The numbers on single solvent dewaxing? not good

[jd2]

plant waxes are a byproduct of terpene/cannabinoid synthesis and are probably shorter chain molecules. Similar but not the same to petroleum derived paraffin but no ones ever actually tested the wax to determine what it is anyway

Well hopefully we'll find out shortly. I'm trying to setup a lab test.

Long chain alkanes are long chain alkanes --- so we'll see.

 

[whiterasta]

plant waxes are a byproduct of terpene/cannabinoid synthesis and are probably shorter chain molecules. Similar but not the same to petroleum derived paraffin but no ones ever actually tested the wax to determine what it is anyway

Post 3 is the analysis of cannabis lipids and waxes, the N-alkanes and the C-40 to C-54 waxes are in not in any way chemically different than petroleum products. I reattached the document for you to look over.

 

[whiterasta]

Rasta,

You’re obviously a bright guy, with a lot to offer; albeit with an awful thin skin.

Perhaps what you perceive as people twisting your words might be their effort to find clarity in terms of the bigger picture.

Look at it this way; you’re the guy that got the conversation started.

Anyway moving on;

This is an older study, but it offers an interesting argument for more potency.

I’m betting a guy like you could figure out how to build a better mouse trap.

I apologize for losing my temper. No excuses I have a bad one. But I settle down quick

I would really like to discuss this more but in a cooler tone. I am gonna suck up my red and be a civil monkey.

Honestly am only trying to prevent a weak point down the road that could be attacked by the "other side".

Thank You JDee for your post I look forward to moving forward.
Yours
Jim

BTW I dropped using WR a while back my name is Jim Freire

 

[billy_big_bud!]

are the same issues involved with iso extraction?

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Well prune brain if you want to make it personal. Have you done the math on your question to know the answer yourself? I though not. So let me help you, say you have a yield of 100g resin and it is 12% wax that equals 12 grams of wax. if you have a 100g of flowers at say 20% potency you have 20grams of extract times the same 12 % =2.4g of wax in that 100g of flower or 2.4% wax. A .1 hit of herb is 2.4mg. A .1 of the extract = 12mg. or 5x the wax per hit.The very fact you compare flowers to a solvent extract shows an extreme ignorance of chemistry and thus you are irrelevant. I posted the math for others to understand the difference. So you can call me chicken little but it only makes you a dumbass as I have math and science backing up every damn thing here.

I thought the content by dry weight of the wax found on Cannabis resin vs plant and leaves and flowers was a different % by dry weight?
-SamS

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Sock , it's simple remove all the paraffin. Now you can ponder second solvent destearination

Sure it is, but it also removes terpenes is that really what you want?

Destearination is really just separation of high-melting glycerides, or stearine, which usually requires very slow cooling in order to form crystals that are large enough to be removed by filtration or centrifuging.
-SamS

 

[whiterasta]

I thought the content by dry weight of the wax found on Cannabis resin vs plant and leaves and flowers was a different % by dry weight?
-SamS

Not sure if this is what you are asking but yes the higher the trichome count the more wax as it is what forms the pellicle protective layer and the trichomes larger so the overall content is larger for flower than leaves. I see this as the wax load I remove from flower is much larger than from even sugar trim and possibly 4x what I get from general run( trim , shake with a few shade leaves). FWIW the highest amount of waxes I have removed via winterization was from several lbs of #2 mixed strain bubble hash. I also have seen a great variation in my filtrate between strains. The blue dream being grown in Southern Oregon is very waxy while most of the Bubba crosses much less so There is also a large variation in color between strains. Hope that was what you were looking for LMK if not

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

"

Expect to pay Wiley or Springerlink about 40 bucks if I am published.

I expect it will be posted here for free? If not by you then by someone. No one likes paying for something they can get for free.
-SamS

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Still at it? go hard or go home, right? W/E bong. you don't know enough to know what you don't know.You got nerve saying I am acting "dickish" but when kids like you don't get their way they lash out. If you had read the thread and could actually understand what you read you would have read to winterize with a second solvent. If asked I would outline the process but as yet have not been asked just railed at.
As for your ignorance about the polar terpenes , flavinoids and their action, well not many pups without a college chemistry background is gonna be able to get it, looks like your one.
You see son it does not matter how you twist it up there is a number that is used as a standard and it is what will be drug out when it is time to regulate.
Now I know I am being dickishly condescending to you at this point but son you can suck it for all I care. And when I say 'son' I mean stupid little prick

As a moderator here on IC I need to say name calling is uncalled for, both by you and your adversaries, as a scientist, I would expect better from you, may I give some advice to you? Ignore the taunts, stay above it or fall down to the level you seem to despise... You can take my advice or ignore it, the choice is yours.
-SamS

 

[whiterasta]

Sure it is, but it also removes terpenes is that really what you want?

Destearination is really just separation of high-melting glycerides, or stearine, which usually requires very slow cooling in order to form crystals that are large enough to be removed by filtration or centrifuging.
-SamS

The method for removal of the lipids to the point they will not cloud the liquor even to the freeze point of ethanol is called Lyotropic crystallization. it removes all highly non-polar lipids and with them the terpenes of similar polarity using a light alcohol.
A NP extract is purged fully and then dissolved in a light alcohol, I use ethanol for safety. The cannabinoids and terpenes of similar polarity are reserved in the alcohol and the lipid fraction form lyotropic crystals with the alcohol and precipitate when held at temps below 0c with max precipitation @ -40c. After filtration the liquor is fully stripped of the lipid fraction to a very high degree and potency is maximized for the extract

As to the terpenes that are lost. there are enough remaining terpenes to be a fully active product although it is not a monoterpene blast. Depending on the end use it one may use it as is or one may steam distill a small portion of the strain and re-add to taste. But I do believe that completley removing the lipids is well worth the change in taste. the finished resin using this technique has a subtle, sweet hashy taste that many like but more so it is very smooth on the lungs. That said I do not make vaporizable products for sale and only experiment and shulgin the end result before I will share with friends who like extracts.I am focused on alternative delivery systems like cyclodextrins, propylene glycol monolaurate transdermal systems, oligosaccharide syrups and....candy lol. I much prefer old world style pressed hash for my own smoking pleasure


Need to add that during the experiment in which I cooled the liquor in LN2 to freezing. at a very low temp ( too low for my gear) there was a some of resin fractions drop out, but even at the point of freezing the solution was still colored suggesting some fractions will not freeze out. When removed the hard resin melted back to a sticky liquid.with mild potency when vaporized. My guess is whatever fraction is falling out, possibly some of the sesquiterpenes/corotenoids due to the deep color have a H+ bond with the cannabinoids and carry them out. A sample of the liquor pulled at near freezing when purged was fully potent as the original liquor but with a mild phenolic taste suggesting largely the phenylterpenes were what was there. Have only done this once and would like to redo it and see if i get the same result.

 

[whiterasta]

are the same issues involved with iso extraction?

Iso is much less polar than ethanol so it will pull some of the waxy fraction that is removed in an ethanol wash as I outlined here some where. The waxes left from an iso pull are much less than a butane or other aliphatic.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

The method for removal of the lipids to the point they will not cloud the liquor even to the freeze point of ethanol is called Lyotropic crystallization. it removes all highly non-polar lipids and with them the terpenes of similar polarity using a light alcohol.
A NP extract is purged fully and then dissolved in a light alcohol, I use ethanol for safety. The cannabinoids and terpenes of similar polarity are reserved in the alcohol and the lipid fraction form lyotropic crystals with the alcohol and precipitate when held at temps below 0c with max precipitation @ -40c. After filtration the liquor is fully stripped of the lipid fraction to a very high degree and potency is maximized for the extract

As to the terpenes that are lost. there are enough remaining terpenes to be a fully active product although it is not a monoterpene blast. Depending on the end use it one may use it as is or one may steam distill a small portion of the strain and re-add to taste. But I do believe that completley removing the lipids is well worth the change in taste. the finished resin using this technique has a subtle, sweet hashy taste that many like but more so it is very smooth on the lungs. That said I do not make vaporizable products for sale and only experiment and shulgin the end result before I will share with friends who like extracts.I am focused on alternative delivery systems like cyclodextrins, propylene glycol monolaurate transdermal systems, oligosaccharide syrups and....candy lol. I much prefer old world style pressed hash for my own smoking pleasure

Have you smoked 99.9% resin head dry sift? I have smoke dabs that seem stronger in THC but THC alone is boring, terpenes are the key..
I never press my hash, taste is much better to me when it is unpressed.
As for enough terpenes, according to who? I guarantee that higher terpene levels found in dry sift give a stronger and better high, then water hash or extracts which are terpene poor.
No question. Have you ever vaped 100% pure THC alone, or any of the other Cannabinoids, with or without single terpenes added?
-SamS

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Not sure if this is what you are asking but yes the higher the trichome count the more wax as it is what forms the pellicle protective layer and the trichomes larger so the overall content is larger for flower than leaves. I see this as the wax load I remove from flower is much larger than from even sugar trim and possibly 4x what I get from general run( trim , shake with a few shade leaves). FWIW the highest amount of waxes I have removed via winterization was from several lbs of #2 mixed strain bubble hash. I also have seen a great variation in my filtrate between strains. The blue dream being grown in Southern Oregon is very waxy while most of the Bubba crosses much less so There is also a large variation in color between strains. Hope that was what you were looking for LMK if not

What I meant is if you extract 100 grams of dry sift hash and get 75 grams of THC (just an example) and then extract whatever amount of dry flowers it takes to get the same 75 grams of THC, you will have a lot more wax by weight. Same with leaves, to get the 75 grams of THC you will get way more wax. Cannabis leaves and flowers have wax besides the wax on the resin heads.
-SamS

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

How long have you been a member of the IAMC? Are you a member of Patients Out Of Time? What about the ICRS?
I have been a member of the IAMC and the ICRS since their inceptions. Good friends with Patients Out of Time.
-SamS

 

[Rickys bong]

I may have been a bit harsh on you but your methods for starting a discussion are a bit... umm... just odd.

There have been so many individuals who have tried to denounce extracts and particularly butane extracts in the past with arguments like "All butane has mercaptan in it no matter what" blah POISON blah blah WAaaahhh!... etc. etc. that your agenda seemed to be to demonize concentrates in general.

When someone who doesn't often post in the concentrates forum comes in with a particularly strong tone, sorry but zee pitchforks come out man.

That being said I'd like to see more objective analysis on the subject.
Most of us extract at as low a temperature as possible to minimize wax. What's optimal vs practical? What does that temp/dissolution curve look like?

What can be expected from single solvent dewax done in the freezer over several days? What are the results with ethanol vs. acetone? What is left after dual solvent processing?

A crowd funded open source mass spec. would also be nice...

Anyway, one of the aspects of your arguments against any level of wax in concentrates (which you really, really didn't outline) was that in natural cannabis or hash the presence of beneficial terpenoids such as azulene fully counteract the presence of parrafins.

While that may be 100% true, it is a ....bit of a stretch to make don't ya think?

Smoking hash with all the paraffin in it is OK but ingesting concentrate with (pick a number) percent paraffin in it is bad.

The number of people throwing up the "Are you fucking serious?" flag might be... well... significant.

Look, at this point I'm not trying to be harsh at all, but the research needed to even make a slightly believable case for that theory could take twenty years due to the number of variables involved. (and really, you might be right...)

Let me put it in another way: (in jest, redneck television commercial version)

"Folks, y'all know how we've told you smoking is bad? Like fer the past twenty years? Well.... gosh darn it, but we dang found a natural compound that makes it safe to smoke again! Smoke weed or tobacco with this added compound all yer want!"

That's how I see a lot of people perceiving such a notion. Before we start trying to get wax levels in concentrates into the parts per million level we need to look at a whole lot of other things beforehand. And if there is a case to reduce wax content to that level by regulation, consumer driven need or other market forces present it in such a way that the entire community can look at it objectively and make their own decisions on it.

We all would like to see more use of, and research into this amazing plant but the public is going to need a bit of time to absorb the notion of it.

TL;DR

meh, some of your points may have merit but there's a much bigger picture to consider okay?

RB

 

[jd2]

I apologize for losing my temper. No excuses I have a bad one. But I settle down quick

I would really like to discuss this more but in a cooler tone. I am gonna suck up my red and be a civil monkey.

Honestly am only trying to prevent a weak point down the road that could be attacked by the "other side".

Thank You JDee for your post I look forward to moving forward.
Yours
Jim

BTW I dropped using WR a while back my name is Jim Freire

Okay some things are starting to click here; the sock puppet comment specifically --- I’m "jd2",(only because jd was already taken), I am not "jdee". I started to wonder if that’s what you were poking at when jdee posted right behind me the other day.

I don’t know anybody here. I have a professional career, and don’t feel comfortable stating much about my personal life on this forum.

I almost called you “Jimmy”, but decided not to after your response re one of the other guys who did. So I take it, Jim is okay?

I really do think you missed judged where people were coming from in response to your open statement.

In a forum like this, it’s difficult to fully judge “intent” just based on text which is void of emotional expression. Your title didn’t help much.

Simply put, and I hope it’s clear to you now; people aren’t reacting to a discussion on process appropriateness in terms of improving product, as much as to the apparent hypocriticalness because of the way you started the discussion, subject title and you’re apparent inability to understand what people were reacting to.

In retrospect it’s all kind of silly; in face to face discussions the stupid stuff gets solved a lot easier. (well sometimes)

 

[jd2]

...difficult to fully judge “intent” just based on text which is void of emotional expression...

That should read, ..."facial emotional expression" ... obviously there was quite a bit of emotion demonstrate.

regards

 

[KiefSweat]

Post 3 is the analysis of cannabis lipids and waxes, the N-alkanes and the C-40 to C-54 waxes are in not in any way chemically different than petroleum products. I reattached the document for you to look over.

Thats a study on hemp bast fibers, we are extracting flowers for resin. What about the waxes similar to these under c40

http://lipidlibrary.aocs.org/Lipids/waxes/index.htm
Table 1. The major constituents of plant leaf waxes.

n-Alkanes CH3(CH2)xCH3 21 to 35C - odd numbered Alkyl esters CH3(CH2)xCOO(CH2)yCH3 34 to 62C - even numbered Fatty acids CH3(CH2)xCOOH 16 to 32C - even numbered Fatty alcohols (primary) CH3(CH2)yCH2OH 22 to 32C - even numbered Fatty aldehydes CH3(CH2)yCHO 22 to 32C - even numbered Ketones CH3(CH2)xCO(CH2)yCH3 23 to 33C - odd numbered Fatty alcohols (secondary) CH3(CH2)xCHOH (CH2)yCH3 23 to 33C - odd numbered β-Diketones CH3(CH2)xCOCH2CO(CH2)yCH3 27 to 33C - odd numbered Triterpenols Sterols, α-amyrin, β-amyrin, uvaol, lupeol, erythrodiol Triterpenoid acids Ursolic acid, oleanolic acid, etc

 

[whiterasta]

What I meant is if you extract 100 grams of dry sift hash and get 75 grams of THC (just an example) and then extract whatever amount of dry flowers it takes to get the same 75 grams of THC, you will have a lot more wax by weight. Same with leaves, to get the 75 grams of THC you will get way more wax. Cannabis leaves and flowers have wax besides the wax on the resin heads.
-SamS

I think it is apples and oranges to compare a mechanical separation and a chemical one. They remove completely different fractions. And if you are getting epicuticular waxes in the dry sift in addition to the trichome pellicle, over agitation?

 

[whiterasta]

How long have you been a member of the IAMC? Are you a member of Patients Out Of Time? What about the ICRS?
I have been a member of the IAMC and the ICRS since their inceptions. Good friends with Patients Out of Time.
-SamS

Member of the IACM since 2002. Member of the AACM since inception and now member of the joined AAMC and SCC . I started the discussion in 2002 which led to the proposal of a endocannabinoid deficiency (CECD) driving increased cannabis use in western societies.