Slow Cooker Extraction of Tobacco and Tea

[Ian444]

I will be using straight PG for my extractions and that will be the only PG in the final juice. I primarily drip and like higher VG juices. I have been reading about adding PGA to speed up the process. How much PGA do I add? Also, how to you evaporate all of the PGA out and know that all of the PGA is gone before you make the juice? I would be interested to know the exact steps involved when using PGA.

I rarely put any more than 14% extract in the final juice, so 14/86 PG/VG should be do-able.

I was a bit hesitant to answer your question because my experiments with PGA are still in progress.

Lately myself and others have been experimenting by adding PGA to the PG to see what happens. Bunnykiller and Str8vision were already using PGA while I was researching posts by Dougiestyle here and here. And another one. I tried Dougiestyle's method and liked the results, but starting looking for easier ways. I have ended up where I now use 10% PGA in the PG as a solvent.

I usually cut the tobacco up with scissors (if it isn't shag cut), half fill a jar with it, push it down a bit to get it settled in but just gently, definitely not trying to cram it in there. Then I'll pour in enough solvent to easily cover it, screw the lid on, tumble it around to get all the air bubbles out of the tobacco, then I usually need to add a bit more solvent so there is just a bit of free liquid over the top of the tobacco.

With 33% PGA 66% PG as a solvent, for a hot maceration I have put the jars with the lids screwed on in a warm water bath for approx 4 hours at 50C (120 to 125F). Then I filtered it and put it in a stainless steel coffee mug on a hotplate sitting at 50C and it took about 1.5 to 2 hours for the PGA to evaporate from around 23ml of extract. I used my nose to detect when the PGA was gone.

For a cold maceration using 33% PGA 66% PG as a solvent, I left the jars in a cupboard for 3 days, filtered, then evaporated off the PGA. Both these methods gave good results, comparable to using straight PG (for a much longer period) as far as I can tell. These experiments were done on 5 different tobacco blends between 07/04/14 and 07/11/14 so they have had a bit of steeping time to evaluate them.

Then I started thinking if the PGA% could be reduced enough I would not have to do the extra step of evaporating off the PGA after the maceration was done. I experimented with 15% PGA and 10% PGA, and the results are very encouraging, in that I can still use a short maceration time, and I don't have to evaporate the PGA because the amount in there is negligible in the final mixed juice. For the 15% PGA solvent experiment I did a one week cold maceration. For the 10% PGA solvent experiment I did an initial warm-up in the microwave (probably unnecessary), an overnight cold steep, then a 5 hour warm water bath at 70C (160F). This was a recent experiment and with just a short steeping time I'm liking the results so far.

As you can see I am just learning by trial and error, but there's a few people here who've been doing this for a while. The cold macerations using johni's method are tried and proven (see post 1 of the cold maceration thread). Also billherbst has documented his hot extraction methods with great detail and this is also a tried and proven method. Dustmite and Boomerdude are also long-time extractors.

There are many surprises on the way. Today while typing this, I pulled out a little drawer of extractions I did in May this year. One of them was Bali Nature American RYO, one that I had totally given up on as far as becoming something decent or colorful to vape. Today, it has a strong hint of dark caramel and a Camellish cigarette taste, (if I can remember what a good Camel tasted like), its really nice! Last time I tried it I described it like this "not much flavour to mention, OK as a cigarette tobacco blend, 6/10". The moral of this story is if your extracts don't taste that good at first, put them away in a cupboard and let them steep for a few months, no matter how bland they might taste at first.

The only reason I have experimented with PGA is for the shortened maceration time. For me it is much more convenient to run a hot maceration for say 4 or 5 hours compared to 24 hours or a few days. Also for cold macerations 4 or 5 days vs 4 to 5 weeks or so. Another beneficial side effect is that the juices are often a reasonably good vape within a day or two of mixing IMO compared to the macerations done without PGA.

 

[Greg Brown]

I rarely put any more than 14% extract in the final juice, so 14/86 PG/VG should be do-able.

I was a bit hesitant to answer your question because my experiments with PGA are still in progress.

Lately myself and others have been experimenting by adding PGA to the PG to see what happens. Bunnykiller and Str8vision were already using PGA while I was researching posts by Dougiestyle here and here. And another one. I tried Dougiestyle's method and liked the results, but starting looking for easier ways. I have ended up where I now use 10% PGA in the PG as a solvent.

I usually cut the tobacco up with scissors (if it isn't shag cut), half fill a jar with it, push it down a bit to get it settled in but just gently, definitely not trying to cram it in there. Then I'll pour in enough solvent to easily cover it, screw the lid on, tumble it around to get all the air bubbles out of the tobacco, then I usually need to add a bit more solvent so there is just a bit of free liquid over the top of the tobacco.

With 33% PGA 66% PG as a solvent, for a hot maceration I have put the jars with the lids screwed on in a warm water bath for approx 4 hours at 50C (120 to 125F). Then I filtered it and put it in a stainless steel coffee mug on a hotplate sitting at 50C and it took about 1.5 to 2 hours for the PGA to evaporate from around 23ml of extract. I used my nose to detect when the PGA was gone.

For a cold maceration using 33% PGA 66% PG as a solvent, I left the jars in a cupboard for 3 days, filtered, then evaporated off the PGA. Both these methods gave good results, comparable to using straight PG (for a much longer period) as far as I can tell. These experiments were done on 5 different tobacco blends between 07/04/14 and 07/11/14 so they have had a bit of steeping time to evaluate them.

Then I started thinking if the PGA% could be reduced enough I would not have to do the extra step of evaporating off the PGA after the maceration was done. I experimented with 15% PGA and 10% PGA, and the results are very encouraging, in that I can still use a short maceration time, and I don't have to evaporate the PGA because the amount in there is negligible in the final mixed juice. For the 15% PGA solvent experiment I did a one week cold maceration. For the 10% PGA solvent experiment I did an initial warm-up in the microwave (probably unnecessary), an overnight cold steep, then a 5 hour warm water bath at 70C (160F). This was a recent experiment and with just a short steeping time I'm liking the results so far.

As you can see I am just learning by trial and error, but there's a few people here who've been doing this for a while. The cold macerations using johni's method are tried and proven (see post 1 of the cold maceration thread). Also billherbst has documented his hot extraction methods with great detail and this is also a tried and proven method. Dustmite and Boomerdude are also long-time extractors.

There are many surprises on the way. Today while typing this, I pulled out a little drawer of extractions I did in May this year. One of them was Bali Nature American RYO, one that I had totally given up on as far as becoming something decent or colorful to vape. Today, it has a strong hint of dark caramel and a Camellish cigarette taste, (if I can remember what a good Camel tasted like), its really nice! Last time I tried it I described it like this "not much flavour to mention, OK as a cigarette tobacco blend, 6/10". The moral of this story is if your extracts don't taste that good at first, put them away in a cupboard and let them steep for a few months, no matter how bland they might taste at first.

The only reason I have experimented with PGA is for the shortened maceration time. For me it is much more convenient to run a hot maceration for say 4 or 5 hours compared to 24 hours or a few days. Also for cold macerations 4 or 5 days vs 4 to 5 weeks or so. Another beneficial side effect is that the juices are often a reasonably good vape within a day or two of mixing IMO compared to the macerations done without PGA.

Thank you for that wealth of information! Here is an update on my process.

I let my macerations go for 26 hours at 140 degrees. I then started straining as soon as I pulled them out. I filtered once through a metal coffee strainer to get all of the large solid particles out. Then I filtered each one 3 times through all natural coffee filters.

This evening, I mixed up the two tea juices at 20% flavoring. I did 10ml so this equated to 8ml of VG with nicotine and then the 2ml of extract which was done in PG. I decided to go ahead and drip a little in my dripper to see how it was. I do know with steeping it will change over time. When I took the first vape I was fully expecting to throw my mod out the window as I suspected it would be awful based on the smell. To my surprise, it tasted just like tea!!!!! I was actually pleasantly surprised that it wasn't awful. The flavor was very pronounced but not in your face. It was good! One thing I did notice however is that the flavor was fairly one dimensional. Not bad, but not that interesting. It just tastes like tea and none of the other flavors are really coming through. I am not getting the vanilla that I tasted in it as a tea, but they may come with some steeping. Overall, I am pleased with my first try. One other thing to point out however is that it gunned my coils up bad in a hurry. I would never try this in a tank. I need to figure out how to get it filtered better I guess.

 

[billherbst]

One other thing to point out however is that it gunked my coils up bad in a hurry. I would never try this in a tank. I need to figure out how to get it filtered better I guess.

On numerous occasions, I've read in the various threads about making extracts that cone-type drip coffee filters---whether bleached white or all-natural tan---have a pore size of 10-30 microns. I think what was meant by that is not that some brands of coffee filters are 10 microns while other brands are as large as as 30, but rather that the pore sizes in all such commercially-produced coffee filters are uneven in size and vary from 10 to 30 microns.

You could run your maceration solvent through those kinds of coffee filters ten times and still not get finished extract that performed cleanly.

All macerated extracts will eventually crust coils and gunk wicks. Cellular residue is inherent to the process of simple-soak macerations---disintegrated cellulose from leaf or fruit cells will seep into the maceration solvent along with flavor elements. Many of these particulates are clear, so, even though they're suspended in the solvent, they're not visible to the naked eye. As a result, the question isn't IF crusting/gunking will occur, but instead how much residue builds up? And how long before the quality of the vape (i.e., flavor and enjoyment) is substantially reduced?

To make extracts (and juices made from them) that significantly reduce and/or delay crusted coils and gunked wicks, pore size of the filtering needs to be much finer/smaller than drip coffee filters can provide. I've been using polyester felt pads that filter to 5 microns, and just today I received in the mail a 100-pack of 9cm-diameter Ahlstrom paper lab filters I ordered from Amazon that have a pore size of 2.5 microns.

A realistic limit does exist to how finely we can filter macerated solvents before flavor elements start diminishing along with removal of particulates. 2.5 microns is closing in on that limit and might even .... up against it. To get cleaner performance than that while still maintaining full flavor, we'd need to go to steam distillation rather than simple-soak maceration, and that requires very sophisticated and expensive equipment, as well as specialized training to use it.

 

[Scotsman6783]

On numerous occasions, I've read in the various threads about making extracts that cone-type drip coffee filters---whether bleached white or all-natural tan---have a pore size of 10-30 microns. I think what was meant by that is not that some brands of coffee filters are 10 microns while other brands are as large as as 30, but rather that the pore sizes in all such commercially-produced coffee filters are uneven in size and vary from 10 to 30 microns.

You could run your maceration solvent through those kinds of coffee filters ten times and still not get finished extract that performed cleanly.

All macerated extracts will eventually crust coils and gunk wicks. Cellular residue is inherent to the process of simple-soak macerations---disintegrated cellulose from leaf or fruit cells will seep into the maceration solvent along with flavor elements. Many of these particulates are clear, so, even though they're suspended in the solvent, they're not visible to the naked eye. As a result, the question isn't IF crusting/gunking will occur, but instead how much residue builds up? And how long before the quality of the vape (i.e., flavor and enjoyment) is substantially reduced?

To make extracts (and juices made from them) that significantly reduce and/or delay crusted coils and gunked wicks, pore size of the filtering needs to be much finer/smaller than drip coffee filters can provide. I've been using polyester felt pads that filter to 5 microns, and just today I received in the mail a 100-pack of 9cm-diameter Ahlstrom paper lab filters I ordered from Amazon that have a pore size of 2.5 microns.

A realistic limit does exist to how finely we can filter macerated solvents before flavor elements start diminishing along with removal of particulates. 2.5 microns is closing in on that limit and might even .... up against it. To get cleaner performance than that while still maintaining full flavor, we'd need to go to steam distillation rather than simple-soak maceration, and that requires very sophisticated and expensive equipment, as well as specialized training to use it.

I actually have some of these 2.5 micron filters and a buchner funnel coming to me for this very reason.
My next investment will be the vacuum filtration set up (hand pump version).

 

[regal55]

I actually have some of these 2.5 micron filters and a buchner funnel coming to me for this very reason.
My next investment will be the vacuum filtration set up (hand pump version).

I just don't know if a Buchner filter is the right means to filter a tabacco extract, just seam counter intuitive for anything over a few mils.I think you want bulky media with head pressure, that's just MHO.


Last night I completed a heat assisted C&D Mississipppi Mud Perique and man this is some real authentic stuff. Highly recommended for a perique lover.

Also posted in recipe what I consider the ultimate in e-juice Cavendish -pure Capt Black Dark. Its a lot like RBFS Caven Fever only stronger.

 

[regal55]

I was thinking the ideal filter for the hobbyist would be one of those little pump water filters that filter river water that campers use. The catch is they are all small micron (<1 micron.)

Typically things like these are designed around filters that are used in industry, its conceivable to buy a unit and then find an industrial 3 micron filter for it. That would make filtering a snap.

 

[Greg Brown]

I just mixed up some of the tobacco juice after straining it multiple times. It came out with a nice blonde color and while the flavor is not that strong at 20%, it is a nice sweet flavor. I think after more steeping the flavor will be more intense. I am not one for tobacco flavors but so far I have liked this one enough to drip several times. The tea juices have not fared so well. They seem to gunk up my coils really bad.

 

[sandman97289]

On numerous occasions, I've read in the various threads about making extracts that cone-type drip coffee filters---whether bleached white or all-natural tan---have a pore size of 10-30 microns. I think what was meant by that is not that some brands of coffee filters are 10 microns while other brands are as large as as 30, but rather that the pore sizes in all such commercially-produced coffee filters are uneven in size and vary from 10 to 30 microns.

You could run your maceration solvent through those kinds of coffee filters ten times and still not get finished extract that performed cleanly.

All macerated extracts will eventually crust coils and gunk wicks. Cellular residue is inherent to the process of simple-soak macerations---disintegrated cellulose from leaf or fruit cells will seep into the maceration solvent along with flavor elements. Many of these particulates are clear, so, even though they're suspended in the solvent, they're not visible to the naked eye. As a result, the question isn't IF crusting/gunking will occur, but instead how much residue builds up? And how long before the quality of the vape (i.e., flavor and enjoyment) is substantially reduced?

To make extracts (and juices made from them) that significantly reduce and/or delay crusted coils and gunked wicks, pore size of the filtering needs to be much finer/smaller than drip coffee filters can provide. I've been using polyester felt pads that filter to 5 microns, and just today I received in the mail a 100-pack of 9cm-diameter Ahlstrom paper lab filters I ordered from Amazon that have a pore size of 2.5 microns.

A realistic limit does exist to how finely we can filter macerated solvents before flavor elements start diminishing along with removal of particulates. 2.5 microns is closing in on that limit and might even .... up against it. To get cleaner performance than that while still maintaining full flavor, we'd need to go to steam distillation rather than simple-soak maceration, and that requires very sophisticated and expensive equipment, as well as specialized training to use it.

Interested in knowing your results with the 2.5 micron filters. I saw the 11cm diameter ones on Amazon but not the 9cm.

 

[billherbst]

Interested in knowing your results with the 2.5 micron filters. I saw the 11cm diameter ones on Amazon but not the 9cm.

I'll post results after my next batch of pipe tobacco macerations, which will use the 2.5 micron filters

 

[clnire]

Interested in knowing your results with the 2.5 micron filters. I saw the 11cm diameter ones on Amazon but not the 9cm.

I am interested too.

 

[Scotsman6783]

I am interested too.

Interested as well. I have some of these coming, and next pay day im am going to invest in the vacuum setup for it (hand pump version) to speed the process up

 

[MikeNice81]

I'll post results after my next batch of pipe tobacco macerations, which will use the 2.5 micron filters

I'm thinking the flavor will be a little lower than most of La Costa Netstra likes, but very clean and crisp.

 

[Ian444]

I'm using two rinsed balls of cotton in a 25ml syringe, and squeeze the cotton dry with the plunger. Then I withdraw the plunger, pour the extract in, put the plunger back in, let some of the extract (10 or 20 drops) go down the drain as the remaining water is purged from the cotton (I judge it by the color exiting the syringe should be the same color as extract inside), then put the syringe over the bottle that will hold the filtered extract and let it slowly filter, usually takes a minute or two. The 25ml syringe size was arrived at by trial and error, its the largest size that I can still develop a decent pressure with, without busting my hands or fingers.

 

[Scotsman6783]

I'm using two rinsed balls of cotton in a 25ml syringe, and squeeze the cotton dry with the plunger. Then I withdraw the plunger, pour the extract in, put the plunger back in, let some of the extract (10 or 20 drops) go down the drain as the remaining water is purged from the cotton (I judge it by the color exiting the syringe should be the same color as extract inside), then put the syringe over the bottle that will hold the filtered extract and let it slowly filter, usually takes a minute or two. The 25ml syringe size was arrived at by trial and error, its the largest size that I can still develop a decent pressure with, without busting my hands or fingers.

What about using an injector syringe (kind used for injecting marinades into meat). Those thing hold a ton of liquid and will hold pressure. I do hand made deli meats and use an injector to jump start the curing process by pumping the brine into the center of the meat.

 

[Bagazo]

I'm thinking the flavor will be a little lower than most of La Costa Netstra likes, but very clean and crisp.

I remember reading an article on filtering and flavors in regards to beer that pointed out the fact that flavor compounds are thousandths (0.001) to hundreths of a micron in size. A 2.5 micron filter is not going to hold anything that size back.

I have been using a 60ml syringe that I bought at an animal supply store. I use a caulking gun to keep pressure on it so that I can set and forget. Come back every now and then to tighten things up.

 

[Scotsman6783]

Ohhh, i didnt even think about a caulking gun. Well done.
I use air powered caulking guns at work, will pump a whole tube out in like a minute...wonder how well that would work. I have one that was broken but repairable ( they trashed it and gave us a new one so i slavaged it)

 

[billherbst]

I'm thinking the flavor will be a little lower than most of La Costa Netstra likes, but very clean and crisp.

According to Johni, no flavor loss occurs with 2.5-micron filtering.

 

[MikeNice81]

According to Johni, no flavor loss occurs with 2.5-micron filtering.

I wouldn't say a loss of flavor is the right word. It is more crisp and a little less bold. It is still there, there is just a difference. It doesn't seem as saturated. With some juices it works because it gives room for secondary notes to pop, imo. I seem to get more evolution and change throughout a tank with a lower micron filtration than with a straight fine mesh or coffee filter filtration. There is a difference, to me.

 

[johni]

According to Johni, no flavor loss occurs with 2.5-micron filtering.

None I can detect. I've done seven pipe blends and five cigars using the 2.5 micron media and they are comparable to my previous extracts in flavor intensity.

 

[Ian444]

What about using an injector syringe (kind used for injecting marinades into meat). Those thing hold a ton of liquid and will hold pressure. I do hand made deli meats and use an injector to jump start the curing process by pumping the brine into the center of the meat.

I did try that, but went back to the 25ml syringe. The handles allowed more force, but the diameter of the chamber is bigger, negating the advantage of the handles, for me. Might work better for others, the one I bought is a nice solid device.

I think johni's 2.5 micron lab filter paper with gravity feed would have to be the best and cheapest and simplest method by far. I would have tried it by now but I'm finding it difficult to get some shipped to Australia at a reasonable price. However, filtering is a low priority for me, the cotton works fine for my purposes (RDA with rayon or cotton wick).

I mentioned my cotton filtering process in detail (above) mainly so that newcomers wouldn't think their first extract efforts might be jeopardized if they didn't have the latest gadgetry in filtering. The vaping equipment used can be a concern though, I recently gave an acquaintance some NETs and synthetics and he believes the NETs destroy his clearo coils, and made his 510 atty go open circuit. Half of the NETs were from Vaperite so I didn't take it personally. Such is vaping.