Anything actually new going on?

CannaBusiness
21

It has nothing to do with a reaction, its literally genetics and enzymes. Ive posted the paper before that talks about this along with the potencies of each isomer.

Btw that same paper says:

" We have established that all four stereoisomers of Δ9-THC (Figure 1) are natural products with the selective accumulation of the (−)-trans isomer in narcotic cannabis and comparable occurrence of the (−)-trans - and the (−)-cis -isomers in cannabis fiber hemp strains. In a sample of medicinal cannabis (Bedrocan), Δ9-THC is produced in very high enantiomeric purity (ee >99%) and exclusively in the trans -form"

Which is what @moronnabis was getting at

We do know that natural thc is the most potent optical isomer of the 4.

" To evaluate the bioactivity of the different THC stereoisomers, binding affinities and functional activities at both cannabinoid receptors, as well as the effectiveness in inhibiting enzymes involved in the degradative endocannabinoid metabolism (FAAH, MAGL, ABHD6, ABHD12), were evaluated for both enantiomers of Δ9-cis -THC, and the results were compared to those of (−)-Δ9-trans -THC. At the cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2, (−)-Δ9*-cis* -THC showed 10-fold lower binding affinities in both the binding assay and the functional assay. [(24)](javascript:void(0):wink: In contrast, (+)-Δ9-cis -THC was inactive in both assays, showing binding affinities as well as functional activities only in the high micromolar range."

From that same paper

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jnatprod.1c00513

22

I mean - it could be a reaction. There are ways of controlling reactions by using catalysts that are fucking huge. Or using solid state resins that reduce the chance to spin.

I had to deal with a lot of these issues in the past for other natural products.

And there’s also a whole science of people that create reaction matrices for separating out racemic mixtures during the reaction. We used to do this a lot for specialized phenol generation (similar to what we are talking about here). Where we made little nano-machines that would only key for one direction and those would get slurped up, leaving us with stereo pure substances.

We didn’t do this for a finished product - it was usually an intermediate step for proteins and such. But its doable.

I feel like most people do it with yeast and shit instead. Or at least they were like 10 years ago. Because it was easier to ferment something than to develop the perfectly keyed nano-machine. -shrug-

Gosh I love this thread and all its innovations and places for future improvements. <3 The best adventures ever!

4 Likes
23

You mean large scale bubble man card tech?

1 Like
24

Ok anyone have anything really new. That honestly we didn’t do 10 years ago? Thc-s is the only real new thing I’ve read here.

2 Likes
25

Pretty stoked about my newly patented Heating and Refrigeration technology. We have completely ditched the water heater and run our systems on compressor exhaust instead, which the compressor makes all the heat you would ever need. We also have on-demand heating and cooling to the rest of the system, capable of +50c to -50c in mere minutes with unprecedented COP (Coefficient of performance).

We cycle our solvent instead of doing tank to tank washes and is our first extraction patent. Essentially you have “unlimited” solvent.

No nitrogen, CO2, or expensive low-temp chillers. No ancillary closet. No water heaters.

I also have some super cool terpene isolation tech I have been working on for some time now. It’s a game-changer for sure. No membranes required!

After nearly everyone in the industry talked mad shit about how I was stupid for creating the Propane WFE it now finally becomes a thing…

…and everyone needs it to crash THCa isolate.

I’m actually a little disappointed I messed up the pressurized wfe patent at this point… Guess this tech was my gift to the industry. :person_shrugging: :person_facepalming: :rofl: :mechanical_arm:

3 Likes
26

There are many different ways to “manipulate” spin and/or percentages of in mixture (racemic). Enzymes is just one way of “manipulation” and quite honestly I know little about.

That may be true for THC. Although if we are to start from the point of 80 to 90% R then what exactly are you saying here?.. You see what I mean by the mixture of different optical values that needed to be evaluated better? but I know for a fact that at least for one of the analogs it does not hold true. Think of MDMA at 100% optical purity is not as pleasant as a racemic.
I know you are into membrane filtration so maybe you should try to go down the rabbit hole of optical separation via membrane that is coated with sort of a hydrophobic material but it is phobic to specific optical enantiomer. I know it’s been done to some success before. Think of the possibilities if you can actually get it done and make it commercially viable!

1 Like
27

I love the frustration.

Thing is, its all optimization at this point, innovation is gonna be hard to come by at this point.

The old saying “Nothing new under the sun” is kinda valid at this point.

I think there might be some “new to cannabis” things that’ll sprout up, but will just be innovated from other fields.

Best advice I ever got from one of my professors “you wont make anything new, you’ll just take two things that are there and use them in a new way”.

Best practical advice I ever got.

28

@thecandyman here you go. Did you hear about this tec from an Israeli company operating now out of Israel and Canada ?

29

I haven’t seen any reference to the published work you describe. Please advise it is clearly possible I am ignorant of such material.
I know both CBC and “cis” D9 can be found as enantiomeric mixtures. For example:(https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jnatprod.1c00513)

Natural Δ9-cis -THC (3 ) is scalemic (ca. 80–90% enantiomeric purity), and the absolute configuration of the major enantiomer was established as 6aS ,10aR [(−)-3 ] by chiral chromatographic comparison with a sample available by asymmetric synthesis. The major enantiomer, (−)-Δ9-cis -THC [(−)-3 ], was characterized as a partial cannabinoid agonist in vitro and elicited a full tetrad response in mice at 50 mg/kg doses.
However earlier work 2004 patent (WO2005/061480 A1) or so with preparative chiral separations of biomass derived (−)-trans -Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol at purity level of 99% have no mention of (+) form as impurity while pointing out other cannabinoid impurities.

6aR ,10aR )-delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol is (−)-trans -Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol; THC
Most often referred to as the (−)-trans -Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol; THC .
[/quote]. So due to complex naming of nomenclature, I am talking about 6aR, 10aR,
(6a R ,10a R )-6,6,9-trimethyl-3-pentyl-6a ,7,8,10a -tetrahydrobenzo[c]chromen-1-ol) …
Does it have R configuration at both 6a and 10a chiral centers? Yes. so am I agreeing with you about R…but I am curious about your references. I have not found any reference to “S” forms of trans delta 9 in nature.

The reference to the Waters corp separation and WO2005/061480 A1 are examples of chiral separation technology applied to cannabis biomass.

sorry about misreading your term “therapines and associated compounds”…

1 Like
30

Yeah bro that’s the wrong study. I’ll have dig through some of my stuff to find the right one.

31

Lincoln20XX’s full scale water processing plant is NEW.

It is a game changer and we should look forward his results.

Roguelab may have a large scale water extraction system as well. Perhaps he could clarify the state of the Water Art, on the continent…I am not sure if the Aluminum problem is/was part of this system.

The future is water tech in the form of “food processing.”

As noted above by Farid above , Sambo Creek’s electrostatic Separation of trichomes is certainly “the Sleeping Giant”. (rosin-press boys are on this Big Time) Large scale automated trichome separation is the future of biomass handling. CryoMass technologies coupled with a post screening Sambo Creek system would certainly change the fresh frozen concept as well. Once you switch over to extracting trichomes , you wont go back to big bucket biomass.

Here is a NEW horizon to shoot for. Starting with any type of biomass and solvent of choice, what is the shortest time course SOP to crystalline state THCA (90% + pure)? Can it be done in, one hour or less. Perhaps 10 minutes? Something to think about. And it is a challenge.

1 Like
32

Us? Nah. Nothing exciting or interesting going on up here. We’re just spashing around on the crazy end of the pond, pissing away money, and making fools of ourselves. We really don’t know what we’re doing, so there’s no reason to pay any attention to us at all. Many people say it, so it must be true.

I agree that working from trichomes is much simpler than working from biomass. Less post-extraction workup to do, less volume to deal with.

However, I don’t believe that it will ever be economically competitive at the acre+ per hour scale to remove the trichomes from the biomass before processing, if one is focused on producing cannabinoid isolates.

The post-biomass workup is a pain to get right. It’s a number of additional steps, and those take time and money. But once you get it dialled in, it doesn’t really add much to your opex.

It is entirely possible that trichome separation could make sense for those interested in producing full spectrum/rec type products. That’s not my game so I won’t pretend to have a valid opinion on it. Maybe in a year or two I’ll have time to focus on terps and I’ll learn something.

At certain scales with water I am reasonably confident I could get under an hour. Probably under half an hour if I wanted to cut some corners and accept yield losses for the purposes of doing a speed run.

That’s of course assuming I want to yield the whole extraction batch/run as one. Under ten minutes is almost certainly doable if the metric is “time to first produced gram of >=90% THCA”

Given sufficient capital I think it would be possible to build a system at almost any scale that would run at that speed.

It would be a dumb way to spend money, because there is very little real advantage to designing your system to run that fast - it would be probably 5x-10x the cost for functionally the same daily throughput.

But people were spending millions of dollars on CO2 machines so it’s definitely not the dumbest way to burn cash that I can think of.

1 Like
33

Lots happening on the pharma side of things. New production stratgies for the production of API Dronabinol are revolutionizing/disrupting standing production methods.

The american rec industry is dead, the European pharma industry is burdgeoning and lots of cool stuff is happening behind closed doors when it comes to cannabinoids.

Lots of innovation has taken place and theres much more innovation to be had.

5 Likes
34

If you broke that into two classifications, 1.) wet and 2.) dry situations. The Pakistanis and Syrians have been using field dried materials for a 1000 years. The subject matter of large scale (Ag-scale) harvest of say 400 acre circular irrigation units of cannabis biomass is problematic no matter what. It deserves some thought on innovation. What ever your design for “trichome harvest” you need to leave 95% of the biomass in the field.
About pissing away money and time researching water extraction methods…I wouldn’t know anything about that subject.
Now here is a 2022 literature concept that 4200 thinkers ought to consider “NEW”.

image
image2388×1668 1.29 MB

“While lipophyllic species-both neutral and anion - predominately reside in the organic phase”

And Lincoln, I agree with you about the minimum time factor approaching minutes in the limit.

2 Likes
35

No, something more advanced like leveraging Sambo Creek’s technology. Carding is very difficult to scale - I think even glove tek would be better to scale.