Donate to Dr Farsalinos' new study

[Kurt]

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.

Well, to be clear, again, there is no actual safety data with vaping these compounds, but I get your point in terms of general presence and concentrations. This is why trade associations that use independent labs, with no vested interest in giving false results, are useful. Of course, corruption can know no bounds, but at some point independent science should be the ultimate factor for consumer trust. And perhaps the customer will ultimately foot the bill, if prices increase to reflect the analysis costs. Not saying this will happen, or even is currently with this problem, but that is the purpose of such associations: pooling resources for a common interest, and pooling knowledge so the group can evolve with the demands from the public...and government! Of course, there will always be the argument that then these associations will lobby and dictate what others do, but I look at it as a good business model for the industry and its survival. If the industry can show that it can effectively police itself, then others are less inclined to police it. Only so many resources for enforcement, after all.

 

[rurwin]

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

Welcome to ECITA - The Electronic Cigarette Industry Trade Association

All well and good, but how good are their standards? For example a well known and popular liquid displays an ECITA certificate on its website, so I wrote and asked ECITA what it meant.

At the time the liquid was tested, which is "some time ago", there was no test for AP. The test for Diacetyl is only known to be sensitive to 0.05% (500ppm or 495ug/ml) when testing a real liquid (rather than a calibrated simpler substance.) The expectation is that it is sensitive down to 0.01% or 0.005% (50ppm or 49 ug/ml).

If we accept Dr Farsalinos and Kurt's assurance* that 5ppb room air is equivalent to 20ug/ml, then even that best case sensitivity is not suitable for testing against the NIOSH limit. It is however good enough to test to the looser EU standard of 20ppb, which would equate to 80ug/ml.

They are looking at improving and further calibrating their analysis, however that doesn't affect those certificates already issued, some of them "some time ago."

It is also worth mentioning that the ECITA test is not limited to just these two substances; it also tests for other stuff with known inhalation risks.

---
* see next post.

 

[rurwin]

60μg, or 20μg/ml for 3ml, per day does not seem correct to me.

The NIOSH limit for diacetyl is "below a concentration of 5 parts per billion (ppb) [in room air] as a time-weighted average (TWA) during a 40-hour work week."

If we assume 3ml per day in 300 inhales, then each inhale from an ecig vapourises 10 microliters (or 0.01ml). A normal inhale is, say, 500ml, so we are reducing by a factor of 0.01/500 = 0.000 02
If we assume a normal person breaths every three seconds on average, 28800 times a day, then that's a further factor of 0.01 that the liquid is reduced by.
We must also allow that the NIOSH standard is for a 40 hour working week, so we need to multiply by 4.2 to account for the time the worker is breathing clean air.
So our eliquid is already equivalent to a concentration of 0.00002x0.01x4.2 = 0.000 000 84 = 840 ppb in room air.
It would require a Diacetyl concentration of 0.6% or 6,000ppm to breach the NIOSH limit.

It may be that Diacetyl causes damage immediately and therefore breathing any clean air is of no avail. That would make eliquid eqivalent to 0.00002x4.2 = 0.000 084 = 84000ppb in room air, and require a Diacetyl concentration of 0.000 056 = 56ppm or 56μg/ml to breach the NIOSH limit.

Instead we can say that over a 40 hour week, a worker breaths 40x60x60/3 = 48000 times, with a volume of 500ml each, making 24000 litres. The Diacetyl concentration is allowed to be 0.000 000 005 of that or 0.12ml per week. Which is 0.017 ml per day, or a whole 17mg, not μg.

There must be an error there; I've love to know what it is.

 

[aubergine]

Here's my very rapid response from VapeMate:

"(Greeting)

That's an interesting thread. I had seen something on the WackedOut Forum saying there was an ECF thread going but I hadn't looked at it until now.

The testing, for the items we are currently testing, runs $215 USD, per sample. We generally get our results back within about 10-15 days.

And absolutely... The lab uses HPLC/UV (as Kurt mentions) which has from our last results had minimum detection levels of:
- Acetaldehyde, 0.640 ug/ml
- Acetoin, 0.841 ug/ml
- Diacetyl, 0.742 ug/ml
- Formaldehyde, 0.846 ug/ml
- Pentanedione (Acetyl Propionyl), 0.840 ug/ml

I haven't read the whole thread by based on his quoted comment at the top of page 34 where the link took me, that is very much in line with Kurt suggesting "10 micrograms/mL. 1 microgram/mL would be better.". The testing that we are having them do is actually less than 1 ug/ml for the carbonyls...

So yes, I agree and echo Kurt's concern about GC/MS testing, alone. I'm no chemist or science guy and I realize there are a ton of variables and equations used to get from what's found in the flavouring to what is expelled in the vapour but the fact is, you're not Diacetyl and Acetyl Propionyl free unless you're Diacetyl and Acetyl Propionyl free. The only way to know for sure, is to test at as low a level as you can reasonably test.

And sure, you can quote this anywhere you think it might do some good.

Thanks!

Sincerely,
Vape Mate"

I count that a very transparent, consumer-supportive and excellent reply.

My own favorite vendor also responded quickly. In part he wrote:

"Our testing is done by an outside lab which is required; even though we have in-house capabilities to run/analyze our own GC-MS data, it has to be done by a 3rd party. The data we receive back contain a certificate of analysis which contains product identification via HPLC-MS analysis. Any flavor component (mixed/unmixed) has to be free of Diketones (Diacethyl, acetyl propionyl etc) before it even enters the production line."

As no specific detection levels were supplied (I didn't ask for them specifically), I guess that by "free" he means "negligible trace". His testing seems to cost a lot more and it's unclear to me from what he wrote why that is. He provides specific data per product to bulk purchasers - I didn't request that in this letter.

For me, one result of this study and subsequent conversation is that I have a clearer idea of what I might want to require of a product, and some degree of assurance that consumers aren't forced to be reliant upon blind trust or guesswork ("fruits are good, but not always." etc. ).

 

[marianna]

Would a natural blueberry have diacetyl?

This is what AEMSA-certified ecblend.com says:
Diacetyl occurs naturally in tobacco, apples, beans, butter, artichokes, black currants, blueberries, blue cheese, coffee, vinegar, dairy, honey, and wheat.

Diacetyl

 

[Kent C]

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.

This is how it should work within the market and how it has just in these 5-7 short years. Granted, things move much faster now than in the past because of the internet and forums like this and there are forums for any product or service. Communications go quickly, and certain product disasters of the past would have been much less 'effective' with the tools we have now.

Here we have 'made adjustments' on battery problems, vents, better circuit protection, on fillers real early on, finding the right material replacements for the default carts, cartos, better air flows, and the dangerous carto thread was responsible for clearomizers and many of the modder's ideas are now standard equipment at Joye, Kanger, Vision and elsewhere.

During the 'customs ban' of 2009, with China business virtually shut down, US eliquid makers sprung up from that stop and still exist today as a base of US manufacturing for eliquids. Improvements in ejuice, nicotine leveling, now diacetyl etc. etc. are being addressed and handled, all without gov't intervention through consumer demand mostly, but by vendors creativity to attempt to foretell what people want next.

And we have done it better and imo, faster than any gov't bureaucracy at one point - Feb 15, 2007 for example who knew nothing of ecigs and didn't for another at least two years. Sadly, all this true progress will come to a halt or greatly slowed if the proposed deeming becomes the final rule. Fortunately, if there's a black market, the information exchange part of it won't have to go deep underground, although much of it may be done through email and other social media rather than forums. All that remains to be seen.

If anyone wonders how an industry's products could be safe for consumption without gov't intervention, they should take a look at the history of ecigs here at ECF. It's a near perfect example how free minds can create free markets without the direction of the nanny statists.

AND... this is important - almost every ecig and every bottle of eliquid sold from the cigarette huts have benefitted from what we have done here - we drive the market, and down the line our effect is still felt even though the vendors and their customers never heard of us.

As Milton Friedman (economist) used to say, while knowing nothing about the quality or price of bread or cereal at the grocery store, he benefits for all the coupon clippers and the people who needed to find the best quality at the best price and did the legwork necessary and the grocer has to cater to them or they lose business. As a result, Milton too, benefits and doesn't get ripped off.

 

[Kurt]

Here's my very rapid response from VapeMate:

"(Greeting)

That's an interesting thread. I had seen something on the WackedOut Forum saying there was an ECF thread going but I hadn't looked at it until now.

The testing, for the items we are currently testing, runs $215 USD, per sample. We generally get our results back within about 10-15 days.

And absolutely... The lab uses HPLC/UV (as Kurt mentions) which has from our last results had minimum detection levels of:
- Acetaldehyde, 0.640 ug/ml
- Acetoin, 0.841 ug/ml
- Diacetyl, 0.742 ug/ml
- Formaldehyde, 0.846 ug/ml
- Pentanedione (Acetyl Propionyl), 0.840 ug/ml

I haven't read the whole thread by based on his quoted comment at the top of page 34 where the link took me, that is very much in line with Kurt suggesting "10 micrograms/mL. 1 microgram/mL would be better.". The testing that we are having them do is actually less than 1 ug/ml for the carbonyls...

So yes, I agree and echo Kurt's concern about GC/MS testing, alone. I'm no chemist or science guy and I realize there are a ton of variables and equations used to get from what's found in the flavouring to what is expelled in the vapour but the fact is, you're not Diacetyl and Acetyl Propionyl free unless you're Diacetyl and Acetyl Propionyl free. The only way to know for sure, is to test at as low a level as you can reasonably test.

And sure, you can quote this anywhere you think it might do some good.

Thanks!

Sincerely,
Vape Mate"

I count that a very transparent, consumer-supportive and excellent reply.

My own favorite vendor also responded quickly. In part he wrote:

"Our testing is done by an outside lab which is required; even though we have in-house capabilities to run/analyze our own GC-MS data, it has to be done by a 3rd party. The data we receive back contain a certificate of analysis which contains product identification via HPLC-MS analysis. Any flavor component (mixed/unmixed) has to be free of Diketones (Diacethyl, acetyl propionyl etc) before it even enters the production line."

As no specific detection levels were supplied (I didn't ask for them specifically), I guess that by "free" he means "negligible trace". His testing seems to cost a lot more and it's unclear to me from what he wrote why that is. He provides specific data per product to bulk purchasers - I didn't request that in this letter.

For me, one result of this study and subsequent conversation is that I have a clearer idea of what I might want to require of a product, and some degree of assurance that consumers aren't forced to be reliant upon blind trust or guesswork ("fruits are good, but not always." etc. ).

Thank you very much for this aubergine!

The GC-MS your vendor is getting MUST give the LOD and LOQ. This is vital, to avoid false negatives. Lots of GC-MS results with either no LODs given or they are very high. Not sure what expense he is talking about, but lower LOD is generally higher cost. The cost of the HPLC-UV is reasonable. If he gets a lot of test requests, and gets a large batch of samples, that price might lower. But this is not an easy assay to perform.

 

[Kent C]

All well and good, but how good are their standards? For example a well known and popular liquid displays an ECITA certificate on its website, so I wrote and asked ECITA what it meant.

At the time the liquid was tested, which is "some time ago", there was no test for AP. The test for Diacetyl is only known to be sensitive to 0.05% (500ppm or 495ug/ml) when testing a real liquid (rather than a calibrated simpler substance.) The expectation is that it is sensitive down to 0.01% or 0.005% (50ppm or 49 ug/ml).

If we accept Dr Farsalinos and Kurt's assurance* that 5ppb room air is equivalent to 20ug/ml, then even that best case sensitivity is not suitable for testing against the NIOSH limit. It is however good enough to test to the looser EU standard of 20ppb, which would equate to 80ug/ml.

They are looking at improving and further calibrating their analysis, however that doesn't affect those certificates already issued, some of them "some time ago."

It is also worth mentioning that the ECITA test is not limited to just these two substances; it also tests for other stuff with known inhalation risks.

---
* see next post.

There's been an evolution - first was grades of nic base, then resolution of the difference in levels of nic, the diacetyl was coming to the top of consideration about a year ago - sooner for some and much later for others. It appears the methods of AEMSA and ECITA are close but if you want absolute certainty, ignoring certs and what they represent at the time they are awarded, then you're going to have to do it yourself, since for some, no 'second hand' info will be enough. Not saying you - but for some that will be the case.

 

[Kurt]

This is what AEMSA-certified ecblend.com says:
Diacetyl occurs naturally in tobacco, apples, beans, butter, artichokes, black currants, blueberries, blue cheese, coffee, vinegar, dairy, honey, and wheat.

Diacetyl

Diacetyl is a compound involved with ripening and other plant processes. Including tobacco, although the very high levels found in smoke are from combustion, primarily. Of course, anything dairy will have DA.

 

[aubergine]

Misread something - never mind. Sorry.

 

[sonicdsl]

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.

Excellent post aubergine! And thank you for the research you've done on this!

This is how it should work within the market and how it has just in these 5-7 short years. Granted, things move much faster now than in the past because of the internet and forums like this and there are forums for any product or service. Communications go quickly, and certain product disasters of the past would have been much less 'effective' with the tools we have now.

Here we have 'made adjustments' on battery problems, vents, better circuit protection, on fillers real early on, finding the right material replacements for the default carts, cartos, better air flows, and the dangerous carto thread was responsible for clearomizers and many of the modder's ideas are now standard equipment at Joye, Kanger, Vision and elsewhere.

During the 'customs ban' of 2009, with China business virtually shut down, US eliquid makers sprung up from that stop and still exist today as a base of US manufacturing for eliquids. Improvements in ejuice, nicotine leveling, now diacetyl etc. etc. are being addressed and handled, all without gov't intervention through consumer demand mostly, but by vendors creativity to attempt to foretell what people want next.

And we have done it better and imo, faster than any gov't bureaucracy at one point - Feb 15, 2007 for example who knew nothing of ecigs and didn't for another at least two years. Sadly, all this true progress will come to a halt or greatly slowed if the proposed deeming becomes the final rule. Fortunately, if there's a black market, the information exchange part of it won't have to go deep underground, although much of it may be done through email and other social media rather than forums. All that remains to be seen.

If anyone wonders how an industry's products could be safe for consumption without gov't intervention, they should take a look at the history of ecigs here at ECF. It's a near perfect example how free minds can create free markets without the direction of the nanny statists.

AND... this is important - almost every ecig and every bottle of eliquid sold from the cigarette huts have benefitted from what we have done here - we drive the market, and down the line our effect is still felt even though the vendors and their customers never heard of us.

As Milton Friedman (economist) used to say, while knowing nothing about the quality or price of bread or cereal at the grocery store, he benefits for all the coupon clippers and the people who needed to find the best quality at the best price and did the legwork necessary and the grocer has to cater to them or they lose business. As a result, Milton too, benefits and doesn't get ripped off.

Also an excellent post! Exactly what drew me here and kept me here almost 3 years ago!



And Kurt... thanks so much for staying active here at ECF all these years and helping all of us laypersons understand these things!

 

[eethr]

A normal inhale is, say, 500ml,....

There must be an error there; I've love to know what it is.

Even if you meant micro-liters, that would still be 1/2 ml in one puff, which is way too much because a 3 ml tank would only last for 6 inhales before it was bone dry.

 

[aubergine]

Someone just shot me an interesting question:

Since diacetyl occurs naturally in fruits and other food stuffs, and is a compound involved with ripening and other plant processes (right?), does that mean it is possible for an 'organic'* flavoring to create diacetyl as it ages, though it may have tested negative in a previous analysis? Or are e-liquids stable in that regard? Is that among the reasons that natural extracts are suspect?
*I think he meant naturally extracted.

Kurt? Anyone?

That'd have a bearing on steeping, stashing and clean forgetting it was under the bed for a year.

I suspect the answer to that one might be obvious to the scientists on board here, whose patience is legendary.

 

[Kent C]

Someone just shot me an interesting question:

Since diacetyl occurs naturally in fruits and other food stuffs, and is a compound involved with ripening and other plant processes (right?), does that mean it is possible for an 'organic'* flavoring to create diacetyl as it ages, though it may have tested negative in a previous analysis? Or are e-liquids stable in that regard? Is that among the reasons that natural extracts are suspect?
*I think he meant naturally extracted.

Kurt? Anyone?

That'd have a bearing on steeping, stashing and clean forgetting it was under the bed for a year.

I suspect the answer to that one might be obvious to the scientists on board here, whose patience is legendary.

I'm not sure given those contexts but Kurt in #304 said this: "The bottom line is DA and AP can be removed or not included, verified by testing, and are thus avoidable."

I would think that other factors (other than adding DA or AP would still make them 'avoidable'.

Kurt will likely reply when he sees this

 

[rurwin]

Even if you meant micro-liters, that would still be 1/2 ml in one puff, which is way too much because a 3 ml tank would only last for 6 inhales before it was bone dry.

That's a lungful of air being 500ml, in which is mixed 10 micro-litres of eliquid.

 

[eethr]

That's a lungful of air being 500ml, in which is mixed 10 micro-litres of eliquid.

Ah, now that makes sense. Thanks.

 

[Kurt]

Someone just shot me an interesting question:

Since diacetyl occurs naturally in fruits and other food stuffs, and is a compound involved with ripening and other plant processes (right?), does that mean it is possible for an 'organic'* flavoring to create diacetyl as it ages, though it may have tested negative in a previous analysis? Or are e-liquids stable in that regard? Is that among the reasons that natural extracts are suspect?
*I think he meant naturally extracted.

Kurt? Anyone?

That'd have a bearing on steeping, stashing and clean forgetting it was under the bed for a year.

I suspect the answer to that one might be obvious to the scientists on board here, whose patience is legendary.

If what is meant is a natrual extract, then I suppose yes DA could increase with age...but I don't know. If any fermentation occurs, then it can be generated. But now we are contemplating vaping something that is worse (regardless of DA) than it was originally. INdependent of DA/AP content, or how it changes over time, I do not personally vape natural extracts, for the other reasons I have listed earlier.

If what is meant is a natural flavor, or mix of natural flavor compounds (which I defined earlier), then I doubt DA would increase in time, or be produced when it was not there originally, since there would be no biological processes.

 

[Jman8]

I am very curious how to move forward, as a consumer, from Kurt or Dr. F's position. And mostly wondering about right now. Here are the options as I understand them:

1. Avoid / minimize all flavoring in eLiquids, will help minimize this particular risk.
2. Avoid / minimize sweet flavors in particular as there is more of this issue in those type of flavors, less so with other flavors.
3. Don't be overly alarmed, vape on as before, trusting industry will sufficiently address this issue ASAP (due to this study and perhaps many now highly concerned consumers)
4. Avoid vaping altogether which would squarely avoid this risk.

Feel free to add to this list, but just looking to capture, from Kurt/Dr. F. the appropriate reaction to this issue for the general consumer (realizing it is up to the individual really, but what would be your professional recommendation).

Also compelled to note that for me, I am likely to go with #3 and to recommend that to a fellow vaper. I do have philosophical concerns with the other 3 which are more or less noted by me on this thread in some fashion.

 

[Mr.Mann]

If what is meant is a natrual extract, then I suppose yes DA could increase with age...but I don't know. If any fermentation occurs, then it can be generated. But now we are contemplating vaping something that is worse (regardless of DA) than it was originally. INdependent of DA/AP content, or how it changes over time, I do not personally vape natural extracts, for the other reasons I have listed earlier.

If what is meant is a natural flavor, or mix of natural flavor compounds (which I defined earlier), then I doubt DA would increase in time, or be produced when it was not there originally, since there would be no biological processes.

I believe this is what Kurt is referring to with what he defined earlier:

"...A natural flavor is generally a single compound that is found in the food itself. Diacetyl itself is a natural flavor! So diacetyl will contain diacetyl, of course. But a natural banana flavor is isoamyl acetate. By itself, it is a natural flavor, since it is found in banana. But a flavor compounder (generally who we buy from) might combine natural flavor compounds with other flavor compounds, and these may include diacetyl or acetyl propionyl. But if I bought a bottle of isoamyl acetate, and it also contained diacetyl, I would send it back.

A "natural extract" is just that, an extract, often with ethanol, of the whole food. In some cases, these can contain biomolecules, like proteins, lipids, polysaccharides, and other big molecules that can easily decompose with heat, or at the very least probably should not be inhaled." ~Kurt


It's so difficult to distinguish when the language is not necessarily universal and some vendors may just play up certain words to appear to be one thing when it's another. I knew an ingredient or compound could be identical to it's "natural" counterpart, but I thought those were considered artificial, as in, not directly from the advertised flavor/product. So tricky when an ingredient list can say "natural favors" and not actually be referring to dealing with the actual food product -- though it will appear to be so. I guess that's why Starbusts candy or Fruit Loops cereal can boast about "natural flavors."

 

[Racehorse]

I'm mostly trying to ascertain what the cost of testing would be and if it's even feasible for vendors to test

Asked and answered, AFAIC. Like you I prefer to see some forward movement and at least some players in the industry have shown that. Not real interested in remaining in the realm of "splitting hairs".

On the Canadian forum you see a lot of people saying they'll only buy from ECTA members, that they want to support the vendors that are paying to have the testing done.

Well I don't blame them for supporting those members....I would, too, but I was not reading on Canadian forums 8 months ago so I didn't know but somebody passed along the info to me recently so I followed up and found out about ECTA and wanted to bring it up in this discussion. Thank you for following up on it, vangrl27.

So yes it can be done, it's not that expensive, they are testing with the small detection level that Kurt spoke about

A little over $200 USD to test an eliquid is not expensive at all. That's only a couple orders (at retail price) of 30ml bottles for most vendors. If that puts anyone out of biz, they probably need to rethink their business model

I guess I was suprised since I've been reading here how it would costs thousands or millions and that only big companies and/or Big Tobacco would be able to afford testing, and/or testing would put little guys out of business, etc.

I looked up the cost of 30ml at the vendors who test, and its not 2x or 3x the price at all, either. Another point that has been repeated a lot but seems to have no basis in reality.


So they were testing back in 2013 or before at ECTA........all I guess I need and want at this point is a list of US companies who have been tesing similarly (with the small detection level), provide the test results, etc. ...........so I can purchase.