OK, Switched has jumped right into the middle of my "bandwagon" here. This is precisely what I am saying we need.
A discussion surronding the BE debacle...
- Thread starter Switched
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
OK, Switched has jumped right into the middle of my "bandwagon" here. This is precisely what I am saying we need.
OK, further discussion regarding analysis of suspect samples. I have experience working at an environmental lab as an environmental chemist. As stated previously, I was more of a "cookbook" chemist in that I simply ran approved analyses on multiple varieties of sample materials. The chemistry had already been figured out by people much more intelligent than I.
But I have had to prove my data in courtrooms many times. I can tell you that (at least when I was in this line of work) chain of custody began upon sample collection. This would, of course, have to be approved by an attorney, but I'm thinking that if the self regulatory committee deemed that all acceptable and certifiable vendors sent their products in sealed containers with lot numbers...the chain of custody could easily begin with receipt of a sample in the mail.
This sample could then be sent to a certified lab or chemist to be analyzed. As long as the chain of custody is documented, it should be legal.
This of course only covers the liquids portion of the industry...further involvement with electrical and whatnot would be needed as well.
Tell me your thoughts...
But I have had to prove my data in courtrooms many times. I can tell you that (at least when I was in this line of work) chain of custody began upon sample collection. This would, of course, have to be approved by an attorney, but I'm thinking that if the self regulatory committee deemed that all acceptable and certifiable vendors sent their products in sealed containers with lot numbers...the chain of custody could easily begin with receipt of a sample in the mail.
This sample could then be sent to a certified lab or chemist to be analyzed. As long as the chain of custody is documented, it should be legal.
This of course only covers the liquids portion of the industry...further involvement with electrical and whatnot would be needed as well.
Tell me your thoughts...
AH, AH, AH I do not jump on band wagons perse, although flattering please to not include me in yours. We may share similar point of views but I am a one man show offering my opinion, discussing issues sometime debating issues, but I hate wagon rides which often lead to drama.
So if it is cool with you I would rather walk it's good excercise
If there is no lot number there is no traceability, period.
You cannot have a good QC chain of accountability and traceability without lot number (or otherwise uniquely identifying number/mark) at EVERY STEP in the chain. The original supplier would have records of their product including lot numbers tying to sales to specific customers. All intermediaries would have their own lot numbering system for each and every modification they make from the product that comes in the receiving doors including documentation of to whom a sale was made.
This is the ONLY manner in which traceability can be maintained ... No lot number == no traceability.
Jan
Last edited:
That can be an extremely jumbo size can of worms evidence tagging which requires to be in the hands of someone or in a secure lock down. Very difficult with barrels of nicotine on the high seas, even worse if they are flown somewhere.
In all practicality, due diligence need not be complex if suffocating, keep it simple and participation will be second to none. Complicate things with too many check and balances and turn people off in the process. <---- not the desired results.
* SNIPPED from other thread posted by me
Of course this but a broad stroke procedure written on the fly, a simple one IMO, but would achieve desired results without being complicated or overly cumbersome from the managerial perspective.
It goes without saying we nee dto look closer at the procedure, but it need not be complicated just effective.
Something I need to add here. I have no idea what Brad's position was in the company, but as CEO he should never have gotten his hands dirty. A CEO is a manager, and as a manager you manage operations and employees, nothing more. Is involvement on the floor would be to be available and ensure a daily presence at minimum was felt. You do not have to be in the weeds to be in charge, and you don't have to be in the weeds for folks to know who is in charge. management and leadership go hand in hand.
AH, AH, AH I do not jump on band wagons perse, although flattering please to not include me in yours. We may share similar point of views but I am a one man show offering my opinion, discussing issues sometime debating issues, but I hate wagon rides which often lead to drama.
So if it is cool with you I would rather walk it's good excercise
Fine with me...perhaps "bandwagon" was the incorrect terminology. Allow me to say that the example you referenced is exactly what I was thinking.
I agree. That's why whatever regulatory committee would insist upon there being such prior to any recommendation. Same with sealed bottles. There is no way to formulate a chain of custody on an unsealed container.
I'm not sure if "the" lab is needed, or if it's simply that the top end nic handlers all perform a reasonable analysis of the nic content, whether done in-house or through an outside group (and I wouldn't care if it was from one specific lab or any lab with the right tools).
Using TPA for GC/MS (I hadn't known TPA did this until I saw the BE report, but, yes, it's listed under their available services ) is not bad, nor is having it done by someone else. If the focus is on just checking for the nic concentration, is GC/MS even a requirement, or would a titration performed by a professional be reasonable?
If someone ran a high-end test earlier, super, but I would absolutely expect that each bottle coming out the door can directly trace to a test result showing that the bottle has the labeled value. Any volume vendor would hopefully be working off of larger source containers, for example a 5 gallon mix of 60 mg/ml, which is used to create bottles of 60mg/ml for sale. The 5 gallon final mix container is where the lot # should come into play for outside use, the larger container of 60mg/ml from which bottles for sale are produced, tied to a single final test result. The label on the bottle should clearly have a lot # indicated, and it should be possible to look up the tested value. (There is a customer training aspect to this, people will need to learn that the 100mg/ml label may really test as 102, or 98, and still be within reasonable manufacturing tolerances -- surprise!)
Issues of cleanliness, material handling, etc. are separable.
While a vendor group checking to see that vendors are indeed doing the tests that they record, and is able to do an audit of a sample, is good, I personally wouldn't expect or require such things to occur all that frequently. The sealed bottles, chain of custody, sending things to a central authority to then pass along for formal tests is a bit more onerous or administration heavy than I would expect to be needed for normal operations, the kind of thing I would expect if a vendor has seemed to lapse than how ongoing activities would occur. My starting point is the idea that vendors are generally good people trying to do the right thing, but a bit of framework providing best practices would help.
(I absolutely agree with Jan that if a second tier vendor then does anything, in any way, to the incoming nic from the first vendor, other than strictly rebottling, then there should be a new lot number, with backup test, showing that the output is what it is said to be. The simplest example would be if a lower tier vendor buys quantity 100mg/ml, then does their own internal cutting to create a 50 mg/ml for resale -- that 50 should be checked, and have its own new lot number.)
Using TPA for GC/MS (I hadn't known TPA did this until I saw the BE report, but, yes, it's listed under their available services
) is not bad, nor is having it done by someone else. If the focus is on just checking for the nic concentration, is GC/MS even a requirement, or would a titration performed by a professional be reasonable?If someone ran a high-end test earlier, super, but I would absolutely expect that each bottle coming out the door can directly trace to a test result showing that the bottle has the labeled value. Any volume vendor would hopefully be working off of larger source containers, for example a 5 gallon mix of 60 mg/ml, which is used to create bottles of 60mg/ml for sale. The 5 gallon final mix container is where the lot # should come into play for outside use, the larger container of 60mg/ml from which bottles for sale are produced, tied to a single final test result. The label on the bottle should clearly have a lot # indicated, and it should be possible to look up the tested value. (There is a customer training aspect to this, people will need to learn that the 100mg/ml label may really test as 102, or 98, and still be within reasonable manufacturing tolerances -- surprise!)
Issues of cleanliness, material handling, etc. are separable.
While a vendor group checking to see that vendors are indeed doing the tests that they record, and is able to do an audit of a sample, is good, I personally wouldn't expect or require such things to occur all that frequently. The sealed bottles, chain of custody, sending things to a central authority to then pass along for formal tests is a bit more onerous or administration heavy than I would expect to be needed for normal operations, the kind of thing I would expect if a vendor has seemed to lapse than how ongoing activities would occur. My starting point is the idea that vendors are generally good people trying to do the right thing, but a bit of framework providing best practices would help.
(I absolutely agree with Jan that if a second tier vendor then does anything, in any way, to the incoming nic from the first vendor, other than strictly rebottling, then there should be a new lot number, with backup test, showing that the output is what it is said to be. The simplest example would be if a lower tier vendor buys quantity 100mg/ml, then does their own internal cutting to create a 50 mg/ml for resale -- that 50 should be checked, and have its own new lot number.)
Last edited:
IMO, the information regarding this should be immediately highlighed on the ECF mainpage and left there for all to see .. in an effort to insure that all members logging in see it and are aware ..
This may be a dumb question lol. And I hate to keep barging in here. But I heard there were home test kits. How easy would it be to make a kit that was very simple and only consisted of slivers of paper(like the ones for drug screening). Each strip would be for certain strengths of nic.
Example: My little imaginarytest kit has strips for 0 to 50 mg of nic. If you put a drop 24 mg onto a 6 mg strip of test paper, it reads as a fail for 6 or below.
Would something like this be possible? Or is it much more difficult to get strength readings on nicotine?
Sorry if this sounds crazy lol.
Example: My little imaginarytest kit has strips for 0 to 50 mg of nic. If you put a drop 24 mg onto a 6 mg strip of test paper, it reads as a fail for 6 or below.
Would something like this be possible? Or is it much more difficult to get strength readings on nicotine?
Sorry if this sounds crazy lol.
It sounds like what you're looking for is something akin to litmus paper. But rather than determination of rough pH, it would show a color for each range of nicotine?
Let me give my 2-cents.....Personal testing kits are being used by a number of vapers....this procedure is a "reactive approach"....my feeling is the vaping community should demand a "pro-active approach" by the manufactures, distributors, and vendors.....
When I purchase milk at the store I do not run and test it, as there are Quality controls that are pro-actively in place to assure it is safe, and if there is an issue, there are safeguards built in to address the problem....
When I purchase milk at the store I do not run and test it, as there are Quality controls that are pro-actively in place to assure it is safe, and if there is an issue, there are safeguards built in to address the problem....
Here you go, TPA GC/MS: The Flavorist Workshop
Uba -- The existing home use test kit isn't bad, does just what is should, I like it, it's just that consumer eliquid as opposed to nic base inherently has flavorings, and the flavorings can skew the results. I've only personally used it for a couple days, found one eliquid I made which tested >20% lower than I knew it was, as I had tested the source nicotine base before mixing. Creating a paper test strip might be tough, a good question though
Uba -- The existing home use test kit isn't bad, does just what is should, I like it, it's just that consumer eliquid as opposed to nic base inherently has flavorings, and the flavorings can skew the results. I've only personally used it for a couple days, found one eliquid I made which tested >20% lower than I knew it was, as I had tested the source nicotine base before mixing. Creating a paper test strip might be tough, a good question though
Tonight on Click, Bang!
Shameful and irresponsible behavior from Box Elder and VapeTV Management will be discussed live on the air.
9PM EST
VapersPlace | VP Live
Shameful and irresponsible behavior from Box Elder and VapeTV Management will be discussed live on the air.
9PM EST
VapersPlace | VP Live
Yeah. But to even make it easier than that, each piece would be for a certain strength. Then change to either a pass or fail color. There may already be something like this, Idk. But it seems it would be cheap and easy.
Here you go, TPA GC/MS: The Flavorist Workshop
Uba -- The existing home use test kit isn't bad, does just what is should, I like it, it's just that consumer eliquid as opposed to nic base inherently has flavorings, and the flavorings can skew the results. I've only personally used it for a couple days, found one eliquid I made which tested >20% lower than I knew it was, as I had tested the source nicotine base before mixing. Creating a paper test strip might be tough, a good question though
I figured there were already pretty easy test kits out there. I was also thinking that if there were something very cheap\easy to use that was fairly accurate, some retailers may ship a strip of it with the juice you purchased. Just for piece of mind.
For the time being though, I have faith in my suppliers (I hope it stays that way).
Good point!! As the smoke dies down after this "incident," I expect the vast majority of the DIY community will again be trusting toward those that cater to us. I think that's asking for another horrible situation, but next time we may not fare as well as we did this time.
MarkFM's stance in expecting the vendors to "police" themselves is great...if they'll do it. My point is, as the user base grows, so will the supplier base. The larger it becomes, the more likely it is for us to be confronted with a completely non-caring, unprofessional company hell-bent on profits with little to no regard for the safety of the user group.
Both of these instances are why I think a regulatory agency FROM THE USER BASE is the answer. I'm not saying I have all the answers, but I think it would be a terrific start.
If anything, the DIY types are the ones more likely to keep an eye on the nic base. The test is relatively simple, costs relatively little to perform on an incoming bottle of nic base.
Since we already have to be pretty good about simple record-keeping (if we want to have reproducible results -- you'll only get my recipe book, with all mixes dated, by prying it from my cold, dead, hands ), checking an incoming bottle of base is something that a fair number of us might well pick up as a habit.
Since we already have to be pretty good about simple record-keeping (if we want to have reproducible results -- you'll only get my recipe book, with all mixes dated, by prying it from my cold, dead, hands
), checking an incoming bottle of base is something that a fair number of us might well pick up as a habit.
The problem with the simple test is things that might skew results, those pesky flavorings. If all vapers switched to vaping simple flavorless nic base, then the test strips might be practical, otherwise people would scream when their 15mg tests as only 12mg.
- Status
Similar threads
