Diacetyl: at least it's not crack!!
Juice vendors won't even disclose their proprietary vg/pg percentage. I have trouble seeing them revealing their exact flavoring brands because then everyone will realize they can clone the stuff at home for far cheaper9. The easiest way to remove the issue, is to test the flavor vendors. And have branding of the flavor vendors, on the finished juices. Liquid Company X, we use exclusively Cappella V2, and Flavour Art E-Cig line.
What I don't understand is the other flavoring manufacturers. They are not providing lab tests. They should be held accountable as well. Most of these flavor companies only produce for ecig companies.
Examples of flavoring companies such as: Inawera, Hangsen and so forth.
I agree, except for one thing. If an e liquid company claims to be 100% diacetyl free, as has been said, they are opening up the door for litigation. I'll be interested to see if that claim quietly drops from some sites.Why in the world would a company pay Big Bucks for testing - when they don't have to? No law exists, and their sales aren't hurting. We may find that ethically distasteful, but if there is no legal- or profit-related motivation, they have no reason to spend the money.
(Even IF there were regulation here, remember Inawera and Hangsen are not U.S. companies. Neither of them is suffering massive loss of sales due to lack of ingredient disclosure, either.)
I agree, except for one thing. If an e liquid company claims to be 100% diacetyl free, as has been said, they are opening up the door for litigation. I'll be interested to see if that claim quietly drops from some sites.
Probably. It is the safest thing to do right now.I agree, except for one thing. If an e liquid company claims to be 100% diacetyl free, as has been said, they are opening up the door for litigation. I'll be interested to see if that claim quietly drops from some sites.
Its already happening. When I heard about the SB fiasco last week. I looked to one of my Eliquid Suppliers that will remain unnamed. I have asked them why it has changed, no response as of yet.
Their site last week read the following -
We do not use the following:
Acetoin
Diacetyl
Acetyl Propionyl
Food color agents
Artificial Sweeteners
Now it reads -
We do not use the following:
Food color agents
Artificial Sweeteners
Flavor West is one that claimed to have no diacetyl some Canadians analyzed their custard I believe and found it did have it.BTW, I went back and read the Dr F results and watched his presentation again last night and couldn't see/hear a statement that any companies claimed to be D and AP free but were found to contain them. I saw that they tested juices and flavoring that tested positive, but no statements that any of those positive had previously claimed to be free of them.
I may be looking at an abridged version of the report though... can someone give me a link to a copy of the document that has findings stating that companies reported to be free of D and AP were tested positive?
Thanks
If an e liquid company claims to be 100% diacetyl free, as has been said, they are opening up the door for litigation.
I looked to one of my Eliquid Suppliers that will remain unnamed. I have asked them why it has changed, no response as of yet.
Their site last week read the following -
We do not use the following:
Acetoin
Diacetyl
Acetyl Propionyl
Food color agents
Artificial Sweeteners
Now it reads -
We do not use the following:
Food color agents
Artificial Sweeteners
Flavor West is one that claimed to have no diacetyl some Canadians analyzed their custard I believe and found it did have it.
Do not know if they brought that up, pretty sure it was a different study
I don't think e-liquid vendors have ANY legal repercussions to fear!
Interesting thread on reddit about Grant's Custard, for three reasons:
1. screencap of its testing result
2.
3. some calculations trying to relate concentration in juice to concentration in vapour (probably over-complicated and incorrect, but still kinda interesting).
Sent off an email to VCV re: D & AP. Its not the specific answer I was hoping to get, but at least they communicate quickly. Will do a follow up shortly.
"! All natural, organic ingredients - and never anything like diactyl (OR similar such things) "
Not sure I agree with you on this one, product liability cases do not require that the vendor or manufacturer have knowledge of the defect before being held liable for the defect. It hurts the case if they the defendant does something known to be harmful, ignores it, and continues to market the product.
So one would logically assume this vendor is (or thinks they may be) using acetoin, diacetyl, and aceyl propionyl, right?
But you want to protect their reputation and don't name them....because... why?
I'll name one: Halo. The statement on their website used to include one or more of the substitutes, but it now claims only to avoid diacetyl. (Screen captures of their before/after disclaimers are posted elsewhere online. I personally witnessed the change, but I was not the one to capture those images.)
I don't want this to become a Vendor Bashing thread.
Its a well known Company that many people like and use!
The only way I know it was changed is that I copied the text to chat it to a friend with it saying that they didnt contain that and went back during the Mod Envy broadcast and it was changed. I've asked whether or not it was because they were unsure, or if they are awaiting full testing results or what. Still no response.
Diketones occur naturally, so there's even less control using 'organic' flavorings!
Yes, I realize a vendor can be held liable for defects they did not know about. But would it be considered a defect?
You say "known to be harmful" - yet it is officially a GRAS substance, which covers it as a flavoring.
Known to be unsafe for inhalation? At what percentage or ppm? Using how much per day? There is dispute about those questions!
So whether or not flavorings contain diketones, its sort of irrelevant correct? Well, I guess the only way to know anything for sure now is to send off the e-liquids yourself to have it tested. I suppose "group buys" for specific juice brand testing would be the next best step.
IDK, this is getting really confusing for me...
I would agree with this. I used to vape Natures Flavors Organic exclusively. Now, since switching flavoring vendors, I can taste diketones in almost every single NF flavor! Including fruits! Needless to say organic is not better in this case.Diketones occur naturally, so there's even less control using 'organic' flavorings!
I don't personally understand the interest in custards, but carrot cake? Would not have thought of that ever.ugh bad experience with NF carrot cake. *shudders*
Diacetyl was not detected perhaps because "limit of detection of 0.1%" (that's 1000 parts per million)
I've said it before: set the detection limit high enough, suddenly everything is diacetyl-free.
I love butterscotch, caramel, custard, sweet cream, cake and then fruits and candies. Basically, I'm definitely vaping diacetyl, even though my vendor claims it's not used. Kinda sucks, and I have some real thinking to do. Problem is, apparently they're finding diacetyl in fruit flavors, too, to my understanding any flavor can have it. Though, buttery creamy custard types I gather are more likely.
So whether or not flavorings contain diketones, its sort of irrelevant correct? Well, I guess the only way to know anything for sure now is to send off the e-liquids yourself to have it tested. I suppose "group buys" for specific juice brand testing would be the next best step.
IDK, this is getting really confusing for me...
Perfurmers Apprentice says it Much differently on the MSDSSomething disconcerting mentioned on Mod Envy Saturday was if I remember correctly, the mixing of some flavorings free of diacetyl and AP can actually result in it "developing" so to speak, in the end product. Someone correct me please if I'm wrong, and I can't remember if it was AP or diacetyl that was developed, but that was troublesome to hear.
I have done reading in the DIY section about this, people saying it almost smells of vomit to them after a while.
Perfurmers Apprentice says it Much differently on the MSDS
This product contains no added diacetyl as an ingre dient. However, because diacetyl can occur in small amounts as an artifact of the production process in other ingredients, "No Added Diacetyl" products may not be "Diacetyl Free" , as trace amounts may be present.
BTW, I went back and read the Dr F results and watched his presentation again last night and couldn't see/hear a statement that any companies claimed to be D and AP free but were found to contain them. I saw that they tested juices and flavoring that tested positive, but no statements that any of those positive had previously claimed to be free of them.
I may be looking at an abridged version of the report though... can someone give me a link to a copy of the document that has findings stating that companies reported to be free of D and AP were tested positive?
Thanks
oh boo-hoo! You lean into me calling me a know nothing, I lean back calling you a clown. Only difference is you are pouting for the crowd.
So you do not believe that Capella's V2 line is clear of Diacetyl and AP like they say? ... Or are you saying you don't trust their representations.There is already a thread dedicated to information on that topic. The latest info I've seen is from back in July, post #30 in this thread: http://vapingunderground.com/thread...yl-and-acetoin-in-flavorings.3351/#post-42554
fail to see the entire point of this. Are you saying that you don't think accuracy down to 5 ppm testing is not good enough for you, for the liquid???Diacetyl detection during the 1940-50s - some enlightening information!
By the 1950s, several chemical methods were used to detect and measure diacetyl concentrations in different solutions, from food products to human blood, with sensitivity down to a single part per million. Prill and Hammer's method accurately detected diacetyl at concentrations as low as 0.2 parts per million.
Several available methods are briefly mentioned in this 1953 article from the journal of Analytical Chemistry: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ac60081a020 . Although you can view only the first page for free, the names of the scientists who developed earlier methods (and a brief description of each) are included on that page.
One chemical method was published in 1943 by Stolz and Raborg. Here is their full article from the 1943 Journal of Biologic Chemistry: http://www.jbc.org/content/150/1/25.full.pdf . It described their methods for detecting and measuring acetoin and diacetyl. When they determined that this method (which detects amounts to 1 ppm) was accounting for only 88% of the actual diacetyl in a solution, they determined that wasn't accurate enough.
Two thoughts:
* parts per million precision on diacetyl detection has existed more than 60 years - it's not unreasonable to expect ppm testing now - especially when a typical modern lab can now measure to parts per billion or better. In other words, this ain't rocket science.
* Who knows - maybe a home chemistry hobbyist will read those articles and devise a method vapers or vendors could use as an alternative to expensive lab spectrometry services. Even a rough measure (ppm) is better than the "it's not there - trust that or not" we get from most manufacturers and vendors.
I've long wished a chemical dipstick could be developed to detect diketones - sure would make it easy, wouldn't it?
I may blow you mind with this, but one reason is the world is not entirely filled up with evil money grubbing assholes.Why in the world would a company pay Big Bucks for testing - when they don't have to? No law exists, and their sales aren't hurting. We may find that ethically distasteful, but if there is no legal- or profit-related motivation, they have no reason to spend the money.
BTW, I went back and read the Dr F results and watched his presentation again last night and couldn't see/hear a statement that any companies claimed to be D and AP free but were found to contain them. I saw that they tested juices and flavoring that tested positive, but no statements that any of those positive had previously claimed to be free of them.
I may be looking at an abridged version of the report though... can someone give me a link to a copy of the document that has findings stating that companies reported to be free of D and AP were tested positive?
Thanks
Oddly, a link right on this page revealed that vendor. Personally I think it's a positive, at least now they aren't lying. I think every vendor that doesn't do testing themselves at the proper MDL should delete that claimSo one would logically assume this vendor is (or thinks they may be) using acetoin, diacetyl, and aceyl propionyl, right?
But you want to protect their reputation and don't name them....because... why?
I'll name one: Halo. The statement on their website used to include one or more of the substitutes, but it now claims only to avoid diacetyl. (Screen captures of their before/after disclaimers are posted elsewhere online. I personally witnessed the change, but I was not the one to capture those images.)