If you already have your temp down to 350 Fahrenheit then I wouldnt worry about the mix at all. At temps below 420 none of the mixtures showed anything to worry about.
New studies find carcinogens in vg and pg at high temps, even in tootle puffers
- Thread starter mikepetro
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Experiments for formaldehyde, but there are other aldehydes that measure higher in VG.
The goal is to avoid the high temps where any of this junk gets created.
Last edited:
OK, in talking with all these brainiacs, none of them were surprised by the delta between these two graphs. Although Dr F for example says we should not use "per puff" values at all since the juice consumption per puff can be so variable depending on the device (#of coils, wick efficiency, etc), and Dr Kurt also recommends mg\g as the standard. It levels the playing field.
The 1st graph is mg\g of formaldehyde per gram of ejuice,
The 2nd graph is mg\g of formaldehyde per puff. (Which upon discussion I realize is too variable to benchmark)
If you look at the actual data there is some variation of weight from puff to puff, just like in real life, but the averages show the picture. Even though the sample method was the same in all tests, ie 55ml of aerosol drawn over a 3-4 sec period, the average of 5 puffs for 100%PG was 33g, the avg of 90/10 was 30g, and the avg of 50/50 was 23g.
Since the 50/50 juice weighs less, less juice (by weight) was consumed per puff. This explains why the 50/50 shows lower per puff vs the 100%VG in the mg\g chart, the 90/10 was at the bottom of both because of the much lower boiling point.
Now I know the common perception is that PG has less formaldehyde than VG, although the data I measured doesnt back that up, and in fact neither does the Wang or Kurt data. VG has more Acrolein which is even worse than formaldehyde. What Wang measured was total Carbonyl compounds (which includes Acrolein), what Kurt measured was 50/50 juice by device. Neither separated formaldehyde alone by type of juice.
So in any event, I havent seen an apples to apples study that confirms PG is less formaldehyde than VG. It may be less total aldehydes though.
I have 2 more tests I want to do.
In any event, I have proven that nasties are greatly increased at high temps, and really thats all I set out to do. The exact specific numbers will change from device to device, and vape style to vape style, but i have validated the phenomena on real vape gear, under real conditions. I think its getting time to hang up my research hat and turn this over to the pros, who are all procrastinating about publishing due to commercial concerns.
Oh, and I did get a kind offer from one researcher:
The 1st graph is mg\g of formaldehyde per gram of ejuice,
The 2nd graph is mg\g of formaldehyde per puff. (Which upon discussion I realize is too variable to benchmark)
If you look at the actual data there is some variation of weight from puff to puff, just like in real life, but the averages show the picture. Even though the sample method was the same in all tests, ie 55ml of aerosol drawn over a 3-4 sec period, the average of 5 puffs for 100%PG was 33g, the avg of 90/10 was 30g, and the avg of 50/50 was 23g.
Since the 50/50 juice weighs less, less juice (by weight) was consumed per puff. This explains why the 50/50 shows lower per puff vs the 100%VG in the mg\g chart, the 90/10 was at the bottom of both because of the much lower boiling point.
Now I know the common perception is that PG has less formaldehyde than VG, although the data I measured doesnt back that up, and in fact neither does the Wang or Kurt data. VG has more Acrolein which is even worse than formaldehyde. What Wang measured was total Carbonyl compounds (which includes Acrolein), what Kurt measured was 50/50 juice by device. Neither separated formaldehyde alone by type of juice.
So in any event, I havent seen an apples to apples study that confirms PG is less formaldehyde than VG. It may be less total aldehydes though.
I have 2 more tests I want to do.
- A test of 100% PG by temp
- A test of a carbonized coil over time using 50/50.
In any event, I have proven that nasties are greatly increased at high temps, and really thats all I set out to do. The exact specific numbers will change from device to device, and vape style to vape style, but i have validated the phenomena on real vape gear, under real conditions. I think its getting time to hang up my research hat and turn this over to the pros, who are all procrastinating about publishing due to commercial concerns.
Oh, and I did get a kind offer from one researcher:
Unfortunately it would be 450 mile commute each way.
Just guessing, but you could probably enjoy authentic Philly cheesesteaks while you were playing 
pierogies!Just guessing, but you could probably enjoy authentic Philly cheesesteaks while you were playing
Ya know, thinking about all this and what the comments have been from real researchers, no disrespect Mike, I mean ones with a lab, assistants and a big budget, it is going to be next to impossible to say that device X, using atomizer Y, with liquid Z, at settings of abc, with a puff length of D will ALWAYS produce L levels of aldehydes. The variables are just too many, even from build to build and, probably, puff to puff. Heck, ambient temperature, barometric pressure and humidity probably factor in as well.
The bottom line is, at least to me, that controlling temperature is the biggest key and staying below an "indicated", by a relatively accurate device, temperature of 440F will minimize, not totally eliminate, aldehyde production. All the specifics that future research may reveal are still just specific to the device, atomizer, liquid and so on, used for the testing. Yes, they can certainly be applied generally, but they are by no means an exact representation of use in the real world by real vapers.
What you have done, and continue to doggedly do, is to demonstrate the relationship between what Wang and others, found in the real world. Just by starting this thread you brought a lot of good information to the forefront for many of us.
The bottom line is, at least to me, that controlling temperature is the biggest key and staying below an "indicated", by a relatively accurate device, temperature of 440F will minimize, not totally eliminate, aldehyde production. All the specifics that future research may reveal are still just specific to the device, atomizer, liquid and so on, used for the testing. Yes, they can certainly be applied generally, but they are by no means an exact representation of use in the real world by real vapers.
What you have done, and continue to doggedly do, is to demonstrate the relationship between what Wang and others, found in the real world. Just by starting this thread you brought a lot of good information to the forefront for many of us.
Under 420 safe. Got it.
And a question: Do you know anything about UD ss 316L wire (sold at FT)? Temco is out, and I need a spool of 26 g. $2.06 Authentic UD 316L Stainless Steel Resistance Wire for Rebuildable Atomizers - 26 AWG / 0.4mm*10m / 11.3ohm at FastTech - Worldwide Free Shipping
Thanks!
UD is respectable, and seem to match the TCRs on Steam Engine.Under 420 safe. Got it.
And a question: Do you know anything about UD ss 316L wire (sold at FT)? Temco is out, and I need a spool of 26 g. $2.06 Authentic UD 316L Stainless Steel Resistance Wire for Rebuildable Atomizers - 26 AWG / 0.4mm*10m / 11.3ohm at FastTech - Worldwide Free Shipping
Thanks!
Science never ends, and by that I mean that it all started with postulates and observations that are demonstrable and repeatable under best conditions, and science continues to refine and expand on observations.
I absolutely agree that research thus far (funded or not) is going to demonstrate trends, and probabilities, not absolutes as unfortunately the Real World is like that-- impossibly complicated.
With that said, if no research is ever started, we will have nothing to base our decisions on, period, even though we are still postulating within the known universe based on variables OUR senses can examine and measure with increasing precision and reliability, but there are going to be things in this world that remain non-specific.
Much of science involves correcting previous science, or refining it, and that's a good thing, not a bad thing. There's no way that studies done yet on vaping are going to lead to precise outcomes, but I'll take some knowledge and generalities based on what is known so far over ignorance, any day of the week.
In My Opinion (and I believe in science, just as much as I believe in my Creator) science is as much of a "religion" as anything else, it's merely examining the known universe and working on repeatable, predictable results leading to general outcomes, which is a fantastic thing. I was raised by a pair of pretty notable geneticists and science was my religion growing up. It's interesting, both my parents as they aged still enjoy science, but really turned to more esoteric pursuits and neither one are atheists anymore.
I was an atheist for a long time, and really was very involved in science, and I still believe in the methodology and the usefulness of it, but many scientists understand that they are working with sets of postulates and measuring what they can within the part of the universe we even have access to.
What does that mean for temp controlled vaping? It means we have more information than we did, and everyone will need to figure out for themselves what they will do with that data.
I will note that there is "good" science and "junk" science, and I'd like to get rid of the junk, but early investigations into these issues appear to be "good" science and those who have interest should take heed, and act accordingly.
Sadly, science really isn't.... emphasized in our society as much as it used to be (to my recollection, it could be that I just live in Tucson AZ) but informed, interested persons reading ACTUAL scientific publications? Not so much anymore, although John Oliver says this much better than I ever could-- it's an episode worth watching, IMO, and taking heed of, as our media is no longer capable or willing to report objectively on scientific issues, hell ANYTHING.
Sigh.
Thank you Mike, you have improved my vaping experience a great deal, and I'm fairly certain, made it healthier. I appreciate your hard work.
Anna
I absolutely agree that research thus far (funded or not) is going to demonstrate trends, and probabilities, not absolutes as unfortunately the Real World is like that-- impossibly complicated.
With that said, if no research is ever started, we will have nothing to base our decisions on, period, even though we are still postulating within the known universe based on variables OUR senses can examine and measure with increasing precision and reliability, but there are going to be things in this world that remain non-specific.
Much of science involves correcting previous science, or refining it, and that's a good thing, not a bad thing. There's no way that studies done yet on vaping are going to lead to precise outcomes, but I'll take some knowledge and generalities based on what is known so far over ignorance, any day of the week.
In My Opinion (and I believe in science, just as much as I believe in my Creator) science is as much of a "religion" as anything else, it's merely examining the known universe and working on repeatable, predictable results leading to general outcomes, which is a fantastic thing. I was raised by a pair of pretty notable geneticists and science was my religion growing up. It's interesting, both my parents as they aged still enjoy science, but really turned to more esoteric pursuits and neither one are atheists anymore.
I was an atheist for a long time, and really was very involved in science, and I still believe in the methodology and the usefulness of it, but many scientists understand that they are working with sets of postulates and measuring what they can within the part of the universe we even have access to.
What does that mean for temp controlled vaping? It means we have more information than we did, and everyone will need to figure out for themselves what they will do with that data.
I will note that there is "good" science and "junk" science, and I'd like to get rid of the junk, but early investigations into these issues appear to be "good" science and those who have interest should take heed, and act accordingly.
Sadly, science really isn't.... emphasized in our society as much as it used to be (to my recollection, it could be that I just live in Tucson AZ) but informed, interested persons reading ACTUAL scientific publications? Not so much anymore, although John Oliver says this much better than I ever could-- it's an episode worth watching, IMO, and taking heed of, as our media is no longer capable or willing to report objectively on scientific issues, hell ANYTHING.
Sigh.
Thank you Mike, you have improved my vaping experience a great deal, and I'm fairly certain, made it healthier. I appreciate your hard work.
Anna
You forgot the phase of the moon!
That is why the Wang study grabbed me so hard when I first saw it. Yeah, it wasnt actual vape gear, but it did clearly document the thermal degradation phenomena, and told us "about" what temps it would occur at.
Prior to Wang, Guiss was the only one who looked at temp, but his study totally lacked the closed chamber and airflow variables, so it was discredited as soon as the ink was dry. Temperature is the critical variable, and Wang nailed that.
All of these other tests looking at watts and devices were like saying that octane equals speed. Yeah, maybe related, but speed is the result of many things working together.
For latecomers to this thread who use TC, in a nutshell, just remember VapingwithMike420 and it's all good.
I usually do Temco too. I recently bought 24g from here. They have a bunch. U.S. too.Under 420 safe. Got it.
And a question: Do you know anything about UD ss 316L wire (sold at FT)? Temco is out, and I need a spool of 26 g. $2.06 Authentic UD 316L Stainless Steel Resistance Wire for Rebuildable Atomizers - 26 AWG / 0.4mm*10m / 11.3ohm at FastTech - Worldwide Free Shipping
Thanks!
Spooled 316L Stainless Steel Wire - (Regular Round and Flat Ribbon)
Thanks!
I don't get it--how can wire be regular round and flat ribbon????
Anyway, I usually buy from either Temco or Lightning Vapes, and I still have a spool of 28 g, so I figured I might grab some 26 g from FT, since I was shopping there anyway (10% off thru tomorrow--CANDY).
Ohhhhhhhh, ribbon wire is great for gennies!Thanks!
I don't get it--how can wire be regular round and flat ribbon????
Anyway, I usually buy from either Temco or Lightning Vapes, and I still have a spool of 28 g, so I figured I might grab some 26 g from FT, since I was shopping there anyway (10% off thru tomorrow--CANDY).
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
