If they were thawed then one option you have of saving the material is to subliminate the water presence off it in a roto with a dry ice bath running under full vacuum you will be able to use the material but yes yield will be lower since it was thawed & then frozen again no matter what. But thawing definitely is a major part in degrading the material prior.
1 Like
I’ll give you “only chance is to sublimate…”, but if the only way you can think of to achieve that is in a rotovap. then you haven’t been paying enough attention 
just as an example; Harvest Right makes a purpose build tool… and then there’s Search results for 'DIY freeze dryer' - Future4200
just sayin…
3 Likes
I’m going off the assumption for what they may have on hand. Obviously a harvest right is made for it, but also not a feasible option be on the waitlist to get one, or having to source one when the lab likely has a roto on hand for recovery it would be a faster route for them to entail was my thought.
With how he will have to break up the bio he can go with either route of course. But setting parameters for the prep of the bio & every surface it’ll touch prior to sublimination will be what matters most of course.
2 Likes
you can use the CLS itself…all you gotta do is suck.
…and maybe protect your vacuum pump from the water you’re removing if the pump you’ve got on hand requires than sort of thing.
3 Likes
True & fair enough, without knowing what they would have for on hand equipment (extra spools for prep on subliminate & extraction packing) I just looked at it of a way to sort of streamline it & with the roto I feel it would allow more constant surface area of the bio making it easier no?
100% agree with that edit add.
1 Like
I’ve got two nominal 40lb hydrocarbon extractors, and it has taken me months to get a rotovap onsite; “why do you need one?”.
no way I’m keeping up with dehydrating material, even in a 50L rotovap, so that excuse won’t fly. AND, because I’ll eventually get poor frozen biomass (same day I get my first frozen biomass I’m betting), I know I need to be thinking about/building/ordering that sublimator now.
All I’m questioning is “the ONLY way…” because fuck that. there is always another solution if you look at the problem right (probably untrue, but works as a motivational tool…at least for me )
4 Likes
Lol I can understand that & see where you’re coming from, saying it was “the only way” is poor wording as you can essentially use any pressurize able vessel to do it with proper vacuum depth & temps, while protecting the pump with multiple cold traps & or condensers.
I’ll edit that to say one way
Actually got me thinking about a way to prep & do this in 6x48” spools now lol
3 Likes
dammit, now I’m PROVOKING thought?
who’d a thunk it?!?
edit: and in all seriousness, that WAS the point. others coming at this might not have the exposure to the equipment or be able to generalize from “only way to do this is in a rotovap…”. now some will. and we’ve up’ed their game with this discussion. maybe.
3 Likes
Fresh frozen material is typically like 75-80% water weight. if you hung 1000 wet grams in a drying room, youd end up with about a half pound when it was done drying. Fresh Frozen is made to preserve and extract the water soluble terpenes that end up leaving the plant during the drying process. But yes it is significantly more run time per gram of oil because of the water weight. Assuming your 5000 grams was 80% water weight, you got a 12% yield which isnt that bad in reality.
1 Like
@vladtheinhaler13 said they were getting potency on the input and post extraction biomass. Which is the right way to solve this.
Following the cannabinoids rather than the cadabinoids is a much more accurate way of looking at the problem.
No, they didn’t get “12% yield”, they got 2.4% yield.
Yes, it is useful to “pretend you dried it, and do the math”, and that 5000g input would likely be in the 1kg range if dried/cured.
The more correct way of stating it would be: “assuming 80% moisture content, that would be equivalent to a 12% yield on dried material”.
121grams of 70% TAC extracted from 5000g of 2.4% TAC would be 70% extraction efficiency. Which is low.
If starting material was only 2% TAC (100g actual cannabinoids) and @vladtheinhaler13 got 121g of 75% cannabinoids (90.75g), then they got 90% extraction efficiency. Which is generally considered sufficient.
4 Likes