It would be maddening if it wasn’t so entertaining!
In short, Nope; no clue as to what molecules are in “tobacco” e-flavoring.
I used a wide variety of flavor vendors back in the day and had no adverse lung reaction to any tobacco flavors… just lucky, I guess. I did run into some pretty horrid tasting tobacco flavors though! I never had an aversion to PG or VG. My base mix is usually around 60 to 70PG/ 30 to 40VG; love a good throat hit. My Nic Base is PG as well; don’t do salts.
As people have said… I’m a NET-head, through and through, for close to 2 years now. I don’t mix or vape synthetic forms of tobacco; can’t abide the flavor. If you want an authentic tasting tobacco vape, give NET a try… I did and never looked back at synths again. Plus, I can make roughly 900ml of ready to vape NET juice for the same $8.50/15ml bottle of Vapage “Classic Tobacco” eliquid.
…and it’s a heck of a lot of fun in the process!
Well, you could - but then some might ask that you provide sources of evidence transcending your own personal physiological (anecdotal) experience which may or may not be transferable to others’ experiences. Looked for information that might tend to bolster your hypothesis, but have not yet found such indications.
That has not been my own personal experience with PG. Not one to “blow clouds”, but do like the way that increasing VG proportions seems (in my case) to “smooth” (perhaps “cool”) the vapor. It is the potential elevated risks which appear to be uniquely associated with VG (as opposed to PG) that give me pause.
The incidence of (dermal) allergy to PG is stated to affect between 0.8% to 3.5% of the populace. In fact, PG is FDA approved (and used in) inhaled vapor medical products. Here is a fairly recent (2017) PG study. Skimmed through it. Did not see much in the way of indications that might bolster your hypothesis above.
Glycerol differs in chemical structure from Propylene Glycol only by a single methyl group replaced by a hydroxyl group - but some differences associated with this slightly more reactive molecule are concerning:
“… over 92% of thetheoretical cardiopulmonary disease (noncancer) risk due to smoking is attributed to just the three … aldehydes, that is, acrolein, 88.5%; acetaldehyde, 2.4%; and formaldehyde, 0.4%. … Thermal
decomposition of propylene glycol generates more acetone, more acetaldehyde, and less formaldehyde, whereas thermal decomposition of glycerin results in more acrolein and formaldehyde. … Numerous studies of animal models have demonstrated the high sensitivity of pulmonary and CV systems to acrolein and formaldehyde at a relatively low level of inhalation.”
“GL produced much more formaldehyde than PG. Besides formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, measurable amounts of acrolein were also detected at 270 Deg C, but only when GL was present in the e-liquid. … Glycerol (GL), also called glycerin or glycerine, was tested under the same conditions as PG. … a similar temperature effect on the formation of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde was observed. However, with GL, unlike with PG, acrolein was also observed at detectable levels at reactor temperatures 270 deg C. It has been reported that acrolein, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde were major products when GL was pyrolyzed in steam.”
(Particularly if exceeding coli temperatures around 200 Deg C), the potential formation of known harmful acrolein as well as formaldehyde seems to be a characteristic of vaporizing VG (as opposed to PG). If you are as critical of the use of VG as you (ostensibly) are about PG, then the info cited above (may) please.
Thus, my reported PG/VG ratio of ~75/25 PG/VG - apparently not such an “outlier”, as you have averred ?
You may be interested in FlavourArt’s approach. They are leading the way in testing. Not only for Chemical Toxicity, but also Inflammatory response, Functional Damage, Cell viability. Check these links for more info. All good stuff.
Very interesting ! Thank you kindly for your consideration and grace. The best of “happy holidays” to you !
Thank you, likewise!
Check the 2nd video in this post, I think you’ll like that one.
Thanks for the interesting reference !
On an entirely humorously intended (and non-scientific) note, how about this name for an e-juice product:
“Vanilla Mice” (a premium quality Murine Monoculture Fibroblaster) Watch the video testimonial …
Funny… They do say FA is animal friendly, and no animals were harmed in those tests.
The notorious research subject “Vanni M” (see video testimonial) has evidently taken personal ownership of who among us may rightfully define “harm”, eschews the theocratically inspired, pseudo-psychiatric, and not physiologially proven moral-pejorative label of “addiction”, strutting his neo-libertine stuff with virtual impunity
Thank you kindly for your thoughts and impressions !
The economy of quality NET components that you have reported is a welcome (unanticipated) surprise.
Am reading that NET components commonly readily glop-up wicks and coils with residues - requiring more coil-cleanings and wick swap-outs than otherwise required. Is that your personal experience in using them ?
Currently operating with non-dis-assemble-able disposable clearomizer “pods” precluding such operations.
Vanni cannibalized the light-switch to run his “Fibroblaster Infusion” rig. He will honk his horn when finished.
Unfortunately, it is true. …some, more than others. It depends on how much natural dextrose is in the leaf. Personally, I can tell you that one will be doing wick changes on a daily basis. That’s the sad part. The happy part is the tremendous tobacco vape experience/satisfaction one gets with NET. It isn’t a good idea for users of disposable coils; expensive/irritating proposition.
Soon as we get you building your own coils … the joy can be yours as well!
Glucose (dextrose) content is a major factor, then. Easy to imagine a “sticky candy” residue result evolving.
(So far), I seem to be getting reasonable “extended” life out of these (expensive) “pods” - and popped for their recent offer of getting 4 “pods” for free when purchasing these little miniature gems (4 times over !). Ignore Vapage’s perennial problem with stating facts in their advertising. The coils are ~1.5 Ohm, and the single recharge-able Li-Ion battery (possibly this one) after a small voltage-drop from the likely electronically implemented current switching appears to result in around 6 Watts or so [~3V^2 / 1.5 Ohm]. Liking the gear.
While such a setup may likely not “impress the pros”, this old man has sunk his few pennies into that stuff.
I am an electronic designer and engineering tech - so coil stuff and wattage/temp calcs are familiar territory. Confusion surrounding Volts, Amps, Watts, and the more complicated issues of Temps seems widespread. You folks have likely figured this stuff out - but (perhaps) I might be able to be of some technical assistance.
It’s not about being impressive, it’s about what works for someone at the time. I’m sure plenty of “pros” have nice little danty stick, or pod type devices they use.
I made the mistake in the beginning of only having 1 (one) device, and when it broke, I did buy a pack of real cigarettes out of frustration. After that I made sure to have at least 2 devices on hand, then I got a 3rd.
And a 4th device is coming, which looks like I’ll be happy with using it. If you think you might like and even better USE something, go for it, It’s 100% worth it, if it will keep you off cigarettes.
I don’t count my big heavy dual battery mod as a device, Since I only use it for flavor testing right now. (Its easy to re-wick and test different home made coils also) If I find a smaller single 21700 50-75 watt squanker or tiny MOD. I will probably use that one, if it’s small and light enough to lug around.
Well that’s good! Should the mood hit you, building your own rig won’t be an issue for you.
As my Nicotine habit escalates (along with lungs seeming to be improving, 7 months following smoking for 48 years prior), the (factory sealed so as to be non-accessible) single-cell Li-Ion batteries in my array of 4 nicely compact little “gems” may not live a long time. (Unclear if it is because I am puffing more), but they are now requiring battery recharging after only one day of use. If it may be possible to self-assemble a rig that is as conveniently compact as these items, while allowing for new battery swap-outs as well as a permanent tank (of around 6 mL capacity, or so) that could be dis-assembled for replacements of coils and wicks, indeed !
Vapage “Classic Tobacco” e-juice (especially in higher concentrations) smells similar to lightly buttered popcorn. Does that possibly ring any particular “bells” existing in your (likely vast) “molecular memories” ?
The fellow who founded/owns Vapage has publicly stated that they use no Diacetyl (the “popcorn lung” chemical), whatsoever. Yet, these descriptions of Diacetyl odor found seem (eerily) to be very close:
Whereas dilution by 5 (20% by volume) seems to be OK with my lungs, when I reduce dilution down to 4 (25% by volume), my threshold for lung irritation is crossed - so I have reverted back to dilution by =>5.
Here Spark Vapor (Vapage) company founder and president Spencer Thompson has publicly stated:
"Our classic tobacco flavor is regarded by many as the best tobacco flavor in terms of quality. We also we went to great lengths to buy PG and VG from Dow Pharmaceuticals,” Spencer states. “All of our flavorings are food-grade; we’ve never used diacetyl or acetyl propionyl … "
What other chemical substances might seem to be so close to Diacetyl (in terms of fragrance and flavor) ?
You could be picking up on Acetyl Pyrazine they might be using in the recipe; folks can taste a nut, corn chip, or popcorn note with that flavor. It is a common flavor to use with tobacco recipes.
Yea AP you said here methyl-pyrazines
I though you figured it out.
Edit - If it’s peppery also… it might be this AP - Acetyl Propionyl