Scientific study of vaporizers needs help

[GC]

Hello,
I am a physical-chemistry Ph.D and recently got an academic faculty position and will have my own lab.
I have been smoking on a daily basis for the last 15 years, although since becoming a parent (last 5 years) I have only been smoking a nightly joint after the kids go to bed. For a while now I have been planning on moving to a vaporizer but must admit I have not tried one yet. Doing my research on the subject it seemed that the little comprehensive scientific work done is limited to the volcano. I would like to perform a comparative analysis of the vapor content of various vaporizers. Obviously, I can't test them all and I would like advice as to which should be representative of the different "families" of vaporizers. (I'm thinking of about 5 vap models vs. joint vs. bong vs. pipe for the experiment ).
Which are the most popular vaporizers? (and what is the basis for any claim).
Some tests that come to mind are the efficiency of extracting active ingredients and the relative content of THC and other chemicals in the vapor. I would like to hear of open questions in the vap field that I may be able to address in such a study. I will also appreciate links to any published related work and other important info such as key posts in this forum and others (please be specific and help me get through the vast amount of info out there). Are there vaporizers for rent anywhere? I was thinking of doing the experiment with a fixed quantity of medium grade medical marijuana, any thoughts about that?
I really ask that posts on this thread will be specific and professional. The idea is to help me catch up with years of experience (and urban legend) so that I can conduct a scientific experiment that will actually yield important results for the community and not something that may be scientifically solid but completely out of context for users.
Thanks in advance for any help here.
GC

 

[Hippie Dickie]

What equipment do you have available to analyze gas content in the vapor? gas chromatograph?

And what do you mean by "efficiency of extracting" ... i hope you mean the % of total THC removed from the trichomes and not the physiological effect on the brain.

i'd love to know the actual mechanism of THC extraction. When i check the vapor poop with a 100x scope it looks to me like the trichome melts like wax. What is the temperature that opens the trichome? i assume that first the trichome is ruptured by the heat, and then the THC (which is inside) is vaporized. i think i see that it takes about 60 seconds in the heat (say above 380F) before the vapor can begin to be released with consistent high density.

It might be interesting to measure how much plastic/silicon/teflon/stainless steel/aluminum gets injected into the vapor stream from those vaporizers that have those components in the air-vapor stream. i did some reading about spallation several months ago that got me really spooked about plastic anything.

It seems to me the most important feature of the vaporizers that consistently get the highest praise is the stability of the temperature that hits the trichomes. i certainly experienced much higher performance when the Bud Toaster went from an Ohms law fixed temperature design to fast response computer temperature control.

Enjoy the kids ... 20 years passes in an instant.

 

[steiner666]

What equipment do you have available to analyze gas content in the vapor? gas chromatograph?

And what do you mean by "efficiency of extracting" ... i hope you mean the % of total THC removed from the trichomes and not the physiological effect on the brain.

Yeah, also would like to know this. This isn't going to be a subjective study is it? I'll volunteer if you need ppl for a test group though

But it would be cool to see better research done into vape and exactly how efficient and beneficial they are. I think measuring the efficiency of them by way of spent matter is hard though, because its hard to tell what is able to be absorbed by the lungs, even if it is removed from the herb. Too much exhaled vapor could be wasteful, and it would be impossible to compare smoking to any vapes this way if there are no leftovers but ashes lol.

 

[GC]

I think the main tool will be a gas chromatograph but I will have access to any kind of analytical tool including mass spectroscopy and any kind of elemental analysis. The way I thought of doing this is to have a pump suck vapor into the machine until the deal is done and quantify the amount of of various chemicals in the corresponding gas volume. Some vaps will have denser vapor than others and that will take it into account. after all, what counts is what you get out of a fixed amount of herb. To the best of my knowledge THC gets into the bloodstream very quickly so I don't think it is exhaled with denser vapors but it's worth checking. I also like the idea of checking for residual vaporizer materials (metals and plastics).

Hippie Dickie, I'd love to see 100x pictures if you have them.

 

[Hippie Dickie]

Sorry, it's just a handheld RadioShack microscope so no pictures ... i haven't splurged on a USB microscope ... yet.

 

[Lycanthrope]

What about using FTIR in conjunction with GC?

 

[AGBeer]

Sorry, it's just a handheld RadioShack microscope so no pictures ... i haven't splurged on a USB microscope ... yet.

I think we have a couple of 200x USB mics where I work. Hopefully I can 'borrow' one for 'scientific purposes' and be able to post some pics soon.

 

[vtac]

Right on, GC. About time vapor was given some real lab time.

Here's a collection of links to existing studies as well as some micro pics from our resident scientist. You'll see that science hasn't really kept up with the advancements in vaporizers.

 

[GC]

What about using FTIR in conjunction with GC?

Gas phase FTIR is going to be tricky but not out of the question. I really have to get a better idea of what GC can give in terms of analyzing all the toxins.

 

[Attack of the vapors]

The five families (with apologies to the the Tattaglia brothers)
1) Forced air - Example Volcano
2) Whip - Example Silver Surfer
3) Log - Example Purple Days
4) Conduction - Example Magic Flight Launch Box
5) ?
I picked the above examples, not from personal experience of the various models but rather from reading the forums here and gleaning the general feeling that each is a great example of their type.
Again, I am not an expert, but you asked and I thought this might stimulate discussion over which to use.

 

[flanman]

maybe a heat wand for 5?

 

[Lycanthrope]

I think that FTIR using a standard gas cell could provide qualitative and semi-quantitative data (Bears Law interpolation via FTIR). Yes, gas phase FTIR is always a bit tricky as compared to other standard sampling techniques (KBr flats, Nujol mull, ATR, etc) as you stated but not out of the question. Choosing the correct GC columns, and transport gas, for separation of the organic component fractions of each could provide valuable corroborative data as well. Its a matter of choosing the correct GC columns as Im sure youre aware of. I would not however consider using GC on its own merits. Much more detailed and species specific data would be realized by using GC/MS. Some of the toxins would be classified as inorganic, specifically the toxic heavy metals. This would require other more specific inorganic analytical methods such as ICP-MS (Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry). Using ICP-MS would be preferable to the more common inorganic AA (atomic absorption) techniques due to its ability not to be element specific per determination.

I was using Perkin Elmer optical grating IR instrumentation before Fourier Transform (FT) was commercially available. Hell, my IR instrument was almost the size of a small car. Thats back in the early 70s, cave man technology compared to FTIR.

I think that your investigation would yield valuable data for the entire scientific community that would otherwise be overlooked. I sincerely hope that youre successful in your endeavors. Go for it!

 

[GC]

I think that FTIR using a standard gas cell could provide qualitative and semi-quantitative data (Bears Law interpolation via FTIR). Yes, gas phase FTIR is always a bit tricky as compared to other standard sampling techniques (KBr flats, Nujol mull, ATR, etc) as you stated but not out of the question. Choosing the correct GC columns, and transport gas, for separation of the organic component fractions of each could provide valuable corroborative data as well. Its a matter of choosing the correct GC columns as Im sure youre aware of. I would not however consider using GC on its own merits. Much more detailed and species specific data would be realized by using GC/MS. Some of the toxins would be classified as inorganic, specifically the toxic heavy metals. This would require other more specific inorganic analytical methods such as ICP-MS (Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry). Using ICP-MS would be preferable to the more common inorganic AA (atomic absorption) techniques due to its ability not to be element specific per determination.

I was using Perkin Elmer optical grating IR instrumentation before Fourier Transform (FT) was commercially available. Hell, my IR instrument was almost the size of a small car. Thats back in the early 70s, cave man technology compared to FTIR.

I think that your investigation would yield valuable data for the entire scientific community that would otherwise be overlooked. I sincerely hope that youre successful in your endeavors. Go for it!

Thanks for your comments. At this stage I'm not ruling anything out and I'm lucky to have access to all of these machines (although some will require more funding than others...). ICP-MS will probably be needed for heavy metals and I just read a volcano paper where they used quantitative NMR for THC.
Interestingly they also found that large percentage of THC is exhaled and lost which adds another layer of complexity to the experiment (as mentioned by steiner666 here).
I need to read more and sort the existing knowledge. Then it will take some focusing for a good experimental design.

 

[abhs]

if you are truly an analytical chemist with free range over your set of analytical devices, please do GC/MS to analyze thc quantities in each vapor. for the heavy metals, i believe you may try quantitative analysis by way of ion-selective electrodes instead of icp-ms. cheers.

 

[GC]

Thank abhs.
I'm a physical chemist and this experiment is more of a personal thing and totally not within my direct expertise (optics and microscopy). However I will have access to most analytical tools available and I intend to do this so I'm learning...
GC-MS sounds good (not only for THC). I'll look-up the electrodes but I'm going to have to do everything with 2-3 techniques / instruments otherwise it becomes unpractical. More ideas about analytical tools are very welcome

I'm waiting to hear more about

1. Which vapes to test

2. What parameters to test

3. How to test in a way that will compare to the actual use.

 

[chucku]

The Aromed may be a candidate for a control vape in the whip category. It is entirely glass on glass through water and uses a halogen bulb for a heat source. The heat can also be fairy accurately controlled.

 

[Hippie Dickie]

not really "entirely glass on glass", since it has a metal screen and a plastic whip, eh?

Only the Vapolution (and the Bud Toaster, of course) is (are) only truly all glass vapor path.

 

[chucku]

but neither are of the whip variety, The Aromed may be the cleanest expression of the whip variety.

 

[Hippie Dickie]

definition problem? whip = flexible inhalation tube? i consider any non-bag vape to be a whip-type vape ... guess i need to reset my definition.

 

[Purple-Days]

Since, as you point out, most existing studies use the Volcano, that is the obvious choice as a control. The Volcano is a 'bag vape' and I will get into the advantages and drawbacks of each extraction and delivery system in a few.

#1 Vape (and control) The Volcano by S&B

Next ,I think you need another 'bag vape', to compare. Are all 'bag vapes' created equal?

#2 Another bag vape. I think the Zephyr is a good candidate and recent market entry.

Next would be the 'whip vapes'. Passive draw and fan assisted.
Passive: From simple crappy box vapes to the good box vapes, to the Silver Surfer Vaporizer, these run the gamut.
Fan assisted: Probably others but only the Vapezilla comes to mind at this time.

#3 Silver Surfer Vaporizer
#4 Vapezilla by Wicked Roots

Next Direct Draw or Log vapes. As above, they are not all the same.

#5 Purple-Days

Next are butane portables. They are certainly the most widely varied, from the Vapor Genie to the Iolite. Both good examples but very different.

#6 Vapor Genie
#7 Iolite

Next in a category by itself is another portable, the MFLB Magic Flight Launch Box, an electric.

#8 MFLB
#9 Bud Toaster (coming soon and another unique design)

Next is a true conduction device the 'bubble vape', the glass dome over a heated pan, poorly regarded by all, but used by many as an introduction to vaping.

#10 BC Vape

Next three are related, and use Head Glass.

You have home use butane.

#11 Clear Dome's Flame Filter

Next would be the Heat Wand.

#12 Vape X-Hale Cloud

Next would be the Heat Gun

#13 Steinel Heat Gun

Those are the dirty dozen that I see as best representing the wide array of vape systems, based on reading here and personal use of several. I don't think 5 covers the territory.

I think exhaled vapor is a red herring as far as extraction studies. Each user will be different so you can only measure inhaled vapor and it's contents. A study of exhaled THC (THC used generically to describe the whole spectrum of canabinoids) would be interesting but not to the point of this study.

Now we start on variables and parameters related to normal usage that may be considered.

Any system that requires user input needs some qualification and standards. First is vaporization temperatures, many units have a variable temperature (some digital and rarely to be trusted) and results can vary from mild and invisible, to strong and harsh, up to combustion. Again the Volcano as a standard comes to mind, but you will have to get the temperature of the 'load' in a Volcano and adjust all others to that standard, or your end result and conclusions will be questionable. #s 6, 8, 9 and 10 variable according to user realtime input may give you a helluva time. #5 is a set temp, but for purposes of comparison the temp can be adjusted (by voltage input) to the standard temp set by the Volcano.

For those systems that require a user draw #s 3, 5, 6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13. Speed and duration are very important to the end results. Whips are generally cleared of 'clean' air before the 'real' draw begins. Same for the direct draw type.

For units that use water filtration the draw time and speed may be different due to lower temps and the higher humidity, allowing longer/deeper draws. Also the hydraulic/pressure (?) resistance of the water forces a bit faster draw, to maintain the flow and therefor faster draw speeds.

Filtration brings up condensation and loss during vaping to the surfaces the vapor contacts. This loss would be interesting to study also. I assume most folks never re-claim that loss, but it is a factor of extraction vs. delivery.

So yeah GC, go for it, but do it with a representative cross section of the vapes that people use. And please make it scientifically significant.

My unqualified and pre-judged judgement: run the same load, at the same temperature and draw speed and the results will all be within margin of error. Change any variable and the results don't mean much.

There is a perfect bathing suit... and only one required... if we all were exactly the same. I see a place in life for each and every example listed above. Not all 'right for me' but I see a place for each.



A Purple-Days Diffuser is available for any legitimate scientist to use in testing. I think there are others who would donate to a legitimate cause. Good luck.

 

[abhs]

GC.. now that I think about it, i'm confused why you need to use anything but GC/MS. once you find parameters for a successful separation, can you not run replicates of each vaporizer gas? why do you find that impractical? MS is probably sensitive and specific enough for this experiment, especially so if you use an internal standard. is this your first time with gc/ms then? would you like a protocol to work off of?

 

[Purple-Days]

Using abreviations is OK, but if you are gonna hold useful discussion, defining the abv. is useful. Gas Chromatography (GC) and Mass Spectrometry (MS) are useful quantifiers. Some of the other abrebviations are beyond me and you folks don't define them... These shorthands have not been established in a layman community and you need to discuss this on a level that the average folks can understand. Please...

 

[minuteman420]

I think the extreme needs to be in the list. I mean it has a bag function and a whip function.

 

[abhs]

absolutely. my attempt to explain chromatography below.

chromatography refers to any technique for separating a chemical mixture.

in order to conduct quantitative analysis (in this case, mass of each component), the chemical (vapor) must be separated so that each component may be assessed individually.

many analytical techniques are mixed and matched together. GC/MS is one such combination.

GC is a means to separate gases through a long capillary (LC refers to liquids). depending on the specific parameters used within the GC column, gases may be separated by mass or affinity. since the rate at which gases elute from the column is variable, GC (the poster) will have to play around with the GC (the machine) parameters so that a successful separation of the desired analytes is achieved.

MS is mass spectrometry. this machine will quantify the mass of a substance by fragmenting it. the separated components from the GC are fed into the MS for analysis. in this manner, the two techniques are used for quantification. gc separates, ms quantifies.

we have discussed other analytical techniques as well. ICP stands for inductively coupled plasma. the sample is subjected to a high temperature source, yielding elemental decomposition (to atoms). decomposition products are than quantitated via MS. this is why a poster above suggested this technique for elemental analysis. i believe ion-selective electrodes would also serve the same purpose.

I have never used FTIR quantitatively, only qualitatively. it is another analytical technique based on infrared light scattering.

Lastly, internal standards. When injecting into a GC/MS, one must ensure that each replicate sample is the same mass. at the sensitivity of these machines, the samples are very small. even 10 uL difference in volume could skew results. for this reason, GC (the poster) will use a good internal standard like fluorobenzene, right

hope this helps tom. going to rip my pd now

 

[Purple-Days]

Yes, I'm sure the explanations will help some folks.

What I meant was, when you start off into an esoteric subject and are discussing it openly with experts defining abbreviations may not be needed. Or, if discussing a general knowledge subject, with a general population, some abbreviations can be taken for granted in a given context FBI, CIA etc. But, when the discussion is about laboratory techniques and equipment using the real words Gas Chromatography (GC) followed by the abbreviation, the first time, from there on all involved know that this abbreviation holds for the rest of the discussion.

abhs, FTIR is another example. While you have explained what the process is (thanks), the abbreviation still eludes me. (I might be able to find words to match those letters by sifting through the text, but it is easier done once, the first time). And with the words spelled out (just once) I can go look for far more info than can possibly be related in a short sentence on this forum.

Another example is 10 uL . I'm sure you are referring to a fraction of a liter. But for all who read this it may not be clear what fraction you refer to. Again to be clear, and for this discussion to be useful to the general public, defining the abbreviation, would help all to understand how little an amount you are referring to.

minuteman420, whip vapes are well represented in my list (two examples) and Bag vapes are well represented (two examples). I believe the Extreme is a high quality vape, but would add nothing to the representative list. Well, it might add confusion.