Hi
Just came across this article and wanted to bring this up to ask if anyone has experience with this method or product.
1 Like
Good read, cool science, but i dont know if i can see it being utilized en masse.
The yield increase is somewhat worth it if you got 25% more (their max extra vs normal extract) but then they showed that an ethanolic extract with IL was pretty much a similar yield.
The 70â°c soak and extraction temps also appear to decarb some acidics, which is fine for some needs, being this is hemp focused and not high THC rec production tech.
I feel like ethanol expanded co2 is still a better process and less down line processing to remove ionic liquids in theory.
1 Like
I think you just take in account solvent costs.
Decarboxylation can be catalysed.
I actually donât think recovery of the spent IL is worth the effort because of the solid/liquid ratio.
It does not dissolve in scco2 and seems not to be a cosolvent. There are several extractions taking place between the phases.
When IL-water mixture is mixed with the biomass, it hydrolyses some biopolymers and dissolves the inside of the trichome until saturated.
The co2 then expands and extracts the mix.
So if the mix is polar enough the extraction kinetik favors slightly more polar substances than lipids.
Probably winterizing could be skipped before MD.
They compare ethanol as a cosolvent with scco2. Typo.
What is the biomass to ionic liquid ratio used per run?
Supplementary data and the âconventional solvent extractionâ suggest that they used 0.2g for all extractions.
0.2g to 3ml IL with 3 ml or 6 ml water are unreasonable ratios. There would be unused space in the vessel.
I am sorry 
I allways wonder why people write articles and donât realize they donât varry the most important pararmeters.
NMR spectra of the used and purified solvents look too good to be true..
They just filtered and dried them.