New studies find carcinogens in vg and pg at high temps, even in tootle puffers

[USMCotaku]

I'll admit that this thread gave me pause at first. Enough so that I went off and started looking at temp control devices to purchase. Then I thought about it for awhile and decided not to purchase any more mods. I've been vaping for almost 6 1/2 years, mostly mechs and VV, and after 33 years of smoking I feel remarkably better than I did at the end of that 33 year time frame of smoking. And since I'm at the further end of my lifespan anyway it's just not as much of a concern to me as it might be to a 30 year old.

I remembered from an old anatomy and physiology class I took that our bodies naturally produce formaldehyde. So my question is what does elevated intake actually do to you? I looked around for a bit and it seems that elevated exposure might be linked to nasopharyngeal cancer and leukemia. Nasopharyngeal cancer is fairly rare(<1 case for every 100,000 people) and there doesn't seem to be an uptick of it. I doubt that anyone has started compiling statistics correlating vaping with leukemia or we would have heard about that one by now.But I would think since e-cigs have been on the market for around 10 years now that would be long enough for some of the more genetically susceptible folks to have started coming down with these diseases. Maybe? And then there's a laundry list of irritation symptoms: coughing, watery eyes, wheezing, nausea, etc. But some people are very sensitive to it and have those reactions while it doesn't bother other people at all. I couldn't really find anything on acetaldehyde inhalation but did find some stuff linking it to an increased risk of cancer for chronic drinkers and that it is also found in some foods we eat.
And I'm certainly not saying any of this is gospel,or that's the only danger in formaldehyde,or that it's safe enough. It's just what I found rummaging around on the net while I was trying to decide whether or not to buy a TC device.
It may be irrefutably proven at some point in time that TC is the safest way to vape. But I'm firmly convinced by my own changes in health that any vaping is safer than smoking.

Even if your set up does happen to produce more of those two carcinogens then a cigarette....it ISN'T producing the thousand or more OTHER ones that a cigarette does....something being lost in the whole CE4 talk.....those would still be safer then smoking, even with the higher production of those TWO components. And I still say, there are some fundamental flaws with HOW the test was run. You can't just heat liquid to an assumed temperature and say "this is what vaping does". All of the temp data gathered from ecigstats is based on COIL temp (and that is a guestimate based on tcr of wire type, and ASSUMING the user set the coil resistance properly, and that the onboard temp guage is calibrated correctly to get the right outcome based on ambient temp and coil resistence.....you see the problem here?). There is nothing pointing to actual temperature of the liquid/vapor we are inhaling. So saying X amount of people on ecigstats are vaping on a coil reaching Y temperature...let's heat these liquids to that Y temperature is not a fully valid test parameter for what is happening inside of our devices real world.

 

[Eskie]

I haven't read to the end yet, but something occurs to me here........they did these test "simulating vaping conditions" in the ss tube....by heating the liquids to these various temperature ranges......but...this is the big BUT. We aren't really vaping the LIQUID at these temperatures, the coil reaches that temp....what is the actual temperature of the liquid/vapor? I guarantee we aren't really inhaling 450 degree vapor. I would like a study to figure out what the ACTUAL real world use devices produce in these toxins. Every independent study I have seen that has done this, has found far less of these toxins then in cigarettes...you know the ones, where they place sensors IN THE ROOM WITH ACTUAL VAPERS.....something about this whole thing smells "off" to me.

They actually did measure the temperature of the vapor leaving the chamber and reported it was between 25C-76C. That's not plotted against all the temperatures used in the chamber, but I expect it would follow the typical "higher the chamber the hotter the exiting vapor" pattern. I'm also willing to lay odds most of us never would inhale a 76C (~170F for us non C people) vapor. Way too toasty to tolerate, at least for me.

I agree with you the next step would be repeating these tests using actual vape hardware and see if the same results are obtained. However, it would best be done on testing what comes out of the drip tip as that's what we inhale/draw into our mouth/whatever style of vaping you use. Testing the air in a room with people vaping would only document second hand exposure to vape stuff, and not representative of what we as vapers inhale into us.

As to your second post about the whole "temps measured through ecigstats", I agree, it is not terribly helpful at answering the question of what temperatures do we really vape at. It also does not help establish that any of the aldehyde production which was measurable in the chamber study occurs in our normal course of vaping at settings we actually use.

 

[USMCotaku]

They actually did measure the temperature of the vapor leaving the chamber and reported it was between 25C-76C. That's not plotted against all the temperatures used in the chamber, but I expect it would follow the typical "higher the chamber the hotter the exiting vapor" pattern. I'm also willing to lay odds most of us never would inhale a 76C (~170F for us non C people) vapor. Way too toasty to tolerate, at least for me.

I agree with you the next step would be repeating these tests using actual vape hardware and see if the same results are obtained. However, it would best be done on testing what comes out of the drip tip as that's what we inhale/draw into our mouth/whatever style of vaping you use. Testing the air in a room with people vaping would only document second hand exposure to vape stuff, and not representative of what we as vapers inhale into us.

As to your second post about the whole "temps measured through ecigstats", I agree, it is not terribly helpful at answering the question of what temperatures do we really vape at. It also does not help establish that any of the aldehyde production which was measurable in the chamber study occurs in our normal course of vaping at settings we actually use.

They measured the temp. of the vapor leaving the test chamber......but that will remain a useless number until they measure the temp. of vapor in various tanks, rda's etc at real world usage settings.

As to your point about testing what comes out of the drip tip vs. in the room (second hand), I swear I read about a study that did just that, coming to a completely different conclusion then this one here.

What bothers me the most about this whole thing, is that ANY company associated with the vape industry would get behind this study, when a layman such as myself can so easily and quickly spot the flaws of the test being performed. How many "worse then smoking" propaganda ads are we going to see, citing this "study"? I can already see the headline of such stories: "Even e-cig manufacturers agree........."

Further knowledge is never a bad thing. But what you do with that knowledge matters, and for scientific research, HOW you obtain that knowledge matters even more.

 

[Eskie]

They measured the temp. of the vapor leaving the test chamber......but that will remain a useless number until they measure the temp. of vapor in various tanks, rda's etc at real world usage settings.

As to your point about testing what comes out of the drip tip vs. in the room (second hand), I swear I read about a study that did just that, coming to a completely different conclusion then this one here.

What bothers me the most about this whole thing, is that ANY company associated with the vape industry would get behind this study, when a layman such as myself can so easily and quickly spot the flaws of the test being performed. How many "worse then smoking" propaganda ads are we going to see, citing this "study"? I can already see the headline of such stories: "Even e-cig manufacturers agree........."

Further knowledge is never a bad thing. But what you do with that knowledge matters, and for scientific research, HOW you obtain that knowledge matters even more.

Oh, I'm with you on all of that. This needs to be replicated with actual vape gear. And I agree it was wrong for Evolv to jump on this bandwagon to try and sell TC as a solution to a problem we're not even sure exists. I love the products, am a TC vaper almost exclusively with their DNA boards, and could easily be accused of being an Evolv fanboy, but I'll call them out too on trying to tie these things together in such an indirect manner without doing the actual test of TC with real tanks and coils.

The second hand issue has been addressed in other studies showing negligible amounts of stuff, IIRC including nicotine in the air for non-vapers to inhale, but that doesn't mean we're still not getting something in our lungs that we're not exhaling into the room.

 

[USMCotaku]

Oh, I'm with you on all of that. This needs to be replicated with actual vape gear. And I agree it was wrong for Evolv to jump on this bandwagon to try and sell TC as a solution to a problem we're not even sure exists. I love the products, am a TC vaper almost exclusively with their DNA boards, and could easily be accused of being an Evolv fanboy, but I'll call them out too on trying to tie these things together in such an indirect manner without doing the actual test of TC with real tanks and coils.

The second hand issue has been addressed in other studies showing negligible amounts of stuff, IIRC including nicotine in the air for non-vapers to inhale, but that doesn't mean we're still not getting something in our lungs that we're not exhaling into the room.

Comparison of select analytes in aerosol from e-cigarettes with smoke from conventional cigarettes and with ambient air

Of note: Carbonyls in table 4 & 5. The supposed formaldehyde content.

 

[h00ligan]

The take away from this is that if you don't use TC mode you should probably consider using it, and keep your temp setting as low as you can while still delivering a vape you enjoy and that keeps you from smoking analogs. Depending on the device/tank/build I have always vaped between 400 and 460.

The problem now is which device is that temp setting recommendation. I can get a thick pluming vape at 360 degrees on a yhii board that's anemic and terrible until 460 on an evolv board.

So now the new argument is going to be who does better Temp co tell or more true. Evolv seems to need very high settings to get a good vape. We need temp probes to evaluate

 

[Katya]

You coil the same way as Kanthal. You do not have to torch it first. Mount on your build deck and tweak accordingly. Spaced coils are a good way to start out. Gently pulse the coil to assure even heating and no hot spots.No need to make it glow, and you're not trying to produce an Alumina layer like you do with Kanthal. Wick as normal. Done except for settings.

FWIW: I have learned, in another "dangerous" thread, that torching Kanthal is a waste of time and may possibly be dangerous. What is recommended now is to clean the wire with alcohol or soap and water, rinse and dry. After the coil is mounted, a few gentle pulses (moderate wattage) is enough to check the build and start forming the protective aluminum oxide layer.

Dry burning? Who knows. The jury is still out. I found another article on the subject, so I'm sharing.

E-cigarette coils from a chemist's point of view - Nicotine Science and Policy

 

[Eskie]

Comparison of select analytes in aerosol from e-cigarettes with smoke from conventional cigarettes and with ambient air

Of note: Carbonyls in table 4 & 5. The supposed formaldehyde content.

A few points to consider in that study.

From methods:

"ISO 17025 accredited analytical methods were used to evaluate the cigarette samples for select HPHCs in mainstream smoke. Official methods are cited and other, internally validated, methods are briefly described for general understanding. Furthermore, because no standardized methods exist for e-cigarette analysis, the methods used to evaluate the conventional cigarettes were adapted to evaluate the e-cigarette products and the study blanks (room air)"

"Cigarette preparation and machine smoking for conventional cigarettes are described in Health Canada Test Method T-115 (CAN) (1999). Two to three cigarettes were smoked per replicate for conventional cigarettes and 99 puffs were taken from single e-cigarettes for no more than approximately 200 mg of particulates collected per pad. Three to five replicates were tested for each measurement. Prior to analysis, filter pads from cigarette smoke collection were visually inspected for overloading of particulates, as evidenced by brown spotting on the back of the filter pad. To ensure no overloading of particulates for aerosol collection, e-cigarette units were weighed before and after collection to verify that product weight change and filter pad weight change were comparable."

This test was looking at what came out of the e cigs versus regular cigarettes using standards typically used for cigarette testing with puffs from both cigs and ecigs being collected on filter pads. The room air study blanks are just that, study blanks:

"Air blanks were prepared by puffing room air (99 puffs) through an empty smoking machine port to the indicated trapping media for an analysis method."

The test was not looking for contaminants in room air for either product (cigs or e cigs) but a reference to say "hey, there's as much of this stuff in plain air so it couldn't have come from the cig/e cig". That's an appropriate control in a study such as this.

The study did reveal very low levels of aldehyde production with e cigs, and at about the same level as found in plain room air (study blanks). That looks great for the e cigs tested, Blu, and Skycig.

Unfortunately, many here don't use cigalikes anymore. There is no indication what the temperature was the cigalike contents were heated to in order to generate a vapor, so it cannot be compared to the Wang study looking at the effect of temperature alone on the substances tested, VG and PG (and some juice from wherever).

So that particular study is useful in showing that cigalikes probably produce little if any aldehydes like formaldehyde (Yay for Blu!) it isn't helpful for either current generation vape gear, or have any bearing on the Wang study suggesting temperature breakdown of Vg/PG to aldehydes is possible.

 

[Eskie]

The problem now is which device is that temp setting recommendation. I can get a thick pluming vape at 360 degrees on a yhii board that's anemic and terrible until 460 on an evolv board.

So now the new argument is going to be who does better Temp co tell or more true. Evolv seems to need very high settings to get a good vape. We need temp probes to evaluate

Hard to generalize that as I'm using a DNA board right now at 420F with a nice vape. But it absolutely does raise the question of what are our temp control boards measuring and how accurate are they, and does that in any way translate into controlling aldehyde production by temp control?

 

[Lessifer]

FWIW: I have learned, in another "dangerous" thread, that torching Kanthal is a waste of time and may possibly be dangerous. What is recommended now is to clean the wire with alcohol or soap and water, rinse and dry. After the coil is mounted, a few gentle pulses (moderate wattage) is enough to check the build and start forming the protective aluminum oxide layer.

Dry burning? Who knows. The jury is still out. I found another article on the subject, so I'm sharing.

E-cigarette coils from a chemist's point of view - Nicotine Science and Policy

Not that again...

I was going to write more, but I've decided against it, other than to say that we need to hold the same burden of proof no matter who the information/theory is coming from.

 

[Domejunky]

I'll admit that this thread gave me pause at first. Enough so that I went off and started looking at temp control devices to purchase. Then I thought about it for awhile and decided not to purchase any more mods. I've been vaping for almost 6 1/2 years, mostly mechs and VV, and after 33 years of smoking I feel remarkably better than I did at the end of that 33 year time frame of smoking. And since I'm at the further end of my lifespan anyway it's just not as much of a concern to me as it might be to a 30 year old.

I remembered from an old anatomy and physiology class I took that our bodies naturally produce formaldehyde. So my question is what does elevated intake actually do to you? I looked around for a bit and it seems that elevated exposure might be linked to nasopharyngeal cancer and leukemia. Nasopharyngeal cancer is fairly rare(<1 case for every 100,000 people) and there doesn't seem to be an uptick of it. I doubt that anyone has started compiling statistics correlating vaping with leukemia or we would have heard about that one by now.But I would think since e-cigs have been on the market for around 10 years now that would be long enough for some of the more genetically susceptible folks to have started coming down with these diseases. Maybe? And then there's a laundry list of irritation symptoms: coughing, watery eyes, wheezing, nausea, etc. But some people are very sensitive to it and have those reactions while it doesn't bother other people at all. I couldn't really find anything on acetaldehyde inhalation but did find some stuff linking it to an increased risk of cancer for chronic drinkers and that it is also found in some foods we eat.
And I'm certainly not saying any of this is gospel,or that's the only danger in formaldehyde,or that it's safe enough. It's just what I found rummaging around on the net while I was trying to decide whether or not to buy a TC device.
It may be irrefutably proven at some point in time that TC is the safest way to vape. But I'm firmly convinced by my own changes in health that any vaping is safer than smoking.

Acetaldehyde is present in most beer - considered an off flavour in most styles, but a requirement in some. Maybe that's the connection with drinking...?

 

[Katya]

(snip) we need to hold the same burden of proof no matter who the information/theory is coming from.

I agree.

 

[Eskie]

Acetaldehyde is present in most beer - considered an off flavour in most styles, but a requirement in some. Maybe that's the connection with drinking...?

Acetaldehyde is produced by the breakdown of ethanol in the liver. It's then broken down further. It is one mechanism by which the incidence of liver cancer is associated with drinking.

 

[vapdivrr]

Possibly the thermometer has too much mass and acted as a heat sink, cooling the coil? A very tiny Thermocouple, say 40 awg wire I think would work well like in the video I put a link to.

I suppose that can occur and know it's not 100 percent accurate, I just figured I give it a go and see what came up. I do think it's got to be within 20 degrees though, but can be quite different once the top cap is put on and the device is actually vaped so I realize it's probably not a great test.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[vapdivrr]

I'll admit that this thread gave me pause at first. Enough so that I went off and started looking at temp control devices to purchase. Then I thought about it for awhile and decided not to purchase any more mods. I've been vaping for almost 6 1/2 years, mostly mechs and VV, and after 33 years of smoking I feel remarkably better than I did at the end of that 33 year time frame of smoking. And since I'm at the further end of my lifespan anyway it's just not as much of a concern to me as it might be to a 30 year old.

I remembered from an old anatomy and physiology class I took that our bodies naturally produce formaldehyde. So my question is what does elevated intake actually do to you? I looked around for a bit and it seems that elevated exposure might be linked to nasopharyngeal cancer and leukemia. Nasopharyngeal cancer is fairly rare(<1 case for every 100,000 people) and there doesn't seem to be an uptick of it. I doubt that anyone has started compiling statistics correlating vaping with leukemia or we would have heard about that one by now.But I would think since e-cigs have been on the market for around 10 years now that would be long enough for some of the more genetically susceptible folks to have started coming down with these diseases. Maybe? And then there's a laundry list of irritation symptoms: coughing, watery eyes, wheezing, nausea, etc. But some people are very sensitive to it and have those reactions while it doesn't bother other people at all. I couldn't really find anything on acetaldehyde inhalation but did find some stuff linking it to an increased risk of cancer for chronic drinkers and that it is also found in some foods we eat.
And I'm certainly not saying any of this is gospel,or that's the only danger in formaldehyde,or that it's safe enough. It's just what I found rummaging around on the net while I was trying to decide whether or not to buy a TC device.
It may be irrefutably proven at some point in time that TC is the safest way to vape. But I'm firmly convinced by my own changes in health that any vaping is safer than smoking.

Ditto..... also been vaping 6.5 years and was a smoker for 33 years and although I love to be as knowledgeable as possible in all aspects of vaping, I personally don't give a hoot about any of these new tests, all I know for sure is that my lungs are 100 percent clear, no more wheezing and coughing. No more 2 to 3 week flue recovery time, no more out of breath, no more stink! I honestly feel like I never had a cigarette in my life and feel extremely lucky that I found vaping, for it definitely has added years to my life. But I speak for myself, everyone is different and not all react the same way.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[vapdivrr]

Oh, Steve, dear. Where do I begin...

First of all, this industry has been self regulating from its inception just fine, thank you very much. Thanks to this self-regulation, via discussions like this one and many, many others, vaping is much better and safer than it was in 2007 when it first began commercially available. Nobody was looking out for us and our safety--we had to do it ourselves. And yet, every time somebody brings up a subject of a possible danger associated with vaping, sooner or later they are inevitably attacked for "doing FDA's job for them" or spreading "BT/BP propaganda." Can we just stop doing this? Once and for all. In 2009 Kate raised some questions about diacetyl, later confirmed by Kurt and others. Kurt warned us about risks associated with vaping eliquids containing cinnamaldehyde, oil based flavorings and some questionable sweeteners. Mooch tests batteries and lets us know which ones are safe to use. We discussed the use of crystalline silica as filler in certain coil heads (gone), iffy plastics used for tanks (gone or replaced with better plastics and glass), mod safety (believe it or not, some early mods were made without venting holes--fixed). I could go on, but I hope you get the picture.

Most (if not all) of the great improvements and inventions in vaping started on ECF and other vaping forums all over the world. Big Chinese manufacturers learn from our modders and incorporate their ideas into their products all the time. Everything you're using today was invented either on this forum (or similar forums in Germany, Greece, Russia, England, etc.) by fellow vapers who were not satisfied with the hardware they were using and were hell bent on creating that perfect vape. Carto tanks (thanks, Billy), fillerless clearomizers (thanks Badkolo, Billy, Martinez), RBAs (thanks Raidy--Raidy is a German modder who was also a member here; Imeothanasis--a greek modder; and thank you, our Russian friends for Kayfun and ArcticFox), variable voltage and variable wattage batteries (thank you, modders, inventors, Evolv, ProVape), and now the DNA 40, 60, 75. Why do you think China switched from silica rope to cotton? Because our modders and vapers who use RBAs have been experimenting with different wicking materials--everything from stainless steel mesh, silica rope, ecowool, hemp, alpaca wool, cotton balls, rayon (cellucotton) to Japanese organic cotton.

We didn't know much, but we asked questions, we contacted people who did know--our resident chemists and materials engineers and electricians. Many commercial juice makers started here, as fellow ECF rank and file DIY enthusiasts. And we enlisted real experts, like our favorite cardiologist Dr. F., who is also a member here.

Still have doubts? Behold a carto tank prototype invented in 2010 by our beloved friend Billy (BR5495), may he rest in peace.

Off my soapbox now. Sorry for the rant.

You forgot the fish wicks (ceramic)

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[h00ligan]

Mechs, particularly with a fresh battery, are probably one of the riskier devices. You simply dont have any control over what temps you are hitting.

Mechs are no more risky than vw/Vv regulated mods based on the evidence I'm seeing. You know what a charged battery is putting out. I don't see how that's any worse than setting power on a regulated.

This is early going. I need to review he scientific method used to test and see if his has a leg to stand on. Let's also see what farsalinos has to say about it. I'm sure he will be issuing a statement on it if he hasn't already.

 

[Rossum]

Mechs are no more risky than vw/Vv regulated mods based on the evidence I'm seeing. You know what a charged battery is putting out.

You know the absolute maximum it could possibly be putting out -- 4.20V. You use that for your calculations, but the reality is that all mechs have some voltage drop and all batteries have some sag under load, so you always get something less than that.

I don't see how that's any worse than setting power on a regulated.

I don't either, and in fact, for me personally, it's better, 'cause I'm not tempted (or able) to crank up the power to compensate for an aging build.

 

[h00ligan]

You know the absolute maximum it could possibly be putting out -- 4.20V. You use that for your calculations, but the reality is that all mechs have some voltage drop and all batteries have some sag under load, so you always get something less than that.

I don't either, and in fact, for me personally, it's better, 'cause I'm not tempted (or able) to crank up the power to compensate for an aging build.

Yup. If anything you're doing less damage because as the battery drops you're putting out less carcinogens by default. Rather than maintaining the even level across it.

Anyway. It's very early to freak out. I used to use tc a ton then I recently stopped. But I may start using it more again as it is less prone to combust cotton etc. that said. If you wickorooerly and don't literally chain puff probably you're not getting a lot of combusted materials.


Also I didn't see yet but did they specify the materials differences.

For example how are they isolating that it's the pg vg and not some output from he wick or wire. Did they get he same results in temp control with stainless. Titanium. Nickel And nife? Did hey get he same results in vv/vw with stainless kanthal and others? Did they try and replicate the heating process or did they use actual exigs or was it tested by microwaving pg and vg ? Or something g else stupid.

I don't see how they can isolate pg and vg from wire and wick and maintain a proper control of real exit usage. And the temps they're reporting. Is that temperature of the liquid or coil? As measured by ?

I have a lot of questions and they may well be answered. I'll read the actual study tonight as I have a hard sciences background. Hopefully that will answer some questions.

 

[cigatron]

They actually did measure the temperature of the vapor leaving the chamber and reported it was between 25C-76C. That's not plotted against all the temperatures used in the chamber, but I expect it would follow the typical "higher the chamber the hotter the exiting vapor" pattern. I'm also willing to lay odds most of us never would inhale a 76C (~170F for us non C people) vapor. Way too toasty to tolerate, at least for me.

I agree with you the next step would be repeating these tests using actual vape hardware and see if the same results are obtained. However, it would best be done on testing what comes out of the drip tip as that's what we inhale/draw into our mouth/whatever style of vaping you use. Testing the air in a room with people vaping would only document second hand exposure to vape stuff, and not representative of what we as vapers inhale into us.

As to your second post about the whole "temps measured through ecigstats", I agree, it is not terribly helpful at answering the question of what temperatures do we really vape at. It also does not help establish that any of the aldehyde production which was measurable in the chamber study occurs in our normal course of vaping at settings we actually use.

I agree, however different devices will cool the vapor leaving the coil at different rates depending on too many variables, so I don't feel that vapor temp at the drip tip will tell us what we want to know.
Bottom line is the juice temp can never exceed the coil temp without some sort of catalytic reaction taking place, which I seriously doubt is happening.
What I want to know is: If coil is X temp then juice temp at the coil/wick can reach Y temp.
How hard can that be to measure with a thermocouple while using tc? Airflow wouldn't even matter imo.
In the mean time I'll be vaping at 450°f or less.