Chlorophorm Oil?

[CanadaDank]

Can you make oil using Chloroform? Also, how does it compare to that of hexane?

 

[motherlode]

its makes you sleepy?

 

[squiggly]

its makes you sleepy?

Yes. It is probably the best solvent to use for this type of extraction. However it is heavier than water and you'll have to adjust any water washing procedure accordingly.

Please keep in mind, this shit is very unsafe and can kill you. Work in a fume hood with a proper gas scrubber, or do not work at all. Maybe can get away with only a scrubber.

 

[squarepusher]

Yes. It is probably the best solvent to use for this type of extraction. However it is heavier than water and you'll have to adjust any water washing procedure accordingly.

Please keep in mind, this shit is very unsafe and can kill you. Work in a fume hood with a proper gas scrubber, or do not work at all. Maybe can get away with only a scrubber.

basically this, its so dangerous that its generally not used.

 

[Graywolf]

basically this, its so dangerous that its generally not used.

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.

 

[CanadaDank]

I was asking more for educational purposes. Someone told me you can clean BHO with ether to make it more pure, and in the process changes the colour from dark to gold/red. Any truth in this?

 

[squiggly]

If you word it that way, no that's not true. Ether won't clean anything, but it can be used as a solvent after which the solution can be processed and cleaned.

This applies to any number of solvents. There may be *some* selectivity in dissolution, but likely not something you'd be measuring outside an analytical lab.

THC is generally described as a red oil the purer it gets, so that much makes sense.

 

[Graywolf]

I was asking more for educational purposes. Someone told me you can clean BHO with ether to make it more pure, and in the process changes the colour from dark to gold/red. Any truth in this?

Two different issues. Ether designates a group of solvents with the extra oxygen molecule in the middle, as opposed to the end, like an alcohol. Diethyl ether, is what most people mean when they say ether.

Diethylether, is highly polar and is not a good candidate for cleaning up a solution, but may be prime for the initial extraction, with suitable controls.

A non polar solvent is usually used for clean up, after an agressive solvent like diethylether.

Purified oil only becomes more golden with cleanup, but as the film thickness increases the color becomes more deep amber.

The red may have more to do with the solvent used. ISO extracts different constituets than ethanol and produces a redder extract.

 

[jump]

THC is generally described as a red oil the purer it gets

Imo red color is the sign of oxydation and or contamination of red pistils pigment bleeded while extraction with polar solvent.

 

[squiggly]

Imo red color is the sign of oxydation and or contamination of red pistils pigment bleeded while extraction with polar solvent.

I've seen the red color described in extractions which have primarily used non polar solvents--it usually appears after a water wash, which says to me it's more likely either:

a) purifying it as previously stated

b) involves some kind of hydration event

My money is on a--there have been studies performed on pure cannabinoid extract (contains nothing but cannabinoids, verified by gc-ms, hplc, and HNMR/CNMR) wherein the oil is decribed as a deep ruby red.

I'd argue that in fact the brown/amber color represents a hydrated complex of the thc+impurities. This could be the case especially if any higher metal ions are present.

 

[jump]

My money is on a--

It is not necessary wasting money at risk.
I highly appreciate the spirit of the contradiction peculiar to inquisitive mind but only until it doesn't enter the conflict to logic of common sense. Lol

In scientific and pseudo-scientific reports can be found often very controversial and questionable assertions.
For example the very authoritative author claimed that the decarboxylation occurs simultaneously with the drying of plant material.
Others argue that the purest of all possible extracts are those obtained by boiling naphtha.
Some argue that THCA are not crystalline solid, and thick resinous substance.
In addition, all claimants refer to the lab results.

I observed coloring of transparent resin by the red pigment bleeding from pistils at extraction with ethanol.
These observations were documented by photographs, which can be found
at the international site in Cannabis Resin (Hashish) forum in
the thread "Theory about oil color and density" #20 (02-21-2009).

Undoubtedly, this is not the only factor affecting the color of the extract.
Exposure of originally light-yellow resin in air at room temperature leads to its darkening.
It is indifferent to whether the resin on a live plant or dried flowers or even in an alcohol solution.
Most often, exposure to air associated with the oxidation.

 

[Graywolf]

I've seen the red color described in extractions which have primarily used non polar solvents--it usually appears after a water wash, which says to me it's more likely either:

a) purifying it as previously stated

b) involves some kind of hydration event

My money is on a--there have been studies performed on pure cannabinoid extract (contains nothing but cannabinoids, verified by gc-ms, hplc, and HNMR/CNMR) wherein the oil is decribed as a deep ruby red.

I'd argue that in fact the brown/amber color represents a hydrated complex of the thc+impurities. This could be the case especially if any higher metal ions are present.

I stand in embarassed ignorance of where the cherry red comes from, but have noticed that in its higher extraction efficiency, Iso extracts a redder color than ethanol, under the same conditions.

Because of the cyanins present, a thin layer of refined cannabis oil is light honey colored and two thin layers are dark amber. A third layer, may be opaque.

As Jump notes, the red may be from a secondary source, like the pistils and be redder with ISO, because of its greater aggression as a solvent.

 

[squiggly]

In studies where THC is purified by chromatography it is still described as a ruby-red oil. This method of purification yields 99.9% pure THC.

the 0.1% is generally accepted to be solvent-related impurity--and while this could potentially carry with it some pigment, such a small fraction is unlikely to color the entire sample.

After a bit of research I've found that to detect THC spectrophotometrically a wavelength of 490nm is employed and produces the highest sensitivity in the visible spectrum. There are other peaks present in the UV spectrum which is expected as THC is known to protect plants from sunburn.

490nm absorptions lie in the blue-green area of the color wheel, and correspond to a perceived red color.

In a matter of speaking, the stuff is red--it's not all that strange to find compounds exhibiting coloration, especially the more complex they become.

I suspect different colorations will be observed with different THC isomers. These are likely to vary +/- 60nm from 490nm (following a rule-of-thumb about color changes as constituents are moved around a benzene ring), meaning there will likely be a slight variation in color from orange-red. The isomer in the study mentioned above was the delta-9 variant.

I've been pulling all my info from peer-reviewed journals, there shouldn't have been any fringe science involved. Generally, in chemistry, studies are repeated yielding similar results before being accepted to a journal. These journals are also super-huge-dicks about what you can/can't say you've shown evidence of. No stone left unturned, so to speak.

However, that doesn't mean that a red color isn't being bled from the pistils as well. The color of THC may even be changed/reduced in intensity through complexation with other molecules in a crude oil extract--meaning any red color present there may actually be from the pistils or what have you.

Once you get to the gritty of purifying the stuff, though, it comes out red.

 

[CanadaDank]

I have another question seeing as I have a vast amount of knowledge here (thanks for the responses btw):
When using different alkanes as a solvent, do they become more effective when they have more carbons (ex. hexane over butane)?

 

[squiggly]

I have another question seeing as I have a vast amount of knowledge here (thanks for the responses btw):
When using different alkanes as a solvent, do they become more effective when they have more carbons (ex. hexane over butane)?

Put it this way:

If you were doing column chromatography, higher alkanes would elute THC more quickly. Buuuuut--more carbons and hydrogens means more Van der Waals forces means higher boiling points, means more vac pressure needed to remove/higher heat/longer time for evaporation.

Effective can be a broad term, using it broadly--no it is not more effective to use higher alkanes. We'd have to test this to be sure but in my opinion unless you're using a pressure system to force liquid through a column there won't be any benefit from doing this.

 

[CanadaDank]

So why have I heard that hexane oil is better than butane oil? Shouldn't it not matter?

 

[Graywolf]

So why have I heard that hexane oil is better than butane oil? Shouldn't it not matter?

Butane still has slight water solubility and Hexane doesn't. Either makes a pristine extraction, but as has been noted, Hexane is harder to completely purge.

We use Hexane to clean up other extractions and in alchemy, but seldom for the actual extraction, because of the cost and minimal advantage.

 

[jump]

So why have I heard that hexane oil is better than butane oil? Shouldn't it not matter?

In what sense it is "better"? Of course, this may be true because
as ButaneHO and HexaneHO can be made good or bad, or even very bad.

 

[CanadaDank]

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.

 

[jump]

In studies where THC is purified by chromatography it is still described as a ruby-red oil.

Its not a study but illustration related to the color http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUy6ic-xdeI