http://m.medicalxpress.com/news/2014-05-brain-reaction-male-odor-shifts.html
From the desk of Zedie.
Day: 05/28/2014
Forget Cannabis, The 3 Most Deadly Drugs Are Completely Legal | Healthy Holistic Living
http://www.healthy-holistic-living.com/forget-cannabis-3-deadly-drugs-completely-legal.html
From the desk of Zedie.
Insomnia Increases Stroke RiskClinical Trials Update
Why Everyone Should Care About Endocrine Disruptors
You endocrine system is an information superhighway that regulates your bodily functions. It releases hormone “messengers” through your body’s glands to stimulate and regulate everything your body does to keep you alive.
Understanding endocrine disruptors is a first line to balancing your endocrine system and hormone functions.
What are endocrine disruptors?
Endocrine disruptors and man-made chemicals that alter, mimic or block hormone production or the system that carries them. You can call these external stressors, while your internal stressors that affect the system are rooted in negative emotions, fear, trauma and stress.
Where can endocrine disruptors be found?
You might be surprised at how common they are, and that you’re exposed to them every day. They can be found in:
- common household cleaners
- yard, garden and farm chemicals
- personal care products
- preservatives
- artificial and “natural” flavors in processed food products
- parfum, “natural” fragrance, or anything “unscented.”
According to the Natural Resources Defense Council some of the proven endocrine disruptors include dioxin, PCBs, DDT, and other pesticides.
Some of these disruptors are surprisingly abundant in your internal and home environment. Here are some of the most common ones, along with the products that often contain them:
- Bisphenol: BPA, BPS in plastics and in the lining of canned goods.
- Triclosan: “antibacterial” products that interfere with thyroid hormones.
- Phthalates (DBT, DEHP): haircare products, lotions, some plastic food containers, vinyl.
- Perfluorinated chemicals: Teflon, Gore-Tex, PFOS, PFOA, as well as anything “stain-resistant,” make-up, nail polish and (surprise) dental floss.
- Parabens: butyl-, methyl-, ethyl-, and propyl-parabens act as synthetic estrogen.
- Sodium lauryl sulphates (SLS): a foaming agent in personal care and cleaning products.
- Fluoride: blocks proper absorption of iodine by the thyroid gland as well as affects the pineal, parathyroid and pancreas. It causes dental and skeletal fluorosis.
These are some of the major culprits, and by no means is this a complete list. There are more than 80,000 chemicals and pesticides on the market in the U.S. that have never been tested for safety, and they’re in everything from food packaging to your clothes, your furniture, carpets and cabinetry.
Why should you care?
These chemicals are in the air you breathe and many water supplies in the US. They affect everything in the food chain from plants, fish, birds and the mammals that eat them (that means you).
Even with the EPA in place, there isn’t proper testing done on chemicals to determine toxicity or the effects on the population. The government takes the stance that many of these chemicals are GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) … until proven otherwise.
The general population doesn’t have the resources to prove these chemicals are safe and government feels its a burden that is too much for industry to bear.
What can you do?
Start by getting rid of the plastics in your life and cleaning up your personal care products (including sunscreen) by replacing them with ones that don’t have parabens or SLS. Here are a few other rules of thumb that can help you eliminate some of the worst endocrine disruptors on the market today:
- Don’t buy anything stain-resistant or Teflon.
- Buy fresh or frozen instead of canned. There are a few companies that don’t use BPA-lined cans, such as Muir Glen and Eden Foods.
- If it smells like plastic or vinyl, it’s off-gassing and your body is absorbing that through your skin (your largest organ) and your lungs.
- Don’t purchase or use anything anti-bacterial which are in most personal care products to protect us from germs and microbes. Watch out it is in toothpaste now as well. Plain old fashioned non-detergent soap is good enough to fight most germs.
- Use bamboo cutting boards instead of plastic. They are naturally anti-microbial.
- Use fluoride-free dental products and water that you drink, cook with and bathe in.
- Start swapping out your cleaning and laundry supplies for soaps instead of detergents.
Don’t try to attack this all at once. As you can afford, start replacing things that you use or that you are in contact with the most.
Toxins in the environment might make you older than your years
Why are some 75-year-olds downright spry while others can barely get around? Part of the explanation, say researchers writing in the Cell Press journal Trends in Molecular Medicine on May 28, is differences from one person to the next in exposure to harmful substances in the environment, chemicals such as benzene, cigarette smoke, and even stress.
While the birth date on your driver’s license can tell you your chronological age, that might mean little in terms of the biological age of your body and cells. The researchers say that what we need now is a better understanding of the chemicals involved in aging and biomarkers to measure their effects.
“The rate of physiologic, or molecular, aging differs between individuals in part because of exposure to ‘gerontogens’, i.e., environmental factors that affect aging,” said Norman Sharpless from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. “We believe just as an understanding of carcinogens has informed cancer biology, so will an understanding of gerontogens benefit the study of aging. By identifying and avoiding gerontogens, we will be able to influence aging and life expectancy at a public health level.”
In the future, blood tests evaluating biomarkers of molecular age might be used to understand differences amongst individuals in aging rates. Those tests might measure key pathways involved in the process of cellular senescence or chemical modifications to DNA. In fact, Sharpless said in the interest of full disclosure that he has founded a company to commercialize molecular tests of aging.
From a public health perspective, cigarette smoke is likely the most important gerontogen, Sharpless said. Cigarettes are linked with cancers but also with atherosclerosis, pulmonary fibrosis, and other diseases associated with age. UV radiation from the sun makes us older too, and Sharpless and his colleagues recently showed that chemotherapy treatment is also a strong gerontogen. With the aid of a mouse model that they developed, his team is prepared to study these gerontogens and others in much greater detail.
The researchers call for a concerted research effort to understand the clinical uses for molecular tests of aging as well as the epidemiology of accelerated aging.
“We believe the comparison of molecular markers of aging to clinical outcomes should begin in earnest,” Sharpless said. For example, he asked, can biomarkers to aging predict toxicity from surgery or chemotherapy in patients in whom chronological age is already a known risk factor?
Sharpless does caution against making tests of molecular age available to consumers and patients directly. “The potential for miscommunication and other harm seems real,” he said.
Ozone Disc Nucleolysis: An Emerging Treatment Option For Intervertebral Disc Herniation
|
||||||
|
Introduction
Back pain due to Intervertebral disc herniation is the most common symptom for which a patient seeks medical treatment in day to day practice(1),(2). 85% of the worlds population will get affected by Intervertebral Disc herniation at least once in their lifetime(1),(2).
The first line of treatment will be conservative. It involves pain killers, bed rest, traction and Physiotherapy.
However, about 40% of the patients do not get relief with conservative management.
Widely accepted mechanism of pain in disc herniation is caused by mechanical compression along with biochemical inflammatory factors(3). Majority of treatment options available today work on the broad principle of pain relief in disc herniation by reducing intra-discal pressure. However, Ozone Disc Nucleolysis is the only available treatment which works by reducing the mechanical intra discal pressure, as well as it has an anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory action.
Till the last decade, the only option available for treatment was open surgery. However, even with best of the hands, there is inherent morbidity, complications or even unsatisfactory results (4).
Hence, this lead to the evolution of minimally invasive percutaneous spine techniques. Ozone Disc Nucleolysis is one of these emerging techniques which is effective in the treatment of Intervertebral Disc Herniation and promises to give quick relief from lower back pain in these patients.
Inclusion criteria
1.Radiculopathy with corresponding Disc Herniation on MRI.
2.VAS score of more than 6.
3.Prolapsed disc conforming to the dermatomal distribution of pain.
4.Functional disability.
Relative Contraindications
1.Lumbar Canal Stenosis.
2.Calcified degenerated disc.
3.Local skin Infection at proposed site of Intervention.
Exclusion criteria
1.Sequestrated disc.
2.History ofskeletal trauma, infection or malignancy.
3.Progressive neurological deficit.
4.Kypho-scoliosis.
5.Pregnancy.
6.Spondylolisthesis.
Procedure
It is a day care procedure with 2 hours Nil By Mouth prior to the procedure.It should preferably be done in the cathlab as it is a real time imaging modality. However, it can also be done CT-guided. The procedure is carried out under local anaesthesia.
For Lumbar disc herniation the patient will be in prone position with a postero-lateral approachwhere as, in cervical Disc Herniation the patient will be in supine position with an antero-lateral approach.
The C-arm is rotated caudal or cranial so that the adjacent end plates are parallel to the X-rays so as to visualize the disc space clearly. The C-arm is rotated obliquely so that the facet joint comes in the centre of the disc space.
The needle used for this procedure is a 22-Gauge needle, 12cm for cervical and 17cm for lumbar disc. It is inserted as close to the centre of the disc under fluoroscopic guidance.
Ozone is freshly generated from medical grade oxygen in commercially available Ozone Generators, at a concentration of 30 micrograms per ml. Ozone is aspirated into a luer lock syringe through a filter(0.22 micron). This Ozone is injected into the centre of the disc (for lumbar : 5cc and for cervical: 1cc).
In the lumbar region, the needle is pulled back into the epidural space at the level of intervertebral foramen underneath the pedicle and 10cc of ozone is injected. Post procedure, the patient is instructed to rest in supine position for 2 hours, following which the patient can be discharged.
Outcome Measures
Pain improvement is measured by visual analogue scale before and after the procedure. The functional improvement is measured by modified MacNab and Oswestry disability index (ODI).
Complications if any are noted separately.
Results
The metaanalysis of all the published reports suggests a mean improvement of 3.9 points in VAS pain metric scale and 25.7 points in ODI scale. Modified MacNab outcome analysis indicates 80% success rate.
•The ongoing study in our` department of Interventional Neuroradiology at the Bombay Hospital and medical research Centre,From 23 March 2007 to 30 JULY 2013.
•3855 patients:1990males 1865 females
•Age ranging from 17-84 yrs
  Form the above study conducted at our department, it showed a disability reduction of 84.5 % patients.
Follow Up
We followed up our patients clinically at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months interval. Out of 3855 patients, 3235 patients have follow up upto 24 months, 324 patients have 12 months follow up and the remaining 296 patients have 6 month follow up period.
Due to the financial constraints, only 10% of our patients agreed to have a radiological follow up. In the 10 percent of these patients, only 40 % of the patients showed radiological improvement.
 Complications
There are no complications reported in our series. However, theoretically speaking, chances of infection is always present, but with proper aseptic precautions, it can be completely avoided. Transient neurological deficit has been reported in the form of impaired sensitivity in the distribution of the affected nerve(3).
Discussion
In the last decade, many minimally invasive procedures along with Ozone Disc Nucleolysis have emerged for the treatment of Disc herniation.
Overview of available invasive procedures and their drawbacks:
The chymopapainchemonucleolysis gives satisfactory results in upto 90% of the cases. However, neurological complications and anaphylactic reactions, though minimal, is always a concern. Hence, in modern medicine, this treatment is not the preferred option.(16)
The Automated percutaneous discectomy trails behind the microdiscectomy with the estimated success rate of only 65%.(16)
Percutaneous Laser Discectomy showed 75% success rate in published literature. However, there are some serious complications like abdominal perforation and cauda equine syndrome associated with this method of treatment.(16)
Stereotactic Lumbar microdiscectomy shows a success rate of 75% with few patients developing muscle spasm and increased pain following the procedure.
TransforaminalMicrodiscectomyhas strict inclusion criterias and may not be suitable for majority of the patients.
Discussion
Lower back pain and sciatica is a very common complaint all over the world. Even though in mild cases, the disease may be self limiting, but the pain and disability caused may extend upto weeks or months and may even aggravate the disease if left untreated.
Ozone Disc Nucleolysis is minimally invasive with almost no complications. It is day care procedure in which the patient can be safely discharged within hours of the procedure.
The simplicity, safety, low cost and the outcome of this procedure, has made Ozone Disc Nucleolysisa popular choice in the treatment of mild to moderate Disc Herniation.
References
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
| Article Statistics | |||
 |
|||
Diet drinks DO help you lose weight: Study finds they’re more effective than water alone | Mail Online
- People who consumed diet drinks lost an average of 13lb over 12 weeks
- But those only allowed to drink water lost just 9lb, U.S. researchers found
- Diet drinkers were also less hungry and had lower levels of bad cholesterol
Diet drinks can help people lose more weight than water alone, a study claims
Diet soft drinks are more effective at helping people lose weight than just drinking water, a study has found.
In the first research of its kind to directly compare drinking water with drinks such as Coke Zero and Diet Pepsi, scientists found people felt less hungry and were more likely to lose weight if they stuck to diet drinks.
Scroll Down for Video
The study, funded by the American Beverage Association, is likely to reignite the debate that drinking diet fizzy drinks can actually increase weight gain and sugar cravings.
It found people who consumed diet beverages lost an average of 13lb, while people in a control group, who were only allowed to drink water, lost just 9lb.
James Hill, executive director of the University of Colorado Anschutz Health and Wellness Center who co-authored the research, said: ‘This study clearly demonstrates diet beverages can in fact help people lose weight, directly countering myths in recent years that suggest the opposite effect – weight gain.
‘In fact, those who drank diet beverages lost more weight and reported feeling significantly less hungry than those who drank water alone.‘
A total of 303 people took part in the 12 week clinical study, which is being published in the journal Obesity.
Participants were divided into two groups – a control group which drank water only and a diet beverage group, which was asked to drink at least 24 ounces of diet soft drinks every day.
The exercise and eating habits of both groups, as part of a weight loss treatment programme, remained the same throughout the three months.
The diet fizzy drinks group also reported feeling significantly less hungry and had lower levels of low-density lipoprotein, a type of ‘bad’ cholesterol.
After 12 weeks a total of 64 per cent of people in the diet drinks group lost at least five per cent of their total body weight. Losing this amount of weight has been shown to improve health – including lowering the risk of heart disease, high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes.
Just 43 per cent of people in the ‘water only’ control group were able to lose five per cent of their weight.
People who drank only water reported feeling hungrier and lost less weight. Previous research has found that people who consume diet drinks are less likely to crave dessert
The latest study follows research published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, which found people who drank diet beverages not only lost more weight but also were less likely to get cravings for desserts.
The National Weight Control Registry also found in 2009 that people who successfully maintained their weight loss drank three times more diet beverages than those who had never lost any weight.
However data from the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study, presented earlier this year, found that older healthier women, who drink two or more diet drinks a day have a higher risk of heart attack, stroke and other cardiovascular problems.
The Biggest Thing In The Universe Is So Gigantic It Shouldn’t Exist At All .
What’s the biggest known structure in the universe?
Astronomers used to think it was a “filament” of galaxies known as the Sloan Great Wall. But recent research suggests a different structure is even bigger — and its size has astronomers scratching their heads.
Meet the Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall (Her-CrB GW). Check it out in the video above.
“The Her-CrB GW is larger than the theoretical upper limit on how big universal structures can be,” Dr. Jon Hakkila, an astrophysics professor at the College of Charleston in South Carolina and one of the astronomers who discovered the structure, told The Huffington Post in an email. “Thus, it is a conundrum: it shouldn’t exist but apparently does.”
Mysteries just like this are why astronomers scan the skies for a glimpse into the past, as they shed light not only on the early years of our universe, but also more about our galaxy, our solar system, and ultimately, ourselves.
“We are now mapping structures across the sky,” astronomer Dr. Jay M. Pasachoff, director of the Hopkins Observatory at Williams College in Williamstown, Mass., who was not involved in the great wall’s discovery, told The Huffington Post. “We’re learning how the universe grew up. So we’re learning about how our cluster of galaxies grew up and how our own galaxy grew up and how our sun formed, and how the Earth formed soon there after. We’re looking back at our history.”
Because astronomers are still mapping the sky, there just may be something even grander than the Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall in our universe.
“The danger of finding the biggest, or most distant, or the oldest things in the universe is always that sooner or later someone is likely to come along and find something bigger, more distant, or older than the thing you found,” Hakkila said. “So far we have not been upstaged, but it has only been about six months since we published.”
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5365111?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000022&ir=Weird+News
From the desk of Zedie.
Carbonyl Compounds in Electronic Cigarette Vapors—Effects of Nicotine Solvent and Battery Output Voltage.
Abstract
Introduction: Glycerin (VG) and propylene glycol (PG) are the most common nicotine solvents used in e-cigarettes (ECs). It has been shown that at high temperatures both VG and PG undergo decomposition to low molecular carbonyl compounds, including the carcinogens: formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. The aim of the study was to evaluate how various product characteristics, including nicotine solvent and battery output voltage, affect the levels of carbonyls in EC vapor.
Methods: Twelve carbonyl compounds were measured in vapors from 10 commercially available nicotine solutions and from three control solutions composed of pure glycerin, pure propylene glycol, or a mixture of both solvents (50:50). EC battery output voltage was gradually modified from 3.2 to 4.8V. Carbonyl compounds were determined using HPLC/DAD method.
Results: Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde were found in 8 of 13 samples. The amounts of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in vapors from lower voltage EC were on average 13- and 807-fold lower than in tobacco smoke, respectively. The highest levels of carbonyls were observed in vapors generated from PG-based solutions. Increasing voltage from 3.2 to 4.8V resulted in 4 to over 200 times increase in formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acetone levels. The levels of formaldehyde in vapors from high-voltage device were in the range of levels reported in tobacco smoke.
Conclusions: Vapors from EC contain toxic and carcinogenic carbonyl compounds. Both solvent and battery output voltage significantly affect levels of carbonyl compounds in EC vapors. High-voltage EC may expose users to high levels of carbonyl compounds.
INTRODUCTION
Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes; ECs) have been gaining increasing popularity as nicotine delivery tools. It has been shown that number of EC users is growing rapidly (Ayers, Ribisl, & Brownstein, 2011; Kosmider, Knysak, Goniewicz, & Sobczak, 2012). Scientific evidence is urgently needed to develop the best regulatory approach to ECs. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authority to regulate ECs as tobacco or medicinal products, and such regulation is expected to be announced soon (Benowitz & Goniewicz, 2013). Recently, the European Parliament has voted that ECs will be regulated as tobacco products, but the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has announced that EC will be regulated as medicinal devices in the United Kingdom by 2016 (Hajek, Foulds, Le Houezec, Sweanor, & Yach, 2013).
Studies are urgently needed to evaluate the presence of potentially toxic and hazardous compounds in vapors generated by ECs and which are inhaled by product users. Vapors are generated from solutions, commonly known as e-liquids or e-juices, which contain solvents (so-called e-liquid base), various concentrations of nicotine, water, additives, and flavorings. The most popular solvents used in e-liquids are glycerin (most commonly of vegetable origin, VG), propylene glycol (PG), or their mixture in various ratios. The “base” usually constitutes 70% to 80% of all components in the e-liquid.
When an EC user takes a puff, it activates heating element that vaporizes the e-liquid. This vaporization process occurs at various temperature ranges. It has been estimated that theoretical vaporization temperature of the heating element may reach up to 350oC (Balhas et al., 2014; Schripp, Markewitz, Uhde, & Salthammer, 2013). This temperature is sufficiently high to induce physical changes of e-liquids and chemical reactions between the constituents of e-liquids. At this temperature, solvents may undergo thermal decomposition leading to formation of potentially toxic compounds. Both VG and PG have been shown to decompose at high temperatures generating low molecular weight carbonyl compounds with established toxic properties (e.g., formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and acetone) (Paschke, Scherer, & Heller, 2002). Moreover, carbonyls such as formaldehyde and acetaldehyde may be present in the e-liquid (Farsalinos, Spyrou, Tsimopoulou, Romagna, & Voudris, 2014). Formaldehyde is classified by the International Agency for Research of Cancer (IARC) as a human carcinogen (Group 1), and acetaldehyde is classified as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) (IARC, 2012). Acrolein causes irritation of the nasal cavity, damages the lining of the lung (U.S. EPA, 2003), and has been shown to contribute to cardiovascular disease (Park & Taniguchi, 2008). Acetone is a mucous membrane irritant that has been shown to induce damage on olfactory neuroepithelium in mice after inhalation (Buron, Hacquemand, Pourié, & Brand, 2009). It has been hypothesized that exposure to carbonyls may cause mouth and throat irritation, one of the most commonly reported side-effects of ECs (Bullen et al., 2010).
We previously evaluated 12 various brands of ECs and found that the generated vapors contained various carbonyls (Goniewicz et al., 2014). The limited literature to date described the presence of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone, acrolein, propanal, butanal, glyoxal, and methylglyoxal in EC vapors (Goniewicz et al., 2014; Laugesen, 2008; Schripp et al., 2013; Uchiyama, Inaba, & Kunugita, 2010). The studies reported that the levels of carbonyls in EC vapors are significantly lower than those found in tobacco smoke. However, these studies used early models of EC (also referred as “first generation”).
EC product categories have been evolving very rapidly and a “second generation” was recently introduced to the market. New products include “tank systems” that can be refilled by users with various e-liquids (Supplementary Figure 1). Some new EC models allow users to increase vaporization temperature by changing battery output voltage (Supplementary Figure 1). An EC generates vapor by heating an atomizing device normally containing a heater coil. To produce more heat, the device needs more power. Variable voltage EC are power control devices that allow the user to control the voltage that is applied to the atomizer. Variable voltage EC allows user to change the voltage of the device to increase the vapor production and nicotine delivery. There is also a huge variety of e-liquids on the market, which are manufactured and distributed by various companies. The aim of the study was to evaluate the extent to which nicotine solvent and battery output voltage affect the levels of carbonyls in the vapors of these second generation products.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Electronic Cigarette
The most popular device available on the Polish market as on January 2013 was selected for the study. Because the Internet is currently the main distribution channel for EC, we searched google.pl web browser and tracked the number of EC sell offers on Allegro.pl, which is the most popular online auction service in Poland. Based on the number of search hits and sell offers, we chose and purchased the eGo-3 brand (Volish, Ltd, Poland). The device has controlled maximum time for single puff of 10 s. We chose a model composed of a Crystal 2 clearomizer (Supplementary Figure 1), with a heating element with resistance of 2.4 ohms, a 900 mAh battery with voltage of 3.4V, and a battery voltage stabilization system. All batteries were charged for 24hr before each test. Only fully charged batteries were used for liquid generation, and batteries were replaced when the devices indicated a decrease in charging level from 100%–50% (white diode color) to 50%–10% (light blue diode color).
In order to test the effect of battery output voltage on carbonyl levels delivered to vapor, we used eGo-3 Twist battery. This 900 mAh battery has a dial that allows for gradually changing its voltage from 3.2 to 4.8V with precision of ±0.07V (Supplementary Figure 1).
Nicotine Solutions (E-liquids)
Ten kinds of commercially available e-liquids with nicotine concentration from 18 to 24mg/ml were used to fill up the clearomizer (tank). All products except one had the labels or inserts that provided information about source of manufacturing, name of distributor, and ingredients (A1–A10; Table 1). However, only half of the product labels showed the concentrations of solvents and flavorings. Based on the labeling information, we grouped the products into VG based (only VG; A1–A3), VG:PG based (both VG and PG mixed in various ratios; A4–A6), and PG based (only PG; A7–A10). We collected 1ml of each e-liquid and refilled 10 clearomizers of the same type 24hr before aerosol generation. Each clearomizer was used only for one e-liquid. We followed instructions in the user’s manual and stored the clearomizers at room temperature in a horizontal position to equally distribute the solution inside the clearomizer.
Characteristics of Nicotine Refill Solutions
In addition to commercially available products, we prepared three sets of control e-liquids (C1–C3; Table 1). The control e-liquids were prepared by dissolving pure nicotine (>99%, Acros) in analytical-grade solvents and vortexing for 10min. The following control solutions were prepared: C1 with VG (88.2%), redistilled water (10.0%), and nicotine (1.8%); C2 with VG (44.1%), PG (44.1%), redistilled water (10.0%), and nicotine (1.8%); and C3 with PG (88.2%), redistilled water (10.0%), and nicotine (1.8%). None of the control e-liquid contained any flavorings or additives. These control e-liquids were used in experiments with adjustable battery voltage.
Generation of EC Vapors
Vapors from ECs were generated using the automatic smoking machine Palaczbot (University of Technology, Lodz, Poland) as described previously (Goniewicz, Kuma, Gawron, Knysak, & Kosmider, 2013). In the current study, all tests were performed with the following puffing conditions: puff duration 1.8 s, puff volume 70ml, and puff intervals 17 s as described previously (Goniewicz et al., 2013). A total of 30 puffs were taken from each EC in two series of 15 puffs with a 5-min interval between series. ECs were kept in a horizontal position in order to maintain natural conditions of puffing on EC. Because the device used in this study was manually activated, an operator of the smoking machine pressed the button manually 1 s before each puff was taken and released it immediately after the puff was completed. Vapors from each e-liquid were tested three times.
In experiments with adjustable battery voltage, vapors were generated using three different battery voltages: 3.2, 4.0, and 4.8V. Three tests were conducted for each of nine solvent:voltage combinations. We used new clearomizers of the same type per each voltage setting. Because we did not use the same battery for all tests, differences in carbonyl levels in vapors generated at 3.2V were compared with the levels in vapors generated at 4.8V using a t test. For statistical analysis, results below lower limits of quantitation (LLOQ; see below) were estimated as LLOQ/√2.
Analysis of Carbonyl Compounds
The method recommended by the U.S. Environment Protection Agency (EPA) was applied for determination of carbonyl compounds (U.S. EPA, 2003). Briefly, it involves direct extraction of these compounds from aerosol to solid phase, that is, silica gel saturated with 2,4-dinitrophenylohydrazine (DNPH). The silica sorbent tubes (300/150mg; SKC Inc.) were placed between EC mouthpieces and smoking machine to trap carbonyls from freshly generated vapors. The sorbent tubes were placed directly behind the EC mouthpiece to avoid potential losses of analyzed compounds. DNPH derivatives of carbonyl compounds were desorbed from sorbent tubes using 1ml of acetonitrile. Ten microliters of the extract was analyzed using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with Eclipse PAH chromatographic column (4.5×250mm, 5 μm, Zorbax, Agilent Technologies) and a diode array detector (DAD; 365nm wavelength) (AT 1200, Agilent Technologies, USA). An elution gradient with acetonitrile:water mobile phase was used, and chromatographic separation was performed at a constant temperature of 40°C.
The method was calibrated and validated as per the International Conference on Harmonization guideline Q2 R1 (International Conference on Harmonization, 2005). All calibration and control samples were prepared by spiking the sorbent tubes with various amounts of stock solution of carbonyls and proceeding with whole analytical procedures. Blank samples were prepared by sampling air from the laboratory where all tests were performed. If any of the analyzed carbonyls were detected in blank samples, the background levels were subtracted from the levels detected in vapor samples. Precision and accuracy of the method varied from 4% to 12% and from 96% to 108%, respectively. In order to compare levels of carbonyls found in vapors with levels reported for tobacco smoke, results were recalculated per one series of 15 puffs from ECs. The LLOQ of the carbonyls were as follows: (ng/15 puffs): formaldehyde, 30; acetaldehyde, 15; acrolein, 30; acetone, 30; propionaldehyde, 20; crotonaldehyde, 40; butanal, 30; benzaldehyde, 40; isovaleric aldehyde, 20; valeric aldehyde, 20; o-methylbenzaldehyde, 35; and m-methylbenzaldehyde, 35.
RESULTS
Levels of Carbonyl Compounds Released From Commercially Available Refill Solutions
Table 2 shows amounts of each analyzed carbonyl compounds in 15 puffs of vapor from 10 commercially available e-liquids. The values presented in Table 2 are means with SD from three tests performed at the same voltage of 3.4V. All samples contained at least one carbonyl compound. Formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone, and butanal were found in most of the analyzed samples. However, not all commercially available e-liquids emitted all these four carbonyls. Crotonaldehyde was detected in only one sample (A10), whereas acrolein was not detected in any sample.
Levels of Carbonyl Compounds in Vapors Generated From EC Refilled With Commercially Available (A1–A10) and Control (C1–C3) Nicotine Solutions (ng/15 puffs; mean ± SD; N = 3)
Effect of Solvent and Battery Output Voltage on Carbonyl Yields Released to Vapors
Figure 1 shows the effect of solvent and battery output voltage on amounts of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acetone released to vapors with 15 puffs from EC refilled with three different control solutions (C1–C3). In general, PG-based e-liquids generated significantly higher levels of carbonyls than VG-based e-liquids (p < 0.05). Increased battery output voltage resulted in the higher levels of carbonyls in vapor. When low battery output voltage (3.2V) was used, the average amounts of formaldehyde released with 15 puffs from VG, VG/PG, and PG were (mean ± SD) 0.02±0.02, 0.13±0.11, and 0.53±0.19 µg, respectively. When battery output voltage was increased to 4.8V, the amounts of formaldehyde were 0.15±0.06 (p = .03), 27.0±7.9 (p < .01), and 17.6±19.7 µg (p = .21), respectively. When low battery output voltage (3.2V) was used, the average amounts of acetaldehyde released with 15 puffs from VG, VG/PG, and PG were 0.17±0.09, 0.43±0.50, and 0.41±0.28 µg, respectively. However, when the battery output voltage was increased to 4.8V, the amounts of acetaldehyde increased to 1.24±0.12 (p < .01), 1.73±1.21 (p = .16), and 4.23±3.23 µg (p = .11), respectively. Levels of acetone also increased with increased battery output voltage (from 0.34±0.09, 0.73±0.52, 1.68±0.30 to 1.43±0.14 [p < .01], 7.59±2.14 [p = .01], 3.94±0.47 [p < .01] µg/15 puffs, respectively, for VG, VG/PG, and PG-based solutions).
Effects of nicotine solvent and battery output voltage on levels of carbonyl compounds released from ECs (µg/15 puffs; N = 3; puff duration 1.8 s, puff volume 70ml, puff intervals 17 s).
DISCUSSION
We present novel findings on levels of carcinogenic and toxic carbonyl compounds in vapors from second generation of EC. Our findings show that vapors generated from various commercial and reference solutions expose EC users to toxic carbonyls, including the carcinogens formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. Our findings are consistent with previously published reports reporting presence of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, propanal, acetone, and butanal in EC vapors (Goniewicz et al., 2014; Laugesen, 2008; McAuley, Hopke, Zhao, & Babaian, 2012; Schripp et al., 2013).
Our study found that the amounts of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in vapors from lower voltage tank system ECs were on average 13- and 807-fold lower than in tobacco smoke, respectively. We previously reported that levels of these toxicants in vapors from the first generation of EC were 9- and 450-fold lower than in tobacco smoke, respectively (Goniewicz et al., 2014). Schripp et al. (2013) found that the levels were 7- and 59-fold lower compared with tobacco smoke. Our findings suggest only a slight reduction in toxicant emission from the second generation low-voltage EC compared with first generation ECs. Despite findings from chemical analysis, in vitro studies of the effects of EC vapor on cultured cells have shown that cell survival was not associated with the nicotine solvent (Farsalinos Romagna, Allifranchini, et al., 2013). Therefore, clinical studies are needed in order to determine whether such levels of carbonyls may have the potential to cause disease to EC users.
We also showed that levels of carbonyl compounds in EC vapors are strongly affected by product characteristics, like type of nicotine solvent and battery voltage. In general, the highest levels of carbonyls were observed in vapors generated from PG-based solutions. This finding suggests that PG in ECs is more susceptible to thermal decomposition than VG. The presence of carbonyls in flavor-free control solutions indicates that the primary sources of these toxicants are nicotine solvents. An interesting finding of our study is that no toxic carbonyls were detected in a single sample with reduced content of VG and PG. In this product (A6), the primary solvent was polyethylene glycol (PEG). It would suggest that PEG-based e-liquids might have reduced toxicity from decomposition products. Further research should explore this hypothesis.
The striking finding of our study is that levels of carbonyls rapidly increase with increased battery output voltage. Increasing battery output voltage leads to higher temperature of the heating element inside EC. In addition, the increased battery output voltage results in more e-liquid consumed per puff. Our findings show that increasing voltage from 3.2 to 4.8V resulted in 4 to over 200 times increase in formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acetone levels. The levels of formaldehyde in vapors from high-voltage devices were in the range of levels reported in tobacco smoke (1.6–52 µg/cigarette; Counts, Morton, Laffoon, Cox, & Lipowicz, 2005). This finding suggests that in certain conditions ECs might expose their users to the same or even higher levels of carcinogenic formaldehyde than tobacco smoke. This finding is essential for the product safety and in the light of forthcoming regulation of the devices.
We also noted some inconsistency in results related to acrolein presence in vapor with previously published findings. In our study, we did not find acrolein in any products. However, our previous research as well as research published by other authors suggest the presence of acrolein in EC vapor. However, in current study, we measured carbonyls only in two series of 15 puffs, whereas in previous report, we used much larger samples (150 puffs). Thus, this inconsistency might be attributed to differences in detection limits. The other explanation would be that generation of acrolein increases with the duration of EC use. Extensive puff-by-puff analysis would facilitate verification of this hypothesis.
The present study have some important limitations. We only looked at two factors that might affect toxicity of EC, namely nicotine solvent and battery output voltage. More research is needed to describe how other product characteristics affect toxicity of ECs. Future studies should examine the types of heating elements, flavorings and additives, and product storage conditions. Secondly, recent studies showed significant variations in puffing topography among users of various EC models (Edmiston et al., 2014; Farsalinos, Romagna, Tsiapras, Kyrzopoulos, & Voudris, 2013; Vansickel et al., 2014). Puffing topography may affect levels of carbonyls released from different ECs. There are some discrepancies between puffing regime used in our study and the results of clinical studies (Farsalinos, Romagna, Tsiapras, et al., 2013). Future studies should examine the effect of puffing on carbonyl levels released to EC vapors. The other limitation of this study is that we used the SKC sorbent tubes to trap carbonyl compounds. These tubes are meant to capture gas-phase, rather than particle-phase carbonyls. It is likely that at least some of the carbonyls (e.g., formaldehyde) are partitioned between the gas and particle phase in EC aerosol and may not have been trapped efficiently in the sorbent tubes. It is possible that what was measured actually represents a lower bound of what could have been emitted by the ECs.
CONCLUSIONS
Vapors from ECs contain toxic and carcinogenic carbonyl compounds. Both solvent and battery output voltage significantly affect levels of carbonyl compounds in EC vapors. Levels of carbonyls rapidly increase with increased battery output voltage. New generation of high-voltage ECs may put their users in increased health risk from exposure to high levels of carbonyl compounds although the risk will still probably be much lower compared with smoking.
Moms Want Monsanto To Stop Using A Herbicide That’s Made Its Way Into Breast Milk .
A group of mothers is going after the biotech corporation Monsanto, pressuring the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to crack down on the company’s controversial herbicide. “Moms Across America” says that Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup should be recalled.
The group points to evidence that glyphosate, the primary ingredient in Roundup, is building up in women’s bodies and is now being detected in breast milk. The chemical has previously been found in drinking water, but its presence in the human body is especially concerning, considering the fact that glyphosate been linked to health issues like neurological disorders, reproductive issues, and birth defects.
Glyphosate, which is now the most popular herbicide in the world, spiked in use in the 1990s after Monsanto genetically engineered crops that can survive being sprayed directly with Roundup. Monsanto executives have previously stated that glyphosate doesn’t accumulate in human bodies, but the new research appears to contradict that claim.
“This is a poison and it’s in our food. And now they’ve found it in breast milk,” Zen Honeycutt, the founder of Moms Across America, explained to Reuters. “Numerous studies show serious harm to mammals. We want this toxic treadmill of chemical cocktails in our food to stop.”
The EPA is currently conducting a standard review of glyphosate. By next year, the agency will decide whether the chemical can continue to be used as it is currently, or whether there needs to be stricter regulation over it. That’s why environmental activists like Moms Across America are taking the opportunity to meet with regulators to express their concerns about Roundup.
Moms Across America is also targeting other government agencies on this issue. The group wants the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to conduct more tests to determine glyphosate’s potential long-term effects on Americans’ health. “It is the responsibility of parents to care for their children and it is the responsibility of the CDC to partner with us to care for our nation,” the mothers write.
This isn’t the only potentially harmful chemical that could pose a threat to women’s health. There’s increasing evidence that environmental toxins can harm women’s ability to have children. Last year, two leading reproductive health groups — the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine — issued a joint statement urging the EPA to limit the chemicals that could have a negative effect on women’s pregnancies.
Nonetheless, Monsanto doesn’t shy away from using its considerable economic power to undermine the policies that would restrict its current business model. The company has deep roots in Washington, and has poured millions of dollars into campaigns to defeat state legislation to regulate genetically engineered groceries.
ARYAN'S BLOG 