Greetings and toxicology

[someone3x7]

Haha...I was wondering if there are any studies on how safe alcohol is on the body...jk...made me chuckle!

I never said I live safely. Just interested in being a bit safer in my living

At this point I think I'm just about done with this thread. In a way its pretty off topic now. I do want to touch back on the trace amounts of Formaldehyde released from Propylene Glycol again. I decided to refresh myself on it a bit ago. Formaldehyde can cause irritiation in concentrations as low as 0.0534 mg/m3. It has been linked to cancer in people exposed to less than 2.67mg/m3 on a regular basis. Plus it can kill you outright at 133mg/m3. So were in no immediate danger of falling over dead from formaldehyde. But even when were talking trace amounts its not healthy. I was getting more from analogs I'm sure and I'm still vaping my PG mix. Yet, if formaldehyde is being released from PG switching to pure VG at the expense of an extra atomizer now and then may not be a bad idea for the industry.

 

[kiwivap]

So were in no immediate danger of falling over dead from formaldehyde. But even when were talking trace amounts its not healthy. I was getting more from analogs I'm sure and I'm still vaping my PG mix. Yet, if formaldehyde is being released from PG switching to pure VG at the expense of an extra atomizer now and then may not be a bad idea for the industry.

There's no evidence the trace amounts in the study are unhealthy. Your body produces formaldehyde. Very small amounts are found in the body and they are metabolised very quickly - they don't build up. Trace amounts of formaldehyde will be metabolised. Interesting study here on using formaldehyde to aid digestion and milk production in cows. I completely disagree with the industry not using PG and making VG only juice. There is no evidence that we need to do that. If you want VG only for yourself, then go for it. Listing concentrations without understanding the metabolic processes for trace amounts isn't evidence.

 

[somejerk]

This is pure speculation. What chemical reactions? The compounds present in vapor were identified in the study you linked. I could say there might be lots of dangerous chemicals in ice-cream because of the freezing. Doesn't mean there are.

Actually, it's not. Didn't you ever take science class and they told you how cooking is a chemical reaction because they can't be restored to normal?

 

[kiwivap]

Actually, it's not. Didn't you ever take science class and they told you how cooking is a chemical reaction because they can't be restored to normal?

I've taken more than high school science. Way too general - what chemicals, what reactions, what products, what effects? And then reviewed.
Just a note - the ice cream bit was analogy - although there have been interesting studies on the chemicals produced by organisms in sub-zero conditions - and the reactions.

 

[someone3x7]

There's no evidence trace amounts are unhealthy. Your body produces formaldehyde. Very small amounts are found in the body and they are metabolised very quickly - they don't build up. Trace amounts of formaldehyde will be metabolised. Interesting study here on using formaldehyde to aid digestion and milk production in cows. I completely disagree with the industry not using PG and making VG only juice. There is no evidence that we need to do that. If you want VG only for yourself, then go for it. Listing concentrations without understanding the metabolic processes for trace amounts isn't evidence.

Try googling it. There is plenty of evidence that it is unhealthy to inhale. Arsenic also naturally occurs in the human body.

Edit: also i grow tired of pointing out the difference between ingestion and inhalation. I'm done arguing these points for now. Y'all have fun.

 

[X P3 Flight Engineer]

I never said I live safely. Just interested in being a bit safer in my living

At this point I think I'm just about done with this thread. In a way its pretty off topic now. I do want to touch back on the trace amounts of Formaldehyde released from Propylene Glycol again. I decided to refresh myself on it a bit ago. Formaldehyde can cause irritiation in concentrations as low as 0.0534 mg/m3. It has been linked to cancer in people exposed to less than 2.67mg/m3 on a regular basis. Plus it can kill you outright at 133mg/m3. So were in no immediate danger of falling over dead from formaldehyde. But even when were talking trace amounts its not healthy. I was getting more from analogs I'm sure and I'm still vaping my PG mix. Yet, if formaldehyde is being released from PG switching to pure VG at the expense of an extra atomizer now and then may not be a bad idea for the industry.

Feel pity for the hospital workers. Every piece of tissue removed in an operating room must be preserved and sent to the lab. 99% of the samples are preserved in formalin (10% neutral buffered formaldehyde). Many people are exposed to formaldehyde fumes, even though their exposure is minimized as much as possible. And, Yes, there have been many studies done on their exposure.

 

[kiwivap]

Try googling it. There is plenty of evidence that it is unhealthy to inhale. Arsenic also naturally occurs in the human body.

Edit: also i grow tired of pointing out the difference between ingestion and inhalation. I'm done arguing these points for now. Y'all have fun.

I'm not saying it is healthy at any concentration. I'm saying our bodies produce it, and then quickly metabolise it. Trace amounts are tiny. I think Michael Siegel made a good suggestion - partly because it would allay concerns.
You don't make any conclusive point by saying ingestion and inhalation are different. Yes, they are different physiologial process - both send substances into the blood stream.

 

[kiwivap]

Feel pity for the hospital workers. Every piece of tissue removed in an operating room must be preserved and sent to the lab. 99% of the samples are preserved in formalin (10% neutral buffered formaldehyde). Many people are exposed to formaldehyde fumes, even though their exposure is minimized as much as possible. And, Yes, there have been many studies done on their exposure.

Interesting. I know people who work with formalin.

 

[X P3 Flight Engineer]

Interesting. I know people who work with formalin.

I'll bet if you warn them about inhaling trace amounts they will laugh at you!

Seriously, no one likes to work with it, it stinks, but sometimes it is just part of the job that has to be done.

 

[someone3x7]

Let my try to put this into a little bit of perspective before I sign off of this thread for good. Concerning my previous numbers I usually concert ppm to mg/m3 since its easier to compare. Formaldehyde has a molecular mass of 30.3 mol. Just throwing that out there. Its otherwise not really relevant to what I'm about now. Formaldehyde has been linked to cancer and fatal bronchitis in people exposed to breathing no more than 2 parts per million. Now I really don't want to do the extensive math so I will make the assumptions of zero-celsius and sea-level with no other contaminants in the air. So 2ppm Formaldehyde would be roughly 0.000002% of the that air in whatever volume you choose. How small of a trace do you think they found in that study?

 

[dchest02]

Just found this tidbit about formaldehyde from the CDC. Good read.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp111-c1.pdf

 

[X P3 Flight Engineer]

Just found this tidbit about formaldehyde from the CDC. Good read.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp111-c1.pdf

Thank You. It becomes plain why there is so much room for debate. All the conclusions are full of "probably", "may reasonably be anticipated to be", and "limited evidence". Exposure is not cumulative, and zero exposure is not possible.

And the CDC's statement,"We have no reliable test to determine how much formaldehyde you have been exposed to or whether you will experience any harmful health effects" reiterates that some people may be very sensitive and some may be very tolerant. They do not seem to think that exposure is extremely dangerous, or even possible to avoid. The fact that we no longer smoke has already reduced our daily exposure, so we are headed in the right direction.

When they remove it from fingernail hardener, we will know that they are serious about reducing exposure levels! Lol

Relax, Enjoy!

 

[someone3x7]

Just found this tidbit about formaldehyde from the CDC. Good read.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp111-c1.pdf

That is a good read, thank you for the succinct and informative response. Chapter 2 at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp111-c2.pdf is also good. The tables starting about page 13 in chapter 2 are the kind of stuff I'm really interested in.

Thanks again

Edit: so the British study I had read was done on rats, they weren't clear about that in the article. Yet the numbers line up perfectly. *delete* misread something that was here

 

[someone3x7]

My eyes are starting to hurt so I cant finish reading chapter 2 of that cdc document right now. I found these parts particularly interesting:

pg 53
Mean baseline PEFR (Peak-Expiratory-Flow-Rate, ability to exhale) declined by about 2% over a 10-week period in a group of 24 physical therapy students who dissected cadavers for 3-hour periods per week (Kriebel et al. 1993). Estimates of breathing zone formaldehyde concentrations ranged from 0.49 to 0.93 ppm (geometric mean 0.73±1.22 ppm). PEFR, the only pulmonary function variable measured in this study, was measured before and after each exposure period. Postexposure PEFR means were 1–3% lower than preexposure PEFR means during the first 4 weeks, but this difference was not apparent during the last 6 weeks. Fourteen weeks after the end of the 10-week period, the mean PEFR for the group returned to the preexposure baseline value.


pg54
A single study was located providing suggestive, but to date uncorroborated, evidence that elevated levels of formaldehyde in residential air may change pulmonary function variables in children, but not adults. Krzyzanowski et al. (1990) reported that children who lived in households with formaldehyde air concentrations greater than 0.06 ppm had greater prevalence rates of physician-diagnosed bronchitis or asthma compared with children who lived in households with concentrations less than 0.06 ppm. A statistically significant trend for increasing prevalence rate with increasing formaldehyde air concentration was found for households with environmental tobacco smoke, but the trend was not significant in households without tobacco smoke. A statistically significant trend was also found for decreasing PEFR values in children with increasing household formaldehyde air concentration. The clinical significance of these findings is uncertain (see Section 2.6 for more discussion)..


pg 74
Wantke et al. (1996a) measured elevated levels of formaldehyde-specific IgE in 24/62 8-year-old children who were students in three particle board-paneled classrooms with estimated formaldehyde air concentrations of 0.075, 0.069, and 0.043 ppm. In a health survey, the children reported headaches (29/62), fatigue (21/62), dry nasal mucosa (9/62), rhinitis (23/62), cough (15/62), and nosebleeds (14/62). Sums of numbers of children with each of nine symptoms for each classroom decreased with decreasing formaldehyde concentration (49, 47, and 24, respectively, for the 0.075-, 0.069-, and 0.043-ppm classrooms), but the investigators reported that elevated levels of specific IgE did not correlate with the number and severity of symptoms. The children were moved to a new school without particle board paneling and were evaluated again, 3 months after moving. Estimated formaldehyde concentrations in the new classrooms were 0.029, 0.023, and 0.026 ppm. The numbers of children reporting symptoms decreased significantly compared with premoving reporting figures, and mean serum levels of formaldehyde-specific IgE, measured in 20 of the children, declined significantly compared with premoving mean levels.


pg74 still
Thrasher et al. (1987) assessed the effects of formaldehyde exposure on cellular immunity and antibody formation in eight symptomatic and eight unexposed individuals. The exposed group was comprised of three males and five females. Seven of the exposed individuals resided in mobile homes for periods ranging from 2 to 7 years; the eighth exposed subject was a laboratory worker who resided in a newly decorated, energy-efficient apartment. Air monitoring in four of the homes revealed formaldehyde vapor concentrations ranging from 0.07 to 0.55 ppm. Venous blood samples were collected from all subjects and lymphocytes were used for T- and B-cell enumeration and blastogenesis; serum samples were used to determine IgG and IgE antibodies to formaldehyde. IgE antibodies to formaldehyde were not detected in exposed or control subjects; IgG antibodies in exposed subjects ranged from 1:8 to 1:256, but were undetected (1:4) in 7 of the controls. T- and B-cell numbers were significantly lower (p<0.05) in mobile home residents (48 and 12.6%, respectively) compared to control subjects (65.9 and 14.75%, respectively). Phytohemagglutinin-stimulated T- and B-cell blastogenesis was significantly depressed (p<0.01) in mobile home residents compared to control subjects (17,882 versus 28,576 counts per minute, respectively).

 

[SissySpike]

The Formaldehyde finding I read was also from one certain brand of juice I think it was from China if I remember right. SO the lesson here is don't vape Chinese juice. As far as regulation Yes lets give the government more tax money to squander. Lets hope they wont harm corrupt and ruin a good thing like everything else it touches.
Are you MAD!!!! You must live in a different country than I because everything I see the government touch gets messed up! They do not have our best interest in mind. Unless you are a corporate lobbyist.
When they are responsible for what they have then we can talk. I work In construction. OSHA is a out of control monster! Look around you burocery blocks growth. That is a proven fact! So lets keep the regulation away from anything we like so it doesn't go away or become so expensive we cant afford it.

 

[rondasherrill]

The Formaldehyde finding I read was also from one certain brand of juice I think it was from China if I remember right.

Actually, the formaldehyde was found in just one sample of one brand, and in concentrations between 10-20% lower than in a standard tobacco cigarette. All the samples in that study were from traditional cig-like e-cig models that have the regular smog-flavored* e-liquid.

*smog-flavored is my own translation of what they taste like

 

[kiwivap]

Let my try to put this into a little bit of perspective before I sign off of this thread for good. Concerning my previous numbers I usually concert ppm to mg/m3 since its easier to compare. Formaldehyde has a molecular mass of 30.3 mol. Just throwing that out there.

It's not really relevant tho.

Its otherwise not really relevant to what I'm about now. Formaldehyde has been linked to cancer and fatal bronchitis in people exposed to breathing no more than 2 parts per million.

The jury is still out on direct cause. Here's an interesting read:

In most of studies investigating lung function, formaldehyde alone or in combination with other agents (formaldehyde concentration: < 0.02 - 5ppm) caused transient, reversible declines in lung function, but there was no evidence that formaldehyde induces a chronic decrement in lung function. (IARC 1995)

And this:

A number of studies have found associations between exposure to formaldehyde and cancer at other sites including oral cavity, oro- and hypopharynx, pancreas, larynx, lung and brain. The overall balance of epidemiological evidence did not support a causal role for formaldehyde in relation to these other cancers.

From your post:

Now I really don't want to do the extensive math so I will make the assumptions of zero-celsius and sea-level with no other contaminants in the air. So 2ppm Formaldehyde would be roughly 0.000002% of the that air in whatever volume you choose. How small of a trace do you think they found in that study?

I don't see why you add seal level anyway - that's pressure. Zero celsius is redundant here. This is extraneous. Here's a chart showing ppms and some effects. I've taken this from an easy to understand fact sheet, here

LOW: 0.1 - 5 parts per million
Eye irritation, tears
Skin irritation
Respiratory tract irritation

MOD:5 - 20 ppm
Burning of eyes and respiratory tract
Tears
Difficulty in breathing / coughing

HIGH: 20 - 100 ppm
Chest tightening, pain
Irregular heartbeat
Severe lung irritation
Pulmonary oedema
Death in severe cases

Not everyone will experience problems at low levels - it varies. Trace amounts are smaller than this - they are detectable but too small to be quantified (measured). So despite all the math being flung about here, the fact is trace amounts are smaller than what has been put forward. The study used gas chromatography and mass spectrometry. Trace amounts mean there was detection but far too small to measure. Trace amounts are even smaller than a low level exposure.

 

[kiwivap]

Exposure is not cumulative, and zero exposure is not possible.

So nice when some-one nails it on the head. Very good info here form the Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia on formaldehyde.
A quote from that:

Concerns about safety have focused on formaldehyde in part because high concentrations of formaldehyde can damage DNA (the building block of genes) and cause cancerous changes in cells in the laboratory. Although formaldehyde is diluted during the manufacturing process, residual quantities of formaldehyde may be found in several current vaccines (see table below). However, formaldehyde does not appear to be a cause of cancer in man. Further, animals exposed to large quantities of formaldehyde (a single dose of 25 mg/kg or chronic exposure at doses of 80-100 mg/kg/day) do not develop malignancies.

That's based on peer reviewed articles referenced at the bottom of the page. I recommend it to those following this discussion.

From the post:

And the CDC's statement,"We have no reliable test to determine how much formaldehyde you have been exposed to or whether you will experience any harmful health effects" reiterates that some people may be very sensitive and some may be very tolerant.

Yes. Some people will display a sensitivity at low levels. (Chart in my previous post has those figures). Trace amounts are so small they are not even within low levels.

When they remove it from fingernail hardener, we will know that they are serious about reducing exposure levels! Lol

Relax, Enjoy!

Touche!

 

[kiwivap]

pg 53
Mean baseline PEFR (Peak-Expiratory-Flow-Rate, ability to exhale) declined by about 2% over a 10-week period in a group of 24 physical therapy students who dissected cadavers for 3-hour periods per week (Kriebel et al. 1993). Estimates of breathing zone formaldehyde concentrations ranged from 0.49 to 0.93 ppm

Industry exposure well above trace levels. Not comparable.

Fourteen weeks after the end of the 10-week period, the mean PEFR for the group returned to the preexposure baseline value.

So this study found the effects at an industrial level exposure reversible. And this is way above trace levels.

pg54
A single study was located providing suggestive, but to date uncorroborated, evidence that elevated levels of formaldehyde in residential air may change pulmonary function variables in children, but not adults.

In everyday language - there were not direct findings, but a "suggestion", and no other data corroborates this "suggestion".

pg 74
Wantke et al. (1996a) measured elevated levels of formaldehyde-specific IgE in 24/62 8-year-old children who were students in three particle board-paneled classrooms with estimated formaldehyde air concentrations of 0.075, 0.069, and 0.043 ppm.

Again well over trace levels.

In a health survey, the children reported headaches (29/62), fatigue (21/62), dry nasal mucosa (9/62), rhinitis (23/62), cough (15/62), and nosebleeds (14/62). Sums of numbers of children with each of nine symptoms for each classroom decreased with decreasing formaldehyde concentration (49, 47, and 24, respectively, for the 0.075-, 0.069-, and 0.043-ppm classrooms),

As the levels lowered, the symptoms decreased. And again, even the lowest level was above trace levels. This does nothing to make a case about the finding of the German study.

The children were moved to a new school without particle board paneling and were evaluated again, 3 months after moving. Estimated formaldehyde concentrations in the new classrooms were 0.029, 0.023, and 0.026 ppm.

Still well over trace levels, and formaldehyde still present in an everyday environment.

The numbers of children reporting symptoms decreased significantly compared with premoving reporting figures, and mean serum levels of formaldehyde-specific IgE, measured in 20 of the children, declined significantly compared with premoving mean levels.

Exactly. The rest proves the same point. Throwing around figures without understanding the quantitative significance is not good science. As well as being produced in the human body, and metabolised in the blood stream very quickly (via digestion or inhalation) , formaldehyde is also used in resins, adhesives, textiles, tissues, napkins, paints and a number of other products.
Industrial exposure to formaldehyde is a far different kettle of fish than trace amounts in one study. We don't need fear mongering. I've been enjoying a good vape while doing this.

 

[kiwivap]

How small of a trace do you think they found in that study?

The question is meaningless because trace is not measurable - that's why it's called trace - there's a detection but far too small to even measure.