Dr Farsalinos Diacetyl Study Published

[MarkS]

The study evaluating the presence of diacetyl and acetyl propionyl in e-cigarette liquids has just been published.

Abstract

Introduction.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate sweet-flavoured electronic cigarette (EC) liquids for the presence of diacetyl (DA) and acetyl propionyl (AP), which are chemicals approved for food use but are associated with respiratory disease when inhaled.

Methods.
In total, 159 samples were purchased from 36 manufacturers and retailers from 7 countries. Additionally, three liquids were prepared by dissolving a concentrated flavour sample of known DA and AP levels at 5%, 10% and 20% concentration in a mixture of propylene glycol and glycerol. Aerosol produced by an EC was analyzed to determine the concentration of DA and AP.

Results.
DA and AP were found in 74.2% of the samples, with more samples containing DA. Similar concentrations were found in liquid and aerosol for both chemicals. The median daily exposure levels were 56?g/day (IQR: 26-278?g/day) for DA and 91?g/day (IQR: 20-432?g/day) for AP. They were slightly lower than the strict NIOSH-defined safety limits for occupational exposure and 100 and 10 times lower compared to smoking respectively; however, 47.3% of DA and 41.5% of AP-containing samples exposed consumers to levels higher than the safety limits.

Conclusions.
DA and AP were found in a large proportion of sweet-flavoured EC liquids, with many of them exposing users to higher than safety levels. Their presence in EC liquids represents an avoidable risk. Proper measures should be taken by EC liquid manufacturers and flavouring suppliers to eliminate these hazards from the products, without necessarily limiting the availability of sweet flavours.

ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/08/30/ntr.ntu176.short?rss=1

Very timely.

[fred]

Maybe the recent news is incorrect then - after all, was this SCIENTIFIC study not croud-funded (at least partially) by vapers?
In their eyes this would make the result biased!

Hopefully, this will make those in charge sit up and take note of the other SCIENTIFIC studies that Dr Farsalinos has conducted - after all, he is one of the handful of professional people who is actually trying to save lives, no matter the results of his testing. That, as far as I can see, is his only agenda.

Thumbs up to Dr Farsalinos.

[MarkS]

Sept 2, 2014 10:00:28 GMT fred said:

Maybe the recent news is incorrect then - after all, was this SCIENTIFIC study not croud-funded (at least partially) by vapers?
In their eyes this would make the result biased!

Hopefully, this will make those in charge sit up and take note of the other SCIENTIFIC studies that Dr Farsalinos has conducted - after all, he is one of the handful of professional people who is actually trying to save lives, no matter the results of his testing. That, as far as I can see, is his only agenda.

Thumbs up to Dr Farsalinos.

The study was crowd funded but I do believe industry donated some funds via the crowd funding page too.

I don't really think this study tells us anything that we didn't know already.  What we need is a study that monitors the effects of diacetyl via vaping in these concentrations. Obviously this would take a lot more time and funding.

The thing I totally disagree with is the fact the liquids and manufacturers are not being named. This raising some serious questions for me.

It makes me wonder if this really is such an issue, because if it was then surely the only responsible course of action would be to let vapers know exactly what they need to avoid.

Also if the industry wanted anonymity then they could have paid for their own research.

Dr Farsalinos has said that all the manufacturers and suppliers have been informed so they can take action, but what if they don't? Who is chasing them up on this?

I believe the only way you can make sure they do not rest on their laurels and ignore the findings is to make the information public. Then at least people are aware that there may be a problem and make purchases accordingly.

[charliehorse]

Sept 2, 2014 10:11:31 GMT MarkS said:

Sept 2, 2014 10:00:28 GMT fred said:

Maybe the recent news is incorrect then - after all, was this SCIENTIFIC study not croud-funded (at least partially) by vapers?
In their eyes this would make the result biased!

Hopefully, this will make those in charge sit up and take note of the other SCIENTIFIC studies that Dr Farsalinos has conducted - after all, he is one of the handful of professional people who is actually trying to save lives, no matter the results of his testing. That, as far as I can see, is his only agenda.

Thumbs up to Dr Farsalinos.

The study was crowd funded but I do believe industry donated some funds via the crowd funding page too.

I don't really think this study tells us anything that we didn't know already.  What we need is a study that monitors the effects of diacetyl via vaping in these concentrations. Obviously this would take a lot more time and funding.

The thing I totally disagree with is the fact the liquids and manufacturers are not being named. This raising some serious questions for me.

It makes me wonder if this really is such an issue, because if it was then surely the only responsible course of action would be to let vapers know exactly what they need to avoid.

Also if the industry wanted anonymity then they could have paid for their own research.

Dr Farsalinos has said that all the manufacturers and suppliers have been informed so they can take action, but what if they don't? Who is chasing them up on this?

I believe the only way you can make sure they do not rest on their laurels and ignore the findings is to make the information public. Then at least people are aware that there may be a problem and make purchases accordingly.

Is the point about the manufacturers and suppliers being informed in the full article ? I didn't see it in the free extract.

Totally agree that the information should be made public, at the very least the list of samples tested and whether they resulted in the acceptable or high levels found would be a start.

[sleedale]

It also quote median daily exposure levels........does this mean if a vaper used only liquid with these chemicals in them, all day, every day?
I tend to change flavours quite often so some might have these in them, some might not. Agree that liquids that have these in them should be labelled as such....we can the make an informed choice.

[MarkS]

Sept 2, 2014 11:03:06 GMT charliehorse said:

Sept 2, 2014 10:11:31 GMT MarkS said:

The study was crowd funded but I do believe industry donated some funds via the crowd funding page too.

I don't really think this study tells us anything that we didn't know already.  What we need is a study that monitors the effects of diacetyl via vaping in these concentrations. Obviously this would take a lot more time and funding.

The thing I totally disagree with is the fact the liquids and manufacturers are not being named. This raising some serious questions for me.

It makes me wonder if this really is such an issue, because if it was then surely the only responsible course of action would be to let vapers know exactly what they need to avoid.

Also if the industry wanted anonymity then they could have paid for their own research.

Dr Farsalinos has said that all the manufacturers and suppliers have been informed so they can take action, but what if they don't? Who is chasing them up on this?

I believe the only way you can make sure they do not rest on their laurels and ignore the findings is to make the information public. Then at least people are aware that there may be a problem and make purchases accordingly.

Is the point about the manufacturers and suppliers being informed in the full article ? I didn't see it in the free extract.

Totally agree that the information should be made public, at the very least the list of samples tested and whether they resulted in the acceptable or high levels found would be a start.

I've not seen the full report, but Dr F has said on VTTV before and on social media that they would be informing the manufacturers of the liquids of their findings.

That was few months ago, so you'd assume they have been informed by now.

I have tweeted Dr F asking if any of the companies that were informed are still selling the liquids.

No reply as of yet.

[charliehorse]

Sept 2, 2014 12:20:20 GMT MarkS said:

Sept 2, 2014 11:03:06 GMT charliehorse said:

Is the point about the manufacturers and suppliers being informed in the full article ? I didn't see it in the free extract.

Totally agree that the information should be made public, at the very least the list of samples tested and whether they resulted in the acceptable or high levels found would be a start.

I've not seen the full report, but Dr F has said on VTTV before and on social media that they would be informing the manufacturers of the liquids of their findings.

That was few months ago, so you'd assume they have been informed by now.

I have tweeted Dr F asking if any of the companies that were informed are still selling the liquids.

No reply as of yet.

Thanks for that MarkS - keep us updated if he does get back to you on that one please. 

[Romney]

Totally Agree with the above Posts,it has to be made Public,so we can make our own choice.

[ukric]

What of the people who have bottles as yet unopened at home? No list, unable to check.

[Ripshod]

Okay, so 1 in 4 had diacetyl in it.

What I wonder is if he'd taken a smaple of 20 juices and still only found it in one of them would they be creating such a fuss?? They're reacting like a quarter of all the juices are toxic. Unfounded? Maybe!


Retracted Was referring to something else.

This thread is actually quite disturbing.

[charliehorse]

Sept 2, 2014 14:10:46 GMT Ripshod said:

Okay, so 1 in 4 had diacetyl in it.

What I wonder is if he'd taken a smaple of 20 juices and still only found it in one of them would they be creating such a fuss?? They're reacting like a quarter of all the juices are toxic. Unfounded? Maybe!

Statistics were never my strong point but if he took a sample of 20 and found it in only one then surely that would be 1 in 20 which sounds like better odds than 1 in 4 ?

Though if it was a quarter of the twenty would that not be 1 in 5 ?

I would still like to know which ones they were whatever way round it is.

[boyofford]

So, if I'm reading this right a lot of eliquid has unsafe(ish) levels in it?
Didn't realise it's use was as widespread as this.

[Ripshod]

Ignore me, my bad. I was referring to the TV (Bulls**t) report.

[Ripshod]

The median daily exposure levels were 56?g/day (IQR: 26-278?g/day) for DA and 91?g/day (IQR: 20-432?g/day) for AP. They were slightly lower than the strict NIOSH-defined safety limits for occupational exposure and 100 and 10 times lower compared to smoking respectively;

Okay. So why don't they ban tobacco>

I'd love this to be reported on BBC News, but it won't will it??

And how much do you get exposed to just opening a bag of toffee popcorn?

[GunJack]

there really should be no excuse for any manufacturers using known harmful chemicals in their products. Even their raw ingredients should have product data sheets with the component parts listed, surely ??