Anyone else read the Electronic cigarette liquids analysis-evaluating potentially harmful ingredients

Just reviewed the poster. It concerns me because every e-liquid manufacturer has claimed zero content of DA and AP in their products. They're obviously either telling us what they wish, or are using suppliers who are misleading them. But the fact remains 75% of them are including harmful substances in their e-juice.

Perhaps FDA regulation isn't a bad thing after all if it means these manufacturers will have to follow much stricter processes that including testing for these substances.

I hope he discloses the list of products and test results for each product.

 

Higher than the strictest guidelines, but far lower than found in cigarettes. Does that mean that all but the strictest guidelines give the liquids a pass?

Most of us here on ECF steer away from buttery flavored liquids just because diacetyl is associated with popcorn lung where people are subjected to breathing the fumes all day. It's a serious consideration and I don't vape buttery liquids. But, OTOH, how do I know that I'm not getting some that I don't know about. Who knows what's in the RY4 flavor family of liquids?

 

I stick mainly with the tobacco flavors. Occasionally, I use a little banana and cherry, but not often.

I do think that the e liquid makers need to follow some kind of protocol to keep the liquids safe. There doesn't seem to be a need to add these thinks to the flavors if you are able to DIY and not use them.

 

I like Mint Chocolates. Am wondering if I am at risk with that one.

Interesting to see how e-juice manufacturers are going to respond to this. Its a serious loss of faith as a consumer in my opinion.

 

We want the liquid to be safe, but we need to be careful. "Safe" according to us isn't always "safe" according to the government. I agree that regulations across the board are absolutely necessary to ensure the safety of these products. However, especially as far as the FDA is concerned, I don't trust that all of the regulations imposed will be necessary or helpful. My main concerns are that the FDA will (1) impose severe restrictions on access to the products, i.e. only allowing certain batteries or tanks, restricting internet sales, etc., and (2) will unnecessarily restrict the amount of nicotine in liquid to low levels (because they still believe nicotine is harmful). Both of these would lead to vaporizers being less effective and would devastate the vaping community, leading many back to cigarettes and preventing many more from quitting smoking. I'm all for preventing unhealthy levels of toxins, but when we ask for "regulation" we need to be darn specific about what we're asking for.

 

In the process of brewing beer, sometimes what is known as a "diacetyl rest" is done in order to encourage the yeast to "eat" the diacetyl produced in the fermentation process. I wonder if something like this could be done to flavorings that contain diacelyl. Obviously it would require use of a strain of flavorless yeast and the ability to filter that yeast out, but I wonder... Just a thought.

 

Diacetyl is supposedly safe to eat, but the vapors of cooking where it's present aren't safe to breath. Strange, huh?

 

Why is that, I wonder, Dave?

 

things change when you heat them , tobacco for instance

 

Has anyone seen any explanation as to why cigarette smokers have NOT been overwhelming coming down with the medical problems that inhalation of these substances are associated with? It would seem by the levels known to be in cigarettes, that 'popcorn lung' would be very common with cigarette smokers. Something just doesn't add up here.

I have always used the least sweet or creamy eliquids, only because I never found my cigarettes to have those flavors, didn't want them for my all day vapes.

 

The fact that he refers on at least two occasions to "strictest guidelines" leads me to believe that there are other standards such as "acceptable" or "standard" that for some?? reason he doesn't want to mention. This report has some "smell" to it.

 

The report doesn't 'smell', so much as the standards are only guesses at present. It was only very recently that the popcorn lung link was theorized for factory workers. There isn't any well established standard level of exposure, just theories so far.

The standards for OSHA for the factory workers is extremely low, much lower than smokers are exposed to, at best they are just trying to be 'better safe than sorry'.

 

He doesn't say who the manufacturers are or what ingredients they claimed. These may have manufacturers making no particular claims about ingredients, right?

I love sweet and creamy papers, so I'm hoping the poster is misleading.

 

Dr Farsalinos is one of the vaper's champions. Being a cardiologist and a top notch researcher and scientist, he is one of our greatest allies. This poster is a summary of a research project funded off Indigogo by Vaper and vaper juice makers. He is one of the few who produces results we can trust. If Dr. F. says its the case, I taken him at his word.

 

I am a co-author on this poster (Kistler). Many of the flavors that tested positive for DA were in fact advertized as DA-free. AP is a DA replacement, but it has been shown to be just a toxic as DA recently.

As for smokers not being known to get BO, there is still much we don't know about BO. It might be that DA or AP along with smoke other lung problems occur (COPD is fairly common, and could be misdiagnosed BO). There is evidence that BO is auto-immune, rather than a purely chemical process, and perhaps other physiological/genetic factors must be also present for the disease to take hold. One thing is clear, if you have BO and get a lung transplant, it is likely that the new lung will also get BO. BO might for some be a very slow and cumulative process, barely noticeable at first, but irreversible. That shortness of breath will never get better. In others it might take several years to develop, or it might take much less time. It is rare and not completely understood just yet.

Also, we only measured the presence and concentrations of these compounds. We have not done toxicological studies. So while these are known inhalation toxins, we did not and cannot in this particular study say that BO will occur in vapers using these particular liquids or flavors. That is for another study we are hoping to do in the future. This is a more complex issue, since across vapers there are variances in wattages, flavor %, even vaping habits. And also all the other unknowns about BO itself, independent of how the DA or AP is delivered.

In tobacco smoke these compounds are from the combustion process, and thus with smoking they are unavoidable. But this is not so with e-liquids. They are ingredients of flavors that do not have to be added, and verified as not being present. Thus they are avoidable. We believe that until rigorous toxicological studies are done by using ecig vapor that flavors not containing these compounds, and verified experimentally, should be made available. Indeed, this solution is already in the works in both the e-liquid and flavor industry. I cannot say time frames, but the wish is there on both sides.

One should always read science critically, and we are very open to questions and criticisms. Indeed the paper which should be out soon on this study went through considerable peer-review. But while the results of this study are not positive, especially to someone who loves creams and custard vapes, our goal is to make vaping as safe as possible. We also wanted to make sure this issue, which was already getting a fair amount of buzz in the online community, was studied by objective scientists who have the safety of vapers in mind, with high-level established methods, rather than those that would be all too happy to spin the results into an argument for banning.

 

Hi Kurt,

Thanks for the great work!

uh, what is BO?

You mention custards, would that extend to chocolates as well?

Thanks!

 

BO = bronchiolitis obliterans

I'm in a business where I confirm the contents of materials that I have shipped from Asia. I use a third party testing service called AsiaInspection and I had them run me a quote for third party testing for DA. Here is the quote I got:

This order can be processed with the 1 following Tests for an estimated total cost of 88 US$:

- Test Name : Chemical - GB/T 9822-2006 - Diacetyl双乙酰（2.3-丁二酮）
- Samples needed : 20g
- Lead Time : 5 day(s)
- Number of materials to be tested : 1
---------------------------------------------
Unit price : US$ 60

Now, it needs to be adjusted to a liquid, but as you can see, DA testing is not that expensive, and if you did batches the cost is about $60USD a batch.

Vendors SHOULD be doing this. It should not come down to community activism to make this happen, particularly in light of the results of this latest research.

Given how vendors create, promote and sell e-juice, I think we should be able to see third party lab testing results or confirmation from a vendor on the contents of their product before we make a decision to purchase.

 

This is good, but only if the limit of detection is about 1 microgram/mL or less. That is generally where the test becomes more expensive. I have seen many less expensive test results where the limit of detection is very high, making false negatives when significant DA/AP is actually present very possible.