What is/how to perform decarboxylation & isomerization?

spurr · Mar 8, 2011

Edit:

Apparently pure anhydrous EtOH is weakly basic, at pH ~7.9, because it has a pKa of 15.9 and pH = -log(pKa). However, I am not sure if that pH figure is correct, there seems to be some discussion that it is not correct (cite). And as pH is really only for aqueous solutions it's probably better to use pKa for non-aqueous solvents. The higher the pKa the more basic the solvent, but again, I am pretty crappy with organic chem...

This is in regard to my questioning about basic solvent(s) to re-dissolve cannabis extract (ex., concrete) as a means to kill two birds with one stone; i.e., (1) as a wash, and (2) to decarboxylate THCA-A.

I find it interesting that pure anhydrous EtOH is neutral at pH 9.8, and water is neutral at pH 7 (cite).

Using the pH scale for water, pure anhydrous EtOH would be weakly basic if the pH is 7.9. However, using the pH scale for pure anhydrous EtOH, if the pH of pure anhydrous EtOH is 7.9, it would be acidic. I assume when authors write that 'THCA-A is decarboxylated under alkaline conditions' they are using the pH scale of water.

If the true pH of 100% EtOH is 7.9 it may be sufficient to use 100% EtOH instead of EtOH azeotrope to re-dissolve the initial cananbis extract (ex., concrete) for decarboxylation of THCA-A (without heat) while washing cannabis concrete.

Arrrg...this is why I don't dig organic chem! Signing off for now

G.O. Joe · Mar 9, 2011

Well the question is where do you go after adding the alcoholic KOH, if all you want to do is decarboxylate. The THCA will dissolve in it and then what. I suppose you could separate it from any insolubles but maybe you want those. Well you're going to have some THCA for at least a few minutes I am sure. You need this mysterious data. In any case the KOH can be neutralized with dilute aq. HCl, evaporated, and the product extracted from the KCl. But it will be less lossy to just decarboxylate first.

More refusal to decarboxylate prior to BHO, even if all you want is decarboxylated BHO! No doubt a lot of odorous volatiles are lost in the oven but I'm not so sure this is bad.

The quotes are weakish science information, kinda vague. Could mean anything. Like 10 hours of heating with 22% NaOH, which isn't the same as adding ethanolic KOH. Several people including myself have extracted THCA with alkali. As in shaking a petroleum ether extract with aq. NaOH and preferably an antioxidant like sulfite, again as in the 2005 article. Acidify the aq. extract and get THCA back, now insoluble, and extract with petroleum ether, wash with water, and evaporate to obtain finely crystalline cannabinoids still in the acid form. Unfortunately, extraction of the buds with petroleum ether is bad yielding to start with, though obviously a more polar solvent can be used for the initial extraction to advantage.

spurr · Mar 9, 2011

G.O. Joe said:
Well the question is where do you go after adding the alcoholic KOH, if all you want to do is decarboxylate.

The ethanolic KOH would be used *in lue of* ethanol to re-dissolve and wash concrete. Then one would evaporate off the ethanolic KOH (via vacuum purging) to attain an absolute, that is, after the solution was placed at -20'C (or colder) for 24 hours and filtered to remove waxes (etc.) through sub-micron filter.

All I am asking about is using higher than normal pKa (ala pH) ethanol as a wash and decarboxylation step all in one; as a means to turn concrete into absolute. I am asking/suggesting the use of KOH to that end, i.e., increase pKa of EtOH. However I am unsure if there would be residual KOH left in the absolute or if one would need to neutralize the KOH before evaporation of the solvent.

G.O. Joe said:
The THCA will dissolve in it and then what. I suppose you could separate it from any insolubles but maybe you want those.

Yes exactly, but I do not wish to extract THCA-A. Just think of it like a normal EtOH wash of concrete (n-butane initial extract of bud) to make an absolute. However in this case one would also be (possibly) carrying out decarboxylation of THCA-A into D9-THC at the same time.

G.O. Joe said:
Well you're going to have some THCA for at least a few minutes I am sure. You need this mysterious data.

What "mysterious data"? I am not trying to extract THCA-A...

G.O. Joe said:
In any case the KOH can be neutralized with dilute aq. HCl, evaporated, and the product extracted from the KCl. But it will be less lossy to just decarboxylate first.

More refusal to decarboxylate prior to BHO, even if all you want is decarboxylated BHO!

I am not refusing to decarboxylate the bud prior to making concrete. I am simply asking about a different method of decarboxyation, I am not sure why that is so offensive to you.

I do plan to use heat to decarboxylate, I never refused to do so. However, I would rather use an alkaline EtOH wash if it was possible, because one should end up with a better absolute. E.g., I would rather not loose volatiles from teprenes if I could help it, and some terpenes will boil off below decarboxylation temp of THCA-A, ex., β-caryophyllene BP is 119°C.

If I were to carry out decarboxylation by heat I wouldn't do so *before* initial extraction. I would most likely do so via hot oil bath to heat the solution (re-dissolved concrete and EtOH) to 150'C for 15 minutes (and at the same time boil off some EtOH). It's easier to ensure highest rate of decarboxyation (i.e., the amount of THCA-A converted) by heating the extract than it is by heating the dry plant matter.

G.O. Joe said:
No doubt a lot of odorous volatiles are lost in the oven but I'm not so sure this is bad.

If you are referring to boiling off some terpenes, I would rather not. Many that are found in cannabis have proven medicinal efficacy. Not only that, but some terpenes may potentate the high from THC; as has been reported by some folks I trust.

G.O. Joe said:
The quotes are weakish science information, kinda vague.

Yes, that is the whole reason for me asking about using alkaline conditions, because of the lack of data on the subject.

G.O. Joe said:
Could mean anything. Like 10 hours of heating with 22% NaOH, which isn't the same as adding ethanolic KOH. Several people including myself have extracted THCA with alkali.

No, it could not mean anything. It means what it says: that THCA-A can be decarboxylated into THC via alkaline conditions. I am not trying to extract THCA-A, if I were I would use strong basic solvent like petroleum ether and sodium sulfate. I am only trying to get opinions about decarboxylation of THCA-A with alkaline conditions. To that end I am trying to figure out whether it's wise, and how to, make the EtOH more alkaline but not strongly alkaline.

As I wrote above, it seems pure anhydrous EtOH may have a weakly basic pH of 7.9. If that is true then simply using said EtOH for the wash step (en route to absolute), instead of EtOH azeotrope, may do the trick.

What I need to do is test this out with HPLC or HPTLC; but all I have access to at this point is TLC with spot density scanning. I can get THC standards, and maybe THC-A standards too. That would allow me to carryout roughly accurate assays of extract before and after wash with pure anhydrous EoTH and basified EtOH. Such testing could show the rate of decarboxyation by testing for THCA-A and D9-THC, and thus provide useful data. What would be most smart of me would be to wait until I can send in samples to a respected lab that tests cannabis substances with HPLC (not GC because GC will decarboxylate the THCA-A and screw up the results).

G.O. Joe said:
As in shaking a petroleum ether extract with aq. NaOH and preferably an antioxidant like sulfite, again as in the 2005 article. Neutralize and get THCA back, now insoluble, and extract with petroleum ether, wash with water, and evaporate to obtain finely crystalline THCA. Unfortunately, extraction of the buds with petroleum ether is bad yielding to start with, though obviously a more polar solvent can be used for the initial extraction to advantage.

Maybe I am doing a poor job trying to explain to you that I am not trying to extract THCA-A. Or maybe you are stuck on the idea that I am attempting THCA-A extraction, and you're not reading what I am writing closely enough. Either way, I am not interested in making THCA-A salts, I am interested only in decarboxyaltion of THCA-A into D9-THC via alkaline conditions. As I wrote, I do not want to use a strongly basic solution, only weakly to mildly basic. I do not want to use something equivalent to pH 11 or higher because I do not want to extract THCA-A.

G.O. Joe · Mar 9, 2011

You think I did not listen, but I did perfectly. You restate what you stated before, what I said remains the same. You construed it all as offtopic, but I told you exactly how it is, and how to clean up the mess should this be done.

Maybe I need all caps? I HAVE PERSONALLY EXTRACTED THCA AS SUCH WITH ALKALI. I TOLD YOU HOW I DID IT AND HOW BETTER CHEMISTS HAVE DONE IT. IT DID NOT TURN INTO THC UNTIL I PUT A FLAME TO IT. I KNOW THIS FOR A FACT AND IT'S IN THE LITERATURE WITH EXPERIMENTAL DETAIL AND ANALYSIS TOO.
THCA DOES NOT TURN TO THC ON CONTACT WITH BASE
THCA DOES NOT TURN TO THC ON CONTACT WITH BASE
THCA DOES NOT TURN TO THC ON CONTACT WITH BASE
IF 22% NaOH DOESN'T DO IT AT ROOM TEMPERATURE, DILUTE ETHANOLIC KOH WON'T EITHER.

Mysterious data refers to https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=4280400

Yes, alkaline conditions could mean anything, as shown in the example I gave, which is straight out of the patent literature. The heating was around 60C, and in organic solvent BTW. Such vague quotes could mean in an autoclave for 3 weeks at 300C and 5000 psi. You know you have no data, yet you think you know what it means. You don't, this is why I call it mysterious data. Don't think that such extreme conditions aren't cited in such a way in the literature by writers who heard of this fifth-hand, or even read the original paper; always assume essential details are missing because usually they are. Published authors which you are all so fond of citing can't even get the boiling point of THC ANYWHERE NEAR right, (McPartland-Russo 2001)
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=4280226
but it keeps getting posted as the truth by multiple posters because you choose to believe it, and refuse to believe anything else, even though it is obviously wrong and contradicted by each and every article and patent where THC was distilled.

You would have to read my posts to get the part about refusing to decarboxylate before extracting with butane. It has nothing to do with you specifically.

Any proven efficacy of terpenes has nothing to do with THC. Science is science and there isn't any even though it would be pretty easy to do with mice at least. Which has been done to a limited extent published AFAIK, where nonpolar extracts were found more potent than THC, and polar extracts made THC less potent. But IMHO it's the cannabinoids if anything.

It would not be hard to do double-blind studies by a neutral party with an extract that has had the terpenes removed by steam distillation, and the original extract and the same amount of cannabinoids.

jump117 · Mar 9, 2011

spurr said:
If I were to carry out decarboxylation by heat I wouldn't do so *before* initial extraction. I would most likely do so via hot oil bath to heat the solution (re-dissolved concrete and EtOH) to 150'C for 15 minutes (and at the same time boil off some EtOH). It's easier to ensure highest rate of decarboxyation (i.e., the amount of THCA-A converted) by heating the extract than it is by heating the dry plant matter.

Boiling point of EtOH is 78C. Solution boils away very quickly at 150C in opened reactor.

spurr · Mar 9, 2011

G.O. Joe said:
You think I did not listen, but I did perfectly. You restate what you stated before, what I said remains the same. You construed it all as offtopic, but I told you exactly how it is, and how to clean up the mess should this be done.

If I thought what you posted was off topic it was becuase you made no clear distinction that you were claiming THCA-A decarboxyation does not happen with base solutions. You merely wrote that you extracted THCA-A with strong base...

G.O. Joe said:
Maybe I need all caps?

No, you merely need to better explain your position.

G.O. Joe said:
...it's in the literature [that THCA doesn't decarb in the presence of a base] with experiential detail and analysis too...

Why then, pray tell, have you not provided said data? Proof is in the pudding ol' chap, as they say. The fact you used so many caps, which in effect means you were shouting at me, really doesn't make me believe what you write at face value.

I on the other hand have provided peer reviewed academic sources in the form of a study and an accepted thesis paper. Both of which state clearly THCA-A can be decarboxylaed with alkaline conditions. Not only that, but if you check out the references of those papers you will find more studies stating the claim about decarboxylation of THCA-A with alkaline conditions. Those are only the references I felt like posting, I have more. As well as the patent I posted wherein the authors claimed that THCA-A did in fact deacarboxylate into THC due to high pH.

So, put yourself in my shoes: In one hand I have references all stating the same thing, and in the other hand I have you, yelling like a loon without one stitch of evidence posted. What hand would you choose?!

The onus seems to be on you at this point, please back up your claim with more than rude yelling.

G.O. Joe said:
If 22% NoOH doesn't do it at room temp, dilute ethanolic KOH won't ether.

Sorry mate, but see what I wrote just above, re the bit about references. Also, there are at least three flaws with that claim you just made: (1) you might have used too high of a pH, which was my point about not wanting to use strongly basic solvent; (2) you did not claim (IIRC) to have tested other solutions and pH ranges, so you can't make a definitive claim based solely upon using 22% NaOH; and (3) assumptions do not facts make.

G.O. Joe said:
Mysterious data refers to https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=4280400

This goes back to my point that you may not be reading and/or taking the time to consider what I am writing. I already referenced what you call "mysterious data", you only had to read my post and not reply with a knee-jerk (emphasis of the latter word) response.

Here, I will post it again verbatim:

Production of Delta 9 Tetrahydrocannabinol
United States Patent Application 20090253783
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0253783.html

In the quote below the context is trying to extract THCA-A as a salt; not decarboxylate THCA-A per say. However, this is the only instance where I have seen a pH listed that will decarboxlate THCA-A. Granted, I do not want to use a pH at or above 12, preferably below 10, to prevent formation of THCA-A salt:

In contrast, known methods use very alkaline pH (typically in the pH range 13.5-13.9), resulting in formation of a 3-layer system, with the Δ9-THC acid salt “oiling out” between the organic and aqueous layers. This causes processing problems during subsequent phase separations. We have found that use of such high pH may also lead to degradation and decarboxylation of the desired THC-acid, thus reducing yield of Δ9-THC.

G.O. Joe said:
Yes, alkaline conditions could mean anything, as shown in the example I gave, which is straight out of the patent literature.

Come on now, you are using red herring logical fallacy, or at least you're being intentionally disingenuous, and you should know better whichever is the case. When you previously wrote about "could mean anything" you were writing about co-use of heat *and* alkaline conditions; that is what you meant by "could mean anything". Let me quote you, for you:

Could mean anything. Like 10 hours of heating with 22% NaOH, which isn't the same as adding ethanolic KOH.

G.O. Joe said:
You know you have no data, yet you think you know what it means.

Are we reading the same thread?! I never claimed to have solid data, besides what I posted above from the patent. However, because a patent is not peer-reviewed I do not fully trust the info. What I did write, and have proven, is that the claim about alkaline conditions decarboxylating THCA-A is not uncommon and is made in peer-reviewed works. It's pretty obvious what the following claim means, at least it should be. The following quote is about as unambiguous as one can be (note the word "or" was used, not the words "and", "with", etc.):

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of cannabinoids
Grotenhermen, F.
Clinical Pharmacokinetics, Volume 42, Number 4, 2003 , pp. 327-360(34)

In the plant the cannabinoids exist mainly in their carboxylic forms as cannabinoid acids. However, the phenolic form of THC is responsible for the psychotropic and the most medicinal effects. Decarboxylation (separation of CO2) to the phenolic form occurs readily over time, upon heating or under alkaline conditions.

G.O. Joe said:
You would have to read my posts to get the part about refusing to decarboxylate before extracting with butane. It has nothing to do with you specifically.

No thanks, I am done reading your posts, this will be my last response to you. It's plainly obvious you want to show just how rude you can be: all caps, really?

G.O. Joe said:
Any proven efficacy of terpenes has nothing to do with THC.

Well I guess it's a good thing I never made the claim it's *proven* that some terpenes may potentate the high from THC. Again, you do not seem to be really reading what I post. For some odd reason I trust Sam Skunkman's word more than yours, oh wait, I know the reason: he doesn't post like you post.

spurr · Mar 9, 2011

jump117 said:
spurr said:

If I were to carry out decarboxylation by heat I wouldn't do so *before* initial extraction. I would most likely do so via hot oil bath to heat the solution (re-dissolved concrete and EtOH) to 150'C for 15 minutes (and at the same time boil off some EtOH). It's easier to ensure highest rate of decarboxyation (i.e., the amount of THCA-A converted) by heating the extract than it is by heating the dry plant matter.

Click to expand...

Boiling point of EtOH is 78C. Solution boils away very quickly at 150C in opened reactor.

Hey Jump

Yup, that is what I was taking into consideration. I was considering refluxing but not sure if that would be much better in terms of loss of EtOH. Before I would decarboxylate the extract I would do a few filtrations of the solution after chilling it for 24 hours; so I planed to use non-stingy amounts of EtOH. I was thinking that may offset the loss of EtOH if using an open reactor.

The other method I was thinking about was re-dissolving the extract a second time. E.x., re-dissolve the concrete with EtOH, chill and filter, putting the filtered solution into a vial (open reactor). At which point I would place the bottom of the reactor in a hot oil bath at 150'C for 15 minutes; or lower temperature for longer time. If all (or nearly all) the EtOH evaporates I would add more EtOH (to re-dissolve the extract again) after the decarboxylation is complete. The second addition of EtOH would be used as a carrier solvent to move the extract onto a dish (or something similar). That way after I vacuum evaporate the EtOH collection of the absolute would be easier (verses collection of the absolute from the reactor).

It may be easier to though, to vacuum evaporate the EtOH after filtering and place the (covered) container with the absolute into an oven pre-heated to 150'C for 15 minutes. That way I wouldn't need a hot oil bath.

Thank :tiphat:

jump117 · Mar 9, 2011

Hey spurr!
Maybe I'm not correctly understood,
but that description in my opinion directs to the evaporation of ethanol from a solution of the absolute and
its subsequent decarboxylation in the melt, which then re-dissolved in ethanol for transportation from the reactor.

Honestly I see no reason in vacuum applied to decarbed resin. Vacuum had to provide cold boiling to save aromas.
After 150C session there will be nothing to save, they all gone.

I decarboxylated stuff before the final step of extraction only in order to extract from the plant material all the residual benefits that were there.
It’s a sort of a necessary measure for the sake of completeness.

In discussing the decarboxylation I suppose an analogy with ice and water when we need vapor.
We can heat the ice, knowing that it will melt and evaporate,
we can also previously melt the ice and then evaporate the resulting water for fear of falling pieces of ice into vapor.

G.O. Joe · Mar 9, 2011

spurr said:
Why then, pray tell, have you not provided said data? Proof is in the pudding ol' chap, as they say.

I referred to some full text I assume (did not download) you posted here

G.O. Joe said:
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=4236263

Not all of us. I don't remember hearing of it. In fact that 2005 article uses 2% NaOH for extraction of THCA.

The patent to which I was referring, where 22% NaOH and 10 hours around 60C is used, for those still reading my posts: http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=bCrKAAAAEBAJ

I'm not saying that there isn't measurable decarboxylation, I'm saying that it isn't as easy as you assume and that there is such a thing as *actual data*. Those are the basis of facts. Articles where people make vague statements are not sources of facts, the original literature is. And maybe when you read it you see that they make a vague statement that everyone quotes now. You need to know what the original literature actually says. You can't determine what it says without reading it, and whether the methods and conclusions seem reasonable. 1% decarboxylation a day could be construed as "readily". You can't base a procedure on facts you don't have.

spurr said:
The fact you used so many caps, which in effect means you were shouting at me, really doesn't make me believe what you write at face value.

On the other hand, it seems that it has sunk in that what I was saying was not all going on about THCA extraction, but instead presenting evidence that alkali does not do much decarboxylation right away. I'm not trying to teach anything. Just a little chat.

spurr said:
Well I guess it's a good thing I never made the claim it's *proven* that some terpenes may potentate the high from THC. Again, you do not seem to be really reading what I post. For some odd reason I trust Sam Skunkman's word more than yours, oh wait, I know the reason: he doesn't post like you post.

I didn't say that you did? You do not seem to be really reading what I post. Sam has posted on pure THC not being the same. I wouldn't know or have any reason not to believe him. AFAIK I'm the only person on the internet who has posted on (impure I admit) cannabinoids vs. buds, not THC vs. buds. It makes more sense that small amounts of cannabinoids affect cannabinoid receptors. A bad analogy would be kratom, with its major alkaloid mitragynine, and traces of 7-hydroxymitragynine. No one thinks that anything other than opium alkaloids are responsible for the difference between morphine and opium; so it's always been weird to me that people tag terpenes to high differences in Cannabis without evidence. If saying so makes people think I'm attacking them then I piss a lot of people off.

jump117 · Mar 9, 2011

Thanks to your dispute I opened, why it is recommended to add baking soda in a traditional recipe for cooking cannabis-milk.

Traditionalists support the use of soda, referring to the wisdom of the ages, and the reformers deny it, finding it useless.

sweetmmj · Apr 12, 2011

Interesting Read!

Interesting Read!

Hey guys!

This is a great thread with so much information.

I hate to hijack this thread, but it seems like you two know what the F you are talking about so I have a couple of questions if you don't mind:

1. Stupid me bought the yellow cans of Power butane, which every board says do not use.

I also have a 1/2 gallon of 190 proof Everclear.

Question: Which is a better end product...

a) Do a BHO and follow up with a QWEVER wash or...
b) just do a QWEVER wash

(The material I am using is the leftover kief at the bottom of lb bags of the finest NorCal outdoor and indoor, would be perfect to roll but I cannot stand joints!)

2. I made some bubble hash with bubble bags and the first 2 screens produced a hash that doesn't melt, just kinda smolders around the edges when flame is applied.

I can do a QWEVER wash on it right? Just break it up and wash for 30 seconds and filter then evaporate.

Thanks for your input. I would have posted a new question, but too many people out there with opinions, not facts.

Smoke on!

jump117 · Apr 12, 2011

Try Absolute.

sweetmmj · Apr 12, 2011

Absolute? As in vodka? Can I ask why as it is only 40 proof?

jump117 · Apr 12, 2011

No, not vodka.

Here the term absolute means a product of two stage extraction which uses butane and ethanol 190 proof.
You have both solvents.

sweetmmj · Apr 13, 2011

So when you said Try Absolute, you were saying that doing one then the other is called "Absolute" and that it would produce a better result than just washing with everclear?

Sorry, just a little dense here

jump117 · Apr 13, 2011

Of course you can use butane or ethanol alone.
When you have both solvents their combined use gives a result of higher quality.

As for other polar solvents, ethanol extraction time should be strictly limited.
Ethanol dissolves the resin slower than the isopropyl and the soaking time
for the extraction of ethanol can be increased up to several minutes.

While soaking in butane is practically unlimited.
Together with the resin, butane will dissolve unwanted lipophilic vegetable oils and waxes, which will go to BHO.

For removal of lipophilic dirt and bubbles of residual butane,
BHO can be dissolved in ethanol, in which fats and waxes are poorly soluble.

A more detailed description and discussion can be found in the topic “Absolute Amber”.

dope_roor · Apr 13, 2011

sweetmmj said:
Hey guys!

This is a great thread with so much information.

I hate to hijack this thread, but it seems like you two know what the F you are talking about so I have a couple of questions if you don't mind:

1. Stupid me bought the yellow cans of Power butane, which every board says do not use.

I also have a 1/2 gallon of 190 proof Everclear.

Question: Which is a better end product...

a) Do a BHO and follow up with a QWEVER wash or...
b) just do a QWEVER wash

(The material I am using is the leftover kief at the bottom of lb bags of the finest NorCal outdoor and indoor, would be perfect to roll but I cannot stand joints!)

2. I made some bubble hash with bubble bags and the first 2 screens produced a hash that doesn't melt, just kinda smolders around the edges when flame is applied.

I can do a QWEVER wash on it right? Just break it up and wash for 30 seconds and filter then evaporate.

Thanks for your input. I would have posted a new question, but too many people out there with opinions, not facts.

Smoke on!

Since you're using kief, I would advise you to use just the everclear and do a nice long thorough soak and strain thru coffee filter. A good majority of the undesirable plant matter is gone (since its kief) and I think it the soaking would yield much better than a butane spray. plus i'm not sure if doing a 2nd wash with everclear would fix the fact the butane wasn't good to begin with.

decarboxylator · Apr 13, 2011

dope_roor said:
Since you're using kief, I would advise you to use just the everclear and do a nice long thorough soak and strain thru coffee filter. A good majority of the undesirable plant matter is gone (since its kief) and I think it the soaking would yield much better than a butane spray. plus i'm not sure if doing a 2nd wash with everclear would fix the fact the butane wasn't good to begin with.

check out this medical grade alcohol. 190 proof and organic

Alchemical Solutions' 190 proof neutral organic grape alcohol is made from certified organic wine produced near Hopland California.

Our small scale, batch method of production allows us to maintain the utmost level of quality and attention to detail, while at the same time adhering to environmentally sound practices. Our Spirits are double distilled in stainless steel and double filtered to assure our customers the highest level of purity.

Our spirits are periodically tested by an independent lab to insure that they meet USP (United States Pharmacopeia) standards. Not all pure alcohol is pharmaceutical grade; only 190 proof and 200 proof pure ethanol, which meets or exceeds the stringent standards of the USP.

Production Process - Organic Neutral Grape Spirits:

We begin with a supply of fresh, certified organic wine with 12 percent alcohol processed by a certified vintner from certified organic grown grapes.
We quickly distill 325 to 400 gallons of this wine in our stainless steel still with a yield of approximately 50-gallons of 120 Proof alcohol in an 8-hour shift. Note: The natural distillation process, or run, starts with the heads. The very first heads are discarded because of their high fusel content. The heads gradually give way to highest yielding portion of the run, the hearts. Approximately 60-70 percent of the run, measured in proof gallons, is made up of the hearts. Eventually, the yield slows and the proof drops; the remainder of the run is the lower proof tails. The art of distillation is in managing the collection and redistillation of these three portions of the typical run.
We then carefully redistill up to 375 gallons of 120 proof, first run, to yield 40 to 70 gallons per shift of what we are looking for, 190 proof Neutral Spirits.
Before the 190 proof Neutral Spirits are collected from the hearts during the redistillation run, we collect the lower proof heads after discarding the fusel rich portion and add them to the subsequent tails for further redistillation.
Our Organic Neutral Grape Spirits exceed the TTB standards as a consumable Industrial Grade Alcohol, but we prefer a smoother, Pharmaceutical Grade product. We achieve this by using a mixed bed de-ionization filter.
We further purify our product by using a 0.2 micron solids filter to remove any residue. Note: this is the same size filter that is used in the medical laboratories to purify water to be used in their blood tests.

http://www.organicalcohol.com/index.php?submenu=Products&src=gendocs&ref=Neutral%20Grape

jump117 · Apr 13, 2011

dope_roor said:
Since you're using kief, I would advise you to use just the everclear and do a nice long thorough soak and strain thru coffee filter. A good majority of the undesirable plant matter is gone (since its kief) and I think it the soaking would yield much better than a butane spray. plus i'm not sure if doing a 2nd wash with everclear would fix the fact the butane wasn't good to begin with.

My recommendations relating to the leftovers after kief was sifted,
which contains a lot of not resinous plant material.
Kief quite successfully cleaned with ethanol.
Freezing solution before filtration, so-called "winterization" brings some additional benefits.

sweetmmj · Apr 13, 2011

Love the AMBER!!! Wow, what great pics from your thread, Jump!

Dope, I am going to do it both ways just to see. I guess I was a little optimistic in calling it all kief, as there are some super small buds mixed in so there are some stems and such, but minimal.

I have a few questions about the your way Jump.

Process:
Step 1 - put frozen matter into frozen extraction pipe, refreeze. Freeze butane.
Step 2 - push butane through pipe into collection dish and evaporate off (will have collection dish on clone heating mat)
Step 3 - add everclear to collection dish
Step 4 - freeze collection dish
Step 5 - strain
Step 6 - evaporate and collect absolute

Do I need to freeze it in Step 4 or just go on to Step 5?

If it doesn't turn out due to the bad butane, could I decarb it and put it into capsules to ingest without having to worry about the nasty "leftovers?"

For just the everclear wash, I will try both short and long soaks. For short soaks with multiple washes, would it make any sense to make it colder by adding dry ice?

Thanks a lot! Can't wait to get started!!!

What is/how to perform decarboxylation & isomerization?

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Member

decarboxylator

Well-known member

New member