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

[zoiDman]

preferably one who does not see "available" as "necessary."

Like a biometric lock on a smart phone. It may help make your phone more secure, but it isn't necessary, or even wanted by many users.

I Don't really think it is an Issue of what Vaper's want. That's how things work in a Free Market.

In an FDA Regulated Market, it's gonna be More About what gets your PMTA Approved. And what things might be a Hitch if you Don't have them. Temp Control is probably going to be Viewed as a Way to Prevent Potential Harm.

Think of it this way, If all of the e-Cigarette Studies to date had used Temp Control mods with TC Atomizers, how many would have come back with Toxin Numbers that we have Dismissed as from Dry Hits?

 

[Steamix]

Wicking, wiring, liquids ... tenor is to keep your cool and keep your coils cool.
Enough heat to vaporize, but no enough to pyrolize is the ticket to a perfect, tasty puff.

Had my short fling with CE4's - gurgling, leaking, very finicky. Added a second wick on top of the coil. Made all the difference. Good vape ( by the standards of that time ), way less issues with the liquid flow.
Still got a few somewhere in the back of a drawer. Vapegeddon last-ditch-defense

Nice piece of work. Unfortunately, that kind of variance and individualized experience might just be the kind of stuff the FDA might jump on and cite to push their idea of a homogenized, regulated-to-death and completely unappealing product...

After all we're supposed to fit the streamlined, neo-feudalistic mold just like all the other sheeple.
And our hearty disinterest in doing just that gets them all ANTZy on the vapers.

Because just as much as SIGs nay argue that point, the study also proves that new-generation devices are far more efficient delivering nic flash , throat hit, or whatever else you might be looking for while at the same time significantly decreasing the level of harmful components.

It's thus pretty obvious that vapers and vaping gear makers are perfectly capable of finding their own way without meddling and messing around from any of the big B's or them self-appointed busybodies from the ANTZ camp.

To mangle an old Rolling Stones piece ...

Get off of my cloud
Leave us be - we'll figure it out
your messing around - we can do without



Vape on

 

[Lessifer]

I Don't really think it is an Issue of what Vaper's want. That's how things work in a Free Market.

In an FDA Regulated Market, it's gonna be More About what gets your PMTA Approved. And what things might be a Hitch if you Don't have them. Temp Control is probably going to be Viewed as a Way to Prevent Potential Harm.

Think of it this way, If all of the e-Cigarette Studies to date had used Temp Control Mods with TC Atomizers, how many would have come back with Toxin Numbers that we have Dismissed as from Dry Hits?

I'll admit to not being fully up to speed with temp control, but aren't there inherent issues there as well? Like potential issues with the wire if it does get overheated?

I don't know that the technology is perfected yet, and most of it would rely on quality control over replaceable heads.

It may be the future of vaping, if just rather have the choice to not take that path.

It will be interesting to see how hardware is handled, if it's handled outside the realm of closed systems.

 

[zoiDman]

I'll admit to not being fully up to speed with temp control, but aren't there inherent issues there as well? Like potential issues with the wire if it does get overheated?

I don't know that the technology is perfected yet, and most of it would rely on quality control over replaceable heads.

It may be the future of vaping, if just rather have the choice to not take that path.

It will be interesting to see how hardware is handled, if it's handled outside the realm of closed systems.

I'm not really an Expert on the current state of TC. Or someone who even sees a lot of TC's benefits at the Ohms/Watts that I use. But many swear by it.

It kinda gets back to that thing about All e-Cigarettes Not Being the same.

What I do know though is that TC caught the eye of many who advise Policy Makers on some of the Technical Aspects of how an e-Cigarette works. And if you take User's building their own Coils out of the Equation, and think more of Pre-Made Coils/Atomizers, TC fits in well.

It also fits in well with the Mind Set that if PG, VG and or a Flavoring is allowed to reach a Certain Temperature that Bad things start to be Emitted in the Vapor.

And it would seem that if there was a Existing, Affordable Technology that could Stop or Vastly Reduce these Emissions, that the FDA would see that a Necessary Part of a Rule Set governing what is Required to be considered an e-Cigarette.

 

[Lessifer]

I'm not really an Expert on the current state of TC. Or someone who even sees a lot of TC's benefits at the Ohms/Watts that I use. But many swear by it.

It kinda gets back to that thing about All e-Cigarettes Not Being the same.

What I do know though is that TC caught the eye of many who advise Policy Makers on some of the Technical Aspects of how an e-Cigarette works. And if you take User's building their own Coils out of the Equation, and think more of Pre-Made Coils/Atomizers, TC fits in well.

It also fits in well with the Mind Set that if PG, VG and or a Flavoring is allowed to reach a Certain Temperature that Bad things start to be Emitted in the Vapor.

And it would seem that if there was a Existing, Affordable Technology that could Stop or Vastly Reduce these Emissions, that the FDA would see that a Necessary Part of a Rule Set governing what is Required to be considered an e-Cigarette.

Oh no, I get it, it's one of those things that "sounds" fantastic. A simple, relatively painless way to help protect people.

It's the fact that it forces a lack of choices on people, and protects against something that really is a non issue that bothers me. Yes, when you burn liquid and wicks, you get bad stuff. It doesn't happen that easily, when it does the person stops inhaling it, and the levels of momentary exposure aren't high enough to actually warrant a need to prevent it.

I do have a problem if someone decides that people can no longer wrap their own coils for pennies each, because we all have to use the safer factory made heads(which may or may not have good QC).

The only time in my 3+ years that I've had a short, was while using a factory head.

 

[Kent C]

It's the fact that it forces a lack of choices on people, and protects against something that really is a non issue that bothers me.

The fact is, is that there are many products where not knowing them well, or just being an idiot, can result in injury or illness - just take cars for example, or cleansers, pesticides, herbicides, irons, drills, skateboards, skis, or even relatively harmless stuff - cell phones/texting, stuffed animals, etc. etc. etc. Were it not that ecigs are related to cigarettes, along with the 'we know what's best for you' crowd, they wouldn't get the attention of the gov't, media and well, that 'crowd' mentioned and their layman counterparts who want to save everyone from themselves, by imposing themselves on other people's individual choices in life.

 

[Lessifer]

The fact is, is that there are many products where not knowing them well, or just being an idiot, can result in injury or illness - just take cars for example, or cleansers, pesticides, herbicides, irons, drills, skateboards, skis, or even relatively harmless stuff - cell phones/texting, stuffed animals, etc. etc. etc. Were it not that ecigs are related to cigarettes, along with the 'we know what's best for you' crowd, they wouldn't get the attention of the gov't, media and well, that 'crowd' mentioned and their layman counterparts who want to save everyone from themselves, by imposing themselves on other people's individual choices in life.

Absolutely, and some people wonder why I still cling to my "fantasy" that vapor products will not be classified as tobacco products. Tobacco is such a loaded word.

 

[Steamix]

TC ... AFAIK it's currently done more or less indirectly, i.e. heating up changes the specific resistance of the wire which is measured. Not all metals do that or do that linear.
And I'm still a bit shy about nickle.

So maybe I get to see a true thermal sensing atty eventually.

First thermal imagers carried a six-digit price tag and needed four strong arms to move them around.
Now you can buy handheld thermal imagers for less then 200 bucks, so I'm optimistic that miniaturisation will get it small enough to fit into an atty, putting an end to the nasty dry hits

 

[Lessifer]

TC ... AFAIK it's currently done more or less indirectly, i.e. heating up changes the specific resistance of the wire which is measured. Not all metals do that or do that linear.
And I'm still a bit shy about nickle.

So maybe I get to see a true thermal sensing atty eventually.

First thermal imagers carried a six-digit price tag and needed four strong arms to move them around.
Now you can buy handheld thermal imagers for less then 200 bucks, so I'm optimistic that miniaturisation will get it small enough to fit into an atty, putting an end to the nasty dry hits

I know there's nickel wire, don't know much about it except that it seems to be pretty soft? Then there's titanium which you don't want to heat to glowing red, I think. I believe the newest options is stainless steel wire, which seems to have the least issues, but again, I haven't really looked into it.

That's the thing, it's still new technology, and I haven't had a dry hit in years.

 

[Racehorse]

Seeing that Most people who get a Dry Hit will Not keep hitting on an e-Cigarette. But will Stop.

Yes, they will stop after that particular "acute" episode.

But, over time, however, how many "dry hits" do you think an average vaper will experience over the course of their lifetime? (despite best efforts to avoid the occurrence).

And what is the cumulative damage to epithlethial cells in the esophagus, let's say. Is it worse or better than the damage reflux / GERD will do over time, etc.

These are things that are yet to be determined and will take time to study.

The effect of a dry hit, for me, has been the distinct feeling of having "caused injury" to something in my throat/esophagus, in other words, it feels quite damaging. And to determine if that is from heat, from metal off-gassing type of thing from inhaling dry coils, batting, wick, etc.

We really do not know yet. How many dry hits does it require to start a disease process? i.e. cell damage that has significance to a particular vaper?

etc.

Whoever said vaping is not any ONE thing is correct. There are a number of processes that are happening as there are a lot of variables.

Again, why I have always viewed vaping as harm reduction from smoking....nothing more and nothing less, and am loathe to attach "percentages" to the entire practice itself. Way too many things to consider.

Until rather recently in the annals of gastroenterology research, we did not really know that chronic reflux can cause esophageal cancer. I have always believed that everything is cumulative, i.e. things we subject our bodies to. But for every individual that time frame would be a little different, and some may escape the bad effect completely.

Which brings me to LESS IS MORE. That old "everything in moderation" cliche, which is wisdom.

 

[Lessifer]

Perhaps it hasn't been fully studied yet, but I think OSHA daily exposure limits implies a lack of cumulative effect, but I'm just guessing there.

 

[Racehorse]

Perhaps it hasn't been fully studied yet, but I think OSHA daily exposure limits implies a lack of cumulative effect, but I'm just guessing there.

Repeated exposures are of interest to me, as I imagine they would be to any vaper.

OSHA PELs are mainly to establish "legal" limits at which an employee may be exposed to concentrations or circumstances.

Again, those limits have little bearing to me as a real life vaper because there is a difference between health *legalities* and what constitutes actual health.

 

[Lessifer]

Repeated exposures are of interest to me, as I imagine they would be to any vaper.

OSHA PELs are mainly to establish "legal" limits at which an employee may be exposed to concentrations or circumstances.

Again, those limits have little bearing to me as a real life vaper because there is a difference between health *legalities* and what constitutes actual health.

True, but long term repeated exposure, like from your job, are a pretty good indication of "safety." While not a guarantee, levels low enough to prevent lawsuits after working for a company for X amount of years is probably pretty good.

"Health" is a relative and subjective term.

 

[Lessifer]

The great thing is, with information like this, someone who is more concerned with their health and exposure can lower their own exposure.

 

[Kurt]

I was going to post our study, but I see Mazinny beat me to it. Mazinny, I could not find it on Reddit, but then I'm not very versed at Reddit. Could you please post the link?

The point made earlier in this thread is exactly what we were trying to show: of the devices we used, those built for higher wattage emitted lower aldehydes, some extremely low. The purpose of the study was to use the same e-liquid that was used in the early-2015 study where they either knowingly or unknowingly burned e-liquid on a CE4 at high wattage, and then compare with devices reputed to handle higher wattage better.

50 mL puffs correspond roughly with the mouth volume of someone doing a mouth-to-lung puff. Keeping it constant allows for comparison of ug/puff on various devices, as well as mass of aerosol produced per puff. Devices that gave the highest mass per puff of aerosol tended to give the lowest aldehydes, which we posit can be explained by heat in competition between vaporization and decomposition. The more decomposition (seen with aldehydes) the less aerosol produced. We wanted to compare production and decomposition between devices rigorously based on the same puff parameters.

We did 25-puffs "blocks" or runs for each set of data, with at least 50% filled tank and new coil for each block. They were held horizontally when puffed.

This study was to create a benchmark that could be compared directly to other similar studies, and to gather rigorously controlled data for several devices with a range of power settings, and with enough repeats of measurements to be able to get reasonable statistics. We were looking at actual device performance, not people's perceptions of the performance or actual toxicological effects.

We used only one liquid formulation: about 50:50 PG:VG with 1.2% nicotine. We did this to compare directly with the early-2015 studies that used this formulation, but pushed the power of their CE4 devices beyond what a normal vaper would use or even tolerate. We all knew this was true, and there have been many valid criticisms those studies, as well as how the media covered them, but published peer-reviewed data was greatly needed to truly provide a more complete picture. That said, our results on a CE4 device were not good either, at any power setting. We did not measure for propionaldehyde, but acknowledged that it could be present with the other three aldehydes. We also did not use different liquid formulations, although it is possible there could be dramatic differences in carbonyl emissions, due to different wicking abilities, boiling points, etc., and we acknowledge this in the paper.

I will try to answer any questions you have.

 

[Lessifer]

I was going to post our study, but I see Mazinny beat me to it. Mazinny, I could not find it on Reddit, but then I'm not very versed at Reddit. Could you please post the link?

The point made earlier in this thread is exactly what we were trying to show: of the devices we used, those built for higher wattage emitted lower aldehydes, some extremely low. The purpose of the study was to use the same e-liquid that was used in the early-2015 study where they either knowingly or unknowingly burned e-liquid on a CE4 at high wattage, and then compare with devices reputed to handle higher wattage better.

50 mL puffs correspond roughly with the mouth volume of someone doing a mouth-to-lung puff. Keeping it constant allows for comparison of ug/puff on various devices, as well as mass of aerosol produced per puff. Devices that gave the highest mass per puff of aerosol tended to give the lowest aldehydes, which we posit can be explained by heat in competition between vaporization and decomposition. The more decomposition (seen with aldehydes) the less aerosol produced. We wanted to compare production and decomposition between devices rigorously based on the same puff parameters.

We did 25-puffs "blocks" or runs for each set of data, with at least 50% filled tank and new coil for each block. They were held horizontally when puffed.

This study was to create a benchmark that could be compared directly to other similar studies, and to gather rigorously controlled data for several devices with a range of power settings, and with enough repeats of measurements to be able to get reasonable statistics. We were looking at actual device performance, not people's perceptions of the performance or actual toxicological effects.

We used only one liquid formulation: about 50:50 PG:VG with 1.2% nicotine. We did this to compare directly with the early-2015 studies that used this formulation, but pushed the power of their CE4 devices beyond what a normal vaper would use or even tolerate. We all knew this was true, and there have been many valid criticisms those studies, as well as how the media covered them, but published peer-reviewed data was greatly needed to truly provide a more complete picture. That said, our results on a CE4 device were not good either, at any power setting. We did not measure for propionaldehyde, but acknowledged that it could be present with the other three aldehydes. We also did not use different liquid formulations, although it is possible there could be dramatic differences in carbonyl emissions, due to different wicking abilities, boiling points, etc., and we acknowledge this in the paper.

I will try to answer any questions you have.

Kurt it was definitely an excellent study, I apologize if I seemed to be criticizing it.

I was merely pointing out that the scope in a study like this has to be limited so it would not grow to excessive size, and that using each atomizer at its peak performance parameters would not necessarily be comparable.

Those not familiar with vaping may not understand that in terms of ideal usage a ce4 that gets twirled after every puff and is fired at 5w with 50ml air over 4s is comparable to a sub tank getting fired vertically at 30w with 500ml air over 2s, etc. especially when the output from the two devices would be so much different.

 

[Mazinny]

I was going to post our study, but I see Mazinny beat me to it. Mazinny, I could not find it on Reddit, but then I'm not very versed at Reddit. Could you please post the link?

The point made earlier in this thread is exactly what we were trying to show: of the devices we used, those built for higher wattage emitted lower aldehydes, some extremely low. The purpose of the study was to use the same e-liquid that was used in the early-2015 study where they either knowingly or unknowingly burned e-liquid on a CE4 at high wattage, and then compare with devices reputed to handle higher wattage better.

50 mL puffs correspond roughly with the mouth volume of someone doing a mouth-to-lung puff. Keeping it constant allows for comparison of ug/puff on various devices, as well as mass of aerosol produced per puff. Devices that gave the highest mass per puff of aerosol tended to give the lowest aldehydes, which we posit can be explained by heat in competition between vaporization and decomposition. The more decomposition (seen with aldehydes) the less aerosol produced. We wanted to compare production and decomposition between devices rigorously based on the same puff parameters.

We did 25-puffs "blocks" or runs for each set of data, with at least 50% filled tank and new coil for each block. They were held horizontally when puffed.

This study was to create a benchmark that could be compared directly to other similar studies, and to gather rigorously controlled data for several devices with a range of power settings, and with enough repeats of measurements to be able to get reasonable statistics. We were looking at actual device performance, not people's perceptions of the performance or actual toxicological effects.

We used only one liquid formulation: about 50:50 PG:VG with 1.2% nicotine. We did this to compare directly with the early-2015 studies that used this formulation, but pushed the power of their CE4 devices beyond what a normal vaper would use or even tolerate. We all knew this was true, and there have been many valid criticisms those studies, as well as how the media covered them, but published peer-reviewed data was greatly needed to truly provide a more complete picture. That said, our results on a CE4 device were not good either, at any power setting. We did not measure for propionaldehyde, but acknowledged that it could be present with the other three aldehydes. We also did not use different liquid formulations, although it is possible there could be dramatic differences in carbonyl emissions, due to different wicking abilities, boiling points, etc., and we acknowledge this in the paper.

I will try to answer any questions you have.

Here's the Reddit link :
Scientific article from December takes a more in depth look at wattage and how it can affect the formation of aldehydes and other harmful chemicals in ecig vapor. • /r/electronic_cigarette

Thanks for doing the study and offering to answer questions on it btw. I will re-read the study and ask any questions that i might have ! In the meanwhile, do you suppose there is a chance that the wicking material might influence aldehyde production ? I ask because i believe there was a study earlier using cigalikes that didn't emit aldehydes in comparable amounts amounts to CE4's.

Also, which coils did you used for the protank 1. The earlier ones with silica, or the newer ones with cotton. I ask because i rebuild coils ( with cotton ) for my pt2 and i vape at 11-12 watts, although i use the aerotank AFC which improves air-flow compared to the standard pt1 base. At 9 watts in your study the PT1 seemed to produce quite a bit of aldehydes. Do you know how much of the aldehydes you tested for are produced when smoking ( let's say 20 cigs with average tar ) ?

 

[zoiDman]

Yes, they will stop after that particular "acute" episode.

But, over time, however, how many "dry hits" do you think an average vaper will experience over the course of their lifetime? (despite best efforts to avoid the occurrence).

And what is the cumulative damage to epithlethial cells in the esophagus, let's say. Is it worse or better than the damage reflux / GERD will do over time, etc.

These are things that are yet to be determined and will take time to study.

The effect of a dry hit, for me, has been the distinct feeling of having "caused injury" to something in my throat/esophagus, in other words, it feels quite damaging. And to determine if that is from heat, from metal off-gassing type of thing from inhaling dry coils, batting, wick, etc.

We really do not know yet. How many dry hits does it require to start a disease process? i.e. cell damage that has significance to a particular vaper?

etc.

Whoever said vaping is not any ONE thing is correct. There are a number of processes that are happening as there are a lot of variables.

Again, why I have always viewed vaping as harm reduction from smoking....nothing more and nothing less, and am loathe to attach "percentages" to the entire practice itself. Way too many things to consider.

Until rather recently in the annals of gastroenterology research, we did not really know that chronic reflux can cause esophageal cancer. I have always believed that everything is cumulative, i.e. things we subject our bodies to. But for every individual that time frame would be a little different, and some may escape the bad effect completely.

Which brings me to LESS IS MORE. That old "everything in moderation" cliche, which is wisdom.

Not Disagreeing with anything you are Saying.

But My Comment was more about the Validity of some the Results from previous Studies where the Concussion was based on someone Inhaling Dry Hits over an Extended Period of Time.

I can do a Study on a 1.8 Ohms CE2 (something that I used Exclusively for about 2 Years) @ 12 Watts and I'm sure the Aldehydes Numbers would be Off the Charts.

But would these Results be Reflective of a Real Life Occurrence?

No. No they would Not. Because anyone who has used a CE2 knows that an Un-Mod-ed 1.8 Ohm CE2 is going to Dry Hit continually at 12 Watts. And I don't think even the Most Battle Test vaper is going to be able to Choke Down 5 Hits on this Set-Up. Let alone do so for 4 ~ 6 Hours Continuously.

 

[Mazinny]

Not Disagreeing with anything you are Saying.

But My Comment was more about the Validity of some the Results from previous Studies where the Concussion was based on someone Inhaling Dry Hits over an Extended Period of Time.

I can do a Study on a 1.8 Ohms CE2 (something that I used Exclusively for about 2 Years) @ 12 Watts and I'm sure the Aldehydes Numbers would be Off the Charts.

But would these Results be Reflective of a Real Life Occurrence?

No. No they would Not. Because anyone who has used a CE2 knows that an Un-Mod-ed 1.8 Ohm CE2 is going to Dry Hit continually at 12 Watts. And I don't think even the Most Battle Test vaper is going to be able to Choke Down 5 Hits on this Set-Up. Let alone do so for 4 ~ 6 Hours Continuously.

At what power level did you use your CE2's ?

 

[zoiDman]

At what power level did you use your CE2's ?

I used Mod-ed v4.0 CE2's. And ran them at about 10 Watts.

An Un-Mod-ed CE2 is not very Usable Period.

ETA: And even Using a Mod-ed CE2, you have to "Tilt" the CE2 so that the Coil is at the Lowest point of the CE2 when you take a Hit.

Else there is a Good Chance it will Dry Hit on Back-to-Back Hits.