Well, it’s a good thing you’re plugged in and can do it right. 
316L seems to be the best option. Still grade C vs D (304)
Pentane’s lower BP will be easier to preserve terps. Some of the biomass is fresh-frozen and all of it is fresh with a great terp profile. I’m pretty sure that Pentane is not reactive with 304, but because of its explosive potential, 316 is supposed to be used to protect welds from corrosion that could lead to a catastrophic leak. I could be wrong, though.
1 Like
Pentane is used for crystallization because of its solubility curve, because of this I think youre going to find you need to use more solvent than you would with heptane or hexane because its not going to want to hold as much of the cannabinoids especially cold because of its solubility
3 Likes
I doubt that will be a problem. Butane and propane are used for crystallization and they extract well at cold temps. With the diffusion of solvent through a spinning extraction, I’m sure we can grab most of what we want.
2 Likes
Do they use 316 for pentane barrels? I doubt it. Explains why they can corrode over time.
Propane is used as an anti solvent by some to force crystallization by modifying the solubility of butane
Have you ever actually extracted with straight cold propane? Its not that great at grabbing thca when cold but it loves terpenes
Theres a reason why pentane is chosen over hexane ( which is cheaper ) and heptane when doing crystallization
Yes. I extracted with cold propane from 2016-2017. It extracts just fine if you use enough of it. I don’t agree with calling propane an anti-solvent in this context.
I never said it was an anti solvent in this context… i said it can be used as an anti solvent to modify the solubility of butane…
Pentane and propane both have similar solubility charts so just like how you have to run more propane to extract most of the thca (when compared to butane) youll have to run more pentane to extract most of the thca (when compared to hexane or heptane)
1 Like
Yes, I know that I will have to use more pentane than I would heptane. I chose pentane to preserve terpenes during purging of the Mother liquor. Isolate is not the only goal. We’ll optimize solvent/biomass ratios and extraction time based on tests of spent biomass.
Barrels are usually polymer lined for problem chemicals.
1 Like
I have to heat my pentane or petroleumether to 28 C for optimal extraction efficiency hope you don t
Im not sure exactly what you’re asking me to reference, but dronabinol has been around for a few decades.
If you want to see the patent info for dronabinol, here:
If your’e asking about the molecular structure, here:
Additional/general information about it, here:
Asking you to explictly reference the differences.
Which are I believe are mostly stereochemistry.
You tell us not many know it. So how about changing that?
Those references do not explain how “synthetic THC” is “not real D9”…maybe you could elaborate?
Eg which molecules do you consider “real D9”, how (exactly) does that differ from dronabinol. how does that differ from legitimately hemp derived D9, vs D9 synthesized from CBD?
patent lists one method for synthesizing Dronabinol, from CBD, that certainly gives us a reference equivalency between Dronabinol and “D9” synthesized from CBD (at least some of it).
the Pubchem entry tells us there are two stereo-centers, and gives the optical rotation, but I don’t see that it defines the stereo-chemistry for us, or distinguishes it from it’s cannabis derived cousin.
the third ref gives nothing relevant to “how is it different?”.
so again, I’m asking if you have references for HOW they are molecularity different…because inquiring minds want to know…
only asking you because I tried digging in…and could not actually find what I was looking for…
what I did find suggests the “cannabis derived” vs "hemp derived’ (extracted not synthesized) are different (optically).
the refs you’ve given do state that Dronabinol is the “biologically active” THC
perhaps The evolving science of phytocannabinoids | Nature Reviews Chemistry has the answers?!?
The most abundant phytocannabinoid is (−)-trans-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol, a compound readily extracted from Cannabis sativa.
or minus paywall Sci-Hub | The evolving science of phytocannabinoids | 10.1038/s41570-017-0101
has some relevant info…but still not a clear description of the differences.
Although not a biomimetic process, the bicyclic CBD (11a) can be converted to 12a by means of an apparently simple ring closure. However, this reaction represents the biggest impediment to scaled production of THC-like compounds because it is not 12a but rather the double- bond regioisomer (–)-trans-Δ8-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ8-THC, 14) that is the thermodynamic product. The quantity of 14 formed can vary: it is often produced as a minor but difficult-to-separate impurity but can also be the sole product. Fortunately, we now have methods for the quantitative conversion of 14 into the desired Δ9-isomer 12a (REF. 25). Another hurdle in the ring closure of 11a to 12a is a competing reaction, in which it is not the terminal alkene but the endocyclic (top) double bond that reacts to give rise to iso-cannabinoids.
(maybe ref 25 is good reading?!?)
@TheVanillaGorilla you already know stereo-chemistry matters…
Another synthetic cannabinoid based on the THC class, dexanabinol, features opposite stereo- chemistry and is an anticonvulsant but is not an agonist of the cannabinoid receptors111
Figure 4 Synthetic approaches to Δ‐9 tetrahydrocannabinol
The syntheses of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol ( Δ9-THC 12a) are diverse, diverse, and each requires multiple steps. a | Catechol derivatives 7a and 7b participate in electrophilic aromatic substitution with cyclohexene 15 or 16 to afford cannabidiol (CBD) (11a), which undergoes an intramolecular reaction to give 12a. b | Alternatively, the catechols 7a and 7b, in combination with one of 15, 17, 18, 19 or 20, can be converted into 12a without the intermediacy of 11a,b. c | The cyclohexene ring of appropriate stereochemistry can be prepared individually (as with 24) or constructed on the aryl ring (25 and 26). d | All stereoisomers of 12a are available by α-allylation of an aldehyde 27 with the diether 28.
6 Likes
You kind of answered your own question.
Dronabinol is often defined as a “synthetic stereoisomer of THC” in scholarly journals. They wouldn’t call it a stereoisomer if it was the same as naturally derived D9. That’s enough information for me.
We know that there are two stereo centers, thus four stereoisomers. Whether natural D9 vs synthetic are enantiomers, diastereomers, etc. I couldn’t tell you, nor do I care. I don’t consume synthetic D9 and barely smoke the real stuff.
My initial response was to answer the persons question that started the thread. I wasn’t really looking for a debate and/or to get a bunch of requests to prove something. I promise you, with that definition, you can find the deeper scientific answer.
I personally don’t have the the time to dig through dozens of scholarly journals, but if you do, please share results.
As you wish…
1 Like
I apologize if my response was harsh. I didn’t even start reading the rest of the thread until right now. Been far too busy for my liking.
We’re still finishing up recovery and scrubbing from our test run, but it looks like our pentane yield will be as good or slightly better than the butane system with slightly lower quality.
Cbda is crashing, so thca should too.
1 Like
Add a drop of acid to your solvent hcl /iso in my case will speed up the crash
4 Likes
To clarify… “not real delta 9 THC” means WHAT to you @GJLConsulting?
my (continued) reading (because wtf gives up) suggests “real D9 is a scalemic mixture” and dronabinol is just a single isomer…
Substitute “real” for “natural”, and you’re closer…
The most potent stereoisomer occurs naturally as Δ9-THC where the two chiral centers at C-6a and C-10a are in the trans configuration as the (−)-trans-isomer, and this stereoisomer is also known as dronobinol.
US20200102283A1 - Methods for Obtaining Purified Cannabis Extracts and THCA Crystals - Google Patents
8 Likes
Thanks for the extra research. So there’s you answer.
I think I’ll personally continue to use synthetic or converted. It’s still not “real” as real to me is plant derived.