The Whole Formaldehyde Thing

It appears that more and more studies are finding formaldehyde being released in ejuice when the voltage is 5 volts or higher. Anything lower than 5 volts and no trace of formaldehyde is being detected. Also, the formaldehyde detected is 15X stronger than that found in a normal cigarette.

Since formaldehyde is a carninogen, what does that mean for us vapers if we are chain vaping on sub-ohm devices and etc everyday? That's a lot of formaldehyde we are taking in each day...

I'm kind of scared at this point for my health...

Will we be seeing formaldehyde-free juice once the FDA steps in? How would that even work?  

the short story ......

Background and aims

Aldehydes are emitted by electronic cigarettes due to thermal decomposition of liquid components. Although elevated levels have been reported with new-generation high-power devices, it is unclear whether they are relevant to true exposure of users (vapers) because overheating produces an unpleasant taste, called a dry puff, which vapers learn to avoid. The aim was to evaluate aldehyde emissions at different power levels associated with normal and dry puff conditions.

Design
Two customizable atomizers were prepared so that one (A1) had a double wick, resulting in high liquid supply and lower chance of overheating at high power levels, while the other (A2) was a conventional setup (single wick). Experienced vapers took 4-s puffs at 6.5 watts (W), 7.5 W, 9 W and 10 W power levels with both atomizers and were asked to report whether dry puffs were generated. The atomizers were then attached to a smoking machine and aerosol was trapped.

Setting
Clinic office and analytical chemistry laboratory in Greece.

Participants
Seven experienced vapers.

Measurements
Aldehyde levels were measured in the aerosol.

Findings
All vapers identified dry puff conditions at 9 W and 10 W with A2. A1 did not lead to dry puffs at any power level. Minimal amounts of aldehydes per 10 puffs were found at all power levels with A1 (up to 11.3 µg for formaldehyde, 4.5 µg for acetaldehyde and 1.0 µg for acrolein) and at 6.5 W and 7.5 W with A2 (up to 3.7 µg for formaldehyde, 0.8 µg for acetaldehyde and 1.3 µg for acrolein). The levels were increased by 30 to 250 times in dry puff conditions (up to 344.6 µg for formaldehyde, 206.3 µg for acetaldehyde and 210.4 µg for acrolein, P < 0.001), while acetone was detected only in dry puff conditions (up to 22.5 µg).

Conclusions
Electronic cigarettes produce high levels of aldehyde only in dry puff conditions, in which the liquid overheats, causing a strong unpleasant taste that e-cigarette users detect and avoid. Under normal vaping conditions aldehyde emissions are minimal, even in new-generation high-power e-cigarettes.

Conclusion

Aldehyde emissions in EC aerosol are associated directly with dry puff conditions. In normal vaping conditions, the levels of aldehydes emissions are minimal and by far lower than the levels in tobacco cigarette smoke, despite the use of high power levels. In dry puff conditions, aldehyde emissions are significantly elevated to very high levels, but vapers are not expected to be exposed to such levels during normal EC use, even when they use new-generation high-power devices.


the long story a good read
E-cigarettes generate high levels of aldehydes only in ‘dry puff’ conditions - Farsalinos - 2015 - Addiction - Wiley Online Library  

I just returned from my biannual Doctor's visit. While there I told her that I was over 90 days cigarette free. She asked me if I had gone cold turkey. I told her about vaping and how it had allowed me to quit. She was very happy that I had quit. She did not mention anything about vaping, positive or negative. She just focused on my quitting and ask about food taste and smells. Continuing through the visit, while she was renewing my med prescriptions, she continued to reinforce my decision to quit and all of the positive things along quitting. As she left she was still smiling and happy. I also talked to one of her nurses about vaping and quitting and gave her my number and told her that I could set her up with a beginners kit from my gear that I don't use. Now I will sit back and see if I have recruited a new convert. Overall, I left the doctor's office with a smile on my face, too.  

I just came across this article, claiming that even nicotine-free e-liquids contain lung-harming substances like acrolein:

[URL='http://lungcancernewstoday.com/2015/06/08/nicotine-free-e-cigarette-vapor-also-damages-lung-cells/']Nicotine-Free E-Cigarette Vapor Also Damages Lung Cells Lung Cancer News Today[/URL]

What I hate about articles such as these is that they're almost always posted with some scary headline and usually end up saying there isn't a proper research into topic or they're awaiting further investigations.

Anyhow, can anyone comment on what 'acrolein' is? I've heard of formaldehyde being created when vaping on high wattage, but this is the first time I hear of acrolein.  

...every commercial is a e-cig ad which opens up with some candy/fruity tasties in a picture, then continues on to show young adults blowing clouds of vapor. I mean, I went to fox to watch Bob's Burgers which is a cartoon, and technically aimed at the younger crowd. Do they seriously think showing candy and clouds is a good idea? What a huge joke. Not to mention the site that it links to at the end of the ad just lists vague topics and negative effects that are either completely wrong or not even specific enough to where it could mean anything such as:

1. E-cig vapor can contain even more particles than tobacco (ok, It CAN contain, so does it or doesnt it? Also particles? Really? It contains particles? Everything contains particles and there are millions upon millions of things that contain more 'particles' than tobacco.)

2. Vaping causes as much short term inflammation in your lungs as regular cigarettes, nicotine free vapor may cause even more. (short term inflammation? no specifics, nothing. And then nicotine-free vapor can cause even more? Lol. First they compare nicotine to an illegal hard-drug and how it is as addictive as it, then they say without the nicotine its even worse? Makes no sense.

3. The Irritation caused by breathing particles may cause an asthma attack. Read that sentence closely again, breathing in particles may cause an asthma attack. Not ecig particles, just particles, not any specific particles, just particles. So apparently all I read is "breathing in air or pesticides may cause an asthma attack"

4. Antibiotic resistant MRSA bacteria are harder to kill after being exposed to the particles in ecig vapor. another study found that ecig aerosol decreases immune system response and increase susceptibility of flu and pneumonia in mice. no link to any articles here.

5. even short term exposure to these little buggers can cause irritation of the throat and eyes give you a cough and make you feel dizzy. "these little buggers" they are referring to ecig vapor as a colony of little evil villains? dont understand this one

6. your ticker hates these particles too. they can cause constriction of the arteries that may lead to a heart attack. again with the 'particles', no specific statement of what type of particle or any links or lists of ingredients whatsoever.


amongst these vauge statements with no backup or evidence, they bring up formaldehyde, 'second hand vapor' , and 'thirdhand nicotine' being in your food at restaurants (THIRDHAND Nicotine, being in your FOOD, caused by vapers, ). They also continue to bash big tobacco, and blaming big tobacco for ecigarettes. "there is a lot that the e-cig industry is not telling us" etc etc. IMO, theres a lot that this campaign/ad doesn't say, but what is scary is that its such a huge campaign and the commercial was aimed to strike fear into the unknowing and ignorant. If I was not informed and wasn't a person who can think for myself, I would probably be against ecigs after seeing it. I'd like to think the majority of people are smart people who can make their own judgements and not jump to conclusions due to scare tactics like these, but sadly I don't think that is true.

Again, this ad came up while I was watching a cartoon, on fox's website. LoL  

I'm a 45yo New Zealander, and I have absolutely no axe to grind, except one:

I smoked for 25 years. Therefore the tobacco companies have had more than their fair share of my money, and more importantly my health.

Thanks to vaping, using RBAs and mods, and diying my own ejuices - I've been smoke-free for 20 months.

One company that looks like winning, with all the fake news and hysteria being dredged up in USA over vaping is Phillip Morris International. And I'm not talking about their cigarette products - but rather their IQOS product.

A Device That Heats Tobacco, But Doesn't Burn It, Can Now Be Sold in the U.S. Here's What to Know About IQOS

The FDA have already approved this product for sale in USA. And how does the IQOS work?

the FDA says the pen-like IQOS device heats, but does not burn, “tobacco-filled sticks” wrapped in paper, creating an aerosol that contains nicotine. Marlboro, an Altria brand, will make the tobacco sticks used inside the cartridge, which will come in menthol and unflavored versions.
Click to expand...

It's pretty much a cigarette, that goes into a device which 'heats' the tobacco, so you can inhale it.

Here's Why IQOS Could Completely Own the U.S. E-Cig Market | The Motley Fool

And how safe is it?

Comparison of Chemicals in Mainstream Smoke in Heat-not-burn Tobacco and Combustion Cigarettes. - PubMed - NCBI

There is little scientific data, however, of the hazards and toxicity of iQOS. In this study, we evaluated several harmful compounds (nicotine, tar, carbon monoxide (CO) and tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs)) in the mainstream smoke and fillers of iQOS, and compared their concentrations with those from conventional combustion cigarettes.

The concentrations of nicotine in tobacco fillers and the mainstream smoke of iQOS were almost the same as those of conventional combustion cigarettes, while the concentration of TSNAs was one fifth and CO was one hundredth of those of conventional combustion cigarettes. These toxic compounds are not completely removed from the mainstream smoke of iQOS, making it necessary to consider the health effects and regulation of iQOS.
Click to expand...

iQOS may not be as harm-free as claimed, study finds

The University of California study found that, since the device could only be used for six-minutes before it needed to be recharged, it may cause some people to shorten the interval between puffs in order to make sure they did not waste any of the tobacco stick which could increase the possible toxic exposure.

But of greater concern was that the polymer filter melted slightly during use and released formaldehyde cyanohydrin, a toxic substance which could be fatal to humans. The compound is metabolised in the liver and broken down into formaldehyde and cyanide.

"This study has shown that the iQOS system may not be as harm-free as claimed and also emphasises the urgent need for further safety testing as the popularity and user base of this product is growing rapidly," the study concluded.

University of Otago public health and marketing Professor Janet Hoek said the findings led her to question whether it really was a "reduced harm" product as claimed by the manufacturers.

If users inhaled more frequently as it was suggested, it was likely they would "increase their nicotine intake and exposure to harmful compounds present in the inhaled aerosol", she said.

She said those who had tried unsuccessfully to quit smoking were better off considering e-cigarettes.
Click to expand...

Just my

 

Hi there from kuwait
i am almost 1 year vaping now, managed to quit smoking, but now i am facing a lunge proplems and couldnt breath, went to doctor his easy solution was to quit but i cant, what i am asking: is there a safer liquid i can use, lets say if i used juul liquids for a while (since its aknown company) instead of my regular juices, its more expensive to me but at least its for some time till i get better, or do u advice me any thing else, thanx  

Ok I'm hoping I don't get heat for these questions/statements but educating ones self especially with something that is still very new is important to me.

1. Read some articles on how there is second hand vape similar to cigarettes (99% better mind you) what are your thoughts? Vaping may not be as safe as smokers think, research suggests | Society | The Guardian

2. Formaldehyde found in builds running at high watts/voltage? But 0% at low/normal builds, what i can't seem to find is whats considered to high for a Mechanical Mod or even for a V/W, V/V Setup? My normal build for a mech mod is twisted single coil 24 gauge 6-7 wraps, usually gets about 0.28 ohms and single coil 8 wraps of 24 gauge puts out 0.73 ohms on my flavor builds.
Before You Vape: High levels of Formaldehyde Hidden in E-Cigs - NBC News  

I began my journey in 2014 after a severe DAI
When my neurologist was pleased to see my vape back then and encouraged the switch then boom, all systems go

In the time I’ve spent recovering, ECF and all of its members have contributed and I appreciate it.

While I was doing my daily cognitive exercises, going to rehab and various doctor appointments ECF was there
The information I picked up to keep safe or pass the time, welcome people or chat with familiar members while having a good read through all that has been invaluable to me

some guy here even fixed my computer!
Thanks a lot ECF members. Good people

edit; I instantly need a mod to move this to the social. My memory has always been terrible  

This is part of an newsletter email:
Q: Do the words used to describe vaping alter perceptions of risk?

A: At first sight, the two headlines appear very similar: “Labeling e-cigarette emissions as ‘chemicals’ or ‘aerosols’ increases the perceived risk of exposure” and “Accurate labels like ‘aerosol’ or ‘chemicals’ increase perceived risks of e-cigarette use”. The ironic thing is that while both fairly accurately reflect the study being reported, one – the one that uses the word “Accurate” – is not quite so, well... accurate.

As any chemistry teacher will tell you, everything is composed of chemicals – you are, your food is, the screen you’re reading this on is made up entirely of chemicals. Which makes the labelling of e-cig vapour as “chemicals” self-evidently true at one level, but deliberately misleading at another. (Don’t drink that water, it’s nothing but chemicals!)

As it turns out, those headlines – one from News-Medical.net, the other from Medical Xpress – are placed over identical reports (i.e. an uncritically reproduced press release) of a study published this week in the Journal of American College Health. And the very title of that study, “Aerosol, vapor, or chemicals? College student perceptions of harm from electronic cigarettes and support for a tobacco-free campus policy”, tells you at once that this is hardly unbiased science, seeking answers not yet known, but rather that sadly common form of pseudo-science that starts out with its conclusion in place and sets out to “prove” it.

The study of college students in 2018 and 2019 found – not altogether surprisingly – that those asked to assess the harmfulness of secondhand “aerosol” or “chemicals” emitted by e-cigarettes were more inclined to see them as dangerous than those who were asked to assess “vapor”.

It also found, unsurprisingly, that they were around twice as likely to support a tobacco-free campus policy. This being the US, where authority routinely seems to miss the point that e-cigarettes don’t contain tobacco, we can take that to mean a vape-free campus policy too. Which, it is not hard to assume, is exactly what the researchers wanted them to support.

The study’s conclusion is itself a masterpiece of deception (perhaps self-deception). It is this: “Health campaigns should use accurate terminology to describe e-cigarette emissions, rather than jargon that conveys lower risk.”

Just how the term “chemicals” – which, after all, encompasses every breath you take – is more “accurate” than “vapor” the authors make no attempt to explain.

Now it may be true that much research which purports to support e-cigarette use is equally tendentious, setting out with its conclusion already prepared. But to respond with such blatantly bad science is no help to anyone who really wants to discover facts as yet unknown. And there are plenty of those yet to be discovered in the field of vaping.

Oh, and the answer to the question posed above is: “Yes, of course”.
Click to expand...

This is a link to the study mentioned.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07448481.2020.1819293