Extraction Soxhlet time!
- Thread starter Jovinn
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2021
- Messages
- 570
- Reputation
- 415
- Reaction score
- 2,122
- Points
- 0
- Currently Smoking
- Auto ultimate
What is that?
A Soxhlet extractor , named for me. Soxhlet. It’s a continuous extraction device that continuously distilled and reuses your solvent, so it’s always fresh and, more importantly, you can extract 10 lbs with a liter of solvent. It’s very exhaustive, more hot-dog than cream, but makes processing leaves into butter a whole lot easier.
Why the aluminum foil wrapping? I presume this is for insulation, to reduce condensation before the vapor enters the chamber and condenser? This could well be why the process is taking so long. Maybe try some real or otherwise better insulation.
When I see solvent being heating in glass in a non-lab. environment, I just see an unneeded safety hazard. A main or often the only reason glass is used in chemistry is for its transparency. But here you don't need that, as shown by your use of Al foil; and I can't think of any other reason why you'd want to use glass here. If this were in my home, I'd want any heated combustible solvents in a metal or other non-breakable metal container, with glass the worst case (with any breakage resulting in total failure, unlike metal). Don't bootleggers (US term for small-time illegal alcohol distillers) traditionally use all copper containers, condensers, etc.? Plus any metal will perform heating/cooling better.
When I see solvent being heating in glass in a non-lab. environment, I just see an unneeded safety hazard. A main or often the only reason glass is used in chemistry is for its transparency. But here you don't need that, as shown by your use of Al foil; and I can't think of any other reason why you'd want to use glass here. If this were in my home, I'd want any heated combustible solvents in a metal or other non-breakable metal container, with glass the worst case (with any breakage resulting in total failure, unlike metal). Don't bootleggers (US term for small-time illegal alcohol distillers) traditionally use all copper containers, condensers, etc.? Plus any metal will perform heating/cooling better.
I think @Bill.de.Cat has one of those too.
The foil is for insulation. It dramatically SPEEDS the process. I was a scientific glassblower for 20 years, in addition to having degrees in chemistry and extensive laboratory experience. Aluminum foil is what is used in every lab, around the world. In some cases the glass can be insulated by slivering a vacuum jacket. That’s not the case here. Bootleggers likely lacked glassblowing skills or access to non “bootleg” equipment. Inertness is the great advantage of glass, even more than transparency. Neither are necessary in this case but keep in mind this is designed and made for doing exactly what I’m doing. In what conceivable way would this “laboratory environment “ you speak of provide any added safety? Yes, glass can break. So be careful, and don’t break it. It’s what it’s MADE for. But I guess not for the faint of hearted. And the reason it took so long is that it cycles continuously. Many washes X many changes of material + an abundance of safety = long time.
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2021
- Messages
- 570
- Reputation
- 415
- Reaction score
- 2,122
- Points
- 0
- Currently Smoking
- Auto ultimate
I concur that glass is unnecessary in this instance. If you could find a comparable device made of metal for a reasonable price, go for it. I doubt they exist. I'm all for appropriate safety, I just refuse to let people be scared by chemistry. It's quite safe if you do it properly. Like driving a car. As far as taking inspiration from bootleggers, those maniacs boiled alcohol over an OPEN flame! That's just about the stupidest, most dangerous thing you can possibly do, and even they rarely blew themselves up.
It just bugs the shit out of me how chemistry has been demonized. As an example: the pharmaceutical company that makes Adderal isn't blowing up all the time, despite making ampheatmines. Do meth labs blow up? Of course, but That's because morons do idiotic things, not because of inherent danger. People smoking in nail salons is a Way bigger fire hazard than heating a flammable solvent carefully contained in a purpose made apparatus, heated with stirring on an electric hot plate with digital temperature control. With a fire extinguisher. And a 20 lb CO2 tank ready to crack if needed, unquestionably extinguishing any fire. Oh, and the (totally unnecessary) purging of the apparatus with argon, just in case. And please don't delude yourself that just because you have a degree or work in a lab you're inherently safe or competent. Believe me, 40 years at the bench can make some people Very cavalier with chemicals they've become overly familiar with. You're more likely to burn your house down cooking dinner than using a soxhlet, just statistically speaking. I hate the fear of chemistry society tries to instill in people. Its not necessary to fear something just because you don't understand it, but anything done out of the constrains of a school or business is portrayed as inherently risky and nefarious. It delights me to no end that the DEA has to sit and watch companies make extracts, grow diamonds etc and they can't do a damn thing about it. I hope it eats their hearts out.
It just bugs the shit out of me how chemistry has been demonized. As an example: the pharmaceutical company that makes Adderal isn't blowing up all the time, despite making ampheatmines. Do meth labs blow up? Of course, but That's because morons do idiotic things, not because of inherent danger. People smoking in nail salons is a Way bigger fire hazard than heating a flammable solvent carefully contained in a purpose made apparatus, heated with stirring on an electric hot plate with digital temperature control. With a fire extinguisher. And a 20 lb CO2 tank ready to crack if needed, unquestionably extinguishing any fire. Oh, and the (totally unnecessary) purging of the apparatus with argon, just in case. And please don't delude yourself that just because you have a degree or work in a lab you're inherently safe or competent. Believe me, 40 years at the bench can make some people Very cavalier with chemicals they've become overly familiar with. You're more likely to burn your house down cooking dinner than using a soxhlet, just statistically speaking. I hate the fear of chemistry society tries to instill in people. Its not necessary to fear something just because you don't understand it, but anything done out of the constrains of a school or business is portrayed as inherently risky and nefarious. It delights me to no end that the DEA has to sit and watch companies make extracts, grow diamonds etc and they can't do a damn thing about it. I hope it eats their hearts out.
Something like a teapot or even a small regular metal pot with a lid with the condenser fitted to it would be inherently safer vs. britle glass.
If you stick with glass, consider an Erlenmeyer flask (triangular shape with broad bottom, more heater contact surface area) vs. the round-type flask you have that I recall is mostly used with heating mantles and wraps.
Yes, borosilicate glass is considered non-reactive or inert, but it's not really all that "clean' or absolutely pure, such as contains traces of metals (if only boron) and other minerals (as expected, with it made mostly from sand) that can leach out. For example, glass is hardly ever used, generally avoided, in biopharmaceutical manufacturing, with either high-purity non-leaching plastic parts in contact with the product used 1-time and then trashed or fixed/permanent stainless steel equipment used.
Last edited:
Similar threads
