There wasn't ONE worker with problems. There were several who had to have lung transplants and hundreds more showing symptoms, even workers that worked in adjacent rooms showed symptoms of epithelial damage.
Ask your favorite suppliers to remove diacetyl from their e-liquids!
- Thread starter JeffTM
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
But don't forget, B, C & E also have a mean exposure of less than 1ppm also, and from there three of six workers biopsied from plant E had findings consistent with constrictive bronchiolitis obliterans. They have short bursts of higher concentrations of exposure at just above 80ppm - we have constant (for some of us) exposure to much lower levels.
ETA:
If you're going to quote me, by the way, I'd prefer that you actually pull the entire quote, not leave out important qualifiers which I've added intentionally.
"No known safe levels." And this seems to be backed up nicely here:
Because entirely safe levels of occupational
exposure to butter-flavoring
chemicals are not known, it is
important to limit worker exposures
as much as possible.
Yes, I am comfortable extrapolating that if there are no known safe exposure levels to workers, there are no known safe exposure levels to vaping these substances. And to be blunt, I am unsure how, without animal testing in a laboratory environment, you would be able to determine otherwise.
But I would, as I've mentioned, love to be proven wrong. Please feel free to PM me your name, where you graduated with your pharmacology/toxicology degree & your licensed state of practice if you feel my lack of trust in your calculations is misplaced.
Last edited:
I am extremely interested in seeing what you come up with.
And by the way, this is a very enlightening conversation.
I hope we can keep it going.
I am extremely interested in seeing what you come up with.
And by the way, this is a very enlightening conversation.
I hope we can keep it going.
I'm interested in this too, but only if the concentrations are measured from the vapor, not the liquid. FEMA insists that heating "high priority" substances (of which diacteyl is one) increases volatility and concentration. So measuring the liquid concentration really doesn't tell us much about what we are actually exposed to.
Also, I'm interested in how regular, low concentration exposure differs from high bursts. The workers exposed to the high concentrations seemed to develop respiratory problems at a much faster rate than the consumer cases, where the issue developed over ten to 16 years. So does low concentration over time = no harm? Or does low concentration over time = slower progression of damage? Is the substance cumulative? Does it build up in the environment?
There are so many questions other than "is the concentration high enough to harm us". DC2, you're right. I hope the conversation keeps going so we can all learn more.
Shan, Pharmacology is a research discipline unrelated to Pharmacy and "state licensing". Although I make no great efforts to conceal my identity, I share the general unease that permeates this environment and prefer to retain some privacy. Where I studied and taught many years ago, and what I do with my time are not going to convince you of anything, and shouldn't. Let's see if we can reason together. We are mainly concerned with our exposure to 2,3-butanedione (diacetyl) and 2,3-pentanedione (acetyl propionyl), that are (oh so widely!) used as "buttery" flavoring agents, and both of which seem to cause damage when inhaled, in lab animals and humans. The principal investigator of the acetyl propionyl study you referenced just told me that a similar study on the third commonly used buttery flavoring molecule, acetoin, has completed and is currently in peer-review, i.e. should be available soon, but that she has not seen the data. However, there is reason to believe that it is specifically the diketone structure that is associated with this toxicity, so acetoin is not likely to be as toxic.
If we don't share certain fundamental beliefs, then surely there is nothing we can agree on. I hope that's not the case. Can we agree that the reason people passing a buttered popcorn stand don't just keel over is because there is a concentration of diacetyl at which acute toxicity is not seen, and another at which long term effects vanish as well, in other words that diacetyl, like all drugs and toxins, is bound to obey a dose-response curve that can be discovered? The three questions that I consider most relevant include what damage has been directly observed at what degree of exposure, what has been correlated statistically long term with what concentrations of these agents over how much time (both peak and average, and in conjunction with what other agents), and what level of exposure we are "enjoying" when we use e-liquids whose flavoring contains diacety (or Acetyl Propionyl).
As more information becomes available about the damage (or lack of damage) associated with different inhaled concentrations of flavoring agents, we will continue to see concentrations reported in Parts Per Million of inhaled air. What we need to get a handle on, as Panini said, is their concentration in the e-cig vapor, not in the liquid. Rather than argue about the methodology and conclusions of the few available studies, maybe we can work together to refine a model that might allow us to at least estimate the vapor concentration of flavoring compounds used in e-liquids? Diacetyl is just one that is getting attention at the moment. I rather believe similar issues will likely emerge for other flavoring agents that are mucosal irritants at high concentrations, so what we develop here will be useful long term.
"vaping" is quite different from smoking. The flavoring maker FlavourArt has published the concentration of diacetyl present in many of their flavoring concentrates, which is very helpful, but when they start to talk about level of exposure from "vaping" they reveal a lack of familiarity with the way e-liquids are used. FlavourArt calculates that an e-smoker is exposed to "0.009 ppm" in an e-smoking session, based on 1.5% diacetyl being present in their Butter flavoring, 0.3% butter flavoring being used in e-liquid, and an e-cigarette containing 0.2 ml of e-liquid
Diacetile - Flavourart. La sartoria degli aromi
This figure is useless, as e-cigarettes aren't "consumed" the way they imply, and their figure doesn't represent a (relevant) concentration we might compare to concentrations reported in the emerging toxicology studies.
How can we realistically estimate the concentration of a flavoring compound that an e-cigarette user inhales? Here is what I came up with so far. The model is simplistic. I have no experience in e-cigarette inhalation studies, but then again I don't know if anyone else does either. I would be grateful if others would look this over with an eye for errors, mistakes, incorrect assumptions etc. Hopefully we can refine the model over time.
Let's say the compound of interest is diacetyl.
In a butter flavoring concentrate the manufacturer states that the diacetyl concentration is 1.5 % or 1.5 grams per 100 grams of solution.
1 milliliter or 1 cc or 1 gram of flavoring concentrate then contains:
1 * 0.015 = 0.015 grams of diacetyl, or 15 milligrams/ml
Let's say the proportion of the butter flavoring concentrate used to flavor some e-liquid (consisting primarily of propylene glycol and glycerin) is 0.3 % (with additional flavors adding up to e.g. 5% total). This is also the figure FlavourArt uses. We have
0.003 ml of flavoring in 1 ml of e-liquid
1 milliliter (roughly equal to 1000 milligrams) of e-liquid then contains
15 * 0.003 = 0.045 milligrams of diacetyl. So far we agree with FlavourArt.
The average person breathes 15 times a minute with a volume of 0.5 liters per breath, or 7.5 liters per minute. An e-cigarette is a personal vaporizer that is used to provide an on-demand stream of vaporized e-liquid. The mechanics of currently used devices dictate a specific 2 step aspiration technique. Let's say a "chain vaper" who deeply inhales, a heavy user, is "loading" every fifth breath with vapor, such that half the breath is mixed with vapor and the other half is "a chaser", and he observes that he goes through 1 ml of e-liquid in 8 hours.
I don't think these figures are wildly off; many users consume less, and some extreme vapers use more, or use variations in their "vaping" technique, but this seems like a reasonable first pass model. During that time, 8 hours,
7.5 * 60 * 8 = 3600 liters of air were inhaled
If we believe that one fifth of that volume was vapor-loaded half way, then, for the purpose of calculating the concentration in inhaled air, we can say that about
3600 / 5 / 2 = 360 liters
of air were actually loaded with vapor. In actuality the clean air "chaser" will almost instantly dilute the loaded half-breath, during inhalation, so if anything our calculations are (properly) biased high, towards the "worst case."
That's 0.36 cubic meters of vapor-loaded air inhaled over 8 hours.
If we assume no losses, no burned e-liquid, no mopped-up leaks, the concentration of diacetyl in that loaded inhaled air is then simply the diacetyl in the 1 ml of e-liquid depleted during that time, divided by the volume of the inhaled loaded air.
0.045 mg / 0.36 m^3 = 0.125 mg/cubic meter
The customarily referenced "ppm", or parts per million concentration of a substance in air is:
24.45 * mg/m^3 / mol wt
The molecular weight of diacetyl is 86. The concentration of diacetyl in the vapor-loaded air is then:
24.45 * 0.125 / 86 = 0.036 ppm
On some short draws it might be higher. If we believe that the loaded half-breath is immediately diluted by as much fresh air, the concentration that reaches lung tissue is about half of that:
0.036 / 2 = 0.018 ppm.
Whether this represents a hazardous level of a specific substance is a completely separate issue, but at least we have a ballpark figure on inhaled vapor concentration, and a first pass model for calculating the concentration of flavorings in inhaled e-liquid vapor, expressed in units compatible with toxicology studies. Hopefully this model can be refined over time.
Notes:
The ppm conversion equation can be found at
http://www.smarte.org/smarte/dynamic/resource/sn-units-of-measure.xml.pdf
The concentration of Acetyl Propionyl in a flavor where it is used in place of diacetyl, is roughly similar. Since the molecular weight is only a little higher, the "vape air" concentrations computed from this model also work out about the same. It's also true that the Acetyl Propionyl concentrations associated with the acute respiratory damage induced by diacetyl in lab animals, are similar. For all the practical purposes at hand, these compounds are more or less interchangeable.
If we don't share certain fundamental beliefs, then surely there is nothing we can agree on. I hope that's not the case. Can we agree that the reason people passing a buttered popcorn stand don't just keel over is because there is a concentration of diacetyl at which acute toxicity is not seen, and another at which long term effects vanish as well, in other words that diacetyl, like all drugs and toxins, is bound to obey a dose-response curve that can be discovered? The three questions that I consider most relevant include what damage has been directly observed at what degree of exposure, what has been correlated statistically long term with what concentrations of these agents over how much time (both peak and average, and in conjunction with what other agents), and what level of exposure we are "enjoying" when we use e-liquids whose flavoring contains diacety (or Acetyl Propionyl).
As more information becomes available about the damage (or lack of damage) associated with different inhaled concentrations of flavoring agents, we will continue to see concentrations reported in Parts Per Million of inhaled air. What we need to get a handle on, as Panini said, is their concentration in the e-cig vapor, not in the liquid. Rather than argue about the methodology and conclusions of the few available studies, maybe we can work together to refine a model that might allow us to at least estimate the vapor concentration of flavoring compounds used in e-liquids? Diacetyl is just one that is getting attention at the moment. I rather believe similar issues will likely emerge for other flavoring agents that are mucosal irritants at high concentrations, so what we develop here will be useful long term.
"vaping" is quite different from smoking. The flavoring maker FlavourArt has published the concentration of diacetyl present in many of their flavoring concentrates, which is very helpful, but when they start to talk about level of exposure from "vaping" they reveal a lack of familiarity with the way e-liquids are used. FlavourArt calculates that an e-smoker is exposed to "0.009 ppm" in an e-smoking session, based on 1.5% diacetyl being present in their Butter flavoring, 0.3% butter flavoring being used in e-liquid, and an e-cigarette containing 0.2 ml of e-liquid
Diacetile - Flavourart. La sartoria degli aromi
This figure is useless, as e-cigarettes aren't "consumed" the way they imply, and their figure doesn't represent a (relevant) concentration we might compare to concentrations reported in the emerging toxicology studies.
How can we realistically estimate the concentration of a flavoring compound that an e-cigarette user inhales? Here is what I came up with so far. The model is simplistic. I have no experience in e-cigarette inhalation studies, but then again I don't know if anyone else does either. I would be grateful if others would look this over with an eye for errors, mistakes, incorrect assumptions etc. Hopefully we can refine the model over time.
Let's say the compound of interest is diacetyl.
In a butter flavoring concentrate the manufacturer states that the diacetyl concentration is 1.5 % or 1.5 grams per 100 grams of solution.
1 milliliter or 1 cc or 1 gram of flavoring concentrate then contains:
1 * 0.015 = 0.015 grams of diacetyl, or 15 milligrams/ml
Let's say the proportion of the butter flavoring concentrate used to flavor some e-liquid (consisting primarily of propylene glycol and glycerin) is 0.3 % (with additional flavors adding up to e.g. 5% total). This is also the figure FlavourArt uses. We have
0.003 ml of flavoring in 1 ml of e-liquid
1 milliliter (roughly equal to 1000 milligrams) of e-liquid then contains
15 * 0.003 = 0.045 milligrams of diacetyl. So far we agree with FlavourArt.
The average person breathes 15 times a minute with a volume of 0.5 liters per breath, or 7.5 liters per minute. An e-cigarette is a personal vaporizer that is used to provide an on-demand stream of vaporized e-liquid. The mechanics of currently used devices dictate a specific 2 step aspiration technique. Let's say a "chain vaper" who deeply inhales, a heavy user, is "loading" every fifth breath with vapor, such that half the breath is mixed with vapor and the other half is "a chaser", and he observes that he goes through 1 ml of e-liquid in 8 hours.
I don't think these figures are wildly off; many users consume less, and some extreme vapers use more, or use variations in their "vaping" technique, but this seems like a reasonable first pass model. During that time, 8 hours,
7.5 * 60 * 8 = 3600 liters of air were inhaled
If we believe that one fifth of that volume was vapor-loaded half way, then, for the purpose of calculating the concentration in inhaled air, we can say that about
3600 / 5 / 2 = 360 liters
of air were actually loaded with vapor. In actuality the clean air "chaser" will almost instantly dilute the loaded half-breath, during inhalation, so if anything our calculations are (properly) biased high, towards the "worst case."
That's 0.36 cubic meters of vapor-loaded air inhaled over 8 hours.
If we assume no losses, no burned e-liquid, no mopped-up leaks, the concentration of diacetyl in that loaded inhaled air is then simply the diacetyl in the 1 ml of e-liquid depleted during that time, divided by the volume of the inhaled loaded air.
0.045 mg / 0.36 m^3 = 0.125 mg/cubic meter
The customarily referenced "ppm", or parts per million concentration of a substance in air is:
24.45 * mg/m^3 / mol wt
The molecular weight of diacetyl is 86. The concentration of diacetyl in the vapor-loaded air is then:
24.45 * 0.125 / 86 = 0.036 ppm
On some short draws it might be higher. If we believe that the loaded half-breath is immediately diluted by as much fresh air, the concentration that reaches lung tissue is about half of that:
0.036 / 2 = 0.018 ppm.
Whether this represents a hazardous level of a specific substance is a completely separate issue, but at least we have a ballpark figure on inhaled vapor concentration, and a first pass model for calculating the concentration of flavorings in inhaled e-liquid vapor, expressed in units compatible with toxicology studies. Hopefully this model can be refined over time.
Notes:
The ppm conversion equation can be found at
http://www.smarte.org/smarte/dynamic/resource/sn-units-of-measure.xml.pdf
The concentration of Acetyl Propionyl in a flavor where it is used in place of diacetyl, is roughly similar. Since the molecular weight is only a little higher, the "vape air" concentrations computed from this model also work out about the same. It's also true that the Acetyl Propionyl concentrations associated with the acute respiratory damage induced by diacetyl in lab animals, are similar. For all the practical purposes at hand, these compounds are more or less interchangeable.
Fernand,
Some good work there.
Can I add some info please? Flavorings are commonly added at 20 or 25%; 10 or 15% might be used for something very strong. 30% is not unheard of and I know someone that uses 40% with some favors.
Heavy users can consume over 6ml of liquid per day, and I've heard claims of 8ml. It may be at this level of use that some is not entering the body, just being 'puffed', but there is no research on any of this in any case. A light user consumes between 1 and 2ml per day.
Some good work there.
Can I add some info please? Flavorings are commonly added at 20 or 25%; 10 or 15% might be used for something very strong. 30% is not unheard of and I know someone that uses 40% with some favors.
Heavy users can consume over 6ml of liquid per day, and I've heard claims of 8ml. It may be at this level of use that some is not entering the body, just being 'puffed', but there is no research on any of this in any case. A light user consumes between 1 and 2ml per day.
I certainly understand your desire to remain at least nominally private, Fernand, which is why I asked for the information via PM only if you were uncomfortable with my "challenge" to the idea that any level of mathematical calculations would or could prove or disprove NIOSH's statement that there is no permissible exposure level to diacetyl (and it would follow, 2,3 pentanedione aka acetyl propionyl).
There is a significant gap between showing what levels of diacetyl, et al, we may be exposing ourselves to with vaping and implying safety at any level.
Because the impasse remains that we do not have any information - none, zero - that there is a safe level of exposure over time. In fact, we have the opposite - minuscule doses do not "tickle receptors" - they cause irreversible lung disease. And yet, a safe level is being assumed, over and again because "we have not all keeled over." But we are a group of very special snowflakes, so to speak - we are purposefully inhaling vaporized diacetyl.
Without laboratory testing, we simply do not know, and cannot (in particular in any meaningful scientific way) extrapolate that there is a safe level of vaporized diacetyl, et al.
Actually, I'm not sure that we can or should agree on that - according to another of Dr. Hubbs studies:
"Studies in both rats and mice demonstrate that the cells lining airways can be damaged by inhaling diacetyl vapors as a single agent exposure in both acute and subchronic studies (Hubbs et al, 2008; Morgan et al, 2008)" - the question, in dose-response terms, would have to be at what level is acute toxicity achieved? The question of whether diacetyl obeys a provable dose-response curve would seem to be irrelavent, unless I'm missing something. Because it is a known toxin at certain levels, the question is not IF, but where the dose-response lies, no?
Which is all very reasonable from the standpoint of research. Frankly, not-so-much with "my lungs." I realize that comes across as pretty flip, but really, let me just stop and remind you that's what we're really talking about here: lung disease which could be entirely, 100% preventable in those who wish to prevent it. With nothing more than disclosure from my vendors, I could avoid any potential risk of BOS (bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome). Now, it may well come out that other flavoring agents carry similar risks. Maybe by eliminating these specific diketone bodies from juice, we are one step closer to discovering further risks from non-diketone flavorings? Just something to think about.
Which is actually why I'm surprised you've ignored the information shared in this post: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-liquids-safety-discussion-8.html#post2030484
It seems to have direct bearing on your calculations below.
If I appear adversarial, I'd like to add this, from your first post on the subject to explain why I find the current discussion (that "we" are working toward a similar goal) to have a different flavor, as it were, than your previous stance:
Last edited:
Thanks, Roly. We should be working towards a range anyway. The math in this model is linear, we can multiply by 3 to cover increasing from 1 to 3 ml/8 hours, and by 10 to raise the butter flavor concentrate used from 0.3% to 3%. Even if some brave souls uses 30% or even more flavoring, they are likely dealing with some pretty dilute flavoring, I've heard of some fruit flavors like that, but any actual butter flavor component in their vape is not likely to exceed 3% or I couldn't imagine it being palatable. So how about we multiply by 30 to get the high end? But if you want to consider even more extreme Guiness Book of Records Material, just factor it in.
Shan, I have not had a chance yet to read everything posted on this site. I apologize. There were some discussions of calculations, haven't read them all, but with the ruling conclusion apparently being that you can't know anything about vaping. I don't work in this field, but I don't see the phase balance issue you reference changing much if we are aiming for an estimate of total concentration in inspired air. What impact do you see? You mean some stays in aearosol and drops the available gas concentration? But then, if you choose to believe that it takes it out of the picture, doesn't it just make our calculation more conservative? Isn't biochemistry basically all liquid phase anyway? And do you think that completely throwing up our hands is best?
There are some people who apparently think that I'm endorsing or recommending use of diacetyl, and I've received an intimidating PM. That's more than absurd. Of course not, why on earth would I do that when I'm explicitly leaning towards abandoning all flavoring?
[Added] I'm new to this forum and had no idea this topic had already degenerated several times into bizarre behavior. I stand by what I said here, but I understand that balanced discussion can be very difficult with all that baggage. Thank you.
Shan, I have not had a chance yet to read everything posted on this site. I apologize. There were some discussions of calculations, haven't read them all, but with the ruling conclusion apparently being that you can't know anything about vaping. I don't work in this field, but I don't see the phase balance issue you reference changing much if we are aiming for an estimate of total concentration in inspired air. What impact do you see? You mean some stays in aearosol and drops the available gas concentration? But then, if you choose to believe that it takes it out of the picture, doesn't it just make our calculation more conservative? Isn't biochemistry basically all liquid phase anyway? And do you think that completely throwing up our hands is best?
There are some people who apparently think that I'm endorsing or recommending use of diacetyl, and I've received an intimidating PM. That's more than absurd. Of course not, why on earth would I do that when I'm explicitly leaning towards abandoning all flavoring?
[Added] I'm new to this forum and had no idea this topic had already degenerated several times into bizarre behavior. I stand by what I said here, but I understand that balanced discussion can be very difficult with all that baggage. Thank you.
Last edited:
Since nobody has come up with anything that would show this is an absurd model, let's look at what factoring in higher amounts vaped and higher percentages of flavoring do to our estimate of inhaled diacetyl concentration. There could be all sorts of reasons why this might be too high or too low, but you can follow the reasoning and decide if it's plausible. I didn't want to walk away without at least finishing this up. Let's follow Roly's suggestion of 6 ml juice per day, say 3 ml juice per 8 hours, and raise the butter-type flavoring to 3% of total e-liquid (whatever other flavors might make up 10, 20 or 30% of the whole). We are keeping the other assumptions the same, so all me need to do is multiply.
0.036 * 10 * 3 = 1.08 ppm
That might represent a high average. But if we are using more, say 12% rather than 3%, of e.g. a rich vanillaey buttery type flavor (and who can say exactly how much there is in those dessert-type mail-order vapes that many of us love), we should by all means raise the number proportionately again, 12/3 = four fold:
1.08 * 4 = 4.32 ppm.
If we redo the calculations for acetyl propionyl used in higher concentration, as I saw in a popular flavoring, the numbers go even higher. In contrast to what some people thought this was showing, the end result here is nothing short of terrifying. Setting aside the popcorn workplace statistical data for low concentrations, if animal data shows devastation of the respiratory tract after 6 hours exposure to either diacetyl or acetyl propionyl in the 100-350 ppm range, how do you feel about being exposed to 4.32 ppm or more day after day? My very personal reaction is .... RUN!
So, where does that put us? The lack of a "Permissible Exposure Level" for diacetyl is a statutory fact. That we truly have no idea what level of diacetyl is safe is a scientific fact. But neither of these means that no safe level of diacetyl exists, anybody who eats buttered toast every morning knows that. Apparently there are people who feel that vapers are incapable of understanding such "complicated stuff". To twist the logic "for peoples' own good", and state, or imply, that ALL levels of diacetyl are known to be deadly, is in my personal opinion a practice as counterproductive as telling kids, who know better, that .........ion will make them blind. This is why we need SOME sense of how much diacetyl a vaper is exposed to, and that's why I proposed a way to make a rough estimate of the concentration in vaped air. I'm not a "licensed healthcare provider", or an expert in these matters, just another human being.
Nobody in his right mind would look at the lab animal results and conclude that 1/25th to 1/100th of a concentration that quickly produces devastating and irreversible damage is something that they feel comfortable breathing, especially on a long term basis. It's just common sense. Yet it looks like heavy e-cig users who like their e-liquid heavily flavored with rich buttery flavors are probably doing just that. It could be that it's time to rethink the whole flavoring issue and at least consider "going back" to use of e-liquids that are as lightly flavored as possible, at least until the issues are better understood.
I personally believe that whatever the flavor-makers do, many people should consider making some adjustments. My personal reaction is to be trying out juices with more nicotine, mere traces of flavoring and some menthol.
0.036 * 10 * 3 = 1.08 ppm
That might represent a high average. But if we are using more, say 12% rather than 3%, of e.g. a rich vanillaey buttery type flavor (and who can say exactly how much there is in those dessert-type mail-order vapes that many of us love), we should by all means raise the number proportionately again, 12/3 = four fold:
1.08 * 4 = 4.32 ppm.
If we redo the calculations for acetyl propionyl used in higher concentration, as I saw in a popular flavoring, the numbers go even higher. In contrast to what some people thought this was showing, the end result here is nothing short of terrifying. Setting aside the popcorn workplace statistical data for low concentrations, if animal data shows devastation of the respiratory tract after 6 hours exposure to either diacetyl or acetyl propionyl in the 100-350 ppm range, how do you feel about being exposed to 4.32 ppm or more day after day? My very personal reaction is .... RUN!
So, where does that put us? The lack of a "Permissible Exposure Level" for diacetyl is a statutory fact. That we truly have no idea what level of diacetyl is safe is a scientific fact. But neither of these means that no safe level of diacetyl exists, anybody who eats buttered toast every morning knows that. Apparently there are people who feel that vapers are incapable of understanding such "complicated stuff". To twist the logic "for peoples' own good", and state, or imply, that ALL levels of diacetyl are known to be deadly, is in my personal opinion a practice as counterproductive as telling kids, who know better, that .........ion will make them blind. This is why we need SOME sense of how much diacetyl a vaper is exposed to, and that's why I proposed a way to make a rough estimate of the concentration in vaped air. I'm not a "licensed healthcare provider", or an expert in these matters, just another human being.
Nobody in his right mind would look at the lab animal results and conclude that 1/25th to 1/100th of a concentration that quickly produces devastating and irreversible damage is something that they feel comfortable breathing, especially on a long term basis. It's just common sense. Yet it looks like heavy e-cig users who like their e-liquid heavily flavored with rich buttery flavors are probably doing just that. It could be that it's time to rethink the whole flavoring issue and at least consider "going back" to use of e-liquids that are as lightly flavored as possible, at least until the issues are better understood.
I personally believe that whatever the flavor-makers do, many people should consider making some adjustments. My personal reaction is to be trying out juices with more nicotine, mere traces of flavoring and some menthol.
Last edited:
@Fernand I agree, and thank you. I think everyone should be aware of this issue. There was a template letter written asking vendors for disclosure, but who knows how far that will go. I think it's news to suppliers as well, and like others have said they may not even know how to go about getting the right information for the amounts of diacetyl they are using. I think for people to make informed choices about this something needs to be stickied somewhere.
Last edited:
While it's late and I'm trying to wake my brain up to wrap around this, right now I'm pretty sure your math is off. There are too many assumptions. In your original estimate you had already assumed a Heavy vapor at 1ml per 8 hours, or 2ml per day, which is an assumption already off, especially if you try to factor someone vaping 6ml per day. Your original heavy vapor was already figured on using 20% of total breath vaping. Trying to make that assumption fit a new equation would mean that someone vaping 6ml per day would be using 60% of their breath loaded with vapor after already making the assumption that about half of our breath is a clean air chaser. Granted you didn't factor in the half air chaser into this equation, as the .036 was before dividing it by 2, but there has to be a chaser, which is not figured. With 60% of your breath loaded with vapor, you would not have much room for a chaser.
Lets say that, based on your figures, 60% is loaded with vapor. Now, since the math will not allow us to assume a half breath clean air chaser, lets assume a quarter breath clean air chaser.
60x.25=15, which puts us up to 75%, or 3/4 of every breath we take in a 16 hour period is consumed by vaping. While I suppose that could be possible, I don't believe it to be logical. Your estimations were already intentionally on the high side, with the exception of ml used per day by a heavy vapor. You are also using the x10 to account for a 30% mixture of flavor based on rolygates post, however I have some FlavourArt flavorings and they are strong. I'm not even sure 30% would be vapable.
The math seems to be correct, but the assumptions are not.
Lets say that, based on your figures, 60% is loaded with vapor. Now, since the math will not allow us to assume a half breath clean air chaser, lets assume a quarter breath clean air chaser.
60x.25=15, which puts us up to 75%, or 3/4 of every breath we take in a 16 hour period is consumed by vaping. While I suppose that could be possible, I don't believe it to be logical. Your estimations were already intentionally on the high side, with the exception of ml used per day by a heavy vapor. You are also using the x10 to account for a 30% mixture of flavor based on rolygates post, however I have some FlavourArt flavorings and they are strong. I'm not even sure 30% would be vapable.
The math seems to be correct, but the assumptions are not.
It's late for me too, I"ll look at your points again omorrow. For now, the "heavy vaper" I was thinking of when I first ran the numbers was in fact not all that heavy. That's what Rolly pointed out. If you look at the math, it's linear, so if the user is consuming 3x as much juice, it's not that he's loading many more breaths, it's still 1/2 of evewry fifth breath, it's just that he's using a bigger atty etc. Like with my eGo mega, I DO go through 6 ml a day, easily. The next issue is flavoring. I figured 3% was tops, and then I read some more posts, and it's evident say a custard vanilla type flavor might easily be used way way over 3%, and we know of custard vanilla type flavors that use more than the assumed 1.5% of a diketone. So I don't think we're totally off the map, it may not fit the casual 510 sunday vaper, but after getting one of the flavors I got yesterday that you can cut with a knife, I'm not so sure I'm not getting that 4 ppm of either diacetyl or acetyl propionyl, and after running the numbers for THAT case, I frankly got a bit scared. I'll double check tomorrow.
I think it just boils down to the fact that without more statistics, there's really no way to get the math "right". Even if you were to get close, there just really isn't any way to verify that you really are close. Or at least thats my logic right now.
It just seems that, at least in my late night haze, since the number of loaded breaths was factored into your original equation that you based your last one on, any multiplication of the results would multiply the percentage of loaded breaths by the same factor. For instance, I vape 3ml per day and although I haven't counted, I'm quite sure that my number of loaded breaths in a 8/16 hour period is less than 20%.
It just seems that, at least in my late night haze, since the number of loaded breaths was factored into your original equation that you based your last one on, any multiplication of the results would multiply the percentage of loaded breaths by the same factor. For instance, I vape 3ml per day and although I haven't counted, I'm quite sure that my number of loaded breaths in a 8/16 hour period is less than 20%.
It's linear equations. As I recall the reason this works is called commutativity. We only multiply once. But I'll redo it from scratch, you never know, the terms may have shifted with all that butter!
The point of a model is to give you a way to approximate; a general "we can't know" is too easy. That's how they keep you on your knees.
The point of a model is to give you a way to approximate; a general "we can't know" is too easy. That's how they keep you on your knees.
Last edited:
I agree. I have cut my flavors from 20% to 10% and I won't be ordering any "double shots" of flavors.
I will have more to say later, since I am scheduled for a spirometry test in three weeks.
Until then I am holding my tongue.
But for now, we have two different mathematical models of how much we might theoretically be inhaling.
One model points to far less concern than the other, so it would be great if Cozzicon would come in here and give his thoughts.
I would love to see the finer points debated further.
Until then I am holding my tongue.
But for now, we have two different mathematical models of how much we might theoretically be inhaling.
One model points to far less concern than the other, so it would be great if Cozzicon would come in here and give his thoughts.
I would love to see the finer points debated further.
recently as the doc told me..if you have a sensitivity to something..a small amount in your system is fairly harmless..until enough of it gets built up,I might think this could be a similiar thing..But not sure.good post tho..thanks for the info
Guys! It is NOT just diacetyl, Its NOT just flavourArt, it's NOT just in the butter flavors, and it is NOT a rare "sensitivity".
I'm happy to find that just as 10% flavoring tastes no stronger, after a while, than 2%, the very light flavorings after a while taste almost as strong as the 10%. That's a good thing, a good start.
And I don't know about you, but I'm trying to reposition vaping in my life a bit, maybe less chain-vaping? I'd hate to lose ANOTHER friend, but I'm not so sure what to do.
I'm happy to find that just as 10% flavoring tastes no stronger, after a while, than 2%, the very light flavorings after a while taste almost as strong as the 10%. That's a good thing, a good start.
And I don't know about you, but I'm trying to reposition vaping in my life a bit, maybe less chain-vaping? I'd hate to lose ANOTHER friend, but I'm not so sure what to do.
Last edited:
I would have been happy to participate further, and I would love to see further analysis done based on my numbers or anyone else's. There's one reason I've kinda disappeared from the debate:
No one did a close analysis of what I was saying. Debating was pointless. I'd love to be proven wrong. But *proven* wrong- which requires a bit more that "The sky has fallen".
I AM a strong proponent of disclosure.
Now here comes the tricky point, and I'm going to try and do this in a manner which doesn't get me sued.
As people who know me are aware, I've basically been unemployed since January 2010. I was an IT Executive. I posted a thread here: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/services-suppliers/122107-engineering-support-services.html offering my services as an engineer to our vendors. I was contacted by a handful of folks, and am currently negotiating for a position which may include an equity stake in the company.
I am under a non disclosure to multiple parties- so my comments have to be delicate.
Part of my requests in this negotiation has been to be allowed audit access to the recipe book, to assess for myself what percentages of flavorings are- because this is an edgy business and I *want* to know.
What I can say is that of the hundreds and hundreds of recipes I've reviewed, and test mixed (to learn production process), none of them come in over 15% flavoring, when multiple flavorings are used, and single flavors in those mixes are exceptionally lower. I wish I could disclose more- but some of this stuff is covered by non disclosure as a trade secret.
As for single flavors- well the percentage is very low. Wish I could say more.
But one thing I do know after dealing with a number of industry people is that the ones here in America- care deeply about the customer, vape themselves, and are doing a lot of work to get the industry up-to-snuff regarding safety and quality.
Knowing what I do about the industry from the back end, you would be surprised which vendors will pony up in the future with published analysis of their juice. It is on the minds of vendors- they want to do it. There needs to be more money into the pipeline for these guys to pull it off. But it is coming- because they do care.
We are in this situation because big tobacco, and big pharmaceutical companies lose money when people vape. Electronic cigarettes are simply a market reaction, with the perceived benefit being cost and harm reduction. Since the big companies don't want into the e-cig game, or have ignored it, or have decided to challenge it, it's little startups that are doing it instead. Those companies cannot quality and safety control like a pharmaceutical company- YET.
Anecdotally speaking, the only issues I've seen with vaping safety are the following:
1. A bad batch being recalled by a non American vendor- they do batch testing.
2. PG allergies.
3. One case of Chinese fluid with may high nicotine sending someone to the emergency room.
4. One dude who vomited when a bacon flavoring was too strong.
5. Exploding unprotected batteries.
On the whole- this is an excellent safety record. Improvements can be made. And will be.
Assuming the "dance of attorneys" I'm engaged in goes well, I may even be able help the process of disclosure, analysis, and quality control/safety along. My opinion is that disclosure pressure seems to be being applied-which is ok. But after piercing the veil and seeing the other side of the issues, this is an industry issue which needs to be dealt with within the industry itself.
So the shorter answer regarding your question is, I'm not sure what else I can say about the issue since right now I can't speak, and additionally the original numbers I posted were dismissed by people who seem to be leading this movement.
Either way my hands are tied for a few weeks. I hope the basic numbers I just posted, from inside a juice mixing facility, are helpful.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
