With CRC very rapidly gaining attention and modifications, I’ve noticed several different companies advertising proprietary filtration medias. In this thread I would like to kindle a discussion about the different medias, their overall usefulness, specific properties and utilization. As well as, these new medias and their best discernable safety profile.
Everyone knows there’s a lot of Tom foolery in the business. When stuff like this gets rapidly popular, there’s always some dirtbag that could care less about public safety and will take any chance to capitalize on a fad. The people here are the primary users of these medias, and there are a lot of processors that will use something that works well, but isn’t safe to use. The thickeners and viscosity agents are a perfect example.
That being said, to the best of my recollection of my reading, B80 seemed to be the ideal media in my mind, because it doesn’t require several other medias being stacked in a specific order. I have to worry about teaching lab techs, so, the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle seems ideal.
I have also seen a product called Clearly Scientific that I wonder about, but as mentioned before, I don’t trust the safety profile of.
Another product line slides the pH further acidic to 2.5 over several gradients.
I’ll post on this thread — all NSF / kosher verified certified adsorbents etc.
We’ve been getting a lot of chatter about celite - insurance companies and Co are not covering this product in a throughtput to inhalation. OSHA also states issue related.
This is a great post, want to make sure we are providing the community with the best information but also safe and effective materials and products.
Be weary of those who sell Celite 545 etc.
while we can discuss if it’s acceptable, the reality is that it will not be covered by insurance companies if It is connected in any way to smokable / inhalation products. So what does that tell you?
Here is a handy chart from the Pure Flo website that @Waxplug1 has posted before:
I currently get the best results from T41 (ph3, 10% carbon), but I have noticed a negative variance in the newest batch of this product that has recently been released from Carbon Chemistry (which I’ll make a post about later) and I’m looking for an alternative.
Has anyone switched from T41 to Supremem 55 that is willing to discuss the results? I had the idea to try and mix in a slight amount of carbon to the S55 to make a cheaper T41 replica. I’m currently waiting on some S55 to arrive.
Another thing I’m highly interested in is how the CRC flow rate corresponds to the particle size of the clay used. I think this might be a key factor for us to consider. Larger particle sizes may require more clay to be as effective but could also increase the flow rate (and production rate) significantly.
In the Pure Flo chart pictured above, does anyone understand what the bottom row of data means? I’m a little confused. It lists a percentage and the description says " Particle size, US Standard Sieve: Through 325 mesh (<45 micron) wt %.
Does this mean the listed percentage is the amount of the product that would fit through a 45 micron screen? I notice that the Supreme 55 has the smallest percentage by far at 46%.
@Tech1145 I use supreme55 instead of t-41 because I specifically dislike using carbon due to it’s unselective nature. Works great. @Kingofthekush420 I guess @CuriousChemist22 and I left before the knowledge sesh began huh?
@Krative Thanks for the input. Are you saying the S55 worked as a direct drop in replacement for T41 with the same color remediation effect? I have noticed in my R&D that T41 (low ph bentonite and 10% carbon) will give a more “water clear” result versus T5 (neutral ph bentonite). I have been wondering if that effect is due to the 10% carbon, the low ph bentonite, or both. That’s why I’m eager to try some low ph bentonite on it’s own.
I called and asked Carbon Chem if the low ph clay they use in T41 could be sourced without the carbon and was told no.
I don’t notice too much of a yield loss in the T41 vs T5. I notice the majority of the lost yield seems to be dependent on the amount of silica used. I run a lot of CRC columns and always weigh the powders before and after, giving them a full day to disperse any residual solvent trapping within.
@Kingofthekush420 I have been hearing murmurs about opaline silica, better known as hydrated silica. I believe its basically the same silicon dioxide as the silica gel we currently use, just with a variable amount of waters of hydration in the formula. I’m interested but remain skeptical as always until experimental data starts to come in.
What exactly are the claims about its use?
The world of bleaching clays and adsorbents/absobents is a big one so it’s possible there are many paths to the results we’re looking for.
@Waxplug1 I would like to know this as well. What exactly did Photon say about this product? We don’t have much information to be jumping to any conclusions yet. By the way did you ever try any Trisil silica? I saw you mention that on IG but it’s hard to tell from Grace’s website if it is hydrated “opaline” silica or not.
Check wikipedia for hydrated silica guys. Hydrated silica is found in nature as opal. Opaline silica is hydrated silica. I believe this is a very common product and not some rare, special unicorn.
@J12 what is your basis for saying “seems like the terps would come out better with opaline silica”?
Did you read king’s post saying he’s waiting to get some? I don’t think anyone has enough data to tell you if you can “ditch the clays”.