Chemicals of concern for vaping?

[Not A One]

Leaving out oils and things that just flat-out won't vaporize:

I know diacetyl can cause irreversible damage to the lungs over time, acetylpropionyl is also suspect because it's a very similar short-chain diketone, and I'm assuming acetoin is on the bad list because it can be pretty easily oxidized into diacetyl. But are there other chemical families vapers tend to stay away from, whether because there are known reasons to be concerned, or because of other hangups? For example, in the "natural cosmetics" community, a lot of people tend to preach against benzyl alcohol/benzoic acid and their esters. I saw one site and a couple copycats speaking out against aldehydes and carboxylic acids, but couldn't figure why beyond that they evidently wanted to differentiate themselves from the crowd.

Is there anything like this for the vaping community? What's the general feeling towards IFRA regulations? Do they factor in at all? (They're basically a set of restrictions for the use of fragrance chemicals of concern which can cause allergic reactions or phototoxicity, but most of those chemicals are flavor chemicals as well.) As far as flavoring regulations go, are additives expected to be on the FEMA GRAS list, or one of the FDA approved food additives lists, or both (many are on both)? Would either be accepted as okay?

I'm a bit of a mad scientist, have dozens of single flavor molecules on hand due to still-ongoing scent experiments, and was just curious whether there's any strong sentiment about these things. If you're going to build from scratch may as well pick an interesting spec, yes? The components of most of the flavor blends I'm seeing don't seem to hold to any particular restrictions beyond "eatable" and "try to avoid diacetyl."

 

[p7willm]

The problems are caused by the unique things we do. Very little is taken into the lungs. All the flavors are intended for and tested for ingestion. Diacetyl is fine, as far as we know, when eaten and if it wasn't for the poor slobs in the popcorn factory we would be vaping it today.

The only thing you will get from the vaping community are stories. As far as I know there are no real scientific tests. That includes everything from it's ability to help stop smoking to it being less harmful.

When I was young they made cigarets with asbestos filters and doctors recommended them. People smoked for 50+ years, and there were thousands of them to study.

I don't think you can find anything else that large numbers of people have been inhaling for 5 years.

Using eatable components is a starting point. I am not sure (it will be us) who pays for all the testing to certify things OK for vaping.

I have also seen lots of warnings denying any stated or implied suitability for any purpose for any hardware or juice. If you want to stick God knows what in your lungs it is up to you. The only thing we can say is that smoking is bad for your health.

 

[Not A One]

The only thing you will get from the vaping community are stories. As far as I know there are no real scientific tests.

That's rather unfortunate since that's pretty much the same conclusion I'd come to myself. There seem to be very few studies on long-term inhalation of flavoring components - actually rather odd as like I said they're widely used in perfumery. Somewhat more on whether e-cigarettes help people quite smoking, but no real consensus yet.

If you want to stick God knows what in your lungs it is up to you.

I'd probably be one of very few vapers sticking I knew exactly what into my lungs. I'm allergic to none of the "perfumery allergens," luckily, and I'm not overly concerned about my own personal health as far as this question goes, more interested in the community. I was curious about whether IFRA standards tended to be factored in at all when I saw restricted chemicals pop up in flavors I knew were used for vaping. Granted, they're at very low levels, well within perfumery standards, but it's something you have to wonder about with repeated ongoing inhalation. Like you said, it's a very unique set of circumstances.

Not scaremongering, just idly curious what's going on. Since e-liquid is by and large unregulated when it comes to flavoring components, that means the community self-regulates and I always like to see what springs up in such cases.

For what it's worth, I think the fright over traces of diacetyl coming with traces of acetoin is largely unfounded. So far the only people I've seen try to tackle the numbers calculate the potential ppb in a bottle...yeah, that's the easy part, what we need is the potential ppb in inhaled vapor before comparing numbers. ( ppb liquid*volume liquid vaped/volume air inhaled ) Everything I've seen so far indicates that will come in well under the OSHA recommended exposure levels even in flavorings with "traces" of diacetyl added on purpose.

The way acetoin gets labeled a diketone bugs the heck out of me too. It's not. It's an alpha-hydroxy ketone.

 

[Fiamma]

Dr. Farsalinos did a study on well over 100 different brands/flavors of e liquid that he purchased from many different vendors. His study is currently in peer review and will be published. In that study he found 69% of the e liquids he tested to contain dicetyl. As far as Acetoin and Acetylpropionyl in juices, most of them on MSDS docs show inhalation risks. TFA who sells flavorings has recently updated their website with information about their flavorings containing Acetoin and Acetylpropionyl.

From the reading I've done, Acetoin and Acetylpropionyl when heated change to diketones, presumably from the heat.

I smoked for 55 years. I've been off tobacco cigarettes now for over 3 years, my lungs look and sound good and my blood oxygen level is up to 99%.

I really don't know how much damage these flavorings can do when mixed into e liquid to vape and are inhaled, but when a vendor of flavorings is up front about what is in their product and posts the warning on their site (sure to inhibit sales to vapers) I am prepared to do some serious thinking about reformulating what I DIY to avoid the risk of any further damage to my lungs.

I look forward to Dr. Farsalino's published study.

 

[Racehorse]

Doctors, open your textbooks: glycerol CANNOT cause lipoid pneumonia (but other things can)

Dr. F also points to the problems of vaping oil based flavorings.

This is all very solvable. There are several flavoring companies who have done the testing, reformulated, etc. If you DIY you have no problems picking flavorings that don't have stuff in there you don't want.

For ready made eliquids, you should be able to ask your vendor if they use flavorings that contain any of things you don't want.

If they don't know that then they don't *know their product*. Any mixologist worth their name-tag would know these things IMHO.

I buy expensive running shoes and a good store clerk, who knows their product, knows how the soles are put together, whether good for pronaters, high arches, flat feet, etc.

It is simply that easy to know your product if you are selling eliquids. Or flavorings.

If I were them I would not even buy from a flavor manufacturer who could not provide that info, but that is another topic.

Most of the topics like this would be a moot issue if this were done, and it is easily accomplished. Then, each indiv. vaper could make up their own mind how much risk they want to take on.

For what it's worth, I think the fright over traces of diacetyl coming with traces of acetoin is largely unfounded.

And again, you can make that CHOICE. You do understand the reason why the "fright" exists, right?

It's because the damage, if there is any such thing, and I am not saying there is.....but it's irreversible. It can't be "fixed". That means, short of a lung transplant, there is nothing that can be done to bring back the tissue.

Irreversible is a fright word to me.

So, I don't blame people for being *concerned*. We don't know if there is anything to it or not, but there will be, and are, those who are just not willing to take on certain risks, whether they happen 1 in 10 million or .....???

 

[Ferlanor]

Hi all this is my first post.

I initially created my account to post on this thread :

www e-cigarette-forum com/forum/health-safety-e-smoking/130911-diacetyl-tradition-cigarettes-why-outcry-e-cigs-just-dont-smoke-contaminated-flavors-12 html

I didn't knew about the 5 posts rule, hence I tried to found the most relevant thread. I almost never react to what is on the internet and the gross mishandling of scientific information that abounds in it, but being a scientist and a vaper myself, and seeing that the conversations here were rational, I had to post. The above thread was related to danger of diacetyl and related compound and this thread touches the same topic. A lot of people seem to claim that the toxicity of diacetyl when inhaled is completely proven. This is not the case. In the linked thread, the users with the most scientifically exact posts were accused of not seeing the evidences or not caring at all. Regarding the issue of the toxicity of diacetyl, I'm dropping the following paper to bring forward the uncertainty about the toxicity of diacetyl when inhaled in low amount :

www ncbi nlm nih gov/pubmed/24635357

"We found that diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione exposures from cigarette smoking far exceed occupational exposures for most food/flavoring workers who smoke. This suggests that previous claims of a significant exposure-response relationship between diacetyl inhalation and respiratory disease in food/flavoring workers were confounded, because none of the investigations considered or quantified the non-occupational diacetyl exposure from cigarette smoke, yet all of the cohorts evaluated had considerable smoking histories. Further, because smoking has not been shown to be a risk factor for bronchiolitis obliterans, our findings are inconsistent with claims that diacetyl and/or 2,3-pentanedione exposure are risk factors for this disease."

I had to remove the dots in the links given because, apparently, I am not allowed... This is becoming already tiring.

 

[Ferlanor]

I buy expensive running shoes and a good store clerk, who knows their product, knows how the soles are put together, whether good for pronaters, high arches, flat feet, etc.

You can't know the composition of the polymers used, all the additives in it, the glues, any products they used as a finish...

It's because the damage, if there is any such thing, and I am not saying there is.....but it's irreversible. It can't be "fixed". That means, short of a lung transplant, there is nothing that can be done to bring back the tissue.

Irreversible is a fright word to me.

It is just that, a fright word. There are a lot of things that are [currently] irreversible that you do and don't seem to care so much. I'm not saying developing an irreversible scarring of lung tissue is something I would like. Just pointing out that "irreversible" should not necessarily classify the risk as completely different than others.

EDIT: I did not mean to imply that I am against full disclosure on the part of the manufacturers, but being realistic, modern day supply chains does not enable that.

 

[Not A One]

Dr. Farsalinos did a study on well over 100 different brands/flavors of e liquid that he purchased from many different vendors. His study is currently in peer review and will be published. In that study he found 69% of the e liquids he tested to contain dicetyl.

Which means nothing without an idea of the levels involved, to the point that completely omitting even a mention of them feels like a scare tactic. However, I as well am looking forward to the results of his work.

As far as Acetoin and Acetylpropionyl in juices, most of them on MSDS docs show inhalation risks.

A good percentage of flavoring chemicals will have such a warning; it doesn't necessarily mean they're a risk. MSDSs are designed to warn of even slight hazards. At the lab we joke they're designed to terrify consumers. I had a relative flip out on me once after discovering the MSDS for propylene glycol; they were terribly worried about its being used in herbal extracts until I pointed out that the MSDS for the ethanol they favored was even worse. Really, they're for information in case of an emergency, and the protection of manufacturing workers, not necessarily good at all for making judgements about a chemical's inherent risks, especially in varying situations.

Acetylpropionyl is already a diketone, very similar to diacetyl, I find it more concerning than acetoin myself. And yes, I wouldn't be surprised if acetoin oxidized into diacetyl with heat. I know there will be small amounts created just at room temperature or during production. Can't turn up any studies on it, though. Do you happen to have a link?

As far as these three chemicals go, I can certainly see why people would be nervous of them, and I would be wary of vaping them myself especially when there are potential substitutes without the issues. But things like this get to me. Apologies, I can't properly quote nor link due to being trapped in the beginner's forum.

How much is 5 - 25 parts per billion? It's 0000005% - 0000025%

We have been almost entirely unable to find the percentage of the diacetyl/like chemicals contained in typical flavorings (GRRRRR) - but we did find a few from Baker Flavors in Russia (which is Vaping Zone's Gourmet Line). The Tiramisu contains the most at .6% diacetyl of the ones they tested back in 2010...and it's commonly mixed at 2%. Let's make 100ml :: praying our math is correct::: ...

100ml at 2% flavoring = 2ml of Tiramisu flavoring in 100ml of liquid. 2 mls of Tiramisu flavoring contains .6% diacetyl (.6% x 2ml = .012mls of diacetyl)....so there's .012 ml of diacetyl in that 100mls of juice.

What's the percentage of diacetyl in that 100mls of juice? .00012%

Using this "ppb calculator" Parts Per Billion Conversion Chart (Fractions and Percent Converter, Percentages And Parts), we find one must enter 1200 ppb to equal .00012%

So, vaping that particular flavoring at 2% means we'd be vaping 1200 parts per billion, when the 'safe zone' for short term exposure/inhalation is 25 parts per billion.

See, you're not vaping 1200 ppb. Let's finish the math. What I find online has the number of puffs per mL ~120-180. Let's be conservative and say there are a hundred puffs to a mL. Let's be further conservative and say in addition to supercharging your e-cig's vapor production you're also somehow breathing a really small amount in, a bare mouthful of 25 mL vapor/air with every puff.

The math works out to 1200*1/2500 = you're actually vaping 0.48 ppb at the highest exposure level in this example. Not only is that well below the short-term exposure limit, it's well below the overall recommended exposure limit as well. Averaged out to your actual exposure level over a day, it's an absolutely minuscule amount even by OSHA levels.

Yes, different flavors and different levels will lead to different results, but when I see diacetyl in trace amounts (say below 1%), it simply doesn't make me nervous, and the way everyone out there equates the ppb in the bottle to the ppb of your exposure level bugs the heck out of me. They're not even close to equal unless you're snorting liquid straight from the bottle instead of actually vaping it.

 

[Stosh]

Interesting study concerning diacetyl in low levels. Our problem with vaping is the flavorings used are FDA GRAS for ingestion and there just isn't any good standards or studies for long term inhalation. There's likely some studies that would be nice, but worrying over levels that are magnitudes less that fresh outdoor air may be counterproductive.

That said it appears the diacetyl (naturally present in coffee, and likely flavorings) present from vaping might be an overreaction. The level that contaminants can be measured in any substance (water, air, food, etc..) by today's science is almost to a molecular level.

 

[Not A One]

And again, you can make that CHOICE. You do understand the reason why the "fright" exists, right?

Yes, I do. People realized this apparently innocuous chemical diacetyl could cause irreversible lung damage even in consumers who only consumed large amounts of microwave popcorn. They realized there's no way they would want to be breathing this. They pushed for manufacturers to disclose. The good manufacturers disclosed, some tried to remove it altogether.

Then, the term "diketone," and the chemicals diacetyl, acetoin, and acetylpropionyl became marketing tools. People were pushed to be afraid of all of them in any quantities, even if those quantities were well below "safe" exposure levels. Nearly undetectable traces of them were touted as horrifying risks. And now they dominate the public's perception to the extent that "I know about diketones, but how does the community feel about all these other chemicals that are well-known allergens in the fragrance industry?" sparks lengthy dissertations on diacetyl.

If they don't know that then they don't *know their product*. Any mixologist worth their name-tag would know these things IMHO.

I buy expensive running shoes and a good store clerk, who knows their product, knows how the soles are put together, whether good for pronaters, high arches, flat feet, etc.

It is simply that easy to know your product if you are selling eliquids. Or flavorings.

Agreed. I doubt the clerk would know the chemical makeup of the shoe of course, but they would know the components going into the shoe, which is about the same thing as far as fragrance/flavor development goes. There should be more companies working with raw chemical components instead of blends. It is easy to get information on potential impurities, and certificates of analysis, from manufacturers for those. Unfortunately it is not so easy to develop a flavor out of those raw materials, so most people work with blends, and the smaller companies don't have much choice, so you wind up with the situation where everyone's far downstream from the source and if the company selling the flavors doesn't have their own analysis done they may not know what sort of things could be lurking in a blend.

A brief note to e-liquid sellers...it'll be a lot more difficult for DIYers to dupe your flavors if you stop using blends...

 

[Not A One]

www ncbi nlm nih gov/pubmed/24635357

"We found that diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione exposures from cigarette smoking far exceed occupational exposures for most food/flavoring workers who smoke. This suggests that previous claims of a significant exposure-response relationship between diacetyl inhalation and respiratory disease in food/flavoring workers were confounded, because none of the investigations considered or quantified the non-occupational diacetyl exposure from cigarette smoke, yet all of the cohorts evaluated had considerable smoking histories. Further, because smoking has not been shown to be a risk factor for bronchiolitis obliterans, our findings are inconsistent with claims that diacetyl and/or 2,3-pentanedione exposure are risk factors for this disease."

That is very intriguing. I'd heard it mentioned before, something along the lines of wondering why non-smoking factory workers were more prone to the disease than smokers, but I hadn't seen it until now. Thanks!

Of course there's always the chance there are many confounding factors here. It could be that something in cigarette smoke prevents diacetyl from causing harm, or it could even be that the study was flawed somehow, but it is a very interesting thing to think about.

 

[Ferlanor]

Our problem with vaping is the flavorings used are FDA GRAS for ingestion and there just isn't any good standards or studies for long term inhalation.

I completely agree, but in the case of diacetyl, if the ingested amount is in the same ballpark as the one for cigarettes, then we have the "long term study" of people not developing bronchiolitis obliterans out of smoking alone. And this is where the real scare was considering it is an irreversible scarring of the lung tissue.

 

[Stosh]

......<snip>......A brief note to e-liquid sellers...it'll be a lot more difficult for DIYers to dupe your flavors if you stop using blends...

As a DIYer, lets just keep that pearl of wisdom to ourselves....

 

[Katya]

The only thing you will get from the vaping community are stories. As far as I know there are no real scientific tests. That includes everything from it's ability to help stop smoking to it being less harmful.

Really?

Have you heard about Dr. Farsalinos? CASAA? The Drexel report? The West study? Have you seen studies analyzing the contents of vapor?

Maybe you should start here:

Lab Reports: ecigarettes

and here

E-cigarette research, studies and papers

 

[catilley1092]

One way that those who are concerned over these chemicals is to purchase from suppliers who openly states that these ingredients are not in their products.

However, no one can guarantee that in the vaping process, that their e-juices are chemical free. Given what information that we do have, these poses less risk than smoking does. Which is well known to cause irreversible lung damage, given enough time. For some, it may be 5 years or less, for others, it may be 40+ years. A few lives well into advanced years (80+ years old), have been smokers for 50+ years & death is due to other factors. But one cannot accept this as the norm & consider smoking to be safe.

Given the improvement in my lung function, which has improved since vaping (I can now walk much farther w/out needing to stop to catch my breath), I feel that I'm in a position to state that is has to be lesser harm than known cancer sticks. Plus no more pain in the right side from pleural fluid buildup.

My hope is that after 37 years or smoking, that I didn't wait too late to begin vaping. Only time will tell that. Like some has reported, I didn't experience the coughing up of mucous of whatever other garbage from my lungs (the self-cleaning) after quitting smoking. Whether or not this is good or bad, the fact that I didn't experience the self cleaning, I don't know, however I wasn't a 2 pack per day smoker, it was a half pack for me per day. I just know that I breathe better & that's a good sign.

One thing that many of these reports leaves out, is the fact that air quality varies across the planet. Some places, such as where oil production/refining is high in Texas, there are high numbers of asthma in children. Much higher than national average. This can also cause irreversible damage & death, my guess is that one has a higher chance of these incidents in polluted areas over vaping.

Cat

 

[Racehorse]

That said it appears the diacetyl (naturally present in coffee, and likely flavorings) present from vaping might be an overreaction.

A good percentage of flavoring chemicals will have such a warning; it doesn't necessarily mean they're a risk. .

Agree with all that......every time the subject comes up there are all these scientific posts about ppb's, etc. And then comparing to air, water, etc.

NONE of that is my point....and never has been.

My point is that if I am told my eliquid doesn't have x, y, z, and it does, then that is not okay.

I just want disclosure. I want to know what I am buying.

 

[Craybee]

Chemicals of Concern would be an awesome name for a band.

 

[Stosh]

Agree with all that......every time the subject comes up there are all these scientific posts about ppb's, etc. And then comparing to air, water, etc.

NONE of that is my point....and never has been.

My point is that if I am told my eliquid doesn't have x, y, z, and it does, then that is not okay.

I just want disclosure. I want to know what I am buying.

Wholeheartedly agree, if a vendor says they don't include X as an ingredient and then does...tarred and feathered, rode out of town on a rail is too good for them.

If a vendor uses an flavor ingredients that has no X added in it's blending, adds no X to their recipe, but trace amounts are delectable at an extremely low level, unknown and unexpected by the vendor...something to consider, maybe avoid, but hold the tar just yet...

Arsenic is present in tobacco, and is known to be in tobacco, so any eliquid that contains nicotine will contain arsenic at extremely low levels. I would feel very confident that no vendor adds arsenic to their blend, and if advertised theirs as being arsenic free, would be 100% wrong. Nothing we eat, drink, or inhale has 100% purity, it's a chemical impossibility.

I can't wait for DR. F's study to be released, I'm confident that he will show what levels of whatever he found and in what eliquids.

 

[m1911]

Im really glad to see this thread, being a newbie in vaping, and a dumbass on chemicals etc, I tend to try to find any sorts of infos on the danger of vaping as much as I can. Even tho all of the infos pretty much went thru my head, I still like to know that ppl are doing extensive research on vaping.

I noticed alot of vapor simply dismiss any report on the danger of vaping, its almost being ignorant of the possible threat found in it.

I quit smoking, yes I know there are thousands of poison found in cig, but I also would like to know what are the concequences of long term vaping.

Its like over the years, scientist will gradually narrow down all the dangerous chemicals that vapors and or at least manufacturers should avoid, but instead, whenever theres a study that bring up some new chemicals found, ppl tend to dismiss them by saying the "scientist is funded by large cig company". I say not necessarily.

Sorry for my long rambling.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk

 

[Hulamoon]

From a a standalone point of view, yes, of course they are - and should be - of concern. I don't do buttery/creamy or custard flavors for that reason.

Taking such chemical analyses in conjunction with its previous counterpart however, I sure inhaled plenty of it and a whole lot else in cigarettes in much much stronger concentrations.