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

[mikepetro]

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.

I am thinking an appropriate protocol would not inhale, but collect the entire sample to be measured. A control puff at the same temp/settings would also need to be subjectively inhaled (but not measured) to see if it is a realistic vape, ie not burnt or scorched.

For repeatability it almost points to a impinging machine or something similar to get a repeatable puff time/volume. Most results are published as µg/ml which means you also have to measure the juice consumed.

The fish tank demo was a good "visual" but crude comparison between tobacco and vape, it could hardly be used for reliable quantitative data.

 

[awsum140]

Watching the video, he did a "Clinton" and didn't inhale. The vapor still was in his mouth and some absorption could have occurred there, certainly. While it isn't a, true, scientific level test I think it's fairly representative of real world conditions. Just a guess as a non-scientist.

If you decide to give it a try, Mike, count me in for helping to defray the cost of a meter and any additional equipment. There has to be a way to draw vapor from a device in a fairly accurate manner without using lungs, maybe something like a giant syringe, say something with a liter volume. Draw with that an inject it into a closed container of known volume while venting an equal amount, seal and measure. I know that doesn't answer how much liquid would be represented but would be more "scientifically accurate". The amount of liquid could be determined but that would involve repeatedly drawing vapor, counting the draws, until the device is emptied. Simple division, from that result, would give an average liquid consumption per draw. Unfortunately, it would take hours to do that test. Maybe you need a staff?

 

[stols001]

I'd be willing to help out a bit too, Mike, if you decide you find a protocol that works for you

Anna

 

[mikepetro]

Watching the video, he did a "Clinton" and didn't inhale. The vapor still was in his mouth and some absorption could have occurred there, certainly. While it isn't a, true, scientific level test I think it's fairly representative of real world conditions. Just a guess as a non-scientist.

If you decide to give it a try, Mike, count me in for helping to defray the cost of a meter and any additional equipment. There has to be a way to draw vapor from a device in a fairly accurate manner without using lungs, maybe something like a giant syringe, say something with a liter volume. Draw with that an inject it into a closed container of known volume while venting an equal amount, seal and measure. I know that doesn't answer how much liquid would be represented but would be more "scientifically accurate". The amount of liquid could be determined but that would involve repeatedly drawing vapor, counting the draws, until the device is emptied. Simple division, from that result, would give an average liquid consumption per draw. Unfortunately, it would take hours to do that test. Maybe you need a staff?

I agree, this is solvable.

If you all remember the flack I caught early in this thread when I started measuring temps, imagine the scrutiny that publishing formaldehyde numbers would get. I am not scared, just need to cross the "t"s and dot the "i"s is all.

Here are the problems I see with the fish tank video:

• I will assume a Clinton Puff, but what was the volume of ejuice consumed? "Publishable" results need to be expressed as a quantity per mass consumed.
  
• He measured ~45 ppb in the fish tank (looked like a 5gal tank), but those 5 puffs were diluted with 5 gallons of ambient air already in the tank. I.e. he measured a highly diluted sample, each puff was diluted by one gallon of air. I feel fairly certain that the amount he measured was lower than the actual amount because of this dilution.
• The device being used is akin to a smoke detector, i.e. it is designed to measure indoor air quality, the formaldehyde levels in a large space as opposed to volume of my mouth.

Blue Sky thoughts:

• Run 5 puffs per protocol and average results, discarding any significant outliers. Using an accurate scale measure the weight of the atty before and after to calculate ejuice consumed. Then you can do math like divide by 5 to calculate amount of ejuice per puff, ultimately leading to a quantitative result like 45µg/mg for example.
• Time and volume of puff would need to be standardized and reproducable. This is important if we want to simulate what actually happens inside a real life atty, or different brands of attys. I would use 3s for a MtL hit and 4s for Dtl hit. To calculate volume I would take a Clinton draw for a MtL hit and blow it into a balloon (or baggie or some similar method) and then calculate the volume. Sticking the balloon in a graduated beaker of water should give me XX ml of water displacement (allowing for balloon tare) and a pretty good measurement of my draw volume. Do the same thing for a DtL hit.
• Once I know the volume, then devise an apparatus that will draw that volume into a chamber in 3 or 4 seconds of time, respectively. This would be a bit of a challenge but I have several ideas that should work, without having to resort to scientific pricetags.
• The "room monitor" style meter wouldnt be suitable. I would need something with a probe that could be inserted into the chamber. At first glance, without doing any serious homework, I am thinking something like this would be more appropriate. A fan draws the sample in through "In" port and exhausts it through the out port. It would be a simple matter to run soft tubing (assuming it didnt give off formaldehyde of its own) between these ports and the collection chamber.
  
• 

Other questions:

• I need to learn the difference between CH2O & HCHO, and which we care about. As not all of these meters measure both.
• Most of the inexpensive devices measure 0.00 to 5.00ppm, I need to wrap my head around all the different conversion factors involved. For example, Wang claims 4µg/mg for VG at 250C. Is that the same as 4ppm?
• The whole issue of instrument calibration/validation. The instrument above will automatically calibrate to null out ambient formaldehyde, but how do I calibrate it, how do I know that when it says 3.52 it is accurate.

 

[Rossum]

He measured ~45 ppb in the fish tank (looked like a 5gal tank), but those 5 puffs were diluted with 5 gallons of ambient air already in the tank. I.e. he measured a highly diluted sample, each puff was diluted by one gallon of air. I feel fairly certain that the amount he measured was lower than the actual amount because of this dilution.

The "Clinton puffs" were on the ciggie and the cigar (can't say I blame him). The vape puffs struck me as rather bigger than that.

All samples were diluted using the same method, yet the smoke produced formaldehyde levels that were two orders of magnitude greater than the vape, right? ~5000ppb vs ~50ppb.

Are we really looking for absolute values here, or are we looking to see if there's a relationship between coil temperature and formaldehyde production, like there was in Wang's reactor? In the former case, we'd need "calibrated" instrumentation. In the latter case, plotting a curve of reported concentrations vs. coil temperature would be good data, even if the absolute values are questionable.

I'd also love to see how such a plot (that goes all the way to up to a subjective "nobody would continue to vape this") compares to actual smoke, like he did.

 

[mikepetro]

The "Clinton puffs" were on the ciggie and the cigar (can't say I blame him). The vape puffs struck me as rather bigger than that.

All samples were diluted using the same method, yet the smoke produced formaldehyde levels that were two orders of magnitude greater than the vape, right? ~5000ppb vs ~50ppb.

Are we really looking for absolute values here, or are we looking to see if there's a relationship between coil temperature and formaldehyde production, like there was in Wang's reactor? In the former case, we'd need "calibrated" instrumentation. In the latter case, plotting a curve of reported concentrations vs. coil temperature would be good data, even if the absolute values are questionable.

I'd also love to see how such a plot (that goes all the way to up to a subjective "nobody would continue to vape this") compares to actual smoke, like he did.

Gotta admit, being an Instrumentation guy, I was looking more for absolutes. Force of habit really, "close" is not good enough where I work.

I see the value in what you propose. Relative measurements, the error offset should be similar if the tests are preformed identically.

It would get shot full of holes by the masses.

Let me ponder it. If nothing else, forget the numbers, just look at the curves, and it would tell us if there is anything to the Wang study.

Comparing to actual smoke seems of little value to me though, we know that goes off the chart.

 

[zoiDman]

...

Blue Sky thoughts:

• Run 5 puffs per protocol and average results, discarding any significant outliers. Using an accurate scale measure the weight of the atty before and after to calculate ejuice consumed. Then you can do math like divide by 5 to calculate amount of ejuice per puff, ultimately leading to a quantitative result like 45µg/mg for example.
• Time and volume of puff would need to be standardized and reproducable. This is important if we want to simulate what actually happens inside a real life atty, or different brands of attys. I would use 3s for a MtL hit and 4s for Dtl hit. To calculate volume I would take a Clinton draw for a MtL hit and blow it into a balloon (or baggie or some similar method) and then calculate the volume. Sticking the balloon in a graduated beaker of water should give me XX ml of water displacement (allowing for balloon tare) and a pretty good measurement of my draw volume. Do the same thing for a DtL hit.
• Once I know the volume, then devise an apparatus that will draw that volume into a chamber in 3 or 4 seconds of time, respectively. This would be a bit of a challenge but I have several ideas that should work, without having to resort to scientific pricetags.
• The "room monitor" style meter wouldnt be suitable. I would need something with a probe that could be inserted into the chamber. At first glance, without doing any serious homework, I am thinking something like this would be more appropriate. A fan draws the sample in through "In" port and exhausts it through the out port. It would be a simple matter to run soft tubing (assuming it didnt give off formaldehyde of its own) between these ports and the collection chamber.

...

I think the 1st thing I would do if I was starting to consider a Testing Protocol(s) would be to research what Existing Standards are there for Cigarette Testing.

Perhaps something like this...

https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:3308:ed-5:v1:en

Not saying that all the Parameters of something like above could be used or would be Applicable. But perhaps some of the Parameters could be used from this or some other Standard.

 

[Mowgli]

Some of us swapped in a GM boost sensor when we upgraded out Talon/Eclipse/Lasers to front mount intercoolers. A simple inline gizmo that worked great when it wasn't humid. Mine almost got me stuck in Northern NH in moose, bear & bobcat land when it rained. That sucked.
There must be some kind of inline chemical analyzer that would work for aldehydes or it maybe co$t prohibitive?

 

[Mowgli]

Formaldehyde analyzers - All industrial manufacturers

 

[mikepetro]

Some of us swapped in a GM boost sensor when we upgraded out Talon/Eclipse/Lasers to front mount intercoolers. A simple inline gizmo that worked great when it wasn't humid. Mine almost got me stuck in Northern NH in moose, bear & bobcat land when it rained. That sucked.
There must be some kind of inline chemical analyzer that would work for aldehydes or it maybe co$t prohibitive?

The word "inline" adds at least 3 zeros to the $ number.

 

[zoiDman]

The word "inline" adds at least 3 zeros to the $ number.

Going to need a Serious GoFundMe for that.

 

[Eskie]

Short of using essentially the same protocol as Wang used (or even some of the Gen2/3 tank stuff based on power/wattage) I don't see how to gather anything that will provide a quantitative measure under normal "real world" vaping vs. the reactor chamber Wang used. In all the tank studies I'm aware of, and Wang's trial as well, the tests were performed on the vapor produced using an inline trap. That trap was then tested for formaldehyde and acrolein. Airflow was quantified, and, at least in the Wang study, precise measurements of the amount of liquid placed and vaporized in the reactor were known.

So what you need is something that will create a draw of x ml air/second. You need a collection something in between the drip tip and the air pump. You then need to test whatever is collected. I'm not sure how a commercial device designed for ambient determination of formaldehyde would fit into it, as none (that I know of) allow for such precise airflow sampling. That's why they use a water trap, pass a known volume of vapor production through it, and then measure whatever is trapped in the water in either a GC/MS or an HPLC setup. Now, a lot of this testing stuff has been simplified and automated, but not as a kitchen counter setup, unless you've got really deep pockets and would rather choose that over really nice cabinets and granite counters.

Besides, at this point it's tough to imagine manufacturers like Evolv not already doing, if have not already completed, this exact test, so go for the nice cabinets and counters.

 

[Rossum]

Comparing to actual smoke seems of little value to me though, we know that goes off the chart.

This, I don't agree with. I think it would be very valuable to know how the amount of formaldehyde at the "nobody would continue to vape this" point compares with actual smoke. Or if we get to the same level of formaldehyde as actual smoke and the vape is still acceptable, it would be good to know at what coil temperature that happens.

 

[Rossum]

Besides, at this point it's tough to imagine manufacturers like Evolv not already doing, if have not already completed, this exact test, so go for the nice cabinets and counters.

Sure, Evolv, BT, and anyone else who's pursuing the PMTA process has probably done formaldehyde testing, but they're not sharing their data with us.

 

[Zakillah]

That's why they use a water trap, pass a known volume of vapor production through it, and then measure whatever is trapped in the water in either a GC/MS or an HPLC setup. Now, a lot of this testing stuff has been simplified and automated, but not as a kitchen counter setup, unless you've got really deep pockets and would rather choose that over really nice cabinets and granite counters.

Yup, thats how it works. For a consistant volume, you use a smoke machine.

As for BT-Data, yep, there is plenty. But mostly for cigalikes and small tanks. Pretty much all of it correlates with the known numbers, 100-200 times less then in tobacco cigs, with super high increase once Coil gets dry. But yeah, we know that already.

There is unfortunetly no data of more advanced stuff like TC with different temperatures or more up to date high volume / power devices, because why would BT care about that.

 

[mikepetro]

I think the 1st thing I would do if I was starting to consider a Testing Protocol(s) would be to research what Existing Standards are there for Cigarette Testing.

Perhaps something like this...

https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:3308:ed-5:v1:en

Not saying that all the Parameters of something like above could be used or would be Applicable. But perhaps some of the Parameters could be used from this or some other Standard.

Does anybody by chance have the full version of this?

 

[Zakillah]

I can help with what those parameters are if thats what you want.
Clearify what exactly you want to know, chances are good I know or at least can look them up.

 

[Gahh]

Since I've stopped smoking, my taste buds and cense of smell have changed,,, ( All for the better.)
When I'm driving behind a diesel truck with the window open, the smell is pretty bad. TOXIC is what I think of when this odor hits.
I wonder what the carcinogens would be measured at for the 5 to 15 minutes the smell/stink is around me.
My point here is,,,,,, I think carcinogens are at some small level in the atmosphere.
The odor from a bag with McDonalds burgers and fries might have small traces of carcinogens.
Man o man my cense of smell has changed....

 

[stols001]

I can't eat McDonalds anymore... The way they artificialize everything to get a "consistent" taste is currently revolting to me. Normal food has variations and flavors and changes as you eat it. McDonald doesn't, it all tastes exactly the same at itself. It's kind of like eating DEATH.

There is no doubt in MY mind the McD is unhealthy, though I'm not sure if there's been a direct link to carcinogens, but Supersize me was a great movie, and I still think of it fondly from time to time.... So maybe that odor isn't so bad? (Not the diesel truck, the McD). I too am still amazed at all these new smells and tastes....

I think it's been fairly well documented that there are carcinogens in the air. All you have to do is go to LA, which me and my family did ONCE. Brown air, so lovely. And wasn't it Greece or somewhere where they were encasing all their monuments in bubbles and glass domes due to the air quality, some while back? They were degrading and such?

Anna

 

[awsum140]

I still laugh at smoking being banned in an airliner. Ever sit, in line, waiting for a take-off slot? Wonder if that lovely kerosene smell might contain a carcinogen or three that lingers through the rest of the flight.

Another laugh, for me, is the thought of an ANTZ formulating the next attack on vaping while sitting in traffic in a tunnel. Makes me wonder if they have any real concept of what they're talking about.