Ethanol Extract - Full Strong Buzz & Moderate flavor

[kinabaloo]

Dvap, you mentioned that "the material is not displaying the characteristic sharp alkaloid odor". So does that mean as a NET extract just for the flavor and aroma of tobacco, this would be kind of weak?

Chipping in : A typical soak / NET - 100g tobacco in 200ml - will give a final alkaloid content (in organic salt form) in the range 1.5 mg / ml to 5 mg / ml.

Because it has a range of alkaloids that work synergistically, it will feel a lot more potent than that, relative to nicotine only e-liquid.

Because the alkaloids are mostly in organic salt form there will be very little available in a volatile form that would be noticeable by smell. It would seem that the salts are broken either by heat decomposition in the e-cig, or by saliva and further metabolism (or a bit of both). I think the latter more likely. Perhaps just being dissolved in the body.

The nicotine 'hit' is reduced, but the effect (a bit delayed) is there.

++++

I suspect that the curing of tobacco reduces the free-base alkaloid content (aids the conversion to salt form via increased acidity). Unprocessed leaf might have more free-base content (besides other benefits). Not sure how well the free-base forms are soluble in ethanol however (but I think it will be ok).

++++

The fizz heard in the atomizer is droplets of e-liquid being thrown into the air by the expanding vapor. This mist of droplets (plus vapor) is sucked out by the inhale. This is how I think the non-volatile salts get out of 5the e-cig and into the mouth/lungs.

 

[Chinook]

Chipping in : A typical soak / NET - 100g tobacco in 200ml - will give a final alkaloid content (in organic salt form) in the range 1.5 mg / ml to 5 mg / ml.

Because it has a range of alkaloids that work synergistically, it will feel a lot more potent than that, relative to nicotine only e-liquid.

Because the alkaloids are in organic salt form there will be very little available in a volatile form that would be noticeable by smell. It would seem that the salts are broken either by the heat decomposition in the e-cig or by saliva or further metabolism (or a bit of both).

The nicotine 'hit' is reduced, but the effect (a bit delayed) is there.

Thanks. Overall the user might be satisfied well with the alkaloid effects but there will be none to minimal "room note" or tobacco aroma like from a good pipe tobacco, right?

 

[kinabaloo]

Thanks. Overall the user might be satisfied well with the alkaloid effects but there will be none to minimal "room note" or tobacco aroma like from a good pipe tobacco, right?

The method I used to try this out didn't provide much flavor, but many posters in this forum think it is great (flavor). That is, I noticed very little nicotine 'hit' and didn't much care for the orher flavor. But that is just me on 1 try. However, I did find a pronounced relaxing effect. I forget what I used as solvent, probably 50/50 PG/ethanol (room temp.) but I can't be sure - was about 2 years ago. Cold ethanol approach seems the best way for NETs (though I might give this a try, I'm sticking to the base-acid approach).

 

[Chinook]

kinabaloo, thank you very much!

 

[DVap]

Dvap, you mentioned that "the material is not displaying the characteristic sharp alkaloid odor". So does that mean as a NET extract just for the flavor and aroma of tobacco, this would be kind of weak?

The lack of sharp alkaloid odor in the raw ethanol extract is due to the fact that the alkaloids are in salt form and as such do not display the same odor that is characteristic of these alkaloids in free base form. If someone gives you a choice between a big whiff from a bottle of pyridine or a big whiff of pyridine sulfate, choose the sulfate. A snoot-full of pyridine is an experience you will never forget. Once I isolated the alkaloids from the ethanol extraction and recovered them in free base form, they certainly displayed the characteristic sharp odor.

Does it make a lot of difference whether alkaloids are salts or free bases? Probably not. Alkaloid salts work fine when smoked in cigarettes. Does it make a lot of difference when it comes to being able to easily determine the alkaloid content? Absolutely... salts defy acid titration (which is by far the easiest and most accessible determination).

I did note that the ethanol extracted residue that I obtained was considerably darker than that described by the OP. This could be due to the fact that I stirred the mix hourly in contrast to the OP allowing the mix to simply soak. This might suggest that in order to obtain the cleanest extract, agitation should be avoided. The flip side to this is that the amount of residue will be less without agitation (and cleaner) but also the alkaloid content will be likewise be lower than that obtained with agitation. More alkaloids equal more gunk and the need to dilute to a higher volume to compensate. Overall, having fewer alkaloids and less gunk should allow dilution to a lower volume without becoming overpowering, while having more alkaloids and more gunk will require a larger dilution to not become overpowering. The result is likely a wash, so probably best to go with the conservative handling (no agitation) in the interest of cleanliness.

If I were interested in this sort of thing, I would definitely go with the previously suggested drying of the ethanol to remove the 5% water. Water is very aggressive when it comes to pulling gunk out of tobacco and ethanol far less so. I haven't exhaustively consulted the literature, but I believe that 100% ethanol should be effective for the extraction of alkaloid salts. A quick caution here. I've found as much garbage literature as I've found good solid literature. When I find an interesting reference, I tend to test first before taking it at face value. If I had a nickel for every dollar I've spent on testing, I'd be down 95 cents on the dollar (yea, that's a joke).

An additional comment I'd like to make is one that should be obvious, but perhaps is not to some. NEVER use denatured ethanol in a NET extraction (hashtag: #stupid). It's 190 proof from the liquor store or nothing unless you have access to anhydrous un-denatured ethanol (which is fairly unlikely).

 

[kinabaloo]

NEVER use denatured ethanol in a NET extraction (hashtag: #stupid). It's 190 proof from the liquor store or nothing

Absolutely ! Also, never use IsoPropyl Alcohol (IPA) nor methanol.

+++

I think I used a lower proof alcohol (water content) - hence the less than pleasant taste (it was just a quick test).

 

[Chinook]

Thanks DVap for your detailed response. I understand very clearly your points here.

However, I'm still not sure that when vaped a juice from your extract has a very noticeable "fresh tobaccoey" aroma and flavor or not. I remember reading that you don't like NET vapes. So I think you're actually trying to avoid what I'm after

 

[kinabaloo]

Suggested simple improvent to the cold ethanol method

The idea is to mix some sodium carbonate powder (USP / made from food-grade sodium bicarbonate by heating the powder in an oven) with the tobacco before adding the alcohol (immediately after - no need to wait); this should free-base the alkaloids (say, two rounded teaspoons per 100g tobacco). The carbonate is relatively insoluble in ethanol and any left can be precipitated by 'freezing'.

This seems a reasonable way to increase yield and get the alkaloids in their most active form. The carbonate would basify the water content of the tobacco. The free-base alkaloids should dissolve better in ethanol than the salts. Just an idea. This will give more of an instant 'hit' when vaped.

Sodium bi-carbonate is 'baking soda'. Use 100% alcohol (190 'degree proof'), not say Vodka.

+++

In case it is not clear to passers by - an ethanol extract cannot be vaped directly. So the idea is to let most of the ethanol evaporate, till say there's 10% of the original volume. At this point the alkaloids could be ~ 50 mg / ml but you don't need to do anything more then than add PG / VG. I'd suggest to half the original ethanol volume - this would be ~ 5 - 9 mg / ml, but will seem stronger.

You need never even touch the concentrated alkaloid container; simply pour in the PG / VG. Obviously, keep in well away from children and pets, as one would any e-liquid.

+++

The sodium carbonate should also work with PG extractions (the ethanol approach, though requiring the evaporation step, should work better though). 1/2 day maximum suggested steep time. Freeze at the end for a few hours to precipitate any dissolved carbonate.

 

[holy_handgrenade]

Edit2: Does anyone know if the commercially available ejuice nicotine concentrate vendors sell is in freebase form or a salt?

This may have been answered already; however, I believe it is in freebase form as opposed to salts. The only evidence I have is from purchasing at several places and using the titration tests, which result accurately based on stated dilution levels within 1-3mg/ml (I've learned that simple mistakes in testing can alter tests, so I do a minimum of 3 and average them).

I also cant speak to all vendors but I know some of them deal in pure nicotine and dilute themselves; so the pure nicotine they get, at least reportedly, is pharmaceutical grade pure freebase nicotine, which is then diluted for retail sales.

 

[kinabaloo]

Quick note on the OP's method - unassisted by sodium carbonate) - I suggest that the ideal steep time be nearer 9 hours at freezer temp. (75% alkaloid recovery).

+++

I think the OP froze the tobacco by itself but that may not have caused much cell wall disruption as the leaves are partially dried and plants vary in this respect.

+++

While a smoke is flavored by partly by tar and soot, nicotine (freebase) is also part of what we think of as tobacco flavour. The more nuanced natural flavourings - flavanoids - are alkaloids too.

+++

To add a touch of sweetness, i recommend ethyl maltol (smells like caramel). *It's the only sweetener that I think is (heat) safe.

 

[kinabaloo]

DVap, in his blog, states that a NET is not an impure WTA.

That's odd because WTA stands for 'Whole Tobacco Alkaloids' meaning all the alkaloids in tobacco, not just nicotine.

The acronym is not PureWTA (PWTA). The attempt to redefine the term does look a lot like it is being treated as a trademark.

Even more so when later in the blog post it is emphasised how terribly difficult it is to produce and nothing but what DVap is involved with could possibly be WTA.

Sad to see this bias, especially from someone claiming to adhere to science.

NETs are not that pure, but they do contain all the alkaloids.

 

[Aheadatime]

What size are the alkaloid particles? I've just recently filtered one of my NETs using .5 micron filters and I'm curious as to whether or not I've rid the NET of any potential alkaloids. I haven't tested the NET for nicotine content nor alkaloid content.

 

[hittman]

It's hard for me to remember for sure but I thought Dvap did a different type of soak before and then tested for alkaloid content and there wasn't much there. I think it was in the "are we getting it" thread but that was a long time ago.

 

[Lastlokean]

NETs are not that pure, but they do contain all the alkaloids.

Thank you for also having an open-minded look on the subject! Taking this even further, the more processing done on a straightforward NET the more likely the alkaloid spectrum has changed. In other words, a NET is most assuredly a WTA. If after treatment via any alkaline environment it may or may not still be the same alkaloid profile implicated by the term WTA. Simply assuming such seems quite the leap of faith.

What size are the alkaloid particles? I've just recently filtered one of my NETs using .5 micron filters and I'm curious as to whether or not I've rid the NET of any potential alkaloids. I haven't tested the NET for nicotine content nor alkaloid content.

The diameter of the alkaloids is in the nanometers or angstroms, must likely under 1nm for all of them. No amount of filtering short of reverse osmosis is likely to remove the alkaloids from a NET soak. You are most likely removing various organic sediment, oils and tar.

I do not think any amount of filtering will separate the various flavor compounds (primarily terpenes) and the various alkaloids as they are relatively of the some molecular size and similar solubility profile. There separation would require some more advanced means such as an A/B extraction, chromatography or maybe fractional distillation.

It is critical to understand that tobacco alkaloids exist naturally as salts. Therefor any nicotine test you run will not work, assuming it is based on DVaps acid titration.

Edit: I am actively pursing a third party HPLC test to be run on my tobacco concentrate via ethanol and a few other 'WTA' / 'NET' juices I have procured from various online vendors. Look forward for conclusive scientific data. I am most excited to get legitimate analysis of the basic PG soak, as many people seem to assume any alkaloid extraction is negligible in this case. Hopefully one of my contacts at a university pulls through.

 

[Burnie]

I am actively pursing a third party HPLC test to be run on my tobacco concentrate via ethanol and a few other 'WTA' / 'NET' juices I have procured from various online vendors. Look forward for conclusive scientific data. I am most excited to get legitimate analysis of the basic PG soak, as many people seem to assume any alkaloid extraction is negligible in this case. Hopefully one of my contacts at the UofM pulls through.

I am interested in your results. Thanks for the effort.

Vape On
Burnie

 

[holy_handgrenade]

Look forward for conclusive scientific data. I am most excited to get legitimate analysis of the basic PG soak, as many people seem to assume any alkaloid extraction is negligible in this case.

It's not that the extraction itself is negligible; it's that it's so dilute as to not matter. With normal PG soak NET's folks are using that at full strength and are not reducing or otherwise concentrating the resulting liquid. They're simply filtering and vaping with some VG added and some nicotine added.

With your own soak; you're using ethanol; imagine how potent your alkaloid extract is prior to drying off the ethanol and just adding it to an ejuice. Based on Dvap's very detailed numbers, 750ml went into it, 475ml came out. Having approximately 305mg of alkaloid content winds up being .642 mg/ml of alkaloid content at full strength - which is diluted further with VG, extra PG and flavoring (depending on recipes used).

You also have to take into account that Ethanol is a very efficient solvent that is better at extracting the alkaloids than PG would be. Not to mention that a typical PG soak will result in much more organic, unwanted material to come through which may or may not get filtered out via available filtration of the person doing the soak.

It's not so much a matter of the volume of alkaloids resulting in a NET soak, so much as the dilution of the alkaloids in the volume used as the final product.

 

[DVap]

DVap, in his blog, states that a NET is not an impure WTA.

That's odd because WTA stands for 'Whole Tobacco Alkaloids' meaning all the alkaloids in tobacco, not just nicotine.

The acronym is not PureWTA (PWTA). The attempt to redefine the term does look a lot like it is being treated as a trademark.

Even more so when later in the blog post it is emphasised how terribly difficult it is to produce and nothing but what DVap is involved with could possibly be WTA.

Sad to see this bias, especially from someone claiming to adhere to science.

NETs are not that pure, but they do contain all the alkaloids.

The acronym is not PureWTA (PWTA). The attempt to redefine the term does look a lot like it is being treated as a trademark.

I created the concept and the acronym. I know what it means. To argue that anything containing the tobacco alkaloid spread should be called WTA opens the term to absurdity. Tossing a cigarette .... into a cup of stale beer becomes WTA. Drop that same cigarette .... in a gutter and let it get rained on, and the runoff into the storm drain.. that's WTA too. The assertion that I am attempting to redefine the term fails to acknowledge that I defined the term in the first place, and yes, I know what I meant. As far as treating the term like a trademark, more on this next.

Even more so when later in the blog post it is emphasised how terribly difficult it is to produce and nothing but what DVap is involved with could possibly be WTA.

While I do emphasize that WTA is difficult to produce, nowhere have I said or ever posted that nothing but what I am involved with can be considered WTA. Talk to JFresh from WholeCig, you'll see that I have no problem considering their product (which I am not involved with) to be WTA.

Sad to see this bias, especially from someone claiming to adhere to science.

Am I biased? Only insomuch as I define WTA narrowly and I have no desire to see WTA redefined by others as "Any damned thing that started as tobacco".

NETs are not that pure, but they do contain all the alkaloids.

True enough. But remember, tobacco does not contain WTA, nor is WTA extracted from tobacco. Tobacco alkaloids are extracted from tobacco. As I've said before, I can't stop folks from using the term any way they feel like, but I can tell folks what the term really does mean.

I've nothing more to say on this.

 

[Lastlokean]

It's not that the extraction itself is negligible; it's that it's so dilute as to not matter. With normal PG soak NET's folks are using that at full strength and are not reducing or otherwise concentrating the resulting liquid. They're simply filtering and vaping with some VG added and some nicotine added.

With your own soak; you're using ethanol; imagine how potent your alkaloid extract is prior to drying off the ethanol and just adding it to an ejuice. Based on Dvap's very detailed numbers, 750ml went into it, 475ml came out. Having approximately 305mg of alkaloid content winds up being .642 mg/ml of alkaloid content at full strength - which is diluted further with VG, extra PG and flavoring (depending on recipes used).

My yield was qualitatively quite different from DVaps. His process obviously yielded much less than mine, some others and documented literature. There has simply not been enough experimental data gathered to make sound claims on the potential potency of some extracts. There is huge variance in the quantity and potency of the tobacco being used, in combination with the addition of freebased commercial nicotine and a potential synergistic effect.... just seems hazardous to me. Sure I'll admit that at the diluted levels its most likely not a legitimate safety concern, but ignoring those alkaloids isn't exactly a safety-first type of practice.

A read through this blog is experimental evidence on yield/potential potency and WTAs effects existing outside of commercial/pure 'WTA'. Here is a few note worthy quotes for those who won't read the link:

you should now have about 25-30 ml of dark amber oil in your catch container. And we will optimistically 'assume' about 200mg of alkaloids. There will also be some very small fines that got through the filter, as well as some carbonates from the baking soda that made it through.

- assuming there is 200mg of alkaloids in the oil, you would add 10ml of PG to get 20mg/ml.
This stuff is way stronger than any nic juice i've tried, so I kept adding 10ml at a time, until I had 40ml. (5mg/ml assuming)

So, either I am way off in my guestimates of extraction efficiency, or the WTA is Very synergistic.

My experiences thus far with tobacco extracts would have to agree. My method may be different, but my experiences are strikingly similar.

Edit:

True enough. But remember, tobacco does not contain WTA, nor is WTA extracted from tobacco. Tobacco alkaloids are extracted from tobacco. As I've said before, I can't stop folks from using the term any way they feel like, but I can tell folks what the term really does mean.

I've nothing more to say on this.

Yes tobacco alkaloids come from tobacco.

??? Where does WTA come from if not tobacco ???
What does WTA mean if not the 'whole alkaloid spectrum isolated from tobacco'?
I suppose I simply need clarification on what exactly WTA is?

Excuse me for being thick headed but reading the words 'Whole Tobacco Alkaloid' I comprehend 'the entirety of tobacco's alkaloids'. Based on the other WTA reasoning / discussion it seems pretty clearly laid out the concept of synergistic alkaloids outside of nicotine (the 5% not nicotine) being what makes WTA worth consuming.

The very nature of defining your product as WTA and a NET extraction as not at all WTA affiliated (not just less pure/contaminated) has led people to falsely believe that a basic NET is not a suitable way to go about getting this synergistic effect.(that's right the not 5% nicotine alkaloids very likely in your NET.) I can call this something other than WTA, but I will emphasize the innate presence of the minor alkaloids in extractions.

Some things to consider:
1) There are many variables at play here.
1) The alkaloids in raw tobacco are salts. These will weigh marginally more for the same # molecules.
3) Various starting tobacco water %, freezer temperature, local relative humidity, other various lab process.
4) Individual perspective & experience.

 

[DVap]

I guess I meant I had one more thing to say, especially since your point is well made.

At the outset, my goal was to produce an isolate consisting of alkaloids extracted from tobacco. The term "isolate" refers to a material containing only a desired set of compounds... tobacco alkaloids. It was this for this isolate that I coined the term "whole tobacco alkaloids". While I was working through the various problems involved in isolating the alkaloids from tobacco, I didn't have a name for the stuff. I did have a name for everything that wasn't an alkaloid, I called it "lab waste". Only after I had isolated the tobacco alkaloids did I give the material a name. I called this isolate "whole tobacco alkaloids".



Above is the initial alkaloid isolate I produced prior to producing an alkaloid isolate intended for mixing into an eliquid. The alkaloid isolate that I named "WTA" can be seen here.



So, nothing "contains" WTA. It is the end product of an extraction & purification process. If it ain't pure, it ain't WTA. Whether or not this is confusing to people is immaterial to the fact. I don't ask anybody to like the definition of WTA, but like it or not, I do expect people to understand the definition. Again, I'm not eager to see the definition of WTA .......ized by popular usage to mean any old damned thing somebody did with a wad of tobacco.

I fully understand the desire that people may have to apply the term WTA in a wide manner. With regard to Swedish snus, I've not complained when folks referred to snus as containing WTA, but this was during a time when hadn't envisioned the wild-west of tobacco extracts. Had I been pressed for a definitive statement, I would have said that snus contains the tobacco alkaloid profile. That I'm now being a bit of an ... about the whole point comes from the fact that things are starting to get out of hand and what folks might try to pass off as WTA can be defined via reductio ad absurdum, to mean well, damned nearly anything. When a term can mean damned nearly anything, it might as well mean nothing at all.

Three companies that I know of are producing WTA. All of these companies offer WTA mixed with other materials. It can be purchased alone (generally as unflavored WTA eliquid) , with flavoring added (flavored WTA eliquid), or even mixed with a NET extraction. None of these items cease to be WTA when mixed, they are all "WTA containing". But the bar that needs to passed over in all of these cases is the isolation of tobacco alkaloids prior to mixing into a product. Suppose a company comes along offering WTA and it's really poorly isolated skanky stuff with who knows what impurities still there. They might call the stuff WTA, but the stuff won't have earned the name.

It is self-evident that any tobacco extraction that succeeds in obtaining the tobacco alkaloid spread can be referred to by any of a number of descriptive terms. "Contains tobacco alkaloids", "Contains the tobacco alkaloid spread", "Alkaloid liquid", "3 mg/mL tobacco alkaloids", "Jethro's Love Juice" (I'd avoid this stuff)... all quite valid.

The point is that there are many ways to describe tobacco alkaloid extracts and many ways to obtain a tobacco alkaloid extract. They range in subjective quality to those who enjoy these various concoctions from "feral cat-piss" to "pretty damned good". Again, I can't stop anybody from applying the term "WTA" to any of these materials. I am, however, in the unique position to tell them they're misapplying the term.

 

[holy_handgrenade]

My yield was qualitatively quite different from DVaps. His process obviously yielded much less than mine, some others and documented literature.

Except I have yet to see your actual qualitative numbers. DVap also stated that he yeilded a higher initial volume, but stripped away non-alkaloid material using organic solvents to isolate and leave only pure alkaloid content and measured the resulting alkaloids; which is where his number came from. Sorry if you dont like Dvap being quoted here, but he's thus far the only one that's been willing and able to be not only incredibly detailed, but also have some definitive numbers to back what the process yielded from him. YMMV, but I see DVap's numbers as being realistic for what to expect out of the process - maybe less, maybe more, but not likely to be double or triple these results.

If you've read through the NET threads at all, you'll note that noone is just dismissing alkaloid content of thier NET's. They test first and dilute their NET to test the strength. Thus far, the most common result is a net gives betwen .25-1mg/ml of alkaloid content in full strength; which is diluted into a vapeable juice either to tone down the overpowering flavor or to give the juice more body or even to enhance or change the flavor. So you go from .25-1mg inherent in solution down to .025-.25mg/ml depending on recipies. So again, I posit that it is just that it's so dilute that whatever WTA you're getting from a NET, it's too low a dosage to be even remotely effective.

Please realize that many of your numbers assume a 100% effective extraction to remove 100% available alkaloids. A typical NET will not be anywhere in the neighborhood of 100% effective. Likewise, even Ethanol is not 100% effective, for as effective as it is. To get a nearly 40% alkaloid retrieval and then lament that you're still missing 60% is to drive yourself mad and argue theory over practice.