Diactyl scare.
- Thread starter guambred
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
yes disclosure of contents! This is why I do not oppose regulating eliquid as far as accurate listing of contents and safe/sanitary conditions of manufacture.
It is clear that the eliquid industry as a whole will not properly self regulate. Many do but many do not. And there is currently no penalty if they lie to us about the contents.
The consumer needs to be informed as to the contents so they can make their own decision whether to vape it or not.
I do not care about the DAP. But that is MY decision and most do seem to care about it in their ejuice. They deserve the information as to juice contents.
When they do these test side by side with someone dumping 50 pound bags of
powdered diacetyl into a popcorn mixer and someone vaping for 8 hours each
and compare lung biopsies if they obtain conclusive results, let me know.
regards
Mike
powdered diacetyl into a popcorn mixer and someone vaping for 8 hours each
and compare lung biopsies if they obtain conclusive results, let me know.
regards
Mike
I see that flavor listed in Table 2 of the study.
Went to the flavor's webpage (5bucks's link.) The "More Information" on that page is...hmmm.. interesting.
Went to the flavor's webpage (5bucks's link.) The "More Information" on that page is...hmmm.. interesting.
Yes that last line especially.
And yes Diacetyl is registered with the FDA. And so is castor oil.
And yes Diacetyl is registered with the FDA. And so is castor oil.
.....and this is no small issue that has been going on for far too long now.
Independant, heavily funded studies like the one posted here are going to continue, the FDA has been pouring millions into funding a broad range of research including a partnership with the National Institutes of Health, so, issues like this are going to be in the spotlight... in a lot of ways the vaping (eliquid) industry has been it's own worst enemy, many took (and are still taking) advantage of an unregulated market, poor labeling practices to non-disclosure and outright lying about the contents.
I don't think the length of the draw is going to change whether diacetyl and acetyl propionol are in a particular flavored liquid. There are only a minority of liquid makers who avoid flavorings containing them at this time. It's too bad, as this gives real ammunition to the anti vape crowd. The quality vendors who focused on cleaner liquids end up getting lumped in with the rest at a time they should be applauded.
Thanks 5bucks.... I hadn't seen the study when I asked that - it wasn't in the original post but I found the actual study and see that one included. 4.2μg diacetyl which is rather low.
55 of the 60 listed in the study* had a μg below 20 (for diacetyl) - which is normal for the air we breathe - iirc, from the older Dr. F thread. IOW, only 5 tested were above 'air' levels. Peach Schnapps was the highest by far - 238.9μg. The other 5 above 20μg except one - Cin - were below 27μg.
*http:// ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/advpub/2015/12/ehp.1510185.acco.pdf
I look at this as a 'shoring up' for the Deeming - a 'recent study' that the FDA can point to, to sell the confiscatory regulation. See pages 13 & 14:
"Rules for labeling do not currently exist for e-cigarettes, because, unlike tobacco products, which
are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under authority of the Family
Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Act (Tobacco Control Act, 2009), a statute that authorizes the
FDA to require warning labels on packages and advertisements and bans flavored cigarettes, ecigarettes
are not currently regulated. However, this may be changing. In 2014, the FDA issued a
proposed rule that seeks to expand the legal definition of tobacco products to include e-cigarettes
and other nicotine-containing products (FDA, 2014)."
"If finalized, the rule may include minimum
age and identification requirements and proposed addictiveness warnings. Specifically related to
the research presented in this manuscript, and our opinion that many flavors are appealing to
youth, the FDA states that, “…some tobacco products, such as e-cigarettes and certain cigars, are
being marketed with characterizing flavors, and that these flavors can be especially attractive to
youth.”"
The ANTZ are going to have a field day with this. Do you have a link to Dr. F's info?
The results are expressed units of one thousanth of a milligram. The results are for the vapor produced by the entire contents of a "cartridge" or "cartomizer." They don't say what "cartridges" or "cartomizers" they were using or how much juice was in them. As we all know, the quantities vary widely.
Table 3 in the report lists occupational exposure guidelines in parts per million. How is it possible to compare e-cigarette exposure levels with occupational exposure limits? They don't make the effort to say what their results mean in terms of actual exposure hazard.
EDIT: Some of the cig-alike purveyors claim that one cartridge is the equivalent of a pack of cigarettes. So someone smarter than I might be able to compare a day of vaping to the occupational exposure limits.
Last edited:
Pretty sure Brand A is Mark Ten, Brand B is Vuse, Brand C is Blu and Brand D is Njoy. Brand E is Whitecloud. Brand F is South Beach Smokes. Brand G is Volcano. Brand H is either Tasty Vapor or The Vapor Depot ( the juices seem to have identical names. Likely the same juice ). Couldn't figure out Brand I ( the names of the juices are very generic )
Last edited:
One must use extreme caution to avoid dihydrogen monoxide rain also. This happens frequently, and just about everywhere.
Here you go. You'll have to copy and paste and delete the %%%s:
http:%%%//www.sciencedaily.com%%%/releases/2015/12/151208081324.htm
Dr. F's comments about this study: A new study finds diacetyl in e-cigarettes but exaggerates risks and fails to discuss about smoking
Here is also link to his teams study from the same subject from last year: Evaluation of electronic cigarette liquids and aerosol for the presence of selected inhalation toxins. - PubMed - NCBI
It was in the Dr. F thread but I subsequently found this:
.... where in Figure 4, it shows the NIOSH safety limit at 20ug/ml
It is an occupational limit for inhalation in factories, etc.
@grayscale the link to the study is in my post above #29 - take out the two spaces after http://
That's per ml of e-liquid? That's not how it was measured in this recent study, so I don't know if it's possible to make a comparison without knowing how much liquid was in the "cartridges" or "cartomizers" they were using. Good luck trying to find out how much liquid is in, for example, a Mark Ten cartridge.
I think you must be right. All cig-alikes.
Although as far as cigalikes are concerned, i am relatively certain there is no more than one ml in a cartridge. For the other liquids that are not sold in cartridges, the authors didn't explain what type of tank they used and how many ml's they poured into the tank.
You're right. They're using μg/ecigarette. Hmmm - wouldn't that make it even less than the μg/ml safety limit? Maybe that's the 'fudge' in this study...
They cite and compare NIOSH limits which are in terms of μg/ml (or ppm).
edit: With Mazinny's info and a quick search - it looks like my original ug/ml is close if not the same as most cartridges that hold 1 ml of eliquid.. but you're right in the way it was stated in the study.
Last edited:
A new study finds diacetyl in e-cigarettes but exaggerates risks and fails to discuss about smoking
Dr.F:
"The levels presented in Figure 2 are quite low, much lower that what we found in our study. In many cases, levels of these compounds are absolutely minimal, and it is NOT expected to raise any concerns about human health effects. Additionaly, the authors FAILED to mention the presence of these compounds in tobacco cigarette smoke. This omission creates the impression that e-cigarettes are exposing users to a new chemical hazard, while in reality their exposure will be much lower compared to smoking. Finally, the try to argue that the use of the NIOSH-defined safety limits should not be used because they refer to working environment and not to the general population. The latter may include vulnerable people or people with disease. However, we have previously argued that such an argument is irrelevant for a simple reason: e-cigarettes are used by smokers. Whether you are healthy or not, smoking will be a much stronger risk factor for health damage compared to any exposure coming from e-cigarettes (at least at the average levels found in our study and the new study). Thus, this argument is invalid and refers ONLY to never-smokers (and everyone agrees that there is no reason for a never-smokers to use e-cigarettes, whether they contain diacetyl or not)."
Dr.F:
"The levels presented in Figure 2 are quite low, much lower that what we found in our study. In many cases, levels of these compounds are absolutely minimal, and it is NOT expected to raise any concerns about human health effects. Additionaly, the authors FAILED to mention the presence of these compounds in tobacco cigarette smoke. This omission creates the impression that e-cigarettes are exposing users to a new chemical hazard, while in reality their exposure will be much lower compared to smoking. Finally, the try to argue that the use of the NIOSH-defined safety limits should not be used because they refer to working environment and not to the general population. The latter may include vulnerable people or people with disease. However, we have previously argued that such an argument is irrelevant for a simple reason: e-cigarettes are used by smokers. Whether you are healthy or not, smoking will be a much stronger risk factor for health damage compared to any exposure coming from e-cigarettes (at least at the average levels found in our study and the new study). Thus, this argument is invalid and refers ONLY to never-smokers (and everyone agrees that there is no reason for a never-smokers to use e-cigarettes, whether they contain diacetyl or not)."
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
