Efficiency and Health of various smoking devices *FACTS*

[carthagexl]

I seem to be finding a lot of myths here about efficiency of certain kinds of smoking devices so I thought I'd make a somewhat conclusive post based entirely on several published studies and dispel the myths and half-truths.

Some background information:
About 23-30% of THC in a sample is lost by pyrolysis, basically it gets destroyed by the heat. This occurs even in vaporizers and is the reason why no device out today can have a 100% efficiency in removing the THC from the plant material.

The health rank is determined by the ratio of THC to tar. This is used because if this ratio is low, then to attain the same level of high, one must ingest more tars than other methods. The key to the health stat is to maximize THC in equal volumes of smoke. Efficiency and Health are mutually exclusive because the health rank is determined only by the smoke that reaches your lungs, while the efficiency rank is determined by the mass of the THC before smoking versus the mass that is actually delivered to the user.


Vaporizer

Average THC that reaches user: 47% (Gieringer, 1)

Gieringer got up to 61% efficiency using the volcano but they only used 3 bags for a 200mg sample and did not stir or crush the sample of marijuana. Both adding more bags and stirring up the marijuana could’ve added to the efficiency by a small margin.

Health Rank: 1

I don’t think it’s a secret vaporizers are the healthiest way to smoke. Vapor from the bag of a Volcano is 95% cannabinoids while the other 5% is the fragrant oil caryophyllene, one suspected PAH, and one suspected cannabinoid relative (Gieringer, 1)


Joints

Average THC that reaches user: 20-26% (Perez-Reyes), 50%* (Gieringer, 1).

Perez says the average puffs/min is 2.6. Their data was collected using 2 puffs/min average. They found that out of the sample, only about 15-20% of THC was recovered by the user. The rest was lost in sidestream smoke and pyrolysis. A simple calculation says that the 20-26% of THC will be recovered in the average session using a joint and the 2.6 puffs/min data.

*Gieringer says 50% of THC was recovered using a smoking machine that mimicked human smoking habits. They do not go further into what they felt was the average human smoking speed in terms of puffs/min. I find Perez’s tests to be more conclusive as they used real humans to find the average puffs/min of a joint while Gieringer did not. I have a feeling Gieringer's machine smoked the joint much faster than a normal human because he cites a 69% efficiency rate if the joint is taken all in one hit, so a 50% rate for a normal human smoker seems artificially high. Since Gieringer used a machine, there was also no butt left.

Health Rank: 2

Surprisingly, an unfiltered joint outperforms a bong or waterpipe by nearly 30% in terms of THC : Tar ratio (Perez-Reyes). Using NIDA marijuana cigarettes, a ratio of 1 : 13 was acquired. I might mention NIDA research marijuana is extremely low potency, about 2-4%. Using more potent sensemilla could drastically increase this ratio for the better.


Bong

Average THC that reaches user: 40.4% (Perez-Reyes)

Interestingly, a lot of THC is lost to the bong itself. 21.1% of the sample’s THC was lost in the bowl, 3.3% in the water, and 7.8% in the stem. Plant matter that fell into the water also accounted for 8% (Perez-Reyes). THC is soluble in water! www.chemfinder.com, search for it. It has a solubility of .28g/100mL at 23*C!

Health rank: 3

Bongs and waterpipes rank last health-wise due to the fact that water absorbs sticky THC molecules about as well it absorbs noxious tars. In terms of THC : Tar ratio, it performed 30% worse than an unfiltered marijuana cigarette at about 1 : 17! (Gieringer, 2)


Final notes:

It appears as though the myth that bong water is a good filter of particulate matter and creates a healthier smoke has been smashed. The only saving grace that a bong may have is that the water may filter out harmful water soluble gases but this has not been tested.

There seems to be some confusion about joints versus bongs in terms of efficiency. Put simply, these studies conclude that given the same volume of smoke, a joint will have more THC in it than a bong due to the fact that none is lost in the bowl, stem, water, and pipe, but that a bong saves you money due to the fact that it does not lose nearly as much smoke in the sidestream. If you're worried about money more than health, use a bong. If your worried about health more than money, use a joint. And if you're smart, use a vaporizer.

Ideas on the most efficient smoking device:

I believe that the most efficient device for smoking, probably even beating a vaporizer on average, would be a warmed steamroller with a bowl that is angled as parallel as possible to the mouth. The warmth of the glass would prevent condensation of THC and the angle of the bowl would prevent the smoke from being sucked directly onto the glass to prevent the sticky molecule THC from getting leeched on the glass. Covering both ends of the steamroller when not in use would prevent the marijuana from cherrying and losing THC in sidestream. I believe this would have above a 50% THC transfer rate.




(1) Gieringer, Dale. "Cannabis Vaporizer Combines Efficient Delivery of THC." Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics 4(2004): 7-27.
http://www.maps.org/mmj/Gieringer-vaporizer.pdf

(2) Gieringer, Dale. "Marijuana Water Pipe and Vaporizer Study." Newsletter of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies 3(1996). http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v06n3/06359mj1.html

Perez-Reyes, Mario. "Marijuana Smoking: Factors that Influence the Bioavailability of Tetrahydrocannibinol." NIDA Research Monograph 1(1990): 42-62. http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v06n3/06359mj1.html

[Jimi001]

do you have any statistics on blunt efficiency?

[carthagexl]

I would assume blunts are going to be very similar to joints, just with trace amounts of nicotine and other tobacco chemicals.

[hybrid45]

interesting stuff, and with what appears to be legit sources cited. Kinda shocking that joints would be "healthier" than bongs or waterpipes. I still think more scientific studies should be done so we can get more confirmation on these facts. It's kind of good that things seem to be moving in that direction since many more government officials are starting to move toward supporting actual research into marijuana. We may not see decriminalization of cannabis in our lifetimes, but at least it seems to be on its way. Good job actually gathering facts OP, I'll +rep if I can.

[Jimi001]

yeah i figured that they would be similar.. but I wanted to see how similar because blunts and joints are pretty different.

[Sk8brdZepp13]

i liked this thread man, good surprises and good research too, +rep

[420 stoner 420]

Originally Posted by Jimi001

yeah i figured that they would be similar.. but I wanted to see how similar because blunts and joints are pretty different.

not really. blunt = larger version of joint with nicotine. i figure it's identical.

i wish they'd measure the efficiency of a lightbulb vape.

[carthagexl]

Originally Posted by 420 stoner 420

not really. blunt = larger version of joint with nicotine. i figure it's identical.

i wish they'd measure the efficiency of a lightbulb vape.

Well, I suppose they'd be nearly identically efficient as a Volcano assuming you could find a way to heat the bulb to exactly the right temperature. A lightbulb vape is basically just a hotplate vape that's really really hard to get to burn at a consistent temperature. So technically, you'd probably be losing a lot of THC in the bulb itself due to incomplete vaporization. Hotplate vapes aren't known for being the best type of vaporizor in the first place.

[plank]

Very nice thread. It is somewhat suprising to me that bongs would be considered last in the rank considering that in joints you also have to take into account the added health implications of inhaling burning paper etc. I suppose then again woudn't the bong material also contribute to the results? I know those statistics are just a general overview but what about when you get into the specifics and such like... would there be much of a difference to the actual findings?

great job on finding that information btw +rep if i can

[godsthirdnut]

tar content is way over hyped.

²Bioenergetics Institute, 1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, 80918, USA
Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic
Harm Reduction Journal 2005, 2:21 doi:10.1186/1477-7517-2-21

that study shows that the tar content does not relate to cancer or other health problems. rather heat causes many of the common smoker problems like bronchitis. it makes alot of since that tar is not linked to cancer, a well done steak has tar in it, just as chewing tobacco does, but one causes cancer and the other just tastes good.

i think if you really want to smoke healthy your best off getting a device which cools smoke before entering lungs.

[plank]

I suppose if you wanted 100% thc absorption you could just eat it too.

[Retroshark]

this is AWESOME! i cant wait to show this to my friends.

[Ziggy1212]

Originally Posted by plank

I suppose if you wanted 100% thc absorption you could just eat it too.

Maybe thats why firecrackers get you so high off of one ?

[Retroshark]

eating it is the only way to get max potency. but that just gives the high effects. smoking is also about the flavor, so you can kind of look at it as a trade off.

[carthagexl]

Originally Posted by godsthirdnut

tar content is way over hyped.

²Bioenergetics Institute, 1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, 80918, USA
Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic
Harm Reduction Journal 2005, 2:21 doi:10.1186/1477-7517-2-21

that study shows that the tar content does not relate to cancer or other health problems. rather heat causes many of the common smoker problems like bronchitis. it makes alot of since that tar is not linked to cancer, a well done steak has tar in it, just as chewing tobacco does, but one causes cancer and the other just tastes good.

i think if you really want to smoke healthy your best off getting a device which cools smoke before entering lungs.

Actually, that study just says cannabinoids are inhibitors of one specific enzyme that causes cells to become cancerous due to PAHs and nicotine is an activator of that same enzyme. It says nothing about heat and certainly doesn't say tars aren't a damagers of lung tissue.