[Ringodoggie]

This is a topic that I have longed to research and I guess now is as good a time as any. I'll be posting whatever research or information that I find here. And, I would appreciate links to any information you may have to support the thread.

No offense, but I really don't want to hear a lot of opinions. I read a zillion already from people who have used filters or think they know what they are saying or that they do or do not get high using filters. Looking for links to facts and/or research papers.

I'm really more interested in determining the efficiency of standard cotton filters as the ones produced and sold by companies like RAW. And, standard cigarette filters that you find on the pre-made tubes that people use to 'inject' their own cigarettes. These are usually made from a Cellulose Acetate (paper/plastic).

The first thing to determine, and this has been more difficult to find data on than I ever imagined, is EXACTLY what is in the smoke.

OK, it's fire burning leaf so..... a giant part of the smoke is going to simply be carbon.

But, here come the questions... do other molecules attach themselves to the carbon? I don't think that's possible. So, each molecule is going through the filter individually.... yes?

If so, determining the size of the other particles is next.

And, the filtering capabilities of the 2 different filters. Are these rated in microns?

There's quite a bit of reading on cigarettes and cigarette filters but not much on cannabis smoke and filters.

The manufacturer's back in the 60's tried everything. They did find that they can filter out a large part of the bad but when they did, they also realized that they filtered out the taste (terps?). So, they had to find a happy medium.

OMG!!! Kent, with the micronite filter. What a great idea this was. They put tiny particles of asbestos in the filter to 'cool' the smoke. A great idea, in that it would definitely cool down the smoke without filtering out taste but... well, asbestos. LMAO

So, task one. Determine EXACTLY what is in cannabis smoke. And, how large each particle is.

Then, determine the specs on the filters.

Should be a piece of cake. LOL

Now, let me toss out a little hypothetical theory....

Limonene is a HUGE particle. a-Pinene is TINY. Through selective filtering, can I change the taste of the same cannabis by using different filters?

How about this one, THC is HUGE, CBD is tiny... again, filter out the THC for CBD users. How about digital electronic filters that sort, and separate the different compounds in cannabis to tailor it to the individual user.

Or, top of the heap...... a safe cigarette. There's already talk about developing a 'safe' cigarette using cannabis. IMO, this would be the single biggest money maker in the the entire cannabis wheel.

Add all this to the fact that I smoke joints... about 15 to 20 a day. This effort will hit very close to home if I can get some answers.

Thanks for reading and TIA for the contributions.

[Ringodoggie]

https://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/...stionID=000636

Again, mostly carbon...


Comparison runs using combusted [burned] cannabis presented a strikingly different picture... Review data from the gaseous headspace detected 111 tentatively identified compounds, including THC and CBN. Included were five known PAHs [polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons]. Cannabinoids represented only 12% of the inferred recovered mass; the remaining 88% consisted of extraneous products of combustion."

[Ringodoggie]

Now, we're talkin'...

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/tx700275p

[mack 10]

cool thread, didn't know the pre rolled cones had a diff filter.
not that I use them but wow, plastic..
As for asbestos.. well...

Very interesting.

[Ringodoggie]

This one would be nice if anyone can get the entire paper...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1666924

[Ringodoggie]

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/tx700275p

[Ringodoggie]

This is not totally relevant but I found it interesting.

So, even though both tobacco and pot smoke both contain carcinogens, the other stuff in tobacco activates the carcinogens while the other stuff in pot, actually works to NOT activate it. Pretty neat plant, this cannabis thing. LOL

Smoke from tobacco and cannabis contains many of the same carcinogens and tumor promoters [20,21]. However, cannabis and tobacco have additional pharmacological activities, both receptor-dependent and independent, that result in different biological endpoints. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons found in smoke are pro-carcinogens that are converted to carcinogens by the enzymatic activity of the cytochrome P4501A1 oxidase protein (CYP1A1 gene product). Benzo [a] pyrene is converted to its carcinogenic metabolite diol epoxide, which binds to specific hyper-mutable nucleotide sequences in the K-ras oncogene and p53 tumor suppressor [22]. Recent work by Roth et al. demonstrates that THC treatment of murine hepatoma cells caused a dose dependent increase in CYP1A1 gene transcription, while at the same time directly inhibiting the enzymatic activity of the gene product [23]. Thus, despite potentially higher levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons found in cannabis smoke compared to tobacco smoke (dependent on what part of the plant is smoked), the THC present in cannabis smoke should exert a protective effect against pro-carcinogens that require activation. In contrast, nicotine activates some CYP1A1 activities, thus potentially increasing the carcinogenic effects of tobacco smoke [24].

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1277837/

[Ringodoggie]

A CORESTA Unit is defined as:
"the volumetric flow rate of air (cm3 min-1)
passing through a 1 cm2 sample of substrate
at an applied pressure difference of 1 kPa"



Paper Normal or Porous (6000 to 24000 CU)

[Douglas.Curtis]

Are you talking about what's in "Cannabis" smoke, or what's in *MOST* cannabis smoke? What's the difference? My cannabis is as close to "completely cannabis" as I can possibly get it. No dust, extra nutes, pollen, hair, dander, bug feces, bits of bugs or anything in or on it. Grow style and HEPA filters go a looong way toward the creation of clean cannabis.

The smoke from clean cannabis will be *significantly* less toxic than what people generally call "Cannabis" these days. The smoke is soft, cool in temperature, packed full of flavor and aroma and doesn't irritate your lungs. (Unless it has a high level of irritant terpenes in the profile) And that's fresh dried. With a cure it gets even better.

You can literally smoke it all day, every day, for months and not get even the tiniest smoker's cough. It's very useful for people who are having asthma attacks. A filter would simply detract from the experience.

So... any cannabis, or specifically *clean* cannabis smoke? Huge difference.

[Ringodoggie]

I am not in a legal state so the only pot I have is what I grow. And, I know what is in it. I guess I would call it clean. I don't use pesticides. I use mostly organic nutes (but not all). I'm sure there's a certain amount of dust, dog hair and household pollutants in it.

Would that make it dirty? Are you talking clean room clean?

Would it really make that much difference? I'm sure pesticides would but, the other stuff would be in such small amounts as not to tip the scales any one way or the other.

Yes?

I was reading about the supply of pot they used in some of the tests of tobacco vs pot and they didn't mention anything about 'clean' as much as they did the proper and common storage and preparation of both substances. (although some of the results in these papers showed clear presence of pesticides)

Additionally, everything I have read so far seems to focused specifically on the chemical analytes routinely measured in tobacco smoke and ignoring the content of THC, CBD, etc that's in the smoke.

A frustrating task to say the least.LOL