Nicotine Comparisons

[Rocketman]

Saw that the other day. That is a good thing all nic vendors should do.
Did you notice anything odd in the nic MSDS posted on the same page?

MSDS sheets are nice to keep OSHA off your back in the plant, but for the DIYer mean little. An employer must provide access to chemical exposure data to employees per OCHA HCS.
Did anyone notice the dates on the NIC COA, the PG COA, and the VG COA?


and a repeat of a previous question. Where do all these other brands come from?

RTS, WL, and MFS sell to other vendors. BE seems to be back in business and I guess they are selling to other juice vendors. So it is quite possible to take 3 different bottles of nic base, from different sources, come up with different results, and they come from the same exact source.

 

[wolcen]

Saw that the other day. That is a good thing all nic vendors should do.
Did you notice anything odd in the nic MSDS posted on the same page?

I may not be the biggest fan of RTS, but I 100% agree with that and applaud their doing this. All nic suppliers should be sharing their COA IMHO (and juice vendors tracking all LOT#'s etc). I even liked Randy's post sharing the COA.

Only thing I'd really want to see on the COA (well, aside from the testing facility) is a test date. I'm relatively certain they don't post ALL their COA's, but it's a definite step in the right direction.

I'm not finding what's odd about the MSDS on their site. Help me out with that one? Looks like the typical L-Nic MSDS to my untrained eyes.

 

[wolcen]

-Fish odor when warm.?

LOL - you know, I came this close to including that. Most MSDS's state that as the characteristic odor, and I've brought it up a few times that RTS nic, to me, does not smell like other nics but more "earthy" (sorry - still haven't figured out a better term). Not necessarily bad, but still rather different than other nics for sure and not at all "characteristic" IMO.

 

[casey8579]

I'm not finding what's odd about the MSDS on their site. Help me out with that one? Looks like the typical L-Nic MSDS to my untrained eyes.

The posted MSDS uses European hazardous material designations and Regulatory information instead of U.S. info. Since this is an U.S. manufactured product, it just struck me as odd.

**** SECTION 2 - COMPOSITION, INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS ****
.....snipped
Hazard Symbols: T+
Risk Phrases: 25 27

**** SECTION 15 - REGULATORY INFORMATION ****
European/International Regulations
European Labeling in Accordance with EC Directives
Hazard Symbols: T+
Risk Phrases:
R 25 Toxic if swallowed.
R 27 Very toxic in contact with skin.
......snipped

 

[Rocketman]

As a manufacturer/ employer (of more than family members) of a hazardous material, I'm sure this is a 'first cut' to meet occupational requirements. Lots of govment rules to follow.
I've seen MSDS sheets with revision after revision.

You know, 4 more years of govment interference of small businesses just trying to make a profit. Next thing you know they (the govment) will even come up with rules to protect the consumer. Maybe they could call it something like 'The Consumer Protection Agency' with government employees getting free health care and a retirement program.
Maybe the next administration will do away with all this expensive red tape

 

[Cyrus Vap]

It is a *great* thing, that why we should all keep asking for COAs! Barely a start IMO, but step one is further along the path then step zero

That said I have some thoughts but too much to type on my phone, see ya later buddies

 

[Jimi D.]

Here is where he found the MSDS sheet! LOL Erowid Nicotine Vault : Nicotine Material Safety Data Sheet 2 This was revised in 1997

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylpyrrolidone I wouldn't want to be vaping this chemical.

 

[Cyrus Vap]

COA is a great thing. But its barely a first step. And I only know of two companies now that have the COA displayed on their webpage.

Does the COA tell us anything about what ends up in our bottles and arrives at our door step?

Not trying to flame. Its laudable on the part of MFS and RTS to post this, but not quite as comforting as I'd like it to be.

As said previously the European standards on the MSDS are kind of strange, but perhaps not a big deal?

Another concern I have is, how difficult is it to forge a COA? And who would check to verify it? Do we want such regulation anyway? I'm honestly not sure I would, but maybe.

The document on the MFS page seems to be a scan of paper, with part of a red stamp (in chinese?) on the bottom left corner. I know its naive, but a scanned 'hard copy' actually makes me feel a bit more safe. Just a bit lol. Half a stamp doesn't identify the testing facility, well maybe half way.

Is the RTS document an original? Either way there is no identification of the testing facility or mark that seems officiating.

And why go through the trouble of posting this document and not produce something that lends credence to the "U.S.A" claim? Would it really be that hard? If RTS truly has an exclusive contract with the DOD to produce nic in the U.S., what is there to fear?

I'm a little confused by the pH specifications: 6-7? Really?

Maybe RTS nic is uniquely acidic? Nicotine absorption across biologic membranes is actually promoted by and facilitated by alkalinity. Maybe this is why we're finding it weak? Purely speculating, I lack the chemical chops to work this out. For one, I have no idea what the pH listed on that document amounts to, even less of an idea what the functional pH of our final inhaled vapor is.

Sorry I didn't note the other thread with the price comparisons. Here I was thinking the mild mannered and suave cool_breeze was really a hot headed rabble rousing fire brand

 

[Jimi D.]

This is what an American COA looks like. This nicotine is used for insecticide. http://www.cerilliant.com/ShopOnlin...3c65-4968-9c08-02e0ccd01a67&lotno=FN092410-01

 

[Rocketman]

Is the RTS document an original?

Of course it's an original. When you get a COA from another company, you have no choice but to photocopy it, but when you produce the material, you have to generate your own COA. Why is that so odd?

and when you produce your own COA you can later edit out mistakes. It's not like it's a 'Legal Document' is it?

The Latest COA has the Lot number, date, and one word ("when properly stored properly" changed to "when properly stored") removed from the previously posted COA.
All the numbers are exactly the same so no data was changed.
This is either an edited COA or Batch-to Batch consistency has been taken to a new level.

With no lot number and no date the COA should last forever

 

[Cyrus Vap]

and when you produce your own COA you can later edit out mistakes. It's not like it's a 'Legal Document' is it?

I honestly don't know, hence my ranting

Of course it's an original.

Why? I'm assuming you're saying "originally produced by RTS," see my question below.

When you get a COA from another company, you have no choice but to photocopy it, but when you produce the material, you have to generate your own COA. Why is that so odd?

I'm not sure I understand. Doesn't an 'other' party generate the COA? At the bottom it says:

ANALYSIS SERVICES PERFORMED FOR:
RTS Vapes - a Division of RTS Leasing, LLC, USA

I thought product was sent to an independent lab for analysis?

 

[Cyrus Vap]

With no lot number and no date the COA should last forever

so you can re-use the COA on a new batch without having it re tested? :::

 

[casey8579]

COA is a great thing. But its barely a first step. And I only know of two companies now that have the COA displayed on their webpage.

Box Elder also posts COA and test data on their site. Here.

Does the COA tell us anything about what ends up in our bottles and arrives at our door step?

It helps, it does give you more information on the ingredients in the liquid. Beyond that this is where what you know about the vendor and how much you trust them comes in.

As said previously the European standards on the MSDS are kind of strange, but perhaps not a big deal?

OSHA or the DOT might think so.

If RTS truly has an exclusive contract with the DOD to produce nic in the U.S., what is there to fear?

DOD = ?, Dept of Defense? Not familiar with this claim, when was it made?

 

[Rocketman]

No,
just no need to go and update the on-line file.
That has to be a pain in the neck.
With no date on the file (except embedded in the pdf) it will never 'look' old.
The DOW COA for the PG looks old.

 

[Cyrus Vap]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...moG4DA&usg=AFQjCNHBnKSIl9wG8AmKLSSajHqkd-f_fA

interesting read, see the Table at the end for a summary

 

[casey8579]

Of course it's an original. When you get a COA from another company, you have no choice but to photocopy it, but when you produce the material, you have to generate your own COA. Why is that so odd?

Is that the case here? As I understand it RTS subcontracts the extraction to a lab somewhere, not actually producing the material themselves. If that is the case then shouldn't the producing lab be providing the coa?

 

[Rocketman]

Then who edited it?

 

[Cyrus Vap]

based on the table at the end of that pdf it would seem both MFS and RTS are lacking, at least in what they are showing us?

casey:

Box Elder also posts COA and test data on their site

Good to know! Maybe we need to add #8 to the round up

It helps, it does give you more information on the ingredients in the liquid. Beyond that this is where what you know about the vendor and how much you trust them comes in.

exactly. all I know is, if I prescribe a patient 100 mg of X and it actually has 50/50 mgs of Y and Z, something bad will happen, clinically and legally. is there such consequence for a COA not matching an end product?

OSHA or the DOT might think so.

good point

DOD = ?, Dept of Defense? Not familiar with this claim, when was it made?

read it a little while back when I was first exploring the RTS thread before I had gotten my nic. I'll find the quote.

thank you friends for discussing this with me, my head is a bit thick when it comes to legal and bureaucratic things Typical musician/philosopher/doctor...

 

[Cyrus Vap]

NICOTINE MANUFACTURED IN THE USA

The Department of Defense, 2 cigarette companies and RTS Vapes are the only entities known to manufacture liquid nicotine in the USA. Ask the FDA. This was a true statement.

see post #1130

in fact, scroll back a few posts, and read forward a few pages for unbeatable comedy

 

[wolcen]

No,
just no need to go and update the on-line file.
That has to be a pain in the neck.
With no date on the file (except embedded in the pdf) it will never 'look' old.
The DOW COA for the PG looks old.

Preface: all speculation on my part; I effectively "know" nothing.

It can't be that much of a pain to do once every year or so if it can be assumed that the PG COA having both an effective and supercedes date defines how often they get a lot of PG. I'm assuming they manufacture/obtain a bulk lot that lasts them ~15 months from supercedes to effective and then they will have a new COA. So, yeah, maybe "old" but only just overdue for the next one, no?

Another question: would the effective date be the start date for the shelf-life of two years?