Anyone speak metric?

[Vocalek]

I ran across this article describing TSNAs in mainstream tobacco smoke and am having trouble understanding how the quantities compare to the
the quantity in njoy vapor. Only one of the 4 types found in the liquid (quantity of 8 ng/g total) is present in the vapor. "ANALYZE's best estimate was that the concentration of NAT in the aerosol samples were 2 - 5 ng/L (i.e.,detectable, but not reliably quantifiable). NNN, NAB, and NNK were not detected." Document available at: http://www.casaa.org/files/Study_TSNAs_in_NJOY_Vapor.pdf

Now that's expressed as nanograms per Liter. That's a very, very teensy amount, right?

This abstract talks about mg/L (milligrams per Liter) in mainstream smoke, ranging from 0.5 to 100.

Abstract An improved method was developed for the determination of the four major tobacco-specific nitrosamines(TSNAs) in mainstream cigarette smoke. The new method offers decreased sample preparation and analysis time as compared to traditional methods. This method uses isotope dilution liquid chromatography coupled with a tandem mass spectrometer with electrospray ionization and is significantly more sensitive than traditional methods. It also shows no evidence of artifactual formation of TSNAs. Sample concentrations were determined for four TSNAs in mainstream smoke using two isotopically labeled TSNAs analogues as internal standards. Mainstream smoke was collected on an industry standard 44-mm Cambridge filter pad, extracted with 0.1 mol/L ammonium acetate, purified by solid-phase extraction, and analyzed without further sample cleanup. The analytical column is a 3.9 mm × 150 mm Waters Symmertry Shield RP18 column and volume fraction of the mobile phase is 50% methanol, 50% water containing 0.1% acetic acid. The results show that the linear range is 0.5–100.0 mg/L except for N-nitrosoanabasine (NAB) from 0.25 to 50.0 mg/L. The limits of detection are 0.1 mg/L for N-nitrosonornicotine (NNN), 0.08 mg/L for 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-py-ridyl)-1-butanone (NNK), 0.05 mg/L for N-nitrosoanatabine (NAT) and 0.06 mg/L for NAB. The recoveries of the four TSNAs are from 90.2% to 105.7%.

SpringerLink - Journal Article

It looks as if 1 mg is a heck of a lot of nanograms. I found an online converter and plugged the lower end of the range, "0.05" into the mg. field and the answer came up 500,000 nanograms. That seems to be a much bigger number than a range of 2 to 5 nanograms of NAT in vapor.

Vapor:
2 to 5 nanograms per Liter (only NAT is present)

Smoke:
500,000 to 100,000,000 nanograms per Liter (all 4 are present)

Am I looking at this correctly? Is the comparison of the high end of the two ranges really 20 million to 1?

 

[Katya]

You're correct, Vocalek.

1 gram = 1 000 000 000 nanograms
1 milligram = 1 000 000 nanograms
So, 0.5 mg = 500 000 nanograms, and so on. A lot of zeros.

 

[Captu4ik]

OK, so we're worried about what ?

I wonder (can't find them myself) what the numbers are for the TSNA's contained in Pharma nicotine products, if they are that low.

There are only 2 places that the TSNA's in e-liquid would come from, the Nicotine itself, or the Tobacco Absolute (an e-liquid tobacco flavoring). While presumably it is coming from the tobacco-extracted Nicotine (the presumption is made because Pharma nicotine products contain TSNA's), it could also be coming from the Tobacco Absolute, which would mean non-tobacco flavors would contain no TSNA's.

I wish that the testing required to ascertain these things wasn't so pricey as I would have the tests done myself ...

 

[Vocalek]

OK, so we're worried about what ?

I wonder (can't find them myself) what the numbers are for the TSNA's contained in Pharma nicotine products, if they are that low.

There are only 2 places that the TSNA's in e-liquid would come from, the Nicotine itself, or the Tobacco Absolute (an e-liquid tobacco flavoring). While presumably it is coming from the tobacco-extracted Nicotine (the presumption is made because Pharma nicotine products contain TSNA's), it could also be coming from the Tobacco Absolute, which would mean non-tobacco flavors would contain no TSNA's.

I wish that the testing required to ascertain these things wasn't so pricey as I would have the tests done myself ...

There is a chart that does include the figures for some of the pharma nic products: http://www.casaa.org/files/TSNA_Chart(1).pdf

I was interested in this particular study because they were talking about the TSNAs in smoke, as opposed to the TSNAs in an unburned cigarette. If cooking meat creates nitrosamines that were not in the uncooked meat, is it possible that burning tobacco increases the TSNAs through the process of combustion? If that's the case, the figure for Marlboros in the linked chart could be way low, because that's based on the weight of the tobacco, not the volume of smoke.

Likewise, the figure of 8 ng./g in the chart for the e-cigarette is specifically for the liquid of a 16 mg. cartridge and the 2-5 ng./L range is for the vapor (which only contains NAT). I'm thinking the reason for this is that vaporization is somewhat like distillation -- some of the impurities get left behind when the liquid turns into a gas.

A month or so ago, Dr. Siegel published a review of a study that shows a lot of TSNAs end up in the body of those who use nicotine gum. So that's another question: What quantity of TSNAs ends up in the body from each of these various sources?

Obviously, if some of the TSNAs found in the liquid don't make it into the vapor, they are not getting into our bodies (because we don't drink the liquid.)

 

[Rocketman]

THe ng/g of liquid is pretty straight forward.
The ng/l is the vapor which (neglecting any suspended heavy metals ) would be about the same as air (maybe a little heavier because of suspended droplet size). You could use 1.2 g/l and easily be within a factor of 2 or less.

Rocket

 

[Captu4ik]

Obviously, if some of the TSNAs found in the liquid don't make it into the vapor, they are not getting into our bodies (because we don't drink the liquid.)

For sure, the values we want to be evaluating are the amount of TSNA's ingested, for all substances, else there really isn't a basis for true comparison.

 

[v1John]

Sidestream smoke in a room actually ends up producing a higher level of carcinogens two hours long after the cigarette has been extinguished. (Also)

 

[Vocalek]

Well, let's see. The testing that NJOY had conducted showed that only one of the TSNAs found in the liquid makes it into the vaporized form. That particuar one, NAT, is not a known carcinogen. So if you start out with no carcinogens at all, 2 hours later one would hope that there would still be no carcinogens in the room.

http://www.casaa.org/files/Study_TSNAs_in_NJOY_Vapor.pdf

It is interesting that FDA found no TSNAs at all in the SE vapor. Differences in the nicotine base they used? Flavorings (tobacco absolute)?

So it appears that "carcinogens" in the vapor might vary from product to product, but my guess would be that in all cases, if there are any true carcinogens at all, the quantity is miniscule. But my guess isn't good enough. That's why we are pulling together to have air quality testing performed. Stay tuned for information on how to donate to the project.