Humectants: The end of the road?

[generic mutant]

It seems fairly self-evident that part of the reason humectants are used as the base of e-liquid is because they absorb water from the respiratory tract, producing an analogue of smoke when the user exhales, helping trick the brain into thinking it is receiving a satisfactory dose of the things it craves.

They also have anti-bacterial / anti-fungal effects, which are no doubt extremely helpful too - a device that we *had* to wash out every day or so, and bottles that we *had* to keep refrigerated, and throw out soon after opening, would make vaping much less viable.

But there are no doubt other ways of making e-liquid that the bugs won't grow in.

So fast-forward twenty years: The democratic world has evaluated evidence on the safety, efficacy and uptake of e-cigarette use, and has decided that they are acceptable. They are very safe, most smokers have happily switched over due to improving technology, and although many people who would probably not have smoked have started to use them, they are generally not becoming nicotine addicts, if they use nicotine at all. New smokers are a dying breed, and most people under 20 think of smoking as a relic.

Will the market move significantly away from humectants? If you aren't trying to fool former smokers' brains into thinking they're smoking, would there be any point to a visible cloud for most users? Would other bases, which didn't dehydrate the user or draw attention, be preferable?

 

[Technohydra]

Currently the question is more based on efficacy that anything else. PG and VG are readily available and proven mediums for dissolving inhaled substances. You can also readily aerosol them, and the vapor cloud produced is proof that the process has worked.

As with some of the new wickless tanks coming out are showing, there will be more advances in our world as time goes on. some are good and some are bad, but each one leads us closer to the future of vaping. and that future may include water being ultrasonically vaporized or some other medium, we will just have to wait and see.

 

[generic mutant]

True, options were limited when they were being invented.

The fact that PG is used in asthma inhalers etc., and has been used in air conditioning, is immensely helpful - gets us over a few hurdles before we've even begun.

But I guess my question is: there must be an array of other chemicals that would have the needed properties: vaporises, carries flavours / nicotine, doesn't create a bacterial breeding ground, doesn't destroy the atomiser / tanks. "Produces 'smoke' cloud" is also on that list, but will it be in the future?

 

[volume control]

"humectants are used as the base of e-liquid is because they absorb water from the respiratory tract, producing an analogue of smoke when the user exhales"

What? It comes right off the wick as vapor, the visible vapor isn't coming from your respiratory tract. The humectant properties are not instantaneous. This is why taking a sip of water will also resolve sore/dry throat that some users experience. I can vape and not drink water without issue, unless its right before bed. If I forget to take a sip of water ill wake up after 3-4 hours with a dry throat

 

[generic mutant]

I read quite a few statements that a significant part of the visible vapour was water, which isn't in the e-liquid in anything like the same proportion as the exhaled vapour.

You're right, I have premised my whole question on the assumption that that's true, and I don't know that it is.

 

[yzer]

It seems fairly self-evident that part of the reason humectants are used as the base of e-liquid is because they absorb water from the respiratory tract, producing an analogue of smoke when the user exhales, helping trick the brain into thinking it is receiving a satisfactory dose of the things it craves.

I'm not convinced that your premise is correct. Can you provide a link to a supporting document?

 

[generic mutant]

Nope. It was just something I read in lots of places, and assumed was true.

-edit: Well... Strictly, I read that the vapour was mostly visible because of the water, which comes from the vaper, not from the liquid (largely). I inferred from that that part of the reason these chemicals were chosen is because they did that. I didn't read it directly.

 

[FlamingoTutu]

Why does “there must be an array of other chemicals that would have the needed properties” make me go 8-o ? If you’d added “oh, and makes ecigs more addictive” then I’d have thought BT was in our midst.

I don’t know where ecigs are going in the future but I hope BT and BP are not a part of it. Nice that we have our own ECF guerrilla hit squad keeping an eye on this.

Standing by to see how your premise pans out but I get why you are saying.

 

[yzer]

I would like to see an analysis of e-liquid vapor as it leaves the atomizer with an analysis of e-liquid vapor as it is exhaled from the lungs and compare the two. That might help me understand the actual relationship between humectants in e-liquid and the body. Then we could view another study about what effect this has (if any) on chemical dependency.

 

[Steamix]

PG and VG have been around for decades - tried and tested, so to speak. Even the FDA has no axe to grind: GRAS aka generally recognized as safe. Disco fog is made with PG and without the aid of a human lung. Sothe 'science' you're quoting might be a bit skewed.

Ultrasonics have been tried in early makes of e-cigs and are still used in asthma inhalers. You could still go with ultrasonics - at the cost of mobility. The resonators draw a lot of power, so you need a mains hookup. Means your 'range' is limited by the size of the cable drum you're able to lug around Maybe that's going to change with technological advances - we'll see...

But with the current flak vaping is drawing it would be counterproductive to start mucking about with some new stuff on which the final verdict is still out. One of our strong points is that any biased 'research' quoted and cited by opponents has been discredited with little effort because we can always point to tons of studies about the ingredients currently in use. Why give that away ?

 

[xSoyer]

I read quite a few statements that a significant part of the visible vapour was water, which isn't in the e-liquid in anything like the same proportion as the exhaled vapour.

You're right, I have premised my whole question on the assumption that that's true, and I don't know that it is.

This is because VG and PG break down chemically to H2O and something else i can't recall off the top of my head when heated.

 

[generic mutant]

...Disco fog is made with PG and without the aid of a human lung. Sothe 'science' you're quoting might be a bit skewed.

Using, as far as I'm aware, a mixture between PG and water. Not more or less straight humectants.

Why give that away ?

Please reread the OP. I'm not advocating change, I'm asking whether this is optimal for smokers, or optimal for vapers.

 

[generic mutant]

This is because VG and PG break down chemically to H2O and something else i can't recall off the top of my head when heated.

Carbon dioxide. But my understanding is that they don't at anything like a sufficient rate to produce the water in exhaled vapour - that comes from the vaper.

[late edit for posterity - that's PG. VG is metabolised something like carbohydrate, but no idea how it breaks down in an atomiser, apart from theoretically to acrolein which it won't do at the temperatures we're using]

 

[xSoyer]

Carbon dioxide. But my understanding is that they don't at anything like a sufficient rate to produce the water in exhaled vapour - that comes from the vaper.

it's just strange to me.

Fog Juice is 70% Distilled water and 30% PG.

 

[yzer]

A general tip about science and the validity of scientific studies. There is good science and there is junk science. Good science has been published and subjected to peer review. Peer review will discredit junk science 99.9% of the time. Unfortunately, junk science is very popular with big business and government.

 

[yzer]

Carbon dioxide. But my understanding is that they don't at anything like a sufficient rate to produce the water in exhaled vapour - that comes from the vaper.

People exhale water when they breathe pure air. The amount depends on the individual and atmospheric conditions.

 

[generic mutant]

Are you getting defensive? Or what, exactly?

This is something I've read in various places. It might not be true, or it might be true. It sounds plausible, given that these chemicals are humectants.

 

[yzer]

I'm waiting for the science.

 

[generic mutant]

Anyway, this is totally inconsequential to the point of the thread.

...
But I guess my question is: there must be an array of other chemicals that would have the needed properties: vaporises, carries flavours / nicotine, doesn't create a bacterial breeding ground, doesn't destroy the atomiser / tanks. "Produces 'smoke' cloud" is also on that list, but will it be in the future?

 

[Technohydra]

Essentially, the vapor will be at it's most dense and 'visible' in the atomization chamber. Anything from then on will disperse it. If you want proof of that, all you have to do is try vaping under a ceiling fan. The particles will scatter due to airflow and become invisible extremely quickly. Conversely, if you pull vapor into your lungs and then slowly exhale it into a glass bottle or jar, it will remain as it is. Do this until the jar is full, and cap it off. Put it in the fridge. If the visible component is water vapor, then the vapor will be gone, and you will have a puddle in the bottom of the jar. If the vapor still remains, or if there is no water in the bottom, then the answer is not water as the visible medium. The freezer would be even better, because the formation of ice will occur with water, but none of the other chemicals mentioned.

I would hazard a guess that the visible portion is not water, but rather aerosol PV or VG. It acts differently from steam and fog. If the component were stream, it would vanish in less than a second or two, because steam is only a visible vapor when it has energy equal to each particle being at or above 212 degrees F. Fog is visible because there is a surplus of particulate water in the air, but because it is heavier on a per molecule basis than air, it is constantly moving downward due to gravity. Mist is caused by water hitting a surface at specific angles and forces, and the ballistic droplets aerosolize. As with fog, it is constantly moving downward.

On the other hand, I have made a streamer of vapor hover in almost the exact same location inside with no movement or air shifting for well over an hour, and water vapor by itself will not do this. Also, if you put a tissue in front of a humidifier, even briefly, it becomes damp. I can blast a 4.8 volt 5 second lung inhale off of my dual nanocoils through the same tissue (which is enough vape to fill the front half of my car in one shot) and it isn't even so much as moist. If there was a majority of water in the vapor, it would be detectable by these means. Also noting that regular breath deposits a film of water vapor on a sheet of glass, but vapor does not do the same?

My thought is that the vapor takes up the water as it exchanges the nicotine out, and combines it with something else in the vapor to make a new compound or solution, although I'd have to work out the chemistry on that. A good guess is that some of the glucose-like substances in the vapor are likely absorbed into the water, which then settles and is absorbed harmlessly into the body, kind of like taking a little sugar in water and swallowing it.

Again, all conjecture, but my rationalistic mind insists there are some obvious truths here.