], yet the respiratory status of coffee processing workers has been evaluated in many studies [21], [26], [27], [29], [33], [43], [50], [51], [52], [54], [55], [58] and [59] and the most consistent adverse effects are allergic respiratory responses to specific allergens in respirable green coffee dusts [21], [26], [27], [29], [30], [50], [54], [55] and [59]. To the best of our knowledge, there are no reports of bronchiolitis obliterans or other serious, obstructive diseases occurring at elevated rates in coffee processing workers handling unflavored coffee beans or ground coffee. Similarly, although retail coffee workers may be exposed to naturally occurring diacetyl at levels exceeding the recommended OELs (as suggested by the present analysis), we are not aware of any epidemiology studies suggesting an increased risk of obstructive disorders in coffee shop workers, nor are there any published case reports of bronchiolitis obliterans occurring in coffee shop employees. Finally, cigarette smoke contains naturally occurring diacetyl concentrations in the hundreds of parts per million, and the resulting exposures to smokers are much higher than those typically experienced by workers handling diacetyl-containing flavorings in food processing facilities. However, smoking has not been associated with an increased risk of bronchiolitis obliterans [48].

Characterization of naturally occurring airborne diacetyl concentrations associated with the preparation and consumption of unflavored coffee

 

[skoony]

I really wish you (and maybe Jman?) would stop with the meme about bags of powdered diacetyl. It makes ECF look ignorant. Diacetyl is a LIQUID at anything resembling room temperature. It's certainly possible that diacetyl was a COMPONENT of some powdered flavoring that was dumped into vats, but if it was powdered, it wasn't diacetyl per se.

"They can also be inhaled in the form of a powder if airborne dust is created in the production process. Many of these chemicals are highly irritating to the eyes, respiratory tract, and skin."
CDC - Flavorings-Related Lung Disease: Exposures to Flavoring Chemicals - NIOSH Workplace Safety and Health Topic
"we assessed diacetyl emissions and airborne dust levels from butter flavorings used by several microwave popcorn manufacturing companies."
Diacetyl emissions and airborne dust from butter flavorings used in microwave popcorn production. - PubMed - NCBI
regards
mike

 

[Kent C]

"They can also be inhaled in the form of a powder if airborne dust is created in the production process. Many of these chemicals are highly irritating to the eyes, respiratory tract, and skin."
CDC - Flavorings-Related Lung Disease: Exposures to Flavoring Chemicals - NIOSH Workplace Safety and Health Topic
"we assessed diacetyl emissions and airborne dust levels from butter flavorings used by several microwave popcorn manufacturing companies."
Diacetyl emissions and airborne dust from butter flavorings used in microwave popcorn production. - PubMed - NCBI
regards
mike

Yeah, Rossum's right. Any liquid in any factory can be similarly carried by dust - but that doesn't make it into a 'powder form' of the substance.

 

[skoony]

Yeah, Rossum's right. Any liquid in any factory can be similarly carried by dust - but that doesn't make it into a 'powder form' of the substance.

"While it is generally believed that the cause of popcorn lung was inhalation of powdered diacetyl, this has yet to be proven, as we will see shortly in the information provided by the CDC. It is important to note that the FDA has posted the following statement about the consumption of diacetyl on their website 2, - See more at: The Truth About Diacetyl - Mt Baker Vapor'
The Truth About Diacetyl - Mt Baker Vapor
i have seen other references but have to go to work.
Regards
mike

 

[Mazinny]

Not likely...

For example, coffee processing workers can be exposed to natural diacetyl levels well above the OELs [22], yet the respiratory status of coffee processing workers has been evaluated in many studies [21], [26], [27], [29], [33], [43], [50], [51], [52], [54], [55], [58] and [59] and the most consistent adverse effects are allergic respiratory responses to specific allergens in respirable green coffee dusts [21], [26], [27], [29], [30], [50], [54], [55] and [59]. To the best of our knowledge, there are no reports of bronchiolitis obliterans or other serious, obstructive diseases occurring at elevated rates in coffee processing workers handling unflavored coffee beans or ground coffee. Similarly, although retail coffee workers may be exposed to naturally occurring diacetyl at levels exceeding the recommended OELs (as suggested by the present analysis), we are not aware of any epidemiology studies suggesting an increased risk of obstructive disorders in coffee shop workers, nor are there any published case reports of bronchiolitis obliterans occurring in coffee shop employees. Finally, cigarette smoke contains naturally occurring diacetyl concentrations in the hundreds of parts per million, and the resulting exposures to smokers are much higher than those typically experienced by workers handling diacetyl-containing flavorings in food processing facilities. However, smoking has not been associated with an increased risk of bronchiolitis obliterans [48].

Characterization of naturally occurring airborne diacetyl concentrations associated with the preparation and consumption of unflavored coffee

Now i am confused. This study says smokers are exposed to more diacety; than the factory workers. The op post claims the exact opposite it seems !

Btw, the study linked was authored by the consultants testifying for the the food industry in diacetyl litigation.

 

[DC2]

Finally, cigarette smoke contains naturally occurring diacetyl concentrations in the hundreds of parts per million, and the resulting exposures to smokers are much higher than those typically experienced by workers handling diacetyl-containing flavorings in food processing facilities. However, smoking has not been associated with an increased risk of bronchiolitis obliterans [48].

My concerns regarding diacetyl and and acetylpropionyl just decreased significantly.
Not entirely, but significantly.

 

[Jman8]

Not likely...

For example, coffee processing workers can be exposed to natural diacetyl levels well above the OELs [22], yet the respiratory status of coffee processing workers has been evaluated in many studies [21], [26], [27], [29], [33], [43], [50], [51], [52], [54], [55], [58] and [59] and the most consistent adverse effects are allergic respiratory responses to specific allergens in respirable green coffee dusts [21], [26], [27], [29], [30], [50], [54], [55] and [59]. To the best of our knowledge, there are no reports of bronchiolitis obliterans or other serious, obstructive diseases occurring at elevated rates in coffee processing workers handling unflavored coffee beans or ground coffee. Similarly, although retail coffee workers may be exposed to naturally occurring diacetyl at levels exceeding the recommended OELs (as suggested by the present analysis), we are not aware of any epidemiology studies suggesting an increased risk of obstructive disorders in coffee shop workers, nor are there any published case reports of bronchiolitis obliterans occurring in coffee shop employees. Finally, cigarette smoke contains naturally occurring diacetyl concentrations in the hundreds of parts per million, and the resulting exposures to smokers are much higher than those typically experienced by workers handling diacetyl-containing flavorings in food processing facilities. However, smoking has not been associated with an increased risk of bronchiolitis obliterans [48].

Characterization of naturally occurring airborne diacetyl concentrations associated with the preparation and consumption of unflavored coffee

Guinea pigs.

Is what my cynical side would say. My more mature, scientific side would say this is such a minute level of concern (across any industry) that it warrants harsh and strong rebuttal for those who dare to make it out to be a significant issue.

 

[pennysmalls]

My sister works in a Starbucks roasting plant in Nevada. I'll have to ask her if there's any concern in the industry. She's never mentioned it before and we've talked about the diactyl issue because we both vape.

 

[Jman8]

Using the "average" is a bit misleading. Most of the e-cigs tested had zero or trace amounts. Nobody is worried about trace amounts (except of course those trying to advance an anti-vaping agenda). But when we look at some of the worst offending liquids that have as much as 1000µg/ml of diketones and multiply that by the 20-30 ml/day that some people vape, then we do get a total exposure that's "worse than smoking" when it comes to diketones. Is that dangerous? I don't know, but I prefer not to be the guinea pig that finds out.

But you're okay being the guinea pig on all the other potentially dangerous aspects of vaping? Please explain that to me.

Based on the (weak) associative links we currently have with diketones, at its worst, it is an extremely rare condition to obtain. So rare, that it is quite plausibly not related to the things we think it is and there could, rather easily, be compounding factors. But taking all that into account, it is a rare condition. And it is possible that some vapers (like .5%) could contract it. And we may never know why exactly. But obvious narrative will be that it is because they vaped flavors, high in diketones.

Yet, all possible maladies facing vapers going forward won't be too hard to pin on vaping. Sure there will be denials of this forever. Most of those denials will be scientific rebuttals that essentially provide high confidence in data strongly suggesting the previously implied disease-causing connection was either entirely inaccurate or grossly exaggerated. But still, there will be diseases, debilitating conditions that are associated with vaping going forward. Likely at a rate much higher than .5%. Thus, in a very real sense, vapers are allowing themselves to be guinea pigs for all that, plus all the possible legitimate conditions where a direct causal link can be established. Thus far, we have zero of those, but is plausible that going forward, we might have more than zero.

Thus, I find it disingenuous to say a vaper today doesn't want to be a guinea pig that finds out later vaping might be harmful/dangerous. Especially when a current ingredient, allegedly very dangerous, is based on supposition and with caveat that the condition is extremely rare, and quite possibly contracted due to compounding factors.

 

[Racehorse]

At any rate any diacetyl exposure from e-cigarettes pales when compared to
the exposure rates the workers encountered when chucking 50 pound bags of powdered diacetyl
in to the mixing vats daily.

But I don't chuck 50 pound bags of powdered diacetyl. It is not a job I do, or one I would take.

I also don't smoke anymore.

I don't engage in the above practices because I have determined that they are a hazard to my health. So, like many others here, I "turned over a new leaf" and "switched" to vaping.

So:

Some of us are interested in the actual activity we DO engage in now.......which is vaping.

We went to know what our risk factors are for THIS activity.

Comparing it to things we don't do, or no longer do, seems to be a rather (constant) evasion of the questions we are asking.

 

[pennysmalls]

Are there any other questions outside of the diactyl/AP question? I'm asking because if there are I don't know what they are.