Why Johnsons Creek clogs atomizers

[Bertrand]

If Bertrand can articulate a question for Dr. Laugesen in a way he can answer, I'll be happy to contact him.

Yeah. Thread's a bit of a mess. hehehe. I'm not too concerned about clogged atomizers now. How about:

"Between 12ng and 100ng of propylene oxide (PO) were detected in the smoke of propylene glycol (PG) treated tobacco, and commercial samples of PG have been found to contain PO.* e-liquid contains something in the order of 30-150 times as much PG by weight as PG-treated tobacco.

PO is toxic, and a probable carcinogen. In commercial PG production, PO is reacted in large excess of water at high temperature and pressure. The reaction has a "molar selectivity" of 85%, (which I take to mean the extent of reaction.) It then undergoes fractionation and evaporation.** But apparently the PO is sometimes not fully removed.*

Is it possible to test the vapour produced by an ecigarette for its PO content? Or at least test some batches of e-liquid for PO contamination? Or is this just a silly concern?

*Tobacco and Public Health: Science ... - Google Book Search p76

Original article is:
Kagan, M.R., Cunningham, J.A., Hoffmann, D.
Propylene glycol. A precursor of propylene oxide
in cigarette smoke. 53rd Tobacco Science
Research Conference, Abstract #41 and #42,
1999

**Petrochemical Processes: Technical ... - Google Book Search p26"

 

[Bertrand]

I'm out of my depth here, I don't completely understand what this all means

Neither do I. heheheh. I once spoke to an industrial chemist about the dodgy stuff they get up to, and I'm not sure it's a coincidence none of them are on this forum. They probably steer well clear of e-cigarettes, knowing what they know about how industrial chemicals really get made.

 

[TropicalBob]

Well, this remains alarming, as you noted. Is there a question we can place before Health New Zealand's authority? I'll pose it if you phrase it -- cause you lose me in parts of these discussions.

And I've sucked carcinogens for years, so I'm most keenly focused on the buildup of goo that becomes something like nylon as it cools. Could that goo build up inside us and cool to a solid sheet of .. something .. over time? All because some PG is contaminated with propylene oxide?

Or am I reading that reaction all wrong?

 

[Bertrand]

Well, this remains alarming, as you noted. Is there a question we can place before Health New Zealand's authority? I'll pose it if you phrase it -- cause you lose me in parts of these discussions.

And I've sucked carcinogens for years, so I'm most keenly focused on the buildup of goo that becomes something like nylon as it cools. Could that goo build up inside us and cool to a solid sheet of .. something .. over time? All because some PG is contaminated with propylene oxide?

Or am I reading that reaction all wrong?

Thanks, TB. I'm not sure the question needs to be put differently for Health New Zealand. Let's just see how Dr Laugesen replies. As I said, it might be that the PG thermically degrades to PO at temperatures not found in e-cigarettes, and this is where most of it was coming from in the PG-treated cigarettes.

I have no real idea what the goo is - I'm not a chemist - I was just thinking out loud until I found that article that says contamination does occur, and then how dangerous it is. You would think you could cough out bits of goo or nylon fibre easily enough. I cough up bits of goo each morning. Now that I have a better idea of how much PO is found in contaminated PG (very little, but probably still dangerous) I doubt you could create that much goo from it: it's likely a different reaction.

 

[Schroedinger's cat]

I am getting more and more confused here.... The way I had understood this was that PG could be converted to PO in the presence of glycerine and something else. Hence the goo. However, we could still have goo-less PO due to contamination of PG. So, the goo implies PO, but the absence of goo does not guarantee absence of PO.

Also, I had never envisioned the goo in my lungs (only in the atomizers, where the liquid PG/PO is) - but I did envision PO in my lungs (and other organs). Reading these last posts, however, it seems that what I had envisioned may not be corresponding to what is being hypothesized.... I hope someone can answer the questions raised here somewhat knowledgeably....

 

[Bertrand]

I hope someone can answer the questions raised here somewhat knowledgeably....

Me too. Hopefully Dr Laugesen can set us straight. He should definitely get first right of reply. I personally was happy to hear the "safe in absolute terms" bit of his report. Others probably were too. If there is PO either getting created in the atomizer from PG, or PO is contaminating our eliquid, the claim needs to be qualified.

Hopefully he can get the vapour tested, since that would presumably test for both contamination of the e-liquid, and the creation of PO through thermic degradation of PG that they speculate about in the article.

btw: I never thought the PO was getting created, only used. I now doubt that, since it is probably only a very low level of contamination if it exists. But let's see what comes of this: I no longer care about atomizers.

 

[TropicalBob]

Bertrand: I still need this issue framed as a question. I can't just say, "Dr. Laugesen, read e-cigarette-forum.com and tell us what you think." What's the question as you see it from what you've found?

 

[Bertrand]

Bertrand: I still need this issue framed as a question. I can't just say, "Dr. Laugesen, read e-cigarette-forum.com and tell us what you think." What's the question as you see it from what you've found?

earlier: .

"Between 12ng and 100ng of propylene oxide (PO) were detected in the smoke of propylene glycol (PG) treated tobacco, and commercial samples of PG have been found to contain PO.* E-liquid contains something in the order of 30-150 times as much PG by weight as PG-treated tobacco.

PO is toxic, and a probable carcinogen. In commercial PG production, PO is reacted in large excess of water at high temperature and pressure. The reaction has a "molar selectivity" of 85%, (which I take to mean the extent of reaction.) It then undergoes fractionation and evaporation.** But apparently the PO is sometimes not fully removed.*

Is it possible to test the vapour produced by an ecigarette for its PO content? Or at least test some batches of e-liquid for PO contamination? Or is this just a silly concern?

*Tobacco and Public Health: Science ... - Google Book Search p76

Original article is:
Kagan, M.R., Cunningham, J.A., Hoffmann, D.
Propylene glycol. A precursor of propylene oxide
in cigarette smoke. 53rd Tobacco Science
Research Conference, Abstract #41 and #42,
1999

**Petrochemical Processes: Technical ... - Google Book Search p26"

no good?

 

[Silver]

Bertrand: I still need this issue framed as a question. I can't just say, "Dr. Laugesen, read e-cigarette-forum.com and tell us what you think." What's the question as you see it from what you've found?

Hi TB et al,

I sent Dr. Laugesen an e-mail yesterday concerning the concerns in this thread, so he is already aware of it. He has sent me a short reply with some questions that I am attempting to answer. If it's okay with you guys, I will post here as soon as I have something of interest to report and have Dr. Laugesen's permission to quote him.

Cheers,
Silver

 

[Kate]

Good work Silver, thanks for being a contact with the doctor.

 

[Silver]

Thanx Kate, happy to help (and as eager as everyone else to have this potential issue/concern answered) !

Cheers,
Silver

 

[Bertrand]

Any word from Dr Laugesen?

I'm thinking of getting a quote for getting the lab tests done. I don't know if anyone will be interested in a "group buy" for this, though hehehe.. I think the tests should evaluate actual contamination of the e-liquid with PO and the potential for PG thermally degrading. Something like:

1. test for concentration of PO in say five different e-liquids.
2. test for concentration of PO vapour in an e-liquid when heated to 150 - 300 degrees C (20 degree increments). Probably sampled at five second increments if that's possible.
3. test for concentration of PO vapour in known pure PG when heated in the same manner.

Sound right? You'd think (3) would already have been tested, but I couldn't find anything. It is known to degrade when used as a coolant - but they are more concerned with its lifespan and corrosive effects than its toxic potential, and look at it over years rather than seconds. The lab might have more suggestions.

I don't think the atomizers heat to over 300 degrees C. Does anyone know if this is roughly correct? I should probably put a probe in there to find out.

 

[RjG]

Well, for now you can read this, Bertrand.

I don't know if you really WANT to know the standards for Chinese "medical grade" PG though... you might not care about the PO anymore, lol.

Propylene Glycol (PG) Manufacturer exporting direct from China

 

[RjG]

Ugh, DOW USP version isn't any better. Heavy metals, lead, arsonic ( mostly in tiny amounts)

http://www.dow.com/PublishedLiterat...ycol/pdfs/noreg/117-01600.pdf&fromPage=GetDoc

 

[Bertrand]

Well, for now you can read this, Bertrand.

I don't know if you really WANT to know the standards for Chinese "medical grade" PG though... you might not care about the PO anymore, lol.

Propylene Glycol (PG) Manufacturer exporting direct from China

Heheheh.. in terms of purity, longcom enterprises "medical grade" = dow "industrial grade".

I am still interested in the PO concentration in particular, though, because I think it is quite likely to be there and is ("probably", but it does slice through DNA) carcinogenic.

 

[Bertrand]

That Dow link just looks like a summary of the standards they need to meet in order to sell it as pharmaceutical grade in their target markets. It doesn't mean it has any of those things are even in there, just that if they are, they are within those limits.

 

[RjG]

True. Hopefully the same goes for the Chinese stuff. Somehow I doubt it though... lol

 

[slianfoxob]

noob here. anxiously awaiting word from the doc. anything yet?

i'm still waiting on my e-cig to arrive but i'd like to know if i should return my JC sampler for the NPG formulas instead. haha.

also, if PG gets the ax, does this mean mixing VG with flavorings like LorAnn would no longer be okay either because the flavorings contain PG?

Foxy

 

[TropicalBob]

Keep in mind, in the panic here, that the air you breathe and water you drink likely has trace amounts of many fearful, carcinogenic substances. So? Don't breathe? Don't drink water? Don't be silly.

The World War II tests of PG and the Health New Zealand tests gave PG a clean bill. And if I'm not mistaken, Bertrand is addressing a contaminated form of PG. Yes, we have no assurance China is not contaminating PG, and that's reason enough for putting the FDA on the case, assuring quality in Chinese exported e-liquid. At the worst, batches might need testing for PO, among other contaminants that could survive a PG environment. We could all rest easier with our vaping.

Until I hear from a researcher, however, I'm not rejecting a Generally Regarded As Safe substance for the known danger of tobacco smoke. And that's my alternative. PG has been tested; PG has been proven safe and a bacterial fighter in lab tests.

 

[CalPilot89]

I have been using both the JC NPG and the PG sampler packs for awhile and don't find much of a difference between the two. The Non PG does put out less vapor in my super mini, but I am waiting to dry out the current cart with the pg stuff so I can try it in my dsc 901b. Will report back. For all the people that are worried about it, just get the JC Non pg stuff. I have been very happy with it and it has not cause ANY problems with my atomizers. This is of course with their new formula.