So - are we getting it or are we not - nicotine
- Thread starter trog100
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Naw, my procedure was quite a bit more "scientific" than that.
The strainer was a beaker with glass wool over it, the cauldron was a separatory funnel, and the stew was tobacco extract with the appropriate solvents. But I did stir it with a broom, if that makes you feel better.
Yeh, Mom used to do that, too. Helps to build my confidence in you.
I wonder sometimes if some of the folks here actually read (or at least browse) the entire thread?
I would say that many would tune a good portion of it out. You have done an excellent job simplifying but; MOA inhibitors, USP, the effects of MOAIs, and extraction processes aren't exactly taught outside of certain technical fields... Basically to follow the entire thread you would need to know more than the common bear about chemistry and clinical psychology/pharmacology.
Anyhow.... several years ago RJRt and PM (Big tobacco companies) released two products that were safer smoking devices. One electronically warmed tobacco in glycerin while another used a rather unique "lit" heater to do the same. As far as I know the PM product can no longer be obtained easily but several stores do still carry the RJRt (I suspect they may be back-stock that is just sitting there) product.... The long and the short was I obtained a supply of the RJRt Eclipse product and wanted to see if vaping + this product would curb the crave. It in fact did curb the crave (So I wouldn't count Co out completely).
But for the non-chemist out there Snus Juice (Something you could probably make at home easily- search youtube for it) and the soaking Snus in glycerin and putting it in your E-Cig should work similar to the RJRt/PM products...
More or less the proposal is looking at a cleaner version of what the tobacco companies did but not to produce such a clean extracted product as is found in the Nicotine E-Fluid or other NRTs, which is hypothesized to be so clean that the other Alkaloids, critical to curb the addiction other than Nicotine, have also been removed .
Last edited:
Twisted,
Congrats on the drop. Big step down.
Might be a week to regulate your system, but hang on if you can.
Toenails are dug in, lost all the fingernails, but still hanging ok. Thanks for the supportive words. I don't think my wife likes me anymore and the dog keeps growling move.
It is no less 'clean' or less pure !
This is completely different from soaking some snus in VG, PGA and distilled water.
Extracting all the alkaloids (and nothing else) can be done to a high level of purity. So people don't get the wrong idea, this is not a less pure extraction - it is just as pure, but extracting a range rather than a single element. Can be done just as precisely.
By clean I mean a more exact extraction without anything we don't want... it is currently unknown exactly which Alkaloids are wanted... or if there is another synergistic, additive, or potentiating interaction by some other of the 4,000 chemicals in the tobacco smoke. My money, with the Ruyan HealthNz results, is that there is some potentiating interaction...
We know we don't want the tar and a bunch of the carcinogens in tobacco.
Anyhow they (RJRT and the Goberment FDA) tested the Eclipse and the harm profile, if used correctly, was reduced by an estimated 70%. The problem with it was that the heat applied was dependent on how hard the user drew on the device. The deeper the draw the hotter it became- hot enough to burn the glycerin in the device.... releasing carcinogens.... there were very few indicators that the user could use to tell that they were drawing to hard. Anyhow soaking the Snus in VG and using a PV that has more control over the max temperature should result in the same harm reduction profile. Likewise making Snus Juice should also result in this same harm profile assuming the user does not heat the VG beyond the optimal temperature.
We know we don't want the tar and a bunch of the carcinogens in tobacco.
Anyhow they (RJRT and the Goberment FDA) tested the Eclipse and the harm profile, if used correctly, was reduced by an estimated 70%. The problem with it was that the heat applied was dependent on how hard the user drew on the device. The deeper the draw the hotter it became- hot enough to burn the glycerin in the device.... releasing carcinogens.... there were very few indicators that the user could use to tell that they were drawing to hard. Anyhow soaking the Snus in VG and using a PV that has more control over the max temperature should result in the same harm reduction profile. Likewise making Snus Juice should also result in this same harm profile assuming the user does not heat the VG beyond the optimal temperature.
Last edited:
What I have done is taken advantage of the behavior of alkaloids in solution and their solubility characteristics at low vs high pH. At acidic (low) pH, they form water soluble salts, at basic (high) pH, they form organic soluble unprotonated bases. By sending the alkaloids back and forth between the aqueous and organic phases everything else gets left behind in the phase that does not contain the alkaloids. Most components of tobacco do not behave like alkaloids, and can be trapped in one or the other of the discard phases. By sending the alkaloids back and forth between the acid and base state multiple times, a high purity is achieved. Of course, ultra high purity solvents are required as well. It wouldn't do to pick up paint stripper or brush cleaning fluid at the hardware store.
What I have are certainly the tobacco alkaloids, probably the entire spread, along with any other basic material that would partition to the organic phase versus water... so I imagine the TSNA's are still there, but they are also present in eliquids, patches, gums, etc.
Have I characterized the extraction product completely? No.
Is there anything in the extract that's not in tobacco? No.
Is there anything in tobacco that's not in the extract? Damned nearly everything.
So, you're probably asking, "How is it? Have you vaped it?". Well, first of all, FDA... you're welcome to bite it. I'm not doing anything illegal, at least not yet, you conflict-of-interest addled hypocrites. I could have put together a better study than you guys did while I was still in school.
Now where was I?
Oh, I exhaustively removed the solvent remnants, and mixed the alkaloids down to 22.5 mg/mL in 50/50 PG/VG, probably around 20 mg/mL nicotine and 2.5 mg/mL other tobacco alkaloids. The liquid is clear at this level. Vaping this on a 3.6 volt Chuck (actually 4.1 volts), it hits the throat like a velvet glove (wrapped around an anvil). The throat hit is very much like an analog, impressively like an analog!
I really should have mixed it down to 12 - 15 mg/mL to match my normal vaping level. Still, the throat hit would be fantastic compared to normal eliquid.
Lately, I've vaped about 2.5 mL of 12 mg eliquid per day (30 mg nicotine). After 2 days with the alkaloid liquid, I've vaped 1.8 mL out of the 3 mL I made in advance of the rest. That's 18 mg of nicotine/day compared to my regular 30 mg nicotine/day. I usually vape my 2.5 mL/day of regular eliquid like clockwork. So why I am I suddenly vaping only 60% of the nicotine I normally do? Am I getting... something else?
I'm not one of those folks who don't get any satisfaction from vaping, so I'm not the best person to evaluate if this stuff provides what seems to be missing for many people. I will say that this stuff mellows me out, I enjoy it much more than regular liquid, and I vape less of it. Placebo effect due to me wanting it to work?
I do believe that if somebody could competently produce and market full alkaloid e-liquid, they could make a bundle. Does this raise new concerns over what we'd get from such a liquid? Or course, but still, there's nothing present that folks don't already get via analogs along with those 4,000 other compounds. Would the FDA go apoplectic to learn that folks who are hopelessly addicted to analogs might find such a liquid to do the trick? I believe they would. This would not fit in well with their "Quit or die" mentality.
I've been following this thread since trog first started it DVap. This last post is a dilly!
You are expecting offers of guinea pigs no doubt? And remember, the black helicopters are quiet!
You are expecting offers of guinea pigs no doubt? And remember, the black helicopters are quiet!
Dvap, my hero. Sounds as if maybe you've brewed (do I dare say?) an actual replacement for cigarettes...mmmm. This could lead to trouble if the secret gets out. I'm so excited I think I was able to feel your mellowness. We need to keep this under wraps. I'll search e-bay for a long fire hose and we could bury it between your house and mine and nobody has to know. Somebody needs to delete this thread.
Shhh! Someone might hear us.
Shhh! Someone might hear us.
Actually with the lower temps and no combustion the 4000 should be greatly reduced.
It does sound like something they'd prefer to not let out.
The unit getting hotter by draw......hmmmmmm......burning glycerine to harmful temps.
I take it you mean acrolein.
There is a way to control that. It's called a hole. Of a given size of course.
A critical orfice. Won't matter how hard you suck, only so much can pass through.
Easy to make the harder draw reduce the "hole" size too.........
Wonder why they didn't think of that?
I'm no rocket scientist.
Why would they worry abt a little acrolein when they are allowing 3,999 other things?
I have a tendency to step in when dirt is quiet
It does sound like something they'd prefer to not let out.
The unit getting hotter by draw......hmmmmmm......burning glycerine to harmful temps.
I take it you mean acrolein.
There is a way to control that. It's called a hole. Of a given size of course.
A critical orfice. Won't matter how hard you suck, only so much can pass through.
Easy to make the harder draw reduce the "hole" size too.........
Wonder why they didn't think of that?
I'm no rocket scientist.
Why would they worry abt a little acrolein when they are allowing 3,999 other things?
I have a tendency to step in when dirt is quiet
And I'm going to stay quiet. Busy holding on by fingernails along with Twisted.
None of this isolation of specific alkaloids and the role they play has been researched, documented previously? Or it just wasn't deemed cost effective to pursue as long as we were content with smoke?
I will now resume my quiet state till next needed.
None of this isolation of specific alkaloids and the role they play has been researched, documented previously? Or it just wasn't deemed cost effective to pursue as long as we were content with smoke?
I will now resume my quiet state till next needed.
And I'm going to stay quiet. Busy holding on by fingernails along with Twisted.
None of this isolation of specific alkaloids and the role they play has been researched, documented previously? Or it just wasn't deemed cost effective to pursue as long as we were content with smoke?
I will now resume my quiet state till next needed.
Maybe they never thought to look at it from a smokers standpoint. Then, again, maybe the Chinese are.
And I'm going to stay quiet. Busy holding on by fingernails along with Twisted.
Move over a little, could ya. My elbow's stuck in your shoe. Snus smells good, though.
Oh.they know they are there and what they do. They've admitted to changing them for effect.
It takes some net surfing , but there are partial lists posted of additives. Start looking them up and thier effects. What they form and the way they interact is listed in some online reports. That's what they let out. Makes you wonder what they didn't.
Over cooking them...........I couldn't venture a guess.
The latest is a fire ......ent in the paper. Someone found the report and its on You Tube showing a RYO and a standard analog. It will not stay lit unless puffed fairly regular.
Supposed to help prevent fires from falling asleep with them.
Glad I'm off analogs........my lungs didnt need put out or any more of thier help.
It takes some net surfing , but there are partial lists posted of additives. Start looking them up and thier effects. What they form and the way they interact is listed in some online reports. That's what they let out. Makes you wonder what they didn't.
Over cooking them...........I couldn't venture a guess.
The latest is a fire ......ent in the paper. Someone found the report and its on You Tube showing a RYO and a standard analog. It will not stay lit unless puffed fairly regular.
Supposed to help prevent fires from falling asleep with them.
Glad I'm off analogs........my lungs didnt need put out or any more of thier help.
A pizza, say, is not much of a pizza if it's only dough, even if that is the main part. E-liquids followed the error of NRT products in just equating smoking with nicotine. As one can tell from the words of DVap, the sister alkaloids might be small in quantity, but important for the roundness. Just as seasoning makes the pizza.
And DVap's not (he said) even in the 'something missing' group! Perhaps even the those who can get by with just nic, will 'get by' better with the 'real thing'.
While there's a big difference in effect, the difference in composition is small, and all from tobacco, to replace tobacco. There should be no opposition; actually it should be welcome - a more effective alternative to smoking.
As I said before, this should pass testing for unreasonable toxicity just the same (no worse than NRTs, and that's 100s times better than analogs), so no problem.
However, obviously it would be wise to make the small change to e-liquid formulation as soon as possible so it is accepted from the off, and doesn't need to be won in a second battle (if it does work out that way); if it did come to a battle, just do the test that shows that vapers of multi-alkaloids vape less, and more of them stay off the smokes.
From a regulatory point of view there's no difference between the two, but any change in composition might require a re-submission; so let's get the changes made now.
The FDA, just like any other organisation, is not homogenous. We need to work with all people who are willing to listen, and win the argument with science and logic and cool-heads.
edit : have now published an article on this here :
New reasearch shows promise for improved e-liquid
DVap - Let me know if / how you'd like to be credited / mentioned.
And DVap's not (he said) even in the 'something missing' group! Perhaps even the those who can get by with just nic, will 'get by' better with the 'real thing'.
While there's a big difference in effect, the difference in composition is small, and all from tobacco, to replace tobacco. There should be no opposition; actually it should be welcome - a more effective alternative to smoking.
As I said before, this should pass testing for unreasonable toxicity just the same (no worse than NRTs, and that's 100s times better than analogs), so no problem.
However, obviously it would be wise to make the small change to e-liquid formulation as soon as possible so it is accepted from the off, and doesn't need to be won in a second battle (if it does work out that way); if it did come to a battle, just do the test that shows that vapers of multi-alkaloids vape less, and more of them stay off the smokes.
From a regulatory point of view there's no difference between the two, but any change in composition might require a re-submission; so let's get the changes made now.
The FDA, just like any other organisation, is not homogenous. We need to work with all people who are willing to listen, and win the argument with science and logic and cool-heads.
edit : have now published an article on this here :
New reasearch shows promise for improved e-liquid
DVap - Let me know if / how you'd like to be credited / mentioned.
Last edited:
Well, to say that no-one has produced this is incorrect. No one has done it commercially, but I have finished the extraction and complete removal of solvent to produce a copper brown liquid of exceptional clarity that has a density of 1.00 (nicotine, presumably 90% of what is present has a density of 1.01). It will be mixed with 50:50 USP PG/VG to a final volume of 15.0 mL, resulting in 15 mL of a liquid that is 28 mg/mL in tobacco alkaloids and presumably 25.2 mg/mL in nicotine (using the assumption that nicotine represents 90% of the tobacco alkaloid spread), or to put it another way, the liquid will be 25.2 mg/mL in nicotine, and 2.8 mg/mL in non-nicotine tobacco alkaloids.
kin, feel free to refer to it as proof of concept research. Hell, come up with an abstract if you want, just run it by me first. Obviously it would be good to characterize the alkaloids, but as I'm not going to misuse the GCMS equipment at my disposal (turning it to non-approved use), I'm not going to be the person paying for that characterization! As for credit, I'm not big on having my name in lights, so I'll be happy to remain, "A U.S. chemist".
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
