We Ran Real Legit Side-by-Side Tests on Pesticide Remediation Media... Here’s What Actually Worked!

Hash and Stuff Extraction
, , , ,
1

We’ve been hearing a lot of mixed results on pesticide remediation, mostly anecdotal, so we decided to run controlled tests on some of the most commonly flagged pesticides and see how different media actually performed.

We ran spiked samples through Media Bros’ G-CRAC, CRAC, Magsil (Magnesium Silicate that has a lower activation temperature than Magsil-PR®), and Carbon Chemistry’s Magsil-PR®, testing them in n-heptane, 190-proof ethanol, and 200-proof ethanol, and then sent everything to a 3rd-party lab for validated analysis. A few takeaways:

  • Carbaryl (super common failure): Media Bros’ CRAC and G-CRAC both showed solid reduction when paired with hydrocarbons.

  • Chlorfenapyr: Tough one. Media Bros’ G-CRAC in n-heptane gave the best numbers — better than we expected.

  • Pyrethrins: More responsive to ethanol systems. 200-proof EtOH with CRAC or G-CRAC dropped it under state limits in some tests.

  • Myclobutanil: Carbon alone didn’t cut it — solvent choice mattered way more than media type.

We also broke it all down by state (AZ, CA, CO, MA, MI, MT, NV, NY, OR, WA), since each one’s pesticide panel and allowable limits are different. So if you’re in Oregon, Colorado, or Michigan, etc.., you can literally find a table that shows the results for your specific testing range.

This isn’t “trust the process” talk — it’s real data from controlled remediation runs.

We dropped the full breakdown (methods, tables, and takeaways) here:

Link: Breaking Down Pesticides: What Works, What Doesn’t, and Our Rec’s

Check it out, see where your current process lines up, and save yourself a few failed runs. Hit us up with questions sales@mediabros.store or (503) 308-7138.

6 Likes
2

Did you do an acidic and basic scrub before the remediation? If not than you missed the mark IMO

2 Likes
3

Excellent study. It is not clear whether the remediation deals with primary extracts involving cannabinoic acids or decarbed neutral extracts. As the form of cannabinoid at high concentration maywell compete with binding sites for individual pesticide contaminants. And thus adversely affect removal rates.
Your consideration of Chlorfenapyr as a problem child should be noted in spades. Take a look at that structure , now that’s a nasty beast particularly due to its profound effects on interfering with mitochondrial oxidative metabolism. Anyone, finding significant Chlorfenapyr in their biomass should actually just destroy the crop. Moreover, a diligent search for the origin of such contamination should ensue. IMO

IMG_1149
IMG_1149320×275 6.27 KB

2 Likes
4

We discussed different treatment options prior to remediation as a scheme, scrubbing could be an interesting future addition. However, in our survey of remediation practices we found that processors found pre-treatment practices, such as scrubbing, to be too time intensive and cost prohibitive to perform, dealing with large quantities of aqueous waste as an example of a prohibitive cost. Our outlined treatment procedure is best described as an average of what processors were actually implementing.

Also note both Media Bros’ CRAC and G-CRAC are pH neutral.

1 Like
5

A good question. To clarify, our case study selected to use a representative cannabinoid mixture of decarbed extracts based on a broad survey of what processors were actually attempting to remediate. Specifically, many were trying to attempt post-processing remediation. On the topic of Chlorfenapyr, the decision to test our selected pesticides, including Chlorfenapyr, was based on a nationwide survey of 3rd party test labs and their top rankings of the most commonly flagged pesticides. Media Bros or our affiliates do not endorse the use of any pesticide.

1 Like
6

Yes it seem slanted toward the refined product remediation. However, one might think a simple extra spool at the output of a BHO unit might end the entire problem a priori. The self crystallization of THCA , as an affinity purification gives rise remarkable purity. One might think such a standardized purification followed by simple decarb, might eliminate many impurity problems. Do you have any knowledge of pesticide contamination by this route? I see 99% plus COA THCA selling at 1400 a KG here on this site. How can you beat that , if it is also found to be pesticide free? Do you have any data on THCA crystal. I guess we can look at the COA’s of Diamonds sold in OLCC outlets.

Your report on the pesticides in the cannabis industry and remediation processes is noteworthy.

2 Likes
7

Thank you for your kind words. We think our pesticide remediation demonstration is practical and helpful too. We currently have no data nor have we seen procedural requests to remediate THCA isolate affected by pesticide contamination. Your explanation is sound, that the process of purifying THCA will generally exclude other impurities with the exception of co-crystallizing compounds. Whether specific pesticides co-crystallize with THCA is something we have not explored as pesticides are primarily introduced during the plant extraction process. Thanks again for your interest in our work and the subject matter!