Acetyl Proprionyl, Diacetyl, Acetoine HELP

[vangrl27]

Yes, I have been waiting. I thought I heard it mentioned that it was going to be in a medical journal? Right or wrong? It's been a long time since I listened to that show.

not sure but I think the "medical journal' was in reference to that Fundraiser where he tested 160 different e-juices and found 69% contained Diacetyl.
The Ethylene discussion appears to me to be from another test, and that he was just going to make an announcement about it....I could be wrong, but i doubt he would have said "a few days" if it was to be published in a medical journal, and this radio show was broadcast way before he mentioned anything about the Fundraiser results.

I may be alone here but I find it really odd that there wasn't an immediate statement released so that others that may have purchased the same e-juice that he tested were made aware of the ethylene.

 

[Mowgli]

Yes, I have been waiting. I thought I heard it mentioned that it was going to be in a medical journal? Right or wrong? It's been a long time since I listened to that show.

On May 8 I asked on his FB timeline "I saw on ECF that the preliminary results on the flavors study was featured on Vaper's Place. That site uses Flash so I couldn't watch. Would you share a link to text based results or a video or are the results even ready to be shared? Thanks Good Doctor."

and he said "Unfortunately there is no text yet. The results will be published in a medical journal soon (the paper is currently being prepared)."

 

[gunderpersonn]

Hi Everyone,
I've worked at a research 1 institution for around 8 years (There are only about 70 classified as R1 out there in the US) Peer-reviewed research never gets released until around six months after the report was submitted. That is because many people (a board) have to review the research, define it as credible and determine the conclusions are not only credible but worthy of publishing. Rarely does the average consumer know about these studies or how they happen. I'm talking about the gambit of serious cancer treatments to benign eye treatments. So don't be alarmed that 1.) you may not have access to the actual report (publisher's don't like to give out reports without charging) or that 2.) it won't be published for a long time. or 3) that you will never hear about it in the media (but you will in the worst way possible because they exploit findings). I've seen worse and scarier reports that have not been published in more than a year or ever. The only reason you are even privy to this early information is because Dr. Konstantinos' has made it public. Most of this stuff is off the radar and often kept off the radar. Peer reviewed research is important but rarely does it make the news or provide instant public announcements. There are good reasons for it and bad reasons for it. But feel good that we have a researcher who is willing to release preliminary findings and make them public.

 

[vangrl27]

Hi Everyone,
I've worked at a research 1 institution for around 8 years (There are only about 70 classified as R1 out there in the US) Peer-reviewed research never gets released until around six months after the report was submitted. That is because many people (a board) have to review the research, define it as credible and determine the conclusions are not only credible but worthy of publishing. Rarely does the average consumer know about these studies or how they happen. I'm talking about the gambit of serious cancer treatments to benign eye treatments. So don't be alarmed that 1.) you may not have access to the actual report (publisher's don't like to give out reports without charging) or that 2.) it won't be published for a long time. or 3) that you will never hear about it in the media (but you will in the worst way possible because they exploit findings). I've seen worse and scarier reports that have not been published in more than a year or ever. The only reason you are even privy to this early information is because Dr. Konstantinos' has made it public. Most of this stuff is off the radar and often kept off the radar. Peer reviewed research is important but rarely does it make the news or provide instant public announcements. There are good reasons for it and bad reasons for it. But feel good that we have a researcher who is willing to release preliminary findings and make them public.

Good info thanks!

I was wrong, I re-listened to that radio show (starting at exactly 1 hour in), and the Ethylene findings are going to be a published study. It is not part of the 160 e-juice study that the Dr. had initiated, it was a study done by someone else that the Dr was asked to review to evaluate whether it should be published. He did say that he thought it would be published in a few days to a few weeks, so it may be that the study was done a long time ago and is very close to being published, but not as fast as the DR thought, or maybe they decided against publishing it for some reason.

I guess I thought that news was just going to hit the vaping community in the same way that the white food coloring fiasco did.

 

[Chelar]

hey, Hi!

I've some interrogation , at first we had diacetyl and it was replaced by acetoin and acetyl propionyl in the diacetyl free products, now we have diacetyl, acetoin and acetyl propionyl free so what chemicals replaces them? how do we know that it's safer and not worse?

I think it's probably endless since chemical suppliers can produces thousand of differents diketones.

maybe it's dumb but I'd really like to know what's used instead of DAA .

ps: sorry for my english, I'm trying to learn.

 

[TheRac25]

Did anyone ever hear anything else regarding this ?

"massive amounts (70%) of ethylene glyc."

what does this even mean? the samples contained 70% of this substance or 70% of the samples tested positive for "massive amounts" whatever that means

 

[Jonathan Tittle]

Ethylene Glycol (link)

Not sure what is meant specifically as I've not read the report, though if some e-liquids are using Ethylene Glycol instead of PG/VG, that'd be a major issue and it'd start with the distributor and the improper labeling (or rather, mislabeling) of their chemicals.

I'd like to hear more about it honestly as I'd like to know where the source of the chemicals are coming from, as I'm sure others would as well, so that they don't end up buying the same thing when they are mixing their e-liquids.

 

[vangrl27]

what does this even mean? the samples contained 70% of this substance or 70% of the samples tested positive for "massive amounts" whatever that means

the samples contained up to 70% ethylene glycol. One would take that info and assume E.G was used instead of PG?

 

[Not A One]

the samples contained up to 70% ethylene glycol. One would take that info and assume E.G was used instead of PG?

Were they testing Chinese flavorings that hadn't gone through any kind of quality control after importation? That's where this usually crops up.

 

[vangrl27]

No
listen to the broadcast

 

[Not A One]

No
listen to the broadcast

No
i don't have time for that

They tested flavors manufactured in the US with no imported Asian components?

EDIT: Never mind, it was only several minutes of the broadcast devoted to this particular subject. He did not say where the ethylene glycol-containing flavors came from. Please do not make up answers to my questions.

Lets try again:

the samples contained up to 70% ethylene glycol. One would take that info and assume E.G was used instead of PG?

I wonder, were they testing Chinese flavorings that hadn't gone through any kind of quality control after importation? That's where this usually crops up. It's also what I would expect someone to test if their goal was to shock consumers, and what I would expect someone to have tested if they said there were results but didn't immediately namedrop American or European manufacturers. Granted, the doctor might just have been protecting his colleague's big reveal, but he sure wasn't shy about bringing up ethylene glycol all the same.

A lot of times when studies are "about to be published" but never get published, it's because the data was incorrectly interpreted or fabricated outright.

 

[vangrl27]

No
i don't have time for that

They tested flavors manufactured in the US with no imported Asian components?

EDIT: Never mind, it was only several minutes of the broadcast devoted to this particular subject. He did not say where the ethylene glycol-containing flavors came from. Please do not make up answers to my questions.

Lets try again:

I wonder, were they testing Chinese flavorings that hadn't gone through any kind of quality control after importation? That's where this usually crops up. It's also what I would expect someone to test if their goal was to shock consumers, and what I would expect someone to have tested if they said there were results but didn't immediately namedrop American or European manufacturers. Granted, the doctor might just have been protecting his colleague's big reveal, but he sure wasn't shy about bringing up ethylene glycol all the same.

A lot of times when studies are "about to be published" but never get published, it's because the data was incorrectly interpreted or fabricated outright.

You asked me if they were testing Chinese Flavourings, and I said no, as they were not testing Chinese flavourings, they were testing e-juice. It may be that the data was incorrectly interpreted, but I highly doubt that that it was all fabricated for fear mongering purposes.

 

[Mowgli]

the samples contained up to 70% ethylene glycol. NO

ethylene glycol?

Quotes from the Donate to Dr Farsalinos' new study thread -

Post 86

I saw in another thread that the study has preliminary results.
69% of the 150+ flavors tested contained diacetyl.
It was on Vaper's Place show but that uses Flash and I don't.

Anyone have a flash-free link or a text breakdown of the results or....?


Thanks

Post 91

Vapers Place - Show Schedule and Replays

click: VP Live - Smoke Free Radio Episode 3 and move over to the 1:21:30 mark.

At 1:21:30 Dimitri begins discussing his interview with Dr. Farsalino regarding the doctor's recent flavor study.

The voices:

James says:
"One of the things we need to keep in mind here is we're talking about something that's inhalable..."

Dimitri says:
"Let me start off by saying how this study got started. For those of you who don't know, Dr. Farsalino was doing a study on NETs. For people who don't know what NETs are... "

My note: It's very important to listen to the background Dimitri gives about Dr. Farsalino's older NETs study. This leads up to the discussion with Dr. Farsalino on his preliminary report of his most recent study - chemical analysis of a large sampling of today's flavored e-liquids.

Dimitri's interview with Dr. Farsalino begins at 1:23:36.

The two undesirable ingredients found in quite a few of the flavor samples are:
diacetyl and acetyl propionyl

An interesting excerpt beginning at 1:26:35

Dr. Farsalino: Now, I'm not accusing the vendors. I think there was a big mistake in the strategy. And this mistake started from 2010. The mistake was that when the issue of diacetyl came up, basically business, every vendor just asked this flavoring supplier whether the liquid, the flavorings, had diacetyl or not. And they just accepted an oral response or a phone response that, 'No, our flavorings are diacetyl free.' They didn't ever ask for proof that they are diacetyl free, which means the result [inaudible] (sounded like "is questioned.")

Dimitri: No chemical studies or... [inaudible]

Dr. Farsalino: No chemicals analysis to make sure that the liquid is diacetyl free. And I think that was the problem. It's not that the vendors knew that the liquids were containing diacetyl and they just tried to hide it. It's basically that the vendors didn't even know it."

Dimitri: And obviously the vendors didn't do the testing themselves as well...

Dr. Farsalino: Exactly.

Dimitri: ... on the flavors. They basically went on the word of the flavoring company. They didn't test it. The vendors themselves didn't test it. They began mixing, thinking they had a safe ingredient.

Dr. Farsalino: Although in my opinion I think that it's the job of the flavoring supplier to do the test. The problem is that the e-cigarette vendors are the ones who are marketing the products. So, at the end it's their responsibility towards the consumers.

 

[vangrl27]

ethylene glycol?

Quotes from the Donate to Dr Farsalinos' new study thread -

Post 86



Post 91

Mowgli if you go to post 597 on this thread, there is a link to another radio show that Dr K was on, it's that interview that he talks about Ethylene glycol.

 

[Sdh]

No
i don't have time for that

They tested flavors manufactured in the US with no imported Asian components?

EDIT: Never mind, it was only several minutes of the broadcast devoted to this particular subject. He did not say where the ethylene glycol-containing flavors came from. Please do not make up answers to my questions.

Lets try again:

I wonder, were they testing Chinese flavorings that hadn't gone through any kind of quality control after importation? That's where this usually crops up. It's also what I would expect someone to test if their goal was to shock consumers, and what I would expect someone to have tested if they said there were results but didn't immediately namedrop American or European manufacturers. Granted, the doctor might just have been protecting his colleague's big reveal, but he sure wasn't shy about bringing up ethylene glycol all the same.

A lot of times when studies are "about to be published" but never get published, it's because the data was incorrectly interpreted or fabricated outright.

I have been following flavoring safety for some time. Please be informed about Dr. F's study. Clinical evidence is not a fabrication in regards to Dr. F's study. Patience and knowledge is key.

 

[Not A One]

I have been following flavoring safety for some time. Please be informed about Dr. F's study. Clinical evidence is not a fabrication in regards to Dr. F's study. Patience and knowledge is key.

We're not discussing Doctor F's study, but thanks.

 

[Not A One]

You asked me if they were testing Chinese Flavourings, and I said no, as they were not testing Chinese flavourings, they were testing e-juice. It may be that the data was incorrectly interpreted, but I highly doubt that that it was all fabricated for fear mongering purposes.

Darn it. Yes, I said "flavorings." I meant "e-juice." Apologies for the broken semantics. The spirit of the question I think is still relevant; were they testing imported Chinese stuff/e-juice/flavors/mislabeled antifreeze? Read up on ethylene glycol; the big scares tend to come from Asia.

EDIT: Actually, the big scares were all diethylene glycol; there hasn't been much of a problem with ethylene glycol contamination until this exciting new study that isn't being published for one reason or another.

 

[vangrl27]

Darn it. Yes, I said "flavorings." I meant "e-juice." Apologies for the broken semantics. The spirit of the question I think is still relevant; were they testing imported Chinese stuff/e-juice/flavors/mislabeled antifreeze? Read up on ethylene glycol; the big scares tend to come from Asia.

EDIT: Actually, the big scares were all diethylene glycol; there hasn't been much of a problem with ethylene glycol contamination until this exciting new study that isn't being published for one reason or another.

I sent a p.m to Dr Konstantinos on facebook regarding this.

He said the study has already been published. He also said no companies were mentioned.

I asked him if the press release was available to the public and he sent me this link-
Chemical hazards present in liquids and vapors of electronic cigarettes - Online First - Springer

I don't know, is this going to be the type of study press release that the big fundraising flavour test is going to be like? it all seems a bit hoke to me, I mean who sees this stuff?

 

[Not A One]

Scientists see that stuff. It's been buried pretty well; I'm surprised the news media hasn't jumped all over this.

Looks interesting. I'll see if I can get access to it. The trace nicotine doesn't surprise me (come on, guys, 15 µg/ml is acceptable for residual contamination in "non-nic" juices). I do not like that they're not listing manufacturers because the source could be any company selling e-juice in Germany. Generally speaking, scientists indicate where they got their chemicals for reproducibility purposes. Not doing this is a huge red flag, but not necessarily indicative of anything shady; maybe they're scared. I'm still putting my money on the ethylene glycol ones originating in Asia.

Someone needs to continue their analysis of vapor using straight VG, straight PG, and single flavor components in PG and VG so we can understand what's being evolved during vaporization if anything, and how much. That they found formaldehyde was interesting but I'm not sure how useful since they only tested completed juice and didn't even say which or what components were in it initially.

 

[Vennebien]

I wonder about Hangsen and Dekang. They both been claiming no Diacetyl for years so they have known about it since the start and were the first to make juices. What sets them apart is that they also make their own flavorings. I'd love to see their stuff tested more than any other juice.