BHO Mystery Oil

A brother recently posted on Facebook he had injected around 6 cases of butane into a container and when he evaporated it off to see what was left, there was a heavier residual oil that he described as smelling like a tire factory.

There are a number of possibilities offered on what it is, but no definitive analysis as yet, so we decided to run an experiment ourselves, with us in control of the variables such as cleanliness.

There are of course things that we know are in butane, such as sulfur in the low ppm to ppb range, and longer chain oleaginous waxes, which is what all the XXXXXX refining is to remove, as they clog the small orifices of expensive butane lighters.

If you concentrate enough butane, you would expect to see a measurable amount of those left behind and they may explain the Mystery Oil.

As far as the smell, tires are mostly made of synthetic rubber formulated out of styrene and butadiene, so the butane present could explain a butyl rubber odor, if mixed with sulfur and longer chain alkane waxes.

All conjecture of course, so until we can get a clean sample into a lab for a HPLC/MS analysis, all speculation is conjecture.

I tried to conduct the experiment yesterday, but alas we only had one case of butane on hand and the wholesale house was closed.  One 12 can case turned out not to be enough, so I will repeat today.

I ran the one case of Lucienne through a brand new cold trap that I assembled out of new Mk III components, kindly loaned to us by Specialized Formulations, so that I had a pristine and uncontaminated unit for the tests.  To remove any existing contamination beforehand, I first boiled in hot soapy water and wiped down with 190 proof ethanol. I did get some light oil from this trial, but not enough to filter and send out for analysis.

I say filter, because the first thing that I saw was paint chips from the outside of the can in the oil. What a tasty thought for those who can tap their butane and don’t subsequently clean the pot before running, or winterize or filter the oil.

While the sample was larger than the .05 grams needed for GC, it was small and full of paint chips, so I decided to rerun the experiment with more butane and add a coffee filter section to my test sled.

The oil didn’t smell like an old tire factory, but like a light petroleum fraction (distillant), with a hint of butane odor, so the tire factory odor may come with a larger sample.

It readily dissolved in 190 proof ethanol.

Ethanol is a simple alkane alcohol, and simple alkane hydrocarbons do readily dissolve in it.

Just to make sure my memory was correct, I dumped some hexane in the beaker of mystery oil and ethanol, to verify that it did mix, because all alcohols don’t mix with simple alkanes like hexane. It did.

I also cut apart all of the cans and felt inside for lubricity. There was none.

I inspected all the welds for quality and the welds were all sound and unoxidized.

I also cut apart the valve to better understand why lubricant would be required. It is is a simply made plug valve and needs no lubricant.

PS: Don’t cry ya’ll! The spill in the picture of alcohol is actually water from taking the cold trap out of the hot pot, not $37/1.75L 190 proof.

Today I will pick up a long case of Lucienne and try again.

Mystery oil-1-6Mystery oil test rig-1-1Mystery oil-1-2Mystery oil-1-3Mystery oil-1-4Mystery oil-1-7Mystery oil-1-8Mystery oil-1-9

8-27-2013

Well, 72 cans were enough to get a good sample and I will drop it off at a HPLC/MS lab today.  I added a filter section this time, so the sample was paint chip free and appears to be a light petroleum fraction, with a light petroleum odor.  There was no tire factory odor, nor the smell of sulfur at this concentration level and I will refrain from conjecture until I see the analysis.

Mystery oil from 72 cans-1-1Mystery oil from 72 cans-1-2

9-4-2013

OK, I picked up the test results and am still going through it a line at a time, pulling up the MSDS sheets, starting with the items of concern.

The first thing to keep in perspective, is that the total oil was 12 ppm from 21.3 liters, so the PPM in the study should be divided by 1,000,000 and multiplied by .000,012, to get the concentration.

That concentration number X 1,000,000 will give you parts per millionth.

In summary, there were simple Alkanes present as long as C-16, which are not of health concern at the levels present.

In addition there are aromatic Alkenes present, that are of serious concern, but not at levels remotely close to exposure limits.

The concern with those Alkenes is really not reaching toxic limits,  but the fact that some are known carcinogens, mutagens, teratogens, etc.

IE:  Cyclohexane, isocyanato, which most likely came from the gaskets and seals used in the cans and process, because it isn’t found naturally in butane.

Nasty bad shit, with an no exposure limits established and an intravenous LD-50 mouse of 13 ppm and present at the level of .000000001728 concentration, or .001728 parts per millionth.  That is about 7500 times lower than the LD-50.

Another bad nasty present was Benzenamine, 3,5, at the levels of .035778 parts per billionth, with a Permissible Exposure Limit of 2 ppm TWA for 8 hours.    That is 56000 times lower than Permissible Exposure Limits.

Benzene 1,1 showed up at a concentration of .000000003678, or .000003678 PPM, with a Permissible Exposure Limit of 110 ppm TWA 8 hours.

I could go on, but it will take me awhile to pull MSDS sheets for the whole list, so I’ve attached the raw data.  Sorry the quality isn’t better, but the original is barely readable and this was copied at 1200 bit resolution

Even if nothing is present at levels of serious health concern, I would prefer to not have any of that stuff in there, so in addition to fractional distillation using vacuum, we will be experimenting with Bentonite filters.

Mystery Oil analysis-1-1

Here is the parts per billionth summary:  You will note that there are redacted lines of scary stuff.  Those were redacted by the lab itself, as it is their carrier solvents used for the tests and were not present in the original sample.

Mystery oil analysis-2-1

9-11-2013

I’m not clever enough to outsmart this edit program, and it continues to thwart my adding anything at the end, so here it is in the middle, and I’ll let Joe sort it out later.

This experiment was designed to determine the contents of the mystery oil to the ninth decimal place, and I believe has accurately done so.

It was not designed to accurately determine the weight to the ninth decimal place, so that will be the next round of experiments.  For that purpose, I’ve ordered a fresh 50# refrigerant tank, as all of ours have had both n-Butane and lighter butane in them, so can’t be relied upon to be un-comtaminated themselves.

I’ve decided to rely on a third party lab to determine exact weights, after which we will have our in house chemistry brain trust The lab technician that I work with, is on vacation and I’m fixing to be, so it may take a couple weeks to come up with a formal plan.

My intent is to determine actual total ppm as compared to advertized ppm, and infer that the components are the same as the first detailed sample.

Readers have commented on having found more oil in other brands, and even in the same Lucienne brand that I tested, at levels that are triple the 50ppm limits they are certified to contain.  If that is the case, I plan to make that information public and a third party documentation will be cleaner and come in handy in case of lawsuits.

It would be prohibitively expensive to test all butane sources, but we will test the half a dozen or so primary ones used for extraction, including Airgas, Praxair, and Matheson.

I’ve also picked up a couple of cases of specialty butane typically used for cooking, at the suggestion of Skyhighler, and will be fractionally distilling them, to see what the relative oil content is and if mercaptans are detectable.

A point that I hope ya’ll keep in perspective, and that is that even at the higher ppm that others are discovering the oil, the ppm of the evil spirits in the finished product, would still be under limits set by NIOSH.

Having said that, as I would personally rather not have them there at all, we will hence forth vacuum distill all butane, regardless of source, before using it in our extraction process.

9-10-2013

It is taking awhile to sort through to these items, so for those of you who wanted the complete names and a more legible copy, here are the legible names and CAS#’s at the bottom of the page:

9-23-2013

OK, I dropped off a new sample of Lucienne in the can at Specialty Analytical, as well as two cans each of Skyhighler’s Iwatani and Gasone brands for ppm testing. I expect the results by Friday, which will be third party and should cut through any concerns about my accuracy.

Cost per run was $75/ea, so I limited it to these three brands, with double tests on the Lucienne. We will test other brands of interest at a later date, after we see what we get with these tests.

I discharged a can of Gasone and Iwatani into a bain marie for a sniff test, and they both definitely have mercaptans added, so even if they are ultra low residual, our sensory threshold for ethyl mercaptan is 2.8 parts per billionth., and the final oil would taste and smell of it.

Damn nice flame though! I also ordered a Iwatani creme brulee torch head on sale, and it works better than my propane plumbers torch.

Hee, hee, hee thanks Skyhighler for setting me up with a slick new dabbing torch and more than a years supply of butane for it!

Although I wasn’t able to get the same lot of Lucienne that I tested before, because I picked up the last 6 pack at the distributor, I was able to get two different lots of Lucienne from a store shelf, so we can test for control. If they are all significantly different, it will support an out of control process theory.

I also talked to Marty about how we could further refine the tests on the items of interest, specifically just the compounds that that are considered evil spirits, despite their low levels. He is reviewing the list and costs for individual standards and we will discuss further later this week.

Still nothing on the list remotely close to established permissible exposure levels, so far thousands or millions of times below if calculated for the residuals in the extracted oil itself, but still looking and listening for input.

More to be revealed…………………..

9-23-2013

As ya’ll may have noticed, there is considerable controversy on this project, so I would like to put the conflict in perspective, as I see it.

We analyzed a sample of the residual oil from butane fractional distillation to the Parts Per Billion level and have a GC/MS printout.  That means that in addition to retention time in the GC column, we have the component peaks from the mass spectrometer.

The argument has been made that isn’t accurate enough, even though the residuals of the evil spirits in the extracted oil, would be thousands to millions of times below published permissible exposure levels.

It is absolutely true that we can buy individual standards and refine our breakdown of the peaks of aromatics, where there are minute differences in the molecule, but surprises on the order of 1000, or 1,000, 000 are highly unlikely.

We are more likely to find that although some of the benzene peaks on the parts per million list, do break down into other benzene compounds, not all benzene compounds are listed as a carcinogen, so the levels in the oil may actually be reduced further.

We are continuing to work with Specialty Analysis to identify compounds worthy of refined examination, and they’ve expressed special interest in this project, as well as willingness to purchase the individual standards for evil spirits in sufficient quantity to bear closer examination.

The project is advancing in an orderly manner, without MO Jack’s participation, and the results will be all third party from a certified forensic lab, so I will be just another spectator and hopefully above reproach this time.

I disconnected communications with MO Jack, because the hoopla was greater than the project itself, and he was becoming confrontational.  He seemed fine with questioning my empirical results, but not with me questioning him.

Some of his statements were also directly refuted by the individuals whom he quotes, leaving me to choose between their statements and his.

I also found bits and pieces of my statements on other forums, without the rest of my qualifying statement, which I consider to be stacking the deck and misleading.

If you read the comments column, you will also find that he has a SCFE CO2 system on order from Eden Labs, and will be in direct competition with BHO extraction, so I have other reasons to be concerned about his impartiality.

Regardless whether those issues are my error or not, there is no question that we can resolve what is in the butane without spending an even greater amount of time nit picking details at the parts per trillion levels and bickering amongst ourselves.

Best wishes to MO Jack with his own experiments, wherever they may lead him.

GW

10-3-13

Still awaiting lab results for the last three, but did get the results for two different lots of Lucienne, as well as Gasone and Iwatani.

The nice lady in the office and I miss-communicated earlier in the week, and I incorrectly reported the last Iwatani  results as Lucienne.  Even the ppm is incorrect, as the Iwatana cans are 394 ml instead of 300 ml.

That aside, and cutting to the chase, here are the correct Parts Per Millionth residual contamination, after evaporating away the butane, as reported by a certified third party analytical lab, for the first three brands.

The, balance of the information on other brands to follow, ostensibly Monday:

On the subject of refining our search, Marty ordered the standards required to further investigate the aromatics detected in the ppm range, as well as the cyanide compound in the ppb range.  More on that after the standards arrive and more experiments are conducted.

10-4-13

RESIDUAL PPM CONTAMINANTS IN BUTANE BY BRAND from certified 3rd party lab

 

NO

Brand

Volume

Residuals

Percent

PPM

1

Lucienne

300 ml/173 gm

.24 mg

.000,001,387

1.4

2

Lucienne

300 ml/173 gm

.18 mg

.000,001,040

1

3

Gasone

394 ml/227gm

.14 mg

.000,000,662

.66

4

Iwatani

394 ml /227 gm

.41 mg

.000,001,806

1.8

5

Vector

320 ml/184 gm

6

Powers

300 ml/173 gm

7

Newport

300 ml/173 gm

10-7-13

The moment some of ya’ll have been waiting for has arrived, with the actual ppm residual contaminants in butane, by some of the common brands, as well as a couple not commonly used for butane extraction for comparison.

No hoopla or fanfaronade, just the actual ppm residuals by brand, as measured by a certified third party analytical lab.

Note that the ppm in the Gasone and Iwatani include Thiol mercaptans for leak detection.  Thiols are alcohol analogs, where the oxygen atom is replaced by a sulfur atom and adds a garlic odor.

Note that the highest ppm found in any brand was 7% of their certified maximum of 50 ppm.

Also note that except for Lucienne, these were single can grab samples, and Lucienne is only two different lots, so the differences between brands, especially by the same refiner, may even out.  IE:  Lucienne and Newport.

They may not too, as the same refiner doesn’t necessarily mean the same refinery, which could also account for the differences.

RESIDUAL PPM CONTAMINANTS IN BUTANE BY BRAND

 

NO

Brand

Volume

Residuals

Percent

PPM

1

Lucienne

300 ml/173 gm

.24 mg

.000,001,387

1.4

2

Lucienne

300 ml/173 gm

.18 mg

.000,001,040

1

3

*Gasone

394 ml/227gm

.14 mg

.000,000,662

.66

4

*Iwatani

394 ml /227 gm

.41 mg

.000,001,806

1.8

5

Vector

320 ml/184 gm

.51 mg

.000,002,771

2.8

6

Powers

300 ml/173 gm

.34 mg

.000,001,965

2

7

Newport

300 ml/173 gm

.61 mg

.000,003,526

3.5

 *  Contains Mercaptans

So now that we have two bits of empirical scientific data, derived by a certified third party lab, instead of the anecdotal information on Facebook and the web that we started with, lets do the math to put this in perspective.

The previous part per billionth analysis showed 1,4 Dichlorobenzene at a combined total level of 55 parts per billionth, or .000,000,055.  We all agree that we want no part of 1,4 Dichlorozenzene, because it has been declared a carcinogen, and given a low TWA CEIL of 110ppm by NIOSH.

http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9923722

55 parts per billionth in the concentrated residual itself, is 2000 times smaller than 110 parts per millionth TWA Ceiling imposed by NIOSH.

It will in addition be further diluted in an extract, considering that at the worse case total residual contaminant found was 3.5 ppm, besides being dilute in the extracted oil itself.  Lets look at that math.

.000,000, 055 X .000, 0035 = .000,000,000,000,192 or 200 parts per quadrillion in the butane used for extraction.

Assuming a 40 gram trim extraction, using 300 ml of butane, and yielding only 10%, 300 ml butane would deposit .000,000,000,058 ml of 1,4 Dichlorbenzene in 4 grams of concentrate.

.000, 000, 000, 058 ml X 1.2475 gms per ml = .000,000,000,072 grams of 1,4 Dichlorobenzene in 4 grams of concentrate.

 .000,000.000,072 grams divided by 4 grams =.000,000,000,018 or 18 parts per trillion.

110 ppm TWA Ceiling (.000, 110) divided by residual 1,4 Dichlorobenzene level of 18 parts per trillion (.000,000,000,018) = 6,111,111 or about one six millionth (1/6,000,000th) of maximum allowable exposure level.

4 grams of oil will produce about 20 200 mg hits, so each hit would be about 1/20th of 1/6,000, 000, so exposure per hit would be about 1/1,200,000,000 of the 110 ppm maximum.

Soooo, now that we have put things in perspective, where do we go from here?

We are planning some more testing of different brands and sources and further refined testing of all the evil spirits, but we have come far enough to know that while we would prefer to not have the unwanted contaminants in our butane, its presence is thousands, or even billions of times below published levels of concerns by health professionals.

We’ve also learned that it is easy to remove, using a cold trap and a refrigerant recovery pump, so those of you with the required equipment can take it out, making the point moot.

That is what we now do, because we can, but continue to use the oil we produced before we started fractionally distilling the butane.

10-23-13

The Colibri and Ronson sample results arrived and are as per the following chart:

Given the price and hoopla, I expected the Colibri to be lower.  I wonder if it is the same product, after the company was bought out?

To consider, is that except for 2 sample lots of Luciene, all of these are single grab samples, so we don’t know what the median, mode, mean or standard deviation is.

More later, after we test Airgas, Matheson, and Praxair.

The lab asked for more time on the detailed component analysis, as well as the followup experiments for MO, to attempt to reconcile the differences between his PPM rates and theirs.  More as that develops.

The good news, is that they’ve agreed to start running cannabis samples, and have more toys than any of the local cannabis labs, such as GC, MS, HPLC, etc.

          RESIDUAL PPM CONTAMINANTS IN BUTANE BY BRAND

 

NO

Brand

Volume

Residuals

Percent

PPM

1

Lucienne

300 ml/173 gm

.24 mg

.000,001,387

1.4

2

Lucienne

300 ml/173 gm

.18 mg

.000,001,040

1

3

*Gasone

394 ml/227gm

.14 mg

.000,000,662

.66

4

*Iwatani

394 ml /227 gm

.41 mg

.000,001,806

1.8

5

Vector

320 ml/184 gm

.51 mg

.000,002,771

2.8

6

Powers

300 ml/173 gm

.34 mg

.000,001,965

2

7

Newport

300 ml/173 gm

.61 mg

.000,003,526

3.5

8

Colibri

270ml/156 gm

2.34 mg

.000015

15

9

Ronson

330 ml/190 grams

42.7 mg

.000224

224

 *  Contains Mercaptans

1-18-2014

Here are some residual test results conducted by Skyhighler and posted on Toke City at :

http://www.tokecity.com/forums/showthread.php?51333-Lube-inside-canned-butane-Mystery-Oil&p=1335291&viewfull=1#post1335291

Power (0X) had 0.021g of residue

Power (0X), Korea, 300ml can, reads on the bottom “130819”

Power 5X #1 had 0.02g of residue
Power 5X, Korea, 300ml can, reads on the bottom “130820”

Power 5X #2 had 0.019g of residue
Power 5X, Korea, 300ml can, reads on the bottom “130731”

Power 7X had 0.029g of residue
Power 7X, Korea, 300ml can, reads on the bottom “120716”

Newport #1 had 0.01g of residue
Newport, England, 300ml can, reads on the bottom “DOM 24.04.13 20:33″

Newport #2 had 0.004g of residue
Newport, England, 300ml can, reads on the bottom “DOM 26.03.13 19:09″

Vector #1 had 0.03g of residue
Vector, Korea, 320ml can, reads on the bottom “AUTHENTIC VECTOR GAS 2013.04.06″

Vector #2 had 0.02g of residue
Vector, Korea, 320ml can, reads on the bottom “AUTHENTIC VECTOR GAS 2013.04.06″

Vector #3 had 0.028g of residue
Vector, Korea, 320ml can, reads on the bottom “AUTHENTIC VECTOR GAS 2013.04.06″

Vector #4 had 0.028g of residue
Vector, Korea, 320ml can, reads on the bottom “AUTHENTIC VECTOR GAS 2013.04.06″

Vector 14X #1 had 0.019g of residue
Vector 14X, Korea, 320ml can, reads on the bottom “AUTHENTIC VECTOR GAS 2013 09 10″

Vector 14X #2 had 0.018g of residue
Vector 14X, Korea, 320ml can, reads on the bottom “AUTHENTIC VECTOR GAS 2013 09 10″

Lucienne #1 had 0.03g of residue
Lucienne, England, 300ml can, reads on the bottom “DOM 16.07.13 13:28″

Lucienne #2 had 0.002g of residue
Lucienne, England, 300ml can, reads on the bottom “DOM 16.07.13 13:28″

Lucienne #3 had 0.001g of residue
Lucienne, England, 300ml can, reads on the bottom “DOM 16.07.13 13:28″

Lucienne #4 had <0.001g residue
Lucienne, England, 300ml can, reads on the bottom “DOM 16.07.13 13:28″

Ronson #1 had 0.01g of residue
Ronson, USA. 300ml/165g can, reads on the bottom “11713”

Ronson #2 had 0.001g residue
Ronson, USA. 300ml/165g can, reads on the bottom “11713”

Ronson #3 had <.001g residue
Ronson, USA, 300ml/165g can, reads on the bottom “11713”

Spark 7x had 0.04g of residue
Spark 7x, Korea, 300ml can, reads on the bottom “120404”

King had 0.033g of residue
King, Korea, 300ml can, reads on the bottom “12.04.25”

Fasfil 5X #1 had 0.030g of residue
Fasfil 5X, Korea, 300ml can, reads on the bottom “120718”

Fasfil 5X #2 had 0.032g of residue
Fasfil 5X, Korea, 300ml can, reads on the bottom “120718”

whip-it! 9X had 0.025g of residue
whip-it! 9X, Korea, 320ml can, reads on the bottom “130708”

whip-it! Premium had 0.003g of residue
whip-it! Premium, UK, 400ml can, reads on the bottom “239 M 17:25 1″

Neon #1 had 0.004g of residue
Neon, China, 300ml can, reads on the bottom “Manufactured On 20/12/2012/ (00488)” (no added odorant/mercaptan)

Neon #2 had 0.005g of residue
Neon, China, 300ml can, reads on the bottom “Manufactured On 20.02.1200413″ (unusable due to added odorant/mercaptan)

Neon #3 had 0.001g of residue
Neon, China, 300ml can, reads on the bottom “Manufactured On 25/05/2012(00446)” (no added odorant/mercaptan)

Neon 5X #1 had 0.001g of residue
Neon 5X, China, 300ml can, reads on the bottom “Manufactured On 20/05/2013(00506)” (no added odorant/mercaptan)

Neon 5X #2 had 0.015g of residue (stinks, odorant/mercaptan?)
Neon 5X, China, 300ml can, reads on the bottom “Manufactured On 11/05/2012(004236)”

Neon 5X #3 had 0.004g of residue
Neon 5X, China, 300ml can, reads on the bottom “Manufactured On 25/5/2013(00505) (no added odorant/mercaptan)

Lava had 0.033g of residue
Lava, Korea, 5.3oz/150g can, reads on the bottom “070321”

Zippo had 0.001g of residue
Zippo, USA, 5.82oz/165g can, reads on the bottom “H1513″

Colibri had 0.001g of residue
Colibri, UK, 300ml can, reads on the bottom “DOM 18.04.13 06:35″

Stok FYR had 0.023g of residue
Stok FYR, UK, 5.8oz/165g can, reads on the bottom “DOM 07.08.13 15:57″

Iolite had 0.010g of residue
Iolite, England, 300ml can, reads on the bottom “DOM 30.07.13 22:45″

Gasone 5X had 0.028g of residue
Gasone 5X, Korea, 5.8oz/165g can, reads on the bottom “130511”

Xikar #1 had 0.010g of residue (chemical smell, avoid)
Xikar, USA, 8oz/225g can, reads on the bottom “CC26/0947″

Xikar #2 had 0.007g of residue (chemical smell, avoid)
Xikar, USA, 8oz/225g can, reads on the bottom “CC26/1153″

Clipper 7X had 0.004g of residue
Clipper 7X, China, 4.89oz/139g can, reads on the bottom “26.03.2012”

Lotus had 0.002g of residue
Lotus, England, 400ml/13.4oz/222g can, reads on the bottom “DOM 03.10.12 14:03″

Jetline had 0.027g of residue
Jetline, Korea, 330ml can, reads on the bottom “130410”

Capital N-butane #1 had 0.008g of residue
Capital N-butane, USA, 6.6oz/187g can, reads on the bottom “13337”

Capital N-butane #2 had 0.009g of residue
Capital N-butane, USA, 6.6oz/187g can, reads on the bottom “13337”

Puretane #1 had 0.006g of residue
Puretane, USA, 300ml/167g can, reads on the bottom “13339 (1) 34623 06332″

Puretane #2 had 0.006g of residue
Puretane, USA, 300ml/167g can, reads on the bottom “13339 (1) 34623 06324″

Clipper 12X had 0.025g of residue
Clipper 12X, Spain, 170g can, reads on the bottom “QT31E”

Comoy’s had 0.015g of residue
Comoy’s, UK, 300ml can, reads on the bottom “DOM 23.05.13 05:28″

Smoke It’s had 0.007g of residue (stinks!!! don’t use!)
Smoke It’s, 300ml with no country or date of manufacture on the can

Meteor 7X had 0.030g of residue
Meteor 7X, Korea?, 165g can, reads on the bottom “130517”

Cloud 9X had 0.003g of residue
Cloud 9X, 300ml can with no country or date of manufacture

Iwatani #1 had 0.03g of residue
Iwatiani butane fuel, Korea, eight ounce can, reads near the top of the can “130506” (unusable due to added odorant/mercaptan)

Iwatani #2 had 0.010g of residue
Iwatiani butane fuel, Korea, eight ounce can, reads near the top of the can “130506” (unusable due to added odorant/mercaptan)

Those were my results, here’s jackgastche’s:

Vector #1 had 0.04g of residue
Vector, Korea, 320ml can, reads on the bottom “5/12/2012″

Vector #2 had 0.04g of residue
Vector, Korea, 320ml can, reads on the bottom “5/12/2012″

Vector #3 had 0.06g of residue
Vector, Korea, 320ml can, reads on the bottom 5/12/2012″”

Vector #4 had 0.03g of residue
Vector, Korea, 320ml can, reads on the bottom “5/13/2013″

Vector #5 had 0.04g of residue
Vector, Korea, 320ml can, reads on the bottom “5/13/2013″

Vector #6 had 0.04g of residue
Vector, Korea, 320ml can, reads on the bottom “5/13/2013″

Vector #7 had 0.02g of residue
Vector, Korea, 320ml can, reads on the bottom “12/15/2011″

Vector #8 had 0.02g of residue
Vector, Korea, 320ml can, reads on the bottom “12/15/2011″

Vector #9 had 0.03g of residue
Vector, Korea, 320ml can, reads on the bottom “12/15/2011″

Colibri #1 had 0.03g of residue
Colibri, UK, 300ml can, reads on the bottom “8/16/2011″

Colibri #2 had 0.03g of residue
Colibri, UK, 300ml can, reads on the bottom “8/16/2011″

Colibri #3 had 0.03g of residue
Colibri, UK, 300ml can, reads on the bottom “8/16/2011″

Xikar #1 had 0.002g of residue (chemical smell, avoid)
Xikar, UK, 400ml can, reads on the bottom “3/13/’12”

Xikar #2 had 0.002g of residue (chemical smell, avoid)
Xikar, UK, 400ml can, reads on the bottom “3/13/’12”

Xikar #3 had 0.002g of residue (chemical smell, avoid)
Xikar, UK, 400ml can, reads on the bottom “3/13/’12”

Xikar #4 had 0.003g of residue (chemical smell, avoid)
Xikar, UK, 400ml can, reads on the bottom “3/13/’12”

Xikar #5 had 0.003g of residue (chemical smell, avoid)
Xikar, UK, 400ml can, reads on the bottom “3/13/’12”

My first tests were weighed with this inexpensive .01 gradient scale,
http://www.amazon.com/American-Weigh…ords=.01+scale

My results to the .001 digit were weighed with this inexpensive .001 gradient scale,
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00…?ie=UTF8&psc=1

The results from jackgastche were weighed with a .001 gradient scale, but rounded off to the .01 digit.

How the test was done,
http://www.tokecity.com/forums/showt…=1#post1334342

Best to Worst list extrapolated from the above results,
http://www.tokecity.com/forums/showt…=1#post1338141

Contaminant as found by Specialty Analytical using GC/MS

NO

CONTAMINANT

Cas#

1.0

Parts Per Billionth

 

1.1

Butanal, 3-methyl

000590-86-3

1.2

Decane, 1,1, oxyblis

002456-28-2

1.3

Decane

000124-18-5

1.4

3-heptane,2,2,4 dimethyl

002213-23-2

1.5

Sulfurous acid, cyclohexylmethyl

1000309-22-4

1.6

3-heptene, 2,2,4,6,6 pentamethyl

000123-48-8

1.7

1,2-Dichlorobenze-D4

002199.69.1

1.8

1,4-Dichlorbenze-D4

003855-82-1

1.9

Oxalic acid, cyclobutyl nonyl ester

1000309-70-0

1.10

1-Octanol, 2-butyl

003913-02-9

1.11

Oxalic acid, isobutyl octyl ester

1000309-37-3

1.12

1-Bromodocosane

006938-66-5

1.13

Isooctane,  (ethenyloxy)

037769-62-3

1.14

Oxalic acid, allyl nonyl ester

1000309-23-7

1.14

1-Hexanol, 2-ethyl

000104-76-7

1.16

3-Octene,

014919-01-8

1.17

2-Propyl-1-pentanol

058175-57-8

1.18

1-Hexanol, 2-ethyl

000104-76-7

1.19

Dodecane

000112-40-3

1.20

Tetradecane

000629-59-4

1.21

Benzenamine, 3,5

000626-43-7

1.22

Silane, dichloro(3-chloropropyo)

003401-26-1

1.23

1H-Iden-1-One, 6 (dimethylamino)

058161-22-1

1.24

3,5-Dichlorophenyl ethylamine

1000306-63-2

2.0

Parts Per Millionth

 

2.1

2-Pentanol, propanoate

054004-43-2

2.2

2-Bromo dodecane

013187-99-0

2.3

Octadecane, 1-(ethenyloxy)

000930-02-9

2.4

2-Methylpentyl isovalerate

1000236-38-7

2.5

Eicosane

000112-95-8

2.6

N1-(m Tolyl)-N2-tetrahydro

332065-24-4

2.7

Azetidine, 1-me

004923-79-9

2.8

Cyclobutane, methylene

000292-64-8

2.9

Benzene, 1,1-(1,3butadiyne-1,4)

000886-66-8

2.10

Tricyclodecanedimethanamine

026655-37-8

2.11

6-Octadecenoic acid

000593-39-5

2.12

Cyclohexane, 1-pentyl

015232-85-6

2.13

4-Pentenal, 2-methylene

017854-46-5

2.14

3-Hexadecene

034303-81-6

2.15

2,5-Furandione, 3-(dodecenyl)

025377-73-5

2.16

Cyclohexanone,4-acetyl

005034-21-9

2.17

Oxalic acid, 2-ethylhexl isohex

1000309-38-8

2.18

Benzofuran-2-one, 4 amino-2

1000129-51-7

2.19

1,5,9-Cyclododecatrine

000676-22-2

2.20

Carbonic acid, decyl phenyl este

1000314-57-4

2.21

Dicyloxybenzene

035021-67-1

2.22

Carbonic acid, hexadecyl phenyl

1000314-58-0

2.23

Carbonic acid, Octadecyl pheny

1000314-58-1

2.24

Carbonic acid, phenyl tetradecyl

1000314-57-8

2.25

Phynl 3-deoxy-alpha,-d-ribo-he

1000133-06-1

2.26

6,7-Dioxabicylo(3.2.2)non-8-ene

006786-21-6

2.27

Beta-d-Mannofuranoside, phenyl

093524-17-5

2.28

N-Vinyllimidazole

001072-63-5

2.29

Decanedioic acid, bis (2ethylhex

000122-62-3

2.30

Glutaric acid, mono-phenyl ester

037526-03-7

2.31

Carbonic acid, Phynl undec-10-e

1000314-57-5

2.32

Heptadecane, 2,6,10,14-tetramethyl

018344-37-1

2.33

Oxalic acid, dodecyl 2-ethylhexy

1000309-39-5

2.34

5-Chlorobenzo(1,2,5)thiadiazol-4

1000311-77-9

2.35

Hexadecane, 1-chloro

004860-03-1

2.36

6-Nitroundec-5-ene

1000192-40-3

2.37

Butanedioic acid,2,3,dihydroxy

013811-71-7

2.38

Isoquinoline, 1,2,3,4-tetrahydro

029726-60-1

2.39

Pyrrolidine, 1-methyl-3-2-spiro

04029-14-1

2.40

Imidazo(1,2-b)1,2,4, triazine,6

094103-49-8

2.41

2 Propyn-1-one, 1-(2-thienyl)

056588-20-6

2.42

E-11-Hexadecen-1-o1

1000130-89-8

2.43

9-Octadecoi acid

000112-79-8

2.44

Octadecane, 1-chloro

003386-33-2

173 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Frostynugman on July 27, 2014 at 5:29 PM

    Puretane just put out a new N butane new or old I do not know. Has anyone had experience with this or is it the one listed?

    Reply

  2. Posted by north on June 26, 2014 at 11:19 AM

    Do you have any idea about win lighter gas residues ”near zero impurities”
    soon i will get closed loop and vac oven or just vac and heater.. is lower micron best and one stage..? what cfm you prefer? and where are cheapest closed loop systems?

    Reply

  3. hey guys, i did contact Joe, but thought i would share it here too they is a new butane floating around my area Marley 7x its made in china . I have some pictures to show if anyone is interested. ran a little thinking it would be something nice instead it left a very strong fowl odorant/odor to it.
    Name: Marley 7x extra pure 99.995% pure butane gas
    manufacture date: 10/01/2014
    exp date: 09/01/16
    batch#: 37280114003

    Reply

  4. […] extraction, you should understand as much as you can regarding the Butane/BHO Mystery Oil from Skunkpharm and r/CannabisExtracts to make an informed decision for […]

    Reply

  5. SO according to the list that sky provided , Ronson and zippo make the best butane?! why does every one knock those brands of butane then, and why does NO ONE EVER use them?

    Reply

  6. Posted by jdawg on February 1, 2014 at 10:06 AM

    Just wanna say great info. But I had couple questions, I seen tokecity did a write up on colibri and came up with some numbers that confuse me. I use colibri premium 300ml cans, does colibri only make the one kind of tane or do they have a couple kinds. And if not does that mean lucienne is the best butane stats wise u could find?

    Reply

  7. Posted by Blujay on January 14, 2014 at 8:57 AM

    Why is powers lower than vecyor when its ppm os less?

    Does powers mean power 5x?

    Thanks for the research!

    Reply

  8. Posted by Rob on January 12, 2014 at 1:08 AM

    Very nice post I really appreciate the information, and how everything is very in depth. I was wondering about Spark 7x premium butane they claim to be the purest for concentrates?

    Reply

  9. Posted by SPPETE13 on January 10, 2014 at 9:38 PM

    Hello GW ES and family….
    Wanted to share a link:

    http://capitalbutane.com/

    That is a link to a new company IN AMERICA… that uses N-butane and then iso-butane as a propellant in place of propane and they claim to be the cleanest… all info on their site…

    They CLAIM no MO

    Reply

  10. Posted by BP on January 6, 2014 at 5:54 AM

    Hey brother, how is the testing coming for the N butane from airgas, praxair and mattheson? I was talking to someone the other day that told me their 99.99 pure n tane contains trace amounts of H2O and sulfur…that those were the contaminants. So I am super excited to see what the differences are. Thanks, hope all is well!

    Reply

  11. Good looking out on this information. I got really sick last year off unpurged B.H.O. it destroyed my lungs and I was blowing out of my nose what smelled like sulfur and gasoline for months. Scary shit lady’s and gents, more work like this needs to be done so there are no more victims of peoples greed or ignorance. Thanks again man. I will be putting this info to use & I will continue to look for safer alternatives to using tainted extraction medium’s.

    Reply

  12. I’ve recently stumbled across Capital Butane. Its claiming to be 100%pure FDA grade N-Butane in a can like vector or any other butane. Have you all heard of this product yet? Its available on their site. CapitalButane dot com. I’d be very interested in seeing it tested by you guys.

    Reply

  13. Posted by Jack on December 20, 2013 at 5:36 AM

    Thanks for the time, energy, and other resources expended in this project. Exactly the info I’ve been searching for!

    Reply

  14. Perfect., thanks for your answer, I’ll put a link to your site on my web if you dont mind to help other people with this and share this super complete info! thx again, greets JN./

    Reply

  15. Amazing site, and info, thanks for share, i was looking for BHO data and this is perfect, here we dont have too much options of butane but i will try to compare what we have with the butanes tested here, thank you and sorry for my bad english JN, from Argentina

    Reply

    • Thanks for the good thoughts bro and it looks like your English is clearly superior to my Spanish, so good job!

      Skyhighler has been graciously testing a litany of brands, so I will update the site shortly to reflect his additional tests to date. He’s tested brands that I’ve never heard of, so you may have information that is more useful.

      Reply

  16. Great information. Regardless of the constituents of the residual mystery oil, the challenge is off gassing it (them) fully from the consumable resin. The process of removing the offending substances is not nearly as mysterious as what they may be. Proper vacuum oven processing is the key to providing fully clean and safe implantable medical devices and components for aerospace applications is vacuum bake out. Let’s bake it out and produce pristine pharmaceuticals for consumers.

    Reply

  17. Posted by Chad on November 18, 2013 at 4:51 PM

    So which butane is best to use for personal runs? I’ve been using vector but I’m assuming I should switch to Lucienne ?

    Reply

  18. Posted by Donkey Hotay on November 11, 2013 at 9:38 AM

    Suggestions for renaming this discussion thread:

    1) Dr. Strange Oil or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Dab

    2) How many chemists can dance on the head of a pin that is ONE MILLION times smaller than the smallest pin?

    3) Studies in Punctilious Pedantics — it’s turtles all the way down.

    Reply

  19. Posted by C4h10 on October 29, 2013 at 12:14 PM

    Great work! Here in Canada we are stuck with Colibri and London butane mostly. After seeing how much residual is left in Colibri makes me wonder if London is maybe a better choice. If you get a chance to test London that would help us Canadians a ton! Thanks for all the work you’ve done

    Reply

  20. well after reading this,, I think they should draw a sample of my blood and see how being a bho maker/patient affects the human body after 10 years

    Reply

  21. Posted by Matt Brochetti on September 30, 2013 at 8:48 AM

    Why not just use 99.5% pure butane from AirGas or something similar??

    If youre going through the hassle of recapturing your butane why not make sure youre only gettin the good stuff?

    Either way love your site! You should, at your convenience, make a smaller self contained extractor for runnin an oz or so.

    Reply

    • We use both, but 99.99% pure reagent grade, can still have .0001 residual contaminants, which is 100 ppm.

      Because of a local storm and power outage, my lab has rescheduled our meeting to discuss results until Wednesday, but did reveal that there was 1.38 mg of condensate in a cold trap, after a 300 ML can of butane of Lucienne was evaporated off. Butane weighs .579 gm/ml, so 300 ml weighs 173,7 grams, or 173,700 miligrams per can.

      1.73mg contaminant, divided by 173,700 mg starting weight, equals .0000079 or .00079%, or 7.9 ppm.

      No results on the second can of Lucienne yet, but it was from a different lot, to see how close they are controlling their process.

      So far I measured 12 ppm in the first lot, the lab measured 8 ppm on the second lot, and the third point of reference will give us a mini-random sample of the quality level that Lucienne is running.

      I also have a can of Vector, Powers, and Newport butane to drop off for ppm testing, when I pick up the print outs from this run, which baring acts of nature, will be by Wednesday.

      I will also be testing 99.99% n-Butane from Airgas, Praxair, and Matheson, to get actual numbers on reagent grades as well. They consider propane and isobutane contaminants, where lighter butane actually mixes them in, so the numbers are apples and oranges.

      Reply

    • Posted by Intoxicus on October 1, 2013 at 12:07 PM

      Not everyone can get their hands on N-butane.
      At 50 ppm of impurities, as Keen Newport has claimed for their privately labeled butane, one gets a mixture of butane, iso-butane, and propane at 99.995% purity.

      Reply

  22. From looking at cannabis flower at 800x magnification shows similar waxy organic material that BHO has. At 800x one can see that the contents of the trichomes and stalks have emptied and pile up with no juice in them.
    800x BHO (Dr Grinspoon) with close up of ‘mysterious’ wax

    Reply

    • Thanks for sharing bro! Nice shot!

      There are a couple kind of plant waxes involved, the first the waxes on the leaves and buds to protect them from drying out, and the waxes on the trichomes, to protect them from water.

      The latter is similar to the wax on a Wasp’s body, in that one end is hydrophylic to stick to the trichome and the other is hydrophobic to shed water.

      Reply

      • Cool. Thanks for the info. I image winterizing is what takes these waxes and limpid out? Not that I wouldn’t mine a little wasp-like wax…hey, I do feel like a stinging super-bug, yeah, I can fly,…oh, but I’m dabbing. Research first!

        Reply

  23. I posted this to my page. I thought it may help clear some of the issues. Thanks

    I am having a hard time communicating with GW in his forum–or at least he is not understanding me. So, I will respond here to his points and then he can join the discussion here, if he would like, in a more open manner (criticisms and questions are welcome). Thanks GW and Skunkpharm.

    GW: Why can you say what you want about the quality of my work, yet that same privilege is proscribed for me???

    MO: I am here for you, questions and criticisms. I love to learn; and the “pressure/challenge” of explaining myself and being questioned creates an environment of growth. Please, critique and question at will.

    GW: I would be more accepting of you talking to the lab I use, on the samples that I had run, and making statements about the accuracy, if you actually talked to the person who managed the analysis, who is on vacation and hasn’t been present all week.

    MO: I did talk with Marty. He said he would be leaving the project with a colleague (AJ) while he is on vacation. He said my samples would be worked by him as well. AJ has your data and mine. Are you suggesting that AJ is inferior to Marty. It may be so, but they are working as colleagues at the same lab. Marty trusted AJ, so I do, too. Makes sense if you trust Marty.

    GW: I also question why it is so important to you that my analysis is wrong, and brought about this confrontation.

    MO: I never once stated that your analysis is wrong. I said the tests were automated and that a chemist (Marty or AJ) would have to do a manual review of the contents to check for accuracy. Why would I state that the lab and TIC were wrong and then turn around and order the same tests at $250/piece?

    GW: Your focus on the accuracy of something measured in parts per billionth, when the real issue is there anything in there close to permissible exposure limits is the real question.
    The answer thus far is no, by several orders of magnitude, so is the debate equivalent to debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pen?

    MO: I never disagreed that each component within the MO is low with regard to exposure limits. But, I don’t agree with downplaying its potential health risks based on a TENTATIVE report. More importantly, for the sake of the patients, erring on the side of caution when stating opinion about the safety of a product is the safest bet. Stating that you “will hence forth vacuum distill all butane, regardless of [its] source, before using it in our extraction process” and then turning around and stating that you “continue to use the oil in [your] stash made before [you] discovered MO”, is confusing and irresponsible. You have a TIC report (T is for TENTATIVE) and you collected a little bit of MO (but cannot tell me if you accurately weighed it) and you feel comfortable telling your large and captive audience at Skunkpharm that it is probably safe ’cause of the low rate it will be at in BHO?

    GW: Until you attacked the credibility of my work, I was willing to let you say anything you wanted and just let the final results speak for themselves. I would still like to do that, if you will stop second guessing things about my experiments that you aren’t in a position to know, and posting them on line.
    Please do run your own experiments, and you are welcome that I turned you onto a lab equipped to do the analysis. I will continue to run mine, and if the end results disagree, that is the time to attack my credibility with facts.

    MO: Again, I have not attacked your credibility. I explained my understanding of the TIC report as explained by several chemists and I asked you about your methods of collecting and weighing the Lucienne Mystery Oil. If anything I have tried to add to your “credibility” by sharing your posts on my page. Reminder: I am running my own experiments. Why do you think you started running yours? (;

    GW: I didn’t say that you’ve out lived your welcome, because I wouldn’t have ever allowed what you posted to be visible to the readership, if I didn’t think what you had to say was important for them to hear.

    MO: No worries. I didn’t feel unwelcome.

    GW: That doesn’t mean that I endorse everything that you have to say, or that I will stand by and say nothing.

    MO: I know you have a brain of your own and that you are not mute.

    GW: I salute you for discovering Mystery Oil and your efforts to make the public aware of it, but please also consider that I also have the responsibility to insure that our readership has facts to go with the hearsay and opinions, especially when they may not agree.

    MO: I don’t need a salute. Is this what this is about for you? This is not my discovery. It has been known about for years; it was just not given any attention until now. Thanks, but, no thanks on the ‘salute’. Reserve it for the patients who felt the responsibility to share the MO page with their friends.

    GW: You can leave or stay as you like, and since I will be gone a week for vacation, perhaps you will have some test results when I return and we can discuss any disparities.

    MO: Discuss? You mean like where you selectively moderate the discussion in your forum? No, thanks. There shouldn’t be discrepancies anyway, we are working with the same labs. The only discrepancy so far is in the amount of weight we collected per can (in the end, with BHO tests, that wont matter anyway).

    GW: No one disagrees that when you are measuring in Parts Per Billionth, that there is room for error. How large is that error vis a vis anything that makes any difference at anywhere near those levels is perhaps the question you might give further consideration ?

    MO: I was not referring to the ppb/ppm. I was referring to the fact that the list does have false-positives on it and those needed to be manually “weeded out”.

    GW: What I don’t agree with is that my report was simply an automated run without any confirmation.
    There are 51 more pages that you haven’t seen, which Marty and I went over trying to guess where they may have come from.

    MO: Sounds like the beginning of the manual review I am talking about. All I know is, there is more work to be done, per AJ, in order to narrow the results down.

    GW: Pick a constitute and I’ll publish the page for the mass spectrometer peak that showed up on, I just don’t have the time, room, or inclination to publish them all, when there presence is moot at the levels indicated, and they are in a concentrated sample, not the original butane or the end medication.

    MO: That is fine. Probably would be a waste of time. Especially on the ones with low ‘response time’, as these are probably some of the ‘false-positives’.

    GW: Marty should be back from vacation by my return, and be able to defend the difference between our conversation and the one you had with someone else at the same lab. I suggest that before reporting to the world on open forum, as you have done, that the actual professional who was involved be allowed voice.

    MO: If what I stated is wrong then Marty would want to take that up with AJ; the one he entrusted this project to while gone.

    GW: I would also like to continue my own experimentation without being forced into taking a position until the facts are in.

    MO: I never use force. Please, point to where force has come into play?

    GW: I published the list, replete with CAS#’s for anyone to be able to identify any components at levels that exceed current limits. I immediately checked on the obvious, but confess to not having had the time to follow up on each and every one yet. One of the reasons that I published it, was to give anyone the smoking gun, who wants ammunition to shout concern to the roof tops.
    So far no one has shouted out, and I would also like to wait and see what happens there. If there are alarms noted, I want to follow up on those as well.

    MO: Awesome! Thank-you for all that you have done.

    GW: In a nutshell, I saw too many surprises during research before retirement, to take a solid position until the facts are all in. Especially with public announcements that better damn well be supported with more than hearsay if it ends up in a libel suit.

    MO: That is cool. You have been directly involved with research that ended in libel suits? Who fucked up? What field of research did you work in?

    GW: If we can agree to keep the discovery and brainstorming separate from judiciary evaluation, we can work more closely together, but not if you continue to discredit my findings, without having concurrently providing findings of equal validity and support.

    MO: Judicial evaluation? Huh? Again, I HAVE NOT ATTEMPTED TO DISCREDIT YOUR FINDINGS. I asked questions that related to my findings. Like you stated earlier. When our findings differ, we will get together. That is what we did. I asked you how you collected so little MO from 72 cans of Lucienne when I was collecting much more, and you said you could have made an error based on your processes; and looking at the second pic of the bottom of your collection vessel, it appeared you had collected more than just .158g of MO. And I left it at that. As in, I figured you were in error and the .158g for 72 cans was a bad number.

    GW: Till then, hoping you have a productive week and have lots of analytical data to share soon.

    MO: A productive week to you as well. Thank-you for the posts on cleaning the N-tane. I know several producers making the change currently; MUCH LOVE FOR THAT!

    Reply

    • Truth is shorter than fiction and it required no hoopla to sort out what was in the butane sample.

      To put things in perspective, analytical lab project manager Marty is now back and says that they don’t discuss one clients projects with another without written permission, and that ya’ll didn’t have the conversation that you report. That leaves me to sort through who to believe.

      With regard to potential libel suits, consider anyone that you malign on public forum a potential. For instance, announcing to the world that a manufacturer is running more that triple the contaminants they advertise on the face of the can. I have no problem taking on such a negligent supplier, once I have third party confirmation from a reliable lab, but you seemingly do not have such confirmation, or you would have trotted it out already to refute my results, as you have all of my results thus far.

      If the refineries are running out of control, they can also vary from lot to lot, thus finding 15 ppm in one lot and 180 ppm in another is certainly possible, and I have no opinion at this point, until tests confirm it one way or the other. The difference is also moot at the bottom line, because even at your higher levels, the amount in the medications themselves are still orders of magnitude lower than current levels of concern.

      I am now working on that loose end, with a experiment specifically designed to measure PPM vis vis remove the oil for analysis. When those third party results are available, I will publish those as well, as I have openly done thus far.

      I am going to discontinue this conversation, because it is diverting the focus from the actual project, and turning it into Facebook circus. There is no need for us to corroborate for me to conduct my own experimentation and thus far you have discounted both the quantity and the contents that my experiments produced.

      You profess to be seeking “false positives”, but it appears to me that you are focusing on identifying things that are 1000, to a 1000,000 smaller than published levels of concern, so whether they were misidentified or not is statistically moot.

      As I previously noted, when this project is over, there should be little doubt about the third party results, so I’m willing to let those speak for themselves. Are you willing to do the same?

      Reply

      • Posted by Intoxicus on September 20, 2013 at 12:12 PM

        I’m very confused about this: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=200728986764733&id=191952837642348
        post on the MO Facebook page.

        Did he send a sample to Specialty Analytical and that is what he’s talking about?

        Reply

        • I’m pretty sure it is meant to confuse the issue, so don’t feel alone.

          He did say he sent a sample to Specialty Analytical and that may be true. He hasn’t shared any results as of yet, so I’m as in the dark as you.

          It is my understanding that he has asked Specialty Analytical to perform additional tests to identify or rule out what he doesn’t agree with on my projects printout.

          I’ve stopped making his posts visible on this forum, because they are confrontational, without content and are wasting time better spent on the actual project itself.

          Reply

      • Skunk Pharm(?)

        The results from the oregon lab are clearly posted on the Mystery Oil page, I have seen them do multiple tests, and they also are working with a cannabis testing lab in california…

        I am curious why you are not seeing what the rest of us are.

        Also I am curious if you are going to do any additional tests or if you are assuming one test represents good scientific method?

        Either way thank you and Mystery Oil for having the conversation.

        Reply

  24. Posted by Concerned Observer on September 12, 2013 at 8:56 PM

    It should be noted that “Mystery Oil” or “Oil Jack” or whatever he wants to call himself has taken to blocking and deleting people that contradict him or his agenda. There have been many suspicions voiced in private about this person. Some believe that he may really be the person posting under the name “Fellow Chemist.”

    It is unfortunate that there is shenanigans afoot but it should be known by all that things may not be as they appear in regards to the Mystery oil page on Facebook, the person curating it and the motives behind his actions.

    It is unfortunate that this shadiness enters into the picture.

    Many thanks to Greywolf for being so on the ball in this.

    Reply

    • Hard to say, because we get the same individual with multiple identities regularly, typically those with an agenda, or they wouldn’t need so many different identities.

      On the other hand, some are sincere and legitimate, so we try to consider all input.

      I think it is good that all sides are aired and am confident that we will get to the bottom of it, regardless of the various opinions. If there is BS being waved about, we should be able to cut to the meat of the matter and clear the air by addressing it a step at a time.

      Reply

    • Posted by Mystery Oil on September 14, 2013 at 5:19 PM

      That post is wrong and I believe you folks know it. You know that I am working with labs and have spent money and time at this. If you have taken the time to pay attention to who I am, you (and the person posting) would know that I am patient, a small grower, and someone who extracts BHO that was concerned when they found this oil. Nothing more, nothing less. And, you are right, I do have “an agenda”, it is stated on the MO page. Identify the oil, make BHO cleaner through standards. What is wrong with this agenda? And what other agenda could I have? I have made no claims other than “I found this oil.” I have not called it dangerous and I have not stated that it is in BHO. I have not promoted anything other than known/safer/cleaner ways to extract BHO. What is all the fuss about? Please, explain.

      Reply

      • We do seem to be be getting at odds bro, because you are attacking the credibility of my experiment. You are making statements, that I must respond to when questioned by our following as to its correctness. Do you expect me to kiss your ring?

        On the other hand, I haven’t specifically said that you had an agenda, I said some of the folks involved did. It is you applying it to yourself, until I actually do so.

        If it is not clear that I am making every effort to resolve this issue by the numbers, regardless of opinions, then I suggest you review what I’ve done and posted again.

        Rather that publishing on public forums that I and the lab that I used don’t know what we are talking about, perhaps you can supply some actual GC/MS results that refute mine, instead of verbiage about who said what.

        I’m willing to let the actual data tell us what we are dealing with, and have little tolerance or patience for opinions not based on actual measurements. How can we resolve this issue peaceably, with you continuing to discredit the work that I’m doing?

        Reply

        • Posted by Mystery Oil on September 15, 2013 at 7:51 AM

          What “Ring” are you referring to? I think you are making a good effort. I have been nothing but thankful and supportive of your efforts. I have sent many people to your page and posted links of all of your work to my page. I never once discredited your work. I merely stated that the TIC, as stated by the chemists at the lab, is a basic guess by the computer and needs much more manual work. How is that discrediting? I only questioned the amount of oil you collected out of 72 cans and asked how you weighed it because it was far different than what I collected. I am sorry that you feel we are at “odds”. I was just looking for an open conversation about what we are finding. It seems that that will not be welcome here. I will leave you alone. Thank you again for your efforts.

          Reply

          • The ring that puts you in charge of what I can and can’t say, despite what you say.

            Why can you say what you want about the quality of my work, yet that same privilege is proscribed for me???

            I would be more accepting of you talking to the lab I use, on the samples that I had run, and making statements about the accuracy, if you actually talked to the person who managed the analysis, who is on vacation and hasn’t been present all week.

            I also question why it is so important to you that my analysis is wrong, and brought about this confrontation.

            Your focus on the accuracy of something measured in parts per billionth, when the real issue is there anything in there close to permissible exposure limits is the real question.

            The answer thus far is no, by several orders of magnitude, so is the debate equivalent to debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pen?

            Until you attacked the credibility of my work, I was willing to let you say anything you wanted and just let the final results speak for themselves. I would still like to do that, if you will stop second guessing things about my experiments that you aren’t in a position to know, and posting them on line.

            Please do run your own experiments, and you are welcome that I turned you onto a lab equipped to do the analysis. I will continue to run mine, and if the end results disagree, that is the time to attack my credibility with facts.

            I didn’t say that you’ve out lived your welcome, because I wouldn’t have ever allowed what you posted to be visible to the readership, if I didn’t think what you had to say was important for them to hear. That doesn’t mean that I endorse everything that you have to say, or that I will stand by and say nothing.

            I salute you for discovering Mystery Oil and your efforts to make the public aware of it, but please also consider that I also have the responsibility to insure that our readership has facts to go with the hearsay and opinions, especially when they may not agree.

            You can leave or stay as you like, and since I will be gone a week for vacation, perhaps you will have some test results when I return and we can discuss any disparities.

            No one disagrees that when you are measuring in Parts Per Billionth, that there is room for error. How large is that error vis a vis anything that makes any difference at anywhere near those levels is perhaps the question you might give further consideration ?

            What I don’t agree with is that my report was simply an automated run without any confirmation.

            There are 51 more pages that you haven’t seen, which Marty and I went over trying to guess where they may have come from. Pick a constitute and I’ll publish the page for the mass spectrometer peak that showed up on, I just don’t have the time, room, or inclination to publish them all, when there presence is moot at the levels indicated, and they are in a concentrated sample, not the original butane or the end medication.

            Marty should be back from vacation by my return, and be able to defend the difference between our conversation and the one you had with someone else at the same lab. I suggest that before reporting to the world on open forum, as you have done, that the actual professional who was involved be allowed voice.

            I would also like to continue my own experimentation without being forced into taking a position until the facts are in.

            I published the list, replete with CAS#’s for anyone to be able to identify any components at levels that exceed current limits. I immediately checked on the obvious, but confess to not having had the time to follow up on each and every one yet. One of the reasons that I published it, was to give anyone the smoking gun, who wants ammunition to shout concern to the roof tops.

            So far no one has shouted out, and I would also like to wait and see what happens there. If there are alarms noted, I want to follow up on those as well.

            In a nutshell, I saw too many surprises during research before retirement, to take a solid position until the facts are all in. Especially with public announcements that better damn well be supported with more than hearsay if it ends up in a libel suit.

            If we can agree to keep the discovery and brainstorming separate from judiciary evaluation, we can work more closely together, but not if you continue to discredit my findings, without having concurrently providing findings of equal validity and support.

            Till then, hoping you have a productive week and have lots of analytical data to share soon.

        • And with regard to “concerned observer”: I only know two. You folks and Graeme. Everyone else, even some of those who were lambasting MO initially (even ones before you caught wind), have been supportive. So, my list of guesses for “concerned observer” is short. Anyone doubting my motives (ID, etc.) should say; they need not be shy. I am fine with their reservation as that feeling is not shared by many.

          And by the way, detective “Concerned Observer”, ;) The writing style of “Fellow Chemist” is a bit different than mine. I am not sure if you are sensitive with regard to that. But, just thought i would point that out.

          I am Mystery Oil and Oil Jack, only. I haven’t closed my extraction business (until hi-flo co2 unit arrives from Fritz, that is) and used capital to put this thing in motion, just to run around and play stupid games. Steep Hill cleared my bill (thank-you Addison) However, that not included, I am around $2,500 into this. If you doubt my identity, please, call AC with Eden, call Addison with Steep Hill, call Pat with Sunrise Analytical, call Marty or AJ or Nikki with Specialty. They will verify that I exist and am working diligently toward answers.

          Reply

    • I realized that I had blocked only one (Not 2) person, Graeme Maschuich, and he isn’t the ‘death threat’ gentleman. So, I unblocked Graeme; that way he wouldn’t be the only one. No one is blocked any longer ;) completely open.

      Reply

      • I on the other hand have started deleting your posts, where before I had not. I will allow you to post again when you have test results to share, as opposed to diverting the focus of the “no longer a mystery oil” project with hearsay and cluttering up this blog.

        GW

        Reply

    • Posted by Intoxicus on September 18, 2013 at 8:33 AM

      To GRayWolf’s team:
      Is it possible to have the entirety of the GC/MS data collected to Google Docs in a .pdf?
      It’s not necessary by any means but I’m sure I’m not the only one that would love to have access to the complete set of peaks in addition to the TIC.

      Thanks!

      Reply

      • The digitization of crappy prints sucks. Please contact specialty analytical for a digital copy.

        Reply

        • Posted by Intoxicus on September 18, 2013 at 3:22 PM

          Thanks, I didn’t think they would just give that out like that.

          Reply

          • Posted by Intoxicus on September 18, 2013 at 3:29 PM

            Can I distribute that document or should I keep it to myself and let SA Labs distribute digital copies?

            I consider that document as the intellectual property of Skunk Pharms and SA labs so I don’t want to pass it around the internets without permission.

            I just want to throw it up on Google Docs or Dropbox so it can be accessed easily by the public.
            Credit would be given where it is due of course.

          • We want the information available. We want people to make educated decisions about their health.

          • I believe GW told them it is kosher to share. We’re just hoping t o get the info out there so everyone has it.

          • Posted by Intoxicus on September 19, 2013 at 8:11 AM

            Marty was asking me if I had permission via e-mail.
            I linked and copy/pasted this thread in reply.

            Gotta say thanks again to you guys.
            I’m sure I’m not the only that appreciates your guys’ work at Skunk Pharms and your willingness to share data like that publicly.

          • Yeah, I talked to him yesterday and gave him permission to send out copies.

  25. Are any of the compounds in the GC/MS results a concern for any sort of cumalative toxicity?
    Although they may not be immediately toxic at these doses a long term cumalative toxicty needs to be investigated.

    Judging by the lose dosages it would take a long time and some extreme dabbing for that to become a concern anyway,

    Reply

    • Some MSDS that I have seen do not list cumulative exposure data. We haven’t finished reviewing the list and reading the published literature. Feel free to join us and Google the compounds name with MSDS. Scroll down to cumulative exposure data. Then list it here with the compounds name health hazard code and exposure data. Its a lot for 2 people to do on top of everything else we have committed to. Lets tackle this as a team.

      Reply

      • I just don’t have the time right now but I may have some time after the weekend to contribute to that effort.

        Is it possible that you would know of Canadian labs that are friendly to the MMJ cause? I haven’t had the chance to get into that and I’m not acting unilaterally either. I’m just not in the position to go get certain things done as I have to work with others and confer to my associates that it’s worth their time to get a bunch of expensive testing done.

        I just figure you may have some hot tips for finding labs that won’t try to rat a person out being that you’re a far more established in the community than I.

        Again thank you Greywolf for staying calm and rational and sticking to the facts.

        It’s no secret that I fear the damages that an alarmist approach could cause to the community and the public perception of BHO.

        Reply

  26. Are the claims in that post legitimate at all?

    Reply

    • The person making the post is unknown to me and we are not in agreement on all points. I simply let them offer their view, as I usually do as long as the poster is civil. I think it is good for everyone to hear all perspectives.

      To answer the points:

      1) The TIC received more than just an automated print out, as they ran more than one test and made a project out of it. They are also using both a GC and an MS, which isn’t guessing based on retention times.

      These are also not the new kids on the block and have the proper credentials. I haven seen Fellow Chemists credentials, so am clueless.

      2) They probably are leached from gaskets and seals, but look at the levels.

      3) The redacted items are the carrier fluid for the tests and were not in the original sample. They were marked out by the lab, to avoid confusion. If you read my posting, you will see that is explained.

      4) A voiced opinion that the professional lab has every thing wrong and he has everything right. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, thought I don’t share this one.

      The equipment can measure to parts per quadrillion, so its not guessing much at parts per millionth.

      I’m open to supporting data that proves the lab wrong, but the whole reason for the lab analysis was to cut through all the opinions offered in leu of facts. Now that we have facts, the opinion that it is wrong, is just another unsupported opinion.

      5) Same as 4.

      6) Same as 4. Whether we choose to put them in our bodies or not, they are not considered toxic at the levels identified thus far, by a wide margin, so it is a matter of personal choice.

      My choice is to take it out, because I can, but I continue to use the oil in my stash made before I saw the mystery oil analysis.

      I’ve now posted the constitutes by CAS # and am pretty sure if there is a fatal flaw, someone will find it, even if I don’t.

      Reply

      • I just finished on the phone with AJ at Specialty Analytical; he verified that the TIC report that we are receiving is just a ‘data grab’ and that further quantitative analysis will need to be done in order to begin to positively identify some of the compounds listed.

        Reply

        • Marty, the project manager, will be back Monday and is who I discussed the tests with. That is also whom I will be working with to design the next round of testing.

          I believe it would be premature and a very poor idea to start adding hearsay cooks to this soup, unless you have evidence that Marty’s credentials don’t stand up to scrutiny.

          The key point is that the nasties are in the Parts Per Billionth summary in the concentrated sample itself, and I’m not aware of any probable nasties which they may have miss identified, that fall outside the parts Parts Per Millionth range, so it would require at least 1000 times more concentration than is present to present immediate concern.

          That is the oil concentrate tested, not even the end cannabis oil product itself. Take a look at the math on that………..

          For instance, If we take the worst anecdotal example to date at 180 ppm, and scan the analysis for bad nasties, our eyes fall on Dichlorobenzene, a carcinogen.

          It is present at the level of 82.6 parts per billionth in the 180 ppm sample, or a total concentration of .000,180 X .000000082 = .000,000,000,014,760, or 147.6 parts per trillionth

          300ml or .3 liters of butane at .573 grams/ml would weigh about 171.9 grams, which would contain about .000,000,002,537 grams of Dichlorobenzene, or 2537 parts per billionth, that would be left in the oil.

          If we used 300 ml to extract a 1″ X 12″ tube, or about 40 grams, and yielded 20%, we have about 8 grams of oil, which would contain about .000000002537 grams of Dichlorobenzene, at a level of .000,000,000,250, or 250 parts per trillion.

          Here is the Section 8 from the MSDS for Benzene from http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927339 , showing 1 ppm, or .000,001 as the exposure limits. Those of ya’ll with a proclivity for math, will note that parts per trillion, is million times lower than parts per millionth, which should put things in perspective.

          Section 8: Exposure Controls/Personal Protection

          Exposure Limits:

          TWA: 0.5 STEL: 2.5 (ppm) from ACGIH (TLV) [United States] TWA: 1.6 STEL: 8 (mg/m3) from ACGIH (TLV) [United States] TWA: 0.1 STEL: 1 from NIOSH TWA: 1 STEL: 5 (ppm) from OSHA (PEL) [United States] TWA: 10 (ppm) from OSHA (PEL)
          [United States] TWA: 3 (ppm) [United Kingdom (UK)] TWA: 1.6 (mg/m3) [United Kingdom (UK)] TWA: 1 (ppm) [Canada] TWA: 3.2 (mg/m3) [Canada] TWA: 0.5 (ppm) [Canada]Consult local authorities for acceptable exposure limits.

          Reply

  27. Posted by Mike B on September 11, 2013 at 10:39 AM

    first off I just want to say what a fantastic job you guys are doing at trying to get to the bottom of these contaminents and all the effort money and time you are putting in its really apreciated! Waht I am intersted to see is how colibri compares to the other brands as colibri is supposedly meant to be the cleanest

    Reply

    • Posted by Mystery Oil on September 11, 2013 at 1:26 PM

      I have only run about 1200ml of colibri in this way. It produced identical oil to Newport, but I did not take a weight. I was merely searching for a clean can of canned N-tane and like you said, colibri claims to be cleaner for several reasons (one being their full valve and the other the seamless can that they use). Xikar makes the same claim and has an identical tin can; they have oil too. Again, a small run was done with xikar, so no weight. My subjective opinion is that both were just as contaminated. However, it is more of an oil than what I found in vector, lucienne, and power5 (I believe those brands have more paraffins which are more of a solid at room temp). Hope that helps.

      Reply

  28. Skunk Pharm what a great experiment! As a chemist with 15 yrs experience, and direct experience running the same GC/MS used above, I have about two cents to add:

    Here is how friendly scientists debate each others work and ultimate drive positive understanding and progress….

    1) The TIC (printout of organic compounds) is presumably an automated search so not all of the identities are correct. The scientist asks the question: ” What are the match wualities of these compounds against the database library?).

    2) I know from direct experience that the ethyl-hexanol compounds are in MANY consumer products but that does not mean it is safe. It is often used in making plastics, seals, o-rings, and as a mold release agent.

    3) We see a few compounds scratched out which raises concern to anyone paying attention. Of concern here is METHYLENE CHLORIDE, TOLUENE, and the other CHLORO compounds. We must ask why those appear in the chromatogram and why were they lined out? False hits are understandable but manual review is required to verify or deny the match. If these compounds are present in extracts, then the extracts should be considered POISON. If these compounds are present in LOW ppm levels, long term exposure via inhalation equated to cumulative poisoning. This experiment is a great example of WHY HIGH PURITY SOLVENTS are REQUIRED, not optional.

    Extractors: Spend the money on premium grade n-butane from a chemical supply house, or get out of the extraction business. If you are going to use cheap butane, it is your obligation to avoid exposing other people than yourself to this product. It is your personal responsibility to keep your friends safe and explain why you sacrifice their health so you can save a few dollars. It is your moral obligation to have extracts tested by GC/MS for “residual solvents” to ensure safety. The FDA will require this so get on board now to show folks you know your shit, and that you care about the sick people you are trying to help.

    4) Bear in mind that the concentration values reported for each compound are estimates despite what is claimed as accuracy better than one ppm.

    5) Based on the data presented here my professional analysis of the report indicates a few likelihoods as follows:

    A) The butane is low purity. It’s dirty and unsafe.

    B) The GC/MS detection limits are challenged for most of these compounds. Library match qualities are not presented but I’d guess that for the majority of compounds the match qualities are low. This is deduced by the strange substitution moieties reported for base compounds. For example, deuterated hydrocarbons are not appreciable present in your butane yet it is reported. It’s a false positive.
    Another false positive example would be the octadecylpheny carbonic acid. This is an awful big molecule to contaminate butane, and secondly there is no reason for it to be there.

    Another example of a false postive: The two silane compounds. Those aren’t real. I’d bet those are column bleed related. Again, the detection limit is being reported here and the person interpreting data went digging in the grass for compounds. I;d bet the signal to noise on these peaks is messy and the background signal is interfering. Shouldn;t be reported.

    As a result of false positives and what I;d guess to be a noisy baseline in the vicinity of these peaks, ALL OF THE CONCENTRATION VALUES ARE WRONG. The reason they are wrong, aside from the calibration-estimation issue mentioned above is that the false positives are being calculated to an exact weight percent. The glaring example is that the three crossed out compounds are being included in the weight percent total, but they were removed from the profile, yet in the math they are still present. To report accurate numbers those compounds must be ignored and the remaining compounds recalculated based on the adjusted total analyte area. (How boring is this posting?)

    Be curious to know if these were background subtracted.

    C) There are signs of heavier hydrocarbons like decane. Decane is also found in gasoline. Nobody here should be inhaling decane. In life tell yourself the following: “Cavemen didn’t breathe it, I shouldn;t either.”

    D) There are no less than 20 compounds reported here that should NEVER go into your body. Another reason butane is a less desirable and less healthful way of extracting.

    E) There are signs of mold-release agents present. I’m looking at the compounds with functionality similar to octadecenoic acid methyl esters, etc. We’re talking fatty acid methyl esters. Could it be mold release agent. or maybe an artifact from the Burger King french fries you had for lunch? :-)

    6) The cosanes (eicosane, etc) those are heavier hydrocarbon oils. Not very volatile. You find them in many things. They should not be in butane extracts. They should never be smoked, vaporized, or inhaled.

    Skunk Pharm has done it again! Another GREAT experiment in the name of not only science, but our safety. Thank you SP for doing the experiment. Despite the technical aspects I hope what folks are getting out of this is that in the world of chemistry there are hidden dangers, some of which we don;t yet know about, which is why we do experiments. Too many uneducated people are deeming themselves extraction experts because they understand the process (how to), but they really don’t understand the implications of their decision making on the health of people using the products (or environment). For many of us, we have very serious diseases and we depend on cannabis – the claim being it is safer than many other drugs. But if the raw cannabis has pesticides, or added limonene, or if the extracts contain concentrated pesticides and impurities and plasticizers, then the people serving those impurities to the public are working against the whole damn argument that cannabis is safer. When reckless extraction occurs, when providers elect not to test products for safety, they are making cannabis less safe. And if that keeps happening, guess who’s paying attention? The FDA. We have made it this far toward legalization. Don’t screw it up. Stop working against the wave of progress. If tainted cannabis starts making people sick in the long term, you really think the feds are going go forward with legalization? If little boys with big dreams start adulterating cannabis products with terpenes to enhance bouquet and flavor, they are going to fuck up a really good thing that’s been a hundred years in the making.

    As Skunk Pharm and cannabis-science.com have said, the future is in terpenes analysis and NATURAL (genetic) manipulation. Adulteration is for low-thinking pussies. Sorry to say it those in the know need to exert influence to help keep everybody safe until the effects of adulteration can be formally studied in the clinic to measure efficacy and therapeutic index.

    Reply

    • The compounds crossed out were used by the chemist and not natively found in the mystery oil.

      Reply

    • Posted by Mystery Oil on September 11, 2013 at 1:40 PM

      oh, wow! I’d love this gentleman to visit http://www.facebook.com/mysteryoil and share. maybe you would pass the word GW…thanks

      Reply

    • This is the same sort of question marks regarding this type of ‘data base’ testing that the chemist with Steep Hill raised. Although, he said it would definitely be useful as a starting point. Thank-you for your input, Fellow Chemist. I changed my posts to my Facebook account. thought that might help people get to Mystery Oil page, if they wanted.

      Reply

    • “In life tell yourself the following: “Cavemen didn’t breathe it, I shouldn’t either.”
      Cavemen didn’t breathe in BHO…
      That’s like saying if you can’t pronounce it don’t eat it. Which isn’t something I’m used to hearing chemists/scientists saying. Usually they tell you know what your chemical and facts and stuff like that.

      “D) There are no less than 20 compounds reported here that should NEVER go into your body. Another reason butane is a less desirable and less healthful way of extracting.” Isn’t the poison in the dose?
      It just seems odd to me that a supposed chemist/scientist is saying things like that.
      Usually they leave the emotional value judgements out and tell you things like “The poison is in the dose.

      I can’t help but question these things after all this is the internet and I could claim to be a 15 year chemist when I’m really just a man with Asperger’s Syndrome(google it if you haven’t heard of it.)

      There are a lot of reasons why people would ulterior motives to sell closed loop systems to “solventless wax.” There is enough money and motive in play in the BHO industry to not take unverified posts at face value.

      Reply

    • Posted by Intoxicus on September 17, 2013 at 6:06 PM

      “A) The butane is low purity. It’s dirty and unsafe.”

      50 ppm is .005% which would mean that “Near Zero Impurities” butane* is 99.995% pure.(*I’m not counting the iso-butane and propane that is mixed in there, rather the three non-toxic solvents as a mixture.)

      150 ppm of impurities is .015% which still leaves with a 99.985% pure mixture.

      I think we should consider ourselves lucky that we’re getting lighter refill butane that is refined to such a high purity in the first place.

      N-butane is also 99.9% purity.

      It would interesting to see the different profiles of impurities between high purity lighter refill and n-butane.

      Reply

  29. Posted by Mike B on September 10, 2013 at 7:12 AM

    I wish I had known about this before I just sprayed my white fire og ! Oh well its done now I made honey comb I used the flask method(soaked for 2.5 hours in colibri) and purged using a lab hot plate and a vaccum chamber @ 29.5 hg and 115 F respectivly and it came out really nice the material used was straight nugs and cured for 1 month before the extraction Im a little worried of the colour it came out a dark brown and looks like the colour of full melt buble hash and even after 5 days vaccing is still a little soft and tend to budder up if played with it tastes nice although it could have more smell and flavour it does not sizzle and melts away instantly leaving a very small black carbon patch on the nail what im trying to get at is could the colour be down to possible contaminents or am i worring over nothning all this mystery oil has me a little scared! as I do not want to inhale any of the compounds found on that list I have made some white fire honeycomb once before with fresher material(same batch flask method soaked for 1.5 hours) and it came out with more smell taste and was a nice blonde dry honeycomb texture so I just wanted to know your thoughts on the colour differnce and are these possible contaminents a big concern ? Im new to making bho and because its all for personal stash I do not want to spend thousands on a closed loop system not to mention i have no where to use such a system. I ended up with 3.8 grams of blonde honey comb from 35 grams of nug trim and from the most recent extraction i got 5 grams of honeycomb from 35g of nugs im also not sure whether im getting a good enough return ? I used 4 cans of colibri per extraction I might use the other method of spraying directly thorough the material next time so I use less butane to lower the yeild of possible contaminents next time. last question I noticed when i had finished the nug run extraction the material still had a alot of terps smell left and still looks frosty is it worth me doing another run ?

    Reply

    • Not sure how to remove the oil with out fractional distillation, but we will be looking at it.

      You have to use enough butane to accomplish the job.

      If it still has trichome heads showing in a microscope, I would repack and run again.

      Reply

  30. Posted by Mystery Oil on September 9, 2013 at 8:34 PM

    Is the amount you sent the lab, .158g, all that you collected from 72 cans of lucienne? It seems low. While I have run only four cans of lucienne in total, they did not seem to yield more or less Mystery Oil than smaller test runs of Newport and Vector. And when I ran 79 cans of Newport and 60 cans of Vector I got 2.45g and 1.45g of Mystery Oil, respectively. I am able to collect .025 and .031 grams per can and you are only collecting .00219. I understand why our guesses at PPM levels are different. But, I do not understand why you collected so little.

    Reply

    • Posted by Mystery Oil on September 9, 2013 at 8:42 PM

      Plus, your collection vessel in the second pic (after you ran 72 cans) looks like it has a rather substantial coating of the Mystery Oil; I am not certain of the surface space but if a good guess is 6″ diameter, then that looks like a lot more than .158g of Mystery Oil.

      Reply

    • The .158 grams is as close as our .0000gram system will weigh and is all I produced. I can’t comment on any other brands, because I’ve only run the two tests thus far and both were with Lucienne.

      I also can’t guarantee that Lucienne butane is uniform lot to lot.

      I will be running followup tests, so the total quantities will get third party verification as well, as I’ve done with the lab analysis.

      Lets for sake of argument say that I screwed up and under stated the oil by a factor of 100X. That wouldn’t change the content, only the PPM calculations, sooooo, do you see anything on the list that presents a problem at those levels?

      Reply

      • Posted by Mystery Oil on September 10, 2013 at 3:22 PM

        Did you weigh what you scraped up? Because that would be really inaccurate. Or did you weigh/tare your collection vessel before and after you collected? I would be delighted if .158g was all that came out of 72 cans. However, like I stated earlier, my experience with Lucienne leaves me in doubt that it would yield this little.

        Regarding PPM levels, I am referring to the ppm content of the Mystery Oil in the BHO Oil as a whole. Not the ppm content of each of the Mystery Oil’s individual parts. It is the ‘whole’ I am concerned with; not toxicity levels or government approved levels of its individual compounds. Not that looking at the individual components and their levels is not important; I am merely pointing out that what I am concerned with first is the PPM level of the Mystery Oil as a whole in BHO.

        Reply

        • Posted by Mystery Oil on September 10, 2013 at 7:51 PM

          And another question: how come you don’t post all of my comments and questions? it seems you choose to pick some to post and not others. just curious, that is all.

          Reply

          • Sometimes it takes more than one of us to answer a question. Sometimes it gets stuck in the pile for a few days. We see a lot of traffic and we have very limited time to devote. Sometimes they are best answered by email or phone. Is there a question in particular that’s got you itching?

          • Posted by Mystery Oil on September 11, 2013 at 6:06 AM

            None of my them have me ‘itching.’ But two from yesterday that question your methods of collection and weighing went unposted and unanswered. I am trying to get my hands on a larger amount of Lucienne so I can see what weight I can produce. If it is as low as yours, it would be a great option for open blasters as compared to the other popular brands I have tested. However, if I look at the picture of the bottom of your collection vessel in the second picture taken after 72 cans, it looks like a lot more than .158g. And that does not even count what was left on the side walls of the vessel which is not pictured. If all I would have collected was .0002 out of each can (as you state you have), I would have been less inclined to worry about this. That would put the ppm of the mystery oil as a whole in BHO at around 400ppm (figuring a 16% yield). That would be much more acceptable than the amounts I am collecting.

          • I’ll let JD answer questions about his methods. It is most accurate to tare the container and then weigh as you point out. I couldn’t tell you if he did it that way. I think what’s important in the long run is that we identify those compounds that pose a serious health risk. Then establish standardized testing for those compounds. Then you know exactly how much is in the finished product. Whether that’s an acceptable number is a personal choice. Patients should be made aware and choose the what they can live with. The market will determine what products remain.

          • Posted by Mystery Oil on September 11, 2013 at 6:34 AM

            great. thank you for addressing the tare issue–i would still like to know what JD based his weight on. But, I agree completely about ppm levels and patients and the market making up their mind–great comments. thank-you for your time.

          • I use a specific gravity of .601 for the first calculations and .573 gms/ml for the balance.

          • Posted by Mystery Oil on September 11, 2013 at 7:38 AM

            Having a conversation where one party is moderating the other’s questions and comments is difficult. Do you have another forum where I can ask GW questions that is more open?

          • Graywolf@skunkpharmresearch.com for a private conversation. All comments on this one have to be approved to show up for the general public, but I haven’t deleted any of yours.

            We did leave three days for the Seattle Cup, and after two days of digging out, I’m back down to 18 comments behind, and expect to catch up today, but I also expected to do so yesterday as well.

          • Posted by Mystery Oil on September 11, 2013 at 7:41 AM

            Are you saying that you used my per can weight to guesstimate the various ppm levels?

          • I posted the math, but I divided your recovered weight, by the total weight, to get percentage to the sixth decimal place.

          • Posted by Mystery Oil on September 11, 2013 at 9:21 AM

            Thank-you. I don’t mean to be impatient; I do understand that you have been busy.

            I am trying to understand what GW has collected as a total volume of Mystery Oil out of 72 cans of Licienne.

            I see your clacs on the ppms on my collection and the respective contaminant levels. I got the same ppm calculations of contaminants (although, my calcs were slightly less than yours.)

            However, what I am trying to understand is the 12ppm that GW found in Lucienne. This 12ppm versus the 150ppm+\- that I have found in Vector and Newport.

            If GW can say that he accurately weighed his collection sample, then I would like to run my own batch. If Lucienne turned out to contain over 10x fewer ppm of contaminants than Newport or Vector, then people need to know this.

            If he cannot say that he weighed the sample accurately, then I will refrain from waisting anymore money searching for cleaner cans for people to blast with and I will assume that Lucienne is as contaminated as Newport and Vector. As I stated earlier, I ran four cans of Lucienne and my subjective visual analysis was that it was just as contaminated with oils as the other brands.

          • JD, Moi, and GW are one and the same and I collected .158 grams from 71 cans of Lucienne. I collected and weighed as accurately as I could, but could easily be off 10% given all the internal surfaces of a cold trap.

            My point is that lets assume that I was 1000% off. It still doesn’t change the fact that the contents of the oil that I did collect still is under levels of published health concerns.

            I’ve only tested the one lot and haven’t tested other brands, so having been around the barn more than a few times in more than seven decades, I accept nothing as gospel, and suggest you may want to relax as much as you can and let me finish the experiments, because I’m not going to take a position until I do.

            Perhaps a bigger issue is that you are finding 150 ppm contamination in Vector and Newport, who both certify their product as being below 50 ppm. If I find any of the butane suppliers running out of their certified range, I will most definitely run it up the flagpole internationally, so before I do I also want to run the test myself, where I am in control of or aware of all the variables. Besides maintaining my own professional standards, to charge them publicly without having done so, invites a lawsuit. Another reason that I want third party confirmation on the balance of the samples.

            From what I’ve found with just the Lucienne, I will be vacuum distilling any butane, whether it is reagent grade or comes out of a can, because I’ve just demonstrated that even with a few parts per billion, if you evaporate enough butane, you have measurable amounts of stuff that I personally don’t want in my oil at any levels, nor can I in good faith supply medications to folks made with butane that I know has low levels of evil spirits in it.

            We are also experimenting with ways to further polish the butane, some of which might work with out vacuum distillation, but it is too early to tell at this point.

          • Posted by Mystery Oil on September 11, 2013 at 11:07 AM

            Great. Thank-you for all of your input. I am not pressing you to take a ‘position’ or ‘stance’–although, it seems we are definitely in agreement that, before using as a solvent, the butane needs to be cleaned through a distillation process (of course, if a simpler in-line filtration method is discovered, then that too would be an option) You have been a great help. I do look forward to your further experiments.

          • Posted by Mystery Oil on September 11, 2013 at 11:31 AM

            Additionally, I too, see this as a long process. Not until a ‘standard’ is created can we really begin to test the efficacy of different techniques (Closed Loop, Winterization, Bentonite, etc.) with regard to obtaining BHO. And this may take some time.

          • Posted by Mystery Oil on September 11, 2013 at 11:31 AM

            *clean BHO

  31. So the numbers on the chart are what would be expected if someone extracted using the butane brand tested in a professional set up and what would that set up consist of? Would these show up in very low or non existent amounts if extracted by ntane in a closed loop set up?

    Reply

    • Testing at ppm and ppb levels always shows up things like you see in the summaries, but so far they are all far below toxic levels.

      In a closed loop vacuum system system, you could remove them before extracting, so what would show up in the product is even further reduced.

      Reply

      • Posted by Mystery Oil on September 11, 2013 at 5:50 AM

        All of the mystery oil in question is removed once passed through a closed loop. When the liquid butane is evaporated into your work tanks from your collection vessel for the first time–just as your canna oils would be left behind–so is the mystery oil. Now you have PURE n-tane/iso-tane/propane to use and reuse as a solvent.

        Reply

  32. Posted by Jason on September 8, 2013 at 6:51 PM

    I have a question. I am going to making bho but want a pure product I want to add ethanol to evaporate any butane left after purge. Can I use grain alcohol like I see above? Any information before I start will be very helpful

    Thanks
    Jason

    Reply

  33. Buddha never needed solvents..just sayin.

    Reply

  34. Posted by It's me! on September 6, 2013 at 4:02 AM

    This is a much more open approach to this concern. An I love how open you are to other ways to fix this issue other then just a closed loop! I don’t feel like your trying to get over on anyone honest research 👍👍👊

    Reply

    • Posted by Mystery Oil on September 7, 2013 at 11:07 AM

      It’s Me, I am not sure how promoting closed-loop as a safe way to extract using hydrocarbons is “getting over on anyone”; but, I would agree that exploring other ways to remove the oil is a great idea. However, closed-loop is the only way i know of at the moment and that is why I have chosen to highlight that method.

      Reply

      • Clearly a vacuum closed loop system is able to remove the samples that I extracted using vacuum distillation.

        My fondest dream is that more people start using more butane recyling extractors, which is why I designed it and donated the design and open sourcing free to public domain.

        A vacuum cold trap will do the same thing, and cost less than a full closed loop extraction system, though not by a lot, so the incremental investment would ostensibly hinge on other savings, such as butane costs, quality, etc, as well as safety and environmental impact, looked at from an investment standpoint.

        Reply

  35. It is pump oil for transferring the gas, A low floc, naphthenic mineral oil.Closed loop and recapture thru charcoal removes it,as does an ethanol trap. That said Butane is a finite resource due to become very regulated. Time to move on to industrial standard solvents and procedures and leave the cans of lighter fuel behind

    Reply

    • I’ve heard that theory, but lab results identifies far more than mineral oil. It is amazing what shows up when you analyze down to part per billionth levels.

      Reply

    • Posted by Mystery Oil on September 5, 2013 at 8:40 AM

      Couldn’t have said it better!

      Reply

      • Posted by Mystery Oil on September 7, 2013 at 11:09 AM

        Clarification, I couldn’t have said it better than Jim Feire.

        Reply

        • I agree in principle, but it is more complicated than it may seem on the surface. 12 ppm contamination, means that the butane/propane mixture was 99.999988% pure, and Experimental grades are only guaranteed to be 99.99% pure.

          Reply

          • Posted by Mystery Oil on September 9, 2013 at 3:40 PM

            I didn’t get 12ppm contaminants out of Vector or Newport; maybe you can do the calcs for me. I ran 79 cans of Newport and got 2.45g. and I ran 60 cans of vector and got 1.45g. What ppm do you get with that? Maybe I am using the wrong volume of butane/propane/iso-butane.

            Also, Sticky Business, who runs a closed loop, showed that he collected zero impurities from Indutrial grade airgas. i wasn’t there to witness, but, by the look of his setup, he understands what he is doing. Here is a link to his post:

            Let me know what you think…

          • 79 cans X 300 ml = 23,700 ml
            23,700 X .573 gm/ml = 13, 580.1 grams
            2.45 grams divided by 13, 580.1 grams = .000180 = 180 ppm.
            As it is certified to be below 50 ppm, the Newport is out of specification.

            60 cans X 300 = 18,000 ml
            18,000 X .573 gm/ml = 10, 314 grams
            1.45 grams divided by 10, 314 grams =000141 = 141 ppm
            That means that the Vector is also out of their certified range.

            I have yet to fractionally distill any Instrument Grade n-Butane as all of our tanks are full and our n-Butane has seen many cycles.

            I did order a new 50# Mastercool recovery tank to conduct further experiments with, so will include Instrument grade n-Butane in that test.

  36. Posted by Mystery Oil on September 5, 2013 at 5:36 AM

    GW, would you not agree that the Mystery Oil is not present if either:

    1. the hydrocarbon has been passed through an empty closed loop system and recovered for reuse; in effect, purging the mystery oils from the solvent.

    2. The hydrocarbons are sourced from an Industrial Grade n-butane supplier like airgas co.

    These are the findings of others using closed loop systems; and I don’t believe the oils can be present when BHO extractions are performed in this proper and professional manner.

    Is there any chance you would be willing to share your lab’s findings with the chemists at Steep Hill. The numbers may be helpful to them. You are a great help. Thank you for your time and energy. The cannabis community in indebted to you.

    Reply

    • I agree that the stuff I had sampled was easily removed using a recovery pump and a cold trap, and that a Terpenator closed loop system can do the same thing. We want to experiment further with filtering through Bentonite.

      Be happy to share with Steep Hill and better yet, I’ll give Marty at Specialty Analytical a heads up that there is interest, and I’m sure he would be willing to network with them directly.

      Their phone is 503-607-1336.

      Reply

      • Posted by Mystery Oil on September 5, 2013 at 9:27 AM

        Thank-you, GW. I forwarded the information to Steep Hill. I would love to get Specialty Analytical a sample of some of the oil i collected from Newport. I am curious how it differs from Lucienne. How large was the sample that you sent them?

        Reply

  37. Posted by Mike-420 on September 5, 2013 at 4:35 AM

    Awesome Thanks for the results!!! NOW…. The question is how much of this is really ending up in the final product.. considering the weed it self acts somewhat as a filter .. vac + heat should be able to remove some.. so all in all unless your inhailing cans of butane left and right theres clearly no need to rush out and spend 10,000$ on a closed loop system.

    Reply

    • The levels are all below those of immediate concern thus far, but I reserve judgement until I finish checking out all the constitutes.

      If you run prime bud through a tube and yield 20% oil, the concentration would be about .000278 grams per gram of oil, if it all ended up in the oil

      Reply

      • Posted by Mike-420 on September 6, 2013 at 2:07 PM

        *takes another dab* Yep im not gonna worry but i look forward to finding out hopefully new and cheap solutions Rock on and thanks again for all the hard work time energy and money without skunkpharm alot of us would be up shits creek :D

        Reply

  38. Good work GreyWolf!
    We need to come together as a community and start drafting our own set of standards for purity in professional production.

    Reply

  39. Posted by Intoxicus on September 4, 2013 at 4:06 PM

    Thanks

    Reply

  40. Posted by Mike-420 on September 4, 2013 at 1:18 AM

    Sooooo its the 4th wheres the ms/gs report?@!%#$ :D

    Reply

  41. Posted by Sorta pop on September 1, 2013 at 2:58 PM

    Hey bro thank you for all your professional approach to this situation. It’s amazing how people start false rumors and claims. P,ease look me up on Facebook/710technology or Facebook/710tech. I love that some one has sent this stuff to a lab. We can’t filter it until we know what is. We have looked into a laboratory test and found a company constellation technologies. They are closed for holidays :( please post ASAP thanks again for your concern and truth of the matter. 710 TECHNOLOGIES

    Reply

    • At last check, Specialty Analytical had finished my tests and them were reviewing them, with a promise of a call with the results tomorrow, 9-3-2013.

      I checked out Facebook 710 Technologies on Facebook, and note that you have a nice electrochemical polishing setup, and are making some purdy stainless tanks.

      Brings back fond old memories of working in the metals industries and I’m envious at the possibilites……… Hee, hee, hee……..

      Reply

  42. Your efforts are MUCH appreciated.

    Reply

  43. Posted by Ken on August 27, 2013 at 4:41 PM

    Could you blast thru a carbon filter to remove the mystery oil? If this shows my FB name, this is Kushed_

    Reply

  44. Posted by Dan Nienhaus on August 27, 2013 at 1:39 PM

    You are a great person thank you very much!

    Reply

  45. Posted by Dragon Mack on August 26, 2013 at 6:06 PM

    Thanks for everything you do to keep patients educated and safe. I am really looking forward to the results of the test.

    I recently tried the “mirror” test at a local tobacco shop with the owner. We did a variety of brands, all 5X filtered or greater. My observation was that there was really no difference in residual left by the various brands. The only difference I did note was the amount of time that it took for the spot to look dry again.

    This test obviously gives no indication of actual purity or residual compounds being left behind, but it did show me that there was no obvious difference between the brands we compared.

    I’ve heard that once butane has been filtered 5X, any further refinement yields insignificant improvement in overall purity.

    Thanks again!

    Reply

    • Yeah, we typically use a one can mirror test, now we have a 72 can test, and enough collected to analyze.

      I agree that the ongoing xxxxxxxxx escalation thang is to get into our pocketbooks.

      Reply

      • Posted by Mystery Oil on August 27, 2013 at 4:57 PM

        GW, mystery oil was brought to the attention of BHO patients because it needed to be; not to get into the pocketbooks of producers.
        I produce BHO and that has stopped (my pocketbook) until I know what the oil is, and whether or not it is in the final product.
        This is not to scare anyone from BHO; as I plan on returning to production as soon as this is resolved.
        Thank-you much for your input.

        Reply

        • No thought that you were trying to get into folks pocketbook bro, only that the increasingly longer string of XXXXXXX’s has become so, as a marketing ploy.

          We are most certainly on the same side with regards to identifying the mystery oil and responding appropriately.

          Thanks for the good thoughts!

          Reply

      • Posted by Dragon Mack on August 27, 2013 at 6:10 PM

        Hey GW, did you weigh the sample? Very curious as to the amount of this sample produced by 72 cans. Hard to see the photo on my crappy old computer screen, and these aging eyes don’t help either.

        Reply

      • Posted by Mystery Oil on August 28, 2013 at 6:07 AM

        I think my post was deleted yesterday, or maybe it never posted ;)

        So, I will say it again.

        The Mystery Oil page is to inform BHO patients; nothing more.

        It is not meant to get into the pocketbooks of producers. I am a producer and have stopped (my pocketbook) my production until I am able to run Closed loop. I plan to continue using and producing BHO as soon as my machine arrives.

        My apologies if this has affected anyone’s finances; the patients have a right to know how the process works and the potential risks.

        Thank-you.

        Reply

  46. Posted by PenZenMaster on August 26, 2013 at 12:18 PM

    GW,

    Seems we are both walking down different paths seeking the same answer.
    I recently tapped 24 cans of Lucienne butane to run my MKIIIA and ended up with just the slightest amount of residue, which to my finger test felt like a synthetic metal stamping lubricant. http://www.acculube.com/ms-fluid-technologies.html

    So I looked at how modern aluminum aerosol can are made thinking it might be left over from the manufacturing of the can. http://www.mpma.org.uk/pages/data/aerosolaluminium.pdf

    But if Lucienne is getting their cans from a modern aluminum aerosol can manufacturer it is not likely that the “mystery oil” is left over from the manufacturing process.

    Looking forward your quantitative analysis of the reside and putting an end to all of the “stoner” folklore about what else is in the can.

    PenZenMaster

    Reply

  47. Posted by felipetrece on August 26, 2013 at 11:39 AM

    interesting. both styrene and 1,3-butadiene r hazardous chemicals and, i am positive of it, carcinogens and teratogens. butadiene can b formed from n-butane by catalytic dehydrogenation (there could b some going on under normal conditions used in butane extraction). in any case, great investigative work. makes u think twice about using anything but the uhp grade gases (and even they carry some risks!). keep up the science!

    Reply

  48. You are doing the good work, my friend! Endless thanks for all that you do!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,296 other followers

%d bloggers like this: