I’ll try to be brief… hashfight is about empowering this community to test theories in a safe, controlled environment in order to collect both objective and subjective data until we run out of questions or hash or both.
Jane and I have been busy working and filming more hashfights, but we finally have a few videos and compilations to post for everyone regarding our most recent hashfight. You can see the videos on our instagram and youtube accounts.
You can also submit your ideas, enter your lab to compete, or call out equipment manufacturers to make them prove their claims via our website www.hashfight.us
TLDR;
We ran the same crude in two different columns using the SOPs offered by each manufacturer to attempt to improve product purity and remove contaminants. This is a fight we’ll be repeating often with new media types and methods, but it’s off to a great start because in this particular example ALL SAMPLES PASSED FOR NON-DETECTED PESTICIDE
Here’s the test results for the original crude, which we did not extract ourselves. I’ll post the test results for each unique fraction from our chromatography run and our continuous run in separate comments below. In our opinion the real winner here is the consumer because we were able to prove that with both fractional and continuous media usage we could completely remove pesticides from the final product without losing terpene or (most) minor cannabinoid content.
But alas, more data leads to more questions as usual. Please follow our other accounts for the most current info - we’re funding and producing this entire project ourselves which means it might take us a while to get back to you - but I promise we will…try
We ran this media in a 6"x36" column with a heated jacket at 100psi. Fractions were collected via falling film evaporator which means we could collect them in a fairly uninhibited flow. Even so, I use a thermometer in the flowline to identify temperature changes that trigger collecting a separate fraction. The overall yield was 59% of the original crude, a striking difference from the Media Bros product, but with notably higher terpene and minor cannabinoid content.
Similar fractions were combined shortly after pouring, then we tested those grouped fractions to obtain the following results:
It’s a bit hard to get any real information from this at this point.
If you’re not using the same amount of media running through the exact same setup how are you actually comparing correctly? In my opinion there will be variables that you are not taking into account that will effect amongst others yield and percentages.
I’d recommend changing your runs to keep everything the same between brands tested and running the exact same amount of crude and then using the same distillation process to more accurately compare the products.
If I’m missing something i apologize, also try and label the pic better cause it’s very hard to see what’s what at this point in time.
We used different sized columns because the point of this experiment was to test different methods. on the exact same crude.
Media Bros specifically recommends using a narrower column and flow restrictor to increase residency time. The chromatography method we used with the Carbon Chemistry media can achieve high levels of filtration with less media in a shorter period of time.
In my opinion, using the same amount of media would be inappropriate in this case because we are not testing similar media, but instead are comparing two different methods. If one contender was Brand A Alumina and another contender was Brand B Alumina then identical process parameters would be more appropriate. Since we’re testing methods we want to give each SOP the ability to perform as usual with the crude and solvent inputs being the controls.
As a follow up, I just want to add that I would love to test similar products from different manufacturers, too. But we’re like 10 hashfights deep right now with even more to come. So we’re taking this just one fight at a time.
We hope to continue performing and compiling as many of these tests as possible until the data is truly useful. Past performance does not always predict future performance, so we do not aim to prove any one point in particular. We just want to see the numbers. Even if they surprise us. Even if they change. Even bad news can be interesting and enlightening. Either way, we’ll share everything we know until we learn something new, and then we’ll share that too.
I understand what your getting at, but we are left with more questions because more than 1 factor changed in the experiment (hashfight). If you are testing parameters. I would have tested both medias in both sets of parameters, or one set of media in both parameters. I understand that we are running one much hotter than the other, and different clays/ media/ silicas have ideal temp zones depending on how your using them. However I would still like to see it done this way so that more conclusions are able to be drawn as opposed to hypothesis.
It’s a lot of money to run these experiments. I’m certain she could design experiments in which the purpose is to compare media 1:1. The fact that she is sharing the results openly with all of us is amazing and since we are not contributing financially, we are in no position to tell her which experiments to prioritize.
Thank you MurphyMurri for the awesome data, we really appreciate it!
Not once did I tell her which experiments to prioritize or for that matter how to run her experiments. Diction is not something I use lightly and I am usually very careful of how I say what I say. I have known many with PHD’s that get so heavily involved in the intricacies of what they are doing that they sometimes forget the fundamentals. This was meant to be a simple reminder/ sharing of my opinion on what’s being done, and how possibly the community this is meant for could benefit greater.
I would like to double up on the thank you and appreciation to Murphy though, “props” this has gotta be a fun venture.
Media Bros zeolite is not a chromatography media, so it wouldn’t make much sense to run it as such considering we already know the product does not have fractionation capabilities.
Ultimately, this experiment is about continuous crc vs chromatography, which is why we ran the experiment the way we did.
It would be great to compare other continuous flow products vs media bros and other chromatography media against carbon chemistry media - but unless the media are functionally similar the experiment would be biased.
The conclusions you can draw from the experiment we conducted are pretty solid considering they are all supported by simple math.
both methods eliminated spinosad completely from the crude oil
the media bros continuous crc method delivered a higher total yield with lower cannabinoid & terpene content
the media bros continuous crc method failed to preserve any CBDa, but did recover the CBGa and CBC minors.
the carbon chemistry chromatography method delivered a lower yield but much higher and more diverse terpene content and higher overall cannabinoid retention.
the carbon chemistry method preserved all minor cannabinoids and eluted the d8, CBGa and CBDa in separate fractions.
These results are intended to inform your opinions of each process with objective data, not to convince you one method is better than the other.
There’s no such thing as “best” because there’s no two extraction or purification scenarios that are exactly alike. And even if there was… having more tools in your toolbox is only helpful when you know how to use them.
Respect on the Hypothesis, Data and Results. Interesting Results, showing pros and cons of each of the Medias. I count 7 variables (Column width, Media choice, retention time, Temperature, Pressure, volume of media, and Continuous in line filtration vs batch chromatography). For best results (and mitigation of peer speculation), it may be beneficial to standardize the parameters and only have one variable (same column, compare continuous with both media vs chromo w both media) per experiment. it would be interesting to see the retention of minors (adsorption vs impediment) and yield effect if both were run continuous (which seems to improve yield) or if the fractionation adsorbs or inhibits the flow of minors thru the MB in a column.
I applaud your peer inclusion on a potentially valuable trade secret. Keep up the Stellar work.
