Concentrated Research

[Cuthbert J Twillie]

I'm planning a Dab (how-to) video for my nest project.
I've used flowers since 1970 and back in that era, often hash and even a 70's version of HO.
I've never really been moved by hash and that old HO was a waste of $.

I didn't even know about modern concentrates (Dabs in teen age speak) until my Senior-in-High-school daughter told me about them.
Next time I was in Denver I got some and tried it.
It has a definite pop to it, but I've found it affects me like Chinese food, in a very short time I want more or feel like vaping flowers.

Regardless, prior to beginning my video I began doing a little historical research. Most of what I found was disturbing. It seems a common problem with BHO is that you've got a lot of Mad-scientists doing the lab work.

What I mean by mad scientists is that some folks will find out a formula for making BHO and never consider the quality of their ingrediants. And remember a lot of labs providing oil to the public are only interested in quick profits. Scrupulous attention to detail is trumped by the attitude of make-money-quick.

Here are some areas of concern I've discovered.
Cheap butane often contains other elements like the known carcinogen Benzene.
Purging practices are often an after thought, leaving dangerous amounts Butane in the oil.
Pesticides tend to concentrate when concentrates are being produced making pesticide levels unacceptable.

The last one could apply to any form oil unless you implemented a pesticide removal strategy.
In recent testing done by the Denver Post even organic growers found pesticides on their crops (probably) due to overspray.

As an older imbiber I think these findings should be part of the community's discourse and that's why I mention them. Any chemical ingestion is fraught with some degree of risk, in the case of oils consumers need to be aware of the safety concerns.

Or as the Romans said: Caveat Emptor

 

[waxdab23]

Thank you for this information.

Do you or anyone know if testing labs such as SC test for elements such as the ones stated above?

In other words, would "lab tested" concentrates ensure they are fully purged, etc.?

 

[Cuthbert J Twillie]

The Denver Post is a good place to start looking. To my knowledge Colorado does require lab testing.
The following blurb is from the Denver Post (but doesn't directly answer your question):Approximately 20 percent of the volatile fuel in common “butane” lighter fluid is a combination of other hydrocarbons including benzene, ethyl mercaptan, heptane, hexane, and other toxic impurities.

One thing I take into account in my research is the main stream media's archaic stance on weed. It's not hard to see that bias in weed reporting. But even relatively modern, enlightened media outlets, like Buzzfeed, are asking hard questions about concentrate production.

Here is a link from "The Cannabist":http://www.thecannabist.co/2015/12/...:+Marijuana)&utm_content=Google+International

This article is talking about the concentration of Pesticides in concentrates (this is significant because according to my research Pesticide concentration in concentrates is a result of concentrating the THC so is a problem inherent to concentrates regardless of the concentration method - even methods beyond BHO).

Speaking specifically to your question, some labs exist to service the industry, there are multiple instances of growers seeking labs that will give them the butane or pesticide numbers the growers want, because the labs know if they fail too many batches the growers will go elsewhere for their lab work and that means money.

Here is the SC Labs site: http://sclabs.com/services/services-residual-solvent-testing.html
Here is Steep Hill Labs web-site:http://steephill.com/
Here is the CMT Web-site:http://www.cmtlaboratory.com/
. . . and here is a blurb from their site that may be enlightening:

CMT Laboratories is one of Colorado’s most established Marijuana Testing Facilities dedicated to accurate, affordable and timely testing. CMT is licensed and certified by the State of Colorado to assist retail marijuana establishments in maintaining compliance with testing regulations dictated by Amendment 64, as well as providing public health and safety of marijuana products to the consumer. We are currently certified with the State of Colorado for Potency/Homogeneity, Residual Solvents and Microbial testing. Colorado owned and operated, we strive to supply most test results within 2 business days or less.

You'll notice that they don't mention pesticides. I have no way of knowing if that's an oversight on their part but we do know that many of Colorado's recalls have been centered on pesticide levels.

Caveat Emptor

 

[herbivore21]

Welcome to FC sir! Thankyou for starting off right away posting such a relevant contribution!

As a paid scientist/academic, I'll start by saying that these 'mad scientists' you speak about are not at all scientists, they are glorified cooks at best. They don't have the theoretical knowledge that we trained researchers give up decades of our lives to gain before going out into the field. There is rarely any tightly controlled, systematic methodology being applied by these home cooks (and in fairness to such home extractors, this is largely impossible in a home environment that is not a purpose built and sterile lab).

These are people who generally don't have the most basic knowledge of safety for the kinds of techniques they are using (which are all commonly known lab procedures that have been used in various applications long before dabbing was a thing). By the way, 'dabbing' is not teenaged language, we have many wonderful middle-aged and even elderly (although young at heart!) FC members who use this parlance around these parts alone

They are not just using shitty non lab grade/impure butane as you accurately say, which contain nasties of various kinds. They are frequently using cheap 1-2 stage oil based vacuum pumps whose internal components decompose with contact with the solvents being used, and whose oil can overflow with recovered solvent and cause all kinds of further concerns. These are people who use various polymers (silicones, parchment coatings of various kinds, PTFE) inside a vacuum without having any understanding of vacuum physics or the safe limits of use of these polymers in a negative vacuum with heat being applied, let alone the reactions of polymers with non-polar substances in cannabis resin or the solvents they are purging! Plenty do not even measure or calculate appropriate pressure and heat according to the solvent being used and relevant vapor pressure.

There are so many reasons why solvent extractions should be left to the experts who have access to solvents from lab suppliers whose quality and purity is beyond question, or who have the aptitude to purify less than pure solvents themselves and most importantly who know what the proper equipment required for this processing is!

Pesticides are a relevant topic indeed.
I really encourage you to read some of the posts I've shared, where I have provided peer reviewed scholarly journal articles that speak to this topic and others with a level of rigor that you just won't get from the above sources.
However, we should include a qualifier to your comment - in the only peer reviewed study I've seen, a great many Californian concentrates were found to contain pesticides (1/3 of all sampled) - however, none of the bubble hashes in this study had this residual pesticides problem, the authors concluded that this is likely because of the water solubility of these pesticides (as an aside, don't drink bubble hash water if you do not know with certainty that the flowers used were pesticide-free!)

Also where you refer to 'concentrating THC', remember that THC is far from the only psychoactive compound found in cannabis that we are extracting using any of the various methods (almost all of which I have extensive experience with). I have fractioned off pure THCA crystals and found that the effects weren't that great when dabbed alone. Many others have shared similar experiences in the past, however some may differ - especially if they've already consumed a bunch of other concentrates which have other active compounds in them recently before trying the straight THCA.

Finally, please do not rely on sources like buzzfeed as sources of scientific information. I have never seen them accurately represent any scientific story and there have been various critiques of articles full of misinformation published by this organization! A large portion of this site's stories comprise bought and paid for advertisements, that are being presented as 'news' stories (this is the definition of 'native advertising' - buzzfeed are very open about this approach being core to their business model). Look for your information using scholarly journal databases and search engines like google scholar.

More and more scientific journals are opening up access to genuine scientific research straight from the researchers themselves. Don't take your scientific information from journalists when you can get them straight from the source

Again, welcome to FC and it is great to see you giving thought to these considerations so soon after discovering concentrates!

As one last note, remember that the variety of concentrates available far exceeds the variety of flowers available. You can make tens or even hundreds of different kinds of extracts with different effects from the very same flowers! Very little of the effects we find from various concentrates are universal to all concentrates from that variety/phenotype, let alone others more broadly.

 

[BeardedCrow]

I wish california forced dispensaries to lab test concentrates.
It's basically do whatever you want here.

I've seen some super nasty black tar labeled as wax here in socal. Gross.

 

[herbivore21]

I wish california forced dispensaries to lab test concentrates.
It's basically do whatever you want here.

I've seen some super nasty black tar labeled as wax here in socal. Gross.

Definitely man, if there is one thing the peer reviewed study I mentioned above that tested concentrates from Cali found, it is that there needs to be much more sensible regulation in Cali!

A big part of the problem is that even testing labs are not themselves adequately regulated which means that even though testing may take place, the usefulness of the test results are limited due to the labs variously not having (or not being able to access in some cases and not due to lack of trying on their part!) specific testing standards with which to identify relevant compounds in a given sample, not using best practice analytical standards (retesting to confirm results for example) and other issues. This is not to say that all such labs have the same problems, or that none are doing their damnedest and giving useful information at all, but judging COA results becomes a crap-shoot due to inconsistency in standards and practices both within and between jurisdictions.

 

[Cuthbert J Twillie]

Welcome to FC sir!

Thanks Herbivore, but I've been here for three years. I lurk much and post seldom.

As a paid scientist/academic, I'll start by saying that these 'mad scientists' you speak about are not at all scientists, they are glorified cooks at best.

Um, yeah, we're in agreement. I'm a retired Tech. College instructor who did a lot of work with chemicals, my terminology for people who use "intuition" as their guide to chemistry is "mad scientists". The term is derisive and is not meant to connote any affiliation with science, just the opposite.

More importantly if you're buying oil off the street you are forced to assume that the oil was cooked by a "Mad Scientist" (i.e. some one who has only the most basic knowledge of how to create oil and lacks the nuances pertaining to the subject that would render them competent). As I stated earlier most of us on this site vape for health reasons and most street BHO can be assumed to be antithetical to health.

Finally, please do not rely on sources like buzzfeed as sources of scientific information. I have never seen them accurately represent any scientific story and there have been various critiques of articles full of misinformation published by this organization!

This is a point where our paths diverge. I think you may have misread what I was saying. I was stating in that paragraph that the mainstream media will cast most weed stories in a negative light or in a noticeably antagonistic way and for that reason you have to take those stories with a grain of salt. Heightening that antagonism is journalism's out of the closet love affair with methyl alcohol. As a published writer (peer reviewed, news and features) I can attest to mainstream journalism's weed hostility, regardless, the reason I mentioned Buzzfeed had nothing to do with their status as a scientific journal. I mention the Buzzfeed article because their audience is much younger than the mainstream media and outlets like Buzzfeed are not hostile to marijuana. So if Buzzfeed is writing cautionary stories about oil, it's safe to assume that there may be something to the story . . . and further research bears this out.

Or to put the entire thread in a nutshell: oils are very often produced using unsafe practices that are direct threats to your health. You can't do oil and assume it's as safe as flowers.

Or, "the old hippie" view: Flowers grow out of the ground, oils grow out of a lab. Do you trust nature or do you trust labs?

 

[Bad Ocelot]

I also do science for money, though due to the lack of letters after my name I'm not sure if I'm technically a scientist... though I will have a paper of original data published later this year

So I definitely feel you guys on the science journalism issues. So many facepalms... I haven't taken the time to look up the solubilities of commonly used cannabis pesticides, but that might be a good weekend project. Removing pesticides would likely involve at least one more step, if not more, but would probably be worthwhile. Though I'm prepared for the possibility that this wouldn't be feasible for most people or smaller organizations.

Or, "the old hippie" view: Flowers grow out of the ground, oils grow out of a lab. Do you trust nature or do you trust labs?

I get what you're saying but I take issue with this statement on a few levels. Firstly, most modern grow operations much more closely resemble a lab than idyllic small scale outdoor agriculture. Even outdoor grows have a rather "industrial" appearance these days. Not to mention the fact that cannabis is one of the most genetically fucked with plants on the face of the planet. It's also notable that cannabis extracts have been produced using either solvents or heat for hundreds if not thousands of years. And lastly, the whole natural v. synthetic things is really a faux distinction that I could go on about for a minute, but I'll spare you all my pretentious pontifications

All this being said, there are definitely some problems with the proliferation of extracts in their current iteration. People open blasting reefer from who knows where, grown who knows how, with cheap butane from the corner store, is obviously suboptimal, to say the least. However if you use good starting product, proper solvents, & a solid methodology, there should be nothing to worry about really.

 

[Cuthbert J Twillie]

All this being said, there are definitely some problems with the proliferation of extracts in their current iteration. People open blasting reefer from who knows where, grown who knows how, with cheap butane from the corner store, is obviously suboptimal, to say the least. However if you use good starting product, proper solvents, & a solid methodology, there should be nothing to worry about really.

We are in agreement almost across the board and I freely admit my old hippie statement is too broad.
But there is a kernel of truth there. The plant (genetically altered or not) grows from the ground in a relatively hands off fashion. Oil is a synthetic and if everything is done in a state of the art fashion BHO can be produced in a relatively safe way regarding the butane levels in the finished product but you still have the problem of pesticides concentrating as the (intended) psychoactive properties concentrate.

Herbivore strongly implies that Water based production of oil is pesticide free, but that assertion lacks a citation nor have I found corroborating evidence of this assertion in my research. An Oregon lab (OG Analytical) tested 154 concentrates between October, 2014 and December 2014 and found that more half of them were pesticide contaminated. This compares to the 389 samples of flowers where only 29% were tainted.

I'm not trying to harsh anyone's concentrate love affair, I am (as an educator) attempting to point out that with concentrates the stakes are higher, more so than flowers and it's in your own best interests to make an educated choice.

However if you use good starting product, proper solvents, & a solid methodology, there should be nothing to worry about really.

There are some tall caveats in there Ocelot and they all go out the window when you don't know who produced the oil and that is the case with most customers.

Beyond all that Bad Ocelot, congratulations on being published, Nice job!

 

[Bad Ocelot]

Butane is definitely the most problematic solvent. I'm unsure why it's so popular as 95% EtOH & 91% ISO are readily available in most of the U.S... I guess it evaporates faster & people are impatient... Granted that would still leave the pesticide issue but I'm tempted to think that's only an issue for heavy concentrate users. I'm a fairly light user so I go through maybe 10-14g of flower or 2-3g of concentrate per month, if that much (sometimes probably closer to 8g flower or 2g wax). Let's say I get a quarter, QWET 5g & save 2g of flower for the Ascent. I'm still only going to use the yielded QWET & 2g of flower over a couple of weeks, which creates a ceiling for the amount of pesticide I'm going to ingest.

But for people who buy concentrates retail & use them in large amounts, this could definitely be an issue. So like with all drugs, moderate use can negate most potential problems.

The plant (genetically altered or not) grows from the ground in a relatively hands off fashion.

Or in a closely monitored aqueous solution of nutrients & fertilizers under artificial light in a temperature controlled clean room

Oil is a synthetic

Definitely not synthetic, we don't want people confusing cannabis extracts with synthetic cannabinoids as they're worlds apart. Extracts are just as natural as any essential oil, vanilla extract, etc.

you still have the problem of pesticides concentrating as the (intended) psychoactive properties concentrate.

Yes, absolutely. But moderate use would keep levels at roughly the same as using flower.

Herbivore strongly implies that Water based production of oil is pesticide free, but that assertion lacks a citation nor have I found corroborating evidence of this assertion in my research. An Oregon lab (OG Analytical) tested 154 concentrates between October, 2014 and December 2014 and found that more half of them were pesticide contaminated. This compares to the 389 samples of flowers where only 29% were tainted.

Thanks for this info! I've definitely got some reading to do.
I'm curious about that because, IIRC, most pesticides are water soluble, but I'll defer to his expertise as he's definitely more knowledgeable on the subject than I.

There are some tall caveats in there Ocelot and they all go out the window when you don't know who produced the oil and that is the case with most customers.

Ugh... this is why we can't have nice things. Kids these days

Beyond all that Bad Ocelot, congratulations on being published, Nice job!

Thanks a bunch! I'm excited.

 

[Cuthbert J Twillie]

I'll do a mea culpa on using generalizations (as quoted above). Still, hairs could be split about the differences between a hot-house tomato and a glass of V-8.

An important item I ran across today said, in passing, that there was no such thing as medical or food grade butane and that all butane contained lubricants . . .
Though seeing it in one place doesn't imply that it's a verified fact.

Full disclosure: I have yet to see anything that specifically states water based HO has higher pesticide concentrations. Conversely I haven't seen anything separating WBHO from other HO types when it comes to concentration of pesticides.

If anyone has literature or a link to this subject . . .

 

[getsoutalive]

I believe the thinking goes that Ice Water Extractions are not really solvent based. The water is used to physically knock the heads off the plant. The water will also pick up the pesticides, especially those that are water soluble and rinse them away from the product. The more water used, the lower the likely residual levels of nasties. While with solvents, the nasties get caught up and concentrated with the product as the solvent evaporates.

Not that I have any studies to link to.

 

[Bad Ocelot]

An important item I ran across today said, in passing, that there was no such thing as medical or food grade butane and that all butane contained lubricants . . .
Though seeing it in one place doesn't imply that it's a verified fact.

I've not looked all that deeply into it as I've never done a butane extraction. I'd imagine reagent grade n-butanol is, for all intensive porpoises, pure. But 100% pure anything is kind of a myth. Unsure of what health implications would follow. And that's a couple atoms off butane, and also expensive for people not running a large operation.

Full disclosure: I have yet to see anything that specifically states water based HO has higher pesticide concentrations. Conversely I haven't seen anything separating WBHO from other HO types when it comes to concentration of pesticides.

If anyone has literature or a link to this subject . . .

I believe the thinking goes that Ice Water Extractions are not really solvent based. The water is used to physically knock the heads off the plant. The water will also pick up the pesticides, especially those that are water soluble and rinse them away from the product. The more water used, the lower the likely residual levels of nasties. While with solvents, the nasties get caught up and concentrated with the product as the solvent evaporates.

Not that I have any studies to link to.

My understanding of the various water hash teks is that it is a mechanical separation. I dunno what that would mean for pesticides though.

 

[Cuthbert J Twillie]

My understanding of the various water hash teks is that it is a mechanical separation. I dunno what that would mean for pesticides though.

What I'm saying is that I'm not finding research that specifically addresses the pesticide concentration question specifically with WHO (water hash oils). Let's say WHO's solve the pesticide concentration problem because that would be Yuuuuge. What labs across the west are discovering is that heavy concentrations of pesticides are being found in HO's and unfortunately I have not seen the data teased out to the point where they are separating WHO's from BHO's as far as pesticide concentration is concerned. Another thing the labs are discovering is that a lot of oils contain banned pesticides including one that causes brain damage.

Further reading on butane says that regardless of where you purchase your butane or what grade butane you are paying for (but not necessarily getting) it will contain heavier compounds (benzene -often associated with a form of leukemia, methylbutane, neopentane and hexene) that remain in the BHO even after closed loop (the most expensive and comprehensive form of butane removal) purging.

For the record Washington (state) allows butane at 500ppm in BHO, while Colorado standards are set at 50ppm, street versions of BHO have been found to contain up to 50,000ppm and the kicker is no one knows exactly how much if any butane is safe to ingest.

I hope as you read this you understand I have no agenda beyond the pursuit of information. This is an inquiry and I welcome further information . . .

 

[Bad Ocelot]

Unfortunately I doubt that research exists. Yet anyway. I am a YUUUUGE proponent of further research, testing, and appropriate standards & regulations.

I'd really like to see pesticide & residual solvent concentration level testing done with a variety of different extraction methods.

Another thing I'd like to see is if & if so how much butane & butane by products remain in the vapor from pens & dabbers etc. As that's really where the rubber meets the road. Don't get me wrong, I'd definitely prefer not to have any residual solvent in the concentrate at all, but if infinitesimal amounts are destroyed by the heat, it's substantially less relevant.

 

[Cuthbert J Twillie]

I'm working on a Dab video now.
That's how I got started on the research, I didn't want to be talking out my (t)Rump.

I think my safety hang up is that I'm retired from Tech college and safety is the first thing we teach (in any subject).

 

[herbivore21]

Herbivore strongly implies that Water based production of oil is pesticide free, but that assertion lacks a citation nor have I found corroborating evidence of this assertion in my research. An Oregon lab (OG Analytical) tested 154 concentrates between October, 2014 and December 2014 and found that more half of them were pesticide contaminated. This compares to the 389 samples of flowers where only 29% were tainted.

http://fuckcombustion.com/threads/e...of-dabbing-would-look-like.20334/#post-906273

There's an article from the Journal of Toxicological Sciences suggesting precisely what I have said about the hashes (see p. 802). It's also a great read!

 

[Cuthbert J Twillie]

Thanks Herbivore this is what I've been looking for.

 

[Cuthbert J Twillie]

Herbivore,
Can I get a hyper-link?
I found the journal (Japanese?) But I can't find the article.
Thanks!

 

[HomeFree]

Maybe go with dry sift if you must use an extract. If you can produce your own medicine from start to finish that could set your mind at ease about pesticides and cannabis steroids. IIRC bubble has can get tainted if dried improperly. You could make your own bubble hash too though.

There are some dispensaries out here in California who list all the testing they have done for sure. Their herb is costly, and testing might not even catch everything though. Try to find a few trustworthy sources who are willing to share information on the grow and aren't just hustlers trying to make a ton of money as quickly as possible.

 

[Cuthbert J Twillie]

Maybe go with dry sift if you must use an extract. If you can produce your own medicine from start to finish that could set your mind at ease about pesticides and cannabis steroids. IIRC bubble has can get tainted if dried improperly. You could make your own bubble hash too though.

There are some dispensaries out here in California who list all the testing they have done for sure. Their herb is costly, and testing might not even catch everything though. Try to find a few trustworthy sources who are willing to share information on the grow and aren't just hustlers trying to make a ton of money as quickly as possible.

^^^
This is more or less the essence of what I've been trying to say.
Due to residuals related to butane (benzene, etc) I don't think BHO is a direction to seriously pursue.
I've been studying Bubble Has (essentially a water based hash oil - WBHO) that looks like it could be made safely if you have a proven method of removing the pesticides.

This is the video that my research was aimed at:

 

[bropoke2233]

hey guys. i visit this site a lot but had to create a second account to answer a few questions.. my primary account is too easily linked to my IRL person and i prefer to keep my job and internet time separate. i work in a fully legal licensed facility out west that deals with fairly big processing numbers. i apologize for the truncated quotes.. there's a lot of stuff to say

These are people who generally don't have the most basic knowledge of safety for the kinds of techniques they are using

They are not just using shitty non lab grade/impure butane as you accurately say, which contain nasties of various kinds. They are frequently using cheap 1-2 stage oil based vacuum pumps whose internal components decompose with contact with the solvents being used, and whose oil can overflow with recovered solvent and cause all kinds of further concerns. These are people who use various polymers (silicones, parchment coatings of various kinds, PTFE) inside a vacuum without having any understanding of vacuum physics or the safe limits of use of these polymers in a negative vacuum with heat being applied, let alone the reactions of polymers with non-polar substances in cannabis resin or the solvents they are purging! Plenty do not even measure or calculate appropriate pressure and heat according to the solvent being used and relevant vapor pressure.

There are so many reasons why solvent extractions should be left to the experts who have access to solvents from lab suppliers whose quality and purity is beyond question, or who have the aptitude to purify less than pure solvents themselves and most importantly who know what the proper equipment required for this processing is!

such broad statements!! some of us are very impassioned and absolutely do follow all of the best practices. not all labs run like we do, but i am trying to be the change i'd like to see in the industry. dry scroll pumps, distilled solvents, PTFE everything. i do understand that the whole "best practices" thing makes me the exception and not the rule, and this is especially true for the scale that my employer is running at.

A big part of the problem is that even testing labs are not themselves adequately regulated which means that even though testing may take place, the usefulness of the test results are limited due to the labs variously not having (or not being able to access in some cases and not due to lack of trying on their part!) specific testing standards with which to identify relevant compounds in a given sample, not using best practice analytical standards (retesting to confirm results for example) and other issues. This is not to say that all such labs have the same problems, or that none are doing their damnedest and giving useful information at all, but judging COA results becomes a crap-shoot due to inconsistency in standards and practices both within and between jurisdictions.

this is the biggest problem!!! how are those of us in the lab supposed to make data-driven advancements when we're supplied with inconsistent or intentionally incomplete data??!? it sucks! there's no telling which lab is "right" since they're all over the place. more often than not, they'll just give you what you want to hear. and that's the worst part.

I haven't taken the time to look up the solubilities of commonly used cannabis pesticides, but that might be a good weekend project. Removing pesticides would likely involve at least one more step, if not more, but would probably be worthwhile. Though I'm prepared for the possibility that this wouldn't be feasible for most people or smaller organizations.

some pesticides and mold spores can be removed through filtering, but not all of them. short path/wiped film still doesn't even do it, and that's pretty much as refined as a concentrate can be

Butane is definitely the most problematic solvent. I'm unsure why it's so popular as 95% EtOH & 91% ISO are readily available in most of the U.S... I guess it evaporates faster & people are impatient... Granted that would still leave the pesticide issue but I'm tempted to think that's only an issue for heavy concentrate users. I'm a fairly light user so I go through maybe 10-14g of flower or 2-3g of concentrate per month, if that much (sometimes probably closer to 8g flower or 2g wax). Let's say I get a quarter, QWET 5g & save 2g of flower for the Ascent. I'm still only going to use the yielded QWET & 2g of flower over a couple of weeks, which creates a ceiling for the amount of pesticide I'm going to ingest.

95% EtOH and 91% iso create drastically less desirable concentrates for vaporization purposes. they are aggressive solvents but still will not carry over all of the wonderful terpenes you can capture with a proper butane extraction. you'll end up with much less flavor. also, your assumption that it only affects heavy concentrate users is erroneous.

the pesticide issue with concentrates is more than meets the eye. smokeable buds have a very high THC to plant matter ratio. when you are running at the numbers we are running at, it's simply not feasible to run good quality smoke buds. it's too profitable to just sell them as bud right now. as a result, the vast majority of the concentrate is made from sugar leaf. this still produces an excellent quality extract, but it requires more raw material per gram of extract, which means more pesticides per gram of extract. as you move down the food chain (fan leaf) you end up with a higher pesticide to THC ratio. this is especially problematic because running your fan leaf and distilling it into clear is a highly profitable thing to do, and fundamentally makes sense until you consider the pesticide issue.

I'll do a mea culpa on using generalizations (as quoted above). Still, hairs could be split about the differences between a hot-house tomato and a glass of V-8.

An important item I ran across today said, in passing, that there was no such thing as medical or food grade butane and that all butane contained lubricants . . .
Though seeing it in one place doesn't imply that it's a verified fact.

Full disclosure: I have yet to see anything that specifically states water based HO has higher pesticide concentrations. Conversely I haven't seen anything separating WBHO from other HO types when it comes to concentration of pesticides.

If anyone has literature or a link to this subject . . .

you're comparing apples to oranges! you could just as easily classify BHO as tomato juice fresh from the juicer. it all depends on the processor.

i don't have a link to the study, but the assumption about water hashes being less likely to be pesticide-riddled is... true!! but i would hold off on any conclusions. pointing to pesticide water solubility as the reason seems very preemptive, as it would only make logical sense that many pesticides wouldn't be water based (or else they'd leech into our groundwater.. oh wait...)

also i mentioned it before.. but if you're incapable of purifying your butane, you shouldn't be running a CLS! distilling butane with a CLS is very easy and any reputable processor should be doing it.

^^^
This is more or less the essence of what I've been trying to say.
Due to residuals related to butane (benzene, etc) I don't think BHO is a direction to seriously pursue.
I've been studying Bubble Has (essentially a water based hash oil - WBHO) that looks like it could be made safely if you have a proven method of removing the pesticides.

hm.. there are a lot of concerns i have over BHO. that is not one of them. if you were able to find a reputable processor, you would not have to worry about that. but even then, without being part of the supply chain, how are you supposed to know? the big issue is the LABS. if you do find a reputable lab, you can always take a sample of BHO there to get it tested. if it looks good - stick to that processor.

the pesticides thing is a huge huge issue that doesn't seem to be going away. our large grows are meeting the issue through extremely careful procedures, preemptive spraying, and predatory bugs. its important to remember that pesticides are a systemic issue. processors are quickly blamed, but when we run trim that a grower promises is clean into an extract that tests clean from multiple labs.. that's about all we can do.

its also important to remember that the people in the lab aren't always the people calling the shots. we have budget constraints and profit margins that our managers need us to meet. i am unwilling to compromise on the quality and safety of my product and procedures, but (sorry for self aggrandizement) i cannot imagine many people lasting under that pressure when its so easy to not care and treat it like its "just a job."

 

[herbivore21]

some of us are very impassioned and absolutely do follow all of the best practices. not all labs run like we do, but i am trying to be the change i'd like to see in the industry. dry scroll pumps, distilled solvents, PTFE everything. i do understand that the whole "best practices" thing makes me the exception and not the rule, and this is especially true for the scale that my employer is running at.


this is the biggest problem!!! how are those of us in the lab supposed to make data-driven advancements when we're supplied with inconsistent or intentionally incomplete data??!? it sucks! there's no telling which lab is "right" since they're all over the place. more often than not, they'll just give you what you want to hear. and that's the worst part.

Greetings!

Let me start by saying that while I do know others personally who work to standards such as yours (and very few doing some absolutely next level shit beyond that) - I want to say that I appreciate that doing as you say you are an exception to much of what currently goes on and your efforts are to be lauded! Kudos to you sir - and I hope that you inspire the same effort from others!

The testing issues you and I have mentioned are a major concern to me. This IMO is the shit that keeps Cannabis in the dark ages. We need rigorous analytical standards. We need mandatory, best practice analysis for all legal facilities. It is just as you say and it must be a frustration for somebody who really tries to do shit safely and methodically like yourself to then be stuck with unreliable analysis. A crucial part of basic QC as well as honing one's techniques is knowing as precisely as possible what we are working with and how it got to be that way. Even if you grow and process yourself in the most perfectly controlled and documented conditions, accurate analysis is essential!

Herbivore,
Can I get a hyper-link?
I found the journal (Japanese?) But I can't find the article.
Thanks!

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jts/40/6/40_797/_pdf

Sorry for the delayed response brother, only just saw this now. Please do tag me in any posts like this asking me questions to ensure that I get a notification This link above is the one btw, it is a .jp site but the article is in English

 

[Bad Ocelot]

@bropoke2233 Thanks for the informative post. Always good to hear what people in the industry are doing to try & alleviate these problems!

 

[Cuthbert J Twillie]

Thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread!
Herbivore the Journal Of Toxicology was great, thanks for that direction.

If I were to synthesize this into a conclusion it would be pretty much what I started with:

Caveat Emptor

And that applies to bubble (water based) hash based on the data I've received (here). Unless steps are specifically taken by the manufacturer there is no guarantee on your substance not having concentrated pesticides. That conclusion is based on the Journal of Toxicology and Bropoke's post.

If I've missed something please help with the error - mucho gracias to all posters.