New studies find carcinogens in vg and pg at high temps, even in tootle puffers
- Thread starter mikepetro
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
What was even trickier was trying to hit the fire button and hold the camera at the same time. I didnt have a tripod, nor did I have a remote fire button on that DNA, and the camera "re-calibrates" (re focuses) when the temp range changes drastically (like when you hit the fire button). I just remember it was a lot harder to snap the pic than I thought it would be.
Glass is tricky with these cameras. Thermal emissivity is a funny thing.
Tried that, good luck, you cant get the camera inside the closed chamber. If the chamber is open then you have no airflow.
BTW, this was the atty in the thermal pic above. It was a Russian 91% if I recall, and on a DNA30. Not sure where my DNA40 pics are, think I was using Taifuns with those.
Last edited:
Thanks Mike for the thread--and thanks y'all for your comments.
I don't have much to add--just a few random thoughts, maybe.
So the study published in NEJM was right, after all? And Dr. Farsalinos's rebuttle was wrong? That all the bad stuff was only present in dry puff conditions?
The deception of measuring formaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosol: the difference between laboratory measurements and true exposure
"Thus, it is more than obvious that once again the atomizer was overheated, which of course will result in very high levels of formaldehyde production. What the authors ignore is that these conditions, commonly called dry-puff phenomenon (which is explained in detail in one of my published studies), are easily detected by the vapers. In fact, overheating results in an unpleasant taste that none can withstand. As a result, no vaper is ever using the e-cigarette at such conditions and, thus, will never be exposed to such levels of formaldehyde. The story published in New England Journal of Medicine is similar to finding carcinogens in an overcooked piece of meat that none can ever eat. Of course the findings are true, but none will be exposed to the levels found."
Another random thought. Kurt uses 100% VG exclusively. I wonder if he's going to switch to PG/VG blends now.
Carry on.
I don't have much to add--just a few random thoughts, maybe.
So the study published in NEJM was right, after all? And Dr. Farsalinos's rebuttle was wrong? That all the bad stuff was only present in dry puff conditions?
The deception of measuring formaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosol: the difference between laboratory measurements and true exposure
"Thus, it is more than obvious that once again the atomizer was overheated, which of course will result in very high levels of formaldehyde production. What the authors ignore is that these conditions, commonly called dry-puff phenomenon (which is explained in detail in one of my published studies), are easily detected by the vapers. In fact, overheating results in an unpleasant taste that none can withstand. As a result, no vaper is ever using the e-cigarette at such conditions and, thus, will never be exposed to such levels of formaldehyde. The story published in New England Journal of Medicine is similar to finding carcinogens in an overcooked piece of meat that none can ever eat. Of course the findings are true, but none will be exposed to the levels found."
Another random thought. Kurt uses 100% VG exclusively. I wonder if he's going to switch to PG/VG blends now.
Carry on.
I finally got around to watching the second video, the one with Kurt. What I take from it is, CE4's are really bad to test with. One, they're becoming less and less popular, two, they don't perform all that well in optimal conditions(probably the reason for One), three, they perform even worse in laboratory conditions.Thanks Mike for the thread--and thanks y'all for your comments.
I don't have much to add--just a few random thoughts, maybe.
So the study published in NEJM was right, after all? And Dr. Farsalinos's rebuttle was wrong? That all the bad stuff was only present in dry puff conditions?
The deception of measuring formaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosol: the difference between laboratory measurements and true exposure
"Thus, it is more than obvious that once again the atomizer was overheated, which of course will result in very high levels of formaldehyde production. What the authors ignore is that these conditions, commonly called dry-puff phenomenon (which is explained in detail in one of my published studies), are easily detected by the vapers. In fact, overheating results in an unpleasant taste that none can withstand. As a result, no vaper is ever using the e-cigarette at such conditions and, thus, will never be exposed to such levels of formaldehyde. The story published in New England Journal of Medicine is similar to finding carcinogens in an overcooked piece of meat that none can ever eat. Of course the findings are true, but none will be exposed to the levels found."
Another random thought. Kurt uses 100% VG exclusively. I wonder if he's going to switch to PG/VG blends now.
Carry on.
I still think you can get a relatively safe vape from a CE4, but it involves a lot of user interaction.
I always hated CE everything and anything--from day 1--CE2, CE3, CE4--you name it.
But they paved the way.
Thanks Mike for the thread--and thanks y'all for your comments.
I don't have much to add--just a few random thoughts, maybe.
So the study published in NEJM was right, after all? And Dr. Farsalinos's rebuttle was wrong? That all the bad stuff was only present in dry puff conditions?
The deception of measuring formaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosol: the difference between laboratory measurements and true exposure
"Thus, it is more than obvious that once again the atomizer was overheated, which of course will result in very high levels of formaldehyde production. What the authors ignore is that these conditions, commonly called dry-puff phenomenon (which is explained in detail in one of my published studies), are easily detected by the vapers. In fact, overheating results in an unpleasant taste that none can withstand. As a result, no vaper is ever using the e-cigarette at such conditions and, thus, will never be exposed to such levels of formaldehyde. The story published in New England Journal of Medicine is similar to finding carcinogens in an overcooked piece of meat that none can ever eat. Of course the findings are true, but none will be exposed to the levels found."
Another random thought. Kurt uses 100% VG exclusively. I wonder if he's going to switch to PG/VG blends now.
Carry on.
This was a different study, conducted in a different manner, and doesn't reflect the issues raised in that older test setup. These results were not tank/coil dependent, just a "heat the juice to different temperatures" and see what was produced.
Which is really a cool thing about this study. It takes all the thousands of hardware combinations out of the equation.
If you heat "X liquid" to "Y temperature" this is what you get.
Now, if you want to minimize exposure then you figure out how to keep your atty temp below that threshold.
Sorry if this was already posted, but will the user detect the elevated levels of the bad stuff? To me an overheat no matter what the circumstances is immediately detectable and retchid.
Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk
Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk
I dont know.
I know that I can heat my Mod up to 500 and I dont taste bad stuff. Clearly you taste bad stuff when you overheat, but I dont know about that range that is in between the "bad stuff" threshold and "our" definition of clear overheating.
Assuming their study is accurate, and assuming my Mods are accurate, I think there is a range where bad stuff happens but I dont taste it.
We think. It is a clean study from the perspective of decoupling from the hardware and isolating the effect of heat on the chemical components, but I'd have to go along with Lessifer's post that the next step would have to be to duplicate this on a TC mod. And if those temps are truly reflective of what happens with TC vaping.
I think the CE4 stuff is pretty well clear at this point. Not the greatest solution for vaporzing e juice. But we're still left with that Subtank (and unpublished Nauti mini, Cubis, and KF clone) data that in typical real world vaping (25W is a reasonable wattage selection for a Subtank and coil, at least the 0.5 ohm one) produced nothing close to the levels in this variable temp study. Then there's the Annals of Internal Medicine study which just came out that looked at vapers vs. dual users vs. smokers, and found significantly lower levels of VOCs in vapers (including Acrolein and other metabolites consistent with formaldehyde and acetaldehyde exposure). And that was across all vape platforms (maybe breaking that down further by hardware used among the vapers might have teased that out).
So again, higher temperatures will cause more nasties to be produced from vape juice components, but we still don't have that translated over to "real life" vaping scenarios quite yet (except apparently for those CE4 clearos, which seem to be risky compared to "modern" stuff).
Either there are a whole lot of vapers routinely inhaling significant levels of some pretty nasty stuff without noticing it, or there is a disconnect between what a tc mod says is 500F(or whatever) and the actual temperature the liquid is reaching, or some other possibility that I haven't thought of yet.
The first scenario isn't impossible, I just don't know how likely it is. The second scenario could actually be tested, and I hope that it is.
Don't we really have two categories here tho ?
1) The Dreaded Nasty Dry Hit (which personally I think is mostly a metal taste)
2) The Overheated Liquid Hit which may or may not be detectable at the lower end of bad.
The first is easy to avoid by just paying attention to what you are doing.
The second is what has my gears turning...
1) The Dreaded Nasty Dry Hit (which personally I think is mostly a metal taste)
2) The Overheated Liquid Hit which may or may not be detectable at the lower end of bad.
The first is easy to avoid by just paying attention to what you are doing.
The second is what has my gears turning...
Yes, I've done the same, just for the purpose of experimenting with TC to see if I wanted to use it. The first versions with the Ni wire I'd given up on, wire was far too soft to jam in the rayon wicking, so it was back to Kanthal. I use twin 5 wrap 28g coils in an Aqua II most all the time, power set to 35 watts, tootle puffing to many of you, but that tank is a flavor beast.
Anyhow, I acquired some 28g SS430 wire to play with, sturdy enough to stand up to wicking, made the same coils I always make, put them in a spare tank. Popped a coil at first (did you know there's a setting in Escribe for the default temperature sensing wire type? Know what happens when it's set to Ni and your wire is SS?) Vaping this with Watts set to the same 35W and T set to 440, it just sits there at wattage and doesn't reach T. I know the material properties are different, but I expect a T deviation is negligible given the wire mass is essentially the same.
Tossed those same coils in a 'Mizer, had to bump the watts up above 50 to hit T (or crank down the airflow).
It's a pretty easy experiment that anyone who doesn't want to use TC full time can do in an hour.
It seems like the range from the start of #2 to the start of #1 is very small.
Just as an aside, RTD's are used to measure temperature in industry in addition to thermocouples and thermistors, and that's all the DNA boards are doing.
Steam Engine provides Heat Capacity for any wire gauge and Heat Flux values for builds at any wattage.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
