THC remediation that isn’t chromatography

CannaBusiness
, ,
37

That’s a scale thing. If canola oil was worth $500kg and had been outlawed for decades people might say the same thing. We’re just not there yet

1 Like
38

not logical but okay, when can we place bets?
corn is by far a bigger producer because it is almost fully automated and too scale.

39

So back to the non chromatography methods for thc removal from hemp derived cbd distillate or crude

4 Likes
40

So you’re saying the bulk of commercial sugars are produced by microbial production? Oh wait no they’re produced by growing corn. Should be sugar beets but yay subsidy. Tanks cost more than acreage in Iowa

41

that’s not what I am saying and yes we are on the same page, it is corn. Thank you Extractionguy fpr getting us back on topic.

1 Like
42

@kcalabs would have us believe that one common way of achieving this trick is to simply hire an analytical lab that will tell you what you want to hear (that the THC is below their LOD): Tired of your lab appeasing / playing you?

not an actual solution to the problem, but certainly worth noting for folks buying the problem solved (or not solved, as the case may be)…

3 Likes
43

but c’mon, everyone likes thinking they’re compliant until their livelihood is in the hands of regulators with better LODs

44

The “appeasing / playing” is directed at different audiences based on their needs.

What happens when the remediation company thinks they’re removing it when they aren’t?

There are also ways to make sure you get back your own material after you’ve sent it to the remediator, but you’d have to get in touch with us before sending it off.

45

I’m curious why can’t carbon be used in the process of the extraction so the carbon can eat up the thca and thc as the solvent passes through. Wouldn’t this be an easier and more feasible method

2 Likes
46

I was under the impression that the problem was more of “says they’re removing it when they aren’t”, but sure maybe they honestly don’t know.

would revealing that methodology reduce its efficacy?

could exploring the methodology with the likes of this crowd help validate it?

47

AC is a general purpose absorbent…one not generally known for its specificity…

reducing a 5% THCA, 75% CBDA extract to below 0.3% requires absorbing more than 90% of the THCA. can you explain why that wouldn’t also remove more than 90% of my CBDA?

wouldn’t that require activated charcoal to have a higher affinity for THC(a) than all other cannabinoids? do you have data suggesting this is true?

I’m more than willing to put it on my list of things to try, but holding my breath? Nope!

1 Like
48

AC I think is not good because you’d lose all the minors as well as the THC, might as well just take distillate to isolate

1 Like
49

absolutely.

especially if you give me all that worthless mother liquor when you’re done :wink:

50

So If I post a SOP here, what will be my reward from the community?

1 Like
51

Thanks MoM?

Member of the Month(s).. Don't Vote in this thread, it's the other

1 Like
52

Lol :slight_smile: exactly

1 Like
53

Converting to 11-hydroxy ?

1 Like
54

The intrinsic value of helping others…
If you’re expecting a reward for doing a thing then you probably shouldn’t even bother.

Btw there’s a 40 year old paper on decarbing CBDa and thca while in the presence certain salts which directs their decarb towards certain products.

5 Likes
55

:call_me_hand:t5: raises hand

A lot of people like to overthink rather then simplify

56

that narrows it down a little. :wink:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=decarboxylation+cannabidiol&as_ylo=1976&as_yhi=1984

3 Likes