Creme de Vape Blog

We're thrilled to inform you that Cloud9Vaping will now be known as Crème de Vape. The great products, super-swift service and amazing customer support you've come to know and love, will remain - all wrapped up in a newer, classier package.
No need to change your login details or passwords, all your details have been brought across to the new site. The old Cloud9 web address will continue to work, but we'd recommend updating your bookmarks to www.cremedevape.com.

The original content of the post, dated 28th June 2015 and entitled Liquid test results, was a table of test results of liquids supplied by Five Pawns (as well as other suppliers) and an explanation of those test results.

They declined to provide their own test results when we commenced trading at the start of 2015, accordingly (and in accordance with our product testing policy) we submitted 8 Five Pawns liquids to testing at an independent UKAS accredited laboratory.

We published the results approximately 7 weeks after providing them privately to Five Pawns.

Five Pawns took exception to the post, sent a cease and desist letter through their attorneys, threatening legal action if our post was not removed.

Whilst we stand by these results, we decided to take down the information to comply with Five Pawns’ request.

Our own solicitors have responded in robust terms rejecting allegations made by Five Pawns, and they have now released their own test results, and it is incontrovertible that liquid produced by Five Pawns contains the compounds in question.

Edited: 29/06/15 
The information relating to specific products withdrawn from sale as part of our testing/due diligence processes has been removed pending legal advice.

Update: 02/07/2015
Liquid test results - update

Update: 02/07/2015
Latest test results on our own brand liquid are now available.

There's been a lot of discussion and debate about dangerous compounds that have been found in many flavoured e-liquids and food flavourings used in e-liquid production.

We felt it was about time to give a thorough explanation of exactly what we do, so that you can rest assured, we're taking every step we possibly can to provide as safe a product as possible, according to the current known risks.

We've been testing our products since 2011 at the same independant UK-based laboratory used by Trading Standards. The lab is accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation service (UKAS) to the internationally recognised ISO 17025 standard which means they have demonstrated they are technically competant and have documented procedures and quality management systems in place to ensure they are producing precise, accurate and repeatable test data. This accreditation also means they are continually monitored and audited to ensure their procedures and methods continue to consistently provide accurate and valid results that can be trusted by governmental organisations and compared to test data produced by other accredited labs worldwide.

We don't generally publish our results alongside the liquids, because we anonymise the samples for company confidentiality. This "blind testing" policy is common in many industries, and was introduced to us by ECITA when we first began testing. This method wasn't an issue when we were simply running tests for our own internal due diligence. However, it has caused us to be unable to properly publish all of our own test results alongside the products on our site so we will be changing this policy in the future so we can publish all our test results with the product clearly identified. 

Diethylene Glycol and Ethylene Glycol

Diethylene glycol (DEG) is a known contaminant that is often present in general reagent grade Glycerine that's not designed for ingestion or pharmaceutical use. Some research was released in 2009, claiming that the FDA sampled several pre-filled cartridges and found Diethylene Glycol (a poison) present. It's imperative that these compounds aren't contained in products designed for ingestion, although not much notice is given to this within our industry. We have historically tested all our liquids for both DEG and Ethylene Glycol to verify the purity of the diluents used in the product, and to-date, none of our pre-mixed e-liquids have ever tested positive for either of these compounds. We are proposing dropping this test from our protocol as we're confidentn our manufacturer's protocols eliminate all risks in this area.

Nicotine Assay

As nicotine can be dangerous in high doses, we feel it's prudent to test the actual nicotine level, in random e-liquid samples, both to confirm that it is within tolerance of the stated level, and to confirm it isn't present in liquids that are labelled zero nicotine. It has been our experience that some tobacco type flavour zero nicotine liquids can contain miniscule traces of nicotine, due to to the method of production involved in manufacturing some tobacco flavours, however, we have never seen any results above 0.04% nicotine (0.4mg/ml) in a zero nicotine e-liquid, and any product that tested above 0.02% (0.2mg/ml) would not be released for sale. The last time any of our zero liquids tested positive for traces of nicotine (at 0.01%) was in January 2013.

Propylene Glycol and Vegetable Glycerine Quantification

We run these tests primarily to ensure any product we advertise as "PG Free" is in fact completely free of PG, since these products will typically be chosen by consumers who have an allergy or an intolerance to Propylene Glycol. We also like to see the PG/VG ratios for our own consistency checks and so we can advise customers who have a particular PG/VG ratio preference.

Diketones

All flavourings used in our pre-mixed liquids, and available as concentrates for DIY mixing have been certified as safe for use in consumption via the digestive system - i.e. they are food-safe. However, this is not the whole story, since ingestion into the lungs via vapour is an entirely different pathway, and some flavourings that are completely safe to be eaten, are not safe to be vaped.

There are a family of compounds referred to as diketones, that pose some serious inhalation risks and should not be present in e-liquid. These compounds are used to provide a buttery/custard/vanilla type flavour and are currently found in many pre-mixed e- liquid ranges, particularly the more complex blends coming from the USA at the moment. The diketones of particular concern are Diacetyl (2,3-butanedione or DA) and 2,3-Pentanedione (Acetyl Propionyl or AP). We also test for the presence of Acetoin, which by itself, is not known to be harmful, but it can partially catalyse into DA under certain conditions, so we do test for acetoin, so that we are aware of the level, if present.

Diacetyl (DA) in its inhaled form, has been identified as the major cause of a serious lung condition observed amongst a group of popcorn factory workers exposed to large amounts of fumes containing DA in an industrial environment over an extended period of time. As yet, no tests have been performed on human inhalation via vaporisation of flavoured e-liquid, however, there is a published occupational safety limit of 66µg (66 parts per million), which means, if you vape 1ml of e-liquid, it must have less than 66µg or 0.0066% DA to be below the occupational safety limit. Our current testing is able to detect DA to 10 parts per million or 0.001%. None of our e-liquids or flavouings contain DA as a specific ingredient, and where we have identified it during testing, we have refused to stock the product or withdrawn it from sale if it was already on sale prior to receving DA-positive test results.

The dangers associated with inhaling DA have been known for some years, and we've been testing for the its presence since 2011, however, it was only in 2014 when Dr Farsalinos released the results of his research, that the industry realised flavouring manufacturers who were responding to the "noise" regarding Diacetyl, had been replacing it with Acetyl Propionyl (AP), and that AP has very similar inhalation risks and is not suitable for vaping either. Prior to this research, many vendors, including ourselves, were unaware that AP also posed a very real risk, and since this point, we have also included it in our testing protocol. The published occupational safety limit of AP is 135µg (135 parts per million), which means if you vape 1ml of e-liquid, it must have less than 135µg or 0.0135% AP in it to be below the occupational safety limit. Our current testing is able to detect AP to 10 parts per million or 0.001%.

As of the date of this article, we do not stock any pre-mixed e-liquids that have tested positive for DA or AP at any level.
We may take the view in future, that some consumers want these types of flavours, and we may decide to stock e-liquid that has tested positive for DA at a very low level, as it occurs naturally in some flavours. If we did this, we would impose a limit ourselves, of approximately 25 parts per million (0.0025%).  If we stock any e-liquids in future that do contain traces of DA up to 25 parts per million (0.0025%) we will clearly indicate this information. Where our testing identifies an e-liquid contains DA above 25 parts per million (0.0025%), we will still continue to refuse to stock it. We are unlikely to alter our position on AP, since it never occurs naturally and is only present when it has been physically added. 

Flavour Concentrates

We do also use the same testing protocol (excluding nicotine assay) on specific flavour concentrates where we believe, by virtue of their flavour profile, could contain harmful diketones. None of our concentrates have ever tested positive for Diacetyl, but some do contain AP in very low quantities. Where concentrated flavourings are concerned, assuming the concentrate is used at 10% and 5ml per day is vaped, our own self-imposed limit would translate to 250 parts per million (0.025%). We will not stock any new flavour concentrates that exceed this level, and those we currently stock that could exceed this level are clearly identified in our flavour concentrates product information download.

Further information

It should be noted that where a liquid has a buttery or custardy taste, but has tested free of DA or AP, the buttery note will have been achieved by Acetoin or Butyric acid, or a combination of these components. Butyric acid can cause irritation in some vapers and it can also be responsible for an unpleasant sour after-taste in certain concentrations or flavour combinations.

The amount of liquid you vape per day may exceed averages, thus exposing you to more risk, and indeed, if you are at all concerned about diketones, or other as-yet unidentified, potentially harmful component, we advise you steer clear of all buttery, custardy, vanilla, creamy & sweet flavours or consider vaping subtly flavoured, or even unflavoured liquids, rather than strongly flavoured recipes with many flavouring components present, in high concentrations.

Additionally, it should be remembered that vaping is a "reduced-harm" alternative to smoking - this doesn't mean it's completely harmless but that it's known to be much less harmful than smoking traditional combustible tobacco. The fact that liquids have tested free of these known risks, is not an indication that any one flavouring is more or less "safe" than any other - no long term or comprehensive studies have yet been performed on human inhalation of vaporised food flavourings.

Positive Action

In the recent past, we removed a well-known premium e-liquid range from sale because our test results indicated very high levels of DA (testing showed up to 100 ppm or 0.01%), and extremely high levels of AP (testing showed up to 2500 ppm or 0.25%). We trusted the manufacturer were doing their own due diligence but this experience was a reminder that there are no shortcuts. We are not prepared to take risks with your health and our company reputation, and will not stock any new liquid products until the supplier has provided comprehensive analysis performed by a known, accredited & independent laboratory, or we have performed our own analysis.
 

One of the great features of the YiHi SX Mini M-Class is that its firmware can be upgraded by the owner.

In this video, Phil Busardo takes you through the process of updating the YiHi SX Mini M-Class to the latest firmware.

We're extremely proud to have been nominated and to have come top in three categories again in the 2014 UK Vapers awards. Winning these awards 2 years running is an amazing achievement and we'd like to extend enormous thanks to all those who voted and to all our customers for making 2014 another amazing, award winning year!

Best UK Based vendor - Cloud 9 Vaping
Best Customer Service - Cloud 9 Vaping
Best “High end” vendor - Cloud 9 Vaping

Some of our products also came out on top:
Eleaf iStick - Best budget mod
EVOLV DNA40 - Vaping Innovation 2014
Aspire Nautilus and Aspire Nautilus Mini - Best budget tank atomiser

​Note: We were formerly known as Cloud9Vaping and rebranded as Creme de Vape in 2015.

Electrical Safety First have asked us to support their campaign to raise awareness about the dangers of purchasing cheap and untested e-cig equipment.

We take the subject of electrical safety very seriously, and it's always worth reminding vapers to buy high quality branded equipment from reputable retailers and learn how use it safely.

Please visit the Electrical Safety First website for more information.

We're extremely proud to have been nominated and to have come top in 3 categories again in the 2014 EcigClick awards.

Best Overall - Cloud 9 Vaping
Best Customer Service - Cloud 9 Vaping
Best One Stop Shop - Cloud 9 Vaping

Some of our products also came out on top:
SvoeMesto Kayfun Lite/V3.1 - Best Rebuildable atomiser/tank
Eleaf iStick - Best Box Mod
Aspire Nautilus Mini - Best Clearomiser/tank
Innokin MVP2 - Best Advanced Personal Vaporiser

Enormous thanks to all who voted and to all our customers for making 2014 another award winning year.

​Note: We were formerly known as Cloud9Vaping and rebranded as Creme de Vape in 2015.

Non-authorised copies and counterfeits are a major problem across all product sectors, but have really got out of control in recent months within the electronic cigarette industry. As a fairly young industry, with many unique brands entering the market each week it’s a very difficult problem to solve, although we have already begun to hear stories of original manufacturers fighting back hard, getting shipments seized and destroyed at the border and getting the PayPal accounts of the dealers of these illegal goods frozen. We can only hope this will become a more common occurrence.

Counterfeits and clones, what’s the difference?

A counterfeit product has every element of the product copied, including the original maker’s marks and logos, or can be a slightly or entirely differently designed product, featuring a known manufacturer’s logo or marks so as to make it appear as if it is made by the manufacturer who owns the logo. Often, the consumer will not have any idea they are purchasing a counterfeit product, and sometimes, even the retailer will have been duped by their supplier too.

Cloning is where most elements of the product have been copied, but the product is intended to be identified and sold as a copy, and doesn’t feature the logo or marks of the original manufacturer. Although it has very serious effects on the designer/manufacturer of the original product, as well as its entire distribution network, it’s harder to prevent because the process of proving intellectual property of designs is harder and very costly, even when a patent is owned.

Essentially, whether you call them counterfeits, copies or clones, they are all theft of original work and made using the intellectual effort and resources of the original innovators.

A bargain, or is it?

You might not regard buying a counterfeit mod or atomiser as an illegal transaction, but merely a cheaper way to get the latest device everyone’s talking about. Often the temptation for consumers can be too strong to resist, with many not understanding the very real risks and ramifications attached to this illicit industry.

Besides the very obvious quality issues usually found on counterfeit and clone products, which at their very least, often lead to user experience issues because of poor performance or defective operation, or their visual appearance or “finish” being below par, there is a much more worrying safety concern with these fake products. The safety of a product can be impacted by means of dangerous materials finding their way into the finished products (for example, high levels of lead in cheaper metal alloys) or worse, major electrical faults which could lead to very dangerous explosions and fires despite the user ensuring they observe all the normal safety measures.

I can’t afford genuine products, what’s the harm in buying a clone?

Many consumers, particularly in our market, seem very happy to knowingly purchase knock-off goods. Maybe this is because of limited funds, or simply because they can’t justify paying the full price for the equipment they so desperately want to acquire. There is an element that even believes the original product is “so expensive that it deserves to be cloned”.

If you are one of those that think like this, I ask you to stop right there and think a little more deeply about the costs. Imagine for a moment that you spent time and money coming up with a great piece of work, or a product, would you be happy to have invested hours and hours of your time, perhaps time you’d have rather spent with your family, and borrowed or invested thousands of pounds in your idea, only to have someone come along as soon as you release it, and copy it for their own gain and thereby halt any hope of you recouping your original costs?

If you believe you yourself deserve to be rewarded properly for your own talents and effort, and you appreciate the talent and the work of one of the many wonderful and talented manufacturers in our industry, surely you believe they should also be rewarded properly for their work, rather than the efforts and toil being “used” by someone else for material gain?

Consumers also need to be aware that the type of companies engaging in counterfeiting practices will have no concern about the safety of the products, or the safety of their manufacturing processes, and are often engaged in organised crime and/or using child labour to keep their costs as low as possible.

The Impact of Clones and Counterfeits

Counterfeit products lead directly to financial turmoil for businesses such as low turnover, stolen know-how, lost jobs, lawsuits and price hikes, followed by growth halt & innovation slowing. The original manufacturer relies on the sales of their original product to pay them back for all their time and investment in the original design, prototype production, manufacturing costs and testing phases involved in bringing a new product to market, as well as requiring the funds to help toward future research and innovation.

The inevitable drop in sales of the legitimate product means these original manufacturing costs may never be fully recovered, or that limited funds remain for further research, innovation and development.

Authorised retailers of a product which has been cloned or faked may find themselves completely unable to sell the original products they have on hand, or only able to sell them at a loss. Without going into great detail here about stock management or the cash conversion cycle, having funds tied-up in un-saleable stock is a massive drain on a businesses’ resources, both in terms of the funds not being available to pay employees or purchase other stock to maintain profitability, and also in terms of the space and resources used by such product whilst it remains sitting in the warehouse.

Also consider the negative impression a poorly performing counterfeit product leads to in the mind of the consumer, who may have no idea it’s not a genuine product. As the saying goes, “mud sticks” and the negative experience will forever be associated with that of the original manufacturer in the mind of the consumer.

The ramifications of counterfeiting aren’t just limited to those involved in the trade – it actually affects everyone in an economy affected by the activity, with Governments, businesses and society being robbed of tax revenue, business income and jobs. The flood of counterfeit products leads to more public spending through the requirements for increased border efforts to spot, and seize the fakes as they are imported, increased Trading Standards’ resources and other enforcement work to counter the illicit trade. It also increases the burden on the government caused by unemployment and low pay (analysis has been performed which indicates 300,000 jobs have been lost in the EU wholly as a result of counterfeiting activity); and it increases the price of legitimate products as companies seek to recoup their losses.

The effort of dealing with the problem, both in financial terms and also in the emotional toll it takes on original manufacturers and their authorised retailers, could mean that they simply lose hope for the industry they love being a part of, and give up and go and do something else instead.

Consumer power

There is a great need, particularly within our industry, to build more awareness of the scale and effects of the problem. Border controls, Trading Standards, merchant payment processors, sales sites (such as eBay and Amazon), Official Trade Bodies and forum owners all need to take a much tougher stand against counterfeiters, and although the responsibility falls on everyone, the greatest change can be brought about by consumers themselves who can to exert their influence with their purchasing choices.

While consumers often cannot identify counterfeit goods, the more obvious routes of supply should be shunned and companies engaging in this trade should be named and shamed. You can avoid contributing to this problem by only going to well-known and respected authorised dealers, and if you are in any doubt, try to contact the original manufacturer and ask them if the supplier you’re about to purchase from is an authorised one. It’s understood that you may find fakes at your local market, but also be aware that they are often sold on professional looking websites.

Stay alert to warning signs. If the product is being sold by someone other than an authorised retailer, steer clear. If the price is too good to be true, then it probably is.

Conclusion

The bottom line is that counterfeiting costs everyone, and those too concerned with paying the cheapest price for their vaping kit, when they should be focused on the harmful effects that these cheaply made counterfeits could have, are the primary drivers for the rampant counterfeiting within our industry. If people refuse to purchase knock-off products, these rogue industries will suffer economically and ultimately disappear.

Vapefest 2014 promises to be bigger and better than ever before.
As ever, it's a fabulous opportunity to meet up with fellow vapers and catch up with old friends.

We'll be donating some wonderful raffle prizes, so do be sure to enter, and don't forget to let us know if you would like us to bring anything in particular with us.

See you there!