Hello,

I'm seeking input from anyone that has direct experience with various filter mediums, or perhaps would point me to existing thread exactly about this topic.

It seems both Celite 545 / Diatomaceous Earth and Cellulose filters are tried and true for Buchner environment, but what about soaking / tea bag method - specifically I am talking about HCl water or other common acidic baths for MHRB, but I'm also interested in any positive/negative feedback on use of other filter materials that would be used with other processes relevant to this community.

Cotton/Muslin tea bags, the strings in the tea bags, bleached paper, unbleached paper (coffee filters), various plastics that might be found in conventional tea bag made for water and herbs but not designed for acidic environment, etc. Is there anything in these materials that would leach into the end product, or otherwise be problematic?

Any other filter materials anyone can confirm are problematic, or confirm benign and useful?

Thank you in advance - I feel like this has probably been covered somewhere and I'm just not seeing it.

Use a milder acid and a reusable tea bag - there is no need to use HCl.

I was referring to adjusting water to pH of 4 with HCl, as that is used in at least one tek (the only one I've been successful with so far with 1.2% yield)

Regardless, by the lack of response, it appears all filtering materials I mentioned are a non-issue.

Either that, or it's just not a topic for welcome area - it's probably worth mentioning that this is Artificer, having p/w recollection issues .. and just using this account for the time being until things hopefully get sorted on main account.

Oh, hi Artificer! I'll try and flag up something so that your password recovery can get sorted.

You're probably aware that prolonged boiling of cellulosic materials in strong acid would lead to their hydrolysis to glucose but for the mildly acidic conditions you describe that should present little in the way of difficulties.

Fwiw, people have sometimes reported that the bleached coffee filters seem to be stronger than the unbleached ones and thereby less likely to burst.

There are so many options for tea-brewing devices and materials that discussing them all could turn this post into a book. The main thing would be selecting something which corresponds nicely in size with the amount of bark you'll be brewing. Then again if you only have, say, a packet of smallish tea bag filters you could just use more of them to make up the size of the brew that you want. (Apologies for stating the obvious, btw!)


I don't personally think anything damaging will leach from a paper or plant fibre fabric brewing filter - many teas such as hibiscus or lemon are acidic enough anyhow and that's within the intended usage of the filter. There's far worse stuff leaching out of the bark itself

Well... I bet bark don't leach Epichlorohydrin That's what often is being used for wet-strength in paper tea-bags and coffee-filters. I read that you have to drink 92 cups of bag tea to reach WHO's tolerable daily intake (for someone at 60 kg weight).

But I'm not sure what happens with that with acid, base and solvents.

Thanks for raising the issue - this one completely slipped my mind.

From 2019: https://www.tfrecipes.co...hlorohydrin-in-tea-bags/

The question is, how many teabags are you likely to use while brewing a batch of bark? Probably considerably fewer than 92.

Some relevant references - https://doi.org/10.1080%2F19440049.2016.1223353
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3381

"3-MCPD [a hydrolysis product of epichlorohydrin] was detected in most paper products with levels ranging from a few nanograms in tea bags to a few micrograms in white coffee filters."
"The amounts of 3-MCPD in brown size 4 coffee filters ranged from 28 to 259 ng and are comparable to levels (18 – 375 ng) found in similar filters from Canadian market. The tea filters from Germany generally harboured higher amounts of 3-MCPD (range <1 to 76 ng)than the tea filters sourced in Canada (range 2.2 to 24 ng). The average 2-MCPD / 3-MCPD ratio of 0.005 found in white filters from Canadian market was markedly different from average ratio of 0.07 found in brown filters from German market, indicating different chemical treatment of the paper. While the average ratios of 2-MCPD / 3-MCPD for those two types of filters were relatively consistent from filter to filter, there were some exceptions. For example, the coffee
filter with the highest amount of 3-MCPD found on German market (151 ng/g) did not contain 2-MCPD above the limit of quantification (1 ng/g).
Additionally, white filters from Canadian market harbour much higher concentration of MCPDs than the white filter from German market indicating different types of production processes. Results from both Canadian and German markets show no strict correlation of the MCPD contents with the brand or lot. Variability in MCPD content between products reaching two orders of magnitude indicates that the occurrence of MCPD might not be monitored or mitigated by the producers of coffee or tea filters in general."

One possible solution if you are concerned about MCPDs is to boil the filters in plain water before use. But we're talking less than one microgram per filter.

It seems a more significant source of MCPD exposure is from processed foods where fats have been heated with acid in the presence of chloride. Has the EFSA developed a standard method for analysing MCPD in foods yet, as recommended in the 2013 report?

Well this doesn't sound very assuring. I once write to a paper company about their wet-strong paper sine I used in around the house and was composting afterwards. I wanted to know about the chemicals they used it if/how they were broken down. ... But no, they did not want to say what chemical they used. Just that is was 'safe for composting'. Well well...


I've never heard anything about MCPD in other food. But it's just a sign of how broken the food system really are...

ah HAH! I figured something would be brought to the table on this topic (thank you!)


The older I get, the less I trust any health or food "authorities". There's money to be made in those industries (ways I don't even want to know), but anyway I don't think I'm being irrational conspiracy theorist by doubting validity when I'm told something is safe/healthy based on declarations from these authorities, or by doubting the regulations are executed as well as they portray.


^^this^^ is probably safest route with any filter material, to at least reduce any possible concerns if one were feeling diligently cautious.

I don't plan on using excessive quantities of filter bags... but I suppose that even if MCPDs got to some measurable level in the tea, would they even make it to final product doing A/B FASA extraction?

I assume the downside to muslin/cotton tea bags is bigger openings in the weaves allow for more fine particles to get through compared to paper tea bag?

There were problems noted as far back as at least 1996 with soy sauce containing dangerous (not trace) levels of MCPD because of the industrial practice of taking a manufacturing shortcut by heating soy beans in hydrochloric acid instead of waiting for the natural fermentation process to run its course... who'da thunk there'd be a problem with that, eh?

It should be fairly obvious to those with even a bit or org chem knowledge that glycerides would form some MCPD as a byproduct of reaction with HCl. Food safety standards are a constant battle...

maximumexp384/Artificer - I think using the best grade of quality-assured organic muslin to sew your own tea bags would be a kind of gold standard (if you're not into growing, spinning and weaving your own fabric!) You could at least filter your tea through a pre-boiled paper filter afterwards to clean it up - or use the trusty (organic) cotton wool plug in a funnel stem trick for a paper-free approach.

There was a thread recently which discussed the use of protein fibres such as silk or wool as a means of removing tannins from a brew. A test using a woolen poncho removed over 60% of the tannins from a MHRB brew, so your secondary filtration could go through a large plug of lambswool or similar thereby removing both the remaining particulates and a good part of the tannins. I'd suggest to defat the lambswool beforehand, of course. It would be quite valuable if a few of the A/B extractors could have a try at this filtering technique and report back.

One thing to remember is how the tannins precipitate as the brew cools - you'd either need to run the brew immediately through a heated filter or allow cooling and settling time before decanting in order to minimise clogging. I've had MHRB tannins turn into an impenetrable rubbery mat in a paper filter disc before. It's always a bit of a concern that yield losses might be incurred if the tannins precipitate; if anything this is an argument to keep the brew on the more dilute side, from what I can discern.

This is all good food for thought.. I have neither cotton wool nor lambs wool yet - do I just look for any raw lambs wool and defat?

What got me curious about filter materials in the first place is my dilemma of not finding filter thimbles for 1L soxhlet extractor I got. Soxhlets were not exactly intended to be used for the purpose I want to use it for, and I have zero prior experience with one, but I want to experiment.

The smallest diameter at the top (at the joint) is Ø50mm, and the extraction chamber is larger than this. Height from the bottom of the extraction chamber to top of the siphon arm is 250mm. Current thoughts are to stuff cotton wool, or lambs wool down at bottom of extractor to height of say 20-30mm and then fill tea bags with MHRB in way they will fit down the neck and stack in the extractor. What are the odds that lambs wool would fully clog up with tannins that it is collecting?

The plan is to run water adjusted to pH4 for refluxing, run under partial vacuum for lower bp and possibly insulate the extractor to keep delta between boiling flask and extractor at a minimum so the tea in the flask isn't getting so hot as to damage product (what temp?) and yet keep the heat high enough in extractor to effectively pull the goods out of MHRB (what temp?). I'm slightly concerned about tannins in the powdered MHRB turning into rubbery slug after one reflux...

After letting this process run its' course, if I can remove tea bags and keep them intact, I could do a separate extract with them via clean acid water and buchner funnel, and discover how much was not extracted from soxhlet method.

CONS to this setup:
-time/money at stake to set up and test
-cleaning extractor may be difficult
-overly complicated when simpler methods already work

PROS to this setup:
-once it is set up, if it works, would be fairly automated and require less handling.
-if the comments in other threads about improving potency by keeping lid on containers to trap vapors have any merit, the soxhlet extractor, in theory, should keep all wanted vapors closed-loop
-it's overly complicated and fun

Sounds like a fun plan!

I've found raw, washed lambswool in the babycare section of various drugstores (in Europe). A couple of washes in warm heptane followed by a couple more in warm ethanol should get rid of the lanolin. Maybe a warm soapy wash to finish off too?

I think your plan with the wool plug of whatever kind should do the job. In the lab it would be glass or mineral wool. Whether lambswool would clog is something of an unknown as this is a fledgling area of experimentation. It might be an idea to conduct a few tests separately on lambswool in order to avoid conducting too many experimental procedures simultaneously.

As far as the questions concerning temperature go, I'd say by including the acid you're jeopardising the sensitive compounds anyhow so the temperature becomes barely relevant. If you're wanting to keep the boiling point lower it would be easier to use something like acetone or methanol. You'd have to be aware of the safety caveats with those - and it certainly isn't something that can be left running unattended owing to the flammability risk. And you'll need to have at least twice the volume of solvent as that of the Sohxlet body capacity whatever you use.

Failure of the glassware under vacuum would also be decidedly undesirable and even with water could extend to a flammability risk, albeit a far smaller one, if plant material ended up baked onto your heating device. Have you examined the literature for accounts of Soxhlet extraction under reduced pressure? That would be a sensible thing to check beforehand.

I hope you go ahead with this in some form or other and I'm looking forward to hearing how it goes - but maybe try a few small-scale trials with each of the individual ideas to get a grasp on the separately before going all-in with the master plan.

I am confused. From what I've gathered in the A/B teks, the purpose of the acid step is to get DMT to salt out to dissolve/extract into the water better. How is this jeopardizing the sensitive compounds?

I understand the hazards implied when heating/boiling solvents (no open flames for sure), but if I can run acetone or methanol through Soxhlet and extract desired alkaloids this way, I would certainly like to try it, especially if yields could potentially be higher. And if this is possible, can this solvent then be basified like the acidic solution in the A/B teks?

I may have let my enthusiasm for an experimental idea run away with me a bit without fully considering how the extracts might further be used or processed. And it's not wholly clear just how soluble in acetone or methanol the native salt form(s) of DMT (or yuremamine) might be. There would be a certain amount of background reading to be done. The (putative) sensitive compounds (which do not equate to free DMT) are what miss_manic_minxx suspected were preserved by simmering with the lid on in the 'keeping a lid on it' thread. They would most likely get destroyed by base treatment too.

Your concerns about the temperature sensitivity of the extract had sent me off on a bit of a tangent. The DMT itself will be absolutely fine as long as enough solvent remains in the boiling flask, as per the recommendation to use at least twice the volume of the Soxhlet body. In that respect, it is likely largely immaterial whether the yuremamine or whatever survives the Soxhlet process if your goal is to produce freebase DMT.

If you were intending to produce a full spectrum extract as a component of ayahuasca analogues, the lower-temperature approaches would become more relevant. Obviously, in that instance it would be necessary to evaporate off the acetone or methanol in order to produce a solid extract suitable for consumption - and, come to think of it, that would be necessary if you were adding base as well because acetone is incompatible with strong base, and because of phase-separation difficulties:
https://www.sigmaaldrich...olvent-miscibility-table
https://chemistry.stacke...heptane-methanol-mixture
Rhodium archive pdf: https://www.erowid.org/a.../solvent.miscibility.pdf
For example, at temperatures where DMT begins to show decent solubility in n-alkanes, they become miscible with methanol.

Hopefully none of this seems too contradictory; I can get a bit ahead of myself with ideas sometimes!

Update: this post (without its own further direct reference) [EDIT: it refers to the process described here] suggests that acetone is fairly useless for extracting from straight bark. You'd need to make a lime paste and extract from that, but freebase DMT is so soluble in acetone that there'd be no point in using the Soxhlet. Then again, maybe the Soxhlet and plain bark would slowly extract poorly soluble DMT tannate and it would accumulate as a solid in the boiling flask. Or a pre-treatment with acetic acid might free up the DMT - there are loads of options.