CRC Filter Media popular brands

Well, lots of interesting things happened in the past months. Well, I took it a step further. I have been not satisfied with companies mixing filter media and selling it for a lot of money. Therefore, my lab did some analyzing of some of the most popular filter media from Chemtek, media Bros and Carbon chem. The results have been really shocking so far. The most interesting results so far have been from the w1. Especially because they are not consistent at all. The pH they advertise is all over the place, probably resulting from shortages of certain Brazilian distributors.
However, who is interested in recipes? Who has complaints? Who want better and more consistent filtration media?


What’s the ph levels you are seeing? I just looked at their data sheet and it says a ph of 3

Just checked a few other suppliers, and it’s advertised as a ph of 3 as well.

As for pricing, all I can say is when we all first were trying b80, I got a bag from oil dri and broke a bunch out to send to everyone , and sure it was cheap as fuck, but it does take a bit of time and effort to bag this stuff up and ship it out.

I can see someone doing this stuff at scale would absolutely want to cut those costs down tho.

Edit: I’m obviously not affiliated with any of the above companies, just playing devils advocate. Also added some words


If you’re gonna make a claim like this, you should be showing some data along with it.

Share the data you found from your tests.


Post the data please


I’d love to see the numbers as well. How were the test performed?

Looking forward to this thread. Think it’s gonna be awesome!!


Where’s the data?


seems simple enough to add a bit to distilled water and use a ph pen.

1 Like

Yep your gonna have to give more than an opinion to turn us from the media

I thought w1 was very consistent…also lustermax…b80…and/or t5 and silica60. If ur weighing the media every time it should be really consistent.

And I always bake media also

But yeah I wanna see some data on w1 not being consistent w what they advertise bc I’ve never seen different

1 Like

Our filtration media is very consistent had have validation tests supporting of this. Including lot testing of all materials at time of manufacture. Thank you,

What filteration media?

1 Like

This goes against chemtek sop.

Even spdking said the other day that ph will shift towards neutral as the media sits longer.

I have been using only w1 for awhile and I believe it allows the extract flavor to be unmolested. If the material is fire then the color is excellent as well. If the material is aged, some silica will most likely be necessary to get a good color.

With the current climate of pricing for bulk extracts and lack of consumer desire to pay more money, it can be tough to justify paying for w1. If you’re a mids guy I would just go b80 and silica


We supply different media to the industry, but lenticular media probably the most. We also have sintered stainless, Polypropylene, different membrane types. Carbon. It just depends on the application. Thanks, Greg

1 Like

I’ve got so much w1, w2, w3,w4,w5… lustermax,b80,t5 and silica60 that I can crc for years!!!

W1 and lustermax are my go tos

I’ve heard w2 is the best for keeping terp profile the same but I’ve never used it

I have the old W2.

Some my powders are over year old and still seem to do the same

1 Like

Bentonite clay, silica? You’re being off topic. A lenticular filter impregnated with activated charcoal is not “CRC”.

1 Like

W series, b80 and similar products are extremely inconsistent. When you look at things like mag sil, silica 60, treated clay’s, carbons and purified silica’s…these items are regularly found in pharma labs and processing centers for chemical treatment or processing of reactions. Filtration and purification and so forth. You don’t find w series or b80 being used anywhere in reputable pharma labs or so forth. Not to say in times it can’t be used, but there are purer, consistent and guaranteed chemistry of the supplied powders available elsewhere for labs. I say this with the devil’s advocate statement that even some clay’s are borderline in true lab work. In fact the greatest liability in this industry is powders being used in smokeable consumables. Wich is extreme when it comes to legal liability and care of use. When we talk about fly by night companies using clay’s or kitty litter for processing needs it automatically ventures to the food grade consumable regulations. In the smoking side on consumables there’s unknowns and statements made by vendors for lack of PPE required or pre processing not needing to dry or prep materials is all bogus. In the smoking side none of these fly by night media companies do serious five to ten year health studies within the clause of Thier medias being used in smokeables…some food for thought.

There’s are laws and regulations and policies for any hazard related material handling that makes you think twice about the ass clowns who make claims that medias or anything with dust or powders don’t require PPE or possible pre treatment before useage…there is literal case law that revolves around lawsuits in this topic.

W series and ChemTek sorbents are more consistent than the CC medias you push. They fill in the gaps that we need to make good extract. The W Series clays are single source clays with specific pH, moisture, and activation type unlike Carbon Chem which are blends for example T5. We want to let the user decide if they want to use silica or not and we want to provide natural, neutral, and acidic clay options not just neutral clay.

As for the carbons, we offer an acidic and a natural version of bentonite/carbon blends that have a much more accurate pH. Once again we want to let the user decide wether they need natural or acidic options. The T41 you push has a very inconsistent pH.

And MagSil/silica60 is from China look up the import history. I thought you hated Chinese products


I don’t think you understand the point. You are vomiting of the mouth in circles chasing your tail.

Any product you sell you do not have the 5-10 year clinical study for heavy users without respiration. You have no clinical consequence trials. You aren’t liable for medical bills and have no customers visiting doctors and so forth you can’t make those claims. Just to give you a example de was a 25-35 year case study before the safety and results were made fact. As you know silica handling is highly dangerous.

I mentioned clay’s in general are a grey line topic so your response was golden garbage.

Silica, chroma medias, carbons, and similar known lab medias have case studies and factual non deniable studies and results that follows.

Some of the product you speak of do not, and especially when rebranded by your company or resold under a special label all have not been involved in these studies.

I am not personally a fan of t41. I don’t push it. T41 is simply put acidic t5 mixture with acidic carbon. I don’t sell kitty litter and make invalid public claims about not needing PPE when dealing with medias or powders and as well false guarantee that any earth based products aren’t absorbing moisture when exposed to atmosphere. Most media is stored in super sacks and when packaged can easily contain moistures.

You have to provide millions of dollars and hire numerous doctors and clinical results need to be presented to make safety claims.

Next time focus on the topics and don’t derail the subject. To respond to you, your product lacks the range claims on the documents you supply. Making claims of a simplex range, however all treated or neutral media always has a range. None of it so exact. The science of making flu carbon powder results in inconsistent particle sizes and a wide range of pH. It has a window. When you point at other peiples products and make claims that another has a exact range that it sits at you should reconsider opening your mouth.

Who hurt you?


Nobody. Don’t take it personally.


I’ve asked a couple times before, but

is there any history of any adsorbents or medias being used on products intended to be vaporized?

1 Like