THCFarmer.com
121,257 Members Log In Register
Log In Register

Chlorophorm Oil?

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

Chlorophorm Oil?

CanadaDank 24 Replies 6,364 Views
Page 2 of 2 · Replies 21–25 of 25
#21
Yes, those are doses of THC suspended in grapeseed oil (which is yellow/very light greenish).

If you really look at the caps, and find some other pictures of pure grapeseed oil--you'll notice the color has been "oranged" up a little.

Could be due to the coating on the cap, but that is likely clear--and I'm gonna go ahead and blame the THC.
 
#22
CanadaDank said:
I mean gets you higher. I guess that is very subjective thing though, it is really hard to know. I think my initial thinking was the finished product has a higher THC content.
Click to expand...

Well this can all get misleading and complex really quickly.

As has pretty much been stated and overstated use butane for more pristine "set-it-and-forget-it" type extraction.

Hexanes will get everything out guaranteed, but that means just about EVERYTHING (when you're refluxing it at least). Butane can do this too, but the amount you'll need to use is going to be different for each run (because of the complex 3d structure of the bud in the tube, and also because of genetic differences between strains, and any systematic error/variation in process).

I fall back to Hexanes because it's a guaranteed and predictable route to getting everything out.

That said, because you asked about THC content, that is another story. Pre purification, warm hexanes extractions will likely have a lower THC content by weight, because they are going to pull everything out of the plant.

Post purification, in a perfect world, the hexanes yield should be higher. This ignores any loss of terpenes/low boiling cmpds--however that is only true when you're doing low volume single-pass extractions with butane.

If you're doing something like graywolf--things change significantly. The variations in that process are so many that Graywolf probably hasn't even figured them all out yet--it's impossible to really comment on its efficiency from a single perspective.
 
#23
I've never split a sample and run half through hexane and the other through butane, but what I have noticed is that a Hexane extraction is oranger than a Butane extraction. Possibly why BHO is known as Honey Oil and Hexane extractions are called Cherry Oil.

What I have noticed also, is because of the anthocyanins present, that a thin layer of BHO is light golden, but it turns dark amber (red) rapidly with film thickness. Attached is a picture of Hexane scrubbed and isomerized BHO, where the CBD has been converted to THC as well.

As you see, it can be gold or deep amber as well, depending on thickness. The beaker on the left is isomerized in Hexane and the one on the right is the same material just decarboxylated.

Note some color change there, though the film thicknesses are not identical. Note how quickly the color deepens in the slightly thicker film at the bottom of the decarboxylated sample, from sag.

You are right about not having everything figured out, and in fact the more I learn, the more I understand I have nothing figured out.

What I have observed, is that we are up to as much as 23.7% yield of BHO Absolute and around 21.5% on average, by weight from bud.

The product is potent, smooth, and tasty when vaporized, though it has less other turpenoid flavors, than a polar alcohol extraction of the same cured material will produce.

My Hexane extractions appeared to have similar potency and had a similar taste, but I had to ethanol wash the Hexane extraction at least three times, to rid it of the gasoline smell and taste.

I yielded much less than 21.5% when doing Hexane extraction experiments, but they were done on trim, so it isn't apples and oranges.

I do know that after cleaning up refluxed polar extractions with Hexane, that my yields are typically less as well, but there are always some losses in clean up, so that is also apples and oranges.

The process that I use soaks the material in butane and puts at least 10 column volumes of butane through the material quickly enough and under enough reduced pressure during parts of the process, that the temperature stays very low and sub zero much of the time. Heat is required to keep the butane boiling, even under vacuum when the temperature is driven low enough by evaporation.

That produces much different conditions than simply passing a volume or two of butane through a column, and is closer to the conditions Jump of the North country uses, when he soaks frozen plant material in a chilled thermos of Butane.

I prefer Butane to Hexane for extractions because it is easier to reclaim 99%+ and I don't need multiple alcohol washes or vacuum to fully purge it.

Even using heat and vacuum, reclaiming hexane from the plant material is neither quick or easy, so material costs are higher with Hexane. HPLC grade of Hexane is not cheap at about $20/liter.
 

Attachments

  • isomerize-2.jpg
    isomerize-2.jpg
    30.2 KB · Views: 69
  • Isomerized and decarboxylated samples.jpg
    Isomerized and decarboxylated samples.jpg
    37.4 KB · Views: 81
#24
Graywolf said:
Diethyl ether is butane with one added oxygen molecule dividing the four carbon molecule chain (butyl) into two (Di), two carbon chains (ethyl), with every thing else staying the same.

I have personally never extracted with it, though technically it should be a prime solvent for the task. Primarily because it is expensive, not readily available and not good stuff to be releasing into the environment.

I will add it to our list of things to investigate. In the interim, as you may already know,
Diethyl ether was used extensively as a medical anesthetic and is highly flammable. Its lower explosive limits are 1.9% and its upper is 36%, so it is way more explosive than gasoline. That is why it makes such good starter fluid for automobiles in cold weather.

Its boiling point is 34.6°C (94.3°F) and its human odor threshold is 0.83 ppm.

It is about 10% soluble in water, so it will pick up some water soluble constitutes.

Here is the toxicology and ecological information from the MSDS.

Section 11: Toxicological Information

Routes of Entry: Absorbed through skin. Eye contact. Inhalation.
Toxicity to Animals:

WARNING: THE LC50 VALUES HEREUNDER ARE ESTIMATED ON THE BASIS OF A 4-HOUR EXPOSURE.

Acute oral toxicity (LD50): 1215 mg/kg [Rat]. Acute toxicity of the vapor (LC50): 31000 0.5 hours [Mouse].

Chronic Effects on Humans:

MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Mutagenic for mammalian somatic cells. Mutagenic for bacteria and/or yeast. May cause damage to the following organs: skin, central nervous system (CNS).

Other Toxic Effects on Humans:

Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation. Slightly hazardous in case of skin contact (permeator).

Special Remarks on Toxicity to Animals:
LD50 [Rabbit] -Route: Skin; Dose: >20 ml/kg LDL[Man] - Route: Oral; Dose: 260 mg/kg

Special Remarks on Chronic Effects on Humans: May affect genetic material (mutagenic) based on animal data.
Special Remarks on other Toxic Effects on Humans:

Acute Potential Health Effects: Skin: Causes skin irritation. It is not appreciably absorbed through intact skin. Eyes: Causes
eye irritation. Can cause slight , reversible eye injury from contact with liquid or vapor. Inhalation: It is rapidly absorbed through
lungs. Vapor mist causes irritation of the respiratory tract and mucous membranes. Affects behavior, sense organs, peripheral
and central nervous systems, liver and metabolism, cardiovascular system. Symptoms may include excitement, drowsiness,
headache, nausea, vomiting, paleness, decreased pulse and temperature, irregular respiration, coughing, bronchodilation,
increase in respiratory rate, increase in heart rate, excessive salivation, muscle relaxation, anesthetic effects, and possible
kidney irritation or injury, and temporarily abnormal liver function tests. Ingestion: May be harmful if swallowed. May cause
gastrointestinal tract irritation with nausea, vomiting


Section 12: Ecological Information

Ecotoxicity: Not available.

BOD5 and COD: Not available.

Products of Biodegradation:
Possibly hazardous short term degradation products are not likely. However, long term degradation products may arise.

Toxicity of the Products of Biodegradation: The products of degradation are less toxic than the product itself.

Special Remarks on the Products of Biodegradation:
WHEN RELEASED INTO THE SOIL, THIS MATERIAL IS EXPECTED TO QUICKLY EVAPORAT WHEN RELEASED INTO THE SOIL, THIS MATERIAL IS EXPECTED TO LEACH INTO GROUNDWATER. WHEN RELEASED INTO THE SOIL, THIS MATERIAL IS NOT EXPECTED TO BIODEGRADE. WHEN RELEASED INTO WATER, THIS MATERIAL IS NOT EXPECTED TO BIODEGRADE. WHEN RELEASED INTO THE WATER, THIS MATERIAL IS EXPECTED TO HAV HALFLIFE OF LESS THAN 1 DAY. WHEN RELEASED TO WATER, THIS MATERIAL IS EXP TO QUICKLY EVAPORATE. THIS
MATERIAL IS NOT EXPECTED TO SIGNIFICANTLY BIOACCUMULATE. THIS MATERIAL HAS A LOG OCTANOL-WATER
PARTITION COEFFICIENT LESS THAN 3.0. WHEN RELEASED INTO THE AIR, THIS MATERIAL IS EXPECTED TO BE
READILY DEGRADED BY REACTION WITH PHOTOCHEMICALLY PRODUCED HYDROXYL RADICA WHEN RELEASED
INTO THE AIR, THIS MATERIAL IS NOT EXPECTED TO BE DEGRADED B PHOTOLYSIS. WHEN RELEASED INTO THE
AIR, THIS MATERIAL IS EXPECTED TO HAVE HALF-LIFE BETWEEN 1 AND 10 DAYS.
Click to expand...


sorry...i know ur guru status etc...but they asked about chloroform no? trichloromethane?....also wanted to ask if you have used dcm? read about someone using it...isnt it freon? or similar?
sooo...how bout chloroform?
would love to see what anyone thinks or has done...got some en route!!:dance
 
Page 2 of 2 · Replies 21–25 of 25
Back
Top Bottom