New studies find carcinogens in vg and pg at high temps, even in tootle puffers

Status
Not open for further replies.

AkiraFZ

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 23, 2016
113
247
62
Tokyo, Japan
I was looking in my piled wire box and found 26/30ga SS316L clapton 15ft roll which I don't remember buying.:D I will make sure to tighten it down the ends. Thanks again.
In case someone wonder what happened to this guy after that. And for the people who think "I bet he doesn't like the clapton wire because he used to vape on 16w", I'll let you know what happend.:D

To my surprise, I liked it very much.:) After a few tries of build I made a single coil clapton at 0.56ohm 5 wraps 3mmD. With help of the device monitor on Escribe, I set 30w 380F and get warm satisfying vape with nice taste. I never thought I would go more than 20w!:p Another thing surprised me is that the cloud I exhail is less than what I did with 16w kanthal.:w00t:

I even tried MTL, I always do DTL tho, with this clapton it was Okay. I kind of understood how Mike vape. Just kind of...

So finally, I am in the safety zone, oh according to WANG.:D
 

sofarsogood

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Oct 12, 2014
5,553
14,167
So these researchers find that below 200 C (392F) there is only trivial amounts or none of the three concerning chemicals in the vapor. That makes things easy for me. A while back I spent some time fiddling with wire, resistance and power to find the minimum settings that give me a satisfying vape. That turns out to be 30 AWG stainless wire at 1.43 ohm with 150%pre heat (24 watts) for 0.3 seconds then 16 max watts and 380 F max temp. I have three presets in the Arctic Fox firmware. First, my daily temp control settings just listed, then power mode set to 8 watts for dry burning before rewicking, then a dry cotton test mode set to 16 max watts, 420F and no preheat. When the wicking in my rda is very saturated max temp on each puff stays between 220-320F. As the wick gets less saturated and the well is empty the wire goes to 380F on 3-5 watts. Allowing for most any margin of error I'm well below the alleged high temp limit and getting a vape I like. Another nice bonus is a single LG brown almost always lasts all day with no recharging.
 

Rossum

Eleutheromaniac
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Dec 14, 2013
16,081
105,222
SE PA
When the wicking in my rda is very saturated max temp on each puff stays between 220-320F.
I have a hard time believing you're getting usable vapor at those temps, since they are well below the boiling point of PG (370F), and a PG/VG mixture should have an even higher BP. I understand this is what your firmware claims, but that doesn't actually make it so.
 

sofarsogood

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Oct 12, 2014
5,553
14,167
I have a hard time believing you're getting usable vapor at those temps, since they are well below the boiling point of PG (370F), and a PG/VG mixture should have an even higher BP. I understand this is what your firmware claims, but that doesn't actually make it so.
Except there is corroborating evidence. My dry burn test singes cotton at 420 F. When the juice well is dry it only takes 3-5 watts to hit the 380 temp limit. Because I use an rda with no bottom air the wick can be super saturated. In that condition the mod always fires 16 max watts and the max temp is less than the 380 limit. (If I increased the power dramatically the temp limit would be hit on every puff but I don't need that.) All that behavior is consistant with how temp control is uspposed to work broadly. Boiling and vaporizing do not mean the same thing. Water vaporizes at room temperature and below so the boiling point is not the deciding factor. Regardless I'm satisfied that my builds rarely or never exceed the temps the researchers consider a problem. If that turns out to be wrong may be I'll make adjustments.

May be I have an unfair advantage. I'm trying to get a satisfying vape with the minimum power, temperature, etc. I'm not trying to see how far I can push the limits.
 
Last edited:

GeorgeS

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
  • May 31, 2015
    2,267
    3,532
    Oregon, USA
    I have a hard time believing you're getting usable vapor at those temps, since they are well below the boiling point of PG (370F), and a PG/VG mixture should have an even higher BP. I understand this is what your firmware claims, but that doesn't actually make it so.

    I believe Mike's "pots of juice on stove with temperature probe" tests made it fairly clear that usable vapor production happens long before the boiling point of the juice.

    Than again, it would be counter intuitive to me to NOT set a wattage high enough to reach the temperature set point at the start or at least the end of a pull/draw/vape.
     

    Rossum

    Eleutheromaniac
    Supporting Member
    ECF Veteran
    Verified Member
    Dec 14, 2013
    16,081
    105,222
    SE PA
    Yes, water "vaporizes" at below its boiling point. All liquids have a vapor pressure and will evaporate. How quickly that happens depends on their vapor pressure vs. ambient pressure.

    Heating a bit of liquid on a coil is not exactly comparable to heating a whole pot of liquid on a stove. ;)

    I don't push limits either. My most-used setup is a 7 wraps of twisted 3x30 gauge at about 0.75 ohms on a mechanical bottom-feeder. Call it 22 watts with a fresh battery. Pulse-firing this under a lighted magnifier, I can plainly see that I don't get significant vapor production until the the liquid is visibly boiling on the coil, which happens very quickly.

    Anyway, it would be interesting to see what a DNA mod (or one of Mike's temperature probes) shows versus what the Artic Fox firmware claims.
     

    sofarsogood

    Vaping Master
    ECF Veteran
    Oct 12, 2014
    5,553
    14,167
    Than again, it would be counter intuitive to me to NOT set a wattage high enough to reach the temperature set point at the start or at least the end of a pull/draw/vape.
    I like having a variety of vaping conditions. When the wick is drying it's perfect for stealth. I know when the well is dry when the watts start to drop and temp increases. With higher watts I end up needing to redrip more often and the vapor quality is different. Instead of high watts for the whole puff I have a bit of pre heat to give the coil a little kick. I can tell when there's no pre heat.

    How about set temp control to the low temps I'm talking about and see what kind of vapor you get. In my experience there is useful amounts of vapor at low temps.
     

    GeorgeS

    Ultra Member
    ECF Veteran
  • May 31, 2015
    2,267
    3,532
    Oregon, USA
    How about set temp control to the low temps I'm talking about and see what kind of vapor you get. In my experience there is useful amounts of vapor at low temps.

    No argument here. I regularly vape at 350F.

    But then again, the temperature set point is 350F and I have the wattage/Joules set high enough to reach that temperature in 1 second or less after I hit the fire button.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Eskie

    sofarsogood

    Vaping Master
    ECF Veteran
    Oct 12, 2014
    5,553
    14,167
    No argument here. I regularly vape at 350F.

    But then again, the temperature set point is 350F and I have the wattage/Joules set high enough to reach that temperature in 1 second or less after I hit the fire button.
    If you're using a tank and the wicking is fresh the saturation of the coil will tend to stay the same. My coil starts so saturated that any tank or bottom air supply would leak and sometimes it's so dry I'd get dry hits wihtout temp control. I'm used it, I like things that way.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Eskie

    mikepetro

    Vape Geek
    ECF Veteran
    Verified Member
    Feb 22, 2013
    10,224
    81,687
    65
    Newport News, Virginia, United States
    An interesting read...

    ****************************************************************

    Pulmonology > Smoking & Tobacco
    Cancer Risk Low For Most, But Not All, E-Cigs in Modeling Study
    Higher 'potency' tied to high levels of carbonyls


    Emissions from most, but not all, electronic cigarettes were more than 100 times less carcinogenic than emissions from traditional combustible cigarettes, according to a British study.

    Most of the e-cigarettes tested had cancer causing potencies falling within two orders of magnitude of a medicinal nicotine inhaler devices, but a "small minority" had much higher potencies, wrote William E. Stephens, PhD, of the University of St. Andrews in Fife, Scotland.

    But "high-risk results tend to be associated with high levels of carbonyls generated when excessive power is delivered to the atomiser coil," he wrote in Tobacco Control.

    Stephens modeled the cancer potencies of a range of e-cigarettes and other nicotine-delivering aerosols using published chemical analyses of emissions and their associated inhalation unit risks.

    Potencies were compared using a conversion procedure for expressing smoke and e-cigarette vapors in common units, and lifetime cancer risks were calculated associated with various potencies using daily cancer consumption estimates.

    "Many electronic e-cigarette emissions have cancer potencies within an order of magnitude of a nicotine inhaler, a product generally regarded as safe," Stephens wrote. "Notwithstanding, some e-cigarette emissions tended towards much higher cancer potencies and risks, a few possibly approaching those of tobacco smoke."

    Based on the analysis, he concluded that the cancer potency of formaldehyde, which is the most significant e-cigarette carcinogen, may exceed that of tobacco smoke in some products, especially at the highest power settings.

    The range of cancer potencies identified in the study spanned four orders of magnitude, with "the vast majority of potencies being much lower than combustible cigarettes," Stephens noted.

    "It is likely that third/fourth generation e-cigarette devices with adjustable coil power are implicated in these higher risks," he wrote, adding that with regard to involuntary exposure to e-cigarette emissions, "greater understanding of potential effects of secondhand e-cigarette exposure is needed to determine if their use in indoor public spaces should be banned, as is currently the case in 25 countries."

    In a telephone interview with MedPage Today, Stanton Glantz, PhD, of the University of California San Francisco Center for Tobacco Control and Research Education, called the study well done, adding that it adds to the already-convincing literature showing e-cigarettes to be associated with much lower carcinogenic exposures than combustible cigarettes.

    "To me, it's sort of beating a dead horse," he said. "The fact is, I don't know anyone who thinks that e-cigarettes don't deliver carcinogens at a much lower level than conventional cigarettes. They don't have combustion and the combustion process generates a lot of carcinogens."

    But he added that the jury is still out on other potential risks of e-cigarettes, and other vaporized nicotine delivery, for non-malignancy related diseases associated with smoking, including heart disease, non-cancer lung disease, and diabetes.

    He said the early research suggests that e-cigarette use, like traditional smoking, may be a major risk factor for these diseases, which are linked to more smoking-related deaths than cancer.

    Study limitations included the use of emissions data, which can both overestimate and underestimate risk, and the inclusion of only carcinogens formally classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in the analysis.

    Carcinogenicity of secondhand vapor was also not specifically addressed in the study.

    Stephens disclosed no relevant relationships with industry.
     

    atroph

    Super Member
    ECF Veteran
    Verified Member
    Jun 23, 2014
    830
    1,656
    Chesapeake, VA
    Whoa! Even glANTZ says, "I don't know anyone who thinks that e-cigarettes don't deliver carcinogens at a much lower level than conventional cigarettes."
    Yeah but he rebuts with this "He said the early research suggests that e-cigarette use, like traditional smoking, may be a major risk factor for these diseases, which are linked to more smoking-related deaths than cancer."

    [Facepalm] He just lumped vape w/ cigs.

    Sent from my 2PZC5 using Tapatalk
     

    zoiDman

    My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
    Supporting Member
    ECF Veteran
    Apr 16, 2010
    41,314
    1
    83,837
    So-Cal
    Whoa! Even glANTZ says, "I don't know anyone who thinks that e-cigarettes don't deliver carcinogens at a much lower level than conventional cigarettes."

    But isn't this what the Slantz's of world do?

    Get up on Soap Boxes and use FUD, Half Truths and Quasi-Science to propagate the Agenda of their Political/Financial Overlords.

    And then, when the Inconvenient Real Science becomes Unignoreable, they do a 180 as to appear to be taking the Scientific High Ground.
     

    Rossum

    Eleutheromaniac
    Supporting Member
    ECF Veteran
    Verified Member
    Dec 14, 2013
    16,081
    105,222
    SE PA
    Interesting...



    Looks like he's using this meter which is now only $58, but there are plenty of others to choose from if one were to Search Amazon for "Formaldehyde Meter"

    Since I don't currently have a working TC mod, I'm probably not the best person to try to reproduce this with different atties and coil temps. But if Mike was interested in doing so, I'd contribute to buying him a meter...
     

    mikepetro

    Vape Geek
    ECF Veteran
    Verified Member
    Feb 22, 2013
    10,224
    81,687
    65
    Newport News, Virginia, United States
    Interesting...



    Looks like he's using this meter which is now only $58, but there are plenty of others to choose from if one were to Search Amazon for "Formaldehyde Meter"

    Since I don't currently have a working TC mod, I'm probably not the best person to try to reproduce this with different atties and coil temps. But if Mike was interested in doing so, I'd contribute to buying him a meter...

    I watched the vid, I will dig deeper tomorrow.
    I want to understand the tech, and the accuracy.
    I would also like to hear what @Kurt has to say about it.

    I am more than willing to do some temperature correlated formaldehyde measurements. I would in fact dive at the opportunity. I just need to make sure it will stand up to scrutiny, dont want to discredit myself. I know my thermocouple equipment, and can validate accuracy with it, how do I do so with this?

    Its bedtime, I will dig deeper tomorrow.
    @Kurt , if you are listening, please jump in.
    If this is a valid method, I would love your opinion on a proper protocol.

    ETA: The protocol is important. Are we measuring XX-ppb per microliter of ejuice? µg/ml appears to be the standard measurement, which equals 1 ppb. How do I measure the small amounts of ejuice, weight? I.e. what defines a puff?

    Whatever it is, the protocol has to be repeatable and accurate. I doubt that Yutube video was repeatable except in broad terms. I need to be able to express accuracy in +/- x% terms or it wont hold water.

    Also, certified test gas to validate meter accuracy would be a must.

    I am game, but only if I can do it right.
     
    Last edited:

    Eskie

    ECF Guru
    ECF Veteran
    Verified Member
    May 6, 2016
    16,087
    77,743
    NY
    I watched the vid, I will dig deeper tomorrow.
    I want to understand the tech, and the accuracy.
    I would also like to hear what @Kurt has to say about it.

    I am more than willing to do some temperature correlated formaldehyde measurements. I would in fact dive at the opportunity. I just need to make sure it will stand up to scrutiny, dont want to discredit myself. I know my thermocouple equipment, and can validate accuracy with it, how do I do so with this?

    Its bedtime, I will dig deeper tomorrow.
    @Kurt , if you are listening, please jump in.
    If this is a valid method, I would love your opinion on a proper protocol.

    ETA: The protocol is important. Are we measuring XX-ppb per microliter of ejuice? µg/ml appears to be the standard measurement, which equals 1 ppb. How do I measure the small amounts of ejuice, weight? I.e. what defines a puff?

    Whatever it is, the protocol has to be repeatable and accurate. I doubt that Yutube video was repeatable except in broad terms. I need to be able to express accuracy in +/- x% terms or it wont hold water.

    Also, certified test gas to validate meter accuracy would be a must.

    I am game, but only if I can do it right.

    The other problem is this only measures what is in the exhaled vapor, not inhaled. We don't know how much was cleared from the vapor while in him. This seems more like the CA vapor shop air sample tests showing nothing to worry about in second hand vapor, rather than actual formaldehyde production on inhalation. As to reproducible it's tough to establish as how much was he drawing with each of those draws? It's a nice demo, but not applicable to what you inhale in your puff. It's a nice demo, but not a "test" of formaldehyde production on inhaled vapor.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Users who are viewing this thread