Houston, we have a problem...BE nic titration results

[Kurt]

The UK board seems to think it was only VG liquids that had a problem. It was NOT only VG. The 121 mg was PG. And that person got sick. I should have put the vehicles in the OP. The rest were all VG, and yes there is the chance that it was a mixing issue from a larger batch. The 272 mg was also VG, but this I do not think was from a mixing issue. I think this was the previous conc base that was USED to mix up the others. It is a different thing all together. I am of course speculating, but even in appearance it is an anomaly.

So to give the list again now with vehicles and BE lot numbers and purchase dates, if known:

100 mg....48 mg (This one was mine, don't know lot #) VG 6/9/11
100 mg....121 mg PG lot 256 7/5/11
100 mg....272 mg VG lot 257 5/29/11
48 mg....78 mg VG lot 257 9/7/11
36 mg....51 mg VG lot 257 8/27/11
48 mg....59 mg VG lot 257
100 mg....98 mg (this was my MFS 100 mg VG) 1/1/10

More results perhaps Monday. Thanks again to everyone for your support! Its been quite a week, but look how much we have done! I am indeed blessed to be part of this community, truly.

 

[Katya]

Kurt, any helpful mod can edit your original post and add the vehicles.

Nice to see you again.

 

[Iffy]

The 121 mg was PG.

Thanx for pointing that out! I don't remember PG being in the 'mix' before. That may raise the flag for other folk...

 

[AzPlumber]

Thanks for clearing that up Kurt. I use only VG so i'm interested in mixing problems with VG (any supplier). From your testing and what we have learned about BE procedures, the PG sample at 121 might not be a mixing problem but a failure to dilute it after reaching the distribution center. Results from the next rounds of testing will be interesting to see if they shed any light on the mixing (or failure to) in VG.

 

[markfm]

Even more confusing, to me. Was the one high pg from the same lot # as also listed on some of the questionable vg? So there is lot 256 pg, and lot 256 vg? Or was one of the two lot numbers referenced previously one that only had the one pg sample?

 

[kinabaloo]

Kurt - could you add the lot numbers (where available) to the list also?

+++

Why independent-regulation would be better.

EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration : "EU officials concluded that, following a three-year investigation by 19 professors, there was no evidence to prove the previously undisputed fact.

Producers of bottled water are now forbidden by law from making the claim and will face a two-year jail sentence if they defy the edict." - London Telegraph

 

[AzPlumber]

Show me (pm me) where any one has said "it's not dangerous." Any one at all. I would really like to see that statement.

I don't recall any one stating no danger, but I have seen a few posts that attempt to lessen the severity of this. If you have been following this from the first post, I can see how post after post reminding us of the danger can get to be old news. However, I think any attempt to down play this is a disservice to those that are just now seeing this and maybe not reading every post. There is a real possibility of unsuspecting people having unopened bottles of this stuff and they need to be aware of the danger.

 

[Paradisevap]

i have lot #256 PG that tested Low - But still was slightly darker and caused sickish feelings in 3 people

 

[classwife]

I can edit and add that if you'd like Kurt

 

[Fernand]

Exactly. I do maintain that 1 mL in a normal 10 mL grad cyl with 0.2 mL graduations will have an uncertainty of +/- 0.2 mL. And if the acid is 0.12N then all results cannot be known to more than 2 known (significant digits). Thus, to expand on DVap, that result above would REALLY only be known as between 96 and 120 mg/mL.

Using finer graduated syringes will help this, but the acid concentration, as given, limits what you can truthfully say about the results. Think of it this way: you cannot obtain higher accuracy if you do not pay for it, even if your calculator is telling you otherwise. Unfortunate, but rigorous, and that is what we need now.

What about using a scale instead of just volume measurements? It's what I use for mixing and for knowing how much liquid to add to cartos. I know for instance that all my juice is VG-based, and weighs around 1.2 g per ml, while PG and aqueous solutions weigh around 1g/ml. A little 100 g scale that can read 0.01 g +/- 0.01 g with a little care only costs about $25, and after a little calibration work, combining volume and weight techniques would give more precise results than trying to eyeball a 10 ml graduated cylinder.

 

[Kurt]

Kurt - could you add the lot numbers (where available) to the list also?

+++

Why independent-regulation would be better.

EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration : "EU officials concluded that, following a three-year investigation by 19 professors, there was no evidence to prove the previously undisputed fact.

Producers of bottled water are now forbidden by law from making the claim and will face a two-year jail sentence if they defy the edict." - London Telegraph

I have included them now.

 

[Kurt]

What about using a scale instead of just volume measurements? It's what I use for mixing and for knowing how much liquid to add to cartos. I know for instance that all my juice is VG-based, and weighs around 1.2 g per ml, while PG and aqueous solutions weigh around 1g/ml. A little 100 g scale that can read 0.01 g +/- 0.01 g with a little care only costs about $25, and after a little calibration work, combining volume and weight techniques would give more precise results than trying to eyeball a 10 ml graduated cylinder.

You would have to work out the density of any liquid you had, and I think it will be complicated by any unknown amount of water added. To complex of a problem to use mass for me, but let me know if you come up with a good equation!

 

[Fernand]

A 220mg was discovered labeled as much lower (the x2.7 you mention). What I said was that 240mg is 10x what most normally vape; never said it was 10x the label.

But with the figures all over the place combined with labelling errors, can you really dismiss the possibility of there being bottles marked as 24mg that are actually 240mg?

Well, realistically I can. The weakest Nic BE sells is 36mg/ml, a tiny fraction of their sales.

In addition, to become 48 or 36 mg nicotine merchandise, it has to be cut. There's a fundamental commercial consideration. They may do it accurately or not, but they do it, as seen in the measured samples. So if the 100 mg base is 2.7 x high, it would become 272/2 or 272/3 in the base, or 272/4 and lower in actual juice. In order to get a 24 mg/ml juice that's actually 272 mg/ml, you'd have to throw out all the steps that constitute the profit motive.

 

[markfm]

You could get a clean measure of the cylinder with the bare cylinder weighed.

You could likewise get a measurement of the liquid to be tested pretty easily, put a full 10ml in and weigh it. The .2ml error is distributed across 10ml instead of just 1ml.

Repeat the above to check the density of 10 ml of your distilled water, and 10 ml of the acid.

Back to clean cylinder. Add 1ml worth of liquid mass, two ml worth of water, couple drops bb, then acid until it turns. Should get a decently accurate measure of how much acid was used by weighing the final result.

I expect the above might help, though not sure how much. Switching to using measured density of larger volumes to get more accurate volumes for the final test.

 

[Fernand]

You would have to work out the density of any liquid you had, and I think it will be complicated by any unknown amount of water added. To complex of a problem to use mass for me, but let me know if you come up with a good equation!

The thing you want to weigh is the acid you add. You check the density of the acid solution by weighing a carefully measured volume once. If you start out doing the previous steps by volume, using decent glassware, pipettes, then to get the added acid you tare out the graduated cylinder, do the titration and get the amount of added acid from the weight at the titration point. I'd have to review the first steps to see where we can improve the precision of the baseline "3 ml volume". No?

I mean the greatest slop seems to lie in the reading of the final volume on the cylinder. The previous volume measurements can be done with a good pipette, but the reading of the final level is the eyeball on a crude cylinder scale.

 

[Iffy]

VSA #6

To those that have offered to contribute to defray Kurt's expenses:

Please PM me for his PayPal addy.

I contacted Kurt to obtain his permission to post this and he reluctantly agreed.

Thanx for the latest updates, Kurt!

 

[Moon62]

Kurt, you may have saved a life or two by testing their juice. At the very least, you saved others from getting ill from it. Thank you.

 

[Circumspice]

The UK board seems to think it was only VG liquids that had a problem. It was NOT only VG. The 121 mg was PG. And that person got sick. I should have put the vehicles in the OP. The rest were all VG, and yes there is the chance that it was a mixing issue from a larger batch. The 272 mg was also VG, but this I do not think was from a mixing issue. I think this was the previous conc base that was USED to mix up the others. It is a different thing all together. I am of course speculating, but even in appearance it is an anomaly.

So to give the list again now with vehicles and BE lot numbers, if known:

100 mg....48 mg (This one was mine, don't know lot #) VG
100 mg....121 mg PG lot 256
100 mg....272 mg VG lot 257
48 mg....78 mg VG lot 257
36 mg....51 mg VG lot 257
48 mg....59 mg VG lot 257
100 mg....98 mg (this was my MFS 100 mg VG)

More results perhaps Monday. Thanks again to everyone for your support! Its been quite a week, but look how much we have done! I am indeed blessed to be part of this community, truly.

A question or two...

I have a bottle of Lot 256, but it is labeled as 48mg PG. Looking at the table above, I see that the lot 256 sample tested was labeled as 100mg PG. Other than the obvious concern of the validity of BE's quality control of the product dilution and the labeling of the product, have any samples of the PG based 48mg dilution been submitted for testing yet? Are any particular production or bottling dates being viewed as suspect? With other products that have been recalled, lots and dates are usually linked. (usually due to some breakdown in protocol or procedure)

Thanks for providing your expertise in this issue to the ECF community Kurt!

 

[kinabaloo]

Well, realistically I can.

I never said it was likely, only that it can't be ruled out (given the samples seen so far, and that they are not many). That hedge word 'realistically' tells that you don't rue it out either. Let's hope such a sample doesn't turn up because then the scale of error would be off the chart. If there was some pattern to the results seen, it would be different, but we just have to hope for the best and see what else turns up.

Such things should be impossible in a well-design production facility; but if one imagines, say, all the different strength bottles on the same shelf, then anything could happen.

@ markfm - have you opened your kit yet? How's it going?

 

[markfm]

Opened, but working out now. Parts all there, exactly what is expected.