Pipe tobacco and Cigar extraction

[Ian444]

I have found, with 2 x 1/3oz pipe tobacco samples I can make at least 30ml extract, depending on how much PG I put over the tobacco, some tobacco needs more PG than others to cover it. From that extract, I can get at least 7 x 30 = 210ml mixed e-juice.

5 x 14ml bottles = 70ml storage capacity, probably just enough to store some extract and some mixed juice. If I was doing my first macerations again I would get 20 x 14ml bottles and 20 x 30ml bottles, or some similar combination that suits you, to save on shipping for the next extractions. I would do 4 x 1/3 oz macerations, for redundancy. If doing cold maceration, at least one month, or more if its cool, in the jars. If heat-assisted, at least 2 days of heat IMO, but keep the heat under control, its just a warm temp that is required.

For filtering, a ball of cotton wool in the bottom of a 10ml syringe is basic but effective and good enough for use in a rda IMO. Johni and Billherbst (and others) have given details on their more advanced filtering setups, I would try those.

 

[AnthonyB]

Hi guys,

This is my first post on this thread which is exciting for me because it means I am making some progress towards completing a final, small, experimental batch of homemade NET's.

When I first opened up those cigars and mixed them with PG I thought a month would feel like an eternity to wait for my cold maceration to mature. Well time is passing quickly and it's time for me to think about my filtering methods, so I have a few questions before I plunge into an order online with a hardcore medical scientific equipment online store.

I have read about how home brewers use various filtering methods. Some use coffee filters, one or two use filter papers and within the filter paper method there are different levels of filtering being used. I understand Johni finishes his filtering with a 2.5 micron filter paper (which I believe is equivalent to a Whatman's Grade 6 filter)

I am considering the following: 1) First filtration through coffee filter papers and then 2) through a lab filter paper. Specifically, I was considering filtering first through a coffee filter paper and then through a grade 6 Whatman filter paper, being a 2.5 micron filter pass.

Alternatively I was considering doing the first filtration through a Grade 3 Whatman filter, which I believe is about 8 microns and then through a 2.5 micron grade 6 Whatman filter pass.

Are these solid techniques or am I over-doing it and over-thinking it? One concern I have is that I will need to spend $50 on each of different whatman (or equivalent) filter papers of different grades (because, where I can get them, they are only available in packs of 100).

Is it really worth taking these measures? Should I just stick to coffee filters and if I do, is there any point filtering through coffee paper and THEN through a 2.5 micron filter paper?

I guess I am posing these questions now as I want to try and get it as right as possible after a month of waiting. I know there is no right or wrong way and filtering juices really comes down to what kind of extract the home brewer wants, but at this stage I am not sure what filtration level constitutes a gunky juice or where the threshold is.

Another concern I have is that 2.5 micron pass my filter the juice too much and rob much of the flavour, which is an outcome we have seen with one or two NET vendor's recently who have come up with extremely clean juices but at the questionable compromise of flavour.

Having asked all these questions, incoherently, I might add, I am now going to go back and read this entire thread and see if I can arrive at the kinds of answers I am seeking.

Regards

 

[Ian444]

Anthony, those little samples I sent you are only filtered through cotton wool, so that will give you a data point on what cotton alone can do. Next step up is coffee filters, Billherbst used his successfully for quite a while with no complaints about gunk factor from reviewers that I am aware of. He recently went to a 5 micron fibre filter and I think the results are still being evaluated.

Also with the cigars, they will probably need more time than a pipe or ciggy tobacco. I have some cigars in cold maceration that are over 2 months now. Not all tobaccos are the same as far as extraction times go, some tobaccos extract with plenty of flavour in a given time and others given the same time seem to be struggling to reach their potential. Or maybe some tobaccos simply extract better into vape form than others, I'm not sure. As you know I have little experience, but this is what I have observed so far.

I can't see any problem though with drawing off a few ml of extract and mixing it up, let it steep a couple of weeks, and trying it; and leaving the rest of the maceration going, if you feel inclined to go that way. IME the only way you can stuff up a maceration is not giving it enough time, well not stuff it up, but not let it reach full potential. All comes down to experience, wherever that comes from

 

[Str8vision]

Hi guys,

I am considering the following: 1) First filtration through coffee filter papers and then 2) through a lab filter paper. Specifically, I was considering filtering first through a coffee filter paper and then through a grade 6 Whatman filter paper, being a 2.5 micron filter pass.


Is it really worth taking these measures? Should I just stick to coffee filters and if I do, is there any point filtering through coffee paper and THEN through a 2.5 micron filter paper?

Another concern I have is that 2.5 micron pass my filter the juice too much and rob much of the flavour, which is an outcome we have seen with one or two NET vendor's recently who have come up with extremely clean juices but at the questionable compromise of flavour.

Regards

Researching the web the consensus I found on filtration efficiency is that coffee filters provide a 15-30 micron filtration, Cotton balls around 10-20 microns. My experience has been that a NET filtered through cotton balls as the final step would gunk my wick and coil on a Kayfun in a single tankful but the taste was outstanding. 5 micron Singed poly felt filter media is reusable, cheap ($9) and produces a much cleaner NET. I personally didn't notice any loss of flavor with the higher level of filtration but YMMV. I'm happy with the 5 micron filtered NET and can burn through two tanks on a Kayfun before re-wicking becomes necessary. The NET is however still a bit dirty so I intend to experiment with higher levels of filtration but would not accept any appreciable loss of flavor in exchange for a cleaner extract.

 

[FearTX]

Hi guys,

**Filter Questions**

Regards

If I did not already own a filter flask and Coors Funnel from my flavor extractions for cooking and baking I would probably be looking at buying BillH's equipment of choice. I do own them though and use them, I also have the luxury of owning a very nice hand operated vacuum pump along with some expensive vacuum pumps from a lifetime in industrial maintenance.

I do a first filtration through doubled coffee filters in my Coors funnel vacuum assisted into the filter flask. I bought some of Bill's recommended filter media from McMaster Carr. It is 6 micron, I use it in the funnel for the second filtration step. I could probably just do one, but. I have a jar that fits inside the Coors funnel perfectly. I wait until most of the liquid is pulled from the tobacco from the maceration and then hold the funnel and press the jar into it to squeeze the last bit out of the tobacco. I do not want to grind tobacco into the cheap filter media because I am frugal and do not want to ruin any of the "lifetime supply" of the reusable filter media I bought.

I still find myself looking for a used french press coffee maker The one step method seems so easy.

 

[billherbst]

Anthony, those little samples I sent you are only filtered through cotton wool, so that will give you a data point on what cotton alone can do. Next step up is coffee filters, Billherbst used his successfully for quite a while with no complaints about gunk factor from reviewers that I am aware of. He recently went to a 5 micron fibre filter and I think the results are still being evaluated.

Also with the cigars, they will probably need more time than a pipe or ciggy tobacco. I have some cigars in cold maceration that are over 2 months now. Not all tobaccos are the same as far as extraction times go, some tobaccos extract with plenty of flavour in a given time and others given the same time seem to be struggling to reach their potential. Or maybe some tobaccos simply extract better into vape form than others, I'm not sure. As you know I have little experience, but this is what I have observed so far.

I can't see any problem though with drawing off a few ml of extract and mixing it up, let it steep a couple of weeks, and trying it; and leaving the rest of the maceration going, if you feel inclined to go that way. IME the only way you can stuff up a maceration is not giving it enough time, well not stuff it up, but not let it reach full potential. All comes down to experience, wherever that comes from

Ian,

You offered Anthony the same comments I would have.

 

[billherbst]

A couple of notes about the Single-pass Dual-stage French Press (wire-mesh/5-micron-poly-felt) filtering method.

In the retail consumer marketplace, French Press coffee makers are designed in such a way that, when the plunger is fully pushed down into the carafe, it doesn't reach all the way to the bottom of the carafe. The "money end" of the plunger---where the wire mesh filter assembly screws onto the plunger rod---stops about half an inch short of the bottom inner horizontal surface of the glass or plastic carafe. I presume this to be an intentional design feature implemented to prevent the user from pushing so hard with the plunger on the "trapped" coffee grounds that the carafe cracks, shatters, or breaks.

For our purposes in making extract flavorings for vaping, this has important implications, two of which are very obvious to me:

1. If your maceration contains only a small quantity of tobacco/tea/whatever and solvent---say, 7 grams of tobacco and 40ml of PG/VG---then the French Press method probably won't work. Why? Since the plunger assembly cannot reach the bottom of the carafe (even when fully pressed down), most or all of your slurry/suspension of tobacco and liquid solvent will remain unfiltered beneath the plunger's wire mesh. Little or none of the extract liquid will be forced through the filter. Bummer.

In my current macerations, I use one ounce of pipe/cig/RYO tobacco or one chopped-up cigar (average weight of the cigars I've done is 17 grams). The tobacco goes into the maceration jar, then I pour in 80-150ml of PG/VG solvent---the amount of liquid varies. I use however much PG/VG is necessary to completely cover the tobacco in the jar and provide another half-inch or so of clear solvent (so I can easily see the color of the extract liquid during the maceration).

When I filter the maceration, the tobacco solids are pressed down slowly to the bottom of the 12oz carafe, while the solvent (the extract) is forced through the dual-stage filters (first the wire mesh, then the 5-micron poly felt). When I hit serious resistance from the mass of tobacco solids, I've still got another half-inch of plunger "throw" still to go. In other words, the volume of the wet mass of tobacco solids and solvent absorbed by the tobacco during the maceration will be about twice size of the space left in the carafe after the plunger is pressed all the way down. This allows me to use that last half-inch of plunger "throw" to squeeze out most of the absorbed solvent from the tobacco solids. The "extra" recovered liquid then is forced through the filters. It's easy as pie, but you have to use enough tobacco and solvent for the French Press to do its job properly---filtering and pressing the solids.

2. What if you have an extract from a previous maceration that wasn't adequately filtered? Juice made from the extract gunks up coils/wicks quickly, so you'd like to re-filter the extract down to 5-microns to allow cleaner vaping performance. Sorry, but the French Press method won't work well for that.

Let's say that you have 4oz. (120ml) of extract liquid. You pour that into the French Press carafe, put the plunger assembly in place, and plunge. What you'll get is 2oz of re-filtered extract liquid above the plunger (that can be poured off), but you'll still have another 2oz. of extract liquid at the bottom of the carafe, below the plunger, that hasn't been (and can't be) forced through the 5-micron filter.

I suppose you could do multiple passes, recombining the re-filtered extract with the remaining unfiltered extract. Each time you did it again, you'd filter a higher percentage of extract down to 5-microns. Do six or seven passes, and you'd end up with perhaps 80% of the original 4oz. of extract filtered to 5-microns, plus you'd lose perhaps half an ounce to waste---trapped in the filter, spillage, or extract left clinging to the sides of the carafe. All in all, not what I'd call an elegant solution.

No, the Single-pass Dual-stage French Press method is quick, easy, and works beautifully, but only within certain parameters---first-time filtering from a maceration with sufficient liquid solvent and tobacco mass. For that, it's brilliant.

 

[AnthonyB]

This is perfect advice. Thank you.

I was wondering if anyone knew of the filtration rate of coffee filters and cotton balls and how those filter rates translate into gunking levels.

Researching the web the consensus I found on filtration efficiency is that coffee filters provide a 15-30 micron filtration, Cotton balls around 10-20 microns. My experience has been that a NET filtered through cotton balls as the final step would gunk my wick and coil on a Kayfun in a single tankful but the taste was outstanding. 5 micron Singed poly felt filter media is reusable, cheap ($9) and produces a much cleaner NET. I personally didn't notice any loss of flavor with the higher level of filtration but YMMV. I'm happy with the 5 micron filtered NET and can burn through two tanks on a Kayfun before re-wicking becomes necessary. The NET is however still a bit dirty so I intend to experiment with higher levels of filtration but would not accept any appreciable loss of flavor in exchange for a cleaner extract.

 

[AnthonyB]

A couple of notes about the Single-pass Dual-stage French Press (wire-mesh/5-micron-poly-felt) filtering method.

In the retail consumer marketplace, French Press coffee makers are designed in such a way that, when the plunger is fully pushed down into the carafe, it doesn't reach all the way to the bottom of the carafe. The "money end" of the plunger---where the wire mesh filter assembly screws onto the plunger rod---stops about half an inch short of the bottom inner horizontal surface of the glass or plastic carafe. I presume this to be an intentional design feature implemented to prevent the user from pushing so hard with the plunger on the "trapped" coffee grounds that the carafe cracks, shatters, or breaks.

For our purposes in making extract flavorings for vaping, this has important implications, two of which are very obvious to me:

1. If your maceration contains only a small quantity of tobacco/tea/whatever and solvent---say, 7 grams of tobacco and 40ml of PG/VG---then the French Press method probably won't work. Why? Since the plunger assembly cannot reach the bottom of the carafe (even when fully pressed down), most or all of your slurry/suspension of tobacco and liquid solvent will remain unfiltered beneath the plunger's wire mesh. Little or none of the extract liquid will be forced through the filter. Bummer.

In my current macerations, I use one ounce of pipe/cig/RYO tobacco or one chopped-up cigar (average weight of the cigars I've done is 17 grams). The tobacco goes into the maceration jar, then I pour in 80-150ml of PG/VG solvent---the amount of liquid varies. I use however much PG/VG is necessary to completely cover the tobacco in the jar and provide another half-inch or so of clear solvent (so I can easily see the color of the extract liquid during the maceration).

When I filter the maceration, the tobacco solids are pressed down slowly to the bottom of the 12oz carafe, while the solvent (the extract) is forced through the dual-stage filters (first the wire mesh, then the 5-micron poly felt). When I hit serious resistance from the mass of tobacco solids, I've still got another half-inch of plunger "throw" still to go. In other words, the volume of the wet mass of tobacco solids and solvent absorbed by the tobacco during the maceration will be about twice size of the space left in the carafe after the plunger is pressed all the way down. This allows me to use that last half-inch of plunger "throw" to squeeze out most of the absorbed solvent from the tobacco solids. The "extra" recovered liquid then is forced through the filters. It's easy as pie, but you have to use enough tobacco and solvent for the French Press to do its job properly---filtering and pressing the solids.

2. What if you have an extract from a previous maceration that wasn't adequately filtered? Juice made from the extract gunks up coils/wicks quickly, so you'd like to re-filter the extract down to 5-microns to allow cleaner vaping performance. Sorry, but the French Press method won't work well for that.

Let's say that you have 4oz. (120ml) of extract liquid. You pour that into the French Press carafe, put the plunger assembly in place, and plunge. What you'll get is 2oz of re-filtered extract liquid above the plunger (that can be poured off), but you'll still have another 2oz. of extract liquid at the bottom of the carafe, below the plunger, that hasn't been (and can't be) forced through the 5-micron filter.

I suppose you could do multiple passes, recombining the re-filtered extract with the remaining unfiltered extract. Each time you did it again, you'd filter a higher percentage of extract down to 5-microns. Do six or seven passes, and you'd end up with perhaps 80% of the original 4oz. of extract filtered to 5-microns, plus you'd lose perhaps half an ounce to waste---trapped in the filter, spillage, or extract left clinging to the sides of the carafe. All in all, not what I'd call an elegant solution.

No, the Single-pass Dual-stage French Press method is quick, easy, and works beautifully, but only within certain parameters---first-time filtering from a maceration with sufficient liquid solvent and tobacco mass. For that, it's brilliant.

Great synopsis bill. I guess I had reservations on the coffee plunger method precisely for the issue you have covered perfectly above.

I am thinking about doing a dual pass given the above advice you guys have provided.

1) a simple coffee filter pass.
2) a grade 6 whatman filter paper 2.5 micron pass.

For the sake of experimentation I might sample some of my extract straight out of try coffee filter to try and recreate a richer tobacco extract albeit gunkier juice to see how it compares to the cleaner extract filtered at 2.5 microns.

I might see if I can find these Mcallister filters in Australia.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AnthonyB]

Hey Ian,

I am on tapa so I must keep this brief. I am sampling your 'old dog' macerations for the first time since you sent me your home made extracts. These were born 23 May so now coming onto 3 1/2 weeks.

All I can say is 'damn boy, you did a fine job'! Seldom have I had anyone's home extractions so this is a treat for me.

This is lush my friend. I get English pipe style flavour. Similar to NET.coms Balkan. Great mouthfeel and perfect throat hit. I only took this bottle of your home made extractions with me to work but over the weekend I will try all of them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Str8vision]

I was wondering if anyone knew of the filtration rate of coffee filters and cotton balls and how those filter rates translate into gunking levels.

All of my extracts have been made from "cased" pipe tobacco blends left over from my days of pipe smoking, I have many pounds of various blends lying around. I suspect the casing added to the pipe tobacco adds to the gunking factor of the finished extract and am unsure if a higher level of filtration (1 micron), would prove beneficial or not. Also note that I flavor the finished extracts which may also contribute to the gunking level and I re-wick the moment I sense any perceivable flavor loss...I'm very picky. While never a cigar smoker, I have ordered several "good" cigars to extract thanks in no small part to Jonni, Bill and others who have made them sound so very good. It will be interesting to compare the gunk factor of the finished cigar extracts to that of cased pipe tobacco blends. Of course that is IF I like the cigar extracts enough to smoke an entire tankful.

 

[johni]

Cigar extract is cleaner than pipe blend extracts in general so I would say Stra8 is right that casing and cut of the tobacco definitely contribute to sediment.

I don't believe I lost any flavor potency by filtering my last batch down to 2.5 micron. I filter by gravity alone (no vacuum) and it takes a couple of hours for 80 to 90 ml. to drip through 2.5 micron lab paper. I only use the cotton/syringe filter for pulling small samples during extraction as I just don't want to push a full batch through a syringe!

 

[PaulBHC]

Anyone look at breast pumps? We sell them at work but the price seems a little high. Are they just overpriced vacuum pumps?

 

[Bunnykiller]

Mornin all...
Ive been experimenting with a "new" method of extracting. Probably not new but I havent seen much talk about it other than WTA uses.
Ive been using straight PGA with pipe tobacco at room temp for several day steep time. Filtering is just wonderful thru coffie filters. Once filtered, it is placed in a quart jar in a crockpot set on warm (120-130F) for several hours until it has reduced to approximately 1 tablespoon of condensed fluid. This reduction gets filtered again thru coffie filter to remove what wasnt caught in the first filtering. After filtering you then add your VG ( or PG, VG/PG mix) and mix well...
Only "issue" I have found with this is PGA extracts oils from the tobacco and they are not miscible with VG ( dont know if they are in PG).
Results are good, juice is a nice golden/orange, flavor is definately there. Ive had compliments from 2 professional chefs and a maker of juices from a local well known B&M.
Thought I'd share the experience.... and maybe get some feedback.

 

[Str8vision]

Mornin all...
Ive been experimenting with a "new" method of extracting. Probably not new but I havent seen much talk about it other than WTA uses.
Ive been using straight PGA with pipe tobacco at room temp for several day steep time.

I studied several ECF threads a month or two ago dealing with PGA tobacco extractions and spent time researching the same on various sites. One of the ECF threads dealt with overnight PGA extractions accomplished at below freezing temperatures. The discussion was rather involved and technical but very informative. The main concern seemed to be that PGA is a powerful solvent and as such it extracts many compounds from the tobacco that are less than desirable like chlorophyll, tannin and some alkaloids that weren't flavor related. Insoluble essential oils were also mentioned, not so much as a hazard but more of a nuisance I think, coil gunker. A brief PGA extraction at freezing temperatures I believe was intended to reduce or avoid leeching those compounds but I don't remember if a consensus was reached as to the acceptability of the overall flavor achieved. So how would you rate the flavor and body of the extract compared to hot and or cold PG/VG based extractions of the same tobacco?

 

[Bunnykiller]

I studied several ECF threads a month or two ago dealing with PGA tobacco extractions and spent time researching the same on various sites. One of the ECF threads dealt with overnight PGA extractions accomplished at below freezing temperatures. The discussion was rather involved and technical but very informative. The main concern seemed to be that PGA is a powerful solvent and as such it extracts many compounds from the tobacco that are less than desirable like chlorophyll, tannin and some alkaloids that weren't flavor related. Insoluble essential oils were also mentioned, not so much as a hazard but more of a nuisance I think, coil gunker. A brief PGA extraction at freezing temperatures I believe was intended to reduce or avoid leeching those compounds but I don't remember if a consensus was reached as to the acceptability of the overall flavor achieved. So how would you rate the flavor and body of the extract compared to hot and or cold PG/VG based extractions of the same tobacco?

I would rate the flavor cleaner than VG ( room temp and heated at 140F steeps). With the VG steeped method, I was picking up on more tannin flavors ( I did a raspberry tea for the raspberry side of it and the tannins were intense) a bitterness is the best way I can explain it ( like very strong tea).
With the VG extracting, the juice would turn extremely dark, almost chocolate syrup dark or even Guinness Stout Dark, opaque, no where being translucient. With the PGA method, Im getting translucient juice, a reduction in bitter flavors, more nut and buttery wisps showing up. And as far as tobacco, yes it is there without a doubt, not overwhelming.
As I mentioned, I had 2 professional chefs ( and both are avid vapers) try a sample and both were impressed with its qualities flavor wise.

Hopefully this methodology has some strong merits... and could be a viable way to extract flavors without the black/dark colors VG ends up giving me.

I feel the 20$ investment in the Everclear and 4 Oz of pipe blends was very well worth the expense....

I have 3 batches at the moment in the crockpot reducing, and the arouma is enticing

 

[Bunnykiller]

as an add on...
The VG based extractions gunk up my coils in "minutes" ( dripper application) while the PGA method allows for several hours worth of dripping before "gunkage" becomes an issue...

 

[billherbst]

as an add on...
The VG based extractions gunk up my coils in "minutes" ( dripper application) while the PGA method allows for several hours worth of dripping before "gunkage" becomes an issue...

Bunny,

How did you filter your VG extract? I ask not to criticize, but simply out of curiosity, since coil-crusting and wick-gunking are inevitable with NETs, and we're all learning how to minimize them or at least slow down the negative effects of such built-up crud. The higher-tech extraction methods (steam and CO2) are apparently "cleaner," but few home extractors could afford that kind of equipment. For the vast majority of us, simple-soak macerations are the extraction method of choice, but the very nature of that process causes the unavoidable breakup of tobacco cellulose into tiny particulates that end up suspended in the solvent.

Removal of particulates after the maceration steep becomes significant, and the main reason for filtering. With its thicker viscosity, 100% VG is obviously more challenging than PG or other, thinner solvents to typical home-based filtering procedures (i.e., gravity-based passage through coffee filters or cotton-stuffed plunger syringes).

I've concluded that 100% VG macerations essentially demand laboratory-type forced filtering, typically with vacuum pumps, Erlenmeyer flasks, Buchner funnels, and lab-quality filter paper. Even then, multiple passes may be necessary through progressively finer-pore filters.

 

[Str8vision]

Hopefully this methodology has some strong merits... and could be a viable way to extract flavors without the black/dark colors VG ends up giving me.

I feel the 20$ investment in the Everclear and 4 Oz of pipe blends was very well worth the expense....

I have 3 batches at the moment in the crockpot reducing, and the arouma is enticing

If you enjoy the finished extract then yes the price is well worth it. Not to mention the pleasure/enjoyment obtained from such experimentation. My first extract used pure VG and was very dark, but so was the cased pipe tobacco blend I had used. Filtering was a chore and I switched to PG after that. Not due to the color or flavor but for ease of filtering. Many of my PG extracts are dark including my current favorite but others are tan or reddish depending on the tobacco and steeping/extraction process used. I've got several cold (room temperature), PG steep/extractions going but also have a few heat assisted going as well. The heat assisted extractions end up lighter colored/clearer but more robust in flavor which I find curious. The "gunking" factor I believe is a matter of filtration and tobacco type. All of my extractions have been from cased pipe tobacco blends and I suspect the casing itself contributes to the gunking factor as small amounts of sugar may be present and dissolved sugar compounds, I believe, can pass through my filtration process. Early on I filtered at 10-15 microns and had to re-wick my Kayfun after every tankful. I currently filter at 5 microns and burn through a couple tanks before re-wicking. The performance seems about the same as when I vaped H1N1 or CWW and I'm pleased with it but plan on experimenting with higher levels of filtration. I'll try a few PGA extractions using my cased pipe tobaccos and compare the results. May even try blending a mix of PG and PGA for cold and heat assisted trials.

 

[Str8vision]

I've concluded that 100% VG macerations essentially demand laboratory-type forced filtering, typically with vacuum pumps, Erlenmeyer flasks, Buchner funnels, and lab-quality filter paper. Even then, multiple passes may be necessary through progressively finer-pore filters.

+1 on that conclusion. My first (and last), pure VG extraction took "considerable" time and effort to filter. I'm just glad no one was watching, it was comical I'm sure.