Donate to Dr Farsalinos' new study

[Kent C]

I agree philosophically, but Dr. F says the flavor manufacturers should pay for the testing and we've already learned that the tests in question are dirt cheap.

I must have missed the 'dirt cheap' quote. As Kurt noted some (most?) flavor manufacturers deal only with food (ingestion) not vaping (inhalation). Only those that promote vaping flavors would be under consideration and again, no coercion - let them decide, and then let the market decide regardless of dirt cheapness. The onus is first on the consumer to either test or to demand testing with their buying decisions, then on the eliquid vendor. And if they want to push it up one more level, that's their decision - just like the consumer.

 

[Jman8]

I'd be satisfied with the margin of error involved in an analysis like the one we're discussing here. And it's the existence of the analysis that I'm talking about proving definitively. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

If you really want to get carried away you could point out that lab certs can be forged, so perhaps I should say "with some certainty". As with virtually everything, there are uncontrollable variables. As has been pointed out, there are unavoidable toxins in the air we breathe. That doesn't mean we should abandon air quality control, or just tell citizens buy masks (which is what it comes to when no one is tending to that problem).

For me, asking a vendor for definitive proof is "getting carried away."

I'd like to understand why the consumer ought not shoulder the bulk of the responsibility for such testing, if the consumer is the one requiring that information?

If I asked a vendor about that and he or she said, "Test it your own damn self, testing's not definitive, anyway", I'd not purchase from that vendor. And I'd consider that vendor a liability to our reduced-harm cause*.

I find this fascinating. Plausible to me that consumers here could be liability as well for failure to not test.

My interest is in vendors who do test their product, if that testing includes analysis of finished product for a&d, and if that's a viable requirement for business associations (and consumers, very few of whom are interested in either DIY or unflavored liquid)). Kurt has answered my question about the most accurate analysis - I'm wanting to know just what that would actually entail financially.

I believe the FDA will have this covered, and that this needs to be mentioned as it is the regulatory body looking out for more than just one possible aspect of harm.

If vendor has legitimately tested their product and it has legitimately been shown that D&A were either undetected or within range of safety levels, then that ought to be great for everyone in this thread concerned with this issue. But, I don't see how anyone can claim it is definitive proof based on a certificate.

IMO, you and others are plausibly looking for a 'general assurance' which I think is fair, and I think will be provided going forward. That it already has been provided, and proven to be possibly erroneous, doesn't help the matter, but I strongly believe that moving forward the general assurance is what will work for almost all people involved.

Still a kit for home/individual detection would seemingly be wise to help address the 'market' for those who desire an assurance of vaping safe product.

 

[aubergine]

I'll only respond to one thing you said, Jman, because although I don't buy a number of your arguments I'm mostly trying to ascertain what the cost of testing would be and if it's even feasible for vendors to test, whether or not we agree that they should (and that can certainly be resolved in a way that allays your fear of coercion by voluntary business associations). But:

If a vendor says he or she has "legitimately tested their product and it has legitimately been shown that D&A were either undetected or within the range of safety levels" then why on earth would it be "getting carried away" to ask to see a copy of the relevant part of that analysis? Perhaps I used the wrong term in a shorthand sort of way when I said "certificate" - I obviously mean some proof that the test was done and says what he/she says it does.

A really affordable kit would be dandy, for vendors or for consumers. Little pink stripe? If it could be that simple a vendor would be crazy not to advertise that he/she uses it. No idea if that's even remotely possible. I'm rather doubting it.

 

[rolygate]

Originally Posted by SmokeyJoe

Simple health economics says that if vaping is 100th as dangerous as smoking, you would need 100 new lifelong smokers (that otherwise would not have smoked) per new vaper for there to be a net negative public health impact.

I haven't yet read to the end of the thread, so maybe it's already covered, but I don't understand this. I'm not particularly good with numbers, but it seems backwards to me. And I don't get who the 100 smokers are who "otherwise would not have smoked." What is the factor that causes them to smoke, i.e., without which they would not have done so?

Possibly, what he meant to say was: If vaping is 1/100th as dangerous as smoking, you would need more than 100 new lifelong vapers (that otherwise would not have vaped) per new vaper who has quit smoking for there to be a net negative public health impact.

Since vaping most likely has a base mortality risk reduction way greater than that, there might actually need to be tens of millions of vapers who were non-smokers and would not have smoked, in order to see any negative public health impact. You can see that clearly enough from Sweden, where even though there are now double the number of Snusers than smokers, they have the world's lowest 'tobacco-related mortality rate' in developed counties by a wide margin.

Male smoking prevalence falls at 1% per year in Sweden and will be just 5% by 2016; so, for men at any rate, smoking-related mortality will be virtually eliminated at some point (after the 20-year timelapse operates).

 

[aubergine]

(One reason why I'm so on this is that I want vaping to show stats like that when longitudinal studies come in. Anything that we can do internally toward that is a very good thing, IMHO. The FDA might make my concern moot, but until/unless that happens, it matters.)

 

[Kent C]

Many know this but in case you haven't checked.... here's the 'Standards' pdf on the lab processes done for a vendor to get certification from AEMSA.

http://www.aemsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/AEMSA-Standards_Version-1-8.pdf

Cert....

ECITA in the UK has similar standards along with certification for their members.

Welcome to ECITA - The Electronic Cigarette Industry Trade Association

 

[aubergine]

Thanks, Kent, I should have provided the link.

Just shot this off to VapeMates, members of ECITA, mentioned in a post above. ECITA seems to make stronger claims about testing specifically for d&a than does AEMSA, though that might be a matter of language.

Hi Guys,
I've been posting in a thread in ECF and I have a few questions for you.
About what does it cost (in money and time) to test an individual, finished e-liquid for diacetyl and related substances? Do the tests that your lab runs meet the standards that Kurt sets forth in that thread?:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...517858-donate-dr-farsalinos-new-study-34.html
Would you agree with him re testing standards?
May I quote your reply on that thread?
Thanks!
aka aubergine

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Jman8

I'd like to understand why the consumer ought not shoulder the bulk of the responsibility for such testing, if the consumer is the one requiring that information?

They will, the vendor that decides to do this will add it to his cost of doing business and price their product accordingly. Then they can advertise what they are doing and post the tests with trade secrets redacted and see if we are willing to pay for a product that has tested safe as far as present science knows.

It's another line Item in the budget like projected corporate taxes which the business collects from their customers and pass on to the government.

At that point we decide if we want to pay a little more for tested goods, if we do others will follow and test theirs, if we don't testing will go down the tubes.

It's called competition and the free market.

If we don't and people are harmed then the government will step in and regulate the industry.

And yes I do own a business and I'm speaking from 35 years experience.

 

[bigdancehawk]

Possibly, what he meant to say was: If vaping is 1/100th as dangerous as smoking, you would need more than 100 new lifelong vapers (that otherwise would not have vaped) per new vaper who has quit smoking for there to be a net negative public health impact.

Since vaping most likely has a base mortality risk reduction way greater than that, there might actually need to be tens of millions of vapers who were non-smokers and would not have smoked, in order to see any negative public health impact. You can see that clearly enough from Sweden, where even though there are now double the number of Snusers than smokers, they have the world's lowest 'tobacco-related mortality rate' in developed counties by a wide margin.

Male smoking prevalence falls at 1% per year in Sweden and will be just 5% by 2016; so, for men at any rate, smoking-related mortality will be virtually eliminated at some point (after the 20-year timelapse operates).

Yep.^^^^^^

 

[Kent C]

Thanks, Kent, I should have provided the link.

Just shot this off to VapeMates, members of ECITA, mentioned in a post above. ECITA seems to make stronger claims about testing specifically for d&a than does AEMSA, though that might be a matter of language.

Hi Guys,
I've been posting in a thread in ECF and I have a few questions for you.
About what does it cost (in money and time) to test an individual, finished e-liquid for diacetyl and related substances? Do the tests that your lab runs meet the standards that Kurt sets forth in that thread?:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...517858-donate-dr-farsalinos-new-study-34.html
Would you agree with him re testing standards?
May I quote your reply on that thread?
Thanks!
aka aubergine

I've been following quality (at first, in nic base) since I read 'Nick O'Teen's' early posts here before he (Peter Cole) became Decadent Vapours. I became one of his first customers in 2009 and have been following developments ever since. DV was the first to go 'diacetyl free' from his own testing at first. Some history....

Decadent Vapours’ Response to MHRA announcement of 12th June

This is not meant to be an 'ad' but only a reflection of my own history regarding certain factors in eliquid.

 

[vangrl27]

Thanks, Kent, I should have provided the link.

Just shot this off to VapeMates, members of ECITA, mentioned in a post above. ECITA seems to make stronger claims about testing specifically for d&a than does AEMSA, though that might be a matter of language.

Hi Guys,
I've been posting in a thread in ECF and I have a few questions for you.
About what does it cost (in money and time) to test an individual, finished e-liquid for diacetyl and related substances? Do the tests that your lab runs meet the standards that Kurt sets forth in that thread?:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...517858-donate-dr-farsalinos-new-study-34.html
Would you agree with him re testing standards?
May I quote your reply on that thread?
Thanks!
aka aubergine

The link on their page answers some of those questions. They go into the minimal detection limit, and they are working with Enthalpy labs, the same lab that co-authored the crowd funded study with Dr Farsalinos

As well, this was already posted a few pages back, but this is a direct quote from Enthalpy regarding testing prices

1 sample = $200/each
2-25 samples = $135/each
26-50 samples = $125/each
>50 samples = $120/each"

 

[vangrl27]

Vapemate

"Also, we position Electronic Cigarettes as a Tobacco Harm Reduction tool, so our goal should be to eliminate as many harmful aspects as possible. Tobacco Cigarettes contain Diacetyl in concentrations of 250+ ppm. Therefore, whatever testing protocol is used should be expected to test to well below that level. Unfortunately, some GC/MS test results that I have seen recently are only detecting to 0.1% (1000 ppm). That's 4 times the level found in a single tobacco cigarette. So what would that test even prove?

If you are using GC/MS testing, be certain to check and understand the lower detection limit for what you are attempting to detect.

The testing protocol that we are using is what they call HPLC/UV Analysis. I do not know what that means, exactly, but it has a very low minimum detection levels for Diacetyl and Pentanedione. For that reason, you can have confidence that we DO know "what is in the E-Liquid". There is still more to learn and our testing protocols will be adjusted as needed."

they are using the HPLC analysis that Kurt mentioned, and not the GC-MS method that I believe does not detect really low amounts?

Vapemate and Kanadian Kat (both vendors and both members of ECTA) have been great at answering any question promptly on the Canadian forum, so although I'm pretty sure they will answer your e-mail, you could always post your questions on there.

 

[aubergine]

Thanks vangrl! I'd seen those figures but hadn't put it together where they came from or how the analysis was done.

 

[Jman8]

They will, the vendor that decides to do this will add it to his cost of doing business and price their product accordingly.

I meant by paying for the test of samples directly. If I wanted definite proof of D&A free liquid, I'd pay the $200 per sample, and then I'd have the definite proof. Relying on vendor to do this (as has already occurred in the market), doesn't lead to definitive proof.

This is what I meant by shoulder the responsibility and deal with this issue with integrity. Caveat Emptor.

Me, I don't wish to know at that level of proof, and a general assurance works for me, even if that may be erroneous. I like that a vendor or industry appears on top of this situation, but I don't expect them to do it, nor do I think of it as reasonable expectation. More like icing on the cake.

 

[Kurt]

I would love to see a kit anyone can buy to make the determination. Is there such a thing?

Not for DA/AP. And no kit will measure anything down to microgram/mL. Not that I am aware of.

 

[eethr]

Concerning the concept of determining which e-liquids, if any, meet an individual consumer's own safety specifications---

Several posters here seem to have their own "sticking point," as to how to achieve this, and even whether or not it's possible. And most of these are indeed backed up by reasonable logic. With the variety of these suggestions, comes a variety of costs. So the question arises, "what cost is reasonable" for the average vaper? Or, "What cost is practical?"

In finding a solution, consider the age-old concept of honesty versus fraud. These existed long before laws and courts. The people who were involved in transactions were aware of, and handled these things, on their own or as groups. Things got straightened out pretty quickly. This was the self-regulating Market.

Today we have things like "Honesty in Advertising," Guarantees, Warranties, Certifications, and Contracts with absolute specifications.

If a person or company wanted to purchase a chemical compound which contained exact amounts, within stated tolerances, of certain chemicals or molecules---then that can be contracted for, with specific penalties included for out-of-tolerance items. The purchaser might want to test every 100th or 1,000th item, or whatever is appropriate to the type of product, to confirm products as being within tolerances. This puts the seller at high risk, on both the civil and criminal level, if he ships bad product.

And that's the market for you. A guy asks a seller, "Can you provide this product within these specifications?" If the seller says no, then the buyer goes to someone who can. It's as simple as that. If the seller says "yes," then the buyer can discuss a penalty clause in the contract, and if the seller is not willing to guarantee under severe penalty, then again the buyer goes to someone who will.

In these cases, the e-juice blender would be the buyer, and the flavoring manufacturer would be the seller.

The flavoring manufacturer knows what he is putting into his own flavorings. If he doesn't, then he has no right to be selling anything he makes, because he doesn't actually know what it is that he is selling. And if he doesn't know what it is, then the buyer would have no way of knowing until after he bought it! Markets don't like those kinds of sellers, and buyers avoid them by requiring guarantees with appropriate penalties.

That's the way it's been working for thousands of years, at least.

When the buyer puts the seller at great risk if he delivers a bad product, you will get good products.

An e-juice blender would pass-on the flavoring manufacturer's guarantee, and both blenders and consumer groups would test from time-to-time---and the manufacturers know that.

I trust the Market system way more than the FDA.

 

[Kurt]

I'd be satisfied with the margin of error involved in an analysis like the one we're discussing here. And it's the existence of the analysis that I'm talking about proving definitively. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

If you really want to get carried away you could point out that lab certs can be forged, so perhaps I should say "with some certainty". As with virtually everything, there are uncontrollable variables. As has been pointed out, there are unavoidable toxins in the air we breathe. That doesn't mean we should abandon air quality control, or just tell citizens buy masks (which is what it comes to when no one is tending to that problem).

I'm trying to figure out the actual (not just hypothesized) weight of the burden that vendors would shoulder if they decided to test their product for these specific substances.

If I asked a vendor about that and he or she said, "Test it your own damn self, testing's not definitive, anyway", I'd not purchase from that vendor. And I'd consider that vendor a liability to our reduced-harm cause*.

If that vendor said, "I'm concerned too, but this is exactly what it would cost for me to have my product analyzed properly and it's clear that I'd no longer have a viable business - but I make no claim that my products are d&a free though I do my best with what's available to me", then OK, and we're where we started.

My interest is in vendors who do test their product, if that testing includes analysis of finished product for a&d, and if that's a viable requirement for business associations (and consumers, very few of whom are interested in either DIY or unflavored liquid). Kurt has answered my question about the most accurate analysis - I'm wanting to know just what that would actually entail financially.

*Writing in this thread is tricky, because we're talking about further harm (or risk) reduction in a product that is the best existing standard for that by far, and elsewhere most of us are vigorously arguing that. It's consistent with that aim, though, to respond responsibly to any information that might help us make vaping as harm-free as we reasonably can.

Depending on the method used, around $100-200 a sample, ball park. Bulk rates are lower per sample. Initially this may be on the vendors to do. Ultimately I would like to see the flavor compounders (Capellas, FW, etc) do it themselves, and/or provide a line of flavors for vapers and vendors. But I don't know how this will evolve in the coming months.

I believe, just like accurate nicotine levels being a new thing in early 2012, after the Box Elder incident, that the market will evolve to verifiable levels for these and other compounds in e-liquids, because it will be in the manufacturers best business interest. If it ultimately originates upstream from vendors, with COAs, this would be ideal, in my opinion. Flavor companies are making a lot of money from vendors making e-liquids, and it is their interest to answer to a public concern like this, at least in my opinion.

 

[Kurt]

For me, asking a vendor for definitive proof is "getting carried away."

I'd like to understand why the consumer ought not shoulder the bulk of the responsibility for such testing, if the consumer is the one requiring that information?



I find this fascinating. Plausible to me that consumers here could be liability as well for failure to not test.



I believe the FDA will have this covered, and that this needs to be mentioned as it is the regulatory body looking out for more than just one possible aspect of harm.

If vendor has legitimately tested their product and it has legitimately been shown that D&A were either undetected or within range of safety levels, then that ought to be great for everyone in this thread concerned with this issue. But, I don't see how anyone can claim it is definitive proof based on a certificate.

IMO, you and others are plausibly looking for a 'general assurance' which I think is fair, and I think will be provided going forward. That it already has been provided, and proven to be possibly erroneous, doesn't help the matter, but I strongly believe that moving forward the general assurance is what will work for almost all people involved.

Still a kit for home/individual detection would seemingly be wise to help address the 'market' for those who desire an assurance of vaping safe product.

Unless you have a very large and very well equipped lab, and the education needed to be able to run and interpret the tests, the consumer CANNOT do these tests themselves. No way. No "kit" exists, not like nicotine level testing, and even that is very inaccurate (+/-10-20% error). Adding a reagent to produce a derivative of DA/AP would at best tell you it is there, but then that derivative reagent would also probably react with any other ketone/aldehyde, and without spectroscopy analysis, you would not be able to tell if it is from DA/AP, and certainly not how much. This really is a job for the professionals. Nice idea in theory, but not possible, as far as I know, in reality.

 

[Jman8]

Still, a consumer could pay directly to the professionals. And depending on who really needs to know, and why, I think the individual consumer shoulder that responsibility. To the degree that seems unlikely, I would say then consumers are getting general assurances on product safety.

 

[Kurt]

Vapemate

"Also, we position Electronic Cigarettes as a Tobacco Harm Reduction tool, so our goal should be to eliminate as many harmful aspects as possible. Tobacco Cigarettes contain Diacetyl in concentrations of 250+ ppm. Therefore, whatever testing protocol is used should be expected to test to well below that level. Unfortunately, some GC/MS test results that I have seen recently are only detecting to 0.1% (1000 ppm). That's 4 times the level found in a single tobacco cigarette. So what would that test even prove?

If you are using GC/MS testing, be certain to check and understand the lower detection limit for what you are attempting to detect.

The testing protocol that we are using is what they call HPLC/UV Analysis. I do not know what that means, exactly, but it has a very low minimum detection levels for Diacetyl and Pentanedione. For that reason, you can have confidence that we DO know "what is in the E-Liquid". There is still more to learn and our testing protocols will be adjusted as needed."

they are using the HPLC analysis that Kurt mentioned, and not the GC-MS method that I believe does not detect really low amounts?

Vapemate and Kanadian Kat (both vendors and both members of ECTA) have been great at answering any question promptly on the Canadian forum, so although I'm pretty sure they will answer your e-mail, you could always post your questions on there.

Yes, it sounds like they are using the same or similar HPLC-derivative method we used. We published the method, so soon as the paper is in print, all will see how we did it. It does have its challenges, however. If a lab has never done it with DA/AP before, it will take time to work out kinks. As I said, flavor mixes pose their own challenges due to so many compounds, many of which also have ketone/aldehyde groups. People also need to realize that if even they have the equipment, but they have not actually done the assay, it is on the customer (one who submits the sample) to pay for developing the assay itself, in many cases. I ran into that with nicotine back in 2012 after vendors came to me to test for nic levels accurately. It was going to be about $5000 to have a pro lab work up the assay, before any vendor samples were run.

GC-MS can have a very low LOD and LOQ, but it requires a more advanced GC-MS machine, and a lot more preparation and knowledge. There is also GC-FID (flame ionization detection) and some other methods too. All require a lot of knowledge, and of course having the machines (cheap is about $100,000 + time and $ to develop the assay itself). In of itself, the most commonly run GC-MS only tells the presence, and often not below a threshold that is too high for our purposes. Not that some people don't make quantitative claims from their outputs. Seen that a lot with this problem.