Testing for Diacetyl and Acetyl Propionyl, How its done, What is meaningful testing? Flavor Vendors

[HeadInClouds]

This e-liquid vendor (The Vapor Bar) has the right approach.

And the disussion comes full-circle.

You should read this thread to fill in the details on this company: http://vapingunderground.com/threads/diacetyl-acetyl-propionyl.17624/

 

[Hermit]

Wow - that certainly blows a hole through Dr Farsalinos' latest statements and assumptions (post-publication), doesn't it? Very informative - thank you for finding and posting it.

Not really sure, without knowing exactly how Dr F worked out his limits. I think the general idea of working out some ug/day figure is still sensible, and not invalidated by that doc, even if the actual amount proves to be off. For the review of the 150-odd juices, the limit was deliberately chosen to be on the lenient side, AIUI. Both conclude that diacetyl et al should not be used as flavourings!

That doc is also a piece of conjecture, linking together other findings to make a plausible assessment of risk that may itself be proven to be incorrect.

 

[InMyImage]

...the limit was deliberately chosen to be on the lenient side...

Not sure if you meant this, but it is always better to err on the conservative side as a cya measure.

 

[Hermit]

Not sure if you meant this, but it is always better to err on the conservative side as a cya measure.

I did mean it... but only w.r.t. the testing of 150-odd juices. For that, Dr F wanted to be able to say which had 'definitely too much'.
Of course, if suggesting a safety limit, one should err on the conservative side instead.

 

[tombaker]

Wow - that certainly blows a hole through Dr Farsalinos' latest statements and assumptions (post-publication), doesn't it? Very informative - thank you for finding and posting it.

The answer would be No.

 

[tombaker]

That doc is also a piece of conjecture, linking together other findings to make a plausible assessment of risk that may itself be proven to be incorrect.

Why do you think its conjecture? It is analysis by a professional in the field point out relationship of what the aggregate of studies suggest as a whole. What item do you think would be proven wrong?

 

[tombaker]

The TWA limits (8-hours exposure) defined by NIOSH (5ppb, i.e. 18μg/m3 for DA and 9.3ppb, i.e. 38μg/m3 for AP) were used as a guide to define potentially “acceptable” levels of DA and AP in EC liquids.

The average resting respiratory rate for an adult is 15 breaths per minute while the tidal volume is 0.5L (Barrett and Ganong, 2012).

Within 8 hours (480min), the total volume of air inhaled is 3.6m3 ([0.5L x 15breaths/min x 480min] / 1000L/m3).

Thus, the total amount of DA that can be inhaled daily (according to NIOSH limits) is 65μg (18μg/m3 x 3.6m3), while for AP it is 137μg (38μg/m3 x 3.6m3).

 

[Hermit]

Why do you think its conjecture? It is analysis by a professional in the field point out relationship of what the aggregate of studies suggest as a whole. What item do you think would be proven wrong?

That all the individual studies' results can be combined in that way, to reach those (or any) conclusions, is conjecture.

Of the studies, the one I think most questionable in its applicability is the one about inhalation depth. There's a big assumption there that vaping will be similar to the draw of users of 'less harmful cigarettes', and then another that vapour being less dense will travel deeper. The counter that droplet size is likely to reduce the amount of vapour entering the smallest, most vulnerable, airways is not mentioned.

In the main, the studies are not providing 'facts', but 'best knowledge' - so can't necessarily be combined by pure logic. There are probablities and error margins to take into account. Let's say each study is 90% likely to be correct and applicable - combining 7 of them to a conclusion would mean that conclusion has <50% chance of being correct.

Not saying it's the case here, but fooling with such combinations is where ANTZ get a lot of headlines from.