E-liquid lab/toxicology reports

[RjG]

Hmm. Start here coolnesscat:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/search.php

 

[SuperStack]

Side note one of my batteries is messed up when i conect it to the atomizer it gets it red hot with out ever taking 1 drag what is wrong?

You have a stuck switch - it's a common problem with these batteries, especially if juice gets inside and gums it up.

Do the following in this order...

1) Unscrew the battery and suck in/out on the atomizer connection end a few times, then blow out on the LED end a few times as well - you may have to repeat the process back and forth.

2) You can also try tapping the battery on a table a few times with a decent amount of force to help jar loose the switch inside (the end where the atomizer connects is where contact with the table should be made). Place a table cloth on the table to help cushion the blows and prevent damage.

3) If none of that works, and it's still stuck, then try holding it over steam for a couple minutes, as a last ditch effort.

If none of that works, then you'll need to cut your losses & buy a new one.

 

[Heed]

The rise of a smoking alternative will erode a billion dollar tax fund for the goverment.

They SAY they tax cigs so high "because they are baaaad for you"

In reality, Smokers are an easy group to tax the h*ll out of, because we are a group * nobody * will stand up and defend.

For this reason, UNTIL they figure out a way to "regulate" (ie tax) e-cigs, no goverment will support them. They care far more about their taxes than they care about your health.

I couldn't agree more.

The interesting thing, also, is the cost of nicotene replacement therapies -- i.e. patches, gum, etc. We can see from the cost of e-liquid (even marked up several times to retail pricing) that nicotene is cheap. Even in government's efforts to appear to be giving us "ways out" they still want to see us pay through the nose. In terms of incentivizing us to get off tobacco, it would seem that a more effective strategy would be to keep the cost as low as possible.

 

[ratedPG]

...I havent heard that about pg. I have USP VG and PG is that the same as food grade? So is pg safer?...

Hello, 'cat, (and hi everybody else: this is my inaugural post, although I've been reading and lurking here for several months now!)

TropicalBob has posted the link to the Nov. 16, 1942 Time magazine article that said PG is an effective germicide against airborne bacteria. So yes, it is not only safe, it is apparently very beneficial for you.

There's quite a lot of scholarly info that has already been done on the effects of aerosolized propylene glycol. Anyone who wants to do some webcrawling on the subject can look at GoogleScholar, GooglePatents, The American Journal of Public Health, and Science Magazine's websites, to start out with.

Since the material is copywritten, I won't post them verbatim here, but here are the titles of some articles that say it all:

Ozone and Glycol Vapor Decontamination of Air in a Closed Room.
G. B. Pelleu jr, R. F. Berry, and N. G. Holleman (1974)
Journal of Dental Research #53, pp. 1132-1137

Bactericidal Effects of Propylene and Triethylene Glycol Vapors on Airborne Escherichia coli.
W. Lester Jr., E. Dunklin, and O. H. Robertson (1952)
Science #115, pp. 379-382

Effect of Propylene and Triethylene Glycol on Atomized E. coli.
R. Nagy and G. Mouromseff (1950)
Science #112, pp. 593-595

The Protection of Mice Against Infection with Air-borne Influenza Virus by Means of Propylene Glycol Vapor.
O. H. Robertson, C. G. Loosl, T. T. Puck, E. Bigg, and B. F. Miller (1941)
Science #94, 612-613 ...and it goes on and on.

I'm not a smoker myself, but I've done a lot of research into this. I've ordered my first 801 from David Yang, which is on it's way now. I've bought it solely for the propylene glycol vapor.

Honestly, I don't know why this isn't front-page news. The research has been done, over and over again, years ago. For those of you ex-smokers who have dropped combusting analogs, congratulations and huzzah! Not only are you getting nicotine --just nicotine-- in a safe and non-harmful way, you may be preventing infection while doing so.

So I say bring the FDA on! Let's test our cartridge fluff and atomizer wicks. Let's test the plastic and the flavors and the nic levels. We know the primary ingredient--propylene glycol--is remarkably healthy. I can't help but think that the primary problem is the connection with analogs. Even the name 'e-cigs,' is unfortunate, since it parallels vaping with smoking: the ingestion of nicotine becomes the focus.

If we could get away from the physical appearance of analogs, and appeal to the hand-sanitizer crowd instead, the world would be our oyster. "PureAir by Purell (r)...stop the germs before they stop you," that kinda thing.

 

[4myhealth]

My apologies - I meant to start a new thread.

 

[Oceaneco]

Great Report! Thanks for the information!

 

[rez]

Hi. Just my thoughts on the ratedPG post. I'm not being a smart a**, its just what i'm thinking. I have products that are being shipped to me and I'm sorting the risks just like many of you.

To me, any testing or reports from 1942, the same era that had cigarettes advertised as good for the throat, are a little outdated. I know its unfair to compare a Time magazine article to a cigarette ad but I'm just saying, information, capabilities, the lack of computers etc, anything from 1942 is not what I personally want to base my decisions on.

Also, the suggestion that:
>>"is an effective germicide against airborne bacteria. So yes, it is not only >>safe, it is apparently very beneficial for you."
>>Decontamination of Air in a Closed Room, Airborne Escherichia coli, Air->>borne Influenza Virus etc.

I dont know that makes me want to inhale it. Bleach and Lysol may do those same types of things. But i dont want to heat and inhale those.


>>"and appeal to the hand-sanitizer crowd...stop the germs before they stop >>you".

I'm not sure i understand you but 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. And even externally, hand sanitizer and other things that things that kill the bad microorganisms also kill the normal flora.

Just my thoughts and no offense to you. As i said, I have some things in the mail to hopefully help me avoid smoking analog cigs but i'm looking forward to some specific studies of heating and inhaling all this stuff ASAP. China manufacturing short cuts, the popcorn lung flavor thing... all scary stuff.

 

[JJames68]

Three interim reports, and three extremely positive reports on e-smoking! The Holy Grail is in sight. This one answers virtually every question, including a lack of danger from second-hand vapor and the emissions from a cartridge not in use. Very thorough.

One major caveat: This applies ONLY to Ruyan products. Those are the only products subjected to the kind of clinical trial that an agency like WHO will consider when it meets in November on our beloved practice. If the government mandates auto safety and Fords pass the test, it doesn't mean Chevys are also approved. Every single e-cig maker and liquid maker must have testing done.

You think E-Cig.com gets a pass? Think again.

This is likely the last report to be issued before the WHO conference and we can only hope it sways that advisory group to proclaim e-smoking worthy of further study as an alternative to cigarette smokers seeking a safer nicotine delivery method. Thanks for finding it, Jigtg!

I doubt a test has been done on every brand of cigarette or even the new fire safe cigarette carpet glue additive, I am happy to see the tests on e-cigs being done - this gives me basic knowledge and is nice to know - now we need to see a report comparing these to cigarettes - and I would test them against the more harmful fire safe cigarettes as they are the only ones being allowed to be sold in most states now

 

[TropicalBob]

Just saw your post, RatedPG. It's right on. Good for you. I'll add that I consider inhaling propylene glycol vapor a healthy practice. Not only that, but Dr. Laugesen suggests that the exhaled vapor from an e-smoker might actually make those nearby healthier in the process by killing germs.

Rez, you are off-target with remarks about those World War II tests. They've never been refuted and further testing has been done with human adults and children. Read Dr. Laugesen's latest report and note the references to the other tests. PG is a beneficial germ-killer when inhaled as a vapor.

I go out of my way to make sure my e-liquid is PG-based. Any switch to another chemical and I'll switch to another brand using PG. I e-smoke as much for the PG as for the nicotine!

 

[rez]

Maybe... I'm just not convinced that it's actually healthy or understand / want to be involved in a competition of cheering someone on for thinking so, ha I'm just trying to learn and decide.

The stuff i ordered is PG though. I'm leaning towards that. Unfortunately, i discovered it also has glycerol....which i thought i wanted to stay away from. A lab had previously suggested the maker switch to glycerol though. That's conflicting.

Yet in the Ruyan report... where does all the Acrolein come from?

 

[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]

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.

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 "Four out of five doctors smoke Camel cigarettes." 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...television...those little bobbing-head sippy-water birds...

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.

...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 "marketed" (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/ECOpureReport2009-04-14.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]

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.