If you deprotonate thc you will be deprotonate every other phenolic proton which all cannabinoids have. Therefore you would be in theory extracting all the cannabinoids out into your water layer. It is not an effective way to selectively separate thc. Does this make sense?
Yes but this forum is also evidence that suggests not to believe people until they provide some evidence to support their claims (no matter how much on a pedestal they seem to be on cough future cough). God love him and what he does to facilitate this small cubit of the industry and babysit people like me, however we must challenge any piece of science brought forth here.
Was there even CBG in the starting material in any notable quantity? I’d love to see a COA.
Edit: You said removing the other cannabinoids makes it no longer broad spec, if you remove the THC that’s another cannabinoid. Verifying what I said that by your definition it can no longer be broad spectrum.
I’m over arguing semantics with you. I constantly advocate that we as a community create nomenclature for all of this.
Please re-read my explanation more carefully. I specifically stated that you would remove the CBD via crystallization, then remove the THC that is in the mother liquor. Then after neutralizing the mother liquor, adding back the crystallized CBD, along with small amounts of whatever was precipitated in the aqueous layer to achieve a solution that would be less than .3% THC after purging the solvent.
I’m not sure what other evidence you are looking for in the method they have suggested (not the method I outlined). In order to prove anything academically, it must be peer-reviewed and repeatable. Why haven’t you given their method a shot yourself to prove it repeatable or not? Columbo outlined the process in decent detail in another thread. I understand you have a financial motive to not do so, seeing as your proprietary process seems to be your golden goose currently. But to claim that they’re full of shit without giving the method a shot yourself seems unfair. It gives the impression that you just want to claim that they’re full of it so that you can continue to charge a “small fortune” for what sounds like a fairly simple process based on what you’ve shared in other threads. You may be a genius organic chemistry student, but it’s obvious you haven’t taken any business classes in your undergrad if this truly is your business model.
When i say thc free broad spec i mean everything in the oil except for thc. Thats what custys want.
Edit: a notable amount of cbg is above 1% in crude oil. This I admit is arbitrary because really not enough dosing trials to even know what has medicinal value. It simply meets the market of full spectrum so people can market the “entourage effect”
Edit part deux: WHO SAID I DIDNT TAKE BUSINESS CLASSES BABY!? Its intuitive!
Yes i understand your process, crystallize the cbd the do your LLE with ph alteration on the mother liquor to move the thc into the aq layer and leave your organic phase thc free.
The problem in this is that it does not selectively remove thc, you will remove the other cannabinoids as your raise the ph. Other cannabinoids being the leftover cbd (because crystallization will not give you a 100% cbd yield), cbg, cbn etc. all these cannabinoids you want in your finished product. You to keep these other molecules in your organic phase and ONLY remove thc if you plan is ph alteration.
Sorry for the misunderstanding but i never said these people are full of shit… however their “chemistry” has no rational basis therefore I must be skeptical of their process. That being said, i am not saying their process is not possible, all I am saying, as a semi professional phd candidate in organic chemistry is that it does not have a rational chemical basis.
I will decline to respond to your personal attacks but i appreciate your frustration.
I apologize if you took that as a personal attack. That wasn’t my intention. It was more a snarky attempt to turn the tables on the financial incentive paranoia. But I guess I could see how that could be misconstrued given the last sentence there. Nothing like the lack of tone in text to make a friendly jab look like I’m just being an asshole (maybe a bit of ethanol in my blood as well).
Anyway, now that makes sense given the other trace cannabinoids and the seemingly completely subjective definition of “full spectrum” or “broad spectrum”. However, adding back just enough of the precipitate from the aqueous layer to stay under .3% THC would still qualify the extract as “broad spectrum” under your definition, no?
The mother liquor will most like be about 10-15% thc with 3-7% cbn, 2-5% cbg, and low percentage of other cannabinoids.
One can only assume these molecules will have similar affinity for the aqueous phase as thc. So if you remove thc down to 0.3% you must assume you will be removing the other cannabinoids respectively into the aq layer. There is no way to selectively remove thc.
Again this is all chemical rational not experimental evidence. I have not run this experiement and I probably wont because in my opinion It is not worth my time personally, however, i encourage people to run it and scale it up if it works and see if the scaled version works. If it does… you will become a wealthy person
I highly doubt that’s what the customer wants, haha. If they actually knew the potential hazards of regularly vaping fats, lipids, and waxes, they would most likely advocate getting that stuff out.
Lipid based pneumonia is no joke.
Beyond that, the OP literally never said anything about broad spectrum, they just want the THC out.
to address your first point, yes this is what the customer wants in the hemp industry, they want a broad spectrum cbd crude and cbd distillate with everything besides the thc. I can tell by your mistaken confidence you are not in the hemp industry so I suggest you ask around. Also not everyone is smoking everything they use it for various other consumption methods.
Not quite sure why you are trying to selectively pick and choose quotes of mine, this is somewhat of a political move and maybe have just not been as concise in previous posts.
I hope this clears things up for you babe, if you really need help understanding this stuff it would be a better use of our time to call one another
I’m here to confidently learn! I am wondering about reacting with a resolving agent to form diastereomers. CBD and THC have similar masses, but do they have similar chemical properties? Would this process ruin crude?
I’m just trying to point out the fact that you’re very confident about things you admittedly don’t know are true or not, not sure how that’s political. You outright contradicted yourself, calm down, it’s ok. We all make mistakes. Let’s just have someone do the experiment, I dont have access to CBD crude, because as you pretentiously inferred, I’m not in the hemp industry. I’m sure someone does though.
The process you have stated is a bit vague for me to assess how much harm would be done to the crude. However if you create diastereomers of the cannabinoids then what? You still have to seperate diastereomers via chromo typically.
Well, since I assume pure thc is illegal for a hemp processor to posses, wouldn’t one filter out the thc product and dispose of it? Wouldn’t the reacted thc separate more efficiently via chromatography?
The problem is not having trouble seperating the cbd and thc via chromo it is the chromo method itself. Chromotography is enormously expensive which is why it is less than optimal.
So with your idea which is very vauge and not sure what your plan would be. What reaction are you considering with what reagents on which substrate to make what diasteromer?
I’m not very sure, I am learning about the different methods of separating isomers right now. I am asking you because I haven’t found any information on this technique (utilizing resolving agents) in the cannabis world.
idk what the dood is talking about either. I know somewhat of what he is trying to do as in i am familiar with the technique but it has no use in our situation.
Hopefully he will respond and be a little more concise