What do you guys think about the new technology Steep Hill is using, Quanta Cann?
I believe it's NIRS?
I believe it's NIRS?
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Standards Used in Testing
- Thread starter Green Supreme
- Start date
I agree, but way over my head. I want those of you discussing this to know your information is not waisted, I'm trying to absorb what I can and truely appreciate your sharing your knowledge with us. Thank You! DD
its interesting in the fact that it leaves the sample intact. A good way to test something and then bioassay it for yourself
I know someone waiting on more information and pricing from them on it.
They told me they can't test Cannabinoids below .2% and they can't yet test for terpenes. When they can then they will have me as a customer. The IR that they use is fast and non destructive that is for sure. They need a sample tray that holds 100+ or more samples to be tested automatically, right now a person does the work, but I bet almost anyone could be trained in a few hours to run samples.
This could be the future....
-SamS
This could be the future....
-SamS
If this is the same unit I saw at a dispensary in Cali, I'm unconvinced. I want to see analysis of the same nugs done by an independent lab and the Quanta Can before I am convinced of its accuracy or validity.
It runs quickly and like Sam says could be operated by almost anyone without lab experience, but I don't think it will ever surpass HPLC or UPLC in terms of the data it is able to generate.
-Chimera
It runs quickly and like Sam says could be operated by almost anyone without lab experience, but I don't think it will ever surpass HPLC or UPLC in terms of the data it is able to generate.
-Chimera
Calibration for this use of near-IR is a task. Presumably extracts would give better accuracy than plant material.
The amount of THC predicted in the cannabis sativa samples was determined to be within 5% of the value obtained using the GC reference method.
http://books.google.com/books/about/Quantitation_of_pharmaceutical_formulati.html?id=OmSnL46oSK0C
That's from aka Ole Miss, the credited author (a thesis?) had help.
That same research was submitted for the 2005 AAPS conference, to be read by the authors for 4 hours, and the abstract for that says 10%.
http://www.aapsj.org/abstracts/AM_2005/AAPS2005-002813.pdf
The amount of THC predicted in the cannabis sativa samples was determined to be within 5% of the value obtained using the GC reference method.
http://books.google.com/books/about/Quantitation_of_pharmaceutical_formulati.html?id=OmSnL46oSK0C
That's from aka Ole Miss, the credited author (a thesis?) had help.
That same research was submitted for the 2005 AAPS conference, to be read by the authors for 4 hours, and the abstract for that says 10%.
http://www.aapsj.org/abstracts/AM_2005/AAPS2005-002813.pdf
while not the best 5-10% margin of error still gives you decent results
I think the system works by building a database for comparision. The more info in the database the better the readings?
At the same point I'd rather setup a scanner with TLC plates and some comparison software if you need to master how to use the machine.
I think the system works by building a database for comparision. The more info in the database the better the readings?
At the same point I'd rather setup a scanner with TLC plates and some comparison software if you need to master how to use the machine.
E
elmanito
Man I am always suspicious of IR studies toted as quantitative analysis. There is TOO much room for error imo. HPLC and GC are consistent and time tested, I am sure a well trained and extremely careful tech could pull it off within 5-10 percent but send this rig out to a high throughput testing lab and watch what happens when a tech uses the wrong wash solvent, etches or dirties the plates or cuvets etc etc...all bets are off at that point. I like the science but for practical analysis HPLC and GC are proven and repeatable, verging on fool proof you could say.
HM
HM
I was just gonna say the same. I wouldnt trust myself with a syringe of thc...!!
Booyah. Its real baby. Peace GS
plastochron
Member
i definitely agree with chimera's skepticism in the accuracy and precision of the quanta cann method. i have never seen one in person. has anyone used one?
sam - what are some of those yet to be reported terpenes that you identified?
as someone pointed out earlier, the industrial standards will only get you so far; in-house standards are of utmost importance (that's how the lab i work at was able to identify several cannabinoids that most other labs do not test for).
in terms of distinguishing between nearly identical compounds (as many of the terpenes and cannabinoids are), using a PDA instead of a UV spec helps immensely.
i may be biased, but i feel that lc is inherently superior to gc for cannabis testing (for reasons discussed earlier by others). comparing results from my lab with some gc labs, it definitely seems that most of them are not able to separate CBD from many of the other compounds with similar molecular weights and polarity, so they report erroneously large concentrations of CBD.
finally, in regards to the legitimacy labs... we are truly a mixed bag. some of the labs (even the very well known ones) are run by people that are not truly experts in analytical chemistry (not that i am claiming to be one or am the head of a lab). with all of these bootleg labs popping up (e.g. the dudes that drive around in vans with gc's from the 70s - probably huffing down the vapor after it runs through the instrument) people should be very critical of all labs. i think in the near future that the herd will be thinned.
i cannot wait for the day that labs also begin testing for the variety of non-cannabinoid and non-terpenoid compounds that will reflect the horticultural characteristics of cultivars.
does anyone have any info about local or statewide legislation that would mandate any product to be distributed at a dispensary to be lab tested?
sam - what are some of those yet to be reported terpenes that you identified?
as someone pointed out earlier, the industrial standards will only get you so far; in-house standards are of utmost importance (that's how the lab i work at was able to identify several cannabinoids that most other labs do not test for).
in terms of distinguishing between nearly identical compounds (as many of the terpenes and cannabinoids are), using a PDA instead of a UV spec helps immensely.
i may be biased, but i feel that lc is inherently superior to gc for cannabis testing (for reasons discussed earlier by others). comparing results from my lab with some gc labs, it definitely seems that most of them are not able to separate CBD from many of the other compounds with similar molecular weights and polarity, so they report erroneously large concentrations of CBD.
finally, in regards to the legitimacy labs... we are truly a mixed bag. some of the labs (even the very well known ones) are run by people that are not truly experts in analytical chemistry (not that i am claiming to be one or am the head of a lab). with all of these bootleg labs popping up (e.g. the dudes that drive around in vans with gc's from the 70s - probably huffing down the vapor after it runs through the instrument) people should be very critical of all labs. i think in the near future that the herd will be thinned.
i cannot wait for the day that labs also begin testing for the variety of non-cannabinoid and non-terpenoid compounds that will reflect the horticultural characteristics of cultivars.
does anyone have any info about local or statewide legislation that would mandate any product to be distributed at a dispensary to be lab tested?
Here is an interesting article about testing herb. I think it has been posted elsewhere on ICMAG but in a political thread:
Testing pot in a legal vacuum
Testing pot in a legal vacuum
I am trying to devise a way to test the local labs.
If i was not so neurotic about my final end products I don't think this would ever come up.
There could also be multiple reasons why the numbers vary. But I am trying to figure out the ideal way to conduct a series of tests between the labs. So far I have figured my best bet is to take 4 or 5 steps from my process and test each one of those samples at each lab.
I also think I might need to have them run at least 2 tests with the same size sample to see if there is any sort of sampling error.
So far I have found the labs to be great for certain things. It can show me how efficient my extractions and conversions are but I am quite concerned about getting an actual quantitative result that I can trust.
If i was not so neurotic about my final end products I don't think this would ever come up.
There could also be multiple reasons why the numbers vary. But I am trying to figure out the ideal way to conduct a series of tests between the labs. So far I have figured my best bet is to take 4 or 5 steps from my process and test each one of those samples at each lab.
I also think I might need to have them run at least 2 tests with the same size sample to see if there is any sort of sampling error.
So far I have found the labs to be great for certain things. It can show me how efficient my extractions and conversions are but I am quite concerned about getting an actual quantitative result that I can trust.
That vial is actually THC-V, not THC. THC is a restricted chemical where I took these pics, the others are not. We'll be using Marinol as a standard for THC since I can't legally get the pure compound here without a license. I'm currently looking into a method for obtaining all the acid-forms in the next month.
KS, stay tuned.. a researcher friend recently showed me a really good TLC setup with a quantification protocol that he has standardized and compared against with a calibrated GC/MS unit. Although it is TLC and therefor not inherently as accurate, I firmly believe it will prove that a lot of the results we are seeing from the private labs in Cali and Colorado are innaccurate and flawed... many of the CBD readings we are seeing are way off of what is expected, and I personally believe many of the labs are misidentifying CBC and CBD.
This simple, cheap, effective TLC setup can be used to narrow populations, screen for CBD presence or absence, identify Bt/Bt, Bt/Bd and Bd/Bd plants, and give rough quantification of the total cannabinoids in any given sample. It may not be as accurate for your extracts, because it is sensitive to under 10mg of THC and larger amounts mess up the test. However, for screening populations and plant samples, it's certainly accurate enough to narrow down the field, and then you can have your selected samples further refined and analyzed by by GC/MS, HPLC, LC etc.
The pure CBD became complete liquid in a glass pipe..... nomnomnom...
-Chimera
KS, stay tuned.. a researcher friend recently showed me a really good TLC setup with a quantification protocol that he has standardized and compared against with a calibrated GC/MS unit. Although it is TLC and therefor not inherently as accurate, I firmly believe it will prove that a lot of the results we are seeing from the private labs in Cali and Colorado are innaccurate and flawed... many of the CBD readings we are seeing are way off of what is expected, and I personally believe many of the labs are misidentifying CBC and CBD.
This simple, cheap, effective TLC setup can be used to narrow populations, screen for CBD presence or absence, identify Bt/Bt, Bt/Bd and Bd/Bd plants, and give rough quantification of the total cannabinoids in any given sample. It may not be as accurate for your extracts, because it is sensitive to under 10mg of THC and larger amounts mess up the test. However, for screening populations and plant samples, it's certainly accurate enough to narrow down the field, and then you can have your selected samples further refined and analyzed by by GC/MS, HPLC, LC etc.
The pure CBD became complete liquid in a glass pipe..... nomnomnom...
-Chimera
well my issue at hand is actually quantification.
I think i've worked out various production issues in terms of the product I am creating, but I only have a range of what I think the actual quantification is.
I suppose when its only +/- 10% dose, its not that big of an issue. But lets just say if I made a 120mg edible we would have some people freaking out.
I have a general idea of the potency of the various stages too, but its a lot harder to get a real number. And whatever you do don't believe what's on the box.
i don't know if the cbc/cbd issue is an issue here. I've only seen a handful of plants or products tested that the labs are showing for cbd.
They might be missing some.
I think i've worked out various production issues in terms of the product I am creating, but I only have a range of what I think the actual quantification is.
I suppose when its only +/- 10% dose, its not that big of an issue. But lets just say if I made a 120mg edible we would have some people freaking out.
I have a general idea of the potency of the various stages too, but its a lot harder to get a real number. And whatever you do don't believe what's on the box.
i don't know if the cbc/cbd issue is an issue here. I've only seen a handful of plants or products tested that the labs are showing for cbd.
They might be missing some.
plastochron
Member
chimera, i think it is more likely that what GC labs are IDing as CBD is actually several CBs that have the same or very similar boiling point as CBD (i.e. in addition to CBC, CBG, CBL, etc). LC labs are probably also misidentifying a bunch of compounds as CBD based on similar polarity and molecular weight. in my experience CBG is nearly always found at a significantly higher concentration than CBC (or CBD). i am quite intrigued by the prospect of a TLC protocol with the precision and accuracy of LC-MS; not to say that it can't be done, but i would have to see it to believe it.
KS, as far as conducting a ring test to compare the accuracy and precision of the labs there are several possibilities. as report in O'Shaughnassey's, project CBD did a ring test with a bunch of labs several months ago. the results showed that most of the labs were getting results in the same ball park, but there were definitely some outliers.
i think that the project CBD approach was somewhat flawed as it did not include industrial or in-house standards (only homogenized plant material). while homogenized plant material is certainly a valid aspect of a ring test, it seems to me that a respectable ring test would include samples with precisely known concentrations of CBs.
KS, as far as conducting a ring test to compare the accuracy and precision of the labs there are several possibilities. as report in O'Shaughnassey's, project CBD did a ring test with a bunch of labs several months ago. the results showed that most of the labs were getting results in the same ball park, but there were definitely some outliers.
i think that the project CBD approach was somewhat flawed as it did not include industrial or in-house standards (only homogenized plant material). while homogenized plant material is certainly a valid aspect of a ring test, it seems to me that a respectable ring test would include samples with precisely known concentrations of CBs.
its a combo of both samples being made for testing and the testing. Its something I've been thinking even with the samples I drop off. How much variability can be in that 1gram sample etc.
I've read the ring test, I am trying to figure out a similar approach but along the lines with some of the stuff I'm making. Also trying to take it further to the point where my theoritcal math on this project should match up with my actual test results. It would be great if I paid attention in my stats class at this point.
I've read the ring test, I am trying to figure out a similar approach but along the lines with some of the stuff I'm making. Also trying to take it further to the point where my theoritcal math on this project should match up with my actual test results. It would be great if I paid attention in my stats class at this point.
