Safest alcohol for stoves – US perspective

Regarding safety: “Drinkable” alcohol (as in Diesel, Everclear, etc. brands) probably is safest.

That said, I don’t think you need to worry overmuch about skin contact with reasonable care from methanol or denatured alcohol. Combustion by-products in the vapor coming off of a burn are a little more concerning, but if cooking outside, I don’t think you have to worry to much, again with reasonable care.

A note on SLX: SLX contains methyl isobutyl ketone (“MEK”) as one of its denaturing agents. I does not contain a lot but it’s there. MEK does have some known inhalation (and other) hazards. Anecdotally, when I did a lot of simultaneous burns, burn after burn after burn, one day using SLX, I did get a headache. I don’t think this would occur in normal use (as in cooking). I was doing some extensive stove testing at the time.

HJ
Adventures In Stoving

Regarding efficiency: Ethanol has the greater amount of heat content per unit of mass compared to methanol. In other words, you could carry less ethanol and theoretically still get the same amount of heat output as you would if you had carried a larger amount of methanol. Theoretically. Your actual results may vary.

Why? Well, alcohol stove efficiency is a complex mix of air, fuel type, heat, and overall system interaction. If your stove can handle a higher heat content alcohol and burn it efficiently, then you may realize some weight savings by using a high ethanol content fuel (e.g. 190 proof “drinking” alcohol, green denatured, etc.). If however your stove burns it inefficiently, you might see no benefit at all.

How can you tell if you’re burning it efficiently? Well, if you see a lot of yellow flames, generally that’s an indication of inefficient burning. You can also do boil tests and measure how much of alcohol of one type it takes to boil, say, 500 ml of water vs how long it takes to boil the same amount of water with alcohol of another type. If you can boil 500 ml of water with, say, 15 ml of high ethanol content fuel, but it takes, say, 18 ml of methanol, then if you were to take a long enough trip, perhaps you’d achieve enough weight savings to justify the higher cost of high ethanol content fuels. Maybe. :)

Honestly, I haven’t found that dramatic of a difference in high ethanol content fuel vs SLX vs HEET although there is some. Rather than fuss with it too much, I typically just by SLX which is the cheapest and works reasonably well.

Those who use drinking alcohol often have, shall we say, “secondary objectives” for that alcohol beyond just boiling water, :) although again if one were concerned for safety, drinking alcohol might allay such concerns.

HJ
Adventures In Stoving

Retracted. I think the political/ideological content of this thread is getting a bit thick, but neither does it warrant the snarky comment I just removed. Self-censorship in action.

I would gently remind folks of two facts: (1) manufacturers do not wish to kill their customers, regardless of populist delusions; and (2) each passing year sees more man-made chemicals in use AND longer life spans. I'm not saying that man-made chemicals are causing longer life, but clearly they are not "killing us off" as legions of chemophobes would have us believe. I'm much more likely to die of genetics, or a sedentary lifestyle, or ethanol tippling, than I am from ethanol fumes.

It is a matter of making the choices that expose you to the least toxic chemicals.

As to the politics of it, I don't think any of the chemical manufacturers WANT to harm anyone, but given the choice, they will take the most profitable legal alternative. That's where government, the medical community, consumer protection organizations and our personal judgement needs to step in.

The OP asked for the safest alternative and some fuel mixes are less toxic than others. It's just good common sense to minimize exposure toxins, particularly in pursuit of a hobby and recreation.

I agree, reducing exposure to toxicity is important. I don't mean to be abrasive or argumentative, but such knowledge requires research into the field of toxicology, which I'll bet few of us do.

As an aside, having first hand knowledge of several US-based food manufacturers, I know for a fact they emphatically do not "take the most profitable legal alternative." I don't have first-hand knowledge of ethanol mfgrs, so will refrain from speculating.

If I were interested in the health risks of exposure to burning alcohol, I would ask for opinions from medical experts, toxicologists, and epidemiologists. People who are familiar with the data, not laypeople with assorted hunches, prejudices and innuendos. It concerns me when layperson fears are substituted for empirical evidence. But that's where the internet excels, it seems. Regards the idea that the government will keep you healthy, I find to be a genuinely funny and ironic political statement, and will leave it at that. Politics really doesn't belong in this discussion.

A PubMed search of denatured alcohol related illnesses yielded few relevant results:

ON A RARE CASE, IN A CHILD OF 4 YEARS, OF HYPOGLYCEMIC COMA DUE TO ABSORPTION OF DENATURED ALCOHOL THROUGH SKIN DAMAGED BY A RECENT BURNING. (Ouch, why would anyone pour DA on burn-damaged skin in the first place?)

Most other results were related to burning DA causing, well, burns.

One study from the International Journal of Toxicology discussed the use of denatured alcohol in cosmetic products. That seems relevant–topical application, and breathing its vapors. The conclusion: "Because dermal application or inhalation of cosmetic products containing these ingredients will not produce significant systemic exposure to ethanol, the CIR Expert Panel concluded that safety of the ingredients should be predicated on the safety of the denaturants used. The Panel considered that the adverse effects known to be associated with Alcohol ingestion included in this safety assessment do not suggest a concern for Alcohol Denat. or SD Alcohols because of the presence of the denaturants, which are added for the express purpose of making the Alcohol unpotable. The CIR Expert Panel has previously conducted safety assessments of t-Butyl Alcohol, Diethyl Phthalate, Methyl Alcohol, Salicylic Acid, Sodium Salicylate, and Methyl Salicylate, in which each was affirmed safe or safe with qualifications. Given their use as denaturants are at low concentrations of use in Alcohol, the CIR Expert Panel determined that Alcohol Denat. denatured with t-Butyl Alcohol, Diethyl Phthalate, Methyl Alcohol, Salicylic Acid, Sodium Salicylate, and Methyl Salicylate is safe as used in cosmetic formulations with no qualifications."

We can argue the validity and relevance of the data, of course, but people getting sick from exposure to denatured alcohol seems to barely register on the radar screen of the health community. Far more risk from the ingestion of ethanol in your favorite libation, than topical or inhalation exposure to denatured ethanol. As noted previously, something else will certainly kill you first, so relax.

"…not laypeople with assorted hunches, prejudices and innuendos. It concerns me when layperson fears are substituted for empirical evidence."

+1

Thank you.

Dean F – ":) Ah, hubris…"

I'm happy that you've learned a new word and can use it in a sentence. But you need to work on context a bit. Experience does not equal hubris, nor inexperience lack there of.

Zorg,
I don't believe your hubris has anything to do with your limited experience. I think it is deliberate baiting. I've seen it before.

And I'm done with it.

Greg23 – why so serious? I just looked back at your posts directed at me in this thread – they seem rather vitriolic.

If I'm wrong – correct me. If you don't like my tone – ignore me.

Food manufacturing has nothing to do with the manufacturing of denatured alcohol. I don't trust food manufacturing in general given the sugar-salt-fat oriented stuff they push, not to mention the additives and handling issues that have been there since food hit the factory system. But that is another story.

I've worked in several industries and every one of them took working conditions and safety as a minimum, "meet the legal obligations" approach. In no case were they proactive and in general they followed the regulations begrudgingly. Costs and paranoia about government regulations in general were the driving forces. Basically, they approached safety like taxes and it was all about profit. Certainly costs need to be controlled to keep a company healthy, but there is a huge difference between proactive engagement in safety issues and begrudgingly toeing the line. I don't imagine that manufacturers will take profit over safety, I have seen it first hand.

So, taking this to the manufacturing of denatured alcohol in the US: you don't know what proportions are in the can. Given that and the fact that we know up to 45% of the contents are poisonous, some caution is merited. The OP asked for the safest alternative, which should be the mix with the least amount of hazardous materials. And that still needs to be used with reasonable caution.

The fact that products meet regulations is nearly meaningless as much of the regulatory system is reactive rather than proactive. As consumers, we must be the first line of defense in our personal safety. I think that is just good common sense.

A good example is the MSDS published for the e-nrg ethanol fireplace fuel. The percentages don't add up to 100%. I have to assume that there is a major typo or omission. My guess is that the ethanol should read >90%
or there is another 30% of material that was omitted.

http://www.e-nrg.com/media/pdf/e-NRG_MSDS_2013.pdf

If you are going to live with a chemical on a daily basis and indeed use it to cook your food, you should darn well know what the stuff is and how to use it properly— and follow through with that. If using the stuff gives you a headache, you need to listen to that and find a better alternative. Just because x number of other people use it is a very poor measure of the actual safety.

Remember all the old illustrations that showed Santa Claus smoking a pipe? While you think about that, also consider this: what was in the pipe? Jolly old elf indeed!

My $0.02

@ Dale- I would propose that one of your criticisms of S-L-X isn't really a criticism. You complain that it is 45% adulterants. But almost all of that adulterant is methanol, which for our purposes isn't an adulterant- it's more fuel. So I'd propose that you really shouldn't think of it as 55% fuel and 45% adulterant, but rather think of it as a mixed fuel with a small amount of adulterant.

Ethyl methyl ketone or ethyl acetate (nail polish remover) is another story…

@ Zorg- Having used alcohol stoves at least as long as you, your self-promotion and slinging of the epithet "noobs" amused me, is all. No offense meant. I can't speak for Greg, though, and I suspect that he beats both of us regarding alcohol stove experience. And the true guru is Roger Caffin.

I also can appreciate the hilarious irony in telling us to "just ignore you" if we don't like your tone. Others might not.

@ All- Hmm. Yes, I just checked, and there's not much info on PubMed or Ovid about methanol toxicity that didn't result from idiocy, such as drinking it. This doesn't mean it isn't toxic- it clearly is- but as I've said I think that the typical concerns of the BPL population regarding vapor or absorption through the skin for our purposes are overblown. And as someone said- this is really just a bunch of lay opinions. But I personally would worry much more about the drive to the trailhead.

" Yes, I just checked, and thereusnto much info on PubMed or Ovid about methanol toxicity that didn't result from idiocy, such as drinking it. This doesn't mean it isn't toxic- it clearly is"

For those who are truly concerned about methanol toxicity, perhaps it might be more fruitful to determine what are the byproduct(s) of methanol combustion, then query PubMed
using those byproducts as search arguments?

@ "For those who are truly concerned about methanol toxicity, perhaps it might be more fruitful to determine what are the byproduct(s) of methanol combustion, then query PubMed using those byproducts as search arguments?"

Ha! You want scary- look up the effects of WOOD combustion products. HORRIBLE stuff, including potash and fly ash in the particulates, many carcinogens, etc. Yet oddly, I have yet to see "wood panic" on the order of the methanol panic I see everywhere. :)

Ideally, as with any hydrocarbon methanol would combust to CO2 and H20, for which you need adequate oxygen. I have no idea of non-ideal combustion, but google says "may contain formaldehyde and carbon monoxide"- just like almost anything that burns, I guess. Including ethanol.

But the alcohols we're talking about in general are chemically very simple, and tend to burn more completely than long-chain hydrocarbons. (That is, into mostly CO2 and H2O.) I'd be more concerned about the combustion products of white gas, frankly. The problem with *denatured ethanol* is the adulterants, which aren't as easy to predict- so when you look at it THAT way you might prefer pure methanol, or the Everclear. Methanol has been used in chafing dishes for a LONG lime, and when is the last time you heard of someone passing out next to the Linguini Alfredo? And I already mentioned the marine stoves.

I'm working off of barely-remembered college chemistry, here, so you chemical engineers please chime in if I'm getting looney or something.

"Ideally, as with any hydrocarbon methanol would combust to CO2 and H20, for which you need adequate oxygen. I have no idea of non-ideal combustion, but google says "may contain formaldehyde and carbon monoxide"- just like almost anything that burns, I guess. Including ethanol.

But the alcohols we're talking about in general are chemically very simple, and tend to burn more completely than long-chain hydrocarbons."

Which is why I phrased my post the way I did. I just don't see it as a huge issue. Perhaps some CO if the pot is too close to the stove or there are not adequate air intake ports in a wind shield, but beyond that I personally have difficulty seeing significant risk. In an enclosed area perhaps slightly heightened risk. In my case I only heat 400 ml of water to ~170 degrees for making instant coffee, which uses ~7-8 gr of fuel, so I can't imagine much CO or formaldehyde being produced. That said, I usually cook away from my tent and, in those cases where I do cook in my tent, it is in a partially open vestibule.

This was going to be my comment. I purchased some Kleen Strip SLX Denatured Alcohol this weekend for a painting project, and an "on-label" use was as a clean burning marine stove fuel.

Here is the MSDS data sheet from the orange borg website.

http://www.homedepot.com/catalog/pdfImages/5e/5ebe3dc8-d270-4313-8ea8-686b1b2fb7fc.pdf

Take aways:
It is 90% or more ethanol.
The remaining 10% is a mixture of methanol,Methyl isobutyl ketone (I think this may be nasty stuff) and Ethyl acetate (not sure on that one either).

A SCBA unit is indicated for fire fighters if they are indoors or in confined spaces, but not listed for outdoors.

Under hazardous combustion products it only lists Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.

Burning it is likely safer than say, gasoline. It is an on-label use for a stove, approximately. Maybe if your backpack stove is in a canoe by the bay?

Get thee out into the wilderness with whatever fuel is available and quit worrying about it — you will be okay if you practice stove safety.

What Nick said.

Fuel toxicity comes below several other concerns.

Flare-ups
Leakage and accidental ignition – smokers beware!
No dinner due to mechanical failure or fuel outage.

Wood is good. MSR wispalights on the treeless winter mountain are good. Penny stoves in summer pastures are good.

Inattentive operators are bad/hungry.

And you weren't planning on using your alchy stove in a closed up tent – right?
Phillip Asby (PGAsby) – MNEW Helpful on 11/07/2013 09:00:27 MST

I often make my first brew from the comfort and warmth of my sleeping bag on cold windy mornings. Don't you? Tents make good wind shelters for alcohol stoves. You just need to know what you're doing and pay attention to it.

You left off the "green" part of the name. Had me a bit confused as regular SLX is a 45/45/10 of ethanol/methanol/nastiness.

These threads are so predictable. Some one asks about the "safest" of the options or the "safety" of something or other and a slew of posters come to the rescue with "this ain't gonna kill ya" or "don't worry, you breathe in more toxins at work".

As Dale and perhaps others mentioned, it's not about gett'n kilt here….or worrying to death about something we get exposed to a few times a year. Some of us want to minimize our exposures to questionable stuff at every opportunity. We understand the populace is bombarded daily with low levels of various toxins. They are ubiquitous. We just want to minimize our chemical body burden as the CDC has researched and acknowledged.

Roger and perhaps another poster or two also touched on something rarely mentioned: The chemical regulatory process. It's painfully obvious that those who ridicule the concerns of others do not understand this process. One doesn't need to be a "expert" in the medical, toxicology, or chemistry field to comprehend its ineffectiveness. All one has to do is go to the US Government Accountability Office website and look at their report cards. Search TSCA. They date back to ~1984…or earlier. Most people would drop a load in their shorts like a bad case of Giardia if they understood how the process really worked rather than how it is assumed to work.

Concerning to me is the assumptions that uncle Sam will make sure we're safe…and worse yet, that the "experts" always hold the last word. How often do we hear the "experts" tell us that things are thoroughly tested for safety before hitting the store shelves. Not all experts will pretend to have all the answers…and those are the ones I respect. It just takes a few cock-sure and articulate people to keep the belief alive that "it" wouldn't be sold if it hadn't been proven safe. It's like a chemist I know who maintains that all these fears are unjustified yet is not the least bit familiar with the GAO reports or the research of Theo Colborn et al on the effects minute amounts of toxins have on the developing fetus. But, he is the "expert" that gets quoted in publications and on TV during football commercials.

We "laypeople" sometimes have to go with what we know… about the chem regulatory process, the rise of so many health issues with no known cause (cancers, neurological disorders, etc, etc), and the warnings of scientists working with a new paradigm shift… then taking reasonable and logical precautionary measures. Lets be honest. In the whole scope of things, we smarty pant humans really don't know that much. For craps sake, in comparative terms here, in what should be an obvious area of excelled knowledge, Dr's just found a new ligament in the human knee. If that isn't telling, if not humbling, I don't know what else to say……
http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/11/06/your-knee-bones-connected-to-your-what-scientists-discover-new-body-part/

Whew. Long Tues morn rant…..

> Most people would drop a load in their shorts like a bad case of Giardia if they
> understood how the process really worked rather than how it is assumed to work.

Which is that the industry lobby groups will always vehemently oppose any form of Government regulation because it will add 'unsupportable costs'. Instead they urge acceptance of 'self-regulation', which some bureacrats like think could be effective, while the rest of us all know that it means 'business as usual'.

By and large, most forms of alcohol sold legally in the USA would be totally illegal in Australia. Far too toxic!

Cheers

Roger: Perhaps we'll see some of that over-regulation rolled back now Abbott has replaced the ultra-nannies.

"manufacturers do not wish to kill their customers"
Gotta smoke?

I regret that I’m only coming to this conversation more than 5 years late. I’m contextualizing some of what I read here from this even older thread: https://backpackinglight.com/forums/topic/21091/page/4/#comments   I, too, am interested in utilizing the cleanest alcohol fuels, but my search is predicated upon the likeliest of circumstances for backpackers like me who don’t resupply by mail and who don’t have consistent access to Everclear. In a world where cost and access are irrelevant for all backpackers, it sounds from these discussions that everyone would be using Everclear in their alcohol stoves, at least for reasons regarding toxicity. Correct me if I’m mistaken. It also sounds that, even for those who favor Heet for its consistency of content and lower explosivity, a higher ethanol content would be desired if it were possible to avoid the variable content of ethanol mixes. Again, correct me if I’m mistaken. Therefore, it is the variability of denatured alcohol that I wish to address. It looks from store searches and sounds from people’s experiences on these threads that the most ubiquitous brands of denatured alcohol are Klean Strip, Sunnyside, and Crown. I searched the websites of the likeliest stores most backpackers will come upon in their travels and excluded all search results ineligible for in-store pickup. My findings are as follows:

Sunnyside DA is found at Menards and True Value. Their SDS site is at https://www.sunnysidecorp.com/sds/   It looks like their green DA variety can be ordered with some online retailers.

Crown is found at Lowe’s, Walmart, and Sherwin Williams. They produce both a DA and an “alcohol stove fuel”, the latter of whose ingredients are apparently not disclosed on the company’s SDS site. See page 2 at https://web.chempliance.com/MSDS/Search/Product.aspx

Klean Strip products, which I’ve seen mentioned include the SLX, Green, and standard varieties, are found at Home Depot, Ace Hardware, and Walmart. I only saw the standard being sold according to my searches. Their SDS site is at http://www.kleanstrip.com/msds-cpsia   Note the SLX is not listed.

Startex DA is found at Sherwin Williams. They apparently require their consumers to file a formal request for their SDSs. Feel free to do so at https://startexchemicals.com/project/denatured-alcohol/

It’s interesting to be in 2019 reading these threads from several years ago. I saw mentions of Sunnyside DA consisting of over 85% ethanol and Klean Strip Green DA of over 95% ethanol. That does not seem to be the case anymore. Every product’s ingredient info is disguised by variable percentages for the purpose of protecting trade secrets. Sunnyside DA: 30-60% ethanol & methanol, each. Crown DA: 20-30% ethanol, 65-75% methanol. Klean Strip Green DA: 80-90% ethanol, ?-5% methanol. Klean Strip DA: 30-50% ethanol, 40-60% methanol. Only Crown DA (with isopropanol & methyl isobutyl ketone) and KS Green DA (with acetic acid) are listed as containing additional additives. However, KS Green DA’s listed makeup is still mathematically insufficient to tell the whole story. Even with ethanol and methanol at their max of 90% and 5%, respectively, 1.5% of acetic acid still leaves 3.5% of content unaccounted for. I called Klean Strip and asked if it’s possible that the SDS omits mention of trace ingredients used in their products. The rep said, “no, not that I know of.” Well, perhaps he’s been excluded from the know. I can only imagine that each of these manufacturers are complying with the same disclosure requirements, so I’m going to be exercising my skepticism here regarding the prevalence of unlisted additives in every one of these products. It’s a shame. I really wanted to get to the bottom of this brand hierarchy challenge. Is there really no such thing as corporate transparency?

Carly, alcohols have an affinity for water. A pure distilled ethanol will top out at around 95% because it tends to form a azeotrope (a eutectic type for liquid to gas phase change specifically) at just below boiling temperatures. Methanol also does this but I believe the numbers are somewhat different, but I don’t remember exactly. This is where evaporation pressures meet during the distillation process. I would guess that a certain amount, if not all the 3.5% you called about, is simply water which doesn’t need to be stated as the remainder.

Pure 100% ethanol, is difficult without chemical driers added, though multiple distillations can achieve close to 100%. Opening a bottle will introduce water molecules from the air as it sits or it is said to be hygroscopic, or , roughly speaking, it attracts water.