Effectiveness of no-inhale vaping?

[Technohydra]

I have come to the conclusion that I simply cannot inhale my vapor, for whatever reason. To that end, I have taken to pulling a 3-second hit into my mouth and holding it for a second or two, and then pushing most of it out my nose, to be followed by another pull. The burny feeling in my nose is the nicotine absorbing (learned that from nicotine lozenges!), and I definitely know I'm getting Nic, because my cravings die away. My question is does anyone have an idea of how effective the oral / nasal vaping method is as opposed to the oral / lung method of actually inhaling? From my findings both here and elsewhere, the inhale is basically just an experience factor, and does not really contribute that much to the nic absorbtion if the vapor remains in the mouth for a few seconds and hits the nose on the way out.

I welcome any and all comments, I'd really like to get a good basis of opinions here. Any links to relevant studies would be a +1 as well. I have recently begun consulting for a local juice producer (for free, I love vaping that much!), and any useful info I find for my personal use may be presented to them as well, if there is a relevant topic of conversation, although this is definitely a secondary concern.

 

[wheezal]

i know a few vaporers....vaperors...vapingers....people who vape that don't inhale all the way to the lungs. they treat it like cigar smoking, roll the flavor around in their mouth and exhale.


without pouring into details of how much nic they absorb one way or the other; it works for them, so to me that means its every-bit a reasonable way to vape as going full bore injecting the vape into your lungs with a cardiac needle.

 

[Enoch777]

Both can be nearly the same, depending how you exhale after lung hit. At any rate, the majority of the nicotine is absorbed through the mouth/nose no matter what way you inhale.

To the point: You don't need to inhale at all to get your fix. Option for inhaling is for personal preference only. No studies that I know of, just seen the fact thrown around here on many different threads. I'm sure somebody can fill in more details.

 

[jamentertainment]

More Nic is consumed in your mouth "I Think", I always inhale into my lungs, but If I want a nice Nic buzz I hold it in my mouth a couple times..

 

[mgmixology]

Fellow vaper from nebraska

 

[Technohydra]

This is good. My wife is in healthcare, so I may have to do some 'testing' with a little blood draw here...and a little blood draw there...and get the information literally out of my veins, lol.

 

[Technohydra]

Fellow vaper from nebraska

Yessir. Having a time of it out here, as vaping stores are a bit few and far between...like there are none. But I am working with a couple of grass-roots producers to try to change that.

 

[Brusky]

Nicotine is absorbed in the mouth much less than the lungs.

Nicotine has a near neutral pH meaning it does not rapidly cross membranes. Even in cigarettes, because of the ionization there is very little buccal (oral) absorption even when held in the mouth.

But the tobaccos used for pipe and cigars has a more alkaline base causing the nicotine to be more acidic allowing better buccal absorption. But is still understood because of the blood flow and available open surface area of the lungs nicotine is best absorbed in the lungs, even allowing it to reach your brain in less than 10 seconds.

Unless you cut up your gums to allow nicotine into your bloodstream, nicotine is best absorbed through the lungs in any given situation because most of the nicotine absorbed in the mouth will be processed through your body. Which is why cigar smokers can smoke multiple cigars within a few hours, even with the potent levels of nicotine in cigars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[Robino1]

Smoking allows nic to be absorbed through the lungs more efficiently due to the size of the particles in smoke. In vapor, the size really makes nic absorption not nearly as effective. The nic is more readily absorbed through the mucus membranes in the mouth and the nose.

There is a link around here to a thread by Rolygate that talks about this subject. I'm not at home or I would dig for it for you. It may be in the health section of ECF. A google search may bring it up faster than an internal ECF search.

 

[Robino1]

Found it!

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ette-vs-e-cigarette-nicotine-equivalency.html

An excellent read.

 

[Brusky]

Smoking allows nic to be absorbed through the lungs more efficiently due to the size of the particles in smoke. In vapor, the size really makes nic absorption not nearly as effective. The nic is more readily absorbed through the mucus membranes in the mouth and the nose.

There is a link around here to a thread by Rolygate that talks about this subject. I'm not at home or I would dig for it for you. It may be in the health section of ECF. A google search may bring it up faster than an internal ECF search.

I read that article, and there are many false statements made in it. Particulate size does not matter in this situation, as the aveola can accommodate any micron particulates that smoke or vapor releases, and in this case nicotine.

 

[Technohydra]

Nicotine is absorbed in the mouth much less than the lungs.

Nicotine has a near neutral pH meaning it does not rapidly cross membranes. Even in cigarettes, because of the ionization there is very little buccal (oral) absorption even when held in the mouth.

But the tobaccos used for pipe and cigars has a more alkaline base causing the nicotine to be more acidic allowing better buccal absorption. But is still understood because of the blood flow and available open surface area of the lungs nicotine is best absorbed in the lungs, even allowing it to reach your brain in less than 10 seconds.

Unless you cut up your gums to allow nicotine into your bloodstream, nicotine is best absorbed through the lungs in any given situation because most of the nicotine absorbed in the mouth will be processed through your body. Which is why cigar smokers can smoke multiple cigars within a few hours, even with the potent levels of nicotine in cigars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

My understanding was that the absorption capabilities had more to do with the binding of the nicotine molecule than with the ph reading (as aqueous solution of nictine can and will readily absorb through even the skin). The rational behind that being that based on the method of volatization (i.e., combustion), the nicotine is bound in with molecules that would require a metabolic interface capable of seperating the nicotine molecole from it's gaseous binding (the alveoli in the lungs do just that). As such, due to the physiology alveoli, and the number of direct-contact capilaries present, the lungs filter the oxygen, CO, and nicotine molecules directly into the blood, which goes almost directly to the brain.

Conversely, with vaping, the nicotine molecules are not bound into gases, per se, but rather are bound mainly with water molecules, or a another aqueous solution, as opposed to a gaseous compound. As such, my understanding is that the capability of the lungs to filter and absorb it would actually be much lower than that of the nasal passages and mouth via mucus membranes and surface blood vessels. The nose is already used to absorb medications with are suspended in a saline or PG base (Flo-Nase comes to mind...or ......., which is most decidedly either alkaline or neutral, albiet anhydrous), and the mouth is utilized for sublingual absorption of medications (nytroglycerine, etc.). Upon contact with the appropriate membranes, my understanding is that the aqueous solution would begin to coat the surfaces, and the permiation of water on said membranes would allow the exchange of carried chemicals that are absorbable (i.e., nicotine, certain electrolytes, some sugars). The absorbtion process would be much slower than that of the lungs, owing to both the amount of membrane to be traversed, and fact that the membranes in these regions are not expressly designed to perform such a task. Added to this would be the path of the blood flow, which in the lungs is directly to the brain, whereas in the mouth and nose, would have to circulate the rest of the body, and then hit the heart, then lungs, and finally ending in the brain.

Added to this is the complication that the molecular sizing of a vapor is much larger than that of smoke, in the order of a factor of ten. This means that the ability of the vapor to penetrate the lungs down to the alveoli would be greatly reduced, and the alveoli are the surfaces of the lungs which are actually designed for absorption; if this is the case, there would be little difference between the bronchial surfaces and those of the mouth and nose, as neither is particularly designed for this particular task.

Granted, it has been a while since I concertedly studied these things, and my understanding is mainly based on the basic theorum of bodily function as opposed to lab results; with that being said, the logic behind that understanding does seem sound. I am not attempting to call you out or prove you wrong, rather I am attempting to explain my deductive reasoning process to you, and also understand yours so I can more fully understand the overall process of the actions we have all come to enjoy. I look forward to a response; perhaps we can both learn and teach at the same time. Thanks for replying earlier, btw.

 

[Technohydra]

I read that article, and there are many false statements made in it. Particulate size does not matter in this situation, as the aveola can accommodate any micron particulates that smoke or vapor releases, and in this case nicotine.

I don't think the question is if the alveoli can accomodate the partical, more the ability of the denser vapor to actually reach the alveli, and in what quantity. It is reasonable to assume that almost all of the smoke can pass into the small space and be filtered; I do not know if the same can be said of the larger vapor molecules, especially being aqueous, rather than gaseous, and as such not intended to pass through the alveoli in the same method as air / smoke.

 

[NicoHolic]

Science aside, all I know is I was craving/smoking 5-7 hand-rolled cigars or bowls of pipe tobacco per day, and now vaping about 6 ml of 24 mg/ml, 50/50 per day has me forgetting what a fine stash I have in my coolidor. Nothing in the lungs in either case. YMMV

 

[Brusky]

My understanding was that the absorption capabilities had more to do with the binding of the nicotine molecule than with the ph reading (as aqueous solution of nictine can and will readily absorb through even the skin). The rational behind that being that based on the method of volatization (i.e., combustion), the nicotine is bound in with molecules that would require a metabolic interface capable of seperating the nicotine molecole from it's gaseous binding (the alveoli in the lungs do just that). As such, due to the physiology alveoli, and the number of direct-contact capilaries present, the lungs filter the oxygen, CO, and nicotine molecules directly into the blood, which goes almost directly to the brain.

Conversely, with vaping, the nicotine molecules are not bound into gases, per se, but rather are bound mainly with water molecules, or a another aqueous solution, as opposed to a gaseous compound. As such, my understanding is that the capability of the lungs to filter and absorb it would actually be much lower than that of the nasal passages and mouth via mucus membranes and surface blood vessels. The nose is already used to absorb medications with are suspended in a saline or PG base (Flo-Nase comes to mind...or ......., which is most decidedly either alkaline or neutral, albiet anhydrous), and the mouth is utilized for sublingual absorption of medications (nytroglycerine, etc.). Upon contact with the appropriate membranes, my understanding is that the aqueous solution would begin to coat the surfaces, and the permiation of water on said membranes would allow the exchange of carried chemicals that are absorbable (i.e., nicotine, certain electrolytes, some sugars). The absorbtion process would be much slower than that of the lungs, owing to both the amount of membrane to be traversed, and fact that the membranes in these regions are not expressly designed to perform such a task. Added to this would be the path of the blood flow, which in the lungs is directly to the brain, whereas in the mouth and nose, would have to circulate the rest of the body, and then hit the heart, then lungs, and finally ending in the brain.

Added to this is the complication that the molecular sizing of a vapor is much larger than that of smoke, in the order of a factor of ten. This means that the ability of the vapor to penetrate the lungs down to the alveoli would be greatly reduced, and the alveoli are the surfaces of the lungs which are actually designed for absorption; if this is the case, there would be little difference between the bronchial surfaces and those of the mouth and nose, as neither is particularly designed for this particular task.

Granted, it has been a while since I concertedly studied these things, and my understanding is mainly based on the basic theorum of bodily function as opposed to lab results; with that being said, the logic behind that understanding does seem sound. I am not attempting to call you out or prove you wrong, rather I am attempting to explain my deductive reasoning process to you, and also understand yours so I can more fully understand the overall process of the actions we have all come to enjoy. I look forward to a response; perhaps we can both learn and teach at the same time. Thanks for replying earlier, btw.

When talking about bound nicotine or its free form, the bound nicotine will actually cause slower absorption rate. The pH level is what makes nicotine more potent as the alkalinity levels causes higher absorption. Which leads to the reason why nicotine in cigarettes is more potent, is due to the ammonia levels, which in part of correct ratios leads to a free formed nicotine.

In bound nicotine, absorption rate is severely reduced as pH level is close to neutral. Mean less absorption through membranes.

 

[Technohydra]

In bound nicotine, absorption rate is severely reduced as pH level is close to neutral. Mean less absorption through membranes.

I am actually interested in your source of information, as this sounds like an article / study I might be interested in reading. I am all about the learning, total science geek here. I could see a correlation, mainly owing to the electrolytic principals of absorption, along with my theory of static balance (the greater the difference in two adjacent conditions, the faster the rate of change). PM or public is fine, I just want to learn more.

 

[Brusky]

I am actually interested in your source of information, as this sounds like and article / study I might be interested in reading. I am all about the learning, total science geek here. I could see a correlation, mainly owing to the electrolytic principals of absorption, along with my theory of static balance (the greater the difference in two adjacent conditions, the faster the rate of change). PM or public is fine, I just want to learn more.

Nicotine is available in two forms, bound or free form. Nicotine in itself has a weak pH base of something like 7-9kh. Where as neutral is around 6-7kh (lower the more acidic). By changing the alkalinity of nicotine you can create it to be more potent, which is what theorists/conspiracy-theorists have been accusing tobacco companies of doing.

But regardless of tobacco. Nicotine in itself is absorbed better in the lungs due to the absorption rate, the mucal lining vs open surface area of the lungs/direct blood flow vs full body processing. And yes, both vapor and smoke can easily reach the lungs.

 

[Technohydra]

Nicotine is available in two forms, bound or free form. Nicotine in itself has a weak pH base of something like 7-9kh. Where as neutral is around 6-7kh (lower the more acidic). By changing the alkalinity of nicotine you can create it to be more potent, which is what theorists/conspiracy-theorists have been accusing tobacco companies of doing.

But regardless of tobacco. Nicotine in itself is absorbed better in the lungs due to the absorption rate, the mucal lining vs open surface area of the lungs/direct blood flow vs full body processing. And yes, both vapor and smoke can easily reach the lungs.

I am starting to see some merit to your arguement of the pH levels, as now that I put my work aside and think about it, there is a definite reason that drugs are bound into other substances as salts (the HCL designation you see behind your medication name, for example), and this explanation makes sense of that. Definitely going to have to study the chemical mechanisms at work here; I am an electronmechanical engineer with quite a bit of medical theory to speak of, and I am always looking at vaping as a 'how can this be made even better' subject.

Just goes to show you, you can always be shown something you need to learn more about. I appreciate your being willing to be a part of a discussion, Brusky, without taking offense to the probing nature. It's all about the learning.

 

[wheezal]

so much science!


my brain! it burnz!!!

 

[Technohydra]

Hmm...a curious but important question: Faster absorption versus total overall absorption. It stikes me that the pH of the vapor will be the same in the mouth or the lungs, and both involve osmosis as the transfer mechanism. So is this a question of effectiveness, or efficiency? This kind of thinking is why I am chronically short on sleep, btw.