Fellow lurker here… I finally decided to engage more with the community on this site and start posting some content. I recently established Seedless Analytical LLC, a small scientific & technical consulting company geared towards (but not limited to) cannabis. I specialize in organic & analytical chemistry, especially the use of HPLC for cannabinoid quantitation.
Anyway, I have been experimenting with an adsorbent media called ‘Magnesol®’ for some time and recently started recording my experiments more closely. The results are decent, considering this stuff is stupid cheap ($8 per kg). Below is a short lab report detailing my experiment and findings. If you find this useful, hopefully you will follow me on IG: @seedlessanalytical (content coming soon…)
Enjoy!
.
.
.
Removal of impurities from crude cannabis oil using a solid-phase extraction technique: an evaluation of Magnesol® as an adsorbent media.
Abstract
Magnesol® is a synthetically derived magnesium silicate marketed as a fryer oil filtration aid that removes odor and color causing contaminates. In this experiment, crude cannabis oil was filtered through Magnesol® to evaluate its usefulness as a filtration aid for cannabis applications. The mass and THC potency of the crude oil was measured before and after filtration to quantitate the effectiveness of Magnesol®. The yield with respect to total mass was 89.9 %, while the yield with respect to THC was approximately 99.9 %. These data indicate a measurable removable of contaminants with virtually no loss of THC to the adsorbent.
Materials & Equipment
n-Heptane
Magnesol® filter powder
Crude THC oil (fully decarbed)
Chromatography column, Chemglass (CG-1203-24), 1” I.D. x 12” L
Argon cylinder
Beakers, 100 mL
Erlenmeyer flask, 250 mL
Ohaus balance, PAJ4102N
Agilent 1100 HPLC-UV
Methods
10.00 g of Magnesol® filter powder was added to a 100 mL beaker. A slurry was made by adding enough n-heptane to sufficiently suspend the powder when swirled.
A fritted chromatography column was wet loaded by completely transferring the slurry using several rinses of n-heptane. The column was drained until ~5 mm of solvent remained above the bed of Magnesol®. The bed height was 48 mm.
10.00 g of crude THC oil (crude oil, initial) was added to a clean 100 mL beaker and dissolved in 10 mL (6.80 g) of n-heptane. A sample of this crude oil was potency tested using HPLC-UV.
The solution of crude oil was gently added to the column as to not disturb the column bed. The beaker was rinsed with minimal n-heptane and added to the column to make a complete transfer.
The crude solution was pushed through the column with inert gas (argon) until ~2 mm of crude solution remained above the column bed. The column eluent was collected in a single 250 mL Erlenmeyer flask.
10 mL of fresh n-heptane was gently added to the column. The solvent was pushed through the column using argon until ~2 mm of solvent remained above the bed.
Step 6 was repeated until the column eluent was clear and colorless.
The column eluent was concentrated on a rotary evaporator to obtain a viscous, amber-brown crude oil (crude oil, final). The mass of the recovered oil was recorded on an Ohaus balance. The recovered oil was potency tested using HPLC-UV.
(8.99 x 0.729) / (10.00 x 0.654) x 100 % = (6.55) / (6.54) x 100 % = ~ 99.9 % THC Yield
Discussion
These data indicate Magnesol® is capable of removing a measurable amount of non-THC components from crude cannabis oil, while leaving the amount of THC virtually unaffected. Sources of error include random error from HPLC measurements; this could explain why the THC yield was seemingly over 100 %.
Edit:
Percent relative change calculations added to potency data.
Thanks for the very clear study. It would be interesting to see you repeat this experiment with the other commonly used adsorbents, such as B80, T5, carbon, silica, etc.
Yes there were earlier posts but they were should I say, a little bit slapdash in that everyone was changing multiple variables and using media combinations. So it would be nice to just get a quantitative baseline value for each adsorbent, by itself, with nothing else.
Also the role of temperature would be good to quantify.
Your note might be described as a “nice effort”.
I would classify it a “batch adsoption” using a glass column as a beaker.
It appears as if the THC concentration is increased by 7%.
It works. Does the cost of material and time cover the value added purity?
This is business. It is nice to know the THC does not adsorb. Fast and quick,
That’s awesome. I’ve used Magnesol before and it definitely makes your oil clearer. It’s good to see that the THC doesn’t get absorbed. A good follow up test would be to test for terps. Also would love to find out what ends up in the Magnesol!
Edit: would also love to see if this media or any other media removes lipids!
"Magnesol® reduces Free Fatty Acids (FFA’s) and Total Polar Materials (TPM’s). What does this mean?
FFA’s are molecules that lower the surface tension of oils, allowing batter and breading to soak up more oil. The result is greasy fried food. MAGNESOL® greatly slows down the formation of these molecules, allowing your oil to last longer and fried foods to be light and crisp. TPM’s are the only chemical measure of oil degradation that has been correlated to the taste and odor of fried food. MAGNESOL® is the premier product at reducing TPM’s."
Based on that statement and the data I obtained, I have to think terpenes would pass right through the media. If polar contaminants are hindering your operations, it seems like Magnesol is an obvious choice.
I don’t know the difference, to be honest, but they are both Magnesium Silicate products, right? Obviously magnesol is geared for your chicken fryer, not your pesticide content, but I imagine they function similarly.
Using posts on this forum as evidence is going to lead you in circles. Mag sil may have some interaction with the terpenes that has to do with its activation but look at the properties of the media
Silica 60 and magnesol should allow the non polar terpenes to flow right through. I would bet the same is true for mag sil but it may alter other flavor components and filtering in heptane kind of ruins the chances for terpene retention here anyways.
Linalool, the only desirable alcohol terpene I can think of that might be more polar than THC, would be an interesting one to look at with different mobile phase methods
Yes if you look at the chemical structure of magnesium chloride (and speculate about the
hydrated state magnesol or mag sil is in, or the lack thereof, ““activated”” )…and
if you have studied the spectrum of “terpenes” associated with flowering marijuana
plants, you might wonder about the statement… “magnesium silicate remove terps”.
Perhaps SeedlessAnalyical’s statement should be considered a better guess?
as AlexSiegel points out: Think Silica contaminated with the Mg++ counterion , acting as an ion exchanger
in addition to the normal phase interactions silica-polymers…
I don’t see the terpenes wanting to “stick around,” punning.
However, if you take a close look at the Marijuana list of terpenes here: The Cannabis Terpenes - PMC (a nice 2020 review )
you see a number of terps with alcohol moieties …these may intereact a bit?
The mag silicate effect may not be too different than the early work out of Mississippi
where they used “sand” to separate neutrals from acidics. Sand is a polysilicate adsorption surface contaminated with everything ! …and from there just extend your thoughts to
the variiety of inorgainic “filtering agents” in popular use…diatomaceous earths and bentonite clays, etc…charcoal/ Alunina oxides being the exceptions offering alternative
adsoption isotherms.
Seems like a good use of should to me. It displays that I don’t feel that I’m stating an absolute truth. It should be true based on the chemistry of the media.
You’re right I could have explained why in the conment
