If it is only problematic, then it's safe, because only severely problematic should be avoided...
Diacetyl and Acetyl Propyniol test results of 42 brands of Juice
- Thread starter Mazinny
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
If it is only problematic, then it's safe, because only severely problematic should be avoided...
Dr F does NOT reveal exact Brand/Manufacturer of any Broad Test Samples. He clearly stated there was no need to target specific manufacturers while testing for Da as that was not the purpose for testing.
Again - There is only Legal action(Court rulings) and NO Medical documentation stating these ARE in fact harmful.
If uncomfortable - Avoid.
Again - There is only Legal action(Court rulings) and NO Medical documentation stating these ARE in fact harmful.
If uncomfortable - Avoid.
Yep but some of us do not care.
Now what I recommend to others and what I will do myself are not always the same things where risk factors are concerned.
Any adult can choose how much or how little risk they want to take, providing the information is there to base those risk assessment decisions on.
right now vaping is pretty much a crap shoot. Not enough data yet.
Your call on that. I personally like tasty Diketones, and am not all that in love with living.
correct me if i a wrong.
Dr. F said taking the highest amount of diacetyl and acetyl he
found in the test group he calculated perhaps 1 in 1000 lung
related issues from 35 years of exposure.
in the real world that translates to virtually no risk.
only a hypochondriac would even remotely consider
this as even a possibly potential risk.
regards
ike
Dr. F said taking the highest amount of diacetyl and acetyl he
found in the test group he calculated perhaps 1 in 1000 lung
related issues from 35 years of exposure.
in the real world that translates to virtually no risk.
only a hypochondriac would even remotely consider
this as even a possibly potential risk.
regards
ike
correct me if i a wrong.
Dr. F said taking the highest amount of diacetyl and acetyl he
found in the test group he calculated perhaps 1 in 1000 lung
related issues from 35 years of exposure.
in the real world that translates to virtually no risk.
only a hypochondriac would even remotely consider
this as even a possibly potential risk.
regards
ike
Could you provide a link to this statement please.
found it actually i misquoted the good doctor.he was commenting on NIOSH calculations.
"
The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) submitted a letter to the editor of Nicotine and tobacco Research journal concerning ourdiacetyl-acetyl propionyl study. As you may remember, that was a chemical analysis study evaluating 159 e-liquids from Europe and the US for the presence of diacetyl and acetyl propionyl. We found that 74.2% of the samples were positive for the presence of these chemicals. To assess the level of exposure, we used the NIOSH-established safety limits of occupational exposure and determined that the average daily exposure from the liquids tested was 100 and 10 times lower than NIOSH-set limits. The letter and our response were published by the journal today, but since they are not open-access, I will present the main points of the NIOSH letter and our response herein.
The main purpose of the NIOSH letter was to clarify that the limits set by the institute refer to occupational exposure and not to consumers or the general public and that the comparison between smokers (or vapers) and occupational exposure is not widely accepted. The authors of the letter supported that their Occupational Exposure Limits are not applicable to sensitive population subgroups but to people healthy enough to work. They added that the NIOSH-established safety limit is not a measure of absolute safety but a level of exposure that would result in less than 1 in 1000 workers developing lung dysfunction after 45 years of exposure. Moreover, they expressed concern about the accuracy of the cigarette smoke content of diacetyl as measured by Pierce et al, implying that the levels in smoke are lower than what they measured. However, they provide no justification for this. Finally, they mentioned that in our calculations we underestimated the breathing volume of workers by considering that they have a basic resting ventilation rate. They argued that workers conduct manual activity during their working hours, resulting in significant elevation on breathing rate and volume."
these are his comments concerning a letter sent to the tobacco control center by NIOSH regarding his study
on diacetyl and acetyl.
here's the link.
NIOSH submits letter to the editor concerning our diacetyl study
regards
mike
I got an email from Cyclops, one of my preferred vendors and some of what it says is this:
The lab results obtained by Vapor Shark from Enthalpy Analytical, Inc. (click here to view) show a vast discrepancy in the amount of AP (pantanedione) when compared to our own third party analysis. We believe the numbers listed in the report supplied to Vapor Shark, by Enthalpy, are not accurate and are a poor indicator of the AP content of our eliquids.
Because of these discrepancies, our chemists will be sending out another round of our full line to be tested at the original lab as well as another third party lab to backup our original findings and eliminate any concern over the use of our products.
We are by no means opposed to Vapor Shark posting lab results. We only wish to ensure that the data being shared with the public is true and accurate.
The lab results obtained by Vapor Shark from Enthalpy Analytical, Inc. (click here to view) show a vast discrepancy in the amount of AP (pantanedione) when compared to our own third party analysis. We believe the numbers listed in the report supplied to Vapor Shark, by Enthalpy, are not accurate and are a poor indicator of the AP content of our eliquids.
Because of these discrepancies, our chemists will be sending out another round of our full line to be tested at the original lab as well as another third party lab to backup our original findings and eliminate any concern over the use of our products.
We are by no means opposed to Vapor Shark posting lab results. We only wish to ensure that the data being shared with the public is true and accurate.
The whole statement they make is also on their Facebook page Cyclops Vapor - Daphne, Alabama - Wholesale & Supply Store | Facebook or their webpage Diacetyl and Acetyl Propionyl Reports from Vapor Shark
Thank you ! He also states that some liquids had far higher levels than the safety standards set bu NIOSH :
The study found that 74.2% of the samples contained either diacetyl or acetyl propionyl, with more samples containing diacetyl. The levels were on average slightly lower than currently-established safety limits (set by NIOSH), but more than 40% of the samples had higher than safety levels. Of note, the highest amount of diacetyl found was 495 times higher than safety limits, while for acetyl propionyl it was 22 times higher. Tobacco cigarettes smoke contains both compounds, at levels 100 times higher for diacetyl and 10 times higher for acetyl propionyl compared to e-cigarette average daily exposure.
In the full text of the manuscript, the authors explain that the main problem caused by diacetyl exposure is a decline in respiratory function characterized by a decline in a spirometry parameter (FEV1). Bronchiolitis obliterans (“popcorn lung disease”) is a rare condition, even in cases of exposure to high levels of diacetyl. The cut-off level of risk calculated by NIOSH for the safety limit is for 1 in 1000 chance of suffering reduced lung function associated with lifelong diacetyl exposure, which is a very conservative estimation. However, many samples contained levels much higher than safety limits. Moreover, unlike tobacco cigarettes where these chemicals are produced during the combustion process, in e-cigarettes they are used as ingredients. Thus, this represents an avoidable risk, which should be removed.
This is all very confusing. To make it even more difficult to compare, the delivery method is different in cigarettes, e-liquid and inhalation from powdered diacetyl in the work place.
if you take into account that the actual standards are actually 10 times lower
than what they found to be safe as an extra margin of error it really gets
confusing.
1 in a 1000 after a 45 year exposure is statistically zero when it
reaches are use level. 8 hours a day times 45 years of work exposure.
even using their figures it statistically meaningless as there is not
enough risk level to insure what if anything was the cause.
regards
mike
The NIOSH recommendations are time weighted averages, so I am not completely sure how that compares to vaping, say, 5mL or 10 ml a day.
But Farsalinos et al calculated equivalent daily amounts in juice by estimating the amount of air breathed in over an 8 hour working day. They came up with 65ug/day in juice for diacetyl (based on 5ppb in air) and 137ug/day for acetyl propionyl (based on 9.3ppb in air). Now if you take a juice that tested at 1800 ug per ml ( a few were that high ) and take a sub-ohmer who vapes 10 ml of the liquid per day ( not unheard of ) that translates to 18000 ug per day or 130 times the NIOSH level. Granted NIOSH has set a conservative limit but we are talking 130 times that limit !
Another point to note is none of us are starting at zero exposure. There are those who are already showing symptoms of COPD from years of cigarette smoke. The risk to that subgroup might me a lot more immediate and real than you seem to imply.
More info is always good imo. What you chose to do with it is your prerogative.
the good Dr. mentioned 2 that were way over the limit.
those aside the rest should be easily adjustable to meet
the standards.
even the 2 that were way over can be adjusted. i see no
reason for intrusive regulation for something so trivial and
easy to remedy.
mike
I think you might be selectively choosing certain portions of Dr. F's comments. In the article you linked to he concluded that these are " avoidable risks " that should be removed from eliquids.
He didn't say that there were only two that were way over the limit. He just pointed out the two that had the highest amounts. He also went out of his way not to name the vendors and thought that his research would lead to change across the industry. I heard him in an interview recently saying how disappointed he is that the problem is still so widespread. And the liquids he tested are not the same liquids Vaporshark tested. He tested his liquids close to two years ago and that explains why he founf more diacetyl in the liquids than AP. It's the opposite now as we can see by these test results. Most flavor manufacturers replaced diacetyl with A P.
Intrusive regulations are coming whether we like it or not. I don't think it's a coincidence that AEMSA vendors are at the forefront of removing these compounds from their e-liquid.They have been in workshops with the FDA over the last few months and they might have a sense of what direction the FDA is leaning.
he said there were 2 that were way over.
he did say the risks were avoidable but,
when the risk is so low what are we avoiding?
mike
The study found that 74.2% of the samples contained either diacetyl or acetyl propionyl, with more samples containing diacetyl. The levels were on average slightly lower than currently-established safety limits (set by NIOSH), but more than 40% of the samples had higher than safety levels. Of note, the highest amount of diacetyl found was 495 times higher than safety limits, while for acetyl propionyl it was 22 times higher
what were the levels of the rest of them?
are you saying that it's a noncorrectable problem?
mike
I am saying it's an easily correctable problem. I am not in favor of the FDA totally banning them ( although they likely will imo ). I just need the info so i can make an educated decision. I want to know what's in my juice. I might chose not vape a liquid with higher than 50 ug of AP per ml. Your threshold might be 1000 ug or none at all. Everyone has a different risk threshold.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
