Higher Standards, Part 2: The Science

If you read the first post in our ‘Higher Standards’ series, you already know that combustion is a big problem. When you light a joint, you're not just inhaling cannabis, you're inhaling the chemical byproducts of burning organic matter at extremely high temperatures. The question we hadn't answered yet was: how much does this actually matter?

PAX Labs recently completed a controlled study comparing the aerosol produced by a dry herb vaporizer against the smoke produced by combusted cannabis joints. The goal was straightforward: using the same flower, the same puffing conditions, and rigorous lab methodology, what's actually the difference between smoking and vaporizing at a chemical level?

Inside the Lab

To understand what the research found, it helps to understand how it was conducted. We spoke with researchers Richard Rucker, PhD and Derek Shiokari about the methodology, because the way a study is designed matters as much as what it finds.

Q: How did you compare smoke and vapor in the lab?

"The team used a controlled smoking and aerosol collection setup designed to compare the two as directly as possible. The joint or vaporizer was connected to a machine under standardized puffing conditions. Emissions passed first through a filter that captured particulate matter, then through a cryogenic solvent trap chilled to very low temperatures to capture volatile compounds in the gas phase. Researchers then combined and analyzed those samples to study the overall chemical makeup, including cannabinoids, terpenes, aldehydes, VOCs, SVOCs, and other thermal degradants."

Q: Why was the methodology important?

"What makes this work especially meaningful is that it aimed to compare smoke and vapor using the same cannabis material and standardized conditions. That makes it a much more direct apples-to-apples comparison than simply looking across unrelated studies. Instead of comparing different products, materials, or testing methods, the researchers were able to isolate the difference between combustion and vaporization more clearly."

Q: What did the study find?

"The study confirmed substantial reductions in many harmful compounds in vaporizer emissions compared with joint smoke. These were not subtle differences. The researchers saw meaningful decreases across classic combustion-related compounds associated with harm, in some cases around 95% lower in vapor relative to smoke."

Q: What was most surprising about the results?

"The extent of the reduction was notable, but what also stood out was how physically different smoke and vapor appeared in the lab. Seeing a 95% reduction in a data table is one thing; seeing the difference in the filters, collection materials, and overall emissions made the contrast much more tangible. It underscored that the difference between combustion and aerosolization is not just theoretical—it is measurable and visible."

Q: Is there one example that really helps bring the findings to life?

"Yes: acetaldehyde. It is a harmful byproduct that also comes up in public health discussions around alcohol-related cancer risk, and it is produced through combustion as well. In this research, acetaldehyde levels in smoke were described as roughly two orders of magnitude higher than in vaporizer aerosol. That makes it a powerful example of how burning cannabis can expose consumers to compounds they may not realize they are inhaling."

Q: Why is acetaldehyde such an interesting proof point?

"Because it connects this conversation to a broader consumer understanding of health tradeoffs. People increasingly understand that products we consume can create harmful byproducts, even if they are culturally normalized. Acetaldehyde is a good example of a compound that helps make the risks of combustion feel more concrete and less abstract. Instead of speaking generally about 'toxins,' it gives people a specific example of what can be created when cannabis is burned rather than vaporized."

What This Research Means

The numbers tell a clear story. Across sixteen measured compounds including benzene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde, vaporizer aerosol showed more than 95% fewer harmful combustion byproducts than joint smoke. And perhaps most strikingly, joint smoke contained approximately 189 distinct compounds detected in lab analysis, compared to far fewer in vaporizer aerosol, which was predominantly cannabinoids and terpenes (the things you actually want).

This isn't a theoretical argument for vaporization, it's a measurable, visible, chemically documented difference between two ways of consuming the same flower.

In the next post in our ‘Higher Standards’ series, we'll get into what all of this means for you and for the future of how cannabis gets consumed.

To go deeper, read more at pax.com/science.