Dr. Farsalinos on Formaldehyde Levels in Vapor

Samba

Interesting read to say the least.

I'm not really surprised by any of it, dry hits certainly don't taste like they're harmless.

I suppose the main advice to take from it is just common sense really, make sure your coils don't go dry.

dePeatrick

Also avoid sub ohm vaping and high voltages.....the good Doctor has also expressed concerns about these too....but vape on, as soon as we really know what to avoid the future of vaping is bright

accaguest

Can anyone shed some light on the article, I'm a bit confused.

Where's the formaldehyde coming from? Is it definitely the PG or some combination of Nicotine and PG but less present in Nicotine and VG? Or is it from the wick/coil (him mentioning dry hits)?

I am certain that, due to better liquid resupply to the resistance and wick, the results will be much more favorable.

So that would mean more liquid = less toxicity

Also, how toxic is formaldehyde?

EDIT for the 10th time: I really am a moron, but is he saying 'don't vape at higher wattages' or 'if vaping at higher wattages keep your wick wet'.

Figgywurmack Limerick

accaguest wrote: »

Can anyone shed some light on the article, I'm a bit confused.

Where's the formaldehyde coming from? Is it definitely the PG or some combination of Nicotine and PG but less present in Nicotine and VG? Or is it from the wick/coil (him mentioning dry hits)?



So that would mean more liquid = less toxicity

Also, how toxic is formaldehyde?

EDIT for the 10th time: I really am a moron, but is he saying 'don't vape at higher wattages' or 'if vaping at higher wattages keep your wick wet'.

Just for the record as a chemist speaking i cant see any concievable pathway where PG leads to formaldehyde but VG doesnt.

Samba

accaguest wrote: »

Can anyone shed some light on the article, I'm a bit confused.

Where's the formaldehyde coming from? Is it definitely the PG or some combination of Nicotine and PG but less present in Nicotine and VG? Or is it from the wick/coil (him mentioning dry hits)?

The coil due to thermal degradation which results from overheating juice, but he adds that tests with VG, levels were much lower. Levels were low at standard volts but at 4.8v (which you'd never use on a clearo anyway) they were on par with smoking. The tests were done with a top coil clearo which as we all know are notoriously bad for wicking.

Effectively it took one scorching dry hit (which is what you'd get a 4.8v on that set up) to produce those levels.

accaguest wrote: »

Also, how toxic is formaldehyde?

Read more here, it's in the the air we breathe in small amounts.

But it's important to note this part.

As a general remark, finding few chemicals at similar levels does not mean that the risk is equivalent to tobacco cigarettes.

dePeatrick

accaguest wrote: »

Can anyone shed some light on the article, I'm a bit confused.

Where's the formaldehyde coming from? Is it definitely the PG or some combination of Nicotine and PG but less present in Nicotine and VG? Or is it from the wick/coil (him mentioning dry hits)?



So that would mean more liquid = less toxicity

Also, how toxic is formaldehyde?

EDIT for the 10th time: I really am a moron, but is he saying 'don't vape at higher wattages' or 'if vaping at higher wattages keep your wick wet'.

As someone who vapes 100% VG in a dripper you don't get a dry hit per se....it tends to give way more warning of when the coil needs more liquid and have never got that pungent taste that a dry hit with VG/PG gives you.

If anything you hear the coil sizzling way before anything changes in the taste.

Loadsa clouds though with 100%VG and I love the smoothness of VG, also it seems to need less flavouring in it compared to PG.....all good

Samba

This is the best study we have to date on the issue, though I'm not sure if these accurately reflect the products we have on the market today.

This explains a bit more about formaldehyde, it's a natrually occurring chemical and risk levels are highly debatable.

I don't think it's the huge health scare the NY Times is making it out to be because the tests they conducted are flawed, but like I said some common sense with keeping your coils wet should in theory reduce exposure levels. Using VG also appears to be helpful in this respect.

Rufen Sno

Howdy folks, been lurking here since I started vaping a year and a half ago, always meant to post, but never got around to it!

As a bit of background, I'm a cancer biologist, who vapes. I used to smoke (rather silly of me), and like most who made the switch, I'm now intensely interested in whether this is really a hazard-free way of maintaining a 20 year+ nicotine addiction.

Anyway, haven't seen this posted in the forum, so I thought I would bring it to your attention. I saw this paper presented at AACR this year (and an earlier version at another meeting). (though not directly related to formaldehyde, so feel free to move if it's off topic)

clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/20/2_Supplement/B16.abstract

Basically, it describes some interesting findings (findings that are emerging in epidemiological data as well I might add, though it's a bit early to report), that nicotine itself has effects on cells that present problems (I know, I've read all the epidemiological data from the Swedish Snus studies). I was highly critical of the first version of this study, however, they added an interesting control this time, Zero Nic vapour and Low nic vapour. The interesting parts of the study are that vapour (irrespective of nicotine content) appears to have no effect on the growth of the normal cells that line your airways, but if the cells have mutations in them that resemble those found in the airway cells of chronic smokers, then the high nic vapour produced effects characteristic of carcinogens (which is rather disappointing as most vapers were probably chronic smokers!), while the zero nic and low nic vapour doesn't produce these effects. Given that the only difference between the vapour used to treat the cells was the nicotine content, the authors conclude that it's the higher nicotine that produces the "cancer-like" effects.

Now, it's a long was from proving that high nicotine vapour causes cancer, even in a petri dish, and I'd like to see more robust methods of measuring the exact amount of nicotine delivered in this experiment (and how that compares with the amount delivered when actually vaping), plus a myriad of other variables, but it's something that has piqued my interest and I shall follow over the next while...but, depending on how it plays out, it may suggest that lower nic juice is the way to go (again, very early days and much more research to be done before any concrete conclusions).

Until then, I shall vape on!

dePeatrick

Very interesting info there, I smoked 20-30 a day for 40 years, am dropping my nic level straight away, am not taking any risks whatsoever anymore with my lungs.

Great post btw and welcome to the boards, hope you continue to post with regularity.

Figgywurmack Limerick

Rufen Sno wrote: »

Howdy folks, been lurking here since I started vaping a year and a half ago, always meant to post, but never got around to it!

As a bit of background, I'm a cancer biologist, who vapes. I used to smoke (rather silly of me), and like most who made the switch, I'm now intensely interested in whether this is really a hazard-free way of maintaining a 20 year+ nicotine addiction.

Anyway, haven't seen this posted in the forum, so I thought I would bring it to your attention. I saw this paper presented at AACR this year (and an earlier version at another meeting). (though not directly related to formaldehyde, so feel free to move if it's off topic)

clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/20/2_Supplement/B16.abstract

Basically, it describes some interesting findings (findings that are emerging in epidemiological data as well I might add, though it's a bit early to report), that nicotine itself has effects on cells that present problems (I know, I've read all the epidemiological data from the Swedish Snus studies). I was highly critical of the first version of this study, however, they added an interesting control this time, Zero Nic vapour and Low nic vapour. The interesting parts of the study are that vapour (irrespective of nicotine content) appears to have no effect on the growth of the normal cells that line your airways, but if the cells have mutations in them that resemble those found in the airway cells of chronic smokers, then the high nic vapour produced effects characteristic of carcinogens (which is rather disappointing as most vapers were probably chronic smokers!), while the zero nic and low nic vapour doesn't produce these effects. Given that the only difference between the vapour used to treat the cells was the nicotine content, the authors conclude that it's the higher nicotine that produces the "cancer-like" effects.

Now, it's a long was from proving that high nicotine vapour causes cancer, even in a petri dish, and I'd like to see more robust methods of measuring the exact amount of nicotine delivered in this experiment (and how that compares with the amount delivered when actually vaping), plus a myriad of other variables, but it's something that has piqued my interest and I shall follow over the next while...but, depending on how it plays out, it may suggest that lower nic juice is the way to go (again, very early days and much more research to be done before any concrete conclusions).

Until then, I shall vape on!

If your a cancer biologist im gonna be PISSED if you dont keep posting great informative post man thanks

Rufen Sno

dePeatrick wrote: »

Very interesting info there, I smoked 20-30 a day for 40 years, am dropping my nic level straight away, am not taking any risks whatsoever anymore with my lungs.

Great post btw and welcome to the boards, hope you continue to post with regularity.

Figgywurmack Limerick wrote: »

If your a cancer biologist im gonna be PISSED if you dont keep posting great informative post man thanks

Cheers Lads, Thanks for the warm welcome! Yep, Cancer Biologist for my sins. I run a research lab at one of the main Universities. Like most vapers, I'm not naive enough to think it's entirely risk-free, I'd just like to know what level of risk I'm looking at! Hard to know at this point what to make of the paper I referred to in my earlier post, it hasn't been published yet, so hasn't undergone the rigorous peer review that I'd like to see, having said that, it was reviewed by the selection committee at the largest cancer research meeting in the world, and they are some of the most eminent cancer biologists around (though this is a particularly topical paper, it even made the News section in Nature). There's certainly vested interests on all sides of the vaping debate, but at the very least, more information will allow us to make our own choices. If seized upon by those that legislate for these things, the paper in my earlier post could be used to support restricting nicotine content in juice, though at the moment, I think there would be a lot more evidence needed to support such an action. Having said that, I'm biased as 9mg is as low as I've gone and I use use 12mg!...Anyway, good to see more and more serious research on vaping, and anything I can add to the discussion feel free to ask.

Samba

Samba wrote: »

The coil due to thermal degradation which results from overheating juice.

Just noticed that, fixed and it almost reads like it was written by Farsalinos himself. In English - juice getting too hot on coils. :pac:

Figgywurmack Limerick wrote: »

Just for the record as a chemist speaking i cant see any concievable pathway where PG leads to formaldehyde but VG doesnt.

Very interesting.

It's worth noting the jury is still out on the study itself, it's awaiting peer review so we'll have to wait and see it in its entirety to see exactly how they came by those results (so many flaws already pointed out). But yeah, that's effectively what Farsalinos said, that the results suggest it's safer to use as they produced less compared to tests with PG and PG/VG. I better redact the VG statement in my OP until we see more.

stevenmu

Figgywurmack Limerick wrote: »

Just for the record as a chemist speaking i cant see any concievable pathway where PG leads to formaldehyde but VG doesnt.

Could temperature be a factor? In general usage e-cigarettes don't get particularly hot, perhaps they do get hot enough to lead to significant breakdown of PG into formaldehyde, but not hot enough for VG. (or at least not hot enough for it to breakdown at the same rate).

Figgywurmack Limerick

stevenmu wrote: »

Could temperature be a factor? In general usage e-cigarettes don't get particularly hot, perhaps they do get hot enough to lead to significant breakdown of PG into formaldehyde, but not hot enough for VG. (or at least not hot enough for it to breakdown at the same rate).

Regardless of temperature i just dont know how it would form. Maybe if it reacted with water in the air it could get the extra hydrogens needed but it would have to form an ester or a very strong acid to use up the oxygen in the water molecule and the acid or the ester would be very easily detected.

I just spent the last 10 minutes googling it (scientific eh? haha) all anyone can say is: "apparently a study shows pg can form formaldehyde when heated" no mention of a mechanism for this.

Just looked up some scientific journals and found this:

"A chronic inhalation study with PO showed increased incidences of nasal tumors in exposed rats (Lynch et al., 1984), but a subsequent study only showed mammary tumors in PO-exposed rats (Kuper et al., 1988). Based largely on the latter study, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified PO as a Group B2, probable human carcinogen (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999)."

"Unpublished work from our laboratories has shown that the amount of PO in smoke is largely dependent on the temperature to which the PG is heated, with clearly a large potential for such degradation in cigarettes where the tobacco may reach temperatures of up to 850 °C (Baker, 1999)."

So screw the formaldehyde, whos health concerns are debatable at best, these guys found proylene oxide (PO) an actual carcinogen. Now ill just note that this study was done for cigarettes (they contain 8-12% PG) but the PO was said to start forming at 850 degrees. Im not certain but i think a coil does reach heats that high. (someone verify this please).

Now ive just checked ScienceDirect (one of the biggest scientific databases worldwide) and they have NOTHING on PG and formaldehyde. Which basically means it hasnt been studied by a credible source.

I also searched the term "e-cigarettes" on ScienceDirect and from the dozen or so papers i looked at it seems any toxicants found in the liquids was due to the individual flavouring (cinnamon being the worst containing 36 toxicants) and not PG VG or nic.

Bit long winded but i hope i answered some questions and opened up a few more

grindle

Figgywurmack Limerick wrote: »

PO was said to start forming at 850 degrees. Im not certain but i think a coil does reach heats that high. (someone verify this please).

A dry coil can reach that temperature (and above), wet coils have been measured around 65C to 100C. Sub-ohm likely goes higher but still very very far off 850C.
If the constant supply of liquid and the airflow wasn't keeping the coil cool and it did reach 850C your atomiser would be in flames, never mind the PO.

Snowshower

Thank you guys so much for all this info.....(a lot of it can't understand) nevertheless some cause for concern with this vaping....well I think we all knew this and probably more worrying what's to come. One question for you people with experience (medically or otherwise)...what's the best advice ye can give to the ordinary person ...buys their supplies from recommended Irish website....what liquids do ye think we should be buying (currently getting Wignuts range I think they are made up of 80/20.). Not even sure what this means..... (pg/vg).....seeing that cinnamon is now def out. Read somewhere that the custard ones are also for the out. Also not sure if others find that vaping definitely has side effects. ( was not a big smoker) cough gone but get occassionally chest pains etc..now confused!!!

Any advice would be greatly appreciated...

Figgywurmack Limerick

Thank god really its only 100C when glowing red hot? great news

grindle

Figgywurmack Limerick wrote: »

Thank god really its only 100C when glowing red hot? great news

Glowing red-hot it's going to be near a thousand degrees or at least at the upper end of the scale towards it.
When wet, i.e. cooled, much lower. Easy concept. Maybe view some firefighting videos to see how this works? A fire doesn't make everything it touches instantly reach the temperature of the fire.
Constantly cooling heat with liquid cools heat shocker!

Figgywurmack Limerick

Snowshower wrote: »

Thank you guys so much for all this info.....(a lot of it can't understand) nevertheless some cause for concern with this vaping....well I think we all knew this and probably more worrying what's to come. One question for you people with experience (medically or otherwise)...what's the best advice ye can give to the ordinary person ...buys their supplies from recommended Irish website....what liquids do ye think we should be buying (currently getting Wignuts range I think they are made up of 80/20.). Not even sure what this means..... (pg/vg).....seeing that cinnamon is now def out. Read somewhere that the custard ones are also for the out. Also not sure if others find that vaping definitely has side effects. ( was not a big smoker) cough gone but get occassionally chest pains etc..now confused!!!

Any advice would be greatly appreciated...

All the main custard ones removed that chemical and the evidence of it doing damage was guys who worked in a factory exposed to massive amount of it. The name escapes me. I DIY all my own juice man

Figgywurmack Limerick

grindle wrote: »

Glowing red-hot it's going to be near a thousand degrees or at least at the upper end of the scale towards it.
When wet, i.e. cooled, much lower. Easy concept. Maybe view some firefighting videos to see how this works? A fire doesn't make everything it touches instantly reach the temperature of the fire.
Constantly cooling heat with liquid cools heat shocker!

Thanks for being a dick about me asking a question. I wont waste my time in future

dePeatrick

Figgywurmack Limerick wrote: »

All the main custard ones removed that chemical and the evidence of it doing damage was guys who worked in a factory exposed to massive amount of it. The name escapes me. I DIY all my own juice man

Haven't the Diaectyl substitutes proven to have traces of Diacetyl in them as well?

Btw....one guy microwaving popcorn 2-3 packs a day got the dreaded disease from his popcorn....or so a US court ruled.

Figgywurmack Limerick

dePeatrick wrote: »

Haven't the Diaectyl substitutes proven to have traces of Diacetyl in them as well?

Btw....one guy microwaving popcorn 2-3 packs a day got the dreaded disease from his popcorn....or so a US court ruled.

Ya lots of stuff on diacetyl being harmful but no mention of what concentration it needs to be at. Real flimsy science on all this stuff haha

dePeatrick

Figgywurmack Limerick wrote: »

Ya lots of stuff on diacetyl being harmful but no mention of what concentration it needs to be at. Real flimsy science on all this stuff haha

Agreed there is flimsy science as yet on this, but still...Diacetyl does cause popcorn lung, who wants to vape that? The chemicals used for flavourings were passed for the food industry for food, not for inhalation as vapour.....I think it is fair enough if some vapers are skeptical tbh.....we are guinea pigs....nice lab btw....:)

Figgywurmack Limerick

dePeatrick wrote: »

Agreed there is flimsy science as yet on this, but still...Diacetyl does cause popcorn lung, who wants to vape that? The chemicals used for flavourings were passed for the food industry for food, not for inhalation as vapour.....I think it is fair enough if some vapers are skeptical tbh.....we are guinea pigs....nice lab btw....:)

Ya but its all about concentration you know. If the levels of diacetyl are very small it prob doesnt matter much. Would be a very complicated study though. Wish i had done it for my project in college

dePeatrick

Figgywurmack Limerick wrote: »

Ya but its all about concentration you know. If the levels of diacetyl are very small it prob doesnt matter much. Would be a very complicated study though. Wish i had done it for my project in college

Yeah, agreed, but still, if some guy in the states can win a court case on the fumes from microwaved popcorn....!!! Maybe a one off....maybe not...

Do you know if Diacetyl builds up in the body like lead for instance, have seen this mentioned elsewhere (ECF)

Figgywurmack Limerick

dePeatrick wrote: »

Yeah, agreed, but still, if some guy in the states can win a court case on the fumes from microwaved popcorn....!!! Maybe a one off....maybe not...

Do you know if Diacetyl builds up in the body like lead for instance, have seen this mentioned elsewhere (ECF)

Diacetyl is polar so will dissolve in water so should be easily passed in urine. non-polar builds up in fat

dePeatrick

Figgywurmack Limerick wrote: »

Diacetyl is polar so will dissolve in water so should be easily passed in urine. non-polar builds up in fat

Interesting....will still be sticking to VG/Nic/Menthol and the occasional blast of flavours until this is finally settled....in about 20 - 30 years

I do firmly believe that vaping will prove to be way healthier than smoking, but the manufacturers have to get their act together, at the moment they cannot even label juices as to their VG/PG ratio, let alone what chemicals are included in them....same path as the cigarette companies who were never held to account on listing the thousands of chemicals in cigarettes.....

Vaping should be and can be different

grindle

Figgywurmack Limerick wrote: »

Thanks for being a dick about me asking a question. I wont waste my time in future

Sorry, the way I read it was as it's written: "wow, a red hot 900C = 100C".

Didn't mean it to be dickish, perhaps a misinterpretation on my part of what you meant, but basically coils when wet run much cooler than 850C.

rickyjb

I'm pretty sure cotton wool wouldn't survive temperatures of 850 C, airflow and the liquid keeps the temperature far below that.

Kanthal first begins to glow orange at around 90-100 degC (http://www.temcoindustrialpower.com/product_selection.html?p=kanthal_acrylic_bending_table) and I'd imagine a dry coil heats up a good bit higher than that but I'd doubt it's above 500 degC.

Samba

rickyjb wrote: »

I'm pretty sure cotton wool wouldn't survive temperatures of 850 C, airflow and the liquid keeps the temperature far below that.

Kanthal first begins to glow orange at around 90-100 degC (http://www.temcoindustrialpower.com/product_selection.html?p=kanthal_acrylic_bending_table) and I'd imagine a dry coil heats up a good bit higher than that but I'd doubt it's above 500 degC.

This was my thinking too, for example VG produces acrolein at 280 degrees C http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrolein

There was a discussion on reddit about it.

It might be wise to dry burn under an extraction fan but other than that, I'm starting to think this is just another farcical study that's effectively trying to discredit refillable and non-cigalike models (anyone know who funded it?).

I've sensitive lungs/sinuses due to a history of Bronchitis in the family so in my case I'm going to air on the side of caution and keep my coils clean and vape at lower volts and watts.

dePeatrick

Just to be the Devils advocate on this, Kanthal is what your bread is millimetres away from when you toast your bread, also it is used in your fan oven, and when you use a hair dryer......does not mean it is safe, but we are exposed way more than we think to very hot Kanthal than we think.

Acrolein is produced pretty much every time we fry sausages, rashers etc....not good for us but way more likely that we get more from a slightly over cooked rasher than vaping.

Nice to see a reasoned debate on the pros and cons of vaping btw, this industry is supposed to be self regulating, but from what I can see it is the Vapers who put a lot more time and energy into sussing out what is healthy and what us not, the manufacturing industry, particularly as regards liquids has been slow so far.