Effect of variable power levels on the yield of total aerosol mass and formation of aldehydes in e-

[Kent C]

Thank you, Kent! You are very correct, this study did look at thermal decomposition with flavors included. I absolutely should have remembered it, and I am very glad (and a bit humbled) that you brought it up.

I'm sure I've forgotten more studies than you have We've seen so many in the last 4 years especially. And I have many lingering around in my head from the 90's and forward, on smoking, second hand smoke, smoking related deaths, etc. etc.

 

[Kurt]

A good but quite limited study is what I was going to say.

They used what appears to be a CE-type tank atty. Not sure, but it looks like one. Might also be a bottom-coil.

For the flavor decomp carbonyl analysis they used 4.8W and 1.8 second puffs, so very low power and very very short puffs. We used minimum 5.2W, and 4 second puffs, which may still be at the lower end for this type of device with normal consumer usage. They used a 70 mL puff volume, we used 55 mL, so their air flow was much more than ours taking into account puff duration. We did 25 puffs per block, they did 15 puffs per block.

They looked at 13 different flavored e-liquids, good range of base formulation and flavor types. They got data on 15 puffs and reported that amount. Yes, very low decomp, but I wonder how much vapor they were producing with such low power and such short puffs. I wonder if the coils were really even heating up much.

They only looked at higher power with unflavored control nic solutions, but I have not compared the actual amounts between our studies on this point. We reported ug/puff, they reported per 15 puffs, and the puffs are very different, so comparison is difficult.

Again, thanks for reminding me of this study and forcing me to look at the details more carefully, Kent. I can always count on ECF to keep me in check! I have also seen several posters on this topic, but I prefer peer-reviewed published papers. Some posters we cited have not been officially published yet. I still think there are not nearly enough studies on flavor decomp, especially at higher powers, but revisiting this paper in terms of flavor decomp was very good for me indeed, even .

 

[Kent C]

so comparison is difficult.

Understood. So many factors going back to your reply to edyle and zoidman as to 'what could be done, given the money'. The industry is so fast moving - so many variables - that over-generalizing conclusions from, comparatively, narrow results are often misleading, which has been my main point on any study that either doesn't point that out or doesn't take that into consideration; OR on ANTZ studies that purposely do it to create a fear mongering headline.

 

[Kurt]

I'm sure I've forgotten more studies than you have We've seen so many in the last 4 years especially. And I have many lingering around in my head from the 90's and forward, on smoking, second hand smoke, smoking related deaths, etc. etc.

It can be, as I said, quite humbling. But valid and pointed questions like yours really are needed to push the science forward, however fallible it makes us feel, especially in this exploding field. I have decades of chemical research experience, but in this field I am a relative new-comer, and it is a HARD field to do rigorous work that actually has real meaning. Peer-review in this field is dramatically more intense than any other field I have worked in. I've never been involved with science that is so scrutinized by the public, minute to minute, and is changing so quickly. Most researchers want to insulate themselves from the public, but that is certainly not how I started in this world, and conversations like this, while sometimes difficult, have been very good for my own scientific growth.

You and I go way back here. Keep pushing my buttons, man! Helps us all.

 

[Kent C]

It can be, as I said, quite humbling. But valid and pointed questions like yours really are needed to push the science forward, however fallible it makes us feel, especially in this exploding field. I have decades of chemical research experience, but in this field I am a relative new-comer, and it is a HARD field to do rigorous work that actually has real meaning. Peer-review in this field is dramatically more intense than any other field I have worked in. I've never been involved with science that is so scrutinized by the public, minute to minute, and is changing so quickly. Most researchers want to insulate themselves from the public, but that is certainly not how I started in this world, and conversations like this, while sometimes difficult, have been very good for my own scientific growth.

You and I go way back here. Keep pushing my buttons, man! Helps us all.

Thanks. I've always appreciated your honesty and reality based orientation. And your info on storing DIY eliquid stuff has been invaluable - I've always tried to pass that along to others as they realize the 'situation' we may be in regarding the deeming.

I understand that there are basically 'two worlds of vaping' - ours - in this forum (and other forums) of people who are more interested in improving their equipment and eliquids (for various reasons), and then the people who are just trying to get off cigarettes. Those markets are quite different - hence the diversity of choices for scientists to chose where to focus.

However, I have said many times in the past, that what we do here, tends to drive the market. The advances made in the Dangerous Carto thread where the first 'E' clearos (not 'CE' -that was a bit later - perhaps 2 weeks lol...) were tested and critiqued and changes were made which eventually led to the bottom coil clearomizers/tanks that many of us use today. AND more to the point - what we see in B&M shops locally, for that larger market.

Same with eGo batts and many mods - venting started here on the 'Chuck thread'. (acknowledging some Precision mods that had them before that). eGos exploding lead to better charge and short protection from Joyetech at first, followed by others - and that from a thread on the eGo types forum. Many other improvements in threads or forums that I don't necessarily frequent have done the same - basically making 'standards' to which the manufacturers then take up simply from the demand - much like any other product really. But it's the 'forward edge' that pushes that envelope. And quality get better and less expensive, even for those, who never heard of ECF, buy from local B&Ms and had nothing to do with pushing the envelope.

The concern for thermal decomp was addressed by Evolv at first (again, there may have been selective other attempts) and then others followed. I would prefer to see studies done on our (collectively speaking) successes - testing (just for example) TC mods, including the newer Kanthal TC mod iJoy Asolo and mini Solo. Rather than showing our 'failures' in what is now the distant past for many of us, (yet raising 'questions' publically that tends to detract from our goals) that have basically been 'handled' (except for that larger B&M faction, of course). The info on successes can then be broadcast to that wider market as were our other successes. Such studies could show the benefits of TC and perhaps show some areas where the TC manufacturers could improve on in the future. I'd like to see "TC batteries" too. But until then we have Mossy and Baditude :- )

And that doesn't mean that we should 'cover up' any negatives, only that the focus on lower quality products is like showing the bad effects of the horse and buggy, where it might be better to focus on automobiles and how to improve them. And by doing that, focus of the larger vaping public goes there as well.

A lot there, and I don't expect you to address each point (or totally agree with them either), I'm sure you are just as aware of all I mentioned as many vets here are - but just to express a bit clearer my view of things, and where some of the 'button pushing' comes from and will continue to come from .... ;- )

 

[Kurt]

Understood. So many factors going back to your reply to edyle and zoidman as to 'what could be done, given the money'. The industry is so fast moving - so many variables - that over-generalizing conclusions from, comparatively, narrow results are often misleading, which has been my main point on any study that either doesn't point that out or doesn't take that into consideration; OR on ANTZ studies that purposely do it to create a fear mongering headline.

Unfortunately that is the way with most science today. Vested interests protect their own, amplify some data, remove other data, try to scare and fabricate, to suit their purposes. Its everywhere, not just with ecigs. I try to remain unbiased, but I am very biased towards making this technology as safe as possible.

 

[Kent C]

Unfortunately that is the way with most science today. Vested interests protect their own, amplify some data, remove other data, try to scare and fabricate, to suit their purposes. Its everywhere, not just with ecigs. I try to remain unbiased, but I am very biased towards making this technology as safe as possible.

And that is likely where our disagreements lie - I think it's already safe - much safer than the alternative, and I think it is near self-evident in the fact that any smoker that gives ecigs a fair and rational attempt knows that - and science has already shown that smoking is the problem, not nicotine. The market reflects that to be the case with declining smoking rates and increasing ecig rates.

And my focus is to make it more available and accepted - where focusing on what I'd call minor safety issues, and catering to the hand-wringing safety types, tends to detract and distract from the momentum of spreading the safer products to a wider public.