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

[edyle]

Device 1 was a CE4 “top-coil” tank-style (Vision, Shenzhen, China).
Device 2 was a Protank 1 (KangerTech, Shenzhen, China) with a replaceable 2.7 Ω bottom single-coil-head
Device 3 was a Gladius (Innokin, Shenzhen, China) bottom coil tank system with a replaceable dual-coil-head and a total resistance of 2.8 Ω
Device 4 was bottom single coil Nautilus (Aspire USA, Kent, WA) with 2.2 Ω resistance.
Device 5 was a SubTank (KangerTech) with a 0.72 Ω bottom-coil-head.

Samples generated for Devices 1–4 were collected using an Innokin iTaste VV4 battery (Shenzhen, China) as the power source, with samples collected at 3.8, 4.2, 4.6, and 5.0 V. Samples for Device 5 were collected using a DNA 40 power supply (Evolv, Ashtabula, OH) with samples collected at 10, 15, 20, and 25 W.

The problem with the methodology is it does not put enough effort into operating the coils in their appropriate power range.
The issue is even emphasized by the fact that they recognized that they had to use a different power source for Device 5 than for the others; they probably ended up having to do that because the vv4 battery probably couldn't fire the subtank anyway.

 

[Kurt]

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.

Lessifer, I agree, the mouth-to-lung for the subtank at 25W is probably not normal usage. Probably not quite 500 mL, but 200-300 may be more appropriate for a lung-hit. None the less, to compare performance rigorously with the others, using the same puff parameters was preferred.

I've never gotten a CE4 to work well with my DIY liquids (VG, water, flavoring, no PG), twirling or not. Since it was horizontally puffed, the wick should have been as wet as possible during the study. We had a bunch of CE4s too, all supposedly 2.8 ohms, but in fact the ohms varied a lot (std dev was 0.5 ohms). This device type is no longer favored as it was a few years ago, probably because it is simply inferior in performance.

 

[Kurt]

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.

Exactly, and we make this very point in the paper.

 

[zoiDman]

...

I've never gotten a CE4 to work well with my DIY liquids (VG, water, flavoring, no PG), twirling or not. Since it was horizontally puffed, the wick should have been as wet as possible during the study. We had a bunch of CE4s too, all supposedly 2.8 ohms, but in fact the ohms varied a lot (std dev was 0.5 ohms). This device type is no longer favored as it was a few years ago, probably because it is simply inferior in performance.

I can Only Speak for a CE2. But I know that the CE2 was Designed by RoyalSmoker/MiT to use 100% PG e-Liquids.

The Thinking was that if they Designed Wicking for anything else, that it would Leak when someone used 100%PG e-Liquids. So they placed Leaking as a Higher Priority than getting a Dry Hit.

The CE2 was Ground Breaking. It was the 1st "Clearo". But it was also an ongoing Train Wreck of 3 Steps Forward with 2 Steps Back.

 

[Lessifer]

Lessifer, I agree, the mouth-to-lung for the subtank at 25W is probably not normal usage. Probably not quite 500 mL, but 200-300 may be more appropriate for a lung-hit. None the less, to compare performance rigorously with the others, using the same puff parameters was preferred.

I've never gotten a CE4 to work well with my DIY liquids (VG, water, flavoring, no PG), twirling or not. Since it was horizontally puffed, the wick should have been as wet as possible during the study. We had a bunch of CE4s too, all supposedly 2.8 ohms, but in fact the ohms varied a lot (std dev was 0.5 ohms). This device type is no longer favored as it was a few years ago, probably because it is simply inferior in performance.

That wasn't a criticism, trying to clarify and point out why it wouldn't really be comparable at different usage methods.

I started with CE4's, but I started at 80pg/20vg, and in order to not get dry hits IIRC that thing had to be turned every which way including upside down, after each puff.

 

[Kurt]

Device 1 was a CE4 “top-coil” tank-style (Vision, Shenzhen, China).
Device 2 was a Protank 1 (KangerTech, Shenzhen, China) with a replaceable 2.7 Ω bottom single-coil-head
Device 3 was a Gladius (Innokin, Shenzhen, China) bottom coil tank system with a replaceable dual-coil-head and a total resistance of 2.8 Ω
Device 4 was bottom single coil Nautilus (Aspire USA, Kent, WA) with 2.2 Ω resistance.
Device 5 was a SubTank (KangerTech) with a 0.72 Ω bottom-coil-head.

Samples generated for Devices 1–4 were collected using an Innokin iTaste VV4 battery (Shenzhen, China) as the power source, with samples collected at 3.8, 4.2, 4.6, and 5.0 V. Samples for Device 5 were collected using a DNA 40 power supply (Evolv, Ashtabula, OH) with samples collected at 10, 15, 20, and 25 W.

The problem with the methodology is it does not put enough effort into operating the coils in their appropriate power range.
The issue is even emphasized by the fact that they recognized that they had to use a different power source for Device 5 than for the others; they probably ended up having to do that because the vv4 battery probably couldn't fire the subtank anyway.

We did not think pushing devices 1-4 to 25W was appropriate, but we could have used the DNA-40 for all devices. What wattages do you think would have been appropriate, and for which devices?

 

[zoiDman]

Exactly, and we make this very point in the paper.

Something that I Hope did Not Go Unnoticed by any Reader of that Study.

And Something that has been a Glaring Limitation in Many of the Previous Studies that I have Read. Be it Unintentional or by Design.

 

[edyle]

We did not think pushing devices 1-4 to 25W was appropriate, but we could have used the DNA-40 for all devices. What wattages do you think would have been appropriate, and for which devices?

The appropriate wattage is mostly about the coil, and users usually figure out the wattage by taste.

The ce4 is probably good in the 3 watt range.
the protank in the 5 watt range.
the gladius and nautilus are probably more in the 7 to 10 watt range.

the subtank would be in the 15 to 30 watt range.

And I'm just guessing those numbers based on my general knowledge; the actual figures have to be found either by taste, or by knowing the wire type and coil details.
Basically you can use steam-engine.org coil calculator to find out the suitable wattage (corresponding to about 200mW/mm2) if you know the wire type and coil details.

 

[edyle]

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.

Ah; now I understand; I did get the feeling when reading the study that it was trying to show that the subohm device, despite taking much higher power, was producing less of the chemicals.

 

[Kurt]

That wasn't a criticism, trying to clarify and point out why it wouldn't really be comparable at different usage methods.

I started with CE4's, but I started at 80pg/20vg, and in order to not get dry hits IIRC that thing had to be turned every which way including upside down, after each puff.

Didn't take it as criticism, but I would have had no problem if it was!

The CE-type clearos are what they are: nice idea, but often don't work well. If someone is generating significant aldehydes, it is not likely they will keep using that device, and we tried to make this clear.

 

[Lessifer]

I know the comparison would not be as rigorous, but I would love to see results for each device at their "optimal" performance, much like edyle suggests. I just think the differences would be about more than wattage and I have no idea how you would account for the various breath types suitable to each atomizer, nor the various idiosyncrasies, like the twist and twirl, vertical draw, primer puffs, etc.

 

[Lessifer]

Didn't take it as criticism, but I would have had no problem if it was!

The CE-type clearos are what they are: nice idea, but often don't work well. If someone is generating significant aldehydes, it is not likely they will keep using that device, and we tried to make this clear.

Yes, you did a great job of demonstrating that and pointing out that users will not continue to use the device when that occurs.

The CE type atomizers seem to be having a resurgence, though they may not be CE4s and possibly just look externally like them. The refillable kits I see at C-stores and the like all seem to have tanks that look like CE4s, though they may be closer to the later bottom coil clearos in their design.

 

[Kurt]

Ah; now I understand; I did get the feeling when reading the study that it was trying to show that the subohm device, despite taking much higher power, was producing less of the chemicals.

Exactly! This paper was in effect a rigoruosly carried out rebuttal. Scientists, social media people (like ECF) and even some of the media can say that those highly publicized papers were misleading, and the poor CE4 was pushed way beyond its normal limits, and I was glad to see all that, but in the end it is just opinions, however educated and probably correct. We felt what was needed was hard data, peer-reviewed and published. So perhaps the media can say that CE4s tend to create a lot of aldehydes, but this is not necessarily true for the newer generation devices at all. I know, wishful thinking, but now there is something to cite!

It is a simple study, but one that could be expanded to include many of the nuances commented on here, as well as other variations seen in the vaping community. Formulations, TC, different brands of subohm coilheads, hand-wound coils, Ni, Ti, SS, wick materials, etc. But such a study would cost a lot of money to do right.

 

[Mazinny]

The ce4 is probably good in the 3 watt range.
the protank in the 5 watt range.
the gladius and nautilus are probably more in the 7 to 10 watt range.

FWIW I have used the CE4 and PT ( 50/50 liquid ) extensively at wattages much higher ( 5.5 and 9 watts respectively ) than what you speculate is the appropriate range, without noticing dry hits.

 

[Mazinny]

@Kurt i don't know if you missed my post, but could you please tell me which coils you used for the PT1 ? silica or cotton ?

 

[Kurt]

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.

We wanted to use stock devices, un-modded. Otherwise too many variables, and not what the majority of vapers will do anyway.

I've tried a CE6 with my DIYs, but it didn't do much better than a CE4. I never had good consistent results with a Protank single coil (2.5 ohm was barely tolerable).

FWIW I have used the CE4 and PT ( 50/50 liquid ) extensively at wattages much higher ( 5.5 and 9 watts respectively ) than what you speculate is the appropriate range, without noticing dry hits.

Thanks for sharing this, Mazinny. There may well be large variation in the quality of the CE4, as there seems to be large variation in ohms for a given labeled resistance. Higher ohms could also perform a lot better as well. There may be a lot of variables in terms of perception of aldehyde production too: the person's taste sensitivity, flavors masking them, etc.

Never had great luck with PT, even up to 2.5 ohms, with my liquids. PTIII dual-coil 1.5 ohm works very well indeed, but I don't have emission data on it yet. At the time the data was collected for the study, the Gladius was the only protank-like dual coil available.

 

[Kurt]

@Kurt i don't know if you missed my post, but could you please tell me which coils you used for the PT1 ? silica or cotton ?

Silica, original PT coils. Same for the Gladius dual coil. I describe the coils in detail in the paper.

 

[Mazinny]

We wanted to use stock devices, un-modded. Otherwise too many variables, and not what the majority of vapers will do anyway.

I've tried a CE6 with my DIYs, but it didn't do much better than a CE4. I never had good consistent results with a Protank single coil (2.5 ohm was barely tolerable).



Thanks for sharing this, Mazinny. There may well be large variation in the quality of the CE4, as there seems to be large variation in ohms for a given labeled resistance. Higher ohms could also perform a lot better as well. There may be a lot of variables in terms of perception of aldehyde production too: the person's taste sensitivity, flavors masking them, etc.

Never had great luck with PT, even up to 2.5 ohms, with my liquids. PTIII dual-coil 1.5 ohm works very well indeed, but I don't have emission data on it yet. At the time the data was collected for the study, the Gladius was the only protank-like dual coil available.

Kurt, Do you know how these numbers compare to cigarettes :

6.7 , 3.2, 0.78 mg per day for formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and acrolein compare to 20 cigarettes per day. Sorry i'm fixated on this particular set of data ( pt1, 9 watts ), but it's the closest to what i vape.

 

[Mazinny]

Silica, original PT coils. Same for the Gladius dual coil. I describe the coils in detail in the paper.

Thanks i saw the description for the gladius coils, but didn't notice in your paper if the pt coils were silica or cotton. Kanger makes cotton coils for pt as well, that is why i asked.

 

[Kurt]

Kurt, Do you know how these numbers compare to cigarettes :

6.7 , 3.2, 0.78 mg per day for formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and acrolein compare to 20 cigarettes per day. Sorry i'm fixated on this particular set of data ( pt1, 9 watts ), but it's the closest to what i vape.

On p. 63 we state:

"Using these data, the exposure to formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein from
consuming a pack of combustible cigarettes is approximately1.5-2.5 mg for formaldehyde, 10-30 mg for acetaldehyde, and 1.5-3 mg for acrolein."

Of course, there are a lot more other toxins in cigarettes than these aldehydes, and a lot more free-radicals (~1000x more), so I would not want to make a statement about actual health impact compared to PAD smoking.

But I do think that the industry should try to bring products to market that minimize thermal decomposition for most e-liquid formulations. And in general, they are doing that.