FDA admits there may be no real danger with PG....

Status
Not open for further replies.

crazybry79

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Sep 8, 2009
89
2
46
Found here, on FDA's own site

Database of Select Committee on GRAS Substances (SCOGS) Reviews

Propylene glycol is metabolized by animals and can be used as a carbohydrate source. Propylene glycol can be ingested over long periods of time and in substantial quantities (up to 5 percent of the total food intake) without causing frank toxic effects......

.....There is no evidence in the available information on propylene glycol and propylene glycol monostearate that demonstrates, or suggests reason to suspect, a hazard to the public when they are used at levels that are now current or that might reasonably be expected in future.
 

Janetda

Super Member
ECF Veteran
I don't believe there have been studies of long term continuous use of inhaled pg though. That seems to be the problem. It is approved and studied for inhalers etc., but that's not the same as vaping as often as many of use do it. Add the nicotine and the flavorings and you have something with very little or no long term studies.
 

crazybry79

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Sep 8, 2009
89
2
46
ALSO....
I pulled up the FDA report on e-cigs....
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ScienceResearch/UCM173250.pdf

I pressed "Alt+F" (find function in Windows XP and maybe more...

I searched "Propylene glycol" and found only 2 results. Both were self admitted by the manufatures in the initial raw product (juice).

NOWHERE in their anaylisis was Propylene glycol found.

Try it yourself!
 

Janetda

Super Member
ECF Veteran
I'm sorry, but I fail to see what this study has to do with what we're talking about. This is an EPA study regarding pg in pesticides. It is NOT a human clinical trial regarding pg being inhaled in large quantities over a long period of time. I am aware of the studies from the '40s. They simply aren't valid for our purposes either. I do think they show that pg is most likely safe, but that's not enough for the medical and research communities. They need serious clinical studies done with animals and humans using today's technology and research guidelines.

Believe me, I think e-cigs are WAY safer than smoking tobacco cigs. I'm vaping the hell out of mine right now..mmm...choco-mint! But for them to be approved and accepted, you gotta have the right research. Even then, the accepted part is going to be iffy. Sorry.
 

quovadis

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Jul 5, 2009
1,194
59
65
Florida USA
Found here, on FDA's own site

Database of Select Committee on GRAS Substances (SCOGS) Reviews

Propylene glycol is metabolized by animals and can be used as a carbohydrate source. Propylene glycol can be ingested over long periods of time and in substantial quantities (up to 5 percent of the total food intake) without causing frank toxic effects......

.....There is no evidence in the available information on propylene glycol and propylene glycol monostearate that demonstrates, or suggests reason to suspect, a hazard to the public when they are used at levels that are now current or that might reasonably be expected in future.

Good, thanks ...that was really informative.
However VG turns into glucose...
I wonder how many calories we get per vape?
I wonder if calories can be metabolized through the lungs?
There are so many unanswered questions to Vaping.
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
I'm sorry, but I fail to see what this study has to do with what we're talking about. This is an EPA study regarding pg in pesticides. It is NOT a human clinical trial regarding pg being inhaled in large quantities over a long period of time. I am aware of the studies from the '40s. They simply aren't valid for our purposes either. I do think they show that pg is most likely safe, but that's not enough for the medical and research communities. They need serious clinical studies done with animals and humans using today's technology and research guidelines.
But it DOES have relevence to the general safety of exposure to PV, which is an arguement of opponents to e-cigs.

From the EPA report:
Neither propylene nor dipropylene glycol appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that propylene or dipropylene glycol have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.


As active ingredients, propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol are formulated primarily as pressurized liquids and ready-to-use solutions. Propylene glycol is used in air sanitization and hard surface disinfection and dipropylene glycol is used in air sanitization.
That says a LOT about mixing PG with other things and the general safety of PG.

If it's safe for humans when used in pesticides and air sanitation, why wouldn't it be safe in PVs?

And the 1940 study isn't any less valid now than it was then. Exposure to high concentrations for prolonged periods showed no adverse effects on lab rats. Just because they were rats in the 1940's doesn't make it any less telling.

No one is saying further testing shouldn't be done - just that the knee-jerk reaction that it is assumed bad is just not supported by actual testing in other areas.
 
Last edited:

yvilla

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 18, 2008
2,063
575
Rochester, NY
I'm sorry, but I fail to see what this study has to do with what we're talking about. This is an EPA study regarding pg in pesticides. It is NOT a human clinical trial regarding pg being inhaled in large quantities over a long period of time.

Wow, that must have been one awfully quick glance you gave the cited EPA document. Pest control for pets is only one of the major uses for PG discussed. The other is its use an an aerosolized air sanitizer, especially in eating establishments and hospitals, and commonly used as such since the 1950s:

Propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol were first registered in 1950 and 1959, respectively, by the FDA for use in hospitals as air disinfectants.

From page 13 of the PDF. And:

Propylene glycol is used on the following use sites: air treatment (eating establishments, hospital, commercial, institutional, household, bathroom, transportational facilities); medical premises and equipment, commercial, institutional and industrial premises and equipment; laundry equipment; hard non-porous surface treatments (bathroom facilities); automobiles; air conditioning filters; pet treatment, including cats, dogs, and caged birds; environmental inanimate hard surfaces; garbage containers/storage.

From page 15 of the PDF.

Still think it's not relevant?
 

Kate51

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Mar 27, 2009
3,031
22
78
Argyle Wi USA
Well, you know what, that isn't even accurate. I refer back to testing done way back in the 50's and 60's, where they kept primates in a "fog" of both PG and VG at 60% concentration for months, with no discernable difference from control group. Course that was verified by necropsy.
Just think, if FDA had any feelings at all you would'nt think they would forget the chimps, would you. Poor devils.
 

Janetda

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Don't misunderstand; I'm not saying it's bad stuff. All I'm saying is that these studies don't prove anything with regards to e-cigs. To assume that they do only disregards the potential risks we are all taking by using these devices. I firmly believe that e-cigs are safer than analogs. But I don't believe that we have seen anything that makes us think that they are SAFE and will have no health consequences. Until we have good research we are not able to make truly informed decisions. It's simply, best guess.

We are all so enthusiastic about e-cigs and so distraught over the thought of someone taking them away from us that I think we are grasping at anything that sounds potentially good. It's the same reason why many of us like to find conspiracy theories around every corner. But as intelligent people, we can't let our enthusiasm for this product over take our critical thinking skills. Don't think we're all getting away scot-free, we simply don't know what we are doing to our bodies. Please don't ever forget that.
 
Last edited:

Mustang394

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Sep 15, 2009
172
0
Colorado Springs, Co
I agree with Janet, quoting a 30 year old study about an air sanitizer that sprayed one burst every 15 minutes in to a room is not the same as sucking it directly into your lungs.

I think as a community we should be pressuring the manufactures to provide proof on the quality controls used in making the liquids.

And why are they not seeking FDA approval? Cost? I read an article recently that projects the US market alone may hit $100 million in sales this year (I'll bet that's low)

I for one would love to see some real testing done not the crap the FDA has done. Only then can we truly educated decisions.
 

Archer74

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Sep 26, 2009
293
148
Illinois
Just my opinion, I would think the FDA would've jumped all over PG already if they have
even the slightest concern about its safety. After all, it is the major component of eCigs.
Instead, the focus were on findings that, I dare say, are trivial when compared to analogs.

Flavoring, on the other had, may cause some concern. However, flavor and smell are directly linked. You can't "taste" flavor if you can't smell it. So, in actuality, we've all been inhaling flavor all our lives. Wanna try it? try and take a puff from your eCig while holding your breath. No taste huh? you can try and smack your lips forcing to sense flavor but you wont. Now take a breath. So, the truth is, tobacco smoke doesnt really kill your sense of flavor but numbs your sense of smell.

sprayed one burst every 15 minutes in to a room is not the same as sucking it directly into your lungs.

Where did you read that? I'd like to read it too. True, when we vape we take it directly into our lungs. But don't forget that we consciously do this and blow majority of it out.
 
Last edited:

jennlsnoopy

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Sep 5, 2009
664
8
Spokane, Wa
www.myspace.com
Good, thanks ...that was really informative.
However VG turns into glucose...
I wonder how many calories we get per vape?
I wonder if calories can be metabolized through the lungs?
There are so many unanswered questions to Vaping.


Wow! I didn't even think of that I use a Vg/PG liquid. I hope I don't start gaining wait.:shock:
 

Raenon

Unregistered Supplier
ECF Veteran
Healthnz compiled a complete report on e-cigs a while back (including the disclosure that the tests were funded by Ruyan, a large e-cig manufacturer), and it appears scientifically rigorous. Laboratories and conditions are all documented. The report finds inhaled PG to be safe at many times the amount e-cigs can provide, and that e-cig cartridges like ruyan manufactures do not contain anything else that's harmful (except the known risk of nicotine itself if used improperly).

w ww. healthnz .co .nz/ RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf

On the flipside of the argument, healthnz also cautions about child safety and concerns about using liquid refills.

w ww. healthnz .co .nz/ ecigarette.htm
 

Snarkyone

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Sep 4, 2009
818
5
59
Your mom said not to say...
Repost of my earlier post referenced in this thread:

Propylene Glycol: A History – “Kill concentrations of air-suspended pneumococci, streptococci and other bacteria.”
Reference: TIME Magazine. (1942, November 16). Medicine. Air Germicide. Available from the Time, Incorporated Web Site: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,932876,00.html
Monday, Nov. 16, 1942

Medicine: Air Germicide

A powerful preventive against pneumonia, influenza and other respiratory diseases may be promised by a brilliant series of experiments conducted during the last three years at the University of Chicago’s Billings Hospital. Dr. Oswald Hope Robertson last week was making final tests with a new germicidal vapor—propylene glycol—to sterilize air. If the results so far obtained are confirmed, one of the age-old searches of man will finally achieve its goal.

The idea of sterilizing the air is not new —London’s great fire of 1666, for example, was touched off by the countless fires which townsmen lit to purge the air of plague. Use of chemical sprays to control air contamination was first attempted in 1928 by three doctors who tried a fine mist of sea water containing sodium hypochlorite. This venture gave promising results, but all such research lapsed for another decade. Within the last few years, several research groups (notably the University of Pennsylvania’s new Air-Borne Disease Laboratories) again began testing various sprays. Many chemicals were found to kill airborne micro-organisms quickly, even in concentrations as low as one gram of chemical per 500 cu. ft. of air. Trouble was that all these air germicides smelled bad, or were toxic, or irritated the respiratory tract. Dr. Robertson’s propylene glycol vapor is odorless, tasteless, nontoxic, non-irritating, cheap, highly bactericidal.

Its discovery was accidental. Dr. Robertson and his colleagues were trying out another possible germicide—a detergent or “soapless soap” (similar to Dreft, Aerosol and other products widely sold for household and industrial use). Water solutions of the detergent were only mildly effective, so the researchers tried solutions of detergents in propylene glycol, which is a sort of thin glycerine. Results were much better. Then the researchers found that the propylene glycol itself was a potent germicide. One part of glycol in 2,000,000 parts of air would—within a few seconds—kill concentrations of air-suspended pneumococci, streptococci and other bacteria numbering millions to the cubic foot.
How did it work? Respiratory disease bacteria float about in tiny droplets of water breathed, sneezed and coughed from human beings. The germicidal glycol also floats in infinitesimally small particles. Calculations showed that if droplet had to hit droplet, it would take two to 200 hours for sterilization of sprayed air to take place. Since sterilization took place in seconds, Dr. Robertson concluded that the glycol droplets must give off gas molecules which dissolve in the water droplets and kill the germs within them.

Dr. Robertson placed groups of mice in a chamber and sprayed its air first with propylene glycol, then with influenza virus. All the mice lived. Then he sprayed the chamber with virus alone. All the mice died.
Propylene glycol is harmless to man when swallowed or injected into the veins. It is also harmless to mice who have breathed it for long periods. But medical science is cautious—there was still a remote chance that glycol might accumulate harmfully in the erect human lungs which, unlike those of mice, do not drain themselves. So last June Dr. Robertson began studying the effect of glycol vapor on monkeys imported from the University of Puerto Rico’s School of Tropical Medicine. So far, after many months’ exposure to the vapor, the monkeys are happy and fatter than ever. Dr. Robertson does not expect mankind to live, like his monkeys, continuously in an atmosphere of glycol vapor; but it should be most valuable in such crowded places as schools and theaters, where most respiratory diseases are picked up.

OMG thank goodness the FDA and the government is around to protect me from this killer! If I was bacteria or a bacterial lobbyist, I would be lobbying hard for this stuff to be banned as well! I see so many questions about PG on the site that this seems perfect reading for those people who are in the dark. I am completely satisfied that I am not in any danger from inhaling PG or VG. Until there is irrefutable proof like they have with tobacco smoking and cancer I am convinced I have changed to a much healthier lifestyle with little to no danger of having health issues come from it.
 
Last edited:

Scooter Bob

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Aug 18, 2009
88
0
This is an interesting facet of PG during this swine flu and regular season. We may all just be the lucky ones, depending on the half life of PG in the lungs. Who'd-a ever thunk it!

Repost of my earlier post referenced in this thread:

Propylene Glycol: A History – “Kill concentrations of air-suspended pneumococci, streptococci and other bacteria.”
Reference: TIME Magazine. (1942, November 16). Medicine. Air Germicide. Available from the Time, Incorporated Web Site: Medicine: Air Germicide - TIME
Monday, Nov. 16, 1942

Medicine: Air Germicide

A powerful preventive against pneumonia, influenza and other respiratory diseases may be promised by a brilliant series of experiments conducted during the last three years at the University of Chicago’s Billings Hospital. Dr. Oswald Hope Robertson last week was making final tests with a new germicidal vapor—propylene glycol—to sterilize air. If the results so far obtained are confirmed, one of the age-old searches of man will finally achieve its goal.

The idea of sterilizing the air is not new —London’s great fire of 1666, for example, was touched off by the countless fires which townsmen lit to purge the air of plague. Use of chemical sprays to control air contamination was first attempted in 1928 by three doctors who tried a fine mist of sea water containing sodium hypochlorite. This venture gave promising results, but all such research lapsed for another decade. Within the last few years, several research groups (notably the University of Pennsylvania’s new Air-Borne Disease Laboratories) again began testing various sprays. Many chemicals were found to kill airborne micro-organisms quickly, even in concentrations as low as one gram of chemical per 500 cu. ft. of air. Trouble was that all these air germicides smelled bad, or were toxic, or irritated the respiratory tract. Dr. Robertson’s propylene glycol vapor is odorless, tasteless, nontoxic, non-irritating, cheap, highly bactericidal.

Its discovery was accidental. Dr. Robertson and his colleagues were trying out another possible germicide—a detergent or “soapless soap” (similar to Dreft, Aerosol and other products widely sold for household and industrial use). Water solutions of the detergent were only mildly effective, so the researchers tried solutions of detergents in propylene glycol, which is a sort of thin glycerine. Results were much better. Then the researchers found that the propylene glycol itself was a potent germicide. One part of glycol in 2,000,000 parts of air would—within a few seconds—kill concentrations of air-suspended pneumococci, streptococci and other bacteria numbering millions to the cubic foot.
How did it work? Respiratory disease bacteria float about in tiny droplets of water breathed, sneezed and coughed from human beings. The germicidal glycol also floats in infinitesimally small particles. Calculations showed that if droplet had to hit droplet, it would take two to 200 hours for sterilization of sprayed air to take place. Since sterilization took place in seconds, Dr. Robertson concluded that the glycol droplets must give off gas molecules which dissolve in the water droplets and kill the germs within them.

Dr. Robertson placed groups of mice in a chamber and sprayed its air first with propylene glycol, then with influenza virus. All the mice lived. Then he sprayed the chamber with virus alone. All the mice died.
Propylene glycol is harmless to man when swallowed or injected into the veins. It is also harmless to mice who have breathed it for long periods. But medical science is cautious—there was still a remote chance that glycol might accumulate harmfully in the erect human lungs which, unlike those of mice, do not drain themselves. So last June Dr. Robertson began studying the effect of glycol vapor on monkeys imported from the University of Puerto Rico’s School of Tropical Medicine. So far, after many months’ exposure to the vapor, the monkeys are happy and fatter than ever. Dr. Robertson does not expect mankind to live, like his monkeys, continuously in an atmosphere of glycol vapor; but it should be most valuable in such crowded places as schools and theaters, where most respiratory diseases are picked up.

OMG thank goodness the FDA and the government is around to protect me from this killer! If I was bacteria or a bacterial lobbyist, I would be lobbying hard for this stuff to be banned as well! I see so many questions about PG on the site that this seems perfect reading for those people who are in the dark. I am completely satisfied that I am not in any danger from inhaling PG or VG. Until there is irrefutable proof like they have with tobacco smoking and cancer I am convinced I have changed to a much healthier lifestyle with little to no danger of having health issues come from it.
 

westcoast2

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 5, 2009
103
0
London, UK
This maybe of interest..
http://www.esta.org/tsp/documents/docs/ANSI_E1-5_2003.pdf

This is the (US) entertainment industry's current guidelines (and an American National Standard from 2003) for theatrical fog.
The ESTA (Entertainment Services and
Technology Association) Technical Standards Program was created to serve the ESTA membership and the entertainment
industry in technical standards related matters.

3.2 Concentrations
3.2.1 Long term exposure
A theatrical fog produced with a mixture of deionized water and one or more dihydric or trihydric
alcohols shall be considered to meet the requirements of this standard if the concentration of
alcohols breathed by a worker or audience member is no greater than 10 milligrams per cubic
meter, time weighted average (TWA), and if the alcohols used are from the list in Section 3.1. This
maximum TWA concentration level applies to the total alcohol concentration, whether one or several
alcohols are used.
3.2.2 Peak exposure
A theatrical fog produced with a mixture of deionized water and one or more dihydric or trihydric
alcohols shall be considered to meet the requirements of this standard if the concentration of
alcohols in the air breathed by a worker or audience member is never higher than 40 milligrams per
cubic meter, and if the alcohols used are from the list in Section 3.1. This maximum concentration
level applies to the total alcohol concentration, whether one or several alcohols are used.
A theatrical fog produced with a mixture of deionized water and trihydric alcohol (glycerin) alone
shall be considered to meet the requirements of this standard if the concentration of alcohol in the
air breathed by a worker or audience member is never higher than 50 milligrams per cubic meter.

TWA: Time Weighted Average. Exposure level averaged over an 8-hour period.

These exposures go some way to adressing SHV (Second hand vape) issues.

Note that the controversial substance Diethylene glycol can be a constituent of theatrical fog or mist.
3.1 Components
The following dihydric and trihydric alcohols are components that may be used with water in a fog
or mist that meets this standard:
ANSI E1.5 - 2003, Entertainment Technology - Theatrical Fog Made With Aqueous Solutions Of Di- And Trihydric Alcohols
1 F&S/1997-3017r7.5
CAS # Name
112-27-6 triethylene glycol
57-55-6 monopropylene glycol (propylene glycol; 1,2-propanediol)
111-46-6 diethylene glycol
110-98-5 dipropylene glycol
584-03-2 1,2-butylene glycol (1,2-butanediol)
107-88-0 1,3-butylene glycol (1,3-butanediol)
56-81-5 glycerin (glycerol; 1,2,3- propanetriol)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread