Cold maceration of tobacco

Str8vision;14835787 said:

Using the 1 micron filters didn't seem to reduce or impede flavor instead it seems to clarify it, changing the flavor but in a good way. A slight improvement over 2 micron filtration in my opinion but nothing stellar, not a game changer. The flavorings I add (creams/vanillas), appear stronger and more distinct (much the same as they did when I first started filtering at 2 microns), so I will recalibrate their percentages downward once again. The flavor profile and intensity did not seem to vary throughout the first tankful which is another slight improvement over 2 micron filtration. Flavor wise, the 1 micron filters are an improvement.

First impressions on cleanliness/gunking attributes is that 1 micron filtration produces a noticeably cleaner extract but not enough so that it would change our re-wicking/dry burn regimen. The flavor profile didn't change at all throughout an entire tankful and the juice didn't darken as fast as normal but on the second tank (without re-wicking/dry burn), I did perceive wick saturation as airflow began to feel restricted and the flavor profile started to change. At that point (about half way through the second tankful), I disassembled for inspection but found the wick (Japanese cotton), wasn't nearly as dark/dirty as I had expected and coil buildup was quite minimal. Nonetheless, the fact I could "perceive" a change in flavor is all that counts for me. I'm not exactly sure what component in NET causes juice in the wick to congeal/thicken (saturate), to the point of altering flavor/performance, but hope it is something that filtration can ultimately remedy. Higher levels of filtration certainly help mitigate the effect, increasing the amount of juice that can be atomized before saturation occurs but so far, even at 1 micron, isn't able to prevent it. When compared to 2 micron, the 1 micron filters do provide slight yet notable improvements in flavor and performance but when factoring in cost ($0.09 each for 2 micron -VS- $1.00+ each for 1 micron), the cost/benefit ratio just doesn't pan out, at least not for me. At $0.27 each (the reduced price I paid), it would be a different story as denoted below.

Filtration notes: Both macerations tested used a sequential PGA/PG extraction method outlined in an earlier post. Due to lower ambient temps (<60F), I extended the PGA soak time to 120 hours @ room temperature. After removing the PGA and replacing it with PG I extended the 140F soak time to 20 hours. After mixing the PGA and PG solvents together and evaporating off the PGA I had aprox. 85ml of extract from each of the two macerations. I pre-filtered each batch using filter felt and for the first time ever the filter felt clogged and did so on both batches. Took over an hour to pre-filter 85mls when it normally only takes 7 minutes. The felt was absolutely black and gunky. I feared the 1 micron filter would do the same but proceeded none the less as the 1 micron filters were designed to handle highly contaminated (high particle count), fluids which is why they are so much thicker than normal filter paper. I poured the pre-filtered extract into my filter holder and waited twenty minutes just to see what gravity alone would do. As suspected not a single drop passed through. As I applied vacuum I was surprised at how easily the extract flowed through, much better/easier than with 2 micron cellulose filters. Took less than 3 minutes under vacuum to filter 80ml. I repeated the process filtering the extract twice without a hitch. Changing filters for the next batch, I examined the used filter and it was certainly dark/gunky on the filtering side but never loaded to the point of clogging. I must say I was impressed. If I could obtain this specific grade of binderless glass filters for under $0.27 each (the reduced price I paid for the 1 micron version), I would likely convert to using them exclusively. A pleasure to use.

Click to expand...