Saw this via LinkedIn, but figured it would be something to share. Colorado Chromatography released this fairly recently i believe.
ultrasonic-or-microwave-modified-continuous-flow-chemistry-for-the-synthesis-of-tetrahydrocannabinol-observing-effects-of-various-solvents-and-acids (1).pdf (725.1 KB)
Ultrasonic or Microwave Modified Continuous Flow Chemistry for The Synthesis of Tetrahydrocannabinol
4 Likes
Basicly useless and weird choice of solvents and acids used only xylene and dce make a bit of sense
Pretty sure all these rxn would proceed in almost the same time frame without additional assistance
4 Likes
Wouldnt one be able to work with different temps to control rxn easier than with catalyst>thermo process? I too agree about solvent choice.
Just thought it was worth reading and trying to understand.
The publication, if you can call it that, is pretty much masturbatory, useless and at times outright flawed.
You could make the argument with A LOT of these rxn conditions they’ve just applied acid and heat to CBD - something that everyone already knows does the conversion. It’s not even made experimentally clear if microwave/sonication provided anything unique…or if it was just heat energy and catalyst. For Christ’s sake, a lot of those solvent systems and catalyst loadings do this reaction at room temperature without stirring - and they’re running anywhere from room temp to 60C? Yeah, you’re gonna make d8/d9THC in a lot of these circumstances regardless of microwave, sonications, whatever else.
It’s hard to think highly of a publication that includes the “discovery” that acetic acid doesn’t work.
4 Likes
Actually reporting anything marginally interesting, even if the results aren’t good, is how scientific publication SHOULD work. The fact that most people only publish their really really good results is one of the biggest problems in the scientific community. There are many calls for people to publish more about what didn’t work, or only marginally worked. Everything adds to knowledge – just putting the data out publicly is a good thing. And a paper is better than a patent. If it sucks, people just won’t use it – hardly a loss.
6 Likes
Completely agree with your statement
IF it would make sense
These trails make no sense from Wich ever angel you look at it
We all know ptsa works fast at 1% loading 17 min so at 5% 5 min seems possible
All mentioned solvents are a nightmare for D9 been in the game long enough you know
But he if you feel that failed data has valeu I have probably 2 gigabytes
In crap data since every acid I ever tryied I tried on 8 solvents wet and 8 dry
With each at least 3 different ratio s
Nah this honestly is useless and please remember I am a cook so for someone with a good chemistry degree thuis is a odd paper
2 Likes
True, but in this case the experiments themselves lack insight on the technology they’re allegedly highlighting, or even a solid grasp on the chemistry they’re performing.
If I put 5% ptsa in solution with CBD, and walk next door and do a tribal rain dance, and come back to find I have THC - it’s a little ridiculous to say my rain dance + the catalyst did the chemistry. The reaction simply goes under those conditions regardless of the dance, yaknow?
There is nothing in this experimental that proves that the reactions going with microwave isn’t simply a result of the sheer fact microwaves heat things.
There’s no control saying anything to the tune of “this reaction doesn’t work without microwave, but with microwave it goes.” Something as simply as pumping through a small section with conventional heating to compare to the microwave/sonication data - some way to say “at 60C and no microwave/sonication the reaction doesn’t go as far as at 60C with microwave/sonication.” I mean, without this the entire thing is pretty meaningless.
4 Likes
I mean yes, I think that data would have a lot of value.
5 Likes