Home testing of e-liquid strength (DIY)

[kinabaloo]

I would like to repeat my request to have this thread, and other QC threads, in a separate subforum. This is the DIY forum, so people here will have unflavored nic, which the test is designed for. If people want to then post the results of particular flavored liquids they make in another thread, in a very controlled experiment, I think that is great, but I personally would like to see this thread be for unflavored nic only, while we optimize the kit or the use of it. The results of flavors are good, but I think that is OT for the time being, and distracts from the fundamental skills we want people to have.

I look at the kit as giving the public enhanced running shoes in a race, and turning around to the vendors and saying "Come on! You can do it! Run faster!" The idea is to make everyone win.

Ok, let's split according to focus.

New thread to discuss the kit, its use and methodology, with only unflavored nicotine base : http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...e-base-liquids-no-flavorings.html#post4616750 A space for mjradik, Kurt and others to focus that specific theme and improvements to the kit/methodology.

This thread for flavored liquids, general/test related, miscellaneous/other (anything else related to home testing).

 

[Switched]

For a small-scale vendor, it can be as simple as following our simple and inexpensive titration method to check the base nic solutions (every container) (after dilution if above 50/100mg), and then a sample of finished products (say, 2 or 3 / 100).

Absolutely! ... and if in doubt he/she can then perform more accurate testing, if and when things are not normal. Not everyone should be sending their liquids in for GC/MS testing. The liquid mfr is required and the large distribution vendors should as well (think TW who do)

 

[kinabaloo]

Absolutely! ... and if in doubt he/she can then perform more accurate testing, if and when things are not normal. Not everyone should be sending their liquids in for GC/MS testing. The liquid mfr is required and the large distribution vendors should as well (think TW who do)

Agreed, as long as it comes for a reputable lab, they do the GC testing and more, and send a COA (Certificate of Analysis) in which the results of various tests (including titration and perhaps NMR spectroscopy and infrared spectroscopy) has been used to verify nicotine level and the absence of impurities. A large scale vendor may then send out a sample to an independent lab for GC/MS analysis to verify the findings on the COA, but I don't see a great need for smaller scale vendors to encur this big expense so long as they choose supplier wisely and get the COA details with it.

 

[Switched]

*SNIP
@Switched - The test does make this point both on the website and in the instructions.

And, while it is fair to raise the point and it is good we have debated it, I hope you will try the titration on some flavored liquids before dishing it

Nobody disagrees that the flavorings might lead to a false result but only sometimes/occasionally. I'm interested to find out the real data before jumping to conclusions.

Note what DVap said: "flavor after flavor tested on the money." There was one exception and that was a 'null' as I call it - straigt to yellow / can't be titrated because of acid content (i.e. very clearly 'untestable' as opposed to spurious).

I am not jumping to conclusion and apologies if it seems that way. Like I said as soon as my kit comes in I will be conducting a bunch of titrations on various liquids myself and form a conclusive opinion then. That being said, I am not holding my breath wrt the accuracy of the test with commercially bought liquids. Is that a suitable answer.

 

[Switched]

For vendors, a positive of them trying the at-home test is to let them establish whether a particular blend will tend to test "off", based on the flavorings they use.

If they verify their incoming nic, and test an output eliquid and it tends to read low, it is good for them to know this, to be able to say "Please note, at home titration of our XX mg/ml SuperDuperFlavorEliquid will tend to indicate YY mg/ml, due to the flavorings used."

Know up front, publish any known oddities up front, if at all possible, then an end user won't be surprised.

That is one big can of worms you would be opening there IMO

 

[kinabaloo]

I am not jumping to conclusion and apologies if it seems that way. Like I said as soon as my kit comes in I will be conducting a bunch of titrations on various liquids myself and form a conclusive opinion then. That being said, I am not holding my breath wrt the accuracy of the test with commercially bought liquids. Is that a suitable answer.

Sure

The case will have more weight when it has some evidence

 

[Switched]

One last thing about the BE situation. If I remember correctly, their batch numbers seemed to apply over a long time period which makes it seem that the number was not tied to a specific container of base nic. Then to make matters worse the same number was used for all different strengths of outgoing liquid. What I would do is have a two part batch number (tracking id) where the second number related to a specifc set of bottles of same strength made at a specific time. Then a recall, if it should be necessary (with good processes in place it should practically never be necessary), a much more manageable number of items is involved.

Valid points but extremely subjective IMO and I will state why and try not to get into an exchange and keep the thread for its intended purpose.

We don't know what controls if any were in place at BE. As a manufacturer, normally manufacturers do not play with different strength on the same day. e.g today the plant is mixing 100mg, tomorrow it is 50mg etc... If it was my plant that is how I would have ran it, not different strength being diluted and funneled to the distribution centres or whatever. <---- That is carelessness and a QC nightmare. KISS

 

[kinabaloo]

Valid points but extremely subjective IMO and I will state why and try not to get into an exchange and keep the thread for its intended purpose.

We don't know what controls if any were in place at BE. As a manufacturer, normally manufacturers do not play with different strength on the same day. e.g today the plant is mixing 100mg, tomorrow it is 50mg etc... If it was my plant that is how I would have ran it, not different strength being diluted and funneled to the distribution centres or whatever. <---- That is carelessness and a QC nightmare. KISS

Looks like we're saying the same thing to me - keep things separate to avoid mix ups.

When the QC forum is up we can get into more detail. But that's the basic premise, whether its bottles, lot numbers, labels, ...

I wasn't trying to summarise everything about QA, just the lot numbers.

Each mix is made a time in one place, verified, tested and moved on. This is then given a unique id.

 

[markfm]

That is one big can of worms you would be opening there IMO

You might well be right, but if I was a vendor I would like to know in advance if the eliquid I produced would end up getting odd readings. You just know that people are going to be trying the kits on commercial eliquids (has already happened, been reported in this series of threads). This doesn't mean I have to disclose the makeup of the product (trade secret), but I would hopefully know, up front, what kind of readings can be expected. Just the approximate result, if something does tend to test significantly off of nominal. In such a case it would actually be preferable to know what happens when the relatively cheap and easy, if inexact, test is used, since this is what a normal consumer might be playing around with.

For me, I DIY (that's why I've been paying attention to these threads). In my case I can test the input and output, and there's no harm if I see that some flavorings tend to skew the results. No secrets in my mixes, I'm happy to post what I see, including what the actual source flavors are that gave me the results. If a particular source flavoring does skew the result, that is "nice" to know, and certainly doesn't disparage anyone. (if, say, a mix with FlavorSupplier's HighlyAcidicFlavoring leads to a faulty nic test it is not a slight to FlavorSupplier in any way, but lets the community at large know that yes, indeed, eliquids containing it may indicate lower than real nic level using the at home test).

 

[Switched]

*SNIP

I wasn't trying to summarise everything about QA, just the lot numbers.

Each mix is made a time in one place, verified, tested and moved on. This is then given a unique id.

Absolutely!

I seriously doubt this stuff was coming in, in 45gal drums but could be mistaken. But the gist I got from Kat (the nun) was that barrel x came in and barrel x tested at ? (ok). Barrel x produced Y amount of juice Z and was sampled @ 2/100 (independent testing). Barrel x only produced juice Z - nothing else. Juice Z was given a batch or Lot # for identity purposes traceable back to barrel x. Juice Z 100mg (tested) was sold to companies A, B, C. These companies should in principal test what they receive. Companies A & B did C decided not to test.

When a complaint is registered, it is easily traceable to whom lets speculate company C needs to recall their liquid, because anecdotal data supports that liquid from A & B tested fine upon receipt, and no complaints have been received from vendors who bought from A & B, only from customers who purchased liquids from vendors associated with company C, and thus company C is required to institute a recall for all liquid Z sold. The liability has shifted from the primary receiver to company C, because all other players have their ducks in a row and the data to support it - from cradle to grave.

Furthermore, we know that anything created leaves a fingerprint and can be detected through GC/MS.

Anything that goes into a liquid also needs to be verified etc. e.g we used PG barrels a,b,c etc... do dilute liquid Z to 100mg

 

[Switched]

You might well be right, but if I was a vendor I would like to know in advance if the eliquid I produced would end up getting odd readings. You just know that people are going to be trying the kits on commercial eliquids (has already happened, been reported in this series of threads). This doesn't mean I have to disclose the makeup of the product (trade secret), but I would hopefully know, up front, what kind of readings can be expected. Just the approximate result, if something does tend to test significantly off of nominal. In such a case it would actually be preferable to know what happens when the relatively cheap and easy, if inexact, test is used, since this is what a normal consumer might be playing around with.

For me, I DIY (that's why I've been paying attention to these threads). In my case I can test the input and output, and there's no harm if I see that some flavorings tend to skew the results. No secrets in my mixes, I'm happy to post what I see, including what the actual source flavors are that gave me the results. If a particular source flavoring does skew the result, that is "nice" to know, and certainly doesn't disparage anyone. (if, say, a mix with FlavorSupplier's HighlyAcidicFlavoring leads to a faulty nic test it is not a slight to FlavorSupplier in any way, but lets the community at large know that yes, indeed, eliquids containing it may indicate lower than real nic level using the at home test).

I hear where you are coming from Mark, OTOH if the vendor tested his liquid and compared it against the COA, then that is all that is needed by the customer for validity, explaining to customers that certain flavourings will affect the acidity in conducted tests. All that would really be required and acceptable by me would be X amount of nic (mg) Y amount of PG, VG or both (%) and percentage of flavouring. Any DIY calculator should provide you with the mg of said mixed liquid. They haven't released any trade secrets and should satisfy the avg individuals. For the drama llamas, there is always vendor Q. IMHO regulation doesn't mean we have to get stupid about it. We just need to exercise due diligence.

 

[markfm]

Oh, I get it. Multiple possible ways to do a check that is reasonable, what you suggest is certainly fine, as you know.

 

[markfm]

Had my first low measurement based on flavorings

A blend using tpa vanilla bean ice cream, bavarian cream, banana cream, and strawberry. Mixed at 15mg/ml yesterday, tested today and it came up 11 mg/ml.

I expect it is the latter two flavorings, although not certain by any means.

 

[kinabaloo]

Had my first low measurement based on flavorings

A blend using tpa vanilla bean ice cream, bavarian cream, banana cream, and strawberry. Mixed at 15mg/ml yesterday, tested today and it came up 11 mg/ml.

I expect it is the latter two flavorings, although not certain by any means.

Interesting. Maybe the strawberry. The one i have is just aroma, not acidic at all, but this one might be.

edit: i think the creams are most likely - fatty acids.

Don't want you to use up your chemicals but t would be nice to narrow it down.

Also, which flavors have worked out fine ?

I wonder if say a drop or two in 1ml water plus a drop of BB could identify an acidic flavoring straight off - a short cut test of just the flavoring ?

Interesting article on chemical classes of flavorings (aromas) : Flavor Compounds

 

[kinabaloo]

An idea : maybe we can neutralize any acidic components with alcohol - fatty acids would be changed to neutral esters.

If the test used 2ml of e-liquid, 1ml of PGA should be sufficient; simply discount it from the volume calculation.

 

[markfm]

Third post in this thread, I looked at mixes using 5 natures flavors flavors, seedman commercial concentrate, and tpa tobacco blend alcohol. Those mixes came out at expected values.

I'll be checking some individual flavor blends, things that I can then mix together to get a desired eliquid.

I don't have pga, closest is 160 proof plain vodka.

I had already picked up a set of refill chemicals, the individual tests are low cost, this is just play time for me

 

[kinabaloo]

Third post in this thread, I looked at mixes using 5 natures flavors flavors, seedman commercial concentrate, and tpa tobacco blend alcohol. Those mixes came out at expected values.

I'll be checking some individual flavor blends, things that I can then mix together to get a desired eliquid.

I don't have pga, closest is 160 proof plain vodka.

I had already picked up a set of refill chemicals, the individual tests are low cost, this is just play time for me

Vodka would work; it only needs to enough to react with the fatty acid content.

Have fun - look forward to updates ...

 

[markfm]

Digital scale came in today. 100g, 0.01g resolution, nominal accuracy +/-0.02, $12 delivered.

I hate eyeballing, prefer working from a digital readout as much as possible.

I weighed the empty beaker, then with 10ml each of distilled water and the acid. Based on the scale and having to eyeball 10ml of the two liquids, they both came in at 9.95g/10ml, .995g/ml. Nominal water density at 20C is .998, I'm just slightly warmer than that, so the .995 is within reason for the scale and my ability to eyeball 10ml.

I expect to get the density of anything I want to test based on a 10ml sample, then actually just test against 2ml + bb + some distilled water &/or pga. Get an accurate 2ml, weigh the mix before adding acid, then weigh after, and I should have a pretty accurate measure on the amount of acid used.

I don't expect it to change anything much, just reduces my own errors.

No home testing tonight, will check the individual tpa flavors tomorrow.

(fernand, thanks for suggesting trying a scale)

 

[kinabaloo]

Digital scale came in today. 100g, 0.01g resolution, nominal accuracy +/-0.02, $12 delivered.

I hate eyeballing, prefer working from a digital readout as much as possible.

I weighed the empty beaker, then with 10ml each of distilled water and the acid. Based on the scale and having to eyeball 10ml of the two liquids, they both came in at 9.95g/10ml, .995g/ml. Nominal water density at 20C is .998, I'm just slightly warmer than that, so the .995 is within reason for the scale and my ability to eyeball 10ml.

I expect to get the density of anything I want to test based on a 10ml sample, then actually just test against 2ml + bb + some distilled water &/or pga. Get an accurate 2ml, weigh the mix before adding acid, then weigh after, and I should have a pretty accurate measure on the amount of acid used.

I don't expect it to change anything much, just reduces my own errors.

No home testing tonight, will check the individual tpa flavors tomorrow.

(fernand, thanks for suggesting trying a scale)

$12 delivered - great value

Another thought on problematic flavorings :

I am thinking a pre-test to see if can be nic-tested. This would mean checking the initial pH. This might not work for flavored liquids, but should work on the flavoring itself. Dilute and use a standard pH paper to see if more acid than neutral.

Also, are those cream flavoring free of di-acetyls ?

 

[markfm]

Bavarian is clean, vbic has some acetyl prop. This is a small test batch, with 4% vbic. I'll be dropping the vbic, switching back to a french vanilla (acetyl free).

(tpa is very good about disclosure)