A germ-killing vapor

[paladinx]

ok, was just asking the opinions of those who might have more knowledge on this subject than me. My own conclusion is who knows? I have no idea.

 

[rustylug]

Far from posing a threat to our health, the propylene glycol in e-smoking liquids might help keep us healthy. It would accomplish that by its germicidal action. It kills many of the major bacteria that threaten lung entry into our bodies.

Until yesterday, I was unfamiliar with this potentially beneficial consequence of propylene glycol vapor.

Back in the late '30s, researchers at the University of Chicago stumbled onto its effectiveness as a germ-killer, as related in this Time magazine story from Nov. 16, 1942:

"A powerful preventive against pneumonia, influenza and other respiratory diseases may be promised by a brilliant series of experiments conducted during the last three years at the University of Chicago's Billings Hospital. Dr. Oswald Hope Robertson last week was making final tests with a new germicidal vapor — propylene glycol — to sterilize air. If the results so far obtained are confirmed, one of the age-old searches of man will finally achieve its goal...

"...the researchers found that the propylene glycol itself was a potent germicide. One part of glycol in 2,000,000 parts of air would — within a few seconds — kill concentrations of air-suspended pneumococci, streptococci and other bacteria numbering millions to the cubic foot.

"How did it work? Respiratory disease bacteria float about in tiny droplets of water breathed, sneezed and coughed from human beings. The germicidal glycol also floats in infinitesimally small particles. Calculations showed that if droplet had to hit droplet, it would take two to 200 hours for sterilization of sprayed air to take place. Since sterilization took place in seconds, Dr. Robertson concluded that the glycol droplets must give off gas molecules which dissolve in the water droplets and kill the germs within them.

"Dr. Robertson placed groups of mice in a chamber and sprayed its air first with propylene glycol, then with influenza virus. All the mice lived. Then he sprayed the chamber with virus alone. All the mice died."

The complete Time story can be read here: Air Germicide - TIME

In a scientific summary of the discovery, it was noted that "Tests on possible deleterious effects of breathing propylene glycol containing atmospheres over long periods of time are being carried out."

Those tests were done and a second summary report on propylene glycol vapor was released:

"Propylene glycol is harmless to man when swallowed or injected into the veins. It is also harmless to mice who have breathed it for long periods. But medical science is cautious — there was still a remote chance that glycol might accumulate harmfully in the erect human lungs which, unlike those of mice, do not drain themselves. So last June Dr. Robertson began studying the effect of glycol vapor on monkeys imported from the University of Puerto Rico's School of Tropical Medicine. So far, after many months' exposure to the vapor, the monkeys are happy and fatter than ever. Dr. Robertson does not expect mankind to live, like his monkeys, continuously in an atmosphere of glycol vapor; but it should be most valuable in such crowded places as schools and theaters, where most respiratory diseases are picked up."

The monkeys lived in enclosures filled with propylene glycol vapor. No deleterious effect was ever reported. And the concentrations of PG we inhale on a regular basis surely must equal the amount inhaled by the monkeys for this test. Obviously, no scientist saw a time when a device would atomize a PG mist that would then be inhaled for fun. But time and technology has given us the electronic cigarette. With each inhalation, we are washing our lungs with a germicidal agent used today in some "air sanitizers".

Glycerine, by the way, has some germicidal impact, but not, apparently, to the degree provided by inhaling propylene glycol vapor. Glycerine is now used by dairy farmers to help prevent bacteria entering a cow's teats after milking. Glycerine both softens the teats and kills bacteria.

One more quote on PG: "The vapour from as little as 0.5 mg of propylene glycol can kill nearly all the microorganisms in a liter of heavily contaminated air within 15 seconds."

The initial experiments with PG vapor were part of a search to find ways to create clean rooms, so the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic that killed so many millions would never be repeated. Today, researchers have wondered online if propylene glycol vapor might not offer protection against a widely feared coming pandemic of bird flu, tagged H5N1.

Imagine e-smokers being healthier than non-smokers in such a scenario.

Dammmmmm ........ Im glad to see that this post is still on the go .... New Members should read from the start before posting

 

[TropicalBob]

Thanks, Rusty, but there are people who wouldn't believe anything unless God etched it on a stone tablet and handed it down to Moses. Even then ...

I agree on the importance of this information, however. It was most welcomed by Dr. Murray Laugesen for his Health New Zealand report. He confirmed it, found further positive tests and gave it approval in his final report on e-smoking. I'm not sure what more an intelligent person could ask for.

 

[JoeSmog]

Dammmmmm ........ Im glad to see that this post is still on the go .... New Members should read from the start before posting

Why do you folks ignore this from his quoted excerpt:
"But medical science is cautious — there was still a remote chance that glycol might accumulate harmfully in the erect human lungs which, unlike those of mice, do not drain themselves."

 

[Mikerrrs]

Wow TB very interesting. Thanks for the info.

 

[Coombs]

Why do you folks ignore this from his quoted excerpt:
"But medical science is cautious — there was still a remote chance that glycol might accumulate harmfully in the erect human lungs which, unlike those of mice, do not drain themselves."

Because, if you bother to read one more line down, It talks about the tests on monkeys to simulate the human experience.....

...not drain themselves. So last June Dr. Robertson began studying the effect of glycol vapor on monkeys imported from the University of Puerto Rico's School of Tropical Medicine. So far, after many months' exposure to the vapor, the monkeys are happy and fatter than ever.

 

[paladinx]

The report is positive. Its a good study that bob has found and i believe it talks about the positives. nice for all of us to hear. The only real questions i still have, even though I liked the positive news of the study; is what were the concentrations the chimps were actually breathing in from PG being distributed in the air as opposed to directly inhaled. 2) Do you think breathing "atmospheric" PG for a few months is a sufficient enough of time to see adverse effects? Do you think it might take longer? Even the deadly cigarettes take a longer time than this to show real negative effects.

and lastly. maybe i overlooked it. but why does PG kill germs? and if it can kill bad germs and bacteria, can it also kill good bacteria that we need ?

These are just a couple of questions I can think of from reading the study.

 

[doctormidnight]

The report is positive. Its a good study that bob has found and i believe it talks about the positives. nice for all of us to hear. The only real questions i still have, even though I liked the positive news of the study; is what were the concentrations the chimps were actually breathing in from PG being distributed in the air as opposed to directly inhaled. 2) Do you think breathing "atmospheric" PG for a few months is a sufficient enough of time to see adverse effects? Do you think it might take longer? Even the deadly cigarettes take a longer time than this to show real negative effects.

and lastly. maybe i overlooked it. but why does PG kill germs? and if it can kill bad germs and bacteria, can it also kill good bacteria that we need ?

These are just a couple of questions I can think of from reading the study.

Almost all of the "good bacteria" that exists in the human body resides in the digestive/excretory system, i.e., from the stomach on down. Only a small portion of the air and or vapor we breathe gets into the stomach. Additionally, the stomach is very acidic place, and most bacteria that live there are rather hardy.

More directly related to the questions asked, there is simply not enough data available to say whether prolonged exposure to PG in the lungs can cause adverse affects. This is one reason the FDA and other bodies are asking for full control of e-cigs - they simply don't know enough about the long-term health effects of inhaled PG on humans.

In regards to PG killing off bacteria, it seems to me that this is basically a net good. For example, consider Influenza: Influenza A kills thousands of people every year, but most of the time it's not Influenza that is doing the actual killing - it's either an underlying medical condition (myocardisis[FONT=Verdana,Arial], , transverse myelitis, B/V meningitis.[/FONT]) OR a secondary infection (most commonly B/V Pneumonia, Strep, and Staph).

Pneumonia, specifically the bacterial form, is difficult to treat because of the nature of how Influenza works. Essentially, the body's own immune system is fighting this infection so much that it will literally choke the lungs and respiratory system of those infected. This can obviously lead to problems with low O2 stats, but can also lead to other problems like hemorrhage (like one would see in a hemorrhagic Marburg virus), heart failure, and a host of other "bad ****," as the doctors say. Obviously antibiotics can treat bacterial pneumonia, but usually once that type of infection is detected, you're in a race to keep the symptoms to a minimum and try to prevent the immune system from over-reacting, which is why in an increasing number of cases, doctors will attempt a local immuno-suppression of the Neuraminidase enzyme along with antibiotic treatment. It's a novel approach which lead to the wide use of Tamiflu - but it's not always enough, no appropriate (for example, in the already immuno-suppressed such as HIV patients, infants, or those taking certain medications).

Assuming that PG can do what it's alleged to do (i.e., works as a germicidal inside the lungs when vaped with an e-cig), suddenly there's a whole new line of defense in regards to bacterial superinfection. If the lungs can be treated directly, with a germicidal vapor such as PG, it seems reasonable to think that if the dosage were correct, a significant number of bacterial pneumonia infections could be averted and/or treated with direct administration, i.e., inhalation of a PG vapor. This is important when it is noted that PG can actually cause renal failure when administered via IV in large doses.

Me personally? I feel great, I've been vaping for 2 months or so and only occasionally have had to revert to tobacco (failed atomizers), and when I do I feel like warmed up .... I've lost about 15 lbs in two months, I don't smell like an ashtray, I don't wake up in the morning feeling like a horny rhinocerous couldn't make it to the sperm bank and decided to make a deposit in my mouth, I don't wheeze when walking up hills, and I don't feel like a social outcast anymore. I've had bacterial pneumonia twice (once when I was 7 and once when I was 25), and it's absolutely horrible. If PG has the possibility of preventing it from possibly killing me, I'm more than willing to take that chance. Besides, renal failure gives you that just-tanned look you usually only get with a hot antipodean journey through the Australian outback

edit: I tried to give citations but I can't post links, so.. uh.. just trust me, I guess?

 

[Kate]

Hi Doc, thanks for your analysis. I was initially concerned that there might be a problem with killing friendly bacteria and am glad to hear that that's mostly an issue with the digestive system/gut. I haven't heard of anyone getting thrush/yeast infections in their mouths from vaping so I guess that's not a problem.

There is a compilation of information on this thread about propylene glycol that might interest you - http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-we-know-pg-safer-than-analog-cigarettes.html

 

[doctormidnight]

I've read most of that stuff previously, but thanks for the link anyway. I would point out that there is a (decidedly nit-picky on my part) quantifiable difference between "PG is safer than cigarettes" and "PG is safe."

As far as fungal infections in the mouth, my roommate in college got one and his freaking tongue swelled up to Gene Simmons proportions. He was on a yogurt diet for a week.

Which brings up an interesting point I hadn't thought of: what about cartridges? I clean mine regularly and replace the "wool" that comes with some of them - wool in quotes because half the carts I've ordered don't come with wool but are polyester (yes, I'm nit picking again) - but I don't know how other people deal with cleaning carts. I suspect a warm, moist environment could conceivably be a goldmine for fungus and other nasty critters, but you won't find them living in my carts.

 

[Kate]

I've heard people saying that the filler in their cartridges changes colour after a while and suspect that can't be a good thing. Some folk do replace the filler and clean mouthpieces. I don't use cartridges myself, I just drip directly onto the atomiser.

Here's some more discussion about safety that might interest you - http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ing/12317-how-valid-vaping-health-claims.html

 

[TropicalBob]

Assuming that PG can do what it's alleged to do (i.e., works as a germicidal inside the lungs when vaped with an e-cig), suddenly there's a whole new line of defense in regards to bacterial superinfection. If the lungs can be treated directly, with a germicidal vapor such as PG, it seems reasonable to think that if the dosage were correct, a significant number of bacterial pneumonia infections could be averted and/or treated with direct administration, i.e., inhalation of a PG vapor.

Bless you. And I'm with you. I so wish some would stop this running in circles and waving our hands and shouting "what about PG", what about "the dangers." They are threatened with suffocation under the science, yet they doubt on ....

I've had bacterial pneumonia twice (once when I was 7 and once when I was 25), and it's absolutely horrible. If PG has the possibility of preventing it from possibly killing me, I'm more than willing to take that chance.

Amen. And count me in that group.

 

[happily]

I've heard people saying that the filler in their cartridges changes colour after a while and suspect that can't be a good thing. Some folk do replace the filler and clean mouthpieces. I don't use cartridges myself, I just drip directly onto the atomiser.

Here's some more discussion about safety that might interest you - http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ing/12317-how-valid-vaping-health-claims.html

I'm done with WHAT IF's. I just removed 3996 chemicals from my body. I also removed inhaling burnt leaves and smoke. Until someone can show me that vaping is bad I am done with what if. I am absolutely positive that smoking was bad. 100% positive

good article

 

[doctormidnight]

Bless you. And I'm with you. I so wish some would stop this running in circles and waving our hands and shouting "what about PG", what about "the dangers." They are threatened with suffocation under the science, yet they doubt on ....

Oh, I don't know. A healthy dose of skepticism is always good. Skepticism without rationality, on the other hand, is awkwardly amusing and coincidentally self-defeating but I have to get my entertainment from somewhere.

 

[Nate]

I am absolutely positive that smoking was bad. 100% positive

Exactly. I'm also 100% posiitive that vaping nicotine is bad for me... but I trust it is less bad than smoking. At this point, vaping really is a matter of weighing a known risk versus something we believe is safer.

 

[Vocalek]

Exactly. I'm also 100% posiitive that vaping nicotine is bad for me... but I trust it is less bad than smoking. At this point, vaping really is a matter of weighing a known risk versus something we believe is safer.

What facts or research convinced you that vaping nicotine is bad for you? I looked, but couldn't really find anything that definitely told me this would be harmful.

 

[LittleOralFix]

What facts or research convinced you that vaping nicotine is bad for you? I looked, but couldn't really find anything that definitely told me this would be harmful.

I think the key word there is nicotine.

I think the harder thing to do would be to find a currant study not "pay for results" from big tobacco that shows nicotine is NOT harmful.

People believe nicotine is healthy? huh?

 

[TaketheRedPill]

What facts or research convinced you that vaping nicotine is bad for you? I looked, but couldn't really find anything that definitely told me this would be harmful.

google 'nicotine and small cell lung carcenoma'

also, google 'Vitamin A and smokers ex/smokers" and google "vitamin E and male smokers ex-smokers"

Vitamin A intake =300%+ increase in chance of developing cancer in smokers, even if they stop smoking (google for studies; add'l confirming source: MD team, Kaiser Permanente [HMO], Sacramento, CA); Vitamin E intake = increased risk of prostate cancer in male smokers, even if they stop smoking (source: various studies see: google)

 

[Vocalek]

I think the key word there is nicotine.

I think the harder thing to do would be to find a currant study not "pay for results" from big tobacco that shows nicotine is NOT harmful.

People believe nicotine is healthy? huh?

Take a look at Nicotine and addiction. (tobaccoharmreduction.org)

Do I believer that nicotine is "heatlhy"? That depends on what you are trying to do with it. If you are pregnant, best leave it alone if you can. If you have depression that is not responding to antidepressant medication, nicotine can help. If you have Alzheimer's or Attention Deficit Disorder, nicotine may be able to help--especially if you can't take the usual prescription medications due to medical contraindications or high costs.

There is no such thing as a medical study that proves any substance 100% safe. Can't be done. Even Dihydrogen Monoxide can kill.

 

[samysam1313]

Hi everyone. I'm new here and doing research on ecigs. Just read this whole thread. Lots of things to consider concerning PG. I have to thank all those who contributed. Especially TropicalBob for his research. I've done a bit of research myself and haven't been able to find any real negatives about PG so far, except for the fact that some people have a sensitivity to it and that it can be an irritant to some. I continue my research, but I am coming to the conclusion that PG and ecigs in general are a much healthier alternative to real cigs. I hope this thread will continue. I am very interested in the health aspects in relation to ecigs, since I have health issues myself.

I have found a web site for PG and have posted some of the highlights under Health,Safety, and E Smoking. Seems we've had PG in a multitude of products for the last 50 yrs. including in our food. If Pg is not harmful in these products, then I don't see why it would not be the same for ecigs. Although I do realize that there has not been much research done concerning inhalation of it, what has been researched does seem pretty positive. I understand the concern of those who posted about the viruses and bugs mutating into super bugs. Guess e smokers are now the lab rats where inhaling PG is concerned. I look at it this way. We are constantly exposed to all kinds of toxins in our invironment today and in that sense, we are already all lab rats. We already know the negatives of smoking real cigarettes today, so I figure PG is no more a risk then anything else we're exposed to and certainly can't be any worse than inhaling the 4,000 plus chemicals we breath in when we smoke real cigarettes. I am making a guess, but an educated one. E smoking is in it's infancy. If we were to never try anything new because there are risks involved, then we would never move forward. Life is a risk. It's a matter of choosing the path that contains as little risk as possible and from what I have learned so far, ecigs seem to be that path where smoking is concerned. The best way to minimise risk is to educate ourselves and make decisions based on that. I have decided to try these ecigarettes based on my research and am waiting for mine to arrive. I am grateful for these forums as they have helped me to find the information I needed to make my decision.