Particulates in cannabis vapor

[Siebter]

Also i find that one of the biggest menaces to your lungs are particles,and they are the reason smoking j's is worst for your lungs.

True - but not just any kind of particles, right? The kind of particle we try to avoid by vaping is for example tar, which is known to cause cancer.

I totally understand why people transitioning from smoking would actually prefer that harshness cause it eases on their pavlorian reflex to commit self harm during the ritual.

It's called „throat hit“, and some of us enjoy that. It's not nice to look down on others acting knowledgeable by using scientific terms (while saying one „totally understands“). It's a question of personal preference.

IMO an experienced vaporist knows that Vapor is better than smoking,but it aint mountain air + the threat of particles shooting with highspeed in your lungs remains.

Yeah... I think I read something like that in an FDA article about vaping. Seriously: what particles do you, as an experienced vaporist, refer to?

Sorry for OT...

 

[rnartian]

Yeah... I think I read something like that in an FDA article about vaping. Seriously: what particles do you, as an experienced vaporist, refer to?

Sorry for OT...

Np! It's not too offtopic, since I made this thread to learn.
I think he means the particles like the ones you see in stems covered in reclaim, sometimes. Very tiny pieces of bud that we inhale with the vapor. I've read that the lungs pretty efficient at removing stray particles, but I suppose it would be harder when the source is habitual inhalation multiple times a day.

 

[Abysmal Vapor]

True - but not just any kind of particles, right? The kind of particle we try to avoid by vaping is for example tar, which is known to cause cancer.



It's called „throat hit“, and some of us enjoy that. It's not nice to look down on others acting knowledgeable by using scientific terms (while saying one „totally understands“). It's a question of personal preference.



Yeah... I think I read something like that in an FDA article about vaping. Seriously: what particles do you, as an experienced vaporist, refer to?

Sorry for OT...

I refer to Herb particles and environmental dust on it.Some use perlite,vermiculite which has asbestos.... I live in a country with barbaric laws and one has almost zero control on the quality,shit doesnt get tested like in the Cool Countries.. ,so i prepare for the worst.
I can feel herb particles on my throat + i always get mild irritation when using dry,even with a very long airpath and cooling,eventually shit ends up in my throat. I use arizer cup screen with 400 mesh inside it, in my WT mouthpiece so i can further fitler dust particles accumulating inside the tool,and there are some collecting there... I use 100 mesh for bowl filter,anything else clogs like hell or lets too much trough. Then it goes trough water and perc and then trough the mouthpiece screen. This is the way i get least irritation. So in my mind experienced vaporist is one that has already suffered the pains of vaping too much dry or too much in general. IMO best things one can do to reduce harm is reduce consumtion,second best is add filtering.
What scientific terms are refering too ? Sorry but Ivan Pavlovic here (we were part of the old commy block) is a famous man and we study about him in middle school and his experiments are well known around the world.. It is pretty popular with people researching roots of smoking addiction,...Anyway I just wanted to say that it gets adopted as a part of the ritual. Also its absense might contribute to non-satisfactory experience.
I am not speculating here about those particles i can feel them and am 100% sure those are bad for your health. I do not read FDA articles ,but i am well aware of how bad is any kind of dust for your health.. (refering to Dust = small particles,most are irritating but for example quartz dust is very bad and cancerogenic ,asbestos too,) I am not Asmatic but i can imagine those will be even bigger menace for those people.
Forgot to mention that i like to do fast,strong ,draws with minimal restriction. Maybe herb particles enter at far greater speed than they do like for example when doing mouthpulls or slow sips.. so this could be another reason for the extra sensitivity i have to those .
I also apologize to the OP for the derail, feel free to PM me if you wanna take this discussion any further .

 

[Siebter]

Np! It's not too offtopic, since I made this thread to learn.

Okay, cool – I didn't mean to distract this thread, nor do I want to attack anyone.

I think he means the particles like the ones you see in stems covered in reclaim, sometimes. Very tiny pieces of bud that we inhale with the vapor. I've read that the lungs pretty efficient at removing stray particles, but I suppose it would be harder when the source is habitual inhalation multiple times a day.

It's totally always a matter of quantity too, I agree. But that's why I think it's important to look close to be able to put things in perspective to each other. I also agree that from what we know the lung (or in general: the respiratory system, its mucus etc.) is pretty good at filtering particles. I find it hard to believe that some specks of herb every now and then will cause harm and I don't remember any kind of evidence for that. And to be honest: I'm actually sure that the amount of herb particles we inhale with vapor is pretty much insignificant. When we talk about harm reduction, we should also not forget where we are coming from – again: to put things in perspective.

I refer to Herb particles and environmental dust on it.Some use perlite,vermiculite which has asbestos....

I referred to herb particles already – again: I'm a bit skeptical and think before we consider it harmful, we should have a closer look at it. „Environmental dust“ is a pretty vague term to me, but either way, I suppose when asbestos and the like is part of the dust around you, you will inhale it all the time by simply breathing, right?

I live in prohibition country with barbaric laws and one has almost zero control on the quality,shit doesnt get tested like in the Cool Countries.. ,so i prepare for the worst.

That's cool – but you shouldn't generalize this approach. What you describe has nothing to do with vaping or harm reduction, it's a problem that no way of vaping will solve for you. At least I would not want to rely on water to filter asbestos particles.

What scientific terms are refering too ? Sorry but Ivan Pavlovic is a famous man and we study about him in middle school and his experiments are well known around the world.. It is pretty popular with people researching roots of smoking addiction,...Anyway I just wanted to say that it gets adopted as a part of the ritual. Also its absense might contribute to non-satisfactory experience.

We actually agree here – that throat hit is part of the whole experience and plays a huge role in developing a smoking habit. But it's not an indicator for severe harm at all, hence I think we should look at it as an aspect that might help people switching from smoking to vaping if considered and respected and not looked at as something they should give up to strive for eventually.

I am not speculating here about those particles i can feel them and am 100% sure those are bad for your health.

And I respect that, but please respect my opinion that your feeling is no evidence for anything at all.

 

[Abysmal Vapor]

@Siebter Let's take this to private. I will respond in a minute .

 

[pakalolo]

@Siebter Let's take this to private. I will respond in a minute .

No, please repeat in this thread (unless it's something personal).

True - but not just any kind of particles, right? The kind of particle we try to avoid by vaping is for example tar, which is known to cause cancer.

First, in the context of smoke "tar" is a general term that means particulates. Vapour from THC contains tars, just not nearly as much as smoke does.

The reason higher temperatures create thicker clouds is the increase in particulate matter in the vapour stream. This is also why higher temperatures produce harsher vapour: the particulates irritate the throat, and of course the vapour is hotter.

I find it hard to believe that some specks of herb every now and then will cause harm and I don't remember any kind of evidence for that.

This has been studied. See Availability of Hazard Identification Materials for Marijuana Smoke (R. S. Tomar, J. Beaumont, & J. C. Y. Hsieh August 2009). They conclude that the inhaled smoke from smoking cannabis contains much the same mix of tars that tobacco smoke does. They speculate that this could mean the same risks exist for both, but they do not present any evidence to prove this. From my own research (which no one should take as either exhaustive or conclusive) I do not believe anyone has found such evidence yet. I believe there are two reasons for this. First, cannabis users have far less exposure to tars than tobacco smokers. They mention this in the study. Second, I believe that cannabis smoke might well contain something that mitigates the risk. This has not been proven but there are indications that this might be true. The inability to connect cannabis smoking to cancer despite strenuous effort is one of them.

Now, that study is about smoking not vapourizing, but as I pointed out, cannabis vapour does contain particulate matter that we refer to as tars. The exposure to them is reduced, however, and I believe it is safe to say that the risk is much lower.

 

[Siebter]

First, in the context of smoke "tar" is a general term that means particulates. Vapour from THC contains tars, just not nearly as much as smoke does.

From what I know tar (in the context of smoke) contains the byproducts of pyrolysis / combustion, not just fine particles in general – if that was the case, the air would be full of tar, wouldn't it?

The reason higher temperatures create thicker clouds is the increase in particulate matter in the vapour stream. This is also why higher temperatures produce harsher vapour: the particulates irritate the throat, and of course the vapour is hotter.

While that might be true, let's not forget that we actually strive to inhale certain substances, namely cannabinoids. *Those* (and in some cases the temperature, as you mention) will irritate the respiratory system. While cannabis smoke will contain about 15% cannabinoids, vapor contains about 95% (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17429350). So I think it's pretty safe to say that when we cough, it's not because of those 5% non-cannabinoids (which, by the way, are not tar). Let's also not forget that not any kind of respiratory irritation is a sign of harm; most of us do not avoid combustion because it sometimes makes us cough, but because of its long-term effects.

This has been studied. See Availability of Hazard Identification Materials for Marijuana Smoke (R. S. Tomar, J. Beaumont, & J. C. Y. Hsieh August 2009). They conclude that the inhaled smoke from smoking cannabis contains much the same mix of tars that tobacco smoke does. They speculate that this could mean the same risks exist for both, but they do not present any evidence to prove this.

That's because *any* pyrolized plant material contains carcinogenic substances, that's not exclusive to combusted tobacco. Smoking peppermint, wood or sage will harm you in the same manner as smoking tobacco or cannabis. It makes no sense to make a (costly) study to prove something we already know for a long time. Tobacco smoke has some special characteristics, that is true, but the major harm factor is the combustion itself. We know that tobacco smoke and cannabis smoke are not equally carcinogenic, but they both are.

From my own research (which no one should take as either exhaustive or conclusive) I do not believe anyone has found such evidence yet. I believe there are two reasons for this. First, cannabis users have far less exposure to tars than tobacco smokers.

Those kind of assumptions are not helpful. You can't say any cannabis user will have less exposure to tar than a tobacco smoker – compare someone chainsmoking his bong every day with someone who will have a cigar every Sunday evening. Both will be exposed to smoke condensates.

Second, I believe that cannabis smoke might well contain something that mitigates the risk. This has not been proven but there are indications that this might be true. The inability to connect cannabis smoking to cancer despite strenuous effort is one of them.

Because in order to actually *prove* a connection you'd need long-term studies, and those are not published yet as far as I know. It's just not possible to prove a connection to a symptom that needs decades to develop within a few years. On the other hand you are right that there seem to be strong signs that canabinoids have anticarcinogenic properties, but we should separate those two effects wisely.

Now, that study is about smoking not vapourizing, but as I pointed out, cannabis vapour does contain particulate matter that we refer to as tars. The exposure to them is reduced, however, and I believe it is safe to say that the risk is much lower.

Okay, let's agree that the risk is much lower (that's why we are here, right?), but I can't agree on the term „tar“ here. Sorry. :-)

 

[Tranquility]

The size of the particulate matters. While some in this thread have written "very small" regarding cannabis flakes, you can get a lot smaller and still be particulate. Different sizes cause different problems.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3925716/

Particle size dictates where aerosolized pathogens deposit in the respiratory tract, thereafter the pathogens potential to cause disease is influenced by tissue tropism, clearance kinetics and the host immunological response. This interplay brings pathogens into contact with a range of tissues spanning the respiratory tract and associated anatomical structures. In animal models, differential deposition within the respiratory tract influences infection kinetics for numerous select agents. Greater numbers of pathogens are required to infect the upper (URT) compared with the lower respiratory tract (LRT), and in comparison the URT infections are protracted with reduced mortality. Pathogenesis in the URT is characterized by infection of the URT lymphoid tissues, cervical lymphadenopathy and septicemia, closely resembling reported human infections of the URT. The olfactory, gastrointestinal, and ophthalmic systems are also infected in a pathogen-dependent manner. The relevant literature is reviewed with respect to particle size and infection of the URT in animal models and humans.
​

https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/how_do.html

This one describes the different deposition factors and methods depending on the size and other characteristics of the particle. For instance:

Inhalation is the most important route of exposure in the workplace. When particles are in the air, there is the chance that you will inhale them. How far the particle gets in the air passages of the respiratory system, and what it does when it is deposited, depends on the size, shape, and density of the particulate material. The "what happens" also depends on the chemical and toxic properties of the material.

Particles are deposited in the lungs by one of four different ways: interception, impaction, sedimentation, and diffusion.

Interception: A particle is intercepted or deposited when it travels so close to a surface of the airway passages that an edge of the particle touches the surface. This method of deposition is most important for fibres such as asbestos. The fibre length determines where the particle will be intercepted. For example: fibres with a diameter of 1 micrometre (µm) and a length of 200 µm would be deposited in the bronchial tree.

Impaction: When particles are suspended in air, they have a tendency to travel along their original path. When there is a bend in the airway system, for example, many particles do not turn with the air but rather impact or stick to a surface in the particles' original path. The likelihood of impaction depends on the air velocity and the particle mass. Typically, most particles greater than 10 µm (aerodynamic diameter) are deposited in the nose or throat and cannot penetrate the lower tissues of the respiratory tract. Aerodynamic diameter is the diameter of a spherical particle that has the same settling velocity as another particle regardless of its shape, size or density. Using aerodynamic diameters allows occupational hygiene specialists to compare particles of different sizes, shapes and densities in terms of how they will settle out of the air flow stream.

Sedimentation: As particles travel through air, gravitational forces and air resistance eventually overcome their buoyancy (the tendency for the particle to stay up). The result is that the particles will settle on a surface of the lung. This type of deposition is most common in the bronchi, and the bronchioles. Sedimentation is not an important factor when the aerodynamic diameter of the particle is less than 0.5 µm.

Diffusion: The random motion of particles is similar to gas molecules in the air when particles are smaller than 0.5 µm. When particles are in random motion, they deposit on the lung walls mostly by chance. This movement is also known as the "Brownian motion". The smaller the particle size, the more vigorous the movement is. Diffusion is the most important mechanism for deposition in the small airways and alveoli. Very fine particles 001 µm or smaller are also trapped in the upper airway.​

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2007/cbis/wednesday/mcclellanWed1130.pdf

https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/full/10.1513/pats.200409-046TA

 

[Siebter]

@OldNewbie – Could you explain how this applies to vaping?

 

[Tranquility]

@OldNewbie – Could you explain how this applies to vaping?

I am not studied enough to know. It is just information to help the discussion. But, generally, small bits of plant material you can see are not really a problem. I think the PDF is a good one to show how it all comes together. But, it is pages long. I don't know the subject well enough to summarize it.

I agree it is not specifically related to particulate inhalation from vapes. It's just that vaping is not a unique method of introducing particulate to our respiratory system.

 

[Siebter]

@OldNewbie – totally cool, it's just that for the moment I think it's wise to collect data as specific as possible, as I think nowadays the general discussion about medicinal effects from vaping vs. smoking suffers from huge amounts of *possibly* applicable, yet vague data.

That is not to say that at one point we won't be able to refer to the info you provided.

 

[Tranquility]

@OldNewbie – totally cool, it's just that for the moment I think it's wise to collect data as specific as possible, as I think nowadays the general discussion about medicinal effects from vaping vs. smoking suffers from huge amounts of *possibly* applicable, yet vague data.

That is not to say that at one point we won't be able to refer to the info you provided.

Particle size matters. Which particulates do you care about?

 

[Siebter]

@OldNewbie That's the thing – in vaping, I don't mind any particulates at all. Others seem to.

So I ask: why should we? :-)

 

[Tranquility]

@OldNewbie That's the thing – in vaping, I don't mind any particulates at all. Others seem to.

So I ask: why should we? :-)

That's why you need to look to the general before you get bogged down into specifics. I'm not sure you know what particulates are in the vapor. Just because it is a particulate, does not mean you can see or feel it. A visible piece of plant material you can easily see is not the smallest thing that is a particulate. Look to the chart in the above .pdf regarding "Deposition vs. Size Is Complex".

A particulate above (μm is a micron or micrometer--about .000039 inch) 10 micrometers is not going to be deposited in the lungs. How big is that? Wikipedia says:

Between 1 μm and 10 μm:

• 1–10 μm – length of a typical bacterium
• 10 μm – Size of fungal hyphae
• 5 μm – length of a typical human spermatozoon's head[3]
• 3–8 μm – width of strand of spider web silk[4]
• about 10 μm – size of a fog, mist, or cloud water droplet

For more examples of things measuring 1 to 10 micrometres, see Orders of magnitude (length) § 1 micrometre.
Between 10 μm and 100 μm:

• about 10–12 μm – thickness of plastic wrap (cling wrap)
• 10 to 55 μm – width of wool fibre[5]
• 17 to 181 μm – diameter of human hair[6]
• 70 to 180 μm – thickness of paper

How big are the particulates in cannabis vapor? It depends. But, significant particulates are created with vaporizing or dabbing. The study only looked at particulates below 2.5 μm.

We measured PM2.5 concentrations in real time with threelaser photometers (two model AM510, one model 8532 (Dusttrak),TSI, Shoreview, MN), fitted with 2.5 μm impactors to exclude larger particles.​

https://no-smoke.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/2018-Indoor-Air-Cannabis01-Schick.pdf

 

[Abysmal Vapor]

@OldNewbie Thx for the useful data.I will go trough it. I will need some time to gather my thoughts and knowledge as it is very scattered , also i had a very draining day at work and it aint gonna be better tomorrow,but hopefully i will make a better post one than this.. For now i would just say ,that people with sensitive respiratory systems know that whatever they inhale is bad for them ,the same way a person with Artritis or bonebreaks knows when it is going to rain.. For sure it aint goint to be problem for many,but so is smoking, it is very common to see an old man smoking cigarettes around here,i dont say they are healthy and everyoung but it aint the same problem for them as those who died from cancer in their 40ties..
No matter if there is or will be study to back my feeling they are proven with human testing,also a long thought and visual inspection on the subject.
You can check what hole sizes of each meshsize if you like and you will get an idea of how small are the largest particles that get trough.. And if they dont end in your lung there are plenty of bad places they can go in your airway and cause unwanted suffering for some people.
I vape with a very long airpath atm. 150mm long bowl/stem with 100 mesh inside. It's all full with all size herb particles and shit. Then there is water checkout the FC-1000 on dhgate it is a reverse matrix to pillar then i have male to female adapter with arizer sceen (120 mesh) and then another 150mm moutpieces with arizer cup + 500 mesh inside..Only after that i see almost zero particles. Are they cancerous or harmful ? I dont know ,but for sure they are hurting my throat.
@Siebter It always raises a wonder how one thing is a problem for someone and not for others. In my opinion it is up to how developed one senses are and of courrse also how he analyses the data.but first he has to gather it with his senses. I am not claming i am extrasense ,but i consider myself the princess from princess and pea .I can feel it trough 10 matraces and it is bugging me a lot,and you might think i am crazy ,but it is there in fact.Sensitive machines have just started to appear and they are too far away from our level of perception,maybe they are just better analysing it than some of us. I dont really expect science to back my feelings anytime soon..neither i need to. If it makes me feel bad ,it is bad in my book,no need it to be stated on paper. Still doesnt hurt to dream of the days when everyones HEALTH will be our governments main focus and studies will be funded and everything will be known.

 

[pakalolo]

From what I know tar (in the context of smoke) contains the byproducts of pyrolysis / combustion, not just fine particles in general – if that was the case, the air would be full of tar, wouldn't it?

True, much of the tar in tobacco and cannabis smoke is a product of pyrolysis.

While that might be true, let's not forget that we actually strive to inhale certain substances, namely cannabinoids. *Those* (and in some cases the temperature, as you mention) will irritate the respiratory system. While cannabis smoke will contain about 15% cannabinoids, vapor contains about 95% (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17429350). So I think it's pretty safe to say that when we cough, it's not because of those 5% non-cannabinoids (which, by the way, are not tar). Let's also not forget that not any kind of respiratory irritation is a sign of harm; most of us do not avoid combustion because it sometimes makes us cough, but because of its long-term effects.

Sure. I didn't argue that the substances we are after aren't also irritants.

That's because *any* pyrolized plant material contains carcinogenic substances, that's not exclusive to combusted tobacco. Smoking peppermint, wood or sage will harm you in the same manner as smoking tobacco or cannabis. It makes no sense to make a (costly) study to prove something we already know for a long time. Tobacco smoke has some special characteristics, that is true, but the major harm factor is the combustion itself. We know that tobacco smoke and cannabis smoke are not equally carcinogenic, but they both are.

The study wasn't done to prove that inhaled smoke contains carcinogens. The purpose was to look for potential harmful effects of cannabis, which of course means that they had to account for the tars in smoke. As for your assertion that cannabis smoke is carcinogenic, see below.

Those kind of assumptions are not helpful. You can't say any cannabis user will have less exposure to tar than a tobacco smoker – compare someone chainsmoking his bong every day with someone who will have a cigar every Sunday evening. Both will be exposed to smoke condensates.

You're using special pleading to invalidate a general premise, which I am pretty sure the evidence supports: most cannabis smokers have far less exposure to inhaled smoke than tobacco users.

Because in order to actually *prove* a connection you'd need long-term studies, and those are not published yet as far as I know. It's just not possible to prove a connection to a symptom that needs decades to develop within a few years. On the other hand you are right that there seem to be strong signs that canabinoids have anticarcinogenic properties, but we should separate those two effects wisely.

If cannabis smoke (or vapour) does not cause cancer, you will never prove it. You cannot prove a negative. What we can say is that despite determined efforts by people who really want to find a connection, the evidence is mixed at best. It is certainly not overwhelming, as it is in the case of tobacco smoke. You might want to read Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic (R. Melamede, Harm Reduct J. 2005; 2: 21) and then follow the article citations and other links on that page. It is a common canard to say that "more study is needed" or "the results aren't in yet". Search that database. In the last 10 years alone, there have been over 9000 papers published that referenced cannabis and cancer. Of course many of these are about the use of cannabis in treatment of cancer, but there are many that look for harmful effects as well. Also keep in mind that they only cover papers published in English. There is a vast volume of research on cannabis produced in other languages, far more than there is in English. Israel in particular is way out front here and almost none of their research is in English.

Okay, let's agree that the risk is much lower (that's why we are here, right?), but I can't agree on the term „tar“ here. Sorry. :-)

As sorry as you might be, I am simply using the term the way it is used in scientific literature. See Tar (tobacco residue).

 

[Siebter]

As sorry as you might be, I am simply using the term the way it is used in scientific literature. See Tar (tobacco residue).

Me too, hence I have a hard time understanding why there would be tar in vapor.

Tar is the common name for the resinous, partially combusted particulate matter made by the burning of tobacco and other plant material in the act of smoking.

When we vaporize, we do not have combustion or smoke.

Maybe I'm lost in translation.

 

[invertedisdead]

When we vaporize, we do not have combustion or smoke.

This is a common misconception in the community. There are a number of compounds in the plant which combust at the vaporization temperature of favored cannabinoids. This is because the whole flower is not purely vaporizable (Its mostly non-vaporizable) thus some combustion of plant compounds occurs. The plant goes in green and comes out coffee brown because it's been thermally degraded. Ever water cure ABV? Look at how black and dirty the water gets, its a dead giveaway.

If you want to compare the combustion in flower vapor directly, just press some flower into rosin and compare that oil vapor with the vaped herb, it's very obvious when compared this way, especially if you have a vape like the Flowerpot which can vape oil and flower from the same device. This is why've people don't like to vape concentrates and flower in the same rig even though both are "vaporized."

 

[GoldenBud]

our lungs are not built for organic compounds anyway.
some of the vapor gets condensed in the lungs, i think all of the cunsomers have some amount (tiny probably comapring to the lungs volume..) of some oils/reclaim
is vaping safe? not 100% sure, but it's beyond better than smoking.

 

[Siebter]

This is a common misconception in the community. There are a number of compounds in the plant which combust at the vaporization temperature of favored cannabinoids. This is because the whole flower is not purely vaporizable (Its mostly non-vaporizable) thus some combustion of plant compounds occurs.

The misconception I often see is that combustion is a gradual process, while it actually is a very defined chemical reaction happening at very defined circumstances giving very defined results. It is of course true that not the whole plant is vaporizable, but that's not our goal anyway. Our goal is to vaporize certain components.

Now, you say that there are parts of the plant who would combust before vaporization temps for cannabinoids are reached, which would make the whole idea of dry herb vaporization pretty much useless. I am not a scientist or medical expert, but I have never heard anywhere that this was actually the case. Do you have any articles on that or the like?

The plant goes in green and comes out coffee brown because it's been thermally degraded. Ever water cure ABV? Look at how black and dirty the water gets, its a dead giveaway.

I have not, but would not consider blackness a sign of combustion. Combustion will result in actual ash, which is white, not black. Judging combustion states by eyesight is not very informative in my opinion anyway. Again: combustion is not a gradual process at all.

If you want to compare the combustion in flower vapor directly, just press some flower into rosin and compare that oil vapor with the vaped herb, it's very obvious when compared this way, especially if you have a vape like the Flowerpot which can vape oil and flower from the same device. This is why've people don't like to vape concentrates and flower in the same rig even though both are "vaporized."

Again: that's judging by ones own subjective experiences, which is not helpful. I also think it's important to set the terms straight: if it was oil, we shouldn't inhale it (lipid pneumonia, remember?). Just saying.

our lungs are not built for organic compounds anyway.

They actually are built to cope with all kinds of material and it's definitely not their only job to manage 100% clean air. If that was the case we couldn't survive even a day.

some of the vapor gets condensed in the lungs, i think all of the cunsomers have some amount (tiny probably comapring to the lungs volume..) of some oils/reclaim

Again: hopefully not oils, as that would actually kill us (as it has happened not too long ago, see black market cartridges). Vapor can not condense on moist surfaces like mucus or lung tissue by the way.

 

[pakalolo]

The misconception I often see is that combustion is a gradual process, while it actually is a very defined chemical reaction happening at very defined circumstances giving very defined results.

This is not correct. Combustion requires three things: oxygen, heat, and fuel. Insufficient heat to reach combustion results in partial combustion, which will release particulates. In this context, vapourizing does not provide sufficient heat for combustion by design; however, higher temperatures release more particulates hence thicker clouds (and harsher vapour).

 

[Siebter]

This is not correct. Combustion requires three things: oxygen, heat, and fuel. Insufficient heat to reach combustion results in partial combustion, which will release particulates. In this context, vapourizing does not provide sufficient heat for combustion by design; however, higher temperatures release more particulates hence thicker clouds (and harsher vapour).

Are we talking about accidental combustion here? Because from what I know, there is no such thing as „partial combustion“ except when only part of the material combusts, but then *this part* would be fully combusted. Wouldn't it? Otherwise I'd say you think vaporizing is something like semi-combustion, while they are two very different things. That's a bit confusing to me. :-)

So what are the temps we want to reach with our devices in order to vaporize cannabinoids? And at what temperature does combustion of plant material occur?

 

[invertedisdead]

Now, you say that there are parts of the plant who would combust before vaporization temps for cannabinoids are reached, which would make the whole idea of dry herb vaporization pretty much useless. I am not a scientist or medical expert, but I have never heard anywhere that this was actually the case. Do you have any articles on that or the like?

Well it doesn't surprise me that you've not heard about it as most people don't know anything about vaporization...The reality is its basic chemistry, you're taking a crude plant substance which contains hundreds of chemicals, most of them not vaporizeable at all, and then using heat as a rather crude extraction of oils. Heat causes thermal decomposition to the point that some compounds, such as starches, sugars, and tannins combust at nominal cannabinoid vaporization temperatures. This is evidenced clearly when removing exogenous unvaporizable plant material from the plants oils via pre-processing with alternative extraction methods before vaping. In fact most other oil extraction methods are gentle enough to not even decarboxylate the THCA during the extraction of oils. Vaporization does, as it is essentially distillation on major steroids.

Combustion will result in actual ash, which is white, not black. Judging combustion states by eyesight is not very informative in my opinion anyway. Again: combustion is not a gradual process at all.

Sorry my friend but you're way off base here if you truly believe that. The color of ash is more related to mineral flushing and the cure of the flower. You're essentially implying that smoked weed isn't even combusted unless the ash is white, no?

You then go on to claim that judging combustion by eyesight is actually "not very informative in your opinion..." which kinda seems like a setup to discredit all responses you don't agree with unless they come with chromatography paperwork and peer reviewed analysis. That's a popular stance in the modern dogmatic practice of scientism, but it misses the pinnacle crux of real science which still comes from performing experiments and documenting observations.

Again: that's judging by ones own subjective experiences, which is not helpful. I also think it's important to set the terms straight: if it was oil, we shouldn't inhale it (lipid pneumonia, remember?). Just saying.

All science begins with a subjective experience - remember when the apple fell on Newton's head, or when Franklin was electrocuted? It's now your turn to take what information I've presented and conduct your own experiments, fellow peer. This is how science actually works, don't just discredit me because you feel like it. I've laid out a very simple procedure for comparing the vapor between dried herb and concentrates produced from the same starting material, why would you not want to try it yourself if you are interested enough in the topic to want to debate it?

Also surely you realize cannabinoids and terpenes are lipids and essential oils right?... The oils are the main part of the plant you are extracting when vaporizing, of course the goal is to inhale oils. If you don't understand the fundamental difference between these oils, and ones like vitamin E acetate perhaps you should reevaluate your stance in this discussion.

 

[GoldenBud]

This is not correct. Combustion requires three things: oxygen, heat, and fuel. Insufficient heat to reach combustion results in partial combustion, which will release particulates. In this context, vapourizing does not provide sufficient heat for combustion by design; however, higher temperatures release more particulates hence thicker clouds (and harsher vapour).

Insufficient oxygen leads to producing CO, right?
partial combustion, no enough O2 to produce CO2 (which is healthier than CO)

 

[Siebter]

This is how science actually works, don't just discredit me because you feel like it.

Whaaa...? Having a bit of a bad day, huh?

I'm out of here, never meant to fight.

Edit: resin, not oil. Just saying.