SpaceshipNelson
Active member
Thank you GW!! :-D
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
for sure, A#1!
KonradZuse
Active member
So it's looking like BHO without removing shit is a cause for concern?
well, if 1/1,200,000,000 of the TWA is too much for you, then yes, but as its a bit less than a 1 billionth of the permissible exposure levels is all that is there, then most of us will probably consider it completely negligible. i know graywolfs example was just one thing in there, but i believe he picked something of the nasties near the top in amounts and badness to demonstrate with.
SpaceshipNelson
Active member
I'd say, if you live(for example) in the greater Los Angles basin, your air quality is of much more concern. . . . than something of this microtude*
*opposite of magnitude.. (given proper cleansing of your final product)
*opposite of magnitude.. (given proper cleansing of your final product)
KonradZuse
Active member
I want GW to test reclaim, because I know people who vape it/use it for edibles.
I'm actually trying to find a cannabis lab who can perform the level of analysis that Specialty Analytical can on aromatic hydrocarbons in the parts per billionth and trillionth levels, or talk SA into doing cannabis, which they have thus far declined.
UNREGISTRD
Active member
THANK YOU GW!!..
LUV to see the Power is actually better than NEwport! and its half the price!!
LUV to see the Power is actually better than NEwport! and its half the price!!
Specialty Analytical now seems to be handling some cannabis testing,
"Mystery Oil
4 hours ago via mobile
Specialty Analytical received a "large batch of immediate turn around work" and had to push back the quantitative MO and BHO analysis, as well as the canned lighter refill tests.
Marty, the lead chemist, apologized for the delay and stated that they hoped to have the quantitative analysis complete by Friday. No promises, but that means we may have more info next week. Thank you for your continued patience."
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mystery-Oil/191952837642348
I was hoping this was going to be over as far as I was concerned, today. They're testing the total ppm of residue per can using a different method as a double check, makes no real difference the ppms are already known to be extremely low, just closure, at least at my level.
UNREGISTRD
Active member
So a different lab has the same name guy working there?? Sounds a bit weird to me.. Or is it the same lab testing cannabis Know?
It's, "the same lab testing cannabis Know."
It is the same lab. Up to this point, they haven't tested cannabis, but now will. The importance of this, is that they have way more toys than anyone in the cannabis testing business locally. Not only gas chromaographs with mass spectrometers, but HPLC's, etc.
They are also already DEQ certified for testing for things like pesticides
I've noted that some of the GC test results from other local cannabis labs, are not right and I don't need a GC to know that. One tested THC in a Holy Shit sample as 80+%, and the total cannabis essential oil in the potion was only 62%, which our GC suggested is at best in the low 90% to start with.
I also get strange readings on our own GC often enough to not trust single runs, and for important stuff, it is good to have solid backup.
Well the Colibri and Ronson samples arrived, and were eye openers. The Colibri measured 15 ppm residuals and the Ronson 224 ppm. I expected them both to be lower, especially at their prices.
They are also already DEQ certified for testing for things like pesticides
I've noted that some of the GC test results from other local cannabis labs, are not right and I don't need a GC to know that. One tested THC in a Holy Shit sample as 80+%, and the total cannabis essential oil in the potion was only 62%, which our GC suggested is at best in the low 90% to start with.
I also get strange readings on our own GC often enough to not trust single runs, and for important stuff, it is good to have solid backup.
Well the Colibri and Ronson samples arrived, and were eye openers. The Colibri measured 15 ppm residuals and the Ronson 224 ppm. I expected them both to be lower, especially at their prices.
Explain please, PPM of the weight of liquid gas?
-----------------
I apologize for inattention, I found the answer in post #174
Last edited:
More testing results,
Vector Newport
mg/can mg/can
42.6 183
81.4 316
16.8 81.7
132 510
77.1 109
216 99.2
31.2 38.4
446 74.9
214 218
189 104
64 266
319 403
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...bUNNRkJVdnAzcm5GVHF5cXdqLVE&usp=sharing#gid=0
"Mystery Oil shared a link.
2 hours ago
Lab Update: Specialty Analytical has completed the "open blast" method of MO collection from Vector and Newport. They ran 12 cans of each brand and the results in mg/can are posted below. The reason for this test is the discrepancy between our findings (high ppm/can) and Skunkpharm's findings (low ppm/can). The lab's results with the "open blast" method of collection is much closer to our own findings; however, the scary thing is that they collected more MO than us. And what is even more disconcerting is the range in residual contaminants from can to can. As high as 446mg and as low as 16.8mg in a can of Vector; and as high as 510mg and as low as 38.4mg for Newport. This means that small run BHO "blasters" are potentially getting loaded with MO. Imagine a single can blast with 6grams of BHO and .510grams of MO in it.
More quantitative results on the MS analysis of the MO and BHO to follow. Marty stated in an email this morning that they " are still working on finalizing a protocol for minimizing matrix effects." And that they are "developing a standard operating procedure that should allow the analysis consistently with good analytical results, and want to validate the method properly before completing the analysis."
We will update as soon as we hear more. Thank you for sharing!"
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mystery-Oil/191952837642348
Vector Newport
mg/can mg/can
42.6 183
81.4 316
16.8 81.7
132 510
77.1 109
216 99.2
31.2 38.4
446 74.9
214 218
189 104
64 266
319 403
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...bUNNRkJVdnAzcm5GVHF5cXdqLVE&usp=sharing#gid=0
"Mystery Oil shared a link.
2 hours ago
Lab Update: Specialty Analytical has completed the "open blast" method of MO collection from Vector and Newport. They ran 12 cans of each brand and the results in mg/can are posted below. The reason for this test is the discrepancy between our findings (high ppm/can) and Skunkpharm's findings (low ppm/can). The lab's results with the "open blast" method of collection is much closer to our own findings; however, the scary thing is that they collected more MO than us. And what is even more disconcerting is the range in residual contaminants from can to can. As high as 446mg and as low as 16.8mg in a can of Vector; and as high as 510mg and as low as 38.4mg for Newport. This means that small run BHO "blasters" are potentially getting loaded with MO. Imagine a single can blast with 6grams of BHO and .510grams of MO in it.
More quantitative results on the MS analysis of the MO and BHO to follow. Marty stated in an email this morning that they " are still working on finalizing a protocol for minimizing matrix effects." And that they are "developing a standard operating procedure that should allow the analysis consistently with good analytical results, and want to validate the method properly before completing the analysis."
We will update as soon as we hear more. Thank you for sharing!"
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mystery-Oil/191952837642348
Generic, one gallon, ziplock bag with the ziplock area cut off. I shot a can of Vector into a quart Mason jar, and then poured the butane into the bag resting in my evaporating dish, which sits on a Flex Watt heat mat. The bag didn't leak, but I'd still back it up with a dish if I do this again. After boil off I vacuum purged the bag.
One can of Vector butane lighter refill contains about 0.03g of residue.
If you want something done right, do it yourself.
Anyone else have the time to do this test and report back?
One can of Vector butane lighter refill contains about 0.03g of residue.
If you want something done right, do it yourself.
Anyone else have the time to do this test and report back?
Attachments
I've been trying unsuccessfully to make contact with Marty for the last three days, to get his latest test results. Now that I've delivered the Mk V, I will stay more on top of it.
I too am interested in the difference in their results.
I did of course note a difference between Specialty Analytical's results, and my own, but attributed it to the inaccuracies of weighing my heavy cold trap.
I haven't seen their procedures, but when I used a cold trap, I injected the butane directly into it and pumped off only the vapors that were under pressure at 85F. I don't see how letting it evaporate off in the open would change that, as that is all that would leave in either case.
More after I find out what is going on, so that I'm not guessing.
I too am interested in the difference in their results.
I did of course note a difference between Specialty Analytical's results, and my own, but attributed it to the inaccuracies of weighing my heavy cold trap.
I haven't seen their procedures, but when I used a cold trap, I injected the butane directly into it and pumped off only the vapors that were under pressure at 85F. I don't see how letting it evaporate off in the open would change that, as that is all that would leave in either case.
More after I find out what is going on, so that I'm not guessing.
Two questions?
The first is what is going on with mystery oil testing and the second is what is going on with the reporting:
I was able to corner Marty, and he relayed the following:
The method used for the MO test was exactly the same as he used for my previous tests, not open blasting as stated by MO.
He also said that he hasn't said that he doesn't understand the difference in test results.
He was unable to share the specific results, for the same reason that he didn't share my results with MO. Specifically because MO hasn't given him permission to share with others and it would be unethical to do so without permission.
As you may recall I made a specific point to release my test results to the public, so perhaps MO will come around and I can confirm what he has posted and I can do the math for you.
Marty speaking in general terms said that the tests revealed pretty much the same thing the other tests did, except this time the lot size was larger and they saw some huge individual can deviations.
Those deviations represent over 3 standard deviations from the mean, median, and mode, within the Vector and Newport brands.
That huge deviation, means that the process is running out of control. Mostly it runs within specification, with some huge occasional swings.
Clearly it is not good and is unsettling if the butane manufacturers are not in control, so that the results are scattered.
The place to take that certified information is to two more labs for verification, followed by the manufacturers, an attorney, and to the truth in labeling folks.
No need for fanfaronade or hoopla, with their jugulars exposed.
I will ask Marty to send out samples to confirming labs and get him the samples of Airgas and Matheson n-butane.
In the interim, we will continue to remove the oil from our butane by vacuum distilling it through a Terpenator and I sent Marty a link to the MO Facebook page, so we can all share.
The first is what is going on with mystery oil testing and the second is what is going on with the reporting:
I was able to corner Marty, and he relayed the following:
The method used for the MO test was exactly the same as he used for my previous tests, not open blasting as stated by MO.
He also said that he hasn't said that he doesn't understand the difference in test results.
He was unable to share the specific results, for the same reason that he didn't share my results with MO. Specifically because MO hasn't given him permission to share with others and it would be unethical to do so without permission.
As you may recall I made a specific point to release my test results to the public, so perhaps MO will come around and I can confirm what he has posted and I can do the math for you.
Marty speaking in general terms said that the tests revealed pretty much the same thing the other tests did, except this time the lot size was larger and they saw some huge individual can deviations.
Those deviations represent over 3 standard deviations from the mean, median, and mode, within the Vector and Newport brands.
That huge deviation, means that the process is running out of control. Mostly it runs within specification, with some huge occasional swings.
Clearly it is not good and is unsettling if the butane manufacturers are not in control, so that the results are scattered.
The place to take that certified information is to two more labs for verification, followed by the manufacturers, an attorney, and to the truth in labeling folks.
No need for fanfaronade or hoopla, with their jugulars exposed.
I will ask Marty to send out samples to confirming labs and get him the samples of Airgas and Matheson n-butane.
In the interim, we will continue to remove the oil from our butane by vacuum distilling it through a Terpenator and I sent Marty a link to the MO Facebook page, so we can all share.
