Who is still making or buying microemulsified cannabinoids?
Have we found processors who don’t charge an arm and a kidney (10k$) per kilo to process it?
I’m back to looking at microemulsion vendors. I have a few larger companies calling me back later today, but figured I’d reach out here and see what the consensus is. The last time someone posted about water soluble (aside from selling it) seems to have been nearly a year ago.
Thoughts and direction are appreciated.
I’m firing up a pair of Avestin C55 homogenizers in a month or so
Did a benchtop scale CBT water soluble emulsion this week and I think it’s my new favorite thing.
With that being said, from my short look into water soluble providers it seems like most have potencies of 2-10% once actually tested and some of the guys selling it for an arm and a leg are boasting up to 20%. I can’t get mine to remain a clear, non viscous liquid past 8-9%.
Oil phase:45%
Actual quillaja saponin molecules:1.5%
Anti microbial: up to you
One stable loading is 30/15 CBD/MCT
Stable for over 1.5 years now in testing.
Average particle size 150 nm with lots of high energy input.
95% encapsulation.
Super fast effects, bitter as fuck.
I recommend using your’ loads of disty terps with this as a pesticide.
Which high energy input did you use? Sonicator/hph?
Anyone want to pick this back up. Been working on emulsions w Guar and MCT and disty with mixed results.
Been trying different ratios open to sharing some data.
Been trying 0.5%-2% guar b/w to MCT oil and D8 disty at 40g/2.5g
Emulsifying with high shear near 75c for 1 hour.
Using Torani Syrup as my base, mixing 1 cup to the guar/oil/cannabinoids.
Have been having a hard time replicating results but its somewhat close I think. Not bitter at all.
I dont want a nano emulsion, a macro emulsion that is stable is all im going for. Any pointers?
Microemulsion ≠ nanoemulsion; there are a few active nanoemulsion threads and maybe a dozen other currently inactive threads. It’s getting to the point where a beverage category may make sense.
The easiest way to distinguish between microemulsion and nanoemulsion is the processing method, surfactant load, and stability.
A microemulsion is a low-energy process typically made using spontaneous emulsification or phase inversion methods, but there are other methods. Nanoemulsion is a high-energy process typically using ultrasonication, high (and ultra-high) energy homogenization, and microfluidization. SEDDS (SMEDDS and SNEDDS) is a type of microemulsion.
Microemulsions are thermodynamically stable within a given range of conditions; within that range, they are kinetically stable indefinitely. Nanoemulsions are thermodynamically unstable but are typically kinetically stable (so they are metastable). In other words, a microemulsion will never break (separate) if it remains within set conditions. In contrast, a nanoemulsion will break over time depending on its kinetic stability.
Microemulsions typically require a high surfactant-to-oil ratio, often 10x greater than nanoemulsions, usually made with synthetic surfactants. In comparison, nanoemulsions can be made with synthetic or natural surfactants and require a low concentration of surfactants. Those are the primary reason nanoemulsions are generally preferred in the cannabis industry.
Not to be pedantic but nano emulsions are certainly not limited to high energy methods. A nano emulsion is very easily formed from low energy methods, such as SNEDDS.
All good. I was being pedantic, too. I think our industry needs more pedanticism.
However, what I wrote is correct. It’s a common misconception that microemulsion = nanoemulsion. As I described above, nano is a specific thing, as is micro. Particle size isn’t the determining factor between microemulsion and nanoemulsion. Many scientists also get this distinction incorrect.
SEDDS is a different topic. SEDDS are microemulsions because they are typically prepared using low-energy methods (chemical rather than mechanical). However, once the SEDDS are diluted under light agitation, they can be defined as SMEDDS or SNEDDS based on their particle size.
The particle size of microemulsions and nanoemulsions can be <100 nm. Critically, unlike SEDDS, that particle size is present in microemulsions and nanoemulsions before dilution. And upon dilution, the particles are not reduced in size; there are just fewer particles.
So:
SEDDS were primarily designed to ‘self-emulsify’ in the GI tract’s gastrointestinal fluid after ingestion, increasing drug bioavailability and the reliability of absorption profiles. The GI tract’s microflora provides light agitation required for the self-emulsifying process within the GI tract. So, for SEDDS, particle size is the determining factor once they are diluted. However, that does not change the distinction between microemulsion and nanoemulsion.
For oral cannabinoid delivery in liquid-filled capsules, SNEDDS is probably the best choice. But for beverages, gummies, and other infused products, SEDDS don’t have much value, IMO. For beverages, transparent microemulsions, nanoemulsions, or extruded liposomes with particle sizes <40 nm are probably best. Regarding particle sizes for gummies and other infused edibles, I haven’t yet looked for published research on optimal particle size. Still, I imange it doesn’t matter a lot consdiering the emulsion is within a solid substance.
See:
Nanoemulsions versus microemulsions: terminology, differences, and similarities
Self-Emulsifying Oral Lipid Drug Delivery Systems: Advances and Challenges
Lipid-based emulsion drug delivery systems — a comprehensive review
