anyone else think its interesting that here it seems VG produces more toxins, however studies such as this
Carbonyl Compounds in Electronic Cigarette Vapors: Effects of Nicotine Solvent and Battery Output Voltage propose PG as the main culprit?
The above article also mentions PEG produced little decomposition produces,
@mikepetro any chance you have looked at PEG vaporization in your setup? Also, would you recommend adding DI water to our juices to prevent formation of such aldehydes?
I would also assume a ceramic coil would distibute heat across a higher SA and prevent the fast temperature rise we see on metal coils?
cheers guys
I have not tested PEG, though I do have some and it is a candidate for when I can get back to testing.
As for the report, I dont find it of much value because it is just another report looking at the wrong variable, using faulty vape gear. It looked at "Voltage" and then drew a correlation to aldehydes, which is a false assumption. The production of aldehydes is a by-product of
thermal degradation. "Thermal" being the keyword, ie temperature is the correlating variable. Even that report stated that "Both VG and PG have been shown to decompose at high temperatures". So running a test at 3.9v on a Crystal 2 Clearomizer proves nothing regarding the temperature at which the aldehydes starting being produced. Obviously higher voltage equals higher temp, but what was the temp? There are a whole
bunch of variables involved that affect the coil temp of an atty.
Furthermore the Crystal 2 Clearomizer is essentially a CE4 which has already been proven to be a flawed design and unsafe at any level. Newer atty designs fair much better regarding thermal degradation.
Regarding PG vs VG, in my own testing I found inconclusive results as to which is better, I have theories as to why this may be, but I dont have the knowledge or equipment to prove it out. DI seemed to help big time. I need more samples of different ratios to extrapolate better conclusions though.
Bottom line is that you have to test the vapor as it is actually used by someone who is vaping. To my knowledge, my testing (while crude by scientific standards) is the only published testing that used real vape gear and a real vaper's subjectivity to eliminate burnt or dry hits. That test back in 2014 is flawed because they didnt understand the process of vaping, and how it relates to thermal degradation of ejuice. They used the worst possible atty, they didnt use a real vaper to subjectively eliminate burnt/dry hits, and their machine didnt simulate the way a vaper actually vapes. Most crucial of all, they didnt measure the temperature as it related to aldehydes. So how can you trust any conclusion they drew?
I recommend adding DI because it reduces the boiling point at which one can find a satisfying vape, thereby allowing one to run lower temperatures. Lower temperatures equal lower aldehydes........