At every step, we at Drink HRW have done everything in our power to be transparent about our hydrogen tablet’s performance, the information we have to support our hydrogen levels, and have sought feedback from experts in the field. Despite this, we absorb significant “peer attacks,” primarily from parties with interests in other technologies, stating that our claimed levels are impossible. Some of these individuals and corporations have resorted to libel and slander, thoroughly documented by us, launching attacks after we have confidentially sent them all the available data, data which contradicts their statements and answers their uninformed positions.
As some readers may know, gas chromatography (GC) has slowly emerged as a testing method for hydrogen gas. GC is typically the standard for measuring gas, however, it tends to use molecular hydrogen as the carrier, and as such, most labs are not set up to measure hydrogen gas. Further, there are incredibly unique challenges to measuring hydrogen gas in water, and further challenges to measuring the quasi-dissolved hydrogen gas our tablets produce. H2 Analytics, the new lab that will be conducting testing according to the standards set forth by the International Hydrogen Standards Association (IHSA) for minimum therapeutic doses, has spent more than a year experimenting with GC protocols, perfecting them, and learning how to ameliorate these challenges. Finally, they have conducted a report on our tablets which sheds new insights into performance, shortcomings, and actual dosages users will be consuming. First, let us look at what we knew going in, and why other measurements (such as titration) are not completely reliable.
What We Knew
There were a few things we knew. First, we knew that titration would routinely measure +/-10 mg/L in 500 mL, but that there were some confounding variables to consider. The process of titrating can lead to significant losses in real H2 gas as it dissipates and becomes disrupted during measurement. This means that we could be measuring less gas than present during the peak. We also knew that there was potential for a couple of things to happen, which could report numbers higher than they were. First, the unreacted magnesium (Mg) could directly reduce the reagent, although it would necessitate the Mg particles being in the nanometer range for diameter. If the Mg was in the nano range, it should almost immediately produce H2 gas. Second, the reagent itself is an acidic buffer and could be speeding up reaction kinetics. We viewed this, initially, as less of a concern, considering the “Eco Formula” of H2Blue™ is similarly acidic to the original ethanol-based formula and does not lead to high readings. In fact, differences in the two formulations (ethanol vs Eco) led to dramatic differences in results, simply because ethanol floats whereas the Eco Formula sinks. The ethanol formula would, therefore, limit disruption of the H2, while even contributing to retention by acting as a sort of “lid,” whereas the Eco Formula would greatly disrupt the quasi-dissolved and dissolved hydrogen gas alike with each and every drop added.
Calculating losses and gains based on these confounding variables was a near impossible endeavour. More information acted as “support” to the constantly growing understanding of the phenomenon, such as:
- Unisense gas probes showed dissolved H2 levels up to 3 mg/L (ppm) in 500 mL, indicating internal pressure in the solution had to be high. Unisense gas probes are not capable of measuring quasi-dissolved gas.
- Laser back scattering determined bubble diameters in the very small nanometer range during the peak of the reaction. These small range bubbles would come with high levels of pressure, supporting the results from the Unisense sensor.
- Removing large particle noise, i.e. above what the starting particle size of the Mg was, indicates that any Mg particles remaining must be within this nano range as well.
- Pressurizing the quasi-dissolved gas led to pressure readings and dissolved gas readings consistent with the estimated ranges of our quasi-dissolved gas cloud.
Based on the above, we knew that we had higher levels of true dissolved gas than allowed under “Standard Ambient Temperature and Pressure” (SATP), due to our unique phenomenon. We also knew that our small range of gas bubbles would remain relatively stable, resistant to dissipation until they became larger bubbles. These bubbles would act as “reserve tank 1” in our solution, fueling hydrogen test results as dissolved gas was measured down, with the bubbles immediately dissolving into solution, part of “Ostwald’s Ripening.” Finally, we knew that any nanometer range elemental Mg particles would be acting as “reserve tank 2,” continuing to create more hydrogen gas in the water as pressure subsides (increased internal pressure will slow the reaction to a stop, as per Le Chatelier’s principle). Determining how much was real peak hydrogen and how much was the Mg reserve tank was our final question.
The results ended up being virtually identical to our observational predictions. When titrating as carefully and quickly as humanly possible, drops immediately titrate up to around 70 drops (7 mg/L or 7 PPM in 500 mL). After about 70 drops, it took a few rotations and a second or two to reduce. The last few drops took more time and more stirring, which we knew had to be the last bits of Mg slowly reacting and dissolving hydrogen gas.
The GC results showed exactly this. The real hydrogen levels, immediately upon completion of the tablet in 500 mL of water averaged at 7.3 mg/L (PPM) for a dosage rounded up to 3.7 mg of H2 when considering just the gas at the completion of disintegration (during consumption).
The second test H2 Analytics did for us was adding a small amount of acetic acid to the vial, simulating stomach acid assistance for immediate completion of the reaction once consumed, even in those with weak stomach acid. These results were actually higher than what we previously believed, delivering what would be a 12.4 mg/L or 12.4 PPM concentration, and a dosage of 6.2 mg of molecular hydrogen per tablet.
In order to further understand the tablet and any amount we are losing to the atmosphere, H2 Analytics conducted a gas evolution test and found 7.2 mg of H2 was produced per tablet. This indicated that the total dosage consumers will ingest is 86% of the total theoretical maximum a tablet can create, meaning that 14% is lost to the atmosphere. This total loss amounts to 1mg of hydrogen gas or about 2 PPM in hydrogen water losses, based on theoretical perfection.
SEALING THE HYDROGEN GAS IN WATER OR INHALING THE OFF GAS
We are routinely asked about sealing and pressurizing hydrogen water rather than using an open cup. Le Chatelier’s principle explains why sealing the tablet in a tight container isn’t advisable. The reaction will slow to a stop, meaning far more Mg will not react. This will lead to far lower levels of H2 and more work! Also, as the bottle “bulges” under pressure, significant gas enters the headspace. This means you may lose as much, or more, gas to the headspace as you would have lost to the atmosphere. Sealing in a container like this will lead to a lower dose with more work and headache. We do have a prototype unit that retains almost 100% of the gas and saturates it into pressurized water. However, these may only be rolled out for research purposes. They are expensive and complicated units that only marginally increase benefit.
As for inhaling the off gas, we get this question weekly. Hydrogen gas inhalation requires much more gas to be dosed than when dissolved in water, perhaps 100x or even more, for what has been shown so far to lower benefits in many cases (or no benefits). The amount we are losing to off-gassing would provide no therapeutic benefit. Save the effort, just wait for the tablet to dissolve and drink it down!