If you have chemistry questions....

[ftwendy]

...by "improving potency" I think I mean, converting non-psychoactive thc-a into psychoactive thc, right? Head spinning. :)

 

[squiggly]

Okay... that makes more sense. I think. I'm going to have to process this over a while, since its all new to me. I think my original question makes me seem more familiar with chemistry than I am. I know nothing.

What I'm really getting at, is *why*? Why take the extra step to isomerise? Is this about improving potency or purity?

Potency, the stable isomer is a more active version of THC.

 

[ftwendy]

Sweet. Answers make me hard... so, how would the outcome differ if, say, you were to use another anhydrous acid? Like phosphoric?

Much gratitude S. Thanks for sharing your Saturday with the idiots in the back row. :)

 

[ftwendy]

Potency, the stable isomer is a more active version of THC.

Am I correct in saying 'the [now stabilized] isomer is a more active version of THC?

 

[squiggly]

Am I correct in saying 'the [now stabilized] isomer is a more active version of THC?

Yes precisely. The stability itself doesn't impart any additional potency--it just happens to have worked out that the most stable version is also the one with the greatest affinity for the cannabinoid receptor.

 

[outwest]

squiggly - please explain to me (in as laymens terms ass possible) the different between phosphate and phosphorous in the context of organic gardening as it pertains to guanos and other organic p sources?

Also, can a chemical be purged once its formed a covalent bond with another chemical?

Thanks!

outwest

 

[squiggly]

squiggly - please explain to me (in as laymens terms ass possible) the different between phosphate and phosphorous in the context of organic gardening as it pertains to guanos and other organic p sources?

Also, can a chemical be purged once its formed a covalent bond with another chemical?

Thanks!

outwest

Sure thing.

Phosphorous is an element (from the periodic table--in the nitrogen group).

It is a multivalent nonmetal. It participates in special biological chemistry of the highest importance (which I will discuss below)--and it does so most usually in the form of phosphate, an inorganic molecule which looks like this:

The "P" atom in this molecule is phosphorus itself, while the phosphate is the phosphorus itself hooked up to 4 oxygens (one of them twice).

Now, phosphorus does some pretty weird and special chemistry. The first thing to note about this molecule is that it does something very rare amongst atoms. It makes 5 bonds. Most molecules, especially those in biological chemistry--only like to make 4 or less bonds (nitrogen like to make 3 tops, oxygen likes to have 2, and carbon [the most special of all] ALWAYS makes 4 and will do anything to make them).

That's just a little snippet, its' neither here nor there for this discussion really.

Back to phosphate. Okay so this stuff is in everything:

1. Biological membranes are made up of phospholipids.

2. The primary energy currency of biology (the way energy is shipped around an organism to be used) is ATP, or adenosine triphosphate.

3. The backbone of DNA/RNA is connected by phosphate groups.

4. There are multiple modified proteins/sugars/lipids that both include and require phosphate for biosynthesis.

We cannot have life without the elements C, H, N, O, P and S. It is no mistake P made it into this group when so many other necessary molecules did not (such as potassium or sodium). It is an absolute structural need, whereas these other molecules are utilized differently than being covalently bonded to.
There are two types of bonds that phosphate usually makes in biochemistry and these are:

phosphate esters (most common for structural elements)

and

phosphoannhydride bonds (used for the "high energy" bond as a way to store energy--explanation of this goes beyond the scope of "laymen")


From a biosynthetic level--many oils made in the plant come from what is known as isoprene synthesis, which consists of successive connections being made from/to isopentenyl diphosphate until the proper carbon backbone has been assembled.

A similar process happens with sulfur through connections of acetoacetyl units (in terpene or sterol synthesis for instance).

As it should now be clear--phosphate is really important for just about everything in an organism.

When the plant is putting in the most energy into growth, you will need a dickload of phosphate--the reason is simple and 3 fold:

1. Each new cell must have a complete copy of the entire DNA structure of the organism, as with any organism plants grow by dividing their cells. This can only happen when DNA has been duplicated in the parent cell. This requires A LOT of phosphate, which can NEVER be recycled until the cell dies.

2. Each cell requires a certain concentration of ATP to be healthy and able to perform growth functions (like replicating DNA or producing proteins destined to take part in various biosyntheses)--so as the number of cells grows more phosphate will be required for each additional cell to keep things moving in the right direction. The phosphate in a given cell my be recycled (ATP is consumed, becomes ADP and inorganic phosphate, and ADP and the phosphate group are later re-joined [through cellular respiration or chemiosmosis] to re-form the ATP--but each additional cell will still require input of phosphate to function.

3. Similar arguments for every other phosphate containing molecule and every other phosphate requiring process--cell membranes for instance or isopentenyl diphosphate prenyl synthesis.


This might not be as layman's terms as you wanted--but google should save the day if you find yourself lost (wiki is the ticket).

 

[squiggly]

Also, can a chemical be purged once its formed a covalent bond with another chemical?

Thanks!

outwest

Whoops, forgot this one.

In special situations yes, this is possible. Generally only with introduction of heat--not purged in the sense of reducing the atmospheric pressure. The wording here also needs a bit of a clarification--but I'll just answer both versions of the question.

Can a liquid which has been covalently altered be purged?

Yes, providing that the boiling point of the substance relative to atmospheric pressure has not been taken outside of the operational range for this process by the chemical change.

Can you add a chemical and then remove it--after that chemical has made a covalent bond with another substance?

Yes, in very specific situations.

CO2 participates in chemistry like this, molecules can be carboxylated and decarboxylated. If memory serves (this is from Orgo II, awhile back, and haven't had need of it since) you can activate a given molecule with a strong acid like sulfuric (or probably carbonic now that I think about it)--and CO2 will make a new bond (to the central carbon).

You can then take the material and heat it and it will release the CO2 through the familiar (to oil extractors) process of decarboxylation.

This is a really specific case, however. More often than not if you've made a bond--you won't be unmaking it. Especially not for say practical marijuana related processes. If you've made a covalent bond in any type of non-purified (purified = ONE MOLECULE ONLY) mixture, what you now have is a chemical soup of unknown characteristics and makeup.

The only people qualified to save/regenerate material which has been reacted in such a way are chemists which surpass even my own level of expertise (and even then only particular molecules could be safely salvaged). I do not recommend doing this for anything which will be ingested whatsoever--marijuana or otherwise.

 

[outwest]

Thanks again. It was suggested the other day that butane and thc form a covalent bond so the butane can never be truly purged once introduced. Is this the case?

outwest

 

[squiggly]

Thanks again. It was suggested the other day that butane and thc form a covalent bond so the butane can never be truly purged once introduced. Is this the case?

outwest

I doubt it.

What is more likely is that the non-polar character of the two molecules causes them to strongly associate such that the same result is reached (i.e. you still have some trace amounts of butane around after a thorough purge).

I can almost guarantee you this is the case (that there is usually some residual butane left over)--even in the best of processes. Again the problem is that without purity (one molecule) you can't make an excellent prediction about how your solvent is going to act.

I've also discussed many times the trouble which is introduced when you attempt to remove a substance by "boiling" it out [this is what a purge is]. You end up with what are known as inclusion and occlusion impurities.
When we purge in the lab we use a thin-film evaporator. The importance of the thin film is paramount--this allows the thermodynamic AND physical barrier to solvent escape to be removed. In the case of crude MJ extracts, there is very high viscosity to be concerned with. Getting that last bit of water out is difficult enough--forget the butane which will strongly associate with the mostly nonpolar oil.

My take on this:

1. If you purge properly, the trace amount of butane you will smoke is healthier for you than even looking at a bud of marijuana.

2. If you purge properly, a fair portion of this trace amount should be combusted fully (85% perhaps) which is totally harmless to you in every way. The remaining 15% is a tiny fraction of a fraction of a fraction if you have done everything the way Graywolf or I would do it.

3. You will be exposed to at least 50 different chemical each day of your life in more alarming amounts than smoking this for a year could touch (if purged properly).

In other words--the person suggesting butane makes a covalent bond with THC is almost guaranteed to be wrong. I'd like to see the study on this one--doesn't make sense from a synthetic standpoint (which is my background/specialty).

They are, however, correct that there are likely trace amounts being left by many labs. There should be at least a few using rotovaps and getting it all out though I imagine--or further purifying out the THC/terpenes which should allow for better solvent removal.

While the rotovap is great, if we can help it we prefer to precipitate things out--and this is why (although there is a similar problem of coprecipitation in that process, it is more sensitive and easier to have fine control over than a purge).

 

[outwest]

Thanks for your thorough, and thoughtful replies.

outwest

 

[orbad]

I've got a new one, this may be more of a physics question though.

How much vacuum would it take to boil off water at room temp. Eg: could I use the harbor freight vacuum pump to dry bubble hash? A la BHO vacuum chamber? (I don't think I can do it with a water aspirator, but that would be real slick)

I haven't built one yet, but I was thinking a vacuum chamber could neatly evaporated the water out of my bubble.

 

[squiggly]

I've got a new one, this may be more of a physics question though.

How much vacuum would it take to boil off water at room temp. Eg: could I use the harbor freight vacuum pump to dry bubble hash? A la BHO vacuum chamber? (I don't think I can do it with a water aspirator, but that would be real slick)

I haven't built one yet, but I was thinking a vacuum chamber could neatly evaporated the water out of my bubble.

Actually its physical chemistry to be precise.

At standard temperature (25deg C ~ Room Temperature)--24mmHg or 0.03atm is the external pressure required to boil water. You should be able to achieve this with a vacuum aspirator (with appropriate water pressure/flow rate).

Save yourself a headache and don't do this with a large volume of water. Strain off your product and use this to dry only.

 

[orbad]

That's what I had in mind. Would an aspirator be strong enough to do a BHO extraction as well? Water is cheap, and aspirators only cost about 20 bucks online.

 

[squiggly]

That's what I had in mind. Would an aspirator be strong enough to do a BHO extraction as well? Water is cheap, and aspirators only cost about 20 bucks online.

Should be, especially for smaller runs.

We use water aspirators in the lab for our rotovaps. As I said it depends on your flow rate, though.

 

[orbad]

Thanks for your opinion. I was trying to figure out if the aspirator is worth the 20 bucks or if I should just pony up the 100 for an electric pump.

 

[squiggly]

Thanks for your opinion. I was trying to figure out if the aspirator is worth the 20 bucks or if I should just pony up the 100 for an electric pump.

You should do both and build yourself a self contained vacuum aspirator pump. (pump through the aspirator inside of a cooler--also useful as you gain control over vacuum power by altering temperature of the water).

The best DIY No-Muss-No-Fuss way to do this IMO.

Edit:

To clarify, I meant you should buy a water pump, which should be much cheaper.

 

[orbad]

Might you have an idea of how much gpm/psi one would need to run an aspirator? My little pond pump wont overcome 4' of elevation, so I'd think it would need to be pretty big. Unless its a volume of water rather than pressure thing.

I'd think psi would be more important based on my understanding of how they work. Water flows over small orifice picking up air and creating a vacuum.

 

[forknowledge]

Hi squiggly, I was a little reluctant to ask my question because it may sounds tedious but then again I might find out the hard way or worse I may never know.

So here I am searching for a larger air pump for the extension of my UC system & then I wondered is there such a thing as too mush dissolved oxygen?

Ive noticed by experience the more dissolved oxygen in the system the more my plants yield.

Ive got my eye on an air pump which pushes 120 litres per minute & thats for a 4 or 6 plant UC setup.

Thanks squiggly.

 

[Papa]

hey forknowledge, i'll jump on this one . . . 'hope squiggly doesn't mind.there is no such thing as "too much DO" for your plants. in some system designs however (dwc), issues arise with too much agitation of the roots with massive bubbling. i believe the design of the UC system addresses this by putting the flex-disk in the epicenter and the small stones in the individual buckets. my experience with UC is that they've tried everything you could ever think of . . . and it's best to stick to their recommendations. my guess is that the air pump they recommend is going to provide the best solution for the system design . . . and that a simple increase of the pump size is not going to result in a higher DO level. realize, the exchange of oxygen between the air bubbles and the water occurs in the depth of that epicenter, or buckets. put a larger pump on and the bubbles are going to shoot outta the disk faster and there may be more bubbles, but they will be moving faster. you may be able to increase your DO better by reducing the water temp . . . but that may raise other issues. there has been much discussion of DO on the farm in the previous two or three years. i think i posted a chart showing maximum DO achievable with different temps at some point.