How much nicotine is destroyed during vaping ?

[kinabaloo]

Excellent Mister - the plateu after about 5 cigs makes sense, and that there would be storage in various tissues at least temporarily and to some extent, with brain levels still generally rising with intake, though flattened out a bit.

 

[TWISTED VICTOR]

ps: Many green things are worthwhile for other reasons. I'm sceptical on climate change by humankind; though the historical cycles are very real and cause for concern enough.

I agree completely with this statement....just in case I left doubt .

We also need to bear in mind that 70x variation in nic levels (forget of what exactly) between people, presumably through varation in habit - depth of draw etc. Some people might never reach significantly a level where diminised returns, psycho-effects-wise, kicks in and so can get by with little nic easily whereas for others small amounts 'do nothing'.

This is for sure a possibility, however, I'd think it unlikely due to so many claiming to be former 2-3+ pack a day smokers and doing fine with a nic vape, only. Maybe a lot left burning in the ashtray, who knows for sure. I just wanted to throw that in....gotta keep you boys on your toes .

 

[Vaporer]

As much as we all vary, it could be the processing, storage and usage are different for us all.
That I have no doubt.

 

[DVap]

(actually it's been shown that 90% of global warming is caused by
PV heating coils - bloke down the pub told me - & he was a climate researcher too)

I've missed looking in this thread for awhile due to all the excitement and bustle I've had going on recently.

Damned funniest thing I've seen in a long time here!

 

[DVap]

Thanks exogenesis. That got me going.

The difference between measured blood levels suggesting low levels of vaping nicotine absorption (often said to be 10%) and the large amount of anecdotal evidence suggesting the number to be more like 40 to 60% is a troublesome discrepancy in our understanding of vaping. (Note: I thought the second number was 40% until recently; the realization that cigarettes are commonly delivering more nicotine than their labels suggest means that the number should be higher than 40%. I'll call it 50% for now.)

I've been reading everything I can find to try to understand this.

I found two reports which substantiate the 10% thinking. (There is a third one but I've left it out because it only did blood nic measurement five minutes after inhalation. I think that measurement by itself tells us very little.)

1) The New Zealand study funded by Ruyan. Data from that study has been presented in various forms but they seem to all derive from one study. I think that this study is useful but has some limitations:
a) It used Ruyan ultrasonic devices. I don't know if these could have substantial differences vs. our current atomizers. Probably not much but we don't know.
b) It has been referenced to support claims that the delivery of nicotine from vaping is very low. But that isn't clear to me. The first link below includes the statement that "Each puff contains one third to one half the nicotine in a tobacco cigarette’s puff", which already disagrees with a 10% assumption. And that's before accounting for the study's use of Ruyan 16mg liquid, which it found to actually be 14mg, vs. some vapers' use of 24, 36, or more.

Useful links I found which present the New Zealand study's results:
http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf
http://www.healthnz.co.nz/ecig_effect-2.pdf
http://www.healthnz.co.nz/DublinBenchtopHandout.pdf

2) The blood tests reported by forum user "happily" on this thread: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/nicotine/30623-blood-test-lab-results-nicotine-levels.html. This is one person's measurements and although both the nicotine and cotinine results suggest low absorption, there's an anomaly between those two results which is interesting.

Then there's the other view on how much we're getting. DVap speculated that there's a fixed relationship between the amount of nicotine vapers use in a given time and the established (by amount they previously smoked) amount of nicotine their bodies need. This thinking has appeared less formally many times on the forum in threads like "If I smoked X cigarettes of strength Y, then I must need Z nicotine" or like "Since I smoked X@Y, and vaping delivers 10%, how could I be satisfied with only Z liquid?"

DVap observed that there does seem to be a fixed relationship at around 40% for most people. I now think that number should be higher because DVap's calculations (if I understood correctly) were based on the nicotine level stated on cigarette labels and those numbers turn out to be generally lower than the actual nicotine delivered and absorbed.

exogenesis has rechecked his experiment showing a bit over 90% of e-liquid's nicotine being delivered in the vapor. Although this is higher than DVap's earlier experiments, I think that exogenesis's number is the best available at the moment. It is hard to think that his experiment could falsely find nicotine that wasn't present. It seems more likely that either DVap's experiment missed some nicotine, or that some other difference between the experiments means that there is a wide range of possible nicotine destruction in the atomizer. In does seem that as much as 92% of the nicotine in e-liquid can be presented to our body by vaping.

DVap's work has shown that we can generally believe e-liquids to contain the stated amount of nicotine.

So on the face of it we're left with any absorption number from 0 to 90% of an e-liquid's stated content being possible.

We now know that for some people there's a missing X factor which is not nicotine. And DVap has done excellent work in producing "WTA" which provides that X factor. I don't think this is necessarily related to the nicotine absorption discrepancy because there are also many happy vapers who don't seem to need the X factor.

It has often been suggested that the nicotine discrepancy is due to a placebo effect. I reject this notion. There are very many reports by satisfied vapers which show them to be a group who have failed many other methods of nicotine replacement at reduced levels. Many switched to lower nicotine cigarettes and automatically increased their intake to compensate. On the whole I think this is a group of people who are unlikely to benefit from placebo effects. They need their nicotine and their bodies tell them when they don't get it. There must be a chemical reason for the discrepancy.

I have found some interesting thoughts about the discrepancy which remain unexplored as far as I know. I've included links to them below. I hope that someone may be inspired by these to further our collective understanding.

Atreides Ghola, a biologist who was active on the forum in June 2009, emphasized that it is a misconception that nicotine blood levels reflect the efficacy of nicotine delivery to the brain, and described the chemical processes involved in the following three posts:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-absorbtion-vaping-research-4.html#post346264
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-absorbtion-vaping-research-4.html#post346460
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-absorbtion-vaping-research-4.html#post346850

Kurt hypothesized variations in people oxidizing nicotine which is delivered orally:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...lab-results-nicotine-levels-2.html#post696047

kinabaloo suggested that nicotine might be persisting in the lungs for a period of time:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-absorbtion-vaping-research-2.html#post245734

Whatever the reason for it I think that the blood tests we have seen are wrong in some important sense. Atreides Ghola's note about nicotine blood levels rings true to me. Measuring blood nicotine level only determines what "reserve" is available at a given moment. It doesn't necessarily correlate to nicotine absorption and almost certainly doesn't correlate to satisfaction. What we'd ideally like to know is how much nicotine is in use at a given moment and how much remains available in some type of reserve (blood, unabsorbed yet but will be eventually, and perhaps others.) I think that measurements of cotinine and other metabolic products over longer intervals are more likely to give a good indication of how much nicotine was absorbed than snapshots of blood nicotine.

Many vapers seem to move to a practice of vaping continuously, i.e. of vaping at much shorter intervals than they used to have between cigarettes. I think that this practice may result in a more even level of effective (in-use in the brain) nicotine and may offset to some degree the lack of MAOIs in e-liquid. Vapers have this option because the device is capable of one puff at a time with no waste. Due to more frequent doses they may need to absorb less nicotine because they don't need as much reserve circulating in the blood stream. Smokers lose a lot of that reserve (part ends up unused) due to its fairly short half-life. On the other hand, vapers may also need more nicotine at shorter intervals in order to maintain a high level of dopamine because they aren't getting the MAOIs delivered by cigarettes.

In summary, despite the bits of blood evidence which have been interpreted to the contrary, I think that we're absorbing somewhere around 50% of the nicotine in e-liquid. Much remains to be understood in how that nicotine is being delivered and being processed.

I'm probably repeating something somebody has mentioned by responding to this post without reading the posts below.

With Mister's numbers and data on cigarettes being "manipulated" to show lower nicotine using the smoking machine protocols than what real smokers generally get, I was interested to note that Exo has found vaped liquid recoveries up to 2X my 46% figure, while Mister's research suggests that smoker's can easily get 2X more nicotine from an analog than the tobacco companies would have us believe. This would keep the 40% relationship intact, it just slides the analog number up by a factor of perhaps 2 and also the vaping delivery number up by the same multiple.

Seems we're way beyond the old "vaping is a placebo" line of crap.

 

[Mister]

would keep the 40% relationship intact, it just slides the analog number up by a factor of perhaps 2 and also the vaping delivery number up by the same multiple.

Can tell you're on holiday, I think you missed something there and that those two things are not directly related.

When you came up with the 40% number you were using a calculation like:

"That first number simply means that for a pack of lights (15 mg nicotine), you need to vape 15mg/0.4 = 37.5 mg or (15 mg x 2.5 = 37 mg) to actually absorb the same 15 mg of nicotine.

To put it another way, in my model, only 40% of the nicotine in your liquid is actually absorbed and sent to your head to make your nicotinic acetylcholine receptors happy."

I think you were taking the 15mg number from the stated nicotine delivery from a package of lights. Then because you'd found that the calculation worked for many people by using a divisor of 0.4 to calculate the daily juice used, you figured that roughly 40% absorption must be occurring.

Having learned that the stated nicotine for cigarettes is generally less than what's delivered, e.g. the pack of lights in the above example is perhaps delivering 20mg, we need to increase the divisor if it is to continue to match observed e-liquid use. (In practice of course the divisor should remain as 0.4 when using that formula to calculate expected vaping usage from stated cigarette usage. But when using the divisor as a measure of how much nicotine is being absorbed by our bodies from e-liquid, we must adjust the numerator to reflect the actual cigarette nicotine delivery and then adjust the denominator to maintain the correct relationship to observed values.)

Unfortunately it seems that the correlation between ISO machine measured nicotine and delivered nicotine is poor. So even if smokers switching to vaping have a precise nicotine requirement (which I think they do) it will be difficult to precisely determine it for an individual.

 

[TWISTED VICTOR]

Unfortunately it seems that the correlation between ISO machine measured nicotine and delivered nicotine is poor. So even if smokers switching to vaping have a precise nicotine requirement (which I think they do) it will be difficult to precisely determine it for an individual.

Added to that, in a case where an individual is maoi deficient, he/she will most likely seek a higher nic intake with vaping to try and make up for the lack there of. That would be another variable in the trade-off from smoke to vape.........other than that I'm speechless. Numbers tend to lose me .

 

[DVap]

Mister.. probably a good point. I'm rather distracted and I tend to pull numbers out of my lower torso when I've not got my eye on the ball.

I'm usually convinced I'm correct all along the way, but take anything I though a month ago, and I probably think something else today.. kinda how science works... always gotta find what's "more" correct.

At this point, I'm not quite sure what I believe about the relationship between smoking and vaping (other than it's pretty involved and there's not a simple predictive relationship for some folks due to complicating factors).

 

[kinabaloo]

Mister - some people are not clear on the difference between theory / model and anecdotal empirical / epidemiological data. The 40% absorbed is a rough take on the usage data, which is fair enough, but that is not a theory o model.

Furthermore, the discrepancy / loss is accounted for by a number of factors (beyond loss in the atty) and then complicated by further factors (such as maoi compensation).

Good to see that some people are genuinely interested to use hypotheses to move towards a better understanding and not to curtail debate.

 

[DVap]

Can tell you're on holiday, I think you missed something there and that those two things are not directly related.

When you came up with the 40% number you were using a calculation like:

"That first number simply means that for a pack of lights (15 mg nicotine), you need to vape 15mg/0.4 = 37.5 mg or (15 mg x 2.5 = 37 mg) to actually absorb the same 15 mg of nicotine.

To put it another way, in my model, only 40% of the nicotine in your liquid is actually absorbed and sent to your head to make your nicotinic acetylcholine receptors happy."

I think you were taking the 15mg number from the stated nicotine delivery from a package of lights. Then because you'd found that the calculation worked for many people by using a divisor of 0.4 to calculate the daily juice used, you figured that roughly 40% absorption must be occurring.

Having learned that the stated nicotine for cigarettes is generally less than what's delivered, e.g. the pack of lights in the above example is perhaps delivering 20mg, we need to increase the divisor if it is to continue to match observed e-liquid use. (In practice of course the divisor should remain as 0.4 when using that formula to calculate expected vaping usage from stated cigarette usage. But when using the divisor as a measure of how much nicotine is being absorbed by our bodies from e-liquid, we must adjust the numerator to reflect the actual cigarette nicotine delivery and then adjust the denominator to maintain the correct relationship to observed values.)

Unfortunately it seems that the correlation between ISO machine measured nicotine and delivered nicotine is poor. So even if smokers switching to vaping have a precise nicotine requirement (which I think they do) it will be difficult to precisely determine it for an individual.

Looking at it more closely, the 40% figure represents a hypothesis drawn from empirical data. The initial cryo-vaping experiment agreed rather closely with the hypothesis, and indeed one important function of science is the testing of hypotheses. Exo's refinements on the vaping recovery experimentation suggests that data that seems to confirm a hypothesis can lead one somewhat astray with the fallacy that "agreement equals confirmation"... not so if the hypothesis and experiment are both flawed, each biased a to similar degree and in the same direction. I am considering (though not with any focused attention at the moment) the high likelihood that I was under-estimating both analogs and vaping in regard to nicotine delivery... sure seems possible considering some nice experimental data (Exo) and some nice literature (Mister).

Ultimately, the whole thing gets more complicated than we imagined not that long ago with a slippery set of variables including nicotine, alkaloids, delivery, and individuals (the variability between individuals being perhaps most important and most slippery!). As the old saying goes, "We're still confused, but now we're confused about bigger and more important things".

To hopefully put any of the recent and perhaps lingering tension between kin and myself to rest, we all have our theories, hypotheses, and directions we tend to focus our attention towards. When disagreement about fiendishly complicated possibilities happens, sometimes it happens passionately and in a quite spirited manner. Useful lines of inquiry can stand on their own merits regardless of whether everyone agrees on them. I'm content to put it all down to acknowledging that very different styles sometimes can clash, but with the goals being roughly the same (advancing understanding), getting at that understanding won't be compromised by differing views along the way. I can no more expect that kin will agree with everything I have to say than he can expect me to agree with everything he has to say. I'm sure that he sometimes wishes I'd be more like him, just as I sometimes wish he'd be more like me... but to wish that really serves to take away from what we're trying to accomplish. We don't need two of him or two of me... one of each of us is quite enough, and probably more helpful to all our goals. So I guess if we can both reserve the right to drive one another crazy at times, and allow the other the right to be a confounding cuss, while being generally-speaking on the same page, we should be able to get on fine.

 

[Mister]

Furthermore, the discrepancy / loss is accounted for by a number of factors (beyond loss in the atty) and then complicated by further factors (such as maoi compensation).

Good to see that some people are genuinely interested to use hypotheses to move towards a better understanding and not to curtail debate.

Quite so! Even loss in the atty may well prove to contribute to discrepancies. Different attys, voltages, style of vaping, we may find that any of these do or don't contribute significantly. But as you say it is good to keep proposing hypotheses and to debate them, that's the way we're going to get somewhere.

 

[Mister]

Ultimately, the whole thing gets more complicated than we imagined not that long ago with a slippery set of variables including nicotine, alkaloids, delivery, and individuals (the variability between individuals being perhaps most important and most slippery!). As the old saying goes, "We're still confused, but now we're confused about bigger and more important things".

It sure does get more complicated. I quite agree with the saying you quoted, that definitely applies here. I'm very happy for you to stay confused about the bigger and more important things. Some people here (e.g. me) don't have your skills at the front line but can try to clean up and refine stuff you've moved past because you've found more important things. E.g. just how much nic is being absorbed. You guessed that pretty well and are past it into WTA but I may may be able to help in refining that previous issue.

 

[TWISTED VICTOR]

So I guess if we can both reserve the right to drive one another crazy at times, and allow the other the right to be a confounding cuss, while being generally-speaking on the same page, we should be able to get on fine.

As it should be. Animosity leads all who embrace it down a one way path, all going a different way and all ending at a different place .

Some people here (e.g. me) don't have your skills at the front line but can try to clean up and refine stuff you've moved past because you've found more important things. E.g. just how much nic is being absorbed. You guessed that pretty well and are past it into WTA but I may may be able to help in refining that previous issue.

Refine away, Mister. And while you're at it, throw in a little english for us....how do I put it...even less skilled observers .

 

[Vaporer]

As it should be. Animosity leads all who embrace it down a one way path, all going a different way and all ending at a different place .


Refine away, Mister. And while you're at it, throw in a little english for us....how do I put it...even less skilled observers .

I knew you'd get me in there somehow TV

 

[TWISTED VICTOR]

I knew you'd get me in there somehow TV

Don't laugh, you're my top translator .

 

[exogenesis]

Been busy working on Mk2.5 auto-vaper, now works literally 10x better than
before, meaning I can collect vapour much quicker & get results in a sensible time.

Sorry for not keeping up with the replies Mister and everyone,
so much information, wonder if we'll ever fully understand the nicotine cycle
in ciggies vs vaping with all the differences in intake/uptake/outtake info.

DVap, have you been doing any research for climatology/global warming ?,
I found out that a human produces more CO2 over the year than their car does,
& if we all stop producing methane the world would be a far better place

Last day at the 'conference' today, good to see all the world leaders came
to conclusive and far-reaching decisions, we're in good hands.

 

[kinabaloo]

Hence many expect that a cull of the herd is being prepared. Perhaps a binary trigger; two types of 'preventative' shot (placebo or primer) plus one 'natural' pandemic. As it happens, also a 40% reduction, some say. It's nothing about CO2 cycles, of course, but restarting the economic flow from poor to rich. That's what I heard.

Good news about the autovaper though.

 

[TWISTED VICTOR]

Sorry. Musta been talkin' in my sleep, again .

 

[TWISTED VICTOR]

Heyeyeyey, exoxoxoxo, it's starting to echo in hererrrrrr.

 

[Vaporer]

Cows are supposed to be the worlds largest source of methane last I heard.
Unless Al Gore read something diff in the comic strips.

Wow 10x better? So you are expecting a 925% recovery now?

Did you and DVap both use 510's? I forget. If so, did you both use the same ohm attys? That model has some that are 2.3ohms and others that are 3.4ohms. Thats a lot of heat difference.

Time for me to hit the sack.