The Diketone Debate: Which Position Do you Take?

[Katya]

I COMPLETELY agree about the coloring; that is SOOOOOO unnecessary -- I vape for flavor, nicotine, and still, to a very small extent, WTA... what color the juice is, is completely irrelevant -- most of what I DIY is almost completely clear, at 10mg nicotine.

I got some Banana Nut Bread from High Desert Vapes -- it's nearly black, quite opaque. I made some Banana Nut Bread of my own, which is higher in nicotine but lower in VG -- and it's almost completely clear! That tells me that it's not just the VG in their juice that was causing me problems!

I don't like artificial colors in the foods I eat; I sure as hell don't want them in what I vape!

Andria

Amen. sister.

I have completely switched to transparent, clear and colorless ejuices--and I'm much happier. The flavors are cleaner and my coils last for weeks instead of days without needing a dry-burn. And when I dry burn, it just takes a few seconds and the coils glow a nice, uniform, orange glow. I remember when I was usings dark and sweet juices--I used to soak my coils in PGA, nuke them in distilled water in the microwave, and then dry burn...

Now I just rinse, dry burn for a few seconds, and I'm ready to go.

 

[Racehorse]

So even vendors won't always know.

I was under the impression that vendors would know, once they tested.

Wouldn't they have to test in order to "disclose"? So choosing #2 presupposes that full testing will be done by vendors who disclose, right?



(BTW, would anyone mind if I started a topic to list vendors who can provide fulll test results as of now, so it can be added to as time goes by? I know a few were already mentioned here and other topics, but would be nice to have a list that is easily accessible for consumers for whom that is meaningful.)

(I am not fully decided I guess I have to decide why Johnson & Johnson took the formaldehyde out of their baby shampoo when they could have just stuck a label on it.....and disclosed that possibly harmful ingredient. Why not just leave it in there?)

P.S. if diketone presence is disclosed, it would have to be accompanied by what the safe ppm levels are....or the consumer wouldn't benefit from the disclosure much. Do we have a number on that, can somebody remind me?

 

[Katya]

P.S. if diketone presence is disclosed, it would have to be accompanied by what the safe ppm levels are....or the consumer wouldn't benefit from the disclosure much. Do we have a number on that, can somebody remind me?

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-dr-farsalinos-new-study-12.html#post13706550

But there does seem to be an officially allowed amount of diacetyl in eliquid. That would be the "NIOSH-defined safety limits" of 60μg per day that Dr F references. (20μg/ml assuming 3ml daily consumption.)

This is the number I'm aware of. I don't know if this is the last word on the subject, though.

 

[Racehorse]

Thank you Katya
20μg/ml assuming 3ml daily consumption gives me a ballpark.

 

[Ryedan]

I voted mandatory disclosure.

Personally, I'm not particularly concerned about diacetyl in juice. I did a bunch of research and ran some numbers a while back and satisfied myself that I was very unlikely to damage my lungs from the diacetyl or diacetyl like substances in my juice. There are also unknown (to me and I think a lot of other vapers) other chemicals we should be careful with that don't have the visibility these do right now.

We also oxidize our Kanthal, who knows what chemicals come out of various cottons or rayon when we have a dry hit, etc. I am aware of all of these risks and more and I do my best to mitigate what I feel I need to when I vape.

But that's me and I realize it doesn't work for everyone. I feel that since this is something we are aware of that could have long term consequences, we should all pay the price to have the testing done so the information is out there and everyone can decide for themselves.

 

[Vwls]

I voted mandatory disclosure.

Personally, I'm not particularly concerned about diacetyl in juice. I did a bunch of research and ran some numbers a while back and satisfied myself that I was very unlikely to damage my lungs from the diacetyl or diacetyl like substances in my juice. There are also unknown (to me and I think a lot of other vapers) other chemicals we should be careful with that don't have the visibility these do right now.

We also oxidize our Kanthal, who knows what chemicals come out of various cottons or rayon when we have a dry hit, etc. I am aware of all of these risks and more and I do my best to mitigate what I feel I need to when I vape.

But that's me and I realize it doesn't work for everyone. I feel that since this is something we are aware of that could have long term consequences, we should all pay the price to have the testing done so the information is out there and everyone can decide for themselves.

Wise man. Turns out the Diacetyl scare was blown out of proportion - the data is in. Read this article:

http://www.ecigarettedirect.co.uk/ashtray-blog/2014/09/diacetyl-comparison-eliquid-cigarettes.html

 

[Katya]

Wise man. Turns out the Diacetyl scare was blown out of proportion - the data is in. Read this article:

Dr. Farsalinos has been saying from the beginning that the quantities of diacetyl found in eliquids are much lower than those found in cigarette smoke. But he still finds those levels potentially harmful.

First of all, acetyl propionyl is not any better than diacetyl (although there are fewer studies verifying this). In my opinion, acetyl propionyl should NOT be used.
Acetoin would be fine, as long as it is not contaminated with diacetyl!
One of the conclusions of our study is that you should not trust any statements, but only the official results of testing. I cannot express it any simpler than that...
As mentioned, the median values were much lower than cigarettes and only 2 times higher than safety limits. However, as you can understand there were samples with some extreme levels. We mention in the paper submitted for publication. 15% of the samples had >10 times higher levels of diacetyl that current safety limits, and a further 10% had >100 times higher diacetyl levels than the current safety limits.

And this from Kurt--our resident chemist and a co-author on the paper:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-dr-farsalinos-new-study-16.html#post13723137

My advise is for now avoid any creamy desert flavors. If they don't have DA they probably have AP. I would also try to get used to using flavors in very low %s if you DIY. Max for my juices is 5%, most of the time I am at 1-2%, and this is not using super-concentrates. Much of the time I vape unflavored. For reasons of risk uncertainty, I prefer faint flavors. We have detected two compounds that are known inhalation risks, but there is an enormous number of flavor compounds, few of which have been tested rigorously for inhalation risks. And there are compounds similar chemically to DA and AP that are also being used.

Bronchiolitis obliterans is not well understood, since it is rare. It could be an autoimmune response, not just chemical. It could be other factors have to be present for it to occur. It could be cumulative, and starts out barely noticed, and irreversibly increases over time. It seems that the only treatment available currently is lung transplant...but recent studies are showing that even the new lung can develop BO, after the surgery. This is not irritation we are trying to avoid, it is potentially lung necrosis, lung death, and perhaps with a resulting physiology that no matter the treatment, insists on lung death, including with a new lung and no further DA exposure. And as Dr F points out, it could be that BO is just one lung problem caused by DA, that COPD might also be a result, or BO could be being misdiagnosed as COPD. With smoking, DA and AP are combustion products, and cannot be avoided. Not so with e-liquids.

 

[Mr.Mann]

I was under the impression that vendors would know, once they tested.

Wouldn't they have to test in order to "disclose"? So choosing #2 presupposes that full testing will be done by vendors who disclose, right?



(BTW, would anyone mind if I started a topic to list vendors who can provide fulll test results as of now, so it can be added to as time goes by? I know a few were already mentioned here and other topics, but would be nice to have a list that is easily accessible for consumers for whom that is meaningful.)

(I am not fully decided I guess I have to decide why Johnson & Johnson took the formaldehyde out of their baby shampoo when they could have just stuck a label on it.....and disclosed that possibly harmful ingredient. Why not just leave it in there?)

P.S. if diketone presence is disclosed, it would have to be accompanied by what the safe ppm levels are....or the consumer wouldn't benefit from the disclosure much. Do we have a number on that, can somebody remind me?

Well, I left "disclosure" open since it could mean a few things (that's why I didn't say "mandatory testing"). Maybe a "disclaimer" would be more appropos. Either the numbers are available with the protocol used; the liquids are unknown as to whether they have it; or it is known. If a vendor uses any TPA flavors (or any other flavoring co. that will tell you) they will know much better about which ones do, but they may not know exactly what the quantities are in the liquid. They could simply say, "this liquid contains diketones." If a vendor is using some obscure flavoring company (or Flavorwest, LOL) that won't disclose, they could simply say "our liquids have not been tested for presence of diketones; they may contain it". If they have tested, then in order to proclaim "DA free" (which virtually all vendors do now) they would need to show proof (and that includes LOD). Or, if the vendor uses flavoring with it, but they want to proclaim how "trace" their quantities are, then prove it by test results, or just state what is known -- the liquids have it.

The problem is that right now, too many customers still don't know that when you see "DA free" on a vendor's site, it is super-high percentage of the time just words. If the vendor thought enough to address the issue by openly on a site (and/or liquid bottle) stating unverified claims, they must realize that they truly don't know without testing. But it is not, in my opinion, obligatory for them to test.

 

[AndriaD]

I want disclosure. Preferably voluntary, but mandatory is OK too.



Ahem, how is doing it yourself gonna help you avoid diacetyl if flavorists don't disclose if diacetyl is present in their flavorings?

And no, I don't feel like testing my own e-liquids; thanks, but no, thanks--I want the vendor to tell me what's in the juice he's selling. If he refuses, I'll find one that will.

Precisely, to all that. I'm working on being able to DIY *all* my own ejuice -- but it's necessary for the flavor manufacturers to disclose WHAT'S IN THE FLAVOR! And until I get to the point of being able to DIY all that I vape, I still have to buy ejuice... and there too, it's necessary for me to know what's in my ejuice, so I don't accidentally give myself pulmonary collapse! I have asthma, and THESE THINGS MATTER!

If one won't disclose it, then I will do my level best to find one that will -- money talks, BS walks... right out the door of the shop where unlabelled stuff in sold.

Andria

 

[Racehorse]

Wise man. Turns out the Diacetyl scare was blown out of proportion - the data is in. Read this article:

http://www.ecigarettedirect.co.uk/ashtray-blog/2014/09/diacetyl-comparison-eliquid-cigarettes.html

Who is James Dunsworth? I don't see Ph.D or M.D --- this looks like an "opinion piece" to me.


"Daily diacetyl exposure from cigarettes 5870ug, compared with only 56ug from ecigs"

"Please note, however, that the figures in the graph represent the average levels of diacetyl. Diacetyl has been found in higher levels in eliquid, and the presence of Diacetyl in eliquid continues to be a risk. It’s also an avoidable risk as it can be detected by testing ".....

Previously, Dr. F seemed to say that 20μg/ml assuming 3ml daily consumption was safe. The above is 36% higher than that and then it says the graph only represents the average, many have higher levels!

I'm also not sure how comparing diacetyl exposure from cigs and then saying ecigs have "less" implies any kind of health statement, since we know that cigarettes kill people.

To me this is a little like being treated for obesity and since McDonald's Quarter Pounder is only 510 calories, compared to the Crispy Chicken Club @ 680, it would be appropriate to eat.

Lot of word games going on here.

 

[AndriaD]

Amen. sister.

I have completely switched to transparent, clear and colorless ejuices--and I'm much happier. The flavors are cleaner and my coils last for weeks instead of days without needing a dry-burn. And when I dry burn, it just takes a few seconds and the coils glow a nice, uniform, orange glow. I remember when I was usings dark and sweet juices--I used to soak my coils in PGA, nuke them in distilled water in the microwave, and then dry burn...

Now I just rinse, dry burn for a few seconds, and I'm ready to go.

I do like sweet... turns out that a lot of my problem with "bought" fruit flavored vapes is just my pesky sweet tooth. But that's an ingredient (so far, concentrated sucralose from TFA, but I'm open to change if that turns out to be problematic) that I put in for a reason, it makes the vape better *to me*, and as far as I can tell, doesn't do anything untoward to my coils or cartos -- or lungs! There is just no sensible reason to change the color of the vape, or change its appearance in any way -- I'm not vaping for how it looks.

Andria

 

[AndriaD]

I was under the impression that vendors would know, once they tested.

Wouldn't they have to test in order to "disclose"? So choosing #2 presupposes that full testing will be done by vendors who disclose, right?



(BTW, would anyone mind if I started a topic to list vendors who can provide fulll test results as of now, so it can be added to as time goes by? I know a few were already mentioned here and other topics, but would be nice to have a list that is easily accessible for consumers for whom that is meaningful.)

(I am not fully decided I guess I have to decide why Johnson & Johnson took the formaldehyde out of their baby shampoo when they could have just stuck a label on it.....and disclosed that possibly harmful ingredient. Why not just leave it in there?)

P.S. if diketone presence is disclosed, it would have to be accompanied by what the safe ppm levels are....or the consumer wouldn't benefit from the disclosure much. Do we have a number on that, can somebody remind me?

Because formaldehyde is a known carcinogen?

That'd be my guess, anyway.

As for diketones... for people who already have airway obstruction, I doubt if there *is* a "safe" level -- airway obstruction indicates that one's ability to breathe is already somewhat compromised, and since airway obstruction/destruction is the consequence of diketones... it makes no sense for those with COPD/asthma to ever inhale any diketones.

Andria

EDIT - PS: I would really appreciate a list like you suggest -- I know bullcityvapor is showing those "caution" backgrounds, and if you click that flavor, they show you an approx level of whatever the cautionary ingredient is -- but other vendors just seem to tell you if diacetyl is there, and kinda brush off the others, or mention that they're too small an amount to be harmful... I really think that should be up to the consumer, as to what's harmful or not.

 

[AndriaD]

Thank you Katya
20μg/ml assuming 3ml daily consumption gives me a ballpark.

I don't know that "μg" figure... can someone tell me what that means?


Andria

 

[Mazinny]

I don't know that "μg" figure... can someone tell me what that means?


Andria

microgram or parts per million ( ppm )

 

[Ryedan]

I don't know that "μg" figure... can someone tell me what that means?


Andria

Micrograms Andria. AKA mcg. 1×10−6 grams. Pretty small, but then there's also PPB

ETA: Ya beat me to it Mazinny

 

[Ryedan]

microgram or parts per million ( ppm )

Actually, I think PPM is a ratio and 1 ppm = 1 ug/g.

 

[Racehorse]

Because formaldehyde is a known carcinogen

So are some TSNAs in NETs. Very small levels, just as the Baby Shampoo had miniscule levels of formaldehyde.

I suggested that anyone voting #2 should just support Johnson & Johnson leaving formaldehyde IN the baby shampoo, and just disclose.

If "disclosure" is one's philosophy, then it would seem appropriate across the board.

it makes no sense for those with COPD/asthma to ever inhale any diketones.

What about Butyric Acid?
https://shop.perfumersapprentice.com/t-FlavorWorkshopCustard.aspx

By the way, Linda was making notes on diketones back in 2010, as you can see.... so not sure what all the "vendors playing dumb" is all about. It's now almost 5 years later.

I would really appreciate a list like you suggest -- I know bullcityvapor is showing those "caution" backgrounds, and if you click that flavor, they show you an approx level of whatever the cautionary ingredient is --

Not good enough.

I only want to list vendors who can provide actual lab testing results. That is what Dr. F said you need to see to confirm diketone presence.

 

[Ryedan]

Precisely, to all that. I'm working on being able to DIY *all* my own ejuice -- but it's necessary for the flavor manufacturers to disclose WHAT'S IN THE FLAVOR!

My understanding of this issue is that flavor manufacturers are making their flavors for ingestion and diacetyl and AP are allowed to be reported as zero if they're below a certain amount. That amount is way higher than we want to inhale.

 

[Mr.Mann]

Not good enough.

I only want to list vendors who can provide actual lab testing results. That is what Dr. F said you need to see to confirm diketone presence.

Maybe not good enough, but at least you'll know which are confirmed to have it. That will allow for those that don't want it at all to simply move on into the, relatively, "safe zone". For those that don't mind it in *some* quantities, that will at least let you know either a) how minimal you may have to go in your percentages with adding it, or b) that you will have to pay for the test if you must know but still want to use the flavorings. One manufacturer I use has MSDSs for their flavorings. They don't show percentages or anything, but it will show what "hazardous ingredients" (or ingredients currently perceived as hazardous) are in the product. After that, to me, the ball is in my court.

But, I do understand, or at least I think I understand, that you are talking about vendors, as in, eliquid vendors.

 

[AndriaD]

So are some TSNAs in NETs. Very small levels, just as the Baby Shampoo had miniscule levels of formaldehyde.

I suggested that anyone voting #2 should just support Johnson & Johnson leaving formaldehyde IN the baby shampoo, and just disclose.

If "disclosure" is one's philosophy, then it would seem appropriate across the board.

Maybe because the product is for babies, and babies have tremendously porous skin, and they figure new parents have enough to worry about already? I do think the standard should be higher for products manufactured especially for infants.

What about Butyric Acid?

I'm not sure butyric acid is a diketone. I looked it up, and it does not seem to have the property of destroying lungs, merely irritating them -- irritation is something that could be adjusted for -- if one is more bothered, use less or none; if one is not bothered, then it's a non-issue.

Not good enough.

I only want to list vendors who can provide actual lab testing results. That is what Dr. F said you need to see to confirm diketone presence.

Hmm... the only problem I see with that is that unless there was some serious editing, most people would be unable to interpret actual lab results -- they tend to be rather arcane. When I get my labwork back for blood tests, I have to go over them with my doctor, so I understand what's being reported, and what it means.

I'm fully on the side of disclosure -- but it needs to be disclosure in terms that the avg layman could understand.


Andria