Scientific study of vaporizers needs help

Homiginization of the sample is a clear, but easily overlooked, obstacle IMO.

Very valid points and possible solutions, Purple Days (IMO).

Seems that an unpressed extract soaked into a neutral substrate or an extremely well ground sample with some ground neutral leaves evenly distributed throughout (for textural accuracy) could work.

I'd imagine that you would want the draw speed and duration to imitate a typical draw rather than one that is too long, simply standardized among all of the units, inhumanly possible, not ideal for the unit, etc.

As far as the initial inquiry of the OP, the 5 units that I would suggest for such a study depend on the details of the study.

Nonetheless, off of the top of my head, I feel that the Zephyr Ion , Extreme Q, Herbal Air, Purple Days, and the Volcano would be an easy 5 to try to standardize despite their different methods of delivery.

The Vrip Tech Heat Wand, Silver Surfer/DBV, Iolite, Magic Flight, Herbal Air, and Supreme also came to mind (but didn't make this final five).

The HD Bud Toaster, and the VX Cloud are also each worth a mention (IMO).

No offense intended (but in all honesty) I find myself skeptical when someone says something like "I have the means to do a vaporizer study using modern technology and my years of study/experience, and (however) am coming to an internet forum for suggestions," without demonstrating that you have researched all of the units (at least on the forum itself).

Nevertheless, I wish you the best with your efforts and look foreword to any updates (or questions) you have.

To science!

Purple-Days said:

Both these come closer to science than a simple grind and guess. IMO.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I didn't know about these options before. Not to wear out a point, but both these methods are simply carrying out homogenization to a greater extent. The smaller the size of the pieces, and the greater the number of pieces, the closer the pieces approach the average. Grinding is one (rudimentary) way to do this, blending is another.

Progress said:

No offense intended (but in all honesty) I find myself skeptical when someone says something like "I have the means to do a vaporizer study using modern technology and my years of study/experience, and (however) am coming to an internet forum for suggestions," without demonstrating that you have researched all of the units (at least on the forum itself).

Nevertheless, I wish you the best with your efforts and look foreword to any updates (or questions) you have.

To science!

Click to expand...

I would not be skeptical of a scientist freshly introduced to vaporizing asking questions, as it is still a daunting task for him to analyze all of the vaporizers without help. Still waiting on just one reply from GC to several questions I've asked about the protocol tho.

You've given me lots of food for thought here and I'm grateful for it. It underlines the fact that the design of the experiment down to fine details will be crucial for the results to be useful.
I'm in the process of reading a bunch of papers and I hope I'll be back with some conclusions soon.
(Including my take on GC-MS)

Tests first conclusions after. Otherwise it's an assumption... Just kidding...

abhs, I just puzzled those two plans out, there may be a better way.

But, I think the coins point out that with small numbers of large dis-similar particles homogeneous is not truely homogeneous. You can't homogenize a penny a nickel and a dime without chopping them into smaller pieces. And 20-30 disparate pieces (a small bowl full of plant parts) is not statistically large enough to even out without large numbers of samples. Therefor cannot be used, except on pillows... IMO.

I am mainly skeptical because the approach of GC (you) to this 'research' (as a self-proclaimed physical-chemistry Ph.D who recently got an academic faculty position and will have his own lab).

I don't claim to be no scientist or nuttin' (just some dude livin' on Mars).

Nonetheless, I would expect a clearer statement of intent: whether the study should act as exploratory or applied research; whether you wanted to have a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed approach (this you covered loosely); whether it will be descriptive or correlational; field simulation or experimental, etc.

Usually, the creation of the objective or purpose come first, no?

Plus, it is rare to come across a brave, passionate, compassionate, educated, and experienced professional (and parent) who is willing to risk his lab on such experiments and discuss them publicly (unless they are actually sanctioned by the lab, which is rare too). Will the study have much value unless it can actually be published, peer-reviewed, and used to propel future research?

I apologize if my skepticism offends at all (as I do not mean to offend, and hope it may be constructive in effect).

I, however, have been told that I wear a tinfoil hat ( ) at times.

Such research would be awesome...

Someone pulling my leg would suck...

As always, toke it easy!

Progress said:

I am mainly skeptical because ....

Click to expand...

Well, I'm interested in this kind of experiment because I want to know what exactly I'm taking into my lungs and If there is a significant difference between uptake methods and devices in terms of active ingredients and hazardous substances.
But, the fact that I'm interested in it will not be enough to fund and perform a legal and significant study in a university lab. Here come in the politics of science where I have to spin this (and I don't think it will be very difficult) to the realm of medical Marihuana and its administration in an efficient and safe way.
I came to this forum to get the user perspective. I want to get a sense of what users think is important and what kind of knowledge is missing. I also want to conduct an experiment that is as close as possible to the real use (this is why I don't like the extraction and redistribution approach for the load, purple days, but the mj-paper sound interesting).
The way it looks now I would like to answer the following questions:
1. What is the content of the vapor for each vape tested
2. As much as possible, how much of each substance is present
3. What is the relative (and if possible quantitative) efficiency of the tested vapes

I'm missing some important information I would be happy to get here:

1. Some kind of "popularity index" of the different vapes. How many of each are out there or at least what is the relative market share of specific models or methods.
2. What is the smallest / largest load that will be compatible with all vapes
3. what is the variation in vapor volume between Vapes that it will take to completely vaporize active ingredients from a fixed load.


I can't make any promises but my intentions are sincere.

cool. again, i think deciding a protocol takes precedence to the demographic questions. once a protocol is made, you can choose which vapes to run through the test.

the variation in vapor volume will be sizable, as will the load ranges. consider diffusing into water the vapor and smoke product of equal masses *homogenized* THC for each vape. liquid samples will be easier for you to feed into GC than gas samples.

compare vapes by ratios e.g. vape:smoke efficiency or mass inpututput efficiency.

Abhs: Check the H2O solubility of THC, not that you won't trap any, but the more 'sample' you have to work with the better. Right? A good idea but maybe not the best trap, Ethyl Alcohol may be better and could you then use paper chromatography to obtain certain results you were looking for. And at a much cheaper 'basement lab' cost?


GC: No matter what, since you will not be publishing your name, or credentials, or lab identification, this is just a hypothetical game. A fun one though. Indeed.

GC:

It appears that you are basically sneaking around, goofing off and risking your career. Even if you are in a state like CA, if you get caught messing with controlled substances, and in your own lab no less (what most scientists' dream of), the law enforcement and university establishments will be obligated to punish you. At the least, you will become unemployable as a chemist.

I would rather you work from within the system, get the needed licenses/permissions and do it right (publish credible studies in peer-reviewed journals). There are ample areas of research areas that could get you started, including in terms of equipment, funding and doing vaporization/aerosol science. You will likely have to approach your goal from a related area. For example, much the same expertise and equipment can be used to study combustion/fires, tobacco smoking (should be lots of research funding), distillation, the basic processes of vaporization, etc. Check out research in thermal desorption, flash chromatography, vapor/aerosol generation and analysis, aerosol drug delivery, inhalation toxicology, etc. You might be able to find something interesting that will get you funding, indirectly doing what you want to do, and preparing you to get appropriate funding and licenses.

Otherwise, concerning your original intension to quantify and then compare the content of vapor from different vaporizers, you seem to have no working hypothesis and no idea what variables need to be controlled, standardized and/or measured. You seem to presume that:
1) chemical analysis of vapor from different vaporizers can be done in a meaningful, scientific manner, such that comparisons can be made; and that
2) quantification of vaporizer output will tell you about real world vaporizer performance/efficacy.
From what I've seen, there is such a total lack of underlying, fundamental knowledge about vaporization/vaporizers that the multi-unit testing you plan (or even single model testing) will be totally arbitrary, making it useless. How could vapors from say an Extreme, Purple Days and Magic Flight Launch Box be compared in either a scientifically valid way or in a manner that would correlate with efficacy/performance (how will this be defined)?

A major problem with such comparison testing of output composition is that this ignores that essentially all vaporizers are essentially 100% efficient! If they do their job (provide air in the proper temperature or otherwise heat the material in the proper range for vaporization), given time and/or repeated draws (vapor sampling), all vaporizers will vaporize all of the relevant volatiles in a sample. What will vapor stream contents quantification tell you about vaporizer functionality that measuring power consumption/output, heat transfer, air temp. and volume, etc. as it passes through the material would not tell you even better?

Yes, you can measure the density and amount of volatiles by sucking up a set volume of air. This may confirm common knowledge regarding what vaporizers can provide the densest vapor concentration (most killer hits), which may be models that provide the most heat transfer with the least air mixed in (presuming you are testing convection vaporizers) or ones that simply run the hottest. But stream output vapor quantification alone, without a lot of other data, tells you nothing that can be associated with real-world performance/efficacy among different vaporizers (or even just one).

Vaporization is a physical, not chemical, process; and vaporizers are machines designed to induce a physical, not chemical, transformation (vaporization). What vaporizer technology needs is a better understanding of its physical phenomena and process(es), not chemical composition of vapor output, which is trivial -- rather well known and primarily based on temperature (or rather, heat transfer, exposed surface area, etc.). I think it much more useful to study physical aspects of vaporization -- and once sufficiently grounded, then relate physical variables, e.g., temperature, air flow and herbal materials packing with output chemical composition. We need to first understand the physical processes involved. Then maybe you can do valid comparative testing. Ideally, the chemical contents of vaporizer output should be predictable and reproducible, based on quantifiable or estimateable vaporizer- and sample-related variables. Give us the models/equations; give vaporizers and vaporization a scientific basis.

Perhaps to start, consider herbal materials in a vaporizer as a packed chromatography column (a separation method based on passing dissolved materials, in gas (vapor) or liquid medium, through porous materials with different molecules binding and/or filtered out), and see if and how the various models that apply to chromatography (and distillation) columns and column packing also apply or can be adapted to vaporization and vaporizers. This could be a place to start (and keep in mind that with a little research, you may be able to find a legal surrogate botanical material to routinely work with that might later be calibrated against the real thing). Ideally, data and volatilization models you develop might begin to show such things as what particle sizes (how powdered or not), particle size distributions, widths/diameters and depths/heights of material packing, packing density, temperature and air flow characteristics (what diameter holders/screens and how tall they are packed with stuff of what particle size) provide improved or optimized output (whatever that may be); ideally, of desired few micron-sized particles, with larger non-deep-lung-respirable particles largely irrelevant or of secondary interest in terms of efficacy.

Darn, you read my mind... Just kidding. Great post. ^^^ Nice how you pulled it all together. Woot, Vape999 ! ! ! All of it. !

Edit: I thought along similar lines of an analog herbal substance, but there will always be folks who say it's not the same. I like the idea of using tobacco money to fund the preliminary research, and e-cigs are here and now. An easily controlled set of training wheels. I was ready to ask the OP if he had used weed but he says he has 15 years experience. I would suggest some familiarization with vapor in general as a user before analytical study. You can't study aborigines without getting a little dusty, IMO... You can film them, without understanding them.

vap999 said:

A major problem with such comparison testing of output composition is that this ignores that essentially all vaporizers are essentially 100% efficient! If they do their job (provide air in the proper temperature or otherwise heat the material in the proper range for vaporization), given time and/or repeated draws (vapor sampling), all vaporizers will vaporize all of the relevant volatiles in a sample. What will vapor stream contents quantification tell you about vaporizer functionality that measuring power consumption/output, heat transfer, air temp. and volume, etc. as it passes through the material would not tell you even better?

Click to expand...

100% efficient is a broad statement. if vapes are 100% efficient, why is ABV used to cook with? what are the relevant volatiles you are talking about? vaporization is a physical process. doesn't mean it can't be analyzed by chemical means. i agree though, that we need to determine the physical processes involved first.

one pressing issue that i still think could be answered by this effort would be finding adulterates in different vaporizer models. but i now agree that GC shouldn't do this. even though it would be relatively simple to take a sample in to lab and pull the reading, we are still talking about a schedule 1 substance. even this tiny risk simply is not worth it.

it's very, very frustrating to have questions but no answers. i hope that one day the scientific community puts some thought into study of vaporizers. until then, i suppose i am content using a model that i absolutely know does not contain mercury/melamine/lead.

love.

kinda interesting to compare vaporization itself to chromatography. i'm going to take a quick look through the literature.

Certain molecules are not extracted at normal vaporization temps and are left behind (CBDs? and others). Some of these 'left behinds' are the most effective analgesics. And of course some of the molecules which are vaporized at normal temps (THC) are left behind too, nothing is 100% efficient AFAIK. That's why ABV is popular for cooking and extraction. It would have active ingredients even if 100% of the THC was removed. There is a thread around here somewhere with a great breakdown of the boiling points of these various 'ingredients'.

GC said:

The way it looks now I would like to answer the following questions:
1. What is the content of the vapor for each vape tested
2. As much as possible, how much of each substance is present
3. What is the relative (and if possible quantitative) efficiency of the tested vapes

Click to expand...

I really like the scientific study idea, but i can think of tons of things to make it tricky.
Even just using 1 single vaporizer, for example the DBV, I can run it at a higher or lower temperature, and vary my draw speed to take cooler/hotter and thinner / thicker hits. I can choose to stop when it tastes a tiny bit less delicious or keep vaping till a dark brown.

All of which means i can get widely varying content of vapor / efficiency from a single vape. Which makes it kinda difficult to compare between them in a meaningful way.

"#2 As much as possible, how much of each substance is present." If you refer to THC, CBD, Terpines and other components, this should be possible to extrapolate from boiling points. Though your efficiency factors (if there are any), condensation (if there are differences, and subsequent retrieval will compound the calculation.) blah, blah.... you know???

Sorry I just have to agree with ^ the above. "difficult to compare between them in a meaningful way" ... You can't change multiple variables (not this many) and call it science. It's why I suggest the pillows first. Practical experience first, then scientific testing if you can get the experiment down to one variable. heck even two variables might be handled...

As I see it You have these variables and others I haven't thought of.
It's part of developing any protocol. Define your variables. Right?
A: Delivery system (obvious)
B: Load size (no way one load will work for all vapes tested)
C: Load potency (the Big Bug IMO, not resolved)
D: Tempreature (variable, not all are intended to be operated at the same temperature, and user variable too.)
E: Convection speed (draw speed, it changes things, see D.)
F: Draw volume (related to tube diameter, see Bernouli and Boyle etc.)
G: Draw length (time, start to stop, again they don't all require 22.5 seconds)
H. Pre-Draw (clearing the tube or whip etc... or not)
I. Pre-Heat glass wand or Stainless tube or not?

I will also try to describe another variable. Personal preference. I'm only an ''''expert'''' on one vape. But, I can tell you Pammy and I use the same vape type in different ways, and with just a few degrees temperature difference. To start with she likes a cooler roast and mostly uses a Rosewood Unit. But also has a longer extraction time and patience. I have a Walnut which runs hotter due to wood density. Quicker a little hotter. She doesn't like mine, I don't like her's,. sure either will work for either of us, but we have preferences...

So assigning one temperature to all hypothetical users is not going to work IMO, and you may notice a few people choose variable temperature units for that reason. Or even because they medicate differently depending on the situation (morning, night, etc.). Some folks use one product in the morning another at night, or set temps different depending...

Pammy and I also load and draw differently. Using the same size bowl...
I think this is true of many users.

There is no convention on how deep or tight to load a SSV or PD or Cano or any other, that I am aware of. Like learning to ride a bicycle in the morning and doing consumer reports that afternoon on the various brands... you may need some pillow time. Not knocking or joking, but everyday experience may help steer your research. Use, enjoy, then study having taken a few laps in the pool.

Purple-Days said:

"#2 As much as possible, how much of each substance is present." If you refer to THC, CBD, Terpines and other components, this should be possible to extrapolate from boiling points.

Click to expand...

Vaporization, as we refer to it, is more than just evaporation, the turning of liquid to gas. First, the heat has to drive thermal desorption, the ripping off of sticky molecules and essential oils from cellulose fibers. Cellulose, the structural component of plant cells, probably constitutes most of the mass (weight) of the herbal material after removal of water (after its dried), along with the cell wall (cellulose)-bound essential oils. How much energy, what portion of what we call vaporization, is required for this, which obviously must happen first? What are the reaction kinetics (how fast do these things happen)? And how does the energy/power required for full vaporization from herbal material compare to the reported vaporization temperatures/energies, which are surely for the pure substance, in liquid form, while herbal material has the oils largely bound to or held in place by plant cells/organs/tissues? This aspect could be related to many recognized differences in herbal material and vaporizer performance.

GC: This is an are where you might make a contribution. Perhaps, you might look into the literature regarding what is known about the reaction kinetics and physical chemistry of essential oils desorption from herbal materials. Cigarette/smoking researchers should have done relevant work. A basic question that the literature should answer, since it seems important, is whether the heat of vaporization (the physical constant) of substances of interest are the same when measured using natural herbal material and purified liquids. From there, you might see how you could do some useful relevant research in this area to get you where you want to be to do vaporizer testing as real science.

As a new member to these boards, I feel like I have the knowledge of the average vape user out there, which is less than most of these board members. Hopefully this helps

The most popular vapes i've seen reviews of and heard of people liking:

1) Bag: Volcano

2) Whip: Vaporbros, but i guess maybe Silver Surfer / Da Buddha (vaporbros is very popular in my area, and is referenced a lot in other boards, i haven't seen it mentioned much here)

3) Portable: Magic Flight Launch Box seems like the best portable out at the moment, and i think it's gonna take off pretty soon if it hasn't already, just because of the price, and simplicity. I've noticed it popping up a lot on other boards, and youtube.

4) I'd never seen the log style ones, but apparently the Purple Days is pretty popular on these boards, and might be a future purchase for myself

5) As for a fifth one, maybe a cheap ebay whip style? I actually have one and i think it was around 60 bucks(not sure)? I know of a few people that have also purchased them.


Things I'm interested in as the average vape owner:

*Safety: How much harmful material is leaked into the vapor with various styles and brands

*Efficiency: A rating of how much feel good stuff i get out of every brand and style.

That's pretty much it actually, it all comes down to those things, ease of use is the other aspect, but we don't need advanced equipment to do that.



Also, this is the first scientific testing i've seen on any forums of this nature, so thanks for volunteering!
Think I'm gonna have fun browsing around these boards, seems to be a lot of somewhat unbiased opinions, and people who genuinely want to help, a very rare find

mbhcuzzz said:

*Safety: How much harmful material is leaked into the vapor with various styles and brands

Click to expand...

How about this for an early goal? Nasties/volume of air? Does it make the results less valid if each model is tested around a "typical user's" preferred temp? Which nasties would be searched for?

And, as one who uses the Extreme as a fan assisted whip unit, I'd have to put that forth if such a category is represented. It is a very popular model. Granted, it is typically used in other ways I think.

vap999 - What vaporizer technology needs is a better understanding of its physical phenomena and process(es), not chemical composition of vapor output, which is trivial -- rather well known and primarily based on temperature (or rather, heat transfer, exposed surface area, etc.). I think it much more useful to study physical aspects of vaporization -- and once sufficiently grounded, then relate physical variables, e.g., temperature, air flow and herbal materials packing with output chemical composition. We need to first understand the physical processes involved. Then maybe you can do valid comparative testing.

Click to expand...

I agree that descriptive (and exploratory) research logically precedes comparative (or causal) research.

PurpleDays - As I see it You have these variables and others I haven't thought of.
It's part of developing any protocol. Define your variables. Right?
A: Delivery system (obvious)
B: Load size (no way one load will work for all vapes tested)
C: Load potency (the Big Bug IMO, not resolved)
D: Tempreature (variable, not all are intended to be operated at the same temperature, and user variable too.)
E: Convection speed (draw speed, it changes things, see D.)
F: Draw volume (related to tube diameter, see Bernouli and Boyle etc.)
G: Draw length (time, start to stop, again they don't all require 22.5 seconds)
H. Pre-Draw (clearing the tube or whip etc... or not)
I. Pre-Heat glass wand or Stainless tube or not?

Click to expand...

I agree that creating a list of variables that will affect results and conclusions (and gathering more experiential knowledge about the vaporization process, as well as available tools) will likely help you create a more valuable study.

With all that was said about user dependent variables it's indeed going to be hard to make a "standard" measurement comparing different vapes. Especially for efficiency. I think that a good starting point will still be testing unloaded vapes for any chemicals emitted by the device itself such as residual volatiles from the production process or inherent "emissions" due to choice of wrong materials. This kind of measurement will not involve any problematic substances and will be easier to start with from a logistic point of view.
The way I would do it is to draw a known amount of air using a pump and pass it through a solvent trap that will dissolve the vapor content (if any). the exact solvents have to be determined by the possible chemicals emitted. I tink that the following 3 will cover most cases: 1: Water / nitric acid for elemental stuff such as metals and metal oxides and all water solubles . 2: Ethanol / isopropanol for partially polar stuff and maybe acetonitrile or chloroform for non polar organics. The solutions can then be analyzed in two ways. 1: as mentioned already, GC-MS, where gas chromatography will separate the different components so that they enter the mass spectrometer at different times (here some thought is needed for choosing the right column), then the mass spectrometer gives a "signature spectrum" of chemicals according to mass, charge and fragmentation. It isn't trivial to determine the identity since usually there are few options that will generate similar spectra but one can make an educated guess based on what is expected from the measurement. Many of the spectra usually stay unknown but still it will be meaningful just knowing the diversity of chemical output. analysis can also be done with liquid chromatography - uv spectroscopy which will be less sensitive but is quantitative since identified chemicals will have a distinct absorption spectrum that can be directly converted into concentration. I'm expecting to get very little output from the high end vapes but we may get surprises and it will be good to know for sure. It will be very interesting imo to see what comes out of the cheap ebay vapes. I'v read a recent report from the FDA that tested electronic cigarettes which are practically a Tobacco vaporizer functioning at about 60C.
They used the mentioned techniques for their analysis and found a bit of nasty stuff in some. it is here if anyone is interested http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ScienceResearch/UCM173250.pdf
I know vaping empty is not exactly the normal use but hey, if bad stuff comes out this way I would want to know about it...
Meanwhile I'll be getting familiar with my pd and try to think this over from the inside...

GC - I think that a good starting point will still be testing unloaded vapes for any chemicals emitted by the device itself such as residual volatiles from the production process or inherent "emissions" due to choice of wrong materials.

Click to expand...

I like this idea because it it is easier to manage from a legal and methodology standpoint. Besides, if you find distinct proof about toxins in some vapes, you made have a leg to stand on to be funded for some real research for the benefit of MMJ users.

Progress - Will the study have much value unless it can actually be published, peer-reviewed, and used to propel future research?

Click to expand...

^^^NOW THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKIN' ABOUT ! ! !^^^
Maybe the next step is to pick units (or one to begin with, perhaps?) methods of measurement, suction production, etc.

... testing unloaded vapes for any chemicals emitted by the device itself ... draw a known amount of air using a pump ...

Click to expand...

said pump, which you would have to characterize first.

And no plastic tubing -- unless part of the vape, eh?