3 Spaces… pre-formatted text
Or
2 Likes
So last night after I completed the first 3 control tests, I thought a 4th one soaked for 30 seconds should be added to match the video session. Here’s the table with the 4th soak done this morning.
Label Alcohol 2oz Material Soak time Decarbed Yield
Grn 91% Chopped 10m N 7.8g
flower
Blu 99% 1/4in bud 10m N 7.1g
Red 99% 1/4in bud 10m Y 8.4g
Ylw 99% 1/4in bud 30s N 5.0g
Interesting it yielded 5g after 30 seconds but only yielded 7-8g after 20 times longer.
As mentioned above, I’m going to spend the next couple days doing the 3 RxCE runs to match the 10 minute control test soak times.
Observation: 3/5 is 60% of the 5g total. Add in winterization, waste water emulsion and transfer losses, this makes more sense. Its backed up with the potency rising from 34% to 78%.
I’ll be back with the 3 long soak tests.
(edit: added the pic…)
1 Like
In our testing of most liquid solvents, 45 seconds was sufficient soak contact time to get about as much extraction into the solvent as you’re going to. Longer soaks didn’t pick up substantially more target compounds, especially at temperatures in the range of -20°C to ambient.
5 Likes
Morning!
Finally done. I ran a total of seven 2oz oil runs, four as controls, three as full RxCE processes.
Here are numbers -
Label Alcohol Plant Soak time Decarbed WW* Waxes Yield
Grn#1 91% Chopped 10m N n/a n/a 7.8g
flower
Blu#1 99% 1/4in bud 10m N n/a n/a 7.1g
Red#1 99% 1/4in bud 10m Y n/a n/a 8.4g
Ylw#1 99% 1/4in bud 30s N n/a n/a 5.0g
---
Grn#2 91% chopped 10m N 1g 1g 5.6g 75% ATC**
Blu#2 99% 1/4in bud 10m N .4g .8g 5.3g 74.6% ATC**
Red#2 99% 1/4in bud 10m Y .2g 1g 5.8g 69% ATC**
*WW = Waste Water. Waxes and waste water were boiled down and measured.
**ATC = Available Total Cannabinoids to solvent extraction.
Observations:
First, let me say, I coined the term ATC to qualify the Total Cannabinoids available to solvent extraction since the control tests show a best case 80% yield to the theoretical maximum TC listed in the COA. As with other things, solvent extraction appears to follow the 80/20 rule where 80% is easy, the last 20% is exponentially harder for every additional percent, just like charging batteries, etc. It’s worse in this case as the COA says TC=24%, CBD=17%. At 24%TC, the control cases show a 50% loss; whereas, the 17% shows a more realistic 30% loss. This leads me to believe the COA might not be accurate. A 10 minute wash then boiled down to oil should have returned a higher yield if 24% were accurate.
On to the observations…
The third control Red#1, and test Red#2 used decarbed flower (classic 40min at 240f in the oven…) with the results being wonky. The yield in Red#1 being significantly higher that the first two. I thought it should be lower, then realized it might indicate the first two had losses due to acidic cannabinoids being somewhat water soluble increasing those losses. But the actual test Red#2 yield fell in line with Grn#2 and Blu#2. So the 8g result is still open to discussion. The wonkiness is the fact Red#2 didn’t have higher yield and it flows like cooking oil, a fluid state at room temperature. So decarbing first then subjecting the wash to a water wash to purge water solubles does have an effect, to be investigated further.
Conclusions:
My definition of ATC defines a real-world maximum yield versus the theoretical maximum based only on COA numbers, but not attainable by solvent based extractions (I’m curious what BHO and C02 extractions can achieve). This number is determined by the 10 minute soak control cases.
Using the ATC as the real world maximum yield, you can see how I come by the 25% loss. Standard winterization results in a 15-18% loss by removing waxes. The water wash removes an additional amount upwards of 8-10% by removing water solubles.
These tests do show my 30 second quick wash resulting in a 3g yield is leaving some cannabinoids behind.
The one aspect of RxCE not yet discussed is ‘Rapid Winterization’. I’d like to explore that further here on Future4200, maybe a different thread? Here’s what it looks like. After the removal of the water solubles, redissolving the oil in ethanol results in room temperature wax formations, much like methanol. Placing this in the freezer for 15 minutes then passing it thru a nylon fabric results in the middle frame. Without a vacuum, I gave it a slight squeeze resulting in the third frame. This is the most significant benefit RxCE brings to the table, a way to winterize without the 12-24hr penalty.
(Edits: corrected Red#2 column width and decarb entry to Y instead of N)
1 Like
oh, forgot to say, I’ll send Blu#2 and Red#2 to the lab for potency testing, will report back the findings…
2 Likes
Not attainable by single stage soak-only liquid solvent based extractions.
We regularly extract over 93% of cannabinoids from the biomass into our solvent in our liquid phase extractions on the first try, and with some tuning for a given biomass type/batch/grind we have been able to consistently get over 99%.
See here for a general description of the procedure: It washes the cannabis and then it washes the cannabis some more
5 Likes
MiniEmu…
RSO was green black goop.
You seem to be “touching” on the concept or concepts involving advantages of using water based extraction system…but back dooring into the field utilizing water mixtures of protic and aprotic polar solvents.
Moreover you have no designed endpoint of what it is you want to compose your new version of colored goop. RSO as a mixture for efficacy curing “what not” …is/was ill defined to begin with. Quo Vadis? Should we assume your newly defined goop cures “cancer as well”.
The only thing I can ascertain is with all that boiling of “the louches” , you are certainly decarbed eliminating all possibility of cannabinoic acids and volitile terps.
Start with pure water work backwards until you get goop.
2 Likes
You right RSO is green black goop. It is nasty to ingest. I started at zero almost 3 years ago during the covid lockdown to improve the oil. What I’ve identified is a simple ‘hack’ on making RSO, that has huge ramifications on quality.
“You seem to be “touching” on the concept or concepts involving advantages of using water based extraction system…but back dooring into the field utilizing water mixtures of protic and aprotic polar solvents.”
That’s where the 3 years has led me, an optimally ordered set of steps to produce near distillate quality oil in the kitchen. Realize you can do the whole process with Ethanol. Distilling in water removes the polar and semi-polar compounds is what optimizes the Rapid Winterization, not the solvent per se.
“Quo Vadis?”
I assume you jumped in on the end of the thread. Did you see the website and RxCE page?
Remember, this is for the home bound MMJ patient. Think of it as the Poor Man’s Refinement process. You can now take 2oz dried plant and make winterized decarbed oil that is just under distillate quality in under 2 hours. This oil is clean enough to be vaped, something you don’t want to do with RSO/FECO. My lab tests shows the process takes TC from 34% to 79%.
As far as efficacy in application, there are many successful stories of application, the research is catching up. Here is Gray Wolf’s article written back in 2012 on SkunkPharmReseach showing how it helped an individual with an opioid addiction. I have a friend in the UK who is cancer free after receiving a late stage diagnosis of bladder cancer. My focus is to improve the oil, not to prove it’s a cure-all.
Actually, by boiling off the alcohol in water, it acts as a buffer to retain cannabinoic acids and above 212f boiling point terps. It’s the reduction step where most elimination happens, so you can make adjustments to finalize the oil. At that stage, you have winterized oil in ethanol as a tincture ready for consumption, all under 2 hours.
That’s the success of this optimization.
1 Like
Considering that CB1 and CB2 are GPCRs any extract of cannabis strains is going to “hit a bull eye” of some sort.
I actually like your work, especially simplicity and I understand the “preparation at home concept .“
If you want to be really “pure” about your process why not stick to FDA GRAS materials…in this case Water, Ethanol and EthylAcetate. Water alone can get you crystalline THCA hydrates.
Just a point of interest: FYI, the water is catalytic when it comes to decarbing the cannabinoic acids….so my question would be, have you measured the THCA/THC levels at the beginning and end point of various procedures? What is your target…do you want the the cannabinoics or the neutrals or do you want the mixture….water procedures offer a bit of tuning.
If you want a product you can eat in 15 minutes why not promote Bhang as a home remedy as well?
Three buckets and a Buchner will get you there…but you already know that. In the end point, you want “something”extracted from a cannabis plant in an alcohol tincture.(?)
“Something” is most likely cannabinoids. And as you are pointing out…you don’t need the green black (?).
Keep up the good work…excelllent.
Water systems will transform the cannabis industry.
Yes, I am taking the opportunity to “pitch”.
2 Likes
For a 93% return, what was the solvent temperature and soak time? What other factors are involved, such as centrifuge alcohol recovery?
1 Like
The details are in the thread I linked, but the short version is that rinsing with virgin solvent - which is the same as multiple extractions/soaks - boosts your efficiency substantially.
Every time we’ve played with alcohol extraction, we’ve got over 99% extraction into the solvent, at temperatures ranging between -30°C and ambient.
There is a centrifuge involved in our method, but you can replicate the bulk of our results by using multiple washes.
3 Likes
Just for clarity, you are extracting THCA (i.e., not decarbed) and getting those numbers. A lot of people might think you are extracting THC. OR do those numbers refer to the extraction of CBDA? When using protic and polar non protic solvents, I do not think a lot of extractors or readers on this forum appreciate the vast difference of solubilities between THC and CBDA…your numbers seem to reflect perhaps ethanol extractions of CBDA.
and I would assume you are using 95/5 etoh/h20 plus the 8% H2O residual in dried Hemp biomass. You can certainly add a lot more water and get similar numbers.
Best
1 Like
We’ve done testing with THCA, CBDA, and partially decarbed CBD&CBDA biomass for alcohol extractions, and had similar results.
Our ethanol testing was primarily done with standard 190 proof, though we did a bunch of testing down as low as I believe 50/50 and observed some very interesting results at much higher water content than most extractors use.
4 Likes
Example:
Here is an example of two aliquots of water hemp
extract removed at different steps in a multi step water process (three buckets and a Buchner)…in this case “tuned” to separate CBD and CBDA both in high purity. TLC/silica of both aliquots. Left columns CDB; right the CBDA aliquots. Samples are in duplicates at 3:1 L/R. Water tuned
3 Likes
Hi Everyone,
Lab test results have come in for Red#2 and Blu#2. I’m adding the original RECE and RICE lab tests for comparison. The originals were a quick wash that yielded about 2g of oil. The Red#2 and Blu#2 were 10 minute soaks resulting in over 5g each as seen in the table below.
Here’s the original RECE and RICE lab tests…
Observations:
For the record, all these tests were run using the same hemp purchased from BuyOregonHemp.com. The COA is presented above. All these test runs were done as a single wash by filling the jar to cover the plant material, then agitated. No second wash or additional clean alcohol added to enhance the yields.
I find it interesting the TC and CBD totals only dip a little with a 10 minute soak vs a quick wash under a minute. The surprising thing to me is the volume of oil went from 2g to over 5g and barely lowered the potency.
Red#2 was decarbed in the oven for 40 min at 240f before extraction. I wanted to see how that would change the yield after distilling in water. You can see in the table both resulted in similar yields, but the lab tests tell a different story. The CBD is significantly higher saying I suck at post decarbing! 
Besides that the CBN is about the same between the two. All these yield tests were reduced down to oil and ended when there was no more C02 bubbling so I thought these numbers would be higher.
Observing the final yield #s, a 10 minute soak shows it has yielded more oil with marginally more plant compounds. To your your point @cyclopath, there’s still a discrepancy between the COA #s and the final Red and Blu yields, though much better than the initial yield of 2g per 2oz of hemp. This probably means I have to do more work on optimizing the wash as @Lincoln20XX pointed out above.
Your thoughts?
75% isn’t terrible.
If I wanted to try to optimize for complete extraction at the home scale, I’d probably start with something like this:
Size-reduce input biomass via your preferred method
Put biomass into a mason jar
Add 1/4 to 1/3 of total solvent into jar
Agitate vigorously (shake it like it owes you money AND said mean things about your mother) for about a minute
Drain off solvent
Add additional 1/4 to 1/3 solvent. Repeat agitate/drain/fill until solvent is all used up.
Doing a total of three or four rounds of this should get you about as much of your desireables as you’re going to be able to get in a home setting with minimal effort and equipment.
I’d be willing to bet using a 90% alcohol concentration would yield better than 99+%
Also, if you’re going to the effort of paying for lab tests in service of making this better, getting yourself a higher precision scale would be a good thing.
4 Likes
Hemp is so cheap…is it worth good solvent and recovery time to go after residuals? I’m asking…does anyone have the numbers as a break even point. Once you add alcohol to hemp biomass…you want in and out before the greenies…so to speak. It is more getting it to drain or press-drain with out the undesirables. You have hundreds of thousands of trichomes with diffusion cross sections vs the leaf structures…so there is time and cannabinoid yield and then there is time and undesirable yields. It seems to me to take longer pressing the solvent volume out than it does to do the extraction (if not using centrifugal or press plate forces)…i.e., the home cook. A quick French press (like for coffee) might be an easy way to address this issue in a kitchen setting. Also if you are doing your pre-extraction as you have mentioned earlier…you could press your excess water out…prior to the EtOH extraction step. Otherwise you have a rather un-metered water/Ethanol ratio and unknowns galore.
Of course if you WANT the green and other constituents of the long soak…Then leave it overnight. Certainly there is a history and tradition of “total extract” when it comes to RSO. Above I am only addressing cannabinoid extraction and its subtleties with respect to the OP’s concept of RxCE.
Thnx for redirect.
1 Like
Thank you for this. I will start working with this on future washes.
1 Like
-
I’ve been doing a single 30 second to 1 minute washes using 99% ISO for my top shelf oil. It’s cherry picking to avoid plant matter. I found that using 99% leaves the plant crunchy like dry corn flakes. 91% ISO and 95% EtOH leaves the plant wet like soggy corn flakes. Using 99% really does avoid penetrating the plant. @Lincoln20XX suggestion above makes sense going forward. I found the acidic state and long soaks are harsher on the throat, not so much chlorophyll so dark oil can be very smooth when fully decarbed.
-
Removing the water is part of the process. When rehydrating with EtOH for the final reduction, water is avoided. Its easy to remove the waste water, but can be messy resulting in transfer losses if not handled right. Dumping out the waste water is a brand new experience for making RSO.
-
After I ran those tests doing 10 minute soaks, I saved the biomass and let that soak over 24 hours. Ran 7 more tests on that long wash to work out how to break emulsions. The resulting oil was sooooo nasty I threw it out. I used 9ml in a batch of gummies. It was very weak and tasted horrible so all those got tossed in the trash. Long soaks should be avoided. Turns out breaking emulsions is easy using up to 0.5% salt to water ratio. The salt disrupts the hydrogen bonding and immediately brings the yield up to the control case yields. It’s easy enough to remove when dumping the waste water by doing a quick rinse of the captured oils with cold tap water.
1 Like
I’ll have to look that one up!