Ethanol Extract - Full Strong Buzz & Moderate flavor

[kinabaloo]

The history behind WTA. which you have written me (and may others) out of, said that the problem with traditional NRTs, including vaping, was that it did not take into account the full spectrum of alkaloids.

Purity is a different matter. A NET is a WTA, no question.

You are redefining WTA as a OTA (Only tabacco alkaloids) - you are free to do that. but either coin a new phrase or acknowledge that you are re-writing the definition. I will no longer promote 'WTA' because I think it has been claimed for commercial benefit.

I have long championed 'all tobacco alkaloids' (lets term it ATA), but cannot condone the revision of WTA you desire.

To my mind, a NET may be impure (not only alkaloids) but is still far from combusted tobacco. Far from.

I'd be fine with anyone purchasing what you call true WTA; I use the tceight method (variation on) for pure WTA and recommend that over a NET (for only a little more work). But I support NETs over smoking any day.

In short, I endorse ATA (including WTA) but I don't endorse the belittling of alternatives that clearly are working for many people.

I support what works for you - whatever it may be (SNUS or even pharma NRT if it does the trick) - if it is combustion free, you have made the major enhancement right there. The cold ethanol extraction is not as good as the base-acid (pure alkaloids) method, but not so far off that I would make any fuss about it. That you can't bring yourself to acknowledge this speaks volumes to me.

If you think NETs contain something particularly detrimental over the myriad alkaloids, let's hear it. I may reconsider, but without a reason to reconsider, I see not that great a difference.

I value DVaps's input nonetheless; just have to say when I disagree. We probably agree on more than we disagree and that goes silently by. But I strongly disagree on this.

I wish the commercial ventures well - i really do - it is good for humanity. But I also wish everyone who finds their own way success too ...

If you have tried everything else and having problems quitting smoking, try an ATA (such as WTA), especially if you;re not a 'hands on' person who could make it oneself; no gurantee, but it might well be what you need.

+++

ps : For well over a year I have linked to the 'e-liquid test kit' as seen below - I have never had any association with that whatsoever; it is linked only as i thought it a useful product. Note: it will not work with NETs as the alkaloids are in salt (acid+base=salt+water if you remember from school days) form. The alkaloids are there, but not easily measurable.

+++

Just read the post 2 above - it is clear that 'WTA' was intended from the beginning as a proprietary term. Hence, I dissasociate from it completely and suggest ATA (all tobacco alkaloids) as the proper scientific term.

 

[DVap]

The history behind WTA. which you have written me (and may others) out of, said that the problem with traditional NRTs, including vaping, was that it did not take into account the full spectrum of alkaloids.

From the preamble I wrote to the 3 WTA summary posts present in my blog:

"Madame Psychosis graciously agreed to summarize some of the major observations and conclusions arrived at via a group effort in several very long and sometimes tedious threads, particularly the "so-we-getting-we-not-nicotine" thread (often referred to as the "are we getting it or not" thread). This thread is worth a read in it's own right, but is very long."

From a much more recent blog post:

"Back in the fall of 2009, discussion was lively about what's missing for some individuals from nicotine eliquids. Those of us having those discussions were speculating madly. Maybe it's the beta-carbolines? (I was never a fan of this idea). Maybe it's MAOI's? There was no shortage of suggestions."

Everything that's happened is around here somewhere in black and white, available to anyone who might wish to look for it. Many individuals contributed freely to the discussion. The notion that something is missing with nicotine eliquid was exhaustively discussed and speculated upon. However, the logical leap to the tobacco alkaloid spread was mine. The embodiment of this logical leap, producing an alkaloid isolate, was also mine.

An excerpt from a forum post I made on 11/3/2009:

"I've been discussing a new pet theory with a few of the more technical folks. I suspect that the problem some people have with ecigs is that the tobacco has been over-processed down to just nicotine.

Imagine a tobacco extraction that instead of purifying to just nicotine, purifies to the tobacco alkaloids. All the thousands of extra chemicals are gone, but all the alkaloids (including presumably the MAIO's) remain. This might mix down with PG to a vaping liquid to be reckoned with."

Then, quite on my own, I did this:



I suspect that the problem you have with the history isn't so much that I'm trying to write anybody out, but when it comes to the WTA concept itself (quite apart from the meandering speculation), I refuse to allow you to write yourself in. (Note to self: This is a low blow and I really should delete it since it's on the petty side, but I do see an attempt here to conflate the whole discussion/speculation process which involved many with the specific WTA concept which was mine, so it stays).

Purity is a different matter. A NET is a WTA, no question.

You are wrong. By your definition, tossing a cigarette .... into a red dixie cup of stale beer is WTA. My nature is to avoid definitions that lend themselves to absurd conclusions.

You are redefining WTA as a OTA (Only tabacco alkaloids) - you are free to do that. but either coin a new phrase or acknowledge that you are re-writing the definition. I will no longer promote 'WTA' because I think it has been claimed for commercial benefit.

While it is true that I have allowed the term to be thrown about loosely and have even thrown it about loosely myself at times, my insistence that WTA must embody a purity standard is the result of seeing the result of not pushing a tight definition. In my development of the actual alkaloid extract, nowhere did I consider the creation of anything but a pure alkaloid isolate. This isn't a passing whim. I had to go back and look hard at what I was trying to do when I named that first alkaloid isolate eliquid as WTA. Reread what I posted above from my 11/3/2009 forum post:

"Imagine a tobacco extraction that instead of purifying to just nicotine, purifies to the tobacco alkaloids. All the thousands of extra chemicals are gone, but all the alkaloids (including presumably the MAIO's) remain. This might mix down with PG to a vaping liquid to be reckoned with."

One more time for emphasis, "purifies to the tobacco alkaloids." Purity was integral to the concept of WTA from it's genesis.

The defense rests.

I have long championed 'all tobacco alkaloids' (lets term it ATA), but cannot condone the revision of WTA you desire.

Perhaps your energy would be better spent in refining the definition of a NET rather than attempting to supplant the definition of a WTA eliquid.

To my mind, a NET may be impure (not only alkaloids) but is still far from combusted tobacco. Far from.

Agreed, though like nicotine liquid and WTA liquid, how far is from combusted tobacco is not fully known.

I'd be fine with anyone purchasing what you call true WTA; I use the tceight method (variation on) for pure WTA and recommend that over a NET (for only a little more work). But I support NETs over smoking any day.

Nothing really out of place here.

In short, I endorse ATA (including WTA) but I don't endorse the belittling of alternatives that clearly are working for many people.

Stating that I am not a fan and belittling are quite different things. I think I am fairly on record as acknowledging that NETs have a place. They simply don't have a place with me.

I support what works for you - whatever it may be (SNUS or even pharma NRT if it does the trick) - if it is combustion free, you have made the major enhancement right there. The cold ethanol extraction is not as good as the base-acid (pure alkaloids) method, but not so far off that I would make any fuss about it. That you can't bring yourself to acknowledge this speaks volumes to me.

Have you actually read what I've said about the cold ethanol extraction? It went something like, "I happen to like the cold ethanol extraction as compared to other soak procedures when it comes to not making complete gunk." I've offered up test results, suggestions, and ideas about improving NET extractions. That I can't bring myself to acquiesce to your way of thinking about the relative complexity of materials that we inhale into our lungs is something I'm fine with.

If you think NETs contain something particularly detrimental over the myriad alkaloids, let's hear it. I may reconsider, but without a reason to reconsider, I see not that great a difference.

But you see, Kin, I'm not asking you to reconsider anything. I posted a blog a long time back where I stressed that we each must make and live with our own decisions about what we do with ourselves. This is embodied in the last paragraph of the post, "So, in the end, all I'm really saying is that each of us has to do our own thinking and put our health in our own hands. Don't take my word for it, when in doubt, breath the air." That I'm not a fan of NETs is my own thinking, that I don't recommend them is the logical conclusion to this thinking. It's my opinion and nobody is compelled or should feel compelled to accept my way of thinking on this.

I value DVaps's input nonetheless; just have to say when I disagree. We probably agree on more than we disagree and that goes silently by. But I strongly disagree on this.

True enough and disagreement is your right.

I wish the commercial ventures well - i really do - it is good for humanity. But I also wish everyone who finds their own way success too ...

A nod to this sentiment, I'll repeat what I quote earlier from my blog, "So, in the end, all I'm really saying is that each of us has to do our own thinking and put our health in our own hands. Don't take my word for it, when in doubt, breath the air."

Just read the post 2 above - it is clear that 'WTA' was intended from the beginning as a proprietary term. Hence, I dissasociate from it completely and suggest ATA (all tobacco alkaloids) as the proper scientific term.

I'd give a roll of quarters to go back in time and change the term to PTA (purified tobacco alkaloids) and be done with this whole affair. That there are no time machines that accept quarters means that I can't do this, so WTA it is. If my intention was proprietary, my behavior over the years would have been quite different. We would have seen patents, me looking to monetize WTA, me suing WholeCig into the ground, etc. None of this has happened. Like others in their way, I've given hundreds of hours, thousands of dollars, and everything I could muster to the cause of tobacco harm reduction.

 

[Lastlokean]

So where exactly is your opinion on something along the lines of this persons blog of 'Kitchen WTA extraction method.':

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/blogs/tceight/1412-kitchen-wta-extraction-method.html

This just doesn't seem conclusive or rational to me... Leaving a gaping hole in the common understanding of tobacco alkaloids, WTA, ejuice and there consumption through a personal vaporizer.

 

[DVap]

So where exactly is your opinion on something along the lines of this persons blog of 'Kitchen WTA extraction method.':

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/blogs/tceight/1412-kitchen-wta-extraction-method.html

I'm not sure if a saturated potassium bitartrate (cream of tartar) solution in the amounts used is adequate to create the acidic conditions necessary to cleanly neutralize any alkali (bicarbonate) present or even produce a sufficiently low pH to achieve what the author is after. A saturated solution has a pH around 3.6 and adding 1 - 2 drops of this solution into the PG is going to further reduce the hydrogen ion concentration via dilution. With nicotine at least, there is a pyrollidine and a pyridine nitrogen to be protonated. While it would be ideal to fully protonate both nitrogens, this requires a pH around 1. I suspect that fully protonating only the pyrollidine nitrogen will shift the alkaloid partitioning sufficiently toward the PG versus the oil (but this is an untested assumption), so such a low pH as 1 might not be necessary (though it does remove all question). 100% protonation of the pyrollidine nitrogen requires a pH of around 6. So the question that remains for me is simply what pH does the potassium bitatrate addition actually achieve? 6 might be good enough. If it's 8 (due to possible excess alkali), the pyrollidine protonation drops to about 50%, which would translate to perhaps leaving half of the alkaloids extracted in the mineral oil.

I've also never studied alkaloid partitioning in PG versus mineral oil.

The 200 mg alkaloid recovery per 20 grams of tobacco assumption (which the author admits is generous) is probably overly optimistic. Half this recovery is probably a better optimistic guess.

Overall, I can't say how effective this procedure is without testing it's materials and assumptions. Does it work as intended? Dunno. If it does work, does the purity approach WTA? Dunno. Would I recommend it? I'll pass on that one, I've already gotten more love than I can handle from this thread. Remember my comment, "each of us has to do our own thinking and put our health in our own hands".

Doesn't look too hard to test out and generate some numbers. Maybe I'll fool with it over the weekend.

 

[TheLizinator]

Waving to DVap!!! Hope you are doing well! I've been happily vaping for a very long time and found my way back here researching WTA liquid. I noticed recently some public claims (via the political machines) that vapor deposits "second-hand" nicotine in the environment. Now, I wondered about this ages ago, but think their science is junk science and only further muddies the waters for legitimate public concern. Personally, I think people should generally stop trying to tell all other people what they should, or shouldn't, do; that won't happen so I try to keep my vapors to myself.

It's awfully nice to see you here again!

 

[DVap]

Waving to DVap!!! Hope you are doing well! I've been happily vaping for a very long time and found my way back here researching WTA liquid. I noticed recently some public claims (via the political machines) that vapor deposits "second-hand" nicotine in the environment. Now, I wondered about this ages ago, but think their science is junk science and only further muddies the waters for legitimate public concern. Personally, I think people should generally stop trying to tell all other people what they should, or shouldn't, do; that won't happen so I try to keep my vapors to myself.

It's awfully nice to see you here again!

Hey Liz! Long time and I've remembered you fondly!

 

[LucentShadow]

With regard to the method that tceight used, linked to above, what I don't understand is how that's supposed to end up vapeable.

With my (limited) understanding of chemistry, the boiled sodium bicarbonate solution should decompose into a sodium carbonate solution, which should be fine for the alkalinity required for a good extraction. Getting this sodium carbonate back out of the result is my concern. It's clear that the partitioning into the oil brings a considerable amount of it along. I've tested that, myself.

Adding a pinch of potassium bitartrate, then a weak solution of it and PG seems questionable to me as the acidic polar solvent step. I have not tried it, however.

It would seem to me that the carried-over sodium carbonate and the added Potassium tartrate would leave one of those two, plus potassium sodium tartrate, in the final solution, in significant amounts. The optional final neutralization with sodium bicarbonate would seem to just form more Potassium sodium tartrate. I have not tried vaping that particular result, but I have no doubt that it would be unpleasant for me. I can testify that sodium ascorbate makes for an unpleasant vape, though.

To me, the method that kinabaloo posted in his 'beta carbolines....' thread, using sodium carbonate, then citric acid, then calcium carbonate for neutralization, seems like the least likely to leave many unwanted salts behind, though that reaction is slower than expected. I'd still expect minimal calcium citrate, and perhaps some sodium citrate, depending upon how much of he sodium carbonate may make it through the partitioning.

I don't remember much discussion on this subject in that thread, though it seems that it was given some thought for at least that particular method. I'm wondering if I'm wrong about any of this?

 

[DVap]

With regard to the method that tceight used, linked to above, what I don't understand is how that's supposed to end up vapeable.

With my (limited) understanding of chemistry, the boiled sodium bicarbonate solution should decompose into a sodium carbonate solution, which should be fine for the alkalinity required for a good extraction. Getting this sodium carbonate back out of the result is my concern. It's clear that the partitioning into the oil brings a considerable amount of it along. I've tested that, myself.

Adding a pinch of potassium bitartrate, then a weak solution of it and PG seems questionable to me as the acidic polar solvent step. I have not tried it, however.

It would seem to me that the carried-over sodium carbonate and the added Potassium tartrate would leave one of those two, plus potassium sodium tartrate, in the final solution, in significant amounts. The optional final neutralization with sodium bicarbonate would seem to just form more Potassium sodium tartrate. I have not tried vaping that particular result, but I have no doubt that it would be unpleasant for me. I can testify that sodium ascorbate makes for an unpleasant vape, though.

To me, the method that kinabaloo posted in his 'beta carbolines....' thread, using sodium carbonate, then citric acid, then calcium carbonate for neutralization, seems like the least likely to leave many unwanted salts behind, though that reaction is slower than expected. I'd still expect minimal calcium citrate, and perhaps some sodium citrate, depending upon how much of he sodium carbonate may make it through the partitioning.

I don't remember much discussion on this subject in that thread, though it seems that it was given some thought for at least that particular method. I'm wondering if I'm wrong about any of this?

At a glance, these sound like concerns that could have something to them. Those neutralization salts have to end up somewhere. I'm thinking about testing the procedure as written to see if it yields alkaloids, but beyond that I'll pass as I'd rather not go down the rabbit-hole of discussing possible enhancements to a procedure that at it's basis is a bit of a kludge. Very well intentioned to try to use fairly benign materials, but far from elegant.

 

[LucentShadow]

DVap, I would not expect you to discuss enhancing those methods. Just thought I'd throw that out there, as I can't see very many people finding such a vape acceptable, though I do seem to be more sensitive to various chemicals than many are.

Solubility data often eludes me for a given solvent/chemical combination that I'd like to know about, but most neutralization salts are soluble in water to a high degree. PG and VG are often more difficult to find info on. Trying to find an insoluble result, as sodium carbonate + citric acid comes close to (in water) would seem to be wise, to me. That does not seem to be so in the link posted above.

I'm not sure what methods are used to prevent such salts remaining in purified nicotine or WTA, if they are done with acid-base extractions, but it would seem to me that some care should be taken to try to achieve that, if someone is interested in using such a method. The onus would be on them, though. I'm not really interested in trying it, at this point.

 

[DVap]

Solubility data often eludes me for a given solvent/chemical combination that I'd like to know about, but most neutralization salts are soluble in water to a high degree. PG and VG are often more difficult to find info on. Trying to find an insoluble result, as sodium carbonate + citric acid comes close to (in water) would seem to be wise, to me. That does not seem to be so in the link posted above.

I'm not sure what methods are used to prevent such salts remaining in purified nicotine or WTA, if they are done with acid-base extractions, but it would seem to me that some care should be taken to try to achieve that, if someone is interested in using such a method. The onus would be on them, though. I'm not really interested in trying it, at this point.

Not at all surprised about the scarcity of information on solubility. Even harder is to come by is partitioning data.

Nicotine purification likely at least involves vacuum distillation. With WTA, salts ending up in the product is a non-issue.

[edit] Probably not a bad idea to apologize to Lastlokean for being a bit on the short side. While I'm at it, I've been far to the vindictive side with Kin, insisting on taking a pound of flesh when perhaps an ounce would do. We agree completely on many things and disagree vehemently on as many other things. I'll go so far as to express regret for the mean-spiritedness I've directed his way. I gravitate toward that which can be nailed down while he seems to gravitate toward endless possibilities. Both have their place, and at times I direct undue contempt toward endless possibilities as I find them distracting to my focus. But that's just me.

 

[aikanae1]

"... tossing a cigarette .... into a red dixie cup of stale beer is not WTA"

I want that on a tshirt.

 

[DVap]

"... tossing a cigarette .... into a red dixie cup of stale beer is not WTA"

I want that on a tshirt.

I really meant to say red solo cup, with apologies to Toby Keith.

Prepare to party.

 

[jascan]

What happened to this thread?

 

[entoptic]

wow! thanks very much! this is the EXACT information I am looking for. Drum was always my favorite and I so happened to have a half can lying around. I've quit for some time, but I occasionally miss the flavor and scent of drum. I have been wholly disappointed with any commercially available tobacco flavors....so even if there was a drum flavor, I'd be hesitant to order it.

 

[Bunnykiller]

kewl... this is the thread Ive been looking for... I really like my PGA extracting methods

 

[Bunnykiller]

had an interesting moment this morning...
I have 3 containers at the moment in the crockpot and pulled one to check the color/clarity of the PGA extract.
Nice clarity, good color ( dark/strong Iced tea color). Gently swirled the container to get some fluid exchange from the center mass of the tobacco, color and clarity stayed nice.
The next one in line got a good stirring with a spoon to move the tobacco around in the container, wrong move....
the color stayed the same but the clarity diminished, it now has a "murky" look to it as if I dumped dolimite or chalk dust into it...
I decided to leave the 3rd container alone for the moment.

Obviously stirring the tobacco around in a PGA soak allows for cellular material to break loose and become an issue as far as clarity sake.
Im going to keep track on this "issue" for filtering and taste differences...

 

[Vininim]

How hard(expensive) is it really to do vaccum step/fractional distillation on the extract?

Edit: From eye sighting phase diagrams, this naive process wouldn't be accurate, but for the kind of precision we are aiming here (specially regarding the crude stuff) it could work.

Edit 2: Yeah, I was just throwing this out here and forgot about salts. But my question still stands, even though it seems completly off topic now.

 

[Bunnykiller]

well enuf time has passed and the extracts made their way to the VG stage and tested for taste. The murky/stirred extract seems to have more of a grassy/hay hint to it... possible chlorophyl hints?? The other 2 that remained clear are lacking the grassy flavor... Im going to make the assumption that stirring the steeping product aggressively may be something to be avoided if you dont want the grassy hints showing up.

 

[Bagazo]

Tried this out twice with 150 proof alcohol. Followed the directions posted here.

First with 60 grams of air dried tobacco that had been put through a mill so that much of it was actually tobacco flour. It was a real pain to filter. Evaporated all the liquid using a fan and no heat. Ended up looking rather dark but clear. Made up to 50ml with 50/50 PG/VG.

Second was 4 Marlboros with the tobacco left as is. Same procedure. Filtering was much easier and the result was lighter. Much like honey. Disolved with 2 ml 50/50 PG/VG.

Sad to say that neither gave me a buzz and while it does seem better than regular e-juice it was a bit of a let down.

I expected not to like the taste of the first tobacco but I was surprised that I didn't like the taste of the Marlboros.

Also wanted to point out that evaporating that last 25% of liquid (water) took a couple of days using a computer case fan placed on top of the container of liquid.

 

[Bunnykiller]

general consensus agrees that using prepackaged cigarettes for extracting usually results in off flavors and such. No telling what other chemicals are pulled from it that can ruin the taste... seems RYO and American Spirit tobaccos ( cigarette types) are the best canadate for extracting...