I have pointed out the toxicity of PG, PEG and VG on FC for over a year now brother. This is information that has been suspected for years now. Sadly, many seem to have ignored for a long time since it has been known. Over the last year, it has been demonstrated that VG and PG are not safe to heat and inhale for more reasons than those cited in the projectcbd article above.Just found this and needed to share!!
The dangers of vaping PG, PEG and VG!!
Sadly, no. VG is known to release Glycidol, a probable carcinogen when it is vaporized in ecig tanks. I've shared the peer reviewed studies elsewhere on FC long ago.Guess we should just use VG?
"And vegetable glycerin did not produce detectable amounts of any of the toxins studied."
What are healthier options for thinning/carrier agents for making oils?Please, everybody, as I've said for a long time, do not use ejuice at all. It is redundant (there are more essential oil only vape options than ever before!), it makes your concentrates taste worse, not better and it is known to be unsafe to heat and inhale in ecig tanks.
I believe these were addressed in the other thread I made about that study on FC a while back. I don't have time to search for that right now but I'm sure you'll find it easily enough with a search If you would like more detail I can set aside some time later to look back at the study and give you the info (busy now). I do recall that the study found greater levels of the offending compounds at greater voltages. Also dual coil ecig tanks tended to produce lower volumes of the offending compounds than single coil ecigs at the same voltage, due to the voltage/current being dispersed across a greater surface area, resulting in lesser overall temp.Hey @herbivore21
I can't read the whole study, and am curious about the data!
Are you able to access the quantities of carcinogens present in the data?
Also if/what thresholds these toxins are set at in terms of what is ruled safe for ingestion, and how these liquids compare to those thresholds?
If you are asking this question, what I gather is that you are trying to shoehorn cannabis extracts into ecig tanks designed to consume eliquids. Cannabis extracts are not liquids, and so ecig tank style carts are not appropriate for cannabis concentrate consumption. Unless you can make your own high quality distillates in the right consistency (don't try that at home, please!), you should be looking for vaporizers that are made to work with straight cannabis extracts in their original consistency. Look at the many abundant oil pens, as well as the flower vapes that allow us to use concentrates with a concentrate pad or similar. You'll get much better results that way.What are healthier options for thinning/carrier agents for making oils?
To generate the samples for carbonyl testing, an Aspire Atlantis 2 tank was filled with the thinning agent being tested and coupled to an Evolv DNA 200 vaporizer controller containing a nickel coil.
PEG 400 produced the greatest levels of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, followed by PG. VG and MCT produced low levels of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, including levels that did not reach the limit of quantitation (LOQ) for acetaldehyde (VG only) and formaldehyde (both VG and MCT). None of the thinning agents produced acrolein at levels that reached the LOQ.
Compared with the other agents, PEG 400 produced the largest amounts of acetaldehyde and formaldehyde. The amount of formaldehyde was particularly high, with levels that were nearly four times greater than that produced by PG, more than 226 times higher than that produced by MCT, and almost 242 times greater than that produced by VG. Relative to the other agents, PG produced moderate levels of acetaldehyde and formaldehyde. Both VG and MCT produced low levels of acetaldehyde and formaldehyde. All agents produced low levels of acrolein.
To provide a context for exposure to the carbonyls produced by the four agents, we compared the levels of acetaldehyde and formaldehyde to occupational exposure limits defined by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Leveraging calculations conducted by Gillman et al., the daily OSHA limits for acetaldehyde and formaldehyde are 2,088,000 and 5300 mg, respectively. Given acetaldehyde’s greater exposure limit, a cannabis user inhaling the byproducts of heated thinning agents would not be exposed to a significant percentage of their daily limit. For example, one inhalation of PEG 400 heated to 230C, which produced the greatest amount of acetaldehyde, exposes an individual to 0.00125% of the daily limit. However, for individuals with a variant ALDH2 gene, any exposure to acetaldehyde may cause adverse effects, including an increased risk of UADT cancers.
Exposure to formaldehyde represents a much greater potential risk. One inhalation of PEG 400 would expose an individual to 1.12% of the daily limit of formaldehyde. Comparatively, smoking one cigarette exposes an individual to 1.42%to 2.35%of the daily limit of formaldehyde. Although not as high as PEG 400, one inhalation of PG exposes an individual to 0.30% of the daily limit. In comparison, one inhalation of MCT or VG would result in an exposure of 0.0050% and 0.0046% of the daily limit, respectively.
Although in practice only a small amount of PEG400 or PG is used to dilute cannabis oil (compared with the isolates used in the present study), these results suggest that consumers potentially expose themselves to health risks when using such products, as formaldehyde inhalation has been linked to increased incidence of myeloid leukemia and nasopharyngeal cancer.
For two reasons, the results may have differed if a cannabis oil-thinning agent mixture were tested. First, the mixture may have produced a different amount of carcinogenic byproducts than the thinning agents alone. A mixture of two components may have boiling and combustion points that are different from either of the components separately. Thus, vaporizing the mixture may increase or decrease carbonyl production. Second, the botanical and chemical compounds found in cannabis oil may affect carbonyl production during vaporization. Cannabis contains hundreds of cannabinoids, terpenoids, and antioxidants that may affect the oxidation of the thinning agents and inhibit or exacerbate the formation of carcinogenic compounds. Unfortunately, due to federal restrictions, in the present study, we were not able to examine carbonyl production in cannabis oil-thinning agent mixtures.
Finally, although acetaldehyde, acrolein, and formaldehyde are the carbonyls that are the most commonly tested for in prior research, thinning agents may produce other potentially harmful compounds. Future work may extend the findings of this study by testing agents for other carbonyls.
Please, whatever you do don't go back to cigarettes! Regardless of whether this article is accurate or not (it's not.) Formaldehyde and Arsenic as well as plenty of other known carcinogen are in those cigarettes,and in much higher levels! This article lost it's credibility in the first paragraph. The PG formaldehyde myth is many years old. Here's an article explaining things. http://lipsiglawyers.com/formaldehyde-e-cig-scare/ You'll notice a theme in articles like OP posted, they jack up the voltage (or in this case temp) to a level no one vapes at and when shit starts burning they point and go "SEE! Dangerous!" The article even admits it saying they cooked the pg/peg at 446 degrees Fahrenheit. I'm using a baby beast right now at 380 degrees. One of many tanks I own, which includes many rebuildables. Never gone over 420 degrees. Didn't matter the material or wrap. Speaking of which we get neither from this article, nor do they tell you the device (some cheap chinese pos i bet.)Shit!
Been using an E-cig for about 2 weeks instead of tobacco. Looks like I need to get off of that as well.
The chemical compounds in cannabis, called cannabinoids, vaporize at temperatures ranging from 157 C to 220 C, with combustion beginning at 230 C. Therefore, cannabis oil should be heated to a temperature above 220 C to achieve maximal cannabinoid vaporization but no greater than 230 C to avoid the potential harmful effects of combustion. In the present study, we examined thinning agent aerosols for the presence of carcinogenic compounds when heated at this maximal temperature of cannabis vaporization (230 C).
Nope, no more cig's for me, been 2 weeks smoke free now!
You need to be very careful when you attempt to "minimize" the importance of these findings. The acceptable safe levels are not determined by long term experiments in humans. Remember that we are dealing here with carcinogens. The way carcinogens produce cancer is that they cause damage to the DNA of a single cell causing a mutation. The changed DNA is therefore no longer the DNA of the body and most mutated cells are easily identified and gobbled up by immune system white cells. HOWEVER there is one type of mutation that activates what is called an oncogene. The prefix onco refers to cancer. Cells with activated oncogene are very primitive, like amoebae and other single celled animals. Oncogenetic cells have mechanisms to insure their survival. They secrete substances that drive the immune cells away so that the oncogenetic cells do not get gobbled up. They also secrete chemicals that stimulate the body to grow more blood vessels into the region of the oncogenetic cells ("neoangiogenesis") . The enriched blood supply allows the oncogenetic cells to multiply much more rapidly, and the cancer is therefore that much more invasive.
So the takeaway here is that it only takes one single oncogenetic cell to start a malignant tumour. Almost all malignant tumours are "monoclonal" meaning that the entire tumour starts from a single cell. It's a numbers game, folks, and therefore there is no "safe" level of any carcinogen. It only takes one carcinogenic molecule to start a cancer. So buyer beware! .