Kurt,
I know you are buried...
Is it possible to catalog the incoming samples as sealed/unsealed/date(as available)/lot#(as available)
From my standpoint as a spectator I'd kinda like to have that as a reference point as we move forward.
Houston, we have a problem...BE nic titration results
- Thread starter Kurt
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- gourmet vapor
- Status
Kurt,
I know you are buried...
Is it possible to catalog the incoming samples as sealed/unsealed/date(as available)/lot#(as available)
From my standpoint as a spectator I'd kinda like to have that as a reference point as we move forward.
Rolygate, according to Brad, the CEO of BE, he brings 100% nicotine into his receiving company and dilutes it down to between 12%-14% and it then goes to his distribution center which is 30 miles away for further dilution or shipping. So there is no way he could have gotten higher nicotine from his Chinese supplier.
Roly, I've seen you mention that sooner or later you'd be telling us 'I told you so'. That day is obviously here. When asked, I've also seen you say you couldn't recommend an unflavored nic source due to your position with ECF. That makes sense to me, also.
Keeping that in mind, here's a possible solution that may help...
How about adding a thread in the ECF Library that gives recommendations of what to look for when googling for a high-quality source of unflavored nic. It might start out something like this:
ECF recommends the supplier you purchase your nic has:
1. A GC-MS machine
2. A chemist on board with (insert minimum requirements as far as education/skill level)
3. Published data
4. Lot numbers that coincide with each batch of published numbers
5. ? (Insert all the others things I have no clue about, but wish I did so I'd start knowing what to look for.)
I could be wrong but I don't think this would compromise your position. I also think Unflavored Nic Suppliers would get on the ball and do it, then be proud to display that they follow ECF Nic Guidelines on their site. Vendors who purchase from them would be all too happy to advertise that they purchase from a supplier who follows these guidelines.
If nothing else, what's the harm? At least customers would have the criteria necessary to google a good source before they purchase their next bottle of unflavored.
ETA: For clarification...
I'm talking about the suppliers who sell up to 100mg unflavored nic.
The vendors--those who purchase from the nic supplier to mix/sell flavored eliquid to it's customer base.
Last edited:
There only a small number of pure nicotine suppliers (999mg) : DeKang, HangSen, the companies that JC and TW use (who supply nic for patches etc). These companies are already highly regulated and do their own GC tests. It would be a waste of resources to dupliacte that; it is not a priority at least, the purity has never been called into question.
However, if the source was 'other' or in-house, that's a different matter entirely.
These are basically labs and have the expertise to do GC tests etc.
Using one of these suppliers means one doesn't need a GC machine or a chemist in-house if you are small and basically only do flavored liquids from fairly weak base liquid.
BE messed up not through lack of technical prowess and testing (though strength testing should be in place), but by lack of care. In the beginning we all thought it would be a technical issue or just a labelling issue, but it looks increasingly like just carelessness.
Apart from those BE supplied who didnt strength check their incoming liquid, I expect most vendors are conscientious. We don't want to go over board. This is essentially dilution we are talking about, not rocket science. But it does need care; and some sampling tests to confirm.
Especially for the small artisan companies that only work with 100mg or less source juice.
Independent body doing random strength tests would be good.
However, if the source was 'other' or in-house, that's a different matter entirely.
These are basically labs and have the expertise to do GC tests etc.
Using one of these suppliers means one doesn't need a GC machine or a chemist in-house if you are small and basically only do flavored liquids from fairly weak base liquid.
BE messed up not through lack of technical prowess and testing (though strength testing should be in place), but by lack of care. In the beginning we all thought it would be a technical issue or just a labelling issue, but it looks increasingly like just carelessness.
Apart from those BE supplied who didnt strength check their incoming liquid, I expect most vendors are conscientious. We don't want to go over board. This is essentially dilution we are talking about, not rocket science. But it does need care; and some sampling tests to confirm.
Especially for the small artisan companies that only work with 100mg or less source juice.
Independent body doing random strength tests would be good.
Last edited:
Kurt, I think the problem might have begun as far back as April this year. There
is another thread on ECF
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/diy-e-liquid/114091-nicotine-box-elder-chemical-supply.html
There were at least 2 posts, #46 and 51 that might have hinted at a problem. There
were quite a few others with no problem tho.
is another thread on ECF
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/diy-e-liquid/114091-nicotine-box-elder-chemical-supply.html
There were at least 2 posts, #46 and 51 that might have hinted at a problem. There
were quite a few others with no problem tho.
Example : #51 : http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-box-elder-chemical-supply-6.html#post2950107
Beginning of April till now - that's over 6 months! NO actual test data for these dates but the problem might extend beyond the two batches.
That is part of why this is happening...we do not know the extent, but it is extreme enough in frequency (virtually all samples tested were problematic) and so yes, it could well be the tip of the iceberg.
To me this is simple: we are turning vaping and nicotine liquid into a peer-reviewed science. My entire world of publishing research papers (got another one accepted this week!) is COMPLETELY peer-reviewed and unregulated. When you are public with your findings and your interpretations of them, and have to have a paper reviewed by research judges in the field before it can be accepted for publication, you have a very good internal policing policy.
Anyone can learn the tasks I do with any test, experiment, reaction run, calculation carried out, or other research related activity. This is why we have research students to do many of the tasks we would otherwise have to do. For a completely different research project in my team, last week we had a student carry out a titration curve of a compound we are investigating. Exact same equipment and procedure that I did for this nic. But while that student CAN do it, there is no way they would be able to, on their own, publish it and get the paper accepted. Why not? Because they have not gone through the extensive years of training in ethics and accountability and to be able to be fluid with the data in interpretation. In other words, along with years of scientific knowledge building to get an advanced degree also comes years of accountability and responsibility training. Dishonesty and sloppiness is generally beaten out of you during graduate studies and an even more in a post doctoral appointment, and even more in a faculty position. You go to conferences with 1000s of your peers to present your work and willingly get grilled over the coals with every detail, standing up in front of giants in the field in person. Indeed, it is the highest honor to be invited to do just this, to become transparent to the deepest and possibly the most research-program destroying comments and criticisms. And after a paper is accepted and in print, it could be torn down in the future by someone that does better research. The government could not possibly regulate scientific research fields as well as we do ourselves. They simply wouldn't have the man power or the resources or the skills to do it.
This is what you get when you hire a PhD or beyond, or even an MS level chemist with a lot of industrial experience. You get someone used to be scrutinized constantly, even if the skill level required for a particular assay is relatively low, or the course they teach is elementary. You get someone scared to death of making a mistake that goes public, who agonizes over every detail that can be questioned, and who is trained to take responsibility if a mistake is made. And who is very difficult to buy off to produce fudged numbers.
People say I go into too much technical detail, and use too many technical words, that people won't understand it. I understand that. But I am publishing here, and I want other trained chemists to see these results, challenge me, discuss possible mistakes or improvements with me, in public. Its what I am used to, and it is IMHO the only way we will have a good and long-lasting industry. The govt will do what the govt does, but at least if the hammer does get dropped we will know we did the right thing and the very best we could. This is how I approach everything I do, even if I make mistakes along the way.
It seems that Cozzicon is going to have me on again Tuesday night, possibly along with a revered and trusted vendor of high-grade nicotine liquid. I will let Cozzicon announce the confirmation of this other vendor, but I can say that if it is true, being on a show with this particular person would be indeed a high honor for me. I wanted to get the word out now. By then I will also have some updates of tests, if all goes to plan.
To be clear, I realize that not all vendors can afford professional chemists for testing. And so I would request other chemists who may be approached for this work to be reasonable in your fees. I have been approached by some vendors who are interested in obtaining equipment and training to use it, and I am working on that right now. I have in mind some quite affordable units that can connect to any laptop running the right software, but it would require some fairly involved training to use properly and trust the results.
Additionally (boy this post is getting long...), I would like to see big vapefests have a section for presenting QC methods and results, so others can learn, and see the details. QC should NOT be proprietary. Even at academic chemistry conferences there are a lot of talks and exhibitions from industry scientists for equipment and results in the private sector. Its all a part of it.
Exactly, Cozzicon!! High quality QC = trusting customers = profits = high quality QC = etc. As someone on your panel from our interview said, self-policing is a total win-win for everyone.
Two curious things :
1) BE's website no longer mentions the word 'nicotine'; only 'Levonic'.
2) Found a post elsewhere that mentions a BE 272mg liquid, which fits (excat match) one of the test results. It might have been a product in the past but doesn't seem to be listed now. The Flavor Apprentice Flavor Extracts !?!?!?!?! - Page 2 - Vapers Forum This was posted in the last few days so perhaps it has ben in storage.
I think the poster was just being 'smart' (unlike me)
+++
@Quick1 - But what has this to do with this topic - nothing. All three times there have been issues with e-liquid it has been with western companies. The present BE one being by far the worst, because rather than an error it is a sustained pattern of carelessness.
I know issues have arisen in China regarding this and that; not surprising given the level of things made there. Bad things happen everywhere and it's mostly down to bad people. Regulations in China have been catching up fast.
Nothing personal, I just see the comment as out of place and could have been said by many. As you use DeKang liquid I dont think you're an extremist !
I wouldn't make statements about US industry based on BoxElder.
I was a bit incensed to see that comment; I think it fair to tone down my reaction.
I agree with you about reactive and proactive; I think the mood now is to move to a proactive approach.
@OldSoldier - sorry. overreacted.
@Iffy - no point in responding when you've simply twisted my words. I know you're not fond of me
ps: I had a (small but significant) hand in getting e-liquid pure base (999mg) sourced in the west; no favoritism here.
I welcome a widely based market. That's why we need care not to jeopodise the smaller (mostly western) outfits.
1) BE's website no longer mentions the word 'nicotine'; only 'Levonic'.
+++
@Quick1 - But what has this to do with this topic - nothing. All three times there have been issues with e-liquid it has been with western companies. The present BE one being by far the worst, because rather than an error it is a sustained pattern of carelessness.
I know issues have arisen in China regarding this and that; not surprising given the level of things made there. Bad things happen everywhere and it's mostly down to bad people. Regulations in China have been catching up fast.
Nothing personal, I just see the comment as out of place and could have been said by many. As you use DeKang liquid I dont think you're an extremist !
I wouldn't make statements about US industry based on BoxElder.
I was a bit incensed to see that comment; I think it fair to tone down my reaction.
I agree with you about reactive and proactive; I think the mood now is to move to a proactive approach.
@OldSoldier - sorry. overreacted.
@Iffy - no point in responding when you've simply twisted my words. I know you're not fond of me
ps: I had a (small but significant) hand in getting e-liquid pure base (999mg) sourced in the west; no favoritism here.
I welcome a widely based market. That's why we need care not to jeopodise the smaller (mostly western) outfits.
Last edited:
okay i think we can just move on and discuss the point at hand instead of sniping at each other...
So true.....there is no greater concentration then 100%. This has to be a mixing trouble.(insert "beating a dead horse smilie here)
A quick scan of BE's site shows no change. The quality of the nic isnt at question it's BE's ability to provide accurate levels in their dilutions that is.
I still havent figured out why they arent doing any kind of recall (or for that matter acknowledging that they have a dangerous product out there). In fact, they are doing almost nothing. Let someone DIE of nic overdose and the my guess is the FDA will shut them all down until they decide what measures to take.
How do you market any chemical, especially a know poison, for consumer consumption, without batch testing and rudimentary quality control?
I think juice prices are gonna be going up shortly as even small kitchens are gonna want to start checking their product to ensure they are not gonna be a part of killing a paying customer....After seeing these results I'm prolly gonna dive head first into DIY because I'm not gonna be nearly as trusting anymore and truth be told I may hasten my plans to go 0mg nic and put the whole thing down once my hardware fails.
Like oldsoldier said, ya either have to be willing to pay for quality or accept what the market is selling. I reload my own ammunition and have for years. I measure every powder charge....clean every primer pocket, inspect every case and projectile every time and I carry my own reloads. This is ammo I know to be first rate quality and I pay a premium for good powder and bullets.
Failure to do so can mean "just a misfire" and some minor repairs to the gun or it can be deadly.
Sound familiar?
Absolutely, and I thank you for the suggestion. Very good idea. No samples I have received are sealed, and only one was in the original bottle. That was the 121 mg BE. There may be some unopened lot 256 or 257s on the way, but not sure. I understand that people would be reluctant to send unopened 0.5 L bottles. I really do not want to have to send back remainders after my tests, just do not have the time.
OTOH: perhaps there could be a mechanism as a possible donation where someone random bought a small amount of high-nic liquid, say 30 mL, and then received it and mailed it to me unopened from their address. I know I said I was going to do this myself, but I think everyone knows who I am now.
Going back to BE's written claim about how they test every batch, why haven't they released their test results for lots 256 and 257?
How very true. A lot of problems with QC occur because we, the consumers, constantly demand lower prices on pretty much everything. Something has to give... somewhere.
I applaud this idea.
I have tried different unflavored nicotines, but only one at 100 mg. That one came from Xtreme Vapor and was fine, as far as I could tell, but I wasn't comfortable messing with that concentration.
My favorite brand of unflavored is Platinum Ice from Decadent Vapors. It's only 54 mg, which I like, and it's been very consistent, in my experience. It's clear, clean, never yellows or develops any off taste or smell, and is easy to work with. Besides, TW site provides very clear instructions (written and videos) on how to use, mix, and handle their products. I wish every vendor would do the same. Yes, Platinum Ice is more expensive than other brands and they don't sell 100 mg nic, and some people have had problems with TW as a vendor, but I trust Nick from DV and I have faith in his products.
I'm sorry if this post is off topic--if it is, I apologize. Just wanted to share my experience and support Cobalt's idea of creating an ECF guide.
Again, this is just MY experience--as always, YMMV.
The BE 121 mg is labeled as 250 mL LevoNic (TM) Nicotine Liquid. LevoNic is just their TMed name for their levo-rotatory (naturally occuring) nicotine.
I mean specifically on BE's website (rather than the labels). Even their search returns zero mentions of the word 'nicotine'. Same for 'e-liquid'.
That's pretty strange given that they only sell the chemicals nicotine, VG and PG.
+++
@tiburonfirst - yes, i overeacted and changed my post. The thing was that it immediately followed Rolygate's post that for some reason brought into question the nicotine source supplier, though that is not the issue. That supplier couldn't possibly be responsible for dilution issues. There have been quite a few GC purity tests done, including by the FDA, and nothing significant has ever been found that might focus concern in that direction.
Last edited:
i believe you misunderstood quick. if you read his post thoroughly you'll see that he only uses dekang juice.
his opening paragraph referred to our ongoing struggle with qc per se as it relates to vaping supplies.
Someone in this thread asked, "What is a lot number?"
First let's define an "end item", which is what a manufacturer delivers to its customer. Not all end items require a lot number, batch number, heat number or whatever they choose to call it, but those end items that have potential to cause injury or loss of life have a unique number that traces all components, elements, ingredients, physical and chemical properties (which include test reports), characteristics and processes of the end item back to it's source (original manufacturer). It's a lot of paperwork or data entry, but the end result is traceability to the source if a discrepancy or defect occurs. There are many companies that require full traceability in order to do business with them.
An item can be bought and sold many times before it's finally sold to the end user. If an item is changed or altered in any way, shape or form, then the item should be issued another unique lot number by the manufacturer that changed or altered it and records of the change or alteration must be traceable to that lot number.
Pure nicotine should have a unique lot number issued by its manufacturer. Any process that adds chemistry to the nic or in any way alters it should have a unique lot number issued by the processor before it is sold. The object here is to protect the manufacturer or processor from false claims and insure the consumer of a quality product. Also keep in mind that contamination is always a possibility, which is why testing is important.
First let's define an "end item", which is what a manufacturer delivers to its customer. Not all end items require a lot number, batch number, heat number or whatever they choose to call it, but those end items that have potential to cause injury or loss of life have a unique number that traces all components, elements, ingredients, physical and chemical properties (which include test reports), characteristics and processes of the end item back to it's source (original manufacturer). It's a lot of paperwork or data entry, but the end result is traceability to the source if a discrepancy or defect occurs. There are many companies that require full traceability in order to do business with them.
An item can be bought and sold many times before it's finally sold to the end user. If an item is changed or altered in any way, shape or form, then the item should be issued another unique lot number by the manufacturer that changed or altered it and records of the change or alteration must be traceable to that lot number.
Pure nicotine should have a unique lot number issued by its manufacturer. Any process that adds chemistry to the nic or in any way alters it should have a unique lot number issued by the processor before it is sold. The object here is to protect the manufacturer or processor from false claims and insure the consumer of a quality product. Also keep in mind that contamination is always a possibility, which is why testing is important.
@Tib
I did say that I found it hard to believe that only the US wholesaler was to blame. It's just that I find it hard to understand how they could get it so wrong, so often. The guy would have to come in blind drunk everyday and leave half-filled bottles lying around, then get back to them the next day, again when drunk, in order to screw up so badly so many times. But I do accept that it is possible, somehow. Just that it's hard to see how.
As regards the 'cheap = bad, expensive = good' thing, I wasn't inferring that any particular source is less reliable than anywhere else. The finished retail product must be tested thoroughly, and that costs money. It doesn't matter where it comes from, the end result won't be cheap. Proper testing would be one of the largest expenses for any supplier, no matter what size, because a small supplier might get away with testing one bottle a month, a large supplier might want to test 50.
A large-scale vendor recently mentioned they were probably going to have to spend $10,000 a month on testing now. For them, this would not be a crippling expense, just painful. Actually I don't see why they would need to spend that much. Just something, somewhere, with the proof available to somebody, would be be a step forward.
I did say that I found it hard to believe that only the US wholesaler was to blame. It's just that I find it hard to understand how they could get it so wrong, so often. The guy would have to come in blind drunk everyday and leave half-filled bottles lying around, then get back to them the next day, again when drunk, in order to screw up so badly so many times. But I do accept that it is possible, somehow. Just that it's hard to see how.
As regards the 'cheap = bad, expensive = good' thing, I wasn't inferring that any particular source is less reliable than anywhere else. The finished retail product must be tested thoroughly, and that costs money. It doesn't matter where it comes from, the end result won't be cheap. Proper testing would be one of the largest expenses for any supplier, no matter what size, because a small supplier might get away with testing one bottle a month, a large supplier might want to test 50.
A large-scale vendor recently mentioned they were probably going to have to spend $10,000 a month on testing now. For them, this would not be a crippling expense, just painful. Actually I don't see why they would need to spend that much. Just something, somewhere, with the proof available to somebody, would be be a step forward.
Last edited:
- Status
