Become a Patron!

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

tombaker

Bronze Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Moving this out to a new thread at request of HeadinClouds, who writes:

Now THIS is worthy of a whole new thread and the attention of all concerned vapers! Tom, so we can focus on Dr. Farsalinos' latest research and its implications? This is too broad a topic and far too important to have buried in a thread devoted mostly to one specific vendor.

(For most things, if Diacetyl is said it will also mean Acetyl Propionyl. I often leave off AP at least when I write. For stuff like Suicide Bunny it passed on Diacetyl but not on AP.

Some questions to start the ball rolling.
There is no known safety level for Diacetyl and Acetyl Propionyl, while some standards are proposed for work environments, for Vaping its unknown.

Since analogs have Diacetyl, in higher levels than Vaping, and Analogs do not cause Pop-Corn lung, what should be the levels. Or should we just remove Diacetyl altogether, because we can.

What is the testing needed for Diacetyl and Acetyl Propionyl, what levels are important.
There are level in the vapor (air)
There are levels in the flavorings
There are levels in the end product, the E-Juice.
Is testing down to a level of lower than 5 ppm in the juice, should be considered as Not Detected.....good enough. (Dr. F has said it is)

What about PPM PPB, should the vapor be tested. How accurate should the testing equipment be.

That is the general idea......have at it.
 
Last edited:

EthelMaltol

Silver Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
I appreciate the thread and hope that we may have an intelligent discussion here, without name calling. I DIY and would love to see a crowdsourced lab test on the most popular flavorings. Even if we are able to get them tested down to ppm, we dilute them, so the end product will be less. I am personally uncomfortable with anyone saying a substance is "free", when it is not, it is just below acceptable levels. I would prefer not to have ANY! If that is impossible, then I will reconsider.
 

KKen

Silver Contributor
Member For 4 Years
I guess best thing to do now is ask the juice makers if their flavoring is tested for both D and AP. Sooner than later though, I'm sure you will see more e-juice makers brand themselves as Diacetyl and Acetyl Propionyl Free. The ones that don't make any changes, respond or give vague answers, you have to assume is no longer safe (if you determine so) to vape.
 

Roger Schaeffer

Silver Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
The FDA is surely going to require mthis kind of labeling or worse require Evey Flavor of every companies E-Liquid to go through the FDA approval Process or Worse Yer Ban all flavors except Tobacco and Menthol . AEMSA certified Juice manufacturers are require to test their E -Liquids for the above mentioned Chemicals. www.aemsa.org check out the Standards Section of the Document you can download
 

HeadInClouds

Platinum Contributor
Member For 4 Years
ECF Refugee
Vape Media
Unlisted Vendor

BigNasty

Diamond Contributor
Member For 4 Years
ECF Refugee

InMyImage

Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Testing of ingredients is good for juice makers DIY'ers.

Testing of the end product showing the final aggregate value of all of the ingredients used as well as their possible reaction by products is good for consumers.

Testing of DIY recipes is unrealistic, and DIY'ers need to accept that and make their own decisions and do their own due diligence when selecting ingredients.

Transparency and disclosure about testing and results is good.

Being able to make informed decisions is good.

Knowing that the levels of D and AP are an order of magnitude less than cigarettes is good.

Recognizing that I vape a lot more than I smoked and therefore probably have a similar exposure to both is good.

Knowing that I kicked a habit that has other combustion related side effects for another that might have side effects, possibly unknown side effects, is still good TO ME.

Bill
 

tombaker

Bronze Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
http://www.aemsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/AEMSA-Standards_Version-2-01.pdf
It does NOT require ANY testing of the eliquid.(only incoming nicotine)
Please reference the section that supports your claim.
HIC you are correct.
The prior v1.8 Standards published around February, also did not have Acetyl Propionyl on the list of "The following will not be added or used in the creation of e-liquids", the version v2.1 you linked to does.
What the mechanism is, for enforcing those standards, in Section 2.05, I am ignorant to.

They also did this update last week talking about the testing of juices, with specifics to D and AP http://www.aemsa.org/aemsa-recommends-flavor-testing/
 

HeadInClouds

Platinum Contributor
Member For 4 Years
ECF Refugee
Vape Media
Unlisted Vendor
Regarding WHO is responsible for product testing - from a U.S. legal standpoint

Imagine a kid with lead poisoning from the toy in a McD GladMeal. Who is legally liable?
* the kid, who shouldn’t have sucked on the toy
* McD, who sold the final product with their name on the box
* the factory that made the toy, because they violated U.S. regulations regarding painted toys
* the factory that produced the paint, because they violated U.S. regulations on lead levels in paint
* the factory that compounded the bulk ingredients with U.S. industry-accepted level of impurities
* the manufacturer of the bulk lead, a legal substance everywhere

In the U.S, legal liability BEGINS with the name on the box. It ends if that company could have reasonably prevented the problem. Liability may continue up the production chain to include additional parties - ONLY if regulations were violated at that level. That is how product liability works in the U.S.

Consideration of liability will begin with the name on the box, whether it is BigPuff disposable e-cigs or VapeThis e-liquid. Without regulations farther up their supply chain, they alone will bear full legal liability. E-Cig manufacturers are already lobbying regarding regulation. They have the power and money to set requirements for their supply chain. They can and will fully protect themselves from liability.

E-liquid vendors had better get their act together. Their name is on the box, and they market the product for inhalation. They will be held legally liable. They cannot point to their own suppliers because applicable regulations do not exist in their supply chain. Flavor manufacturers will not be held accountable unless they market their product for inhalation. DIY’ers will always remain liable for their own creations.

Dr. Farsalinos sees this clearly. As he states, e-juice vendors should be doing the testing. They will be the target for product liability in the U.S.
 

HeadInClouds

Platinum Contributor
Member For 4 Years
ECF Refugee
Vape Media
Unlisted Vendor
(regarding AEMSA)

They also did this update last week talking about the testing of juices, with specifics to D and AP http://www.aemsa.org/aemsa-recommends-flavor-testing/

They have outlined the problem fairly well there, but then they say:
"We encourage all e-liquid manufacturers to have their flavors independently tested and to learn more about appropriate testing methodologies and detection limits"

Until/unless testing is a requirement for membership, and testing requirements are fully detailed, AEMSA membership and seal of approval is meaningless for vapers.

Concerning diacetyl, AEMSA members can use any "food grade" and "GRAS certified" flavorings (section 2.04). Food grade and GRAS flavorings can contain up to 1% diacetyl plus 1% acetyl propionyl (plus other diketones and untested substitutes) without having to declare their presence. Assuming the vendor does not test their product (why bother if AEMSA doesn't require it) - their "diacetyl-free" product can be quite contaminated. That is no change over our current predicament.

I see no advantage to buying products with the AEMSA seal-of-approval - not with loopholes like this.
 

SeniorBoy

Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Vape Media
Spot on HIC. Thank you. Speaking of the FDA. They will be holding Workshops and among the topics is juice. Extract:

E-Liquid and Aerosol Constituents:
What is the chemical composition of e-liquids?
When several ingredients can serve the same function, what are the reasons for preferring or avoiding a specific ingredient (e.g., propylene glycol vs. glycerin)?
What is the stability of e-liquids? How do storage conditions and packaging affect e-liquid composition?
What methods can be used to evaluate the constituent in e-liquids?
How are impurities and contaminants (including e-liquid ingredients and potential microbial contaminants) identified and controlled?
What are the identities, quantities and origins of the chemical constituents of the e-cigarette aerosols inhaled and exhaled aerosols by users?
What methods exist to measure chemicals in aerosols (including particle size distribution)?
What aerosol-generating regimens exist for e-cigarettes? What validation of aerosol-generating regimens has been carried out?
How do aerosol constituent yields vary puff-by-puff?
Are there particular ingredients in e-liquids that increase the toxicant levels in the aerosol? Are there alternative e-liquid ingredients (i.e., USP Grade) that are considered to produce lower levels of toxicants in the aerosol than some widely used ingredients? What are the potential toxicological risks associated with flavorings?
Which e-liquid and aerosol constituents, toxicants, and impurities are or can be routinely evaluated? How can impurities, contaminants and toxicants in e-liquids and aerosols be identified and controlled?
Given that the e-liquids and aerosols contain varying mixtures of toxicants, what comparative toxicity evaluations could be conducted between different e-cigarette products?

All the details here

:)
 

InMyImage

Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
When several ingredients can serve the same function, what are the reasons for preferring or avoiding a specific ingredient (e.g., propylene glycol vs. glycerin)?
Talk about going to the root of the problem...
 

HeadInClouds

Platinum Contributor
Member For 4 Years
ECF Refugee
Vape Media
Unlisted Vendor
Since analogs have Diacetyl, in higher levels than Vaping,

A few scientific facts that may clarify this seeming paradox:

Pyrazines form in tobacco leaves during curing and processing. (Source here, which discusses the chemistry in good detail.)
So those chemicals are present in tobacco before it's even packaged.

Diacetyl decomposes thermally (breaks down at high temps) to produce carbon monoxide. (source here; this knowledge dates to at least 1938.)
Tobacco smoke contains a load of carbon monoxide; diacetyl decomposition helps explain that.
The resulting carbon monoxide from this chemical reaction in burning tobacco is a leading cause of smoking-related illness.

Heat is the catalyst that decomposes diacetyl in tobacco; more heat = more molecules decomposed in shorter time.
Vaping uses much lower temperatures than smoking, so vapers don't get the "benefit" of that diacetyl decomposition.
 

tombaker

Bronze Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Regarding WHO is responsible for product testing - from a U.S. legal standpoint

Imagine a kid with lead poisoning from the toy in a McD GladMeal. Who is legally liable?
* the kid, who shouldn’t have sucked on the toy
* McD, who sold the final product with their name on the box
* the factory that made the toy, because they violated U.S. regulations regarding painted toys
* the factory that produced the paint, because they violated U.S. regulations on lead levels in paint
* the factory that compounded the bulk ingredients with U.S. industry-accepted level of impurities
* the manufacturer of the bulk lead, a legal substance everywhere

In the U.S, legal liability BEGINS with the name on the box. It ends if that company could have reasonably prevented the problem. Liability may continue up the production chain to include additional parties - ONLY if regulations were violated at that level. That is how product liability works in the U.S.

Consideration of liability will begin with the name on the box, whether it is BigPuff disposable e-cigs or VapeThis e-liquid. Without regulations farther up their supply chain, they alone will bear full legal liability. E-Cig manufacturers are already lobbying regarding regulation. They have the power and money to set requirements for their supply chain. They can and will fully protect themselves from liability.

E-liquid vendors had better get their act together. Their name is on the box, and they market the product for inhalation. They will be held legally liable. They cannot point to their own suppliers because applicable regulations do not exist in their supply chain. Flavor manufacturers will not be held accountable unless they market their product for inhalation. DIY’ers will always remain liable for their own creations.

Dr. Farsalinos sees this clearly. As he states, e-juice vendors should be doing the testing. They will be the target for product liability in the U.S.
1. On this topic if you what to emphasize who, do it with Who, instead of World Health Organization WHO.
2. The law side of the stuff probably will never factor in. Your are going to need a person with documents that show they have been a user of a brand of juice, near exclusively. Or you are going to have to sue a ton of people. But before you even get there.
3. You have to have a demonstrative injury, and with various items talking about whether or not Diacetyl in cigarettes is a cause of injury its yet another hurdle.
4. Liablity starts, at who has the deepest pockets, it pretty much ends there too.
5. You can only start with vendors who claim Diacetyl free, and are not.
6. Most sites clearly say customer assumes risk, you can overcome that at trial, its another barrier though.
7. Diacetyl can come from fermentation, but chemicals don't magically combine to create Diacetyl inside the liquid. Dr. F. study did not reflect any increase in Diacetyl in the vapor, that would suggest the heating by the coil created molecular reactions to create Diaceytl. If your flavors have it ADDED in. you have it in your juice.
8. Tiny trace levels (see def of trace) that could occur from some (insert whatever) are not going to be at a threshold to cause damage. Essentially you are going to need to add in enough of the stuff to create taste. Testing at a 5 ppm level is good enough, for equipment accuracy in the finished juices. per the experts.

9. 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.

10. Considering barriers to to entry are so low for juice makers, (see DIYers) most if not all Vendors are not going to label out their e-Liquid suppliers, as DIYers would quickly be able to clone flavors, and with some good testing, nail down all the ingredients, and have the brands to use. So the easiest way will probably never happen.
 

tombaker

Bronze Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
(regarding AEMSA)

They have outlined the problem fairly well there, but then they say:
"We encourage all e-liquid manufacturers to have their flavors independently tested and to learn more about appropriate testing methodologies and detection limits"

Until/unless testing is a requirement for membership, and testing requirements are fully detailed, AEMSA membership and seal of approval is meaningless for vapers.

Concerning diacetyl, AEMSA members can use any "food grade" and "GRAS certified" flavorings (section 2.04). Food grade and GRAS flavorings can contain up to 1% diacetyl plus 1% acetyl propionyl (plus other diketones and untested substitutes) without having to declare their presence. Assuming the vendor does not test their product (why bother if AEMSA doesn't require it) - their "diacetyl-free" product can be quite contaminated. That is no change over our current predicament.

I see no advantage to buying products with the AEMSA seal-of-approval - not with loopholes like this.
HIC, you seem to have your head in the clouds, negative pun intended. Saying that AEMSA membership is meaningless, is wrong, because they have standards, share methods, and do inspections.

Have you been to a vapor shop that sells juice with an injet sticker, smudged, with a name of the flavor, and nothing else. You think that is compariable? Obviously the last AEMSA messages on Diacetyl are updated during this month. And I have to say you single prescribed solution is not the only or the best solution.

You ignore testing done by qualified flavor suppliers in your jumble. AEMSA says they won't use it, you are explaining why through simple ignorance, or bad practices Diacetyl could enter. But you ignore that the vendors all say they won't use it. This means they need to get it out, if in. You want it your way, but that is not the only way to do it.

I mean you are a DIYer, you saying that AEMSA is meaningless, pretty much goes with, you will do it all yourself in the first place.
If I may, what juices do you purchase as finished product?
 

HeadInClouds

Platinum Contributor
Member For 4 Years
ECF Refugee
Vape Media
Unlisted Vendor
Diacetyl lawsuit precedents have started outside of the vaping industry,

Here's another similar case that was settled out of court: http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/12/iowa_judge_dismisses_lawsuit_t.html

American Culinary Federation appealed to the FDA, but looks like it never progressed. Here's their original 2008 press release: http://www.acfchefs.org/ACF/About/M...8/ACF/About/Media/Releases/2008/pr080320.aspx

This attorney mentions 2 coffee-related diacetyl lawsuits: http://www.dinsmore.com/diacetyl_litigation_update/ and reaches the conclusion, "Manufacturers, suppliers, retailers, or sellers of products containing diacetyl, including microwave popcorn, should pay close attention to this evolving area of litigation." (Of course, he IS an attorney...)

Here is a product liability attorney brimming with excitement at the prospect of all those lawsuits: http://www.cozen.com/admin/files/publications/FamaBergerMealeys.pdf He ends with: "Keep an eye out for the results of the EPA's study, as it could be exactly what is needed to crown diacetyl the "next asbestos" and the toxin of the new millennium."
 

tombaker

Bronze Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Spot on HIC. Thank you. Speaking of the FDA. They will be holding Workshops and among the topics is juice. Extract:

E-Liquid and Aerosol Constituents:
What is the chemical composition of e-liquids?
When several ingredients can serve the same function, what are the reasons for preferring or avoiding a specific ingredient (e.g., propylene glycol vs. glycerin)?
What is the stability of e-liquids? How do storage conditions and packaging affect e-liquid composition?
What methods can be used to evaluate the constituent in e-liquids?
How are impurities and contaminants (including e-liquid ingredients and potential microbial contaminants) identified and controlled?
What are the identities, quantities and origins of the chemical constituents of the e-cigarette aerosols inhaled and exhaled aerosols by users?
What methods exist to measure chemicals in aerosols (including particle size distribution)?
What aerosol-generating regimens exist for e-cigarettes? What validation of aerosol-generating regimens has been carried out?
How do aerosol constituent yields vary puff-by-puff?
Are there particular ingredients in e-liquids that increase the toxicant levels in the aerosol? Are there alternative e-liquid ingredients (i.e., USP Grade) that are considered to produce lower levels of toxicants in the aerosol than some widely used ingredients? What are the potential toxicological risks associated with flavorings?
Which e-liquid and aerosol constituents, toxicants, and impurities are or can be routinely evaluated? How can impurities, contaminants and toxicants in e-liquids and aerosols be identified and controlled?
Given that the e-liquids and aerosols contain varying mixtures of toxicants, what comparative toxicity evaluations could be conducted between different e-cigarette products?

All the details here

:)
Nice find, I can not say that I disagree with any of the topics to be spoken to. Only quibble is with the word toxicants, and a small assumption they exist inside it, per the talking points.....but toxicant is a definitional jargon for this type of subject matter.
 

tombaker

Bronze Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
A few scientific facts that may clarify this seeming paradox:

Pyrazines form in tobacco leaves during curing and processing. (Source here, which discusses the chemistry in good detail.)
So those chemicals are present in tobacco before it's even packaged.

Diacetyl decomposes thermally (breaks down at high temps) to produce carbon monoxide. (source here; this knowledge dates to at least 1938.)
Tobacco smoke contains a load of carbon monoxide; diacetyl decomposition helps explain that.
The resulting carbon monoxide from this chemical reaction in burning tobacco is a leading cause of smoking-related illness.

Heat is the catalyst that decomposes diacetyl in tobacco; more heat = more molecules decomposed in shorter time.
Vaping uses much lower temperatures than smoking, so vapers don't get the "benefit" of that diacetyl decomposition.
A very good point. Certainly combustion, hell a cigarette is a burning ember at the end, will destroy and or consume items. I think this is a very good point, but I have to check if the levels of Diacetyl in cigarettes is measure in the raw material, or the Smoke. If its in the smoke, its just a good theory, as the end product is delivery a higher level of Diacetyl to the lungs, after all is said and done. I think the Dr. F study looked at the actual smoke....but I am not positive.
 

HeadInClouds

Platinum Contributor
Member For 4 Years
ECF Refugee
Vape Media
Unlisted Vendor
If I may, what juices do you purchase as finished product?

I don't really buy vendor e-liquid any more, Tom. I pretty much DIY everything, and I'm very happy with that. I used some pretty popular brands at first, so I have a good idea what vendor liquids are like.

You are right that membership in AEMSA isn't totally useless. I suppose it's good to know you won't have a smudged label. I always just put tape over them; I'm barbaric that way. Seriously, the requirement for nic strength testing is a good thing. But I never would have bought from a back-street vendor in the first place.

You see, I have no personal stake in what e-liquid vendors are selling or any false claims they make. It won't make any difference to me if/when they are regulated out of existence. I hope good-guy vendors who try to do what's right (and I know of some) will keep an ear to the ground and self-regulate. But it makes no difference to me personally as a vaper whether they even exist.

So why am I so vocal? Because the idea of putting the almighty dollar above the safety of workers and consumers pisses me off! The fact that vendors in this industry can legally, knowingly make false claims to gain customers - disgusts me! How many people did Big Tobacco do that to? I get vocal when I spot liars and cheats (not just vape-related, though that's all I talk about here.)

I chose DIY to please my palate and out of medical necessity to avoid PG. Two big vendors I was buying from wouldn't even tell me if they used PG - they care more about protecting their "trade secrets" than about the health of customers with allergies/sensitivities. So I eventually cloned their flavors, and post them widely. I'm sure that hasn't made a huge dent in their profits, but I know it has helped out a few others who were in my position.

As I learned about safety issues, I did a lot of research (still do) and chose my ingredients accordingly. I saw so many vapers stuck with vendor liquids they weren't sure about, unsure how to DIY. As I learned, I've shared what I know online. I have NO "trade secrets," secret recipes, or mysterious methods. I don't sell anything. I have no financial stake in any company or vape-related product and never will. I just want to help anyone I can who is in the same boat I was - especially the just-quit smokers looking for facts.

I never criticize what anyone chooses to vape. I support the right to decide for ourselves. I'll be here posting facts/figures/data, exposing proof of dishonesty when I see it, posting DIY tips and recipes for anyone interested -- and hopefully, I will be able to help a smoker quit or stay quit, or help a DIYer learn, or help a fact-seeker find what they're looking for. I believe I sometimes do, and it makes it worth any derogatory comments anyone else may have made in the meantime.
 
Last edited:

HeadInClouds

Platinum Contributor
Member For 4 Years
ECF Refugee
Vape Media
Unlisted Vendor
You ignore testing done by qualified flavor suppliers in your jumble. AEMSA says they won't use it, you are explaining why through simple ignorance, or bad practices Diacetyl could enter. But you ignore that the vendors all say they won't use it. This means they need to get it out, if in. You want it your way, but that is not the only way to do it.

Tom, I'm just not sure what you're referencing if you don't include a snippet in your post. (I'm not being intentionally obtuse or snarky.) Where am I ignoring "testing done by qualified flavor suppliers" and in which "jumble"? "Qualified" by whose definition? AEMSA says who won't use what - and where did they say it?
 

Roger Schaeffer

Silver Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
AEMSA has made a good step towards testing and quality Control For the manufacturing of E-Liquids. I would surmise in the future Their Standards will become more rigorous. Required future testing for compounds should be preferable to submitting Every E-Liquid Flavor through a possible FDA Approval Requirement. Small- medium-Large E-Liquid manufacturers -the Days of Profiteering off e-Liquid is coming to an end in the near future.
 

tombaker

Bronze Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Diacetyl lawsuit precedents have started outside of the vaping industry, they will become more common now that someone has won a very large settlement.
Man Wins $7 Million In Suit Claiming Microwave Popcorn Caused Lung Disease
Jumping to a pretty big conclusion based off a 2 year old verdict. That case will not be a very good precedent because of the man's history of using chemicals for carpet cleaning. The earlier case from 2004 was 20 Million also. I don't think lawyers are going to be any resolution to any of this for E-Cigs. But I do, think Diacetyl is going to be removed by force or either the FDA or more likely consumers.
 

tombaker

Bronze Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Tom, I'm just not sure what you're referencing if you don't include a snippet in your post. (I'm not being intentionally obtuse or snarky.) Where am I ignoring "testing done by qualified flavor suppliers" and in which "jumble"? "Qualified" by whose definition? AEMSA says who won't use what - and where did they say it?
AEMSA members state they will not use D and AP. They can do that in a number of ways. One is testing the end product. Another is confirming that their supply chain has vendors that do accurate and confirmable testing. And that they only use those products which are accurately represented.
You said:
AEMSA says who won't use what - and where did they say it?​
In their standards, they say they won't use D and AP in the liquids. The document you posted. So the question is not what their intentions are of the standard, it is how they will accomplish it. They have many options, some of which I can think would be very effective, without new testing. But I am not their policy compliance officer so I won't offer those out, other than to say they have multiple options.

You said:
Until/unless testing is a requirement for membership, and testing requirements are fully detailed, AEMSA membership and seal of approval is meaningless for vapers.​
That is what I am disagreeing with. AEMSA members have good manufacturing processes that are checked, they have stated goals, they have opened their facilities up for peers to review and give feedback on. All of those ARE NOT meaningless, and they are valuable items to prospective buyers. I realize that a DIYer can just buy Capella V2, and feel pretty darn good they are in the clear, but certainly AEMSA standards are not for a DIYer, they are for Manufacturing side of the industry.
 

tombaker

Bronze Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
.......Small- medium-Large E-Liquid manufacturers -the Days of Profiteering off e-Liquid is coming to an end in the near future.
Don't see the causal relationship. Lots of people are seemingly upset that Vendors are paying mortgages by being in the E-Liquid business. As if profiteering in a open capitalistic marketplace is wrong????
Nobody is forcing anyone to buy anyone's product, and there ample resources to buy from low priced vendors of E-Liquid, look below and you will see a banner for Vista Vapors 32 Ml bottle for 7.50. Are they the profiteers, or are you talking about 5 Pawns?
 

AmandaD

Platinum Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Don't see the causal relationship. Lots of people are seemingly upset that Vendors are paying mortgages by being in the E-Liquid business. As if profiteering in a open capitalistic marketplace is wrong????
Nobody is forcing anyone to buy anyone's product, and there ample resources to buy from low priced vendors of E-Liquid, look below and you will see a banner for Vista Vapors 32 Ml bottle for 7.50. Are they the profiteers, or are you talking about 5 Pawns?

And to add to that, it's possible that once the FDA decides on regulations we'll all be paying much, much more for eliquid.
 

HeadInClouds

Platinum Contributor
Member For 4 Years
ECF Refugee
Vape Media
Unlisted Vendor
That is what I am disagreeing with. AEMSA members have good manufacturing processes that are checked, they have stated goals, they have opened their facilities up for peers to review and give feedback on. All of those ARE NOT meaningless, and they are valuable items to prospective buyers.

I won't speak for all prospective buyers, just myself. If membership in a standards organization does not ensure all products meet the same purity standards, it is entirely useless TO ME. I hope AEMSA and members will make it clear to the public that their standards do not include standardized testing requirements - as casual shoppers might assume.

I realize that a DIYer can just buy Capella V2, and feel pretty darn good they are in the clear ...

To avoid a derail, I will just say: You do not speak for this DIYer in that statement.
 

InMyImage

Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Jumping to a pretty big conclusion based off a 2 year old verdict. That case will not be a very good precedent because of the man's history of using chemicals for carpet cleaning. The earlier case from 2004 was 20 Million also. I don't think lawyers are going to be any resolution to any of this for E-Cigs. But I do, think Diacetyl is going to be removed by force or either the FDA or more likely consumers.

The significance is that this case was for a consumer who ate the popcorn and was exposed to the Diacetyl 2 times a day by eating microwave popcorn. The other case have been won by employees with much higher exposure through their workplace environment.

The plaintiff in the recent case (yes 2 years is recent in precedent terms) exposure to carpet cleaning chemicals was found to not be a significant factor in his case and his case was won even with that complicating factor.
 

tombaker

Bronze Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
tombaker said: ↑
I realize that a DIYer can just buy Capella V2, and feel pretty darn good they are in the clear ...

To avoid a derail, I will just say: You do not speak for this DIYer in that statement.

So you do not believe that Capella's V2 line is clear of Diacetyl and AP like they say?

That was my point, if you use Capella V2 or FA E-Cig line, as your only DIY flavorings, you should be avoiding all introduced DA and AP. Or are you saying you don't trust their representations. You should able to test the flavorings, heck squirt a bit of each into a bottle, add some base, and test it, if you get back a negative, you know they are all good.....if you get back a postie, then you know one of them, at least is bad. Hit 10 flavors at 7% each, add the 30% base, shake shake shake, and you got 10 for the price of one.
 

tombaker

Bronze Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
The significance is that this case was for a consumer who ate the popcorn and was exposed to the Diacetyl 2 times a day by eating microwave popcorn. The other case have been won by employees with much higher exposure through their workplace environment.

The plaintiff in the recent case (yes 2 years is recent in precedent terms) exposure to carpet cleaning chemicals was found to not be a significant factor in his case and his case was won even with that complicating factor.
You saw the picture of the guy whiffing in the sweet sweet smell of his freshly opened popcorn. You have opened one of those, you know how hot that steam is, burns at your fingers even. Combine that representation of what he did, with the evidence of chemicals for industrial carpet cleaning.
You march your expert in, who will tell the new jury just how bad the conclusion was before. Discredit that action because it is so different than Vaping. Alternatively, the new Plaintiffs don't even bring up the prior case, because it causes holes in the case.

New cases are not significantly enabled by that prior verdict. Plus you would have to most likely prove somehow that an ex-smoker of many years, had lung function that was 100% prior to starting vaping. You would have to sue all who contributed to the injury, you can not just selectively sue the last guy. You have to bring in all parties, or risk getting dismissed entirely.
 

InMyImage

Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
You really don't know much about the law do you? Did you follow the big tobacco settlements? It is common for class action lawsuits to focus on one company and reach settlements?

Deepest pockets determines who the defendants are.
 

Warhawk-AVG

Silver Contributor
Member For 5 Years
A few scientific facts that may clarify this seeming paradox:

Pyrazines form in tobacco leaves during curing and processing. (Source here, which discusses the chemistry in good detail.)
So those chemicals are present in tobacco before it's even packaged.

Diacetyl decomposes thermally (breaks down at high temps) to produce carbon monoxide. (source here; this knowledge dates to at least 1938.)
Tobacco smoke contains a load of carbon monoxide; diacetyl decomposition helps explain that.
The resulting carbon monoxide from this chemical reaction in burning tobacco is a leading cause of smoking-related illness.

Heat is the catalyst that decomposes diacetyl in tobacco; more heat = more molecules decomposed in shorter time.
Vaping uses much lower temperatures than smoking, so vapers don't get the "benefit" of that diacetyl decomposition.
UNLESS you run a carto dry then run the coil till they glow red

yeah...I am not sure if you saw my writeup on the research I did on cigarettes vs vaping (sure not scientific at all)...but It's Not the Nicotine that's the problem.
 

tombaker

Bronze Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
You really don't know much about the law do you? Did you follow the big tobacco settlements? It is common for class action lawsuits to focus on one company and reach settlements?

Deepest pockets determines who the defendants are.
Because in the high chance its an ex-smoker, under the hypothetical case of an ecig user being harmed by Diacetyl, you are going to need to prove that the damage was not caused by the smoking. You will have to decide who, contributed the what ratio of the end harm.

Affirmative defense such as assumption of risk, and contributory negligence, and others will all be in play.

Plus, Diacetyl has already failed a Daubert challenge. Deepest pockets decides who you may want to sue, but you will need to prove that what part they contributed to the harm. You suggest Deepest pockets decides who did the most amount of harm. Wrong.
 

tombaker

Bronze Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
And also Bozo, a Failed Daubert Challenge killed off the class, and ended the case for Diacetyl harm in a precedent case already.

Plaintiffs retained Dr. Egilman to offer an opinion on general causation, as well as to examine Mr. Newkirk, diagnose him, and offer an opinion regarding the specific cause of his condition. The expert opinion testimony of Dr. Egilman was the plaintiffs’ primary evidence supporting general causation. (All of the Newkirks’ other causation expert witnesses assumed that general causation already has been established.) He opined that, “There is no known safe level of diacetyl exposure. Existing scientific studies also suggest that levels of diacetyl exposure below and around 1 ppm can cause BO and other respiratory illnesses.”


The court found, however, that Dr. Egilman's attempt to analogize kitchen to industrial exposures failed. He offered no sufficient basis or methodology for support for the conclusion that there is no important (medically relevant) qualitative difference between the vapor from butter flavoring slurry in a mixing vat in a popcorn plant and the vapor from butter flavoring that is emitted from microwave popcorn in the home. There was nothing to support Dr. Egilman’s conclusions that were at the heart of this case: that the vapors emitted from a microwave popcorn bag contain the same proportion of chemicals or in sufficient doses or that all of the substances in the two instances are identical. In other parts of his reports and testimony, the court found, Dr. Egilman relied on some existing data, mostly in the form of published studies, but drew conclusions far beyond what the study authors concluded.

Or, Dr. Egilman manipulated the data from those studies to reach misleading conclusions of his own. Slip opin. at 25. For example, he relied on statements by a Dr. Cecile Rose, on a patient (and another consumer plaintiff), Mr. Watson, who allegedly contracted disease from popcorn fumes. But this was in the nature of a single case report, and in it even Dr. Rose did not assert that her conclusions could be extrapolated to other consumers in the absence of publication or peer review; Dr. Egilman acknowledged that Dr. Rose did not publish the exposure levels measured in Mr. Watson’s home -- so no such comparison was possible. Dr. Rose herself qualified her conclusions: “It is difficult to make a causal connection based on a single case report. We cannot be sure that this patient’s exposure to butter flavored microwave popcorn from daily heavy preparation has caused his lung disease.”


The expert also relied on testing conducted by Dr. John Martyny in a kitchen (not of a consumer), despite that doctor's own reflections that the methodology underlying the work could not support extrapolating to general causation for a broader group of consumers. The expert also relied on animal studies. Expert opinion relying on animal studies to reach an opinion on causation in humans is usually admissible only when the expert explains how and why the results of the animal toxicological study can reliably be extrapolated to humans. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 143-45 (1997). Dr. Egilman offered no such analytical bridge between the animal studies finding harm from high levels of diacetyl exposure to lab rats and his conclusion that those studies demonstrate that diacetyl exposure causes decreased lung function in humans. He offered no sufficient explanation for how and why the results of those studies could be extrapolated to humans, let alone low-dose consumer contexts.

Without Dr. Egilman's testimony to support causation, the plaintiffs' other expert witnesses couldn't establish this element either.

Note also that the court excluded Dr. Egilman's "legal conclusions" from his expert report and affidavits, since the witness was no more capable than the fact-finder to draw such a conclusion. See Nationwide Transp. Fin. v. Cass Info. Sys., 523 F.3d 1051, 1059-60 (9th Cir.2008) (expert witness cannot give an opinion as to her legal conclusion, i.e., an opinion on an ultimate issue of law)
 
Last edited:

Warhawk-AVG

Silver Contributor
Member For 5 Years
Slamming fist on desk while standing up "I object!!!!!"

I just always wanted to say that :p

You guys TOTALLY blew away the little people on your arguments

 

tombaker

Bronze Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Slamming fist on desk while standing up "I object!!!!!"

I just always wanted to say that :p

You guys TOTALLY blew away the little people on your arguments

A picture may help. Now since the damage caused by what a Plaintiff would claim would need to proportionally associate the amount of reward, if the Plaintiff won. I will assume an E-Cig user was a smoker. So looking at the picture, who would be more at fault.

Daubert Challenge = If you bring in a quack Expert Witness with bogus claims. The judge will protect the jury from hearing it, and toss out the witness. The case above had an expert with junk evidence, was kick out by the court, since all the other witnesses stood on that on that evidence, they all were meaningless.
diacetyl-graph.jpg
 
Last edited:

Warhawk-AVG

Silver Contributor
Member For 5 Years
Yup...a whole lot more Burny Mcburnerstein Combustulation going on in a stinky ain't there ;)
 

InMyImage

Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Jumping to a pretty big conclusion based off a 2 year old verdict. That case will not be a very good precedent because of the man's history of using chemicals for carpet cleaning. The earlier case from 2004 was 20 Million also. I don't think lawyers are going to be any resolution to any of this for E-Cigs. But I do, think Diacetyl is going to be removed by force or either the FDA or more likely consumers.

And also Bozo, a Failed Daubert Challenge killed off the class, and ended the case for Diacetyl harm in a precedent case already.

Plaintiffs retained Dr. Egilman to offer an opinion on general causation, as well as to examine Mr. Newkirk, diagnose him, and offer an opinion regarding the specific cause of his condition. The expert opinion testimony of Dr. Egilman was the plaintiffs’ primary evidence supporting general causation. (All of the Newkirks’ other causation expert witnesses assumed that general causation already has been established.) He opined that, “There is no known safe level of diacetyl exposure. Existing scientific studies also suggest that levels of diacetyl exposure below and around 1 ppm can cause BO and other respiratory illnesses.”

So you insult me and then use a four year old case to argue your point after pointing out previously that a 2 year old case was basically irrelevant?

A Daubert decision is based on flawed testimony in a single case. It does not undermine the effectiveness of future cases based on complete testimony and research.

Based on the the case I cited there are predicted to be a rash of new cases filed based on popcorn exposure alone. Given that there have not been any cases of "popcorn lung" that I could find as a result of smoking, it opens the door to implicate e-liquid as the cause. I'm not saying that it will win, but the cases will pop up. Additionally there are smokers like me who quit for years and had no problems, 7 in my case, and started up using e-cigs as a way to avoid using actual cigarettes, or users who have only used e-cig products like a lot of teenagers that I know personally.

To keep in the spirit of your quotes, I offer the following from an analysis of the case I cited with an explanation of the failed Daubert motion to exclude testimony. Now, if you are mature enough to maintain an adult discussion without resulting to silly schoolyard insults, then I am happy to participate in future discussion on the topic, although I'm not certain that there is really anywhere to go beyond what I posted, concisely, back in post number 7 of this thread...

And Wayne Watson has that proof: his treating physician, Dr. Cecile Rose, MD, MPH, a published expert and researcher of occupational pulmonary diseases, explained how she reached that conclusion:

Q: What’s the basis for your opinion that his exposure to microwave popcorn is a cause of the lung disease that you diagnosed in him?

A: Well, the basis for that opinion relates mainly to the fact that his lung disease has stabilized with the cessation of use of the product and exposure to the inhalants related with that product. The fact that there was no other causal explanation for his lung condition and the fact that the clinical findings in his lung disease were similar to those that occurred in workers who were exposed to butter flavoring also support that opinion.

The Defendants moved to exclude Dr. Rose’s testimony on Daubert grounds, arguing that her conclusions were not “the product of reliable scientific principles and methods.” The Court denied the Motion; here’s the Court Order, as well as the last-filed briefs of the Plaintiff and the Defendants.



I’ve written before about The Difference Between Scientific Evidence And The Scientific Method. This case puts several issues of law, science, and medicine squarely in focus: on the one hand, it seems that exposure testing within Mr. Watson’s home was unable to show that he’d be exposed to dangerous levels of diacetyl, but on the other hand Mr. Watson has an extraordinarily rare lung disease that can’t be explained any other way except by way of his extensive exposure to microwave popcorn.



There’s nothing frivolous about this case: the plaintiff has a serious disease, one that modern medicine has concluded by the process of elimination had to be caused by his exposure to the microwaved popcorn. The question is more one of legal policy: should we require plaintiffs show more scientific evidence than that? The law on that, at least in the federal Tenth Circuit, is clear. As the Court found in Watson’s case:

[T]he Tenth Circuit has recognized that a medical expert does not always have to cite to published studies on general causation in order to establish causation and, under the right circumstances, a differential diagnosis (i.e., ruling out other possible causes of the condition) may reliably form the basis of an opinion that a particular item caused an injury. Hollander v. Sandoz Pharm. Corp., 289 F.3d 1193, 1211-12 (10th Cir. 2002) (quoting Turner v. Iowa Fire Equip. Co., 229 F.3d 1202, 1209 (8th Cir. 2000)). “The first several victims of a new toxic tort should not be barred from having their day in court simply because the medical literature, which will eventually show the connection between the victims’ condition and the toxic substance, has not yet been completed.” Turner, 229 F.3d at 1209. Dr. Egilman and Dr. Rose have both discussed why they believe that other known causes of bronchiolitis obliterans have been eliminated, leaving Mr. Watson’s exposure to butter flavoring vapors as the most plausible explanation.

Thus, the Daubert challenge was denied, and Dr. Rose was allowed to testify in front of the jury, and the jury was tasked with deciding if plaintiff had adequately proven microwave popcorn caused his lung disease, and the popcorn manufacturer was given the opportunity to point out the absence of any testing, and the fact that there are other potential causes of bronchiolitis obliterans.​
 

HeadInClouds

Platinum Contributor
Member For 4 Years
ECF Refugee
Vape Media
Unlisted Vendor

Roger Schaeffer

Silver Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Don't see the causal relationship. Lots of people are seemingly upset that Vendors are paying mortgages by being in the E-Liquid business. As if profiteering in a open capitalistic marketplace is wrong????
Nobody is forcing anyone to buy anyone's product, and there ample resources to buy from low priced vendors of E-Liquid, look below and you will see a banner for Vista Vapors 32 Ml bottle for 7.50. Are they the profiteers, or are you talking about 5 Pawns?
Well Its means the Days of just anyone starting up a E-Liquid business are numbered. There is going to be Regulation in this Industry. With Regulation it will take start-up Capital to go into Business and comply with those Regulations. Regulation means Paperwork [among other things] and lots of it. I am pretty sure all nicotine E-Liquid is going to have to meet Certain FDA Standards in a couple of years. How Stringent those Standards are remain to be seen. I think established Companies like say Five Pawns are already preparing for the above.
 

UncleRJ

Will write reviews for Beer!
Staff member
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Platinum Contributor
Member For 4 Years
ECF Refugee
Reviewer
Moderator
Speaking only as someone that is just starting to think about starting to think about getting into DIY, does anyone know of a list of flavors that has undergone testing for the chemicals in question and shows which flavors have them and which ones don't?

I now return this thread to the folks that obviously know everything I don't about DIY and the question at hand:D
 

InMyImage

Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
I would never claim to know much about DIY since I just started, but wizardlab.us has notes on their flavors and for now I don't really have much choice other than to trust them.

Bill
 

Roger Schaeffer

Silver Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Speaking only as someone that is just starting to think about starting to think about getting into DIY, does anyone know of a list of flavors that has undergone testing for the chemicals in question and shows which flavors have them and which ones don't?

I now return this thread to the folks that obviously know everything I don't about DIY and the question at hand:D
There are list about Flavorings by manufacturer that are likely to contain the chemicals. You'd find the one I have seen on ECF DIY Section
 

HeadInClouds

Platinum Contributor
Member For 4 Years
ECF Refugee
Vape Media
Unlisted Vendor
So you insult me and then use a four year old case to argue your point after pointing out previously that a 2 year old case was basically irrelevant? ...
Thus, the Daubert challenge was denied, ...

Thank you for posting the legal facts with full references (despite being called a 'Bozo'). I hadn't read of the Daubert challenge or the denial in that case; it helps explain to me why product liability attorneys are so excited to represent diacetyl victims.
 

UncleRJ

Will write reviews for Beer!
Staff member
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Platinum Contributor
Member For 4 Years
ECF Refugee
Reviewer
Moderator
In my experience, product liability attorneys are ALWAYS exited to represent any "victim" real or imagined!
 

Cloudy Peak Vapes

Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Unlisted Vendor
Something 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.
 

InMyImage

Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Don't know about the chemical reaction by-products in a mixed liquid TBC, but I noticed that the saying in your signature "Yesterday, you said tomorrow" sounds like what my wife and daughter are constantly telling me :)
 

Cloudy Peak Vapes

Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Unlisted Vendor
Don't know about the chemical reaction by-products in a mixed liquid TBC, but I noticed that the saying in your signature "Yesterday, you said tomorrow" sounds like what my wife and daughter are constantly telling me :)
On topic, I hope someone can chime in to confirm whether I'm correct. It does stand to reason that we steep juices to make them vapeable, and the process totally can change the flavor from shit to incredible, due to molecular reactions is my understanding. Therefore, it's possible that as those reactions occur, more is going on then solely a flavor maturation and blending.

And for my signature, it's kinda cheesy, but I picked it up from an old nike ad, and it's been on my lock screen for years. I made some serious changes over the last 4 years of my life health wise, and initially it was a help to motivate me to run when I woke up. I don't need the motivation anymore, I'll run in fucking sub zero snow storms at this point, I've lost my big toe nail two years in a row from it, but I still like the saying. Hope it's not a nuisance from your wife and daughter, lol. ;)
 

HeadInClouds

Platinum Contributor
Member For 4 Years
ECF Refugee
Vape Media
Unlisted Vendor
Speaking only as someone that is just starting to think about starting to think about getting into DIY, does anyone know of a list of flavors that has undergone testing for the chemicals in question and shows which flavors have them and which ones don't?

I now return this thread to the folks that obviously know everything I don't about DIY and the question at hand:D

UncleRJ, nobody here (or anywhere) knows everything about the questions at hand; full data simply do not exist - and will not any time soon.

Some vapers are comfortable using only unflavored USP-grade VG and PG, optionally with USP-grade nicotine. That is an easy DIY option that eliminates all possible risk from inhalation of flavorings.

To minimize exposure to all compounds in a given flavoring, DIYers can minimizing the quantity used (i.e., lowest possible percentage)

A few undisputed facts to consider:
* U.S.-produced flavorings can legally be (and often are) labeled "diacetyl-free" while containing up to 2% diacetyl + acetyl propionyl
* some brands have replaced diacetyl with other diketones which (lab test results indicate) have equivalent or worse biological impact
* some brands claim to test for specific named compounds but (legally) refuse to provide any supporting evidence; they are not obligated to do so
* no vendor can tell you their flavors are proven safe for inhalation

Once you choose to flavor your DIY, it is up to you to determine what you are comfortable with. If a manufacturer's claim of "no diacetyl" satisfies you, you have many brands and flavorings to choose from. As you become increasingly analytical of unsupported claims, your choices narrow. You will find direct comparison of brands' ingredients and/or testing is practically impossible. There is no requirement to provide any data, and the very few that do - provide different types of data that cannot be directly compared. Two that are willing to disclose some relevant details to DIY vapers who want to make an informed choice are The Flavor Apprentice and FlavourArt. Both distinguish between ingestion and inhalation in some manner on their websites. Both reply promptly to emailed questions, in my experience. Others here may be able to recommend other forthcoming flavor vendors.
 
Last edited:

Bold Vapor

Bronze Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Just My $.02 folks. I have been following this and the infamous thread that started or at least re-ignited this topic. Regardless, What I want to say is that since joining VU and following along with these topic threads it has really helped me to better understand so much more about e-juice and it's potential harm issues.
I smoked for years and years and did not give a single rat's ass about what chemicals I was bathing my lungs in. Since finally being able to quit smoking I have somehow come to a place where I really do appreciate my health and what I'm ingesting.
Secondly: I just want to say a huge "Thanks" to all of you DIY'ers and other well informed contributors for the very helpful information you are sharing here.
I encourage you to keep up the "Debate", keep it civil (non insulting) but please keep it up. I can't speak for anyone else however this is really helping me.
 

VU Sponsors

Top