Getting the green and waxes out afterwards

  • Thread starter Graywolf
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
Graywolf

Graywolf

1,597
263
ublic opinion appears to be split on the salubriousness of including chlorophyll and other plant water solubles in our extracted oils, so this is written not to stir controversy, but specifically for those of ya'll whom do not wish ingredients other than cannabis in your extracts.

Those whom wish to preserve those ingredients are invited to please ignore this posting, rather that debating whether it is a mistake or even a crime against sweet Mary's natural wholeness.

In a nutshell, many of those non cannabinoid ingredients came along for the ride because there was water present and they are water soluble. It is easier to use a process that minimizes their extraction in the first place, but what if that is a moot point, because you already have an extraction with excessive non-active ingredients and wish to remove them?

Next best to a process that doesn't pick up many water soluble ingredients, is one to take them out, so let's talk about a couple processes that we use at skunk pharm:

If the extraction just needs final polishing, we may simply re-dissolve it in 190 proof (~95.5% azeotropic) ethanol and stick it in the freezer overnight at 0F, for the waxes to coagulate and the excess water solubles to precipitate out.

We then carefully decant and filter the alcohol mixture, to remove the coagulated waxes, as well as the chlorophyll, and plant alkaloids which precipitated out as sludge in the bottom of the container.

We routinely use this step to clean up extractions using Isopropyl or Methanol, because they are far more aggressive than ethanol in stripping everything, and much of the non active ingredients fall out when re-dissolved in hot ethanol and subjected to the above step.

It also works well to remove the minor water solubles picked up in a butane extraction, but has its limitations because alcohol is polar and 190 proof is still almost 5% water.

As far as filtering, I prefer a 0.45 micron or a 0.2 micron syringe filter, but got good results with a coffee filter until Joe turned us on to syringe filters. We have picked both the syringes and filters up off of E-bay, as well as from our local scientific supply store.

Now, if we really need to clean up an extraction, we have had good results by re-dissolving the oil in a hot highly non-polar solvent such as hexane and repeatedly washing the solution with saturated salt water until it is mint quality.

You can even skip the re-dissolve step, by just mixing the alcohol extraction with the highly non-polar solvent before evaporating it off, and the alcohol will leave with the first water wash, after the non-polar solvent has stolen away sweet Mary's succulent and titillating charms.

Salt water washing is easy, easier with a separatory funnel, but you can even do it with a few gallon Ziploc bags in pinch, or any number of ways to siphon off, blow off, etc., to achieve that purpose.

To use a Ziploc bag, simply hang by one corner, and clip off the lower corner to drain, pinching to control flow and shut off point.

The way we do it is to start out by making four or five liters of saturated salt water in glass (or ceramic) containers, by mixing sodium chloride (table salt) in hot tap water with a hand mixer until no more will dissolve. We buy the salt cheap by the bag, using salt intended for water softener use.

The magic trick is that because the saturated salt water readily accepts the alcohol, but no longer has any room for the water solubles due to its salt saturation, they fall out of solution and are filtered off in bottom sludge or left stuck to the sides of the funnel.

The rest of the magic is just as predictable when you mix the polar solvent holding sweet Mary's charms and the lustful non-polar solvent that covets them deeply, given that because of her own polarity, sweet fickle Mary herself lusts after the new suitor, so participates willingly and with a passion.

The alcohol and water are left giggling like idiots and the sludge is probably left puzzled.

To perform the salt water wash of the hexane mixture, simply pour the salt water and hexane into the separatory funnel together in about equal parts and shake well, before allowing the mixture to separate out into layers.

After carefully bleeding off the bottom layer of water, alcohol, and sludge, we replace the salt water that we bled off and shake up the mixture again to mix well. After bleeding that salt water, et al, again, and repeating the procedure several times, the hexane mixture becomes pristine and bell clear.

At that point we stop washing and evaporate off the hexane. While we use HPLC grade hexane from the local science store, naphtha will also work for this process.

To get rid of the hexane, we first evaporating off the visible liquid hexane, and then add 190 proof ethanol to the extracted oil and boil that off. We repeat that procedure several times, until there is no discernible taste or odor of hexane left.

That means that the remaining hexane is below about 30 ppm, which is (~) our sensory threshold perception level. What does that mean as far as our health means?

For starters, because it is a simple Alkane and relatively non toxic, hexane is used extensively in food extraction, but should not be viewed as being as salubrious as mother's milk.

The first clue of course, is that it doesn't come in nearly as attractive a container, and the second is the MSDS information which tells us, that in excess, N-Hexane attacks our nervous system.

OH MAHGAWD, but do check out at what levels this is so and note that oxygen in a breathing atmosphere greater than 75% pure will kill us dead! Poison is in the dosage, so leave us please keep N-Hexane's potential nature in perspective, which includes never losing sight of it!!!!!!

Despite our worst terrors, a review of the hexane Material Safety Data Sheet shows that the oral rat LD50: is relatively high at 25000 mg/kg. At that rate it would take about 4.5 pounds to kill 50% of a population of 180 lb men.

Acute toxicity of the gas (LC50 rat): was 48000 ppm using 4 hours exposure data and the Threshold Limit Value for an 8 hour weighted average in breathing air is 500 ppm with a Permitted Exposure Limit of 1800 mg/M3 (~ppm).

The good news is that if you are out of the stink or taste, you are less than about .01% of TLV, but the bad news (?) is that although it is relatively non toxic, hexane still tastes like lighter fluid below toxicity levels, with our sensory threshold far below the Threshold Limit Value.

Not an unexpected taste treat, because as many of ya'll know, lighter fluid is in point of fact light naphtha, which is a blend of pentane (5 carbon atom chain) and hexane (6 carbon atom chain).

Most of skunk pharm oil goes into oral or topical medications, though some is vaporized. Both the oral and the vaporization applications require residual hexane below human discernable (threshold) perception levels, so out of practicality, we standardized on zero perceptible solvent content on all our oils as just a matter of policy.

Lawrd knows that there are enough people kissing and licking at least some of the more provocative foxes and hunks in our folds all over, that we voted to use the same taste standard for topicals as orals.

The last issue, is of course residue and color, when using topicals! Besides undesirable taste, and non-active bulk in your extractions, there is the pregnant issue of how much residue they leave behind on the skin and how badly they stain our clothes.

Yet another reason to take care in extracting and subsequently processing our topicals, despite the ostensible threshold perception standards being lower.

We could also add that after we have removed the bulk of the non-active ingredients, our oil is more uniform and so our mixing ratios in our menstruums will be more precise and the results more uniform, as a bonus to not leaving a mess on our skin and clothes!
 
Polished extract
Washing acetate
Washing
Tobor the 8th Man

Tobor the 8th Man

Supporter
2,500
163
I think it is very important to have people like you working on stuff like this. Even though I don't currently do anything like this I am happy that their are people like you sharing knowledge like this because some day I am going to the next level with extractions.
 
M

MTgrower

247
0
Thank you! I am learning all I can, and for someone relatively new to oil, I've made some killer final products. I love seeing clandestine drug labs.

I'm currently putting together a list of various pieces of lab equipment I'll need. Do you have suggestions on what basic equipment to start with: glassware, heating pads, stirrers, etc...

Thank you again. Keep the good scientific info coming.
 
Graywolf

Graywolf

1,597
263
Thank you! I am learning all I can, and for someone relatively new to oil, I've made some killer final products. I love seeing clandestine drug labs.

I'm currently putting together a list of various pieces of lab equipment I'll need. Do you have suggestions on what basic equipment to start with: glassware, heating pads, stirrers, etc...

Thank you again. Keep the good scientific info coming.

Sort of depends on what you have in mind.

A hot plate stirrer with stand is a plus, as is a boiling flask, an Alhin condenser, and a separatory funnel.

I also use a hot oil bath a lot, so a good electric fondue pot and some bain marie stainless ware is an handy thing.
 
M

MTgrower

247
0
With regards to the fondu pot... do they have digital models that allow you to actually set a specific temp? I want a tub that will maintain specific temps to the degree. I have a feeling that kind of stuff is going to be costly.

Any specific models you like?
 
squiggly

squiggly

3,277
263
I'd like to suggest a change up to the sep funnel procedure above--

The first washing of the Hexane should be done with DI water in order to pull all of the ethanol and water solubles out. Doing this will prevent the sludge buildup and insists upon complete removal of water solubles.

Brine washes are typically meant to pull remaining water out of an organic layer--using only the brine to wash might actually hurt your efforts to get all water-solubles out for the exact reason you stated (there is no room for them in the saturated water). Despite some of them precipitating as sludge, the equilibrium of the water-soluble product exchange from the hexanes to the water will lie heavily on the hexane side, despite the precipitations driving the equilibrium towards the water side.

Equilibrium is everywhere, no reaction/extraction is 100%--and these considerations are rarely more important than for extraction/purification.

Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, Hexanes-Ethanol-Water forms a ternary azeotrope using this solvent mixture. Thus, it is best to remove as much of any solvent you can before proceeding to the next step. This is where having a rotovap in your lab might come in quite handy.

Should also be noted that Hexanes-Ethanol forms an azeotrope (~70%). These are all non-removable azeotropes without drying agents, azeotropic competitors, and distillation.
 
Graywolf

Graywolf

1,597
263
With regards to the fondu pot... do they have digital models that allow you to actually set a specific temp? I want a tub that will maintain specific temps to the degree. I have a feeling that kind of stuff is going to be costly.

Any specific models you like?

I use a Quisinart, which has precise enough controls and cost about $60. I have picked them up at Goodwill for a fraction of that cost.
 
Graywolf

Graywolf

1,597
263
I'd like to suggest a change up to the sep funnel procedure above--

The first washing of the Hexane should be done with DI water in order to pull all of the ethanol and water solubles out. Doing this will prevent the sludge buildup and insists upon complete removal of water solubles.

Brine washes are typically meant to pull remaining water out of an organic layer--using only the brine to wash might actually hurt your efforts to get all water-solubles out for the exact reason you stated (there is no room for them in the saturated water). Despite some of them precipitating as sludge, the equilibrium of the water-soluble product exchange from the hexanes to the water will lie heavily on the hexane side, despite the precipitations driving the equilibrium towards the water side.

Equilibrium is everywhere, no reaction/extraction is 100%--and these considerations are rarely more important than for extraction/purification.

Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, Hexanes-Ethanol-Water forms a ternary azeotrope using this solvent mixture. Thus, it is best to remove as much of any solvent you can before proceeding to the next step. This is where having a rotovap in your lab might come in quite handy.

Should also be noted that Hexanes-Ethanol forms an azeotrope (~70%). These are all non-removable azeotropes without drying agents, azeotropic competitors, and distillation.

Thanks Sq, I passed on your thoughts on saline solutions to our life sciences chemistry student.

Without any question, his procedures work extremely well, so I have proposed your thoughts as possible refinements.

As you know, azeotropic balances can be shifted with relative pressure. What are your thoughts and experience using vacuum?
 
squiggly

squiggly

3,277
263
In my experience no amount of vacuum distillation can trump a good molecular sieve setup. Usually these distillations are fractionated and take quite a bit of time by comparison. Furthermore, it's more difficult to hit the correct vacuum pressure in glass--and fairly expensive to buy the correct glass for the job.

Beyond that the considerations in this process are many, such that it really takes an analytical chemist to tweak it correctly for breaking various azeotropes. Everything honestly matters here from surface area in the condenser to length and diameter, changes cooling needs, you get the idea.

If you're asking for my recommendation, it is to use a mixture of the two.

Run a vacuum distillation, send the distillate through a sieve and redistill, repeating until desired purity is reached (using specific gravity to check).

As a consequence of everything here boiling at or below 100F, sieves really are a great way to achieve this goal. The key here is making sure you don't have anything but cannabinoids and solvent going through the sieve. The 0.2 micron filiter I've seen you mention should do the trick here.

The various sieves are numbered 3A 4A, etc denoting the minmum allowance (in Angstroms) for passage through the sieve. A 3A sieve will adsorb any molecules smaller than ~3 Angstroms. Usually a 4A sieve can be used to remove water from ethanol.

Edit:

When using sieves (and frankly when doing vacuum distillation as well) it really important that glassware be kept clean. I strongly suggest the use of a micro cleaning solution+sonicator followed by a dilute HCl/DI water rinse.

*Warning*
No one should apply this knowledge rampantly to sieving other solvents/removing other impurities based purely on size exclusion (sieving is analogous to a hybrid of size-exclusion and affinity type chromatography w/o all the analysis). Heats of adsorption on various substrates of the molecules to be removed must be considered--fires can be started VERY easily and with violent force--it goes without saying this is unwanted when working with volatile solvents.

The enormous surface area of the sieve can also act as a scaffold/catalyst upon which reactions may occur. Proper exclusion of unwanted particles and proper sieve-recharging techniques must be employed (usually bake in a furnace of some kind being careful the sieve is contained within a clean, dry, container.

For applications limited to removal of water from ethanol the process is fairly safe. I would very strongly recommend further research into any other process. I really can't stress enough that you should know what you're doing and what can go wrong/how to react before doing this. Any recommended safety measure you can find for a particular process should be employed--if you don't have access to that measure, do not perform the procedure.

2nd Edit:

@Graywolf

It dawned on me while taking my adv. biochem final today that using 100% DI water is a bad plan here--it shouldn't be super significant but doing this can lead to some oxidation. Best to wash with a 2% sodium sulfate solution (this will prevent any oxidation, sodium sulfate is commonly used as a wine preservative for this reason). You still do not want to used a saturated solution till the final wash (where brine is perfectly fine to use).
 
K

kuz

678
63
As far as filtering, I prefer a 0.45 micron or a 0.2 micron syringe filter, but got good results with a coffee filter until Joe turned us on to syringe filters. We have picked both the syringes and filters up off of E-bay, as well as from our local scientific supply store.

I'm thinking something like 1/2 cup alcohol for 10 grams oil, do you think that would be enough to effectively separate the solids out after freezing? Then boil off alcohol, and put the oil through the syringe filter?
 
C

canaguy27

435
18
GW,

Can you go into more detail on how you dissolving oil in ethanol, freeze it, then decant and filter? Process of dissolving; what it looks like after frozen, etc.
 
Graywolf

Graywolf

1,597
263
GW,

Can you go into more detail on how you dissolving oil in ethanol, freeze it, then decant and filter? Process of dissolving; what it looks like after frozen, etc.

I heat 190 proof ethanol to boiling and pour it in the oil, stirring vigorously until it is fully dissolved. I pour that through a coffee filter into a container like a fruit jar or bottle, and place in the freezer for a minimum of two days.

You will notice a light colored material starting to coagulate and precipitate out. If you leave it long enough, it will sink to the bottom of the container.

I then pour that mixture through a coffee filter, and the light beige waxes are left behind on the filter.

I looked through my picture library and couldn't find a good shot of the solution after freezing and before filtering, but here is a perfect example in a small sample, that demonstrates the principle. Just scale it up.

I did find some filter pictures before winterization, and afterwards, with all the liquid pressed out and dried.
 
First filter
Winterizing filtrate
Filtered waxes after freezing
Precipitant from winterizing
B

big ballin 88

12
0
Thanks for posting this thread. You have influenced me to clean all of my oil, after doing a small sample run and seeing its potential. It's nice to think that a simple step can influence such a great end product.

De-waxing my oil has made it easier to use in my Omicron and is now my standard of processing. Considering how easy BHO is to make, this should be included on everyone's process. After all, isn't oil extraction about purity and potency? I wonder what types of psychoactive percentages can be expected from a purified sample of BHO...

Graywolf- Have you noticed a loss of various aromas? I find that the polished oil has more of a hashy, smoky taste to it, where as pure BHO has the aromas of the starting product. I know some of these compounds are what contaminates our oil, but it would be nice to keep the unique smells around.
 
Graywolf

Graywolf

1,597
263
Thanks for posting this thread. You have influenced me to clean all of my oil, after doing a small sample run and seeing its potential. It's nice to think that a simple step can influence such a great end product.

De-waxing my oil has made it easier to use in my Omicron and is now my standard of processing. Considering how easy BHO is to make, this should be included on everyone's process. After all, isn't oil extraction about purity and potency? I wonder what types of psychoactive percentages can be expected from a purified sample of BHO...

Graywolf- Have you noticed a loss of various aromas? I find that the polished oil has more of a hashy, smoky taste to it, where as pure BHO has the aromas of the starting product. I know some of these compounds are what contaminates our oil, but it would be nice to keep the unique smells around.

It is easier to retain good terpene flavors by starting with a good extraction, because once you have to water wash it to clean it up, many of the lighter and smaller mono and sesquiterpenes molecules are lost, hence the hashy flavor.

Some terpenes are also lost when winterizing, but you can minimize that with technique.

If you really want a lot of flavor, freeze fresh bud, and run it with chilled butane in a column or thermos.

The next most flavorful BHO comes from dry, but uncured plants. Bone dry plant material will mostly taste like hash and produce the most pristine oil. Dried, but uncured material will retain the most terpene flavors and may have a slight green tinge.

The slight electric green doesn't negatively affect flavor or smoothness, but if you desire, you can get rid of it before reducing the alcohol mixture down, by setting it in strong sunlight or UV radiation from a lamp.

That results in some cannabinoid loss, but it is minimal in the four hours or so that it takes for the chlorophyll green to break down and fade out.

I extract when the plant has hung 5 to 7 days, or as soon as the small stems snap. The buds are dry on the outside, but gummy on the inside.

If I am going to use the oil for vaporizing and want to maximize the flavors, I vacuuming off the alcohol in thin films, instead of using heat. I also leave the oil un-decarboxylated.
 
Ohiofarmer

Ohiofarmer

932
93
For the record sodium sulfate is never used in the wine production process.........for somone that knows the structure of sodium sulfate doesn't that just kinda scream lack of common sense? just saying. sulfur dioxide is used in the wine making process and it is produced naturally by the yeast enzymes; sulfur dioxide is the exact opposite of sodium sulfate. when sulfur has oxygen atoms attached to it is refered to as a sulfite. Which is why when you have bought wine or beer that is made from fruit from after 1990 it must have a label on it saying it contains sulfites. also sulfites are used b/c of the oxygen atoms present to stop the enzymes that are left in the wine from producing more alcohol; therefor making the wine too alcoholic. this process can been seen at the bottom of a bottle of wine were there is small chunks of deactived yeast left. the sulfite also serves to stop oxidation of sugars in the wine. sorry to highjack thread just makin sure the info is here so people aren't mislead. Take it easy; as always good shit GW

Sulfites chemical number is E220 btw for anyone that wants to look into it
 
B

big ballin 88

12
0
The reason I'm cleaning my oils so much is the Omicron tends to hate waxy oils. I've been having a problem with the cartridges and constant clogging from some oils. Having de-waxed the concentrate seems to greatly aid the reliability of these vapes.

Does a longer winterization period account for more substantial terpene loss after a certain period, for instance, the 2 days you state as standard? The flavor of this polished oil is kind of growing on me. However, I was thinking about utilizing some d-limonene like Puregold, mainly for consistency and flavor just to change things up.

Also, through some peer review, the oil is much less detectable when vaped in public(made the mistake of vaping in front of a cop to top things off). I see the loss of terpenes as a benefit when it comes to stealth, as it makes it easier to conceal in comparison.
 
squiggly

squiggly

3,277
263
Meant sulf-I-te, wrote this before a final :)

My confusion probably come from the fact that sulfites are oxidized to produce sulfates. Hence, sulfates are present in the wine--they just, as you say, are the opposite of what I was saying. They are the ultimate product from an oxidation :)
 
B

big ballin 88

12
0
I'm de-waxing another batch of oil today and wondered why such a long winterization period is necessary. I only say this because I see waxes precipitating out almost instantly and while there are still waxes that form post-filter, during winterization, couldn't these be valuable terpenes?

I guess the most valuable lesson in my case would be learning what we are even filtering. I can finally understand why we do things the way we do and why we use what we use.
 
Top Bottom