Nicotine Comparisons

[Kurt]

(without reading the whole tread) what's a good pick these days for a clean, moderate priced 100mg nic?

NicVape...very clean indeed

 

[casey8579]

Now MFS is making some interesting claims...

Alchem International Announces NicSelectTM, New Branding for Its Liquid Nicotine


Edit to add:

Alchem expands Indian plant extracts facility

Alchem’s nicotine is virtually clear and colorless, a result of its exceptional purity. Colored nicotine contains oxidized impurities, which not only impact the flavor, but also the effectiveness of nicotine. “Our liquid nicotine is produced in a pharmaceutical-grade, FDA-inspected facility,” Leduc continues. “The nicotine is extracted from tobacco leaves, giving it a preferred flavor and complete supply chain integration. It is also packaged in special containers to extend its shelf life and to avoid oxidation.”

 

[Cyrus Vap]

Great find Casey!

 

[Cyrus Vap]

So is MFS the first vendor to essentially fully disclose their source and it's credentials? Albeit indirectly ?

Discuss

 

[casey8579]

So is MFS the first vendor to essentially fully disclose their source and it's credentials? Albeit indirectly ?

Discuss

Probably they did not mean to, but using the NicSelect name in their blurb was a dead giveaway.

 

[casey8579]

Probably they did not mean to, but using the NicSelect name in their blurb was a dead giveaway.

I take it back.

Just saw on the MFS nic page that they have prominently posted a NicSelect brochure pic. You have to zoom way in to see it but it says on the bottom made by Alchem International, so apparently their intent was to disclose the info. I think even more highly of them now.



Yay for MFS.

 

[TaylorMade]

Hi guys, Dustin here from MFS, just wanted to jump in to let you know that we did intend to disclose our nicotine supplier. If you want to see some more info on the subject I've posted some info in our forum here: NicSelect - Vaping Grade Nicotine available at MyFreedomSmokes.com

I would be happy to answer any questions about it there.

 

[Bob Chill]

I'm going for my final buy of nic in the next day or so. I keep missing WL's brief windows. I currently have MFS and RTS stocked and bottled. I have just a couple questions for you pros.

I need to decide between Nude and MFS and I also need to decide if I stick with 100% pg or get 1 liter of 100% VG. I vape mostly 50/50 and so do the folks that I mix for. With 100% pg + flavors I can never get below 25%+/- PG in my mixes. That seems like no big deal but I also don't want to limit myself to 90% VG options in the future.

So, my questions are, is there really a wrong answer between nude and MFS if you take price out of the equation? Does either seem to have an advantage over the other irt quality for long term storage? Lastly, is there any disadvantage irt preserving quality by freezing 100% VG? I've read conflicting posts about which base does best for long term storage. My opinion from what I've read is that PG is better but my opinion isn't confident.

TIA!

 

[Cyrus Vap]

Hey Bob I'll try my best

PG vs. VG: If you end up at 50/50 the only question left to ask is, which one stores better long term. As you said there is a bit of conflicting information out there. When it comes to these matters I defer to Kurt, so I do what he says...store in VG

MFS. vs. Nude: Based on my recent comparison they're both fantastic (thank you mingi). I find the MFS a little more intense, which I prefer.

As far as purity/quality goes, I won't pretend to interpret the numbers accurately that are up on MFS and Nude's website. But they're both very clean as far as I can tell.

What I will say is MFS was presenting purity data long before anyone was (as far as I know), and now given they're above disclosure regarding nicotine manufacture for me they're totally ahead of the game in regards to transparency. This is the kind of disclosure some of us have been shouting for, for a long time. No its not complete and total, but its as close as it gets right now.

Nude has also been on the ball since day one (I think) and has had COA available.

My guess is you won't be missing much of anything either way. If you really want to get into the insanity that is unflavored nicotine and your preferences for it, you'd have to order a bit of both and do some comparisons .

 

[Stoneface]

^^^This is one of the reasons it is so good to see you posting again, CV

 

[Bob Chill]

Thanks CV. My lazy .... finally got around to getting on the WL notify list. I only need 2 more liters to finish my master plan. I'm going to wait for maybe till Wed tops and if WL is still out then I think I'm going to go ahead and get 2L's from MFS in 100% VG. I already have 2 in PG as it is. MFS has a decent deal on a 2 liter buy. Puts the price just about in line with everyone else. Honestly, it's not really about price for me. $20-40 bucks shouldn't be a deciding factor for a 5 year plan.

I like MFS nic too. I don't mind the extra punch at all. I mostly vape 8-12mg anyways and my circle that I mix for are all 18mg and like it to have some kick. Since I've already ordered from MFS and I was pleased I can't find a compelling reason to go anywhere else at this point. Well, unless the elusive WL allows me to finally join the party.

Thanks again!

 

[Cyrus Vap]

I didn't want to muddy the waters, but here I am with a bucket...sorry friends ;(

This is from a recent post by royalgate in the ECF library area

The main issue currently is the biodiesel byproduct problem; specifically the jatropha plant issue. Biodiesel production involves the use of multiple plant sources and these include jatropha in the modern era. Glycerine is produced as a by-product, along with diesel fuel. The problem is that jatropha is toxic to humans: its esters are carcinogenic.

For this reason biodiesel by-product glycerine absolutely MUST NOT be used for vaping-use glycerine. However this is easier said than done: no one really knows if this condition has been met unless the finished retail product is tested for the carcinogenic phorbol esters of the jatropha plant. As hardly any e-liquid vendors either test properly [4], or know how to test for this contaminant in any case, it is a genuine and serious issue.

The FDA have warned about this and a web search reveals multiple resources, including:
http://www.fda.gov/InternationalProg.../ucm311479.htm


How to obtain jatropha-free glycerine
Because the supply chain in the e-liquid world is based on word of mouth ("My supplier told me this is the highest quality") and overseas certificates of dubious quality, it is impossible to eliminate the possibility of contaminated glycerine unless (a) a reliable test certificate is presented, or (b) the source is unimpeachable.

A 'reliable test certificate' is not one that originates overseas, it comes from a nationally-accredited testing laboratory in your country, and it states specifically on it that jatropha was one of the contaminants tested for. Alternatively a reliable source is needed, such as a pharmaceutical supplier who can provide (not tell you about) pharmaceutical licenses for inhalation duty; the safest at this time is probably Dow Chemical's Optim product, a synthetic glycerine of about 99.9% purity (nothing is 'pure'; the contaminant here is likely to be water). This has multiple licenses for inhalation and Dow advise its use for medical inhalation in preference to their pharma grade PG (which used to be the most popular for e.g. asthma inhalers, but is now losing out to glycerine as there is no drying-out of the throat and upper lung area that some experience with PG).

E-liquid manufacturers can obtain Dow Optim in 4-gallon containers in the USA. It is not cheap - but there is no good, cheap e-liquid since this is impossible (testing is expensive and/or good materials are expensive, and qualified chemists are expensive to employ).

A practical alternative, to be used until such time as manufacturers provide full test details or are regulated by government in order to prevent the inclusion of contaminants (very likely and probably desirable if the industry will not solve the problem themselves), is to obtain your glycerine-based e-liquid from a manufacturer with a multi-million turnover and a very good reputation. This is because (a) regular full testing is expensive and small-scale vendors simply cannot afford it unless they are members of a trade association that handles the testing for them at a discount, and (b) a large-scale vendor with a very good reputation that would be completely destroyed if they were exposed for selling contaminated materials is a good bet, since they will probably be taking steps to ensure such an incident does not occur as they have a lot to lose.


Conclusion
Inhalation of acrolein is unlikely to be a problem, for practical reasons, together with the fact that people will be aware they are inhaling smoke not vapour. It is impossible to remove trace contaminants, but these are not seen as clinically significant here since they are universally present in all consumer products and impossible to remove completely.

Lab tests that show quantities of acrolein just above the trace level are very likely indeed to have been conducted using protocols that do not represent normal usage. There is a sufficient evidence of this, and in contrast for correctly-run tests that did not produce such a result, that such results can be ignored as not having relevance to normal use by a human operator.

Maximum risk reduction is something that many people will consider pointless, although it may be of interest to some. For example, it seems unlikely that any contamination of e-liquid within normal parameters could be expected to elevate risk beyond about 99% less than that of smoking; it seems a reasonable bet that no matter what level of contaminants is present, within a reasonable range, vaping cannot be anything other than so much safer than smoking that there is no comparison. On the other hand it is equally possible that vaping could be made 10,000 times safer than smoking, assuming you felt it worth the trouble of examining every factor for risk and then taking steps to reduce any perceived elevation of risk.

I don't know what kind of VG is being used by any of the nicotine vendors being discussed here. I know that my VG stash is proctor and gamble, and that PnG issued a statement regarding the above, basically stating that their supply chain is clear of any potential risk.

http://www.pgchemicals.com/2012/07/pg-chemicals-glycerin-and-the-fda-jatropha-notification/

I was personally going to query the next vendor I purchase VG nic from regarding this. Anyone else have relevant info here?

 

[Jimi D.]

Same here Cyrus, P&G for me always.

 

[Stoneface]

OK, I'm unsure as to the initial manufacturer of my VG/PG stock. I bought from Essential Depot...safe? Unsafe? Thoughts, please?

(And where is PnG found, please???)

 

[Jimi D.]

Amazon.com: Propylene Glycol - Food Grade USP - 1 Quart (32 Oz.): Health & Personal Care

 

[Stoneface]

Amazon.com: Propylene Glycol - Food Grade USP - 1 Quart (32 Oz.): Health & Personal Care

You're the best, thanks much!

 

[Bob Chill]

Now you guys gave me rethinking buying my nic in vg base. How do I know it's not the questionable kind?

 

[Stoneface]

Now you guys gave me rethinking buying my nic in vg base. How do I know it's not the questionable kind?

Ah crap....good point! I was so concerned with my DIY stock that I didn't think about the nic base. . . .

 

[djslik]

Couple of questions
1. Is this a safe brand of VG Amazon.com: Vegetable Glycerine Kosher USP - 1 Quart (32 Oz.): Everything Else
2. Does PG base preserve NIC better than VG for long term storage

 

[Cyrus Vap]

Bob that's a great question. I think the thing to do is ask MFS to chime in on this, hopefully Dustin will see the discussion and pop in. Proctor and Gamble is kind of hard to find, or hard to find a vendor that will actually verify thT they're selling proctor and gamble VG

As far as I'm aware the two options right now for PnG VG are ecigexpress and froggys fog, but I haven't looked in a while