Inside ELFBAR and Lost Mary’s safety push: a vast 2025 testing program and what it really means

A major safety drive and the companies’ core claims

ELFBAR and Lost Mary, two leading consumer vape brands, said this week they completed an extensive R&D and safety program that included roughly 136,000 tests and more than 300 procedures as they prepare new product rules for 2025. The companies say the work covers liquid formulas, aerosol output, materials and device reliability. They present the effort as the largest internal testing program in their history and say it is meant to cut defects, make nicotine delivery more consistent and tighten manufacturing checks.

The announcement stresses research steps and new safety protocols, not immediate product changes for consumers. Company statements frame the work as forward-looking — aiming to raise internal standards and to make their devices more predictable. But the scale of the testing and the technical claims will need independent confirmation from outside labs and regulators before they change how the market or authorities respond.

How the testing was organised: a simple breakdown of 136,000 checks and 300 procedures

According to the companies, tests fell into four main buckets: e-liquid chemistry, aerosol measurements, materials screening, and mechanical reliability. E-liquid checks sampled flavors and nicotine salt recipes to measure stability and consistency. Aerosol tests focused on what comes out of the mouthpiece — particle size, temperature and potential chemical byproducts under different use patterns. Material testing screened plastics, metals and coatings for contaminants and heat resistance. Reliability trials ran devices through thousands of on/off cycles, drop tests and humidity and temperature extremes.

ELFBAR and Lost Mary say their labs ran about 136,000 individual assays and follow more than 300 written procedures. In plain terms, a procedure is a repeatable step — the rulebook used to run each test. High procedure counts suggest a formal quality system that aims to make results repeatable across batches and factories.

What the companies say they found

Public statements highlight three technical outcomes. First, the firms say new nicotine salt formulas reached steadier delivery — meaning the same puff is more likely to contain similar nicotine and flavor levels. Second, reliability trials reportedly reduced device failure modes; companies cite fewer leaks and more consistent battery and switch behavior after design tweaks. Third, material screening led to swaps of some components the companies judged higher risk, and to tighter limits on certain impurities.

The firms also claim improved in-line manufacturing checks and new batch-level records that trace product components. They added sensors and inspection points on production lines and introduced additional sampling rules. The announcements include summary numbers but not the raw lab data, test reports or third-party validations that would let outside scientists verify the exact scale of the claimed improvements.

Why this matters — for users, the sector and regulators

For users, better formulas and sturdier devices could mean fewer broken units and more consistent experience — which may reduce some safety incidents tied to unpredictable device behavior. But technical improvements made in company labs do not automatically equal lower population health risks. Independent testing is key to confirm that flavor chemicals or byproducts are not increased, and that nicotine delivery profiles do not encourage higher intake.

For the industry, a large in-house program can set a de-facto standard if rivals follow suit. Regulators will likely watch the claims closely: they could welcome stronger self-testing, or press for independent certification and public data. The main risks are overconfidence from manufacturers, a lack of external validation, and possible gaps between lab conditions and real-world use.

Where ELFBAR and Lost Mary stand now

ELFBAR and Lost Mary are well-known names in the global disposable vape market. Both have grown quickly in recent years and have faced scrutiny over product safety, youth access and quality control. The firms frame the 2025 program as part of a broader initiative they call “Innovac” — an in-house push to upgrade R&D and compliance, according to their statements. The announcements do not include financial data, nor do they say whether either company is publicly traded. That leaves questions about investment implications, but the main focus here is product safety and industry practice, not corporate finance.

What to watch next

Look for independent lab reports, regulator statements, and clearer technical appendices from the companies in the coming months. Third-party verification — from accredited labs or consumer safety bodies — will be the decisive test of whether the program’s claims stand up. Regulators may also demand product-level data before altering rules. Watch for published methods, sample sizes and raw results; without them, the announcement remains a sizeable internal push but not definitive proof of safer products.

Photo: Abhishek Navlakha / Pexels

Sources

• prnewswire.com