A little PG/VG Purity Confusion..
- Thread starter mjradik
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
so the guy said to me:
"What are you doing with the glycerin?"
"Oh you know, fog machines."
"Are you a club owner?"
"Yes, its for stage effects and what not."
"Let me tell you, your lungs are much better off inhaling this glycerin than PG."
He's a closet VG man and he didn't know it! And also possibly set this thread off on the next controversial subject...
Anyone care for a Young's Double Chocolate Stout? My God its good.
"What are you doing with the glycerin?"
"Oh you know, fog machines."
"Are you a club owner?"
"Yes, its for stage effects and what not."
"Let me tell you, your lungs are much better off inhaling this glycerin than PG."
He's a closet VG man and he didn't know it! And also possibly set this thread off on the next controversial subject...
Anyone care for a Young's Double Chocolate Stout? My God its good.
There was a poster on ECF who wondered about about vaping in the house with a new infant or even a toddler present.
I have to say, that would be a concern for me, becuase I wouldn't know the answer.
I'm surprised no body has thrown the word " Kosher VG " Into the Mix yetas well as Organic.
There was another topic here where a person had to stop vaping due to rashes. Another poster mentioned PG in the liquid via the flavorings------a very small %, but when he went with VG juice that also didn't have ANY PG in the flavorings, as well as 100% organic flavorings, his problems went away.
AFAIC, anything that can keep people vaping is worthy of consideration. There are already a few vendors who fulfill these kinds of criteria, and I think they have plenty of customers, though they do cost a bit more.
Well, on topic?
Kosher doesn't mean anything for purity, just a little extra traceability.
Supposedly VG not sourced from animal fats including bio-diesel Glycerin waste that may contain pig squeezins. Not that many are (?) But in order to verify that, you would have to know the supply chain, all processing steps, storage, and transportation. So, does that knowledge sound beneficial?
There are several organizations that perform Kosher certifications (for a fee of course) and there is usually a registration or certificate that goes along with it. Some suppliers POST their Kosher certification on their web site.
It does mean that the process, raw material documentation, has been audited and found acceptable.
Not like the FDA that has private companies performing registration services (also for a fee).
Some vendors may not want to post their Kosher certifications because they can be traced
Kosher doesn't mean anything for purity, just a little extra traceability.
Supposedly VG not sourced from animal fats including bio-diesel Glycerin waste that may contain pig squeezins. Not that many are (?) But in order to verify that, you would have to know the supply chain, all processing steps, storage, and transportation. So, does that knowledge sound beneficial?
There are several organizations that perform Kosher certifications (for a fee of course) and there is usually a registration or certificate that goes along with it. Some suppliers POST their Kosher certification on their web site.
It does mean that the process, raw material documentation, has been audited and found acceptable.
Not like the FDA that has private companies performing registration services (also for a fee).
Some vendors may not want to post their Kosher certifications because they can be traced
Last edited:
100% Organic Flavorings might be Difficult to Find.
Here are the NOP Regulations for a Product to be Called Organic.
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004446
Agricultural Marketing Service - National Organic Program
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations:
Here are the NOP Regulations for a Product to be Called Organic.
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004446
Agricultural Marketing Service - National Organic Program
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations:
USP vs Food Grade vs Pharmaceutical Grade:
A Food Grade product may be USP. A USP product is Food Grade. A Pharma Grade product is USP and also probably higher grade than USP because it implies that some form of additional compliance has been met. For example:
- It is purer than the basic USP specification
- And/or, it is supplied for pharmaceutical use
- And/or, it has a license for that purpose
We don't know unless the reason is stated. It may on the other hand simply be marketing since there is no legal specification for labelling as 'pharma grade' or 'pharmaceutical grade'. However if a product is marked USP in the correct form for the product, and also labelled as pharmaceutical grade, then if it is not licensed for use in pharmaceuticals and/or proven to be used in pharmaceuticals, then you would have a civil case for false advertising against the seller.
In practical terms you cannot be assured of the suitability of a material for inhalation unless:
1. The manufacturer marks the product correctly as USP and also provides a pharmaceutical license number, which, on investigation, proves to be a license for a pharmaceutical use that includes use by inhalation or injection
2. Or, the manufacturer is of such status that you can assume they are reliably marketing the product since their visibility ensures that mis-marketing such a product would involve federal action
The only example of #2 that I know of is Dow's Optim brand of glycerine, which is marketed as an inhalable pharmaceutical although no license number is provided.
Consumption by ingestion (eating) should not be taken as suitability for inhalation even if licensed as a pharmaceutical for ingestion, since the digestive tract can easily cope with materials that the lungs cannot. Injection can probably be taken as an equivalent to inhalation. For example, pharma grade PG (that has a provable license for the purpose) can be inhaled or injected.
For everyday purposes people tend to ignore pharmaceutical licensing and use USP grade. For ultimate safety you would locate a product with a provable pharma license for inhalation or injection (but not for ingestion is this isn't relevant). Most people can't be bothered as it's too difficult.
On the other hand you can locate a retail e-liquid product that is made in a licensed laboratory and where the production is overseen by academics including professors of chemistry. You have to pay over the odds for such materials and most people aren't that bothered; the buyer decides, in the end. You only get what you pay for and if you think otherwise, good luck to you.
In my opinion there is no such thing as good, cheap e-liquid, but I know very well that I'm in a minority and I don't press the issue. The market decides what it wants - you can pay as much or as little as you like. I absolutely believe in freedom and it is an individual's choice.
A Food Grade product may be USP. A USP product is Food Grade. A Pharma Grade product is USP and also probably higher grade than USP because it implies that some form of additional compliance has been met. For example:
- It is purer than the basic USP specification
- And/or, it is supplied for pharmaceutical use
- And/or, it has a license for that purpose
We don't know unless the reason is stated. It may on the other hand simply be marketing since there is no legal specification for labelling as 'pharma grade' or 'pharmaceutical grade'. However if a product is marked USP in the correct form for the product, and also labelled as pharmaceutical grade, then if it is not licensed for use in pharmaceuticals and/or proven to be used in pharmaceuticals, then you would have a civil case for false advertising against the seller.
In practical terms you cannot be assured of the suitability of a material for inhalation unless:
1. The manufacturer marks the product correctly as USP and also provides a pharmaceutical license number, which, on investigation, proves to be a license for a pharmaceutical use that includes use by inhalation or injection
2. Or, the manufacturer is of such status that you can assume they are reliably marketing the product since their visibility ensures that mis-marketing such a product would involve federal action
The only example of #2 that I know of is Dow's Optim brand of glycerine, which is marketed as an inhalable pharmaceutical although no license number is provided.
Consumption by ingestion (eating) should not be taken as suitability for inhalation even if licensed as a pharmaceutical for ingestion, since the digestive tract can easily cope with materials that the lungs cannot. Injection can probably be taken as an equivalent to inhalation. For example, pharma grade PG (that has a provable license for the purpose) can be inhaled or injected.
For everyday purposes people tend to ignore pharmaceutical licensing and use USP grade. For ultimate safety you would locate a product with a provable pharma license for inhalation or injection (but not for ingestion is this isn't relevant). Most people can't be bothered as it's too difficult.
On the other hand you can locate a retail e-liquid product that is made in a licensed laboratory and where the production is overseen by academics including professors of chemistry. You have to pay over the odds for such materials and most people aren't that bothered; the buyer decides, in the end. You only get what you pay for and if you think otherwise, good luck to you.
In my opinion there is no such thing as good, cheap e-liquid, but I know very well that I'm in a minority and I don't press the issue. The market decides what it wants - you can pay as much or as little as you like. I absolutely believe in freedom and it is an individual's choice.
Last edited:
There is a market for a bulk supplier of PG and glycerine in gallon quantities who can provide a pharma license for inhalation/injection for the product. These materials are out there (such as Dow Optim), but nobody seems to have latched on to that.
The materials are not cheap, of course; nevertheless there would be buyers.
The materials are not cheap, of course; nevertheless there would be buyers.
I agree with Roly (except the Optim ).
Buy as far up the food chain as you can afford.
Not too many Glycerin or PG manufacturers sell USP products in 4 oz bottles.
).Buy as far up the food chain as you can afford.
Not too many Glycerin or PG manufacturers sell USP products in 4 oz bottles.
Thank you for joining Roly
If pharma grade doesn't quite have a legal meaning, than what is its technical meaning? What chemically distinguishes pharma grade VG from USP? What chemicals that are OK for the GI tract and bad for the pulmonary system are absent and to what degree?
If there is a demonstrable difference, then I have to say we're in trouble. 99% of us have not been making the smartest choice here.
I for one would happily shell out for a higher grade product.
If pharma grade doesn't quite have a legal meaning, than what is its technical meaning? What chemically distinguishes pharma grade VG from USP? What chemicals that are OK for the GI tract and bad for the pulmonary system are absent and to what degree?
If there is a demonstrable difference, then I have to say we're in trouble. 99% of us have not been making the smartest choice here.
I for one would happily shell out for a higher grade product.
What are the numerical purity requirements of the various grades we are talking about?
What impurities are tested for, and what are the maximum allowed levels?
It's easy when shopping for paint brushes in Home Depot. They have "Good", "Better", "Best" bins
I can see testing for heavy metals, aromatic solvents, EG and DEG. But what other tests are required?
New test requirements seem to be added when there is a suspect condition and when the gross spectrum area under the curve testing can't find harmful minority contaminants.
And where do these contaminants come from? Why not just eliminate the source
I believe that the source of the raw material, the extraction/conversion/purification process, the packaging process (including re-packaging) are all potential sources of harmful contaminants. Possibly in the ppm/ppb range. These harmful minority contaminants seem to be able to leak through to the final product.
If that is the case, I would pick a raw material with the fewest bad contaminants (obviously not jatropha, or contaminated animal by-products), an extraction/conversion/purification process that used as few harmful processing chemicals as possible, packaging/storage/transportation (to your front door) with as few hands in the pie as possible but as many eyes as possible.
And a clean 'start to finish documented traceability' as possible. Trade secret sources are scary.
Now as far as the Optim. It's a petrochemical product. Clean as a whistle, but a whistle made from synthetic chemicals (if you believe the chemists that say "it's all the same molecule"). Note that Optim has a shorter supply chain in the UK than here in the U.S.
Just an opinion.
What impurities are tested for, and what are the maximum allowed levels?
It's easy when shopping for paint brushes in Home Depot. They have "Good", "Better", "Best" bins
I can see testing for heavy metals, aromatic solvents, EG and DEG. But what other tests are required?
New test requirements seem to be added when there is a suspect condition and when the gross spectrum area under the curve testing can't find harmful minority contaminants.
And where do these contaminants come from? Why not just eliminate the source
I believe that the source of the raw material, the extraction/conversion/purification process, the packaging process (including re-packaging) are all potential sources of harmful contaminants. Possibly in the ppm/ppb range. These harmful minority contaminants seem to be able to leak through to the final product.
If that is the case, I would pick a raw material with the fewest bad contaminants (obviously not jatropha, or contaminated animal by-products), an extraction/conversion/purification process that used as few harmful processing chemicals as possible, packaging/storage/transportation (to your front door) with as few hands in the pie as possible but as many eyes as possible.
And a clean 'start to finish documented traceability' as possible. Trade secret sources are scary.
Now as far as the Optim. It's a petrochemical product. Clean as a whistle, but a whistle made from synthetic chemicals (if you believe the chemists that say "it's all the same molecule"). Note that Optim has a shorter supply chain in the UK than here in the U.S.
Just an opinion.
Last edited:
I would think if we're talking about 99.7% USP/EP vs. "pharma grade" the main difference would be sterility/packaging, etc. Which is important.
Rocketman what sources are you more comfortable with for VG? Palm/Soy etc?
Rocketman what sources are you more comfortable with for VG? Palm/Soy etc?
I don't know now. You guys have me so scared, I don't know what I'm more comfortable with
Underground storage tanks, drum pumps, what kind of mixing equipment does your vendor use ?
What kind of cleaning procedures does he use on that equipment?
What kind of records are maintained? Can you believe what he tells you?
again, buy as far up the food chain as you can afford.
Last edited:
Swedish snus ftw!
And yeah, Roly got me shook with that post...I'm looking at my new gallon of PnG VG and feeling kind of nervous, seriously LOL
And yeah, Roly got me shook with that post...I'm looking at my new gallon of PnG VG and feeling kind of nervous, seriously LOL
So lets do a Quick Re-Cap...
This has USP on the Label...
But because it doesn't have the "USP Verified" seal on it, it is the Manufacture who say's it is USP.
Correct?
That is correct according to USP.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
