Olá Vapereus.

Hoje venho-vos falar de de um estudo sobre a temperatura de “evaporização”, que como todos sabem é o metodo de funcionamento do vaping , com as diferentes “máquinas” de hoje em dia (comparando um eGo em 2010 3.7v com um atomizador de 3.5ohm com o Mecanico 3.7V a 0.1ohm por exemplo) é um estudo muito importante para o futuro do vaping, pois as temperaturas atingidas são diferentes e requerem confirmação do que realmente se passa em termos de transformação quimica (Evaporação) a tais temperaturas, com isto não digo que é mau nem bom , existem é muitos “camones” já a dizer que faz isto e aquilo, produz isto e aquilo e bla bla, pois eu não sei e se ninguém fez um estudo não podem afirmar seja o que for !

Eu vaporizo de todas as maneiras.. em pé , sentado.. esperem não era isto que queria dizer … Vaporizo tanto em sistemas regulares 3.7v com atomizadores 2.0 ohm, a 5v com 1.5ohm e tambem sub ohm mec a 0.2 , não sinto diferença fisica quando o faço (a diferença vê-se é na quantidade de vapor produzido), tendo também a dar vaporadas grandes e bastante calmas, seja nos ego,mods ou em subohm , entre 7 a 9 segundos, o que penso agora, realmente faz muito sentido este estudo, para mim que vaporizo constantemente e com vaporadas grandes as temperaturas são altas e o que será que o aerosol quimicamente falando produz ? Nada..alguma coisa..algo mau..algo bom.. pois não faço a minima , se me sinto bem, sim bastante bem , dos 12 anos que fumei e dos quase 5 que levo de vaping nunca mais tive bronquite crónica, catarro , mau hálito (excepto quando bebo tinto lol) , a comida sabe melhor, consigo correr sem deitar os pulmões pela boca , etc.. mas quero saber mais , para isso contamos com o amigo Konstatinos, portanto..

Melhor que ninguém o Dr.Konstantinos Farsalinos para quem ainda não leu nem viu o video mais recente deixo-vos com o estudo..

O que vai ser analisado:

O objectivo de angariação foi antigido 🙂

Video:

httpvh://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB2z3Zdq9DU&feature=share

Estudo anterior do Dr.Konstantinos Farsalinos referente a avaliação dos liquidos e o aerosol

Introduction. The purpose of this study was to evaluate sweet-flavoured electronic cigarette (EC) liquids for the presence of diacetyl (DA) and acetyl propionyl (AP), which are chemicals approved for food use but are associated with respiratory disease when inhaled.

Methods. In total, 159 samples were purchased from 36 manufacturers and retailers from 7 countries. Additionally, three liquids were prepared by dissolving a concentrated flavour sample of known DA and AP levels at 5%, 10% and 20% concentration in a mixture of propylene glycol and glycerol. Aerosol produced by an EC was analyzed to determine the concentration of DA and AP.

Results. DA and AP were found in 74.2% of the samples, with more samples containing DA. Similar concentrations were found in liquid and aerosol for both chemicals. The median daily exposure levels were 56μg/day (IQR: 26-278μg/day) for DA and 91μg/day (IQR: 20-432μg/day) for AP. They were slightly lower than the strict NIOSH-defined safety limits for occupational exposure and 100 and 10 times lower compared to smoking respectively; however, 47.3% of DA and 41.5% of AP-containing samples exposed consumers to levels higher than the safety limits.

Conclusions. DA and AP were found in a large proportion of sweet-flavoured EC liquids, with many of them exposing users to higher than safety levels. Their presence in EC liquids represents an avoidable risk. Proper measures should be taken by EC liquid manufacturers and flavouring suppliers to eliminate these hazards from the products, without necessarily limiting the availability of sweet flavours.

Fonte: http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/08/30/ntr.ntu176.abstract

Para quem quiser seguir de perto o trabalho do Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos  aqui fica:

Dr.Konstantinos Farsalinos FaceBook

Dr.Konstantinos FarsalinosYouTube

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

UPDATE:

Ultimamente temos visto todo o tipo de ataques ao vaping , muitos testes “encomendados” que tentam confirmar isto e aquilo..aqui fica uma resposta.. dá-lhes Farsalinos 

“The deception of measuring formaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosol: the difference between laboratory measurements and true exposure

By Dr Farsalinos

A new trend is emerging in the e-cigarette research community of obtaining a variable voltage/wattage device, applying high energy to an atomizer and measuring aldehydes (mostly formaldehyde) released to the aerosol (vapor). The story started early last year, continued recently with a story from Japan, and is now followed by a letter published in New England Journal of Medicine.

This time, researchers obtained a variable voltage device, and applied 3.3 and 5.0 volts to an (unnamed) atomizer for 4 seconds per puff. At 3.3 volts they found no formaldehyde, while at 5.0 volts they found formaldehyde levels up to 15 times higher than in tobacco cigarette smoke. But there are major problems in this study.

For start, the authors did not find formaldehyde but formaldehyde hemiacetals. This is a combination of formaldehyde and alcohols (formaldehyde-propylene glycol or formaldehyde-glycerol). The authors characterized them as formaldehyde-releasing agents, providing a reference to a study evaluating contact dermatitis from such agents. However, looking at the study referenced, it is clear that those formaldehyde-releasing agents have nothing to do with formaldehyde hemiacetals found in e-cigarette aerosol. Moreover, there is absolutely no evidence that hemiacetals are toxic or carcinogenic. In fact, it is possible that the formation of hemiacetals might protect against damage induced by formaldehyde. Nevertheless, the authors considered the risk equal to formaldehyde and calculated the risk of cancer.

There are many other major issues in that study. The authors fail to realize that voltage levels provide no information about the thermal load of an e-cigarette device. It seems that both the researchers and the reviewers who approved the study for publication missed that energy should be expressed in watts. As a result, we do not know how many watts were applied to the atomizer. However, there is a way to approximate this, through the information provided about liquid consumption per puff. The authors report that 5mg of liquid were consumed at 3.3 volts. Based on measurements I have performed, such consumption is observed at about 6-7 watts at 4-second puffs. Thus, the atomizer resistance is probably 1.6-1.8 Ohms. This means that at 5 volts the energy was around 14-16watts. That would be an extremely high value for most commercially-available atomizers (excluding some rebuildables which can withstand such high wattage levels). Thus, it is more than obvious that once again the atomizer was overheated, which of course will result in very high levels of formaldehyde production. What the authors ignore is that these conditions, commonly called dry-puff phenomenon (which is explained in detail in one of my published studies), are easily detected by the vapers. In fact, overheating results in an unpleasant taste that none can withstand. As a result, no vaper is ever using the e-cigarette at such conditions and, thus, will never be exposed to such levels of formaldehyde. The story published in New England Journal of Medicine is similar to finding carcinogens in an overcooked piece of meat that none can ever eat. Of course the findings are true, but none will be exposed to the levels found.

I am concerned that we will very often see stories like this. The scientific community must realize that variable wattage devices cannot be used at any wattage levels with any available atomizer. Even for naïve users, the harsh taste of the dry puff phenomenon is unbearable. I would suggest scientists to try themselves an e-cigarette at dry puff conditions (it is very easy, just use an atomizer without enough liquid), and they will find out themselves. In fact, it is very easy to produce as much aldehydes as you want in the lab with an e-cigarette device. However, this has nothing to do with exposure from e-cigarette use.

Our team is currently working on identifying the temperature of the dry-puff phenomenon and evaluating the levels of aldehydes released at those temperatures as well as in temperatures associated with conventional vaping. We will have the results available in a few months, and we hope that this will end the speculation. Until that time, everyone should understand that measuring aldehydes in e-cigarette aerosol in the lab can be deceptive and is not necessarily associated with exposure of vapers to such levels.|

Fonte: http://ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/2015/191-form-nejm