The article A Comparison of Mainstream and Sidestream Marijuana and Tobacco Cigarette Smoke Produced under Two Machine Smoking Conditions examines the amount of chemicals released in mainstream and sidestream smoke from tobacco and marijuana. This goal was achieved by using smoking machines set at predetermined smoking conditions to promote the emission of the compounds of interest. Also, due to the meticulous planning and methods standardizations the researchers were able to collect the needed data to learn more about marijuana’s smoke chemistry compared to that of tobacco.
Introduction The objective of this study was to compare the types of chemicals and chemical concentrations emitted from tobacco and marijuana when being directly inhaled versus just burning. As the popularity of marijuana use increases there is also an increasing need to know more about its smoke chemistry and how the chemicals released affect the human body. When discussing smoke chemistry it is important to note there is various forms of smoke and they can emit different chemicals or chemical concentrations.
This particular experiment focuses on the similarities and differences of the chemicals found in mainstream and sidestream smoke only produced from tobacco and marijuana. Even though, understanding marijuana’s smoke chemistry was the primary focus tobacco played an equally important role because it served as a comparison tool. Tobacco was the ideal counterpart due to the extensive amount of research it’s underwent and the fact scientist can now identity over 4000 chemicals in its makeup (Moir).
It can also be directly correlated to adverse health effects such as cancer or respiratory diseases, yet the same cannot be said of marijuana despite them sharing similar carcinogens when smoked (Moir). Which was not expected outcome and highlighted the need to come up with a standardize method in order to correctly compare the two. Researchers achieved this goal by standardizing the cigarette preparation, combustion and smoke collection, but it wasn’t without ingenuity because marijuana is smoked differently than tobacco.
As a remedy to this dilemma two machines were used to generate the desired smoking conditions narrowing the gap of possible inconsistencies (Moir). When reviewing the information found in the introductory passage the authors stayed true to the title by mostly providing relevant information about the experiment itself. However, it would have been more helpful if they would’ve defined the difference between mainstream and sidestream smoke to make it clear exactly what type of conditions were created by the machines.
Overall, the structure and vocabulary chosen for this section provided an easier understanding of the material presented due to its conciseness. Materials and Methods This experiment did not have a long materials and methods section, but it did take a lot of planning in order to execute correctly. First, the researchers fulfilled its need to take a standardized approach by implementing quality control measures for both marijuana and tobacco. There was stricter control measures when it came to marijuana and all plants tested during the duration of the experiment came from the same harvest (Moir).
As for tobacco, the researchers found it appropriate to just use a commercial brand of finely cut tobacco instead of having it grown. Next, the substances underwent a two day heat treatment before they was put into a cigarette rolling device that contained papers from the company Players and no filters were added (Moir). After the rolling process, to ensure the freshness of the products both the tobacco and marijuana was put into plastic bags until they were officially ready to be smoked.
In order to smoke the cigarettes the machines Borgwaldt 20 port rotary smoking machine and Cerulean 20 port linear smoking machine were used under two different preset standard conditions (Moir). The standard conditions of the machines were based upon the fact marijuana and tobacco are not usually smoked the same way. For tobacco, the machines was set to take 35 ml puffs for 2 seconds for a total duration of one minute. Marijuana’s standard conditions were 70 ml puffs for 2 seconds in 30 second intervals opposed to a continuous duration (Moir).
The researchers mention that these conditions are considered extreme and does not accurately reflect the smoking behaviors of an actually person. To keep up with the theme of consistency the tobacco and marijuana both underwent each type of smoking condition before the mainstream and sidestream smoke was collected for analysis. Additionally, marijuana had to undergo a verification test to make sure the methods chosen were able to accurately measure and identify the chemicals needed to compare the two (Moir).
Luckily, for the researchers on this project marijuana passed the verification test and no alternative methods were needed to collect the most accurate data. The short duration of this section comes off as misleading and can prompt readers to believe that key information was left out. However, the authors did a good job discussing what methods were used and why that approach was chosen over other possible options. It can be concluded that if someone wanted to duplicate this experiment it would be possible to do from the article’s material and methods section alone.
However, the concluding paragraph can be considered overwhelming due to its wordiness and could stand to be revised to convey a clearer message to readers. Results and Conclusion After the predetermined amount of thirty cigarettes of each was put into the smoke machines the scientist were able to estimate the total particulate matter and puff count based on mass per cigarette (Moir). Thanks to the extreme smoking conditions associated with marijuana there was an increase in the amount of TPM that could be studied.
The experiment produced surprising results when comparing the chemicals coming from tobacco and marijuana’s mainstream and sidestream smoke. Although, there is the mention of possible cross-contamination when the experiment was preformed because a minute amount of marijuana showed signs of containing nicotine (Moir). This revelation could’ve been problematic but the contamination was determined to be 0. 2 percent and had no bearing on the compounds undergoing analyses (Moir).
Beyond the obvious compounds expected to be emitted by each substance the greatest difference was seen in ammonia production between the two. It was discovered that marijuana produces levels of ammonia 20 times more than tobacco cigarettes in mainstream smoke and 3 times more in sidestream smoke (Moir). Though, this information is not completely conclusive because it was speculated that the marijuana plants grown contained more nitrate than the tobacco product bought.
Combustion properties of both plants were taken into account as well and served as another hypothesis of why more ammonia was seen in marijuana. As for other compounds found in higher concentrations in marijuana NO, NOx, and Hydrogen cyanide (HCN) was mentioned but still possibly only occurred due to how the plant was cultivated (Moir). Tobacco smoke on the other hand produced expected results detailing traces of arsenic and lead caused by the inclusion of nicotine. Another interesting find for the researchers was that tobacco smoke has a more acidic pH of 5. compared to that of marijuana with a pH of 7. 5 (Moir). These values further confirmed the hypothesis that the increased amount of nitrate in the fertilizer was the culprit behind the results collected. In the end, the experiment proved to be somewhat successful but a better approach needs to be discovered based on the results. As for other improvements to be considered is graph placement. The placement of the graphs were a poor choice and would’ve been more helpful if they were near the information they related to.
Other than those minor critiques the results were presented in an organized manner that was easy to follow and understand. Conclusion In summary, the article A Comparison of Mainstream and Sidestream Marijuana and Tobacco Cigarette Smoke Produced under Two Machine Smoking Conditions was an intriguing read for its short length. It is too still relevant regarding the potential hazards of smoking marijuana and the best way to approach studying them in today’s society. The authors excelled at only mentioning key concepts, terms and supporting information without losing the focus of the overall paper.
This was especially demonstrated when they provided quick background information on the use of tobacco and marijuana and how that lead to the need to go through with the study. Furthermore, the information was written with an appreciated simplicity and can be read by most people with ease and understanding. All details and information were presented in what appeared to be sequentially order and rank of relevance to convey the bigger picture. However, the experiment and article is not completely without error which was expected.
One of the most evident mishaps in this experiment was the cross-contamination that occurred when running the experiment. There needs to be a more sterilized approach so that the data presented can be taken as facts instead of speculations of what is occurring during tobacco and marijuana combustion. Moreover, the graphs and tables presented could have had better positioning creating a better understanding of what was seen during the experiment. Overall, the article is worth suggesting to others to read and the minor flaws found do not compromise the integrity of the paper and its contents.
