study : Flavoring Chemicals in E-Cigarettes: Diacetyl, 2,3-Pentanedione......

[Cargo]

re: released today Dec 8, 2015
EHP – Flavoring Chemicals in E-Cigarettes: Diacetyl, 2,3-Pentanedione, and Acetoin in a Sample of 51 Products, Including Fruit-, Candy-, and Cocktail-Flavored E-Cigarettes


Flavoring Chemicals in E-Cigarettes: Diacetyl, 2,3-Pentanedione, and Acetoin in a Sample of 51 Products, Including Fruit-, Candy-, and Cocktail-Flavored E-Cigarettes.
Joseph G. Allen, Skye S. Flanigan, Mallory LeBlanc, Jose Vallarino, Piers MacNaughton, James H. Stewart, and David C. Christiani
Author Affiliations
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

funding by:
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
www.niehs.nih.gov/


My understanding was that the Diacetyl scare was old news and that most reputable vendors claim their products are Diacetyl free by now.

I tried to find the source of original funding of this study to see if it was sponsored by big tobacco lobbyists or similar organizations with competing interests to e-cigarettes. I sent out a number of emails hoping for some transparency but would be interested to know if anyone can shed some light on this in the short term.

My concern is that regardless of its neutrality the article fails to comment on the harm reduction aspect of e-cigarettes regardless of whether or not they contain levels of chemicals like Diacetyl.

It is from the Harvard Chan School of Communications which gives it some credence but I'm interested in other peoples thoughts on whether or not this is an unbiased study.

I find it disconcerting that the brand names of the offending e-liquids are not disclosed and it serves to brand all manufacturers guilty by association.

comments???

 

[Seraph87]

This came across my facebook feed and prompted me to actually make an account here this morning. Before I started vaping last year, I came here to read up on the dangers and until recently had only ordered juice from a vendor that posted independent lab reports verifying their flavors were diacetyl or diketone free (or below dangerous levels). I figured I could loosen that restriction as most vendors should have moved on by now and have been dabbling in non-tested flavors. In light of that bit of backstory:

There are some concerning things in this study. Mainly, flavors which aren't generally thought to contain these compounds testing positive for their presence. Just because vendors are making claims, or not talking about it, doesn't mean there isn't possibly danger there.

That's about it actually.

The trouble I have with this study is that there isn't enough information in the paper to make a judgement about the dangers of the products and yet its being blasted about as proof that anyone who vapes will be developing bronchiolitis obliterans.

The paper reports total mass of these compounds within a cartridge or (it seems like) cig-a-like after its been put through a smoking machine. It fails to report the total volume of the samples in which that concentration is distributed. Without that information, its not possible to know a parts per million value for these compounds for comparison to any kind of safety standard, like those referenced in the paper.

I am also bothered by the lack or brand naming such that it looks to those who panic easily, that all e-cigs and vape vendors are in the same boat.

For-fun assumptions past this point:

The highest concentration they found was Peach Schnapps at 238.9 micrograms/e-cig (a serious outlier compared to others; no others surpass 50 micrograms) which converts up to .2839 miligrams per. If we assume a single Liter of air to be the mixture in which that concentration is distributed, that gives us .2839 ppm, which would be above the 8 hour occupational exposure levels referenced in the paper. Quiet human male breathing runs around .5 L of air per breath (inhale and exhale cycle). So if you emptied this cig-a-like in two breaths, you'd be well above "safe" exposure. Blu e-cigs (they stock this flavor) rates a cartridge at around 550 puffs which if we equate to breaths would land us around 225 L of air in which that same .2839 mg was distributed or somewhere in the ballpark of .00126ppm or well below the 8-hour exposure limits. Further, that exposure limit is based off constant exposure for 8 hours (from working in an enclosed room) while vaping is an activity that does not (for most) occur constantly over spans that long.

Again, this last bit is wild speculation without actual volume measurements from the study (which is why the study is almost meaningless) but if anyone notes any issues in my math or conversions please point them out.

 

[Rabbit Slayer]

"Methods: We selected 51 types of flavored e-cigarettes sold by leading e-cigarette brands and flavors we deemed were appealing to youth"

Stopped reading at that point

 

[ReigntheGamer]

 

[herb]

My understanding was that the Diacetyl scare was old news and that most reputable vendors claim their products are Diacetyl free by now.

Your understanding is very very wrong , it is as widespread as ever .

Never trust a vendors word .

 

[EBates]

re: released today Dec 8, 2015
EHP – Flavoring Chemicals in E-Cigarettes: Diacetyl, 2,3-Pentanedione, and Acetoin in a Sample of 51 Products, Including Fruit-, Candy-, and Cocktail-Flavored E-Cigarettes


Flavoring Chemicals in E-Cigarettes: Diacetyl, 2,3-Pentanedione, and Acetoin in a Sample of 51 Products, Including Fruit-, Candy-, and Cocktail-Flavored E-Cigarettes.
Joseph G. Allen, Skye S. Flanigan, Mallory LeBlanc, Jose Vallarino, Piers MacNaughton, James H. Stewart, and David C. Christiani
Author Affiliations
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

funding by:
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
www.niehs.nih.gov/


My understanding was that the Diacetyl scare was old news and that most reputable vendors claim their products are Diacetyl free by now.

I tried to find the source of original funding of this study to see if it was sponsored by big tobacco lobbyists or similar organizations with competing interests to e-cigarettes. I sent out a number of emails hoping for some transparency but would be interested to know if anyone can shed some light on this in the short term.

My concern is that regardless of its neutrality the article fails to comment on the harm reduction aspect of e-cigarettes regardless of whether or not they contain levels of chemicals like Diacetyl.

It is from the Harvard Chan School of Communications which gives it some credence but I'm interested in other peoples thoughts on whether or not this is an unbiased study.

I find it disconcerting that the brand names of the offending e-liquids are not disclosed and it serves to brand all manufacturers guilty by association.

comments???

Buy me a car and I'll drive you where you want to go.
Or
OMG SAVE THE CHILLUN!!!
Or
Throw them e-cigs down and have a Real Smoke. (we need the tax bucks)
Or
Chemicals In E-Cigs!!!! We All Gonna Die!!!
More Govment Propaganda! Really?

 

[Chuck64]

I hear cigarettes are kinda bad for you too.

 

[Ottefrep]

The study wasn't blinded, nor was there a control, i.e.."non flavored e-cigs." We know these chemicals are harmful but we don't know in what concentrations, or for what length of exposure.

 

[Mazinny]

This came across my facebook feed and prompted me to actually make an account here this morning. Before I started vaping last year, I came here to read up on the dangers and until recently had only ordered juice from a vendor that posted independent lab reports verifying their flavors were diacetyl or diketone free (or below dangerous levels). I figured I could loosen that restriction as most vendors should have moved on by now and have been dabbling in non-tested flavors. In light of that bit of backstory:

There are some concerning things in this study. Mainly, flavors which aren't generally thought to contain these compounds testing positive for their presence. Just because vendors are making claims, or not talking about it, doesn't mean there isn't possibly danger there.

That's about it actually.

The trouble I have with this study is that there isn't enough information in the paper to make a judgement about the dangers of the products and yet its being blasted about as proof that anyone who vapes will be developing bronchiolitis obliterans.

The paper reports total mass of these compounds within a cartridge or (it seems like) cig-a-like after its been put through a smoking machine. It fails to report the total volume of the samples in which that concentration is distributed. Without that information, its not possible to know a parts per million value for these compounds for comparison to any kind of safety standard, like those referenced in the paper.

I am also bothered by the lack or brand naming such that it looks to those who panic easily, that all e-cigs and vape vendors are in the same boat.

For-fun assumptions past this point:

The highest concentration they found was Peach Schnapps at 238.9 micrograms/e-cig (a serious outlier compared to others; no others surpass 50 micrograms) which converts up to .2839 miligrams per. If we assume a single Liter of air to be the mixture in which that concentration is distributed, that gives us .2839 ppm, which would be above the 8 hour occupational exposure levels referenced in the paper. Quiet human male breathing runs around .5 L of air per breath (inhale and exhale cycle). So if you emptied this cig-a-like in two breaths, you'd be well above "safe" exposure. Blu e-cigs (they stock this flavor) rates a cartridge at around 550 puffs which if we equate to breaths would land us around 225 L of air in which that same .2839 mg was distributed or somewhere in the ballpark of .00126ppm or well below the 8-hour exposure limits. Further, that exposure limit is based off constant exposure for 8 hours (from working in an enclosed room) while vaping is an activity that does not (for most) occur constantly over spans that long.

Again, this last bit is wild speculation without actual volume measurements from the study (which is why the study is almost meaningless) but if anyone notes any issues in my math or conversions please point them out.

As far as the brands, it's not that difficult to figure out, i am pretty sure these are the brands in the study :

Pretty sure Brand A is Mark Ten, Brand B is Vuse, Brand C is Blu and Brand D is Njoy. Brand E is Whitecloud. Brand F is South Beach Smokes. Brand G is Volcano. Brand H is The Vapor Depot or Tasty Vapor ( identical juice names, likely the same juice ).

For the cigalikes ( brands A,B,C and D and F) , there is about 1 ml of eliquid in a cartridge. Dr. F has extrapolated NIOSH safety limits to about 20 micrograms per ml for diacetyl and 41 micrograms for AP per ml ( assuming average daily consumption of 3 ml ). For the brands that do not come in cartridges, the authors aren't clear what type of tank they used and how many mls of liquid they poured into the tank.

More discusiion on this study in this thread :

Diactyl scare.

 

[Alien Traveler]

As far as the brands, it's not that difficult to figure out, i am pretty sure these are the brands in the study :

Pretty sure Brand A is Mark Ten, Brand B is Vuse, Brand C is Blu and Brand D is Njoy. Brand E is Whitecloud. Brand F is South Beach Smokes. Brand G is Volcano. Brand H is The Vapor Depot or Tasty Vapor ( identical juice names, likely the same juice ).

For the cigalikes ( brands A,B,C and D and F) , there is about 1 ml of eliquid in a cartridge. Dr. F has extrapolated NIOSH safety limits to about 20 micrograms per ml for diacetyl and 41 micrograms for AP per ml ( assuming average daily consumption of 3 ml ). For the brands that do not come in cartridges, the authors aren't clear what type of tank they used and how many mls of liquid they poured into the tank.

More discusiion on this study in this thread :

Diactyl scare.

Thanks for info.
If 20 mkg for diacetyl is a safety limit, then 6 of juices mentioned in the paper exceed limit, one being as much as 12 times higher. (the main abuser is Blue).
Knowing that Dr. F usually treat vaping as a tootle puffing (5 ml/day?), people consuming much more juice are consuming much more diacetyl.

However, comparing results of current paper to results of Dr. F paper (almost two years older) we can see some progress: 2 years ago 47% juices had diacetyl above safety limit. Or it is just difference between cigalikes (current paper) and common juices (Dr. F)?

 

[retired1]

Moved to Media and General News.

 

[skoony]

Thanks for info.
If 20 mkg for diacetyl is a safety limit, then 6 of juices mentioned in the paper exceed limit, one being as much as 12 times higher. (the main abuser is Blue).
Knowing that Dr. F usually treat vaping as a tootle puffing (5 ml/day?), people consuming much more juice are consuming much more diacetyl.

However, comparing results of current paper to results of Dr. F paper (almost two years older) we can see some progress: 2 years ago 47% juices had diacetyl above safety limit. Or it is just difference between cigalikes (current paper) and common juices (Dr. F)?

What is Doctor F referring to here,
"Although I agree that we should know if e-liquids contain diacetyl and acetyl propionyl, I must note that the study has missed some very important points. One is the assessment of the levels found in their samples. The levels presented in Figure 2 are quite low, much lower that what we found in our study. In many cases, levels of these compounds are absolutely minimal, and it is NOT expected to raise any concerns about human health effects. "
A new study finds diacetyl in e-cigarettes but exaggerates risks and fails to discuss about smoking
I was under the assumption that harmful levels were in mg levels not ug levels
Regards
mike

 

[Matty316]

Why eliquid manufacturers still continue to use these chemicals truly baffles me. They must know by doing so they are harming the very industry they're in. IMHO a large part of the blame for this bad press lays with them and the sellers who continue to buy from them. IMHO all sellers should boycot any manufacture producing eliquid or flavor concentrates containing these chemicals.

I know "regulation" is somewhat of a dirty word round here but if the industry doesn't find some way to self regulate on issues like this you can be damn sure government will end up bringing in ridiculous widespread regulations over the whole industry that will effectively destroy vaping as we know it.

Just my .

 

[Kent C]

Now 5 threads on the same story

 

[pennysmalls]

What I don't get is that if cig smoke contains 10-100 times more DA and there are no confirmed cases of popcorn lung from cig smoking then what's really going on here as far as vapers are concerned? I honestly don't understand the uproar at all. In my mind it's akin to demanding that our alcoholic beverages be made such that the possibility of becoming inebriated is minimized as much as possible. Everyone knows the risk when they drink. If you don't want to risk it then don't drink. Why then does e liquid ***have*** to be so special? E-liquid is one of those products that was never intended to be absolutely safe, like alcohol, yet so many talk as if it should be. Makes not one bit of sense to me.

 

[EBates]

What I don't get is that if cig smoke contains 10-100 times more DA and there are no confirmed cases of popcorn lung from cig smoking then what's really going on here as far as vapers are concerned? I honestly don't understand the uproar at all. In my mind it's akin to demanding that our alcoholic beverages be made such that the possibility of becoming inebriated is minimized as much as possible. Everyone knows the risk when they drink. If you don't want to risk it then don't drink. Why then does e liquid ***have*** to be so special? E-liquid is one of those products that was never intended to be absolutely safe, like alcohol, yet so many talk as if it should be. Makes not one bit of sense to me.

The answer to your question
MONEY!!!!

 

[pennysmalls]

I'm not done ranting. If vaping carried just as much risk as smoking, I'd still vape, hands down, in a heartbeat. I love love love vaping. I'm betting thousands of others would too. The option to vape instead of smoke despite the hypothetical equal risk is one that I think all smoking/vaping adults should have and fight for, not because it's safer but because it's an option, I want options damn it lol! The fact that vaping just happens to be tons safer is a god send, a total gift and we're throwing that away, literally.

 

[Cargo]

It took me a while but I did some real digging about this.

Environ Health Perspect; DOI:10.1289/ehp.1510185


Flavoring Chemicals in E-Cigarettes: Diacetyl, 2,3-Pentanedione, and Acetoin in a Sample of 51 Products, Including Fruit-, Candy-, and Cocktail-Flavored E-Cigarettes
I found this:
"Conflict of interest statement: Riccardo Polosa is a Professor of Medicine and is supported by the University of Catania, Italy. He has received lecture fees and research funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer, manufacturers of stop smoking medications. "

My opinion is
GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer are poised to lose billions due to this technology rendering their drugs unnecessary.

 

[MacTechVpr]

What I don't get is that if cig smoke contains 10-100 times more DA and there are no confirmed cases of popcorn lung from cig smoking then what's really going on here as far as vapers are concerned? I honestly don't understand the uproar at all. In my mind it's akin to demanding that our alcoholic beverages be made such that the possibility of becoming inebriated is minimized as much as possible. Everyone knows the risk when they drink. If you don't want to risk it then don't drink. Why then does e liquid ***have*** to be so special? E-liquid is one of those products that was never intended to be absolutely safe, like alcohol, yet so many talk as if it should be. Makes not one bit of sense to me.

Well pardon you...for stating the obvious. Congratulations. Needs to be said. Instantly, in response to the droning heads.

As a matter of fact, I use it as ammunition and put this drivel on its head. Why the unequal treatment of e-liquid and of vapers? The sooner you shame the nattering g.......s for their ignorance, the better.

Good luck all.

 

[MacTechVpr]

It took me a while but I did some real digging about this...I found this:
"Conflict of interest statement: Riccardo Polosa is a Professor of Medicine and is supported by the University of Catania, Italy. He has received lecture fees and research funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer, manufacturers of stop smoking medications. "

Good pick up! Good luck.