d8THCA has been confirmed as a side product of Dr. Scialdone and Chris Barones hydrogenation. They use a Parr-hydrogenator(unsafe apparatus according to @anon93688) and 99% d9THCA in Ethanol with added catalyst Palladium on carbon.
Reported ~30% d8THCA in addition to the ~69 HHCA produced. Both CO-crystallized together after reaction and workup.
@anon93688, I think they finally got the catalysts for this reaction last week
Proof this man gives SOPs away
The parr shaker is a low key bomb. I spent a whole summer running hydrogenations and was worried I’d blow up since you are running 20+ psi and forcing that reaction.
Hydrogen gas under pressure, full metal housing and an old electric motor shaking it violently, what’s not to love? Haha
Old school chemist cared very little of safety.
Strongly disagree
Not many are really using pentane to extract, just added to be thorough but care to elaborate? With compatible pumps and piping, it’s the same process, many ethanol extractors are already in C1D1 spaces? I guess easy is relative but it’s pretty straightforward.
Also keep in mind this is reference to comparing with the cost of scaling the recarboxylation of CBG or CBD. I’m saying modification could be cheaper for many. I’m open to put real numbers together to really compare apples to apples
Anything can be made and usually has multiple routes to achieve it. This industry or any is all about maximizing efficiency and minimizing cost. I’d be happy to be wrong, it’s hard to know when the process is proprietary but either way it’s always comes down to the individuals situation and resources.
If you had a mfg build you a centrifuge to pentane specs, and it was rated as such from the mfg, then ya it would work.
You could definitely do it in your garage I suppose. But I’ve been setting up labs all over the country, and one of the biggest issues I’ve seen are people buying random shit and throwing it in the lab, only to get shit on by the fire marshal.
PSI told me months ago theyd approve an SOP for heptane in a centrifuge, if your SOP was peer reviewed I dont see it as a problem.
The reagents for the carboxylation reaction I’m trying are expensive
I agree with @Dabatronicus, scaling up and using membranes to skip distillation would be a much easier answer and more cost effective than carboxylating material.
I mean if you’re adding 13% weight by carboxylating and you get under a kilo of cbd a back on a kilo of cbd it’s not a very efficient reaction.
If you really want cbd a that bad why not run it like thc a through a CLS and keep the terpenes? You can also CRC to lower the Ph to help with crystallization(this is a must for cbd a crystallization)
Excellent, because that means you’re not working with the same method I prefer and to which I’m alluding! The reagents are plentiful and inexpensive if you actually do the work to prepare them yourself.
You must not have much actual experience in organic chemistry if you think an 80%+ molar yield is inefficient!!
Because CBD isolate is dirt cheap
he doesnt.
Does the other 20% remain as CBD?
That yield is AFTER purification, so the actual yield is probably a bit higher.
Some CBD is recoverable, less than 5%.
There will also be a small amount of cbd that is doubly carboxylated.
If I had to guess, I’d say the yield is ~90% pre-workup.
Does doubly carboxylated CBD have an additional ~13% mass?
Yes, it increases the mass.
80% yield is horrible when you can avoid the whole process by not decarbing in the first place.
You’re literally loosing yield and creating a product that sells for around the same price.
I’d rather make cbn
Especially if clean up is required
So is cbd a isolate if you make it from hemp instead of making cbd then turning it into cbd a.
If the reaction is so useless, why are you spending money on expensive reagents and wasting your time on it?
