Potency Testing, Terpene Profiling, & Accuracy?

Bubbleblower · Nov 8, 2014

Only Ornamental said:
to what exactly the % refer to

THC.

Why don't you read the paper, there is some interesting stuff in there (anything with numbers in it

).
For example what happens if you double THC levels?

1. People stop smoking
2. Experienced smokers use a lot less
3. Beginning smokers use more (untill they get experienced)

So "cannabis preparations" are enjoyed responsibly, unlike many other drugs.

Here is the latest on THC levels (in Dutch, but the numbers are Arabic):
THC-concentraties in wiet, nederwiet en hasj in Nederlandse coffeeshops (2013-2014)

Only Ornamental · Nov 8, 2014

Bubbleblower said:
THC.

Why don't you read the paper, there is some interesting stuff in there (anything with numbers in it ).
...
THC-concentraties in wiet, nederwiet en hasj in Nederlandse coffeeshops (2013-2014)

THC? Seriously? ROFLMAO! You made my day!
Although, I suspect you were really serious.

The 'thing' I'm after requires that I understand the language, simple numbers don't help. Fortunately, Dutch isn't a difficult language... Bottom line is, they don't mention the kind of % either. They don't even give the precise method; GC-FID, 25 mg ground sample dissolved in some 'inorganic solvent', and the addition of an 'internal standard' is all they mention. And that's exactly what I'm not happy about. This isn't science, it's fodder for mass-market!

Only Ornamental · Nov 8, 2014

Ras Mason said:
Hi Ornemental.
...
Are you acquainted with the latest news ?

I fail to see how the virtual somatic seeds could be created other than in an in-vitro scenario...
I hear the whole point is to produce exact phenotypical copies in every seed...

Not sure if I can follow you...
A somatic embryo is always obtained by in vitro cultivation and a 'synthetic' seed obviously too (imagine a small plant embryo in a tiny ball of jelly).
The nice thing with these is, that they are like cuttings. Take for example the GG#4, impossible to make seeds more or less identical with the mother because GG#4 is a heterozygous clone only strain. The only way of spreading the 'real' GG#4 is by clones or artificial seeds (some sort of 'micro-clone' and by no means related to a real seed).

Ras Mason said:
to come back to the subject at hands, usng chro/gs for terpenes and HPLC for cannabinoid
is protocole dependant no?
...
lol

Mono- and sesquiterpenes (the ones responsible for flavour) are best analysed by GC/FID, GC/MS, or MS/MS (but UPLC works too) and cannabinoids (only if you're also after the acid forms) is better analysed by liquid chromatography (like UPLC/MS or simple HPLC/UV-VIS or HPLC/ELSD) in order to keep the sample 'carboxylated'.
The protocol is up to the investigator or the law, limits are only set by resolution. But one can 'cheat' by using a protocols without mentioning which one because the results obtained depend on the instrument used and the methods applied. If you don't get your hoped for 25% [m/m], then you just indicate % TIC and the value should suit your needs. It's like statistics, don't trust them unless it was you how manipulated them

.

Only Ornamental · Nov 8, 2014

Bubbleblower said:
THC

Forgot to add the obligatory useful part:

To explain you the thing with the different %, imagine you have 2 blue balloons and 8 red stones to play with. How many % of your toys are blue?
Your answer will likely be 20. The % you chose is a number-%, which in chemistry would correspond to mol-%.
The % THC rather corresponds to weight-%. The balloons weigh maybe 10 grams, the stones maybe 1 kg: That means, 0.99 % of your toys are blue.
As alcohol is very common in everyday life, there's the thing with volume-%: The balloons probably have 5 litres, the stones 4 dl (1 kg with a mean density of 2.5 g/cm3); this means that 92.59 % of your toys are blue.

In chemistry and physics, there are even more units you can use to calculate percentages. Like detection units (the numbers a detector prints on the screen); it's like throwing your toys against the wall and detect the noise in dB. This way, you would possess 0 % blue toys because the 'noise' of a balloon hitting the wall might be below detection limits. The problem here is, there is no direct correlation between noise intensity and toy. It's a bit like using a THC standard to calculate the other cannabinoids as well.

Or you could measure speed (corresponding to the TOF in an MS setup); for fun, the sinking speed of your toys in your bathtub. Obviously, you would again only detect red toys because balloons aren't suitable for 'sinking' experiments. It's like using a GC to quantify flavonoids.

You see, how much you detect not only depends on what you measure but also depends on the suitability of the method and might require that you correct the numbers: Say, you can detect the 'plop' of a balloon hitting the wall, then you can either count loud and low pangs/plops and again calculate the number-% of blue toys or you could use an internal standard, a tennis ball (which makes 'bong'), and mathematically correct the 'plop' and the 'bang'... that would be like using THC as a standard for the quantification of CBD on an HPLC/UV-VIS. If you can still follow me...

Hope you learned something new today

.

Bubbleblower · Nov 8, 2014

Only Ornamental said:
THC? Seriously? ROFLMAO! You made my day!
Although, I suspect you were really serious.

I am glad you got it, but not happy with that insult.

Did you even read the title or the abstract?
Samples of cannabis preparations from randomly selected coffeeshops were analyzed using gas chromatography (GC-FID) for THC, CBD and CBN. So we are clearly talking about the THC levels in these cannabis preparations. They descibe their methods in full detail later on. The research was carried out and validated by 3 of the top European labs for the Dutch Ministery of Health, one of these labs you surely like; the Laboratory of Phytopharmacology at the University of Bern. There is nothing sloppy about this research.

Just read your last post too and apparently you reallly like to insult people, have a good one, I had enough.

Only Ornamental · Nov 8, 2014

Bubbleblower said:
I am glad you got it, but not happy with that insult.
...

Wasn't in any way meant as an insult! Really sorry for the 'lost in translation'!!

We are clearly talking about two different things and that's why.

For one, it is very obvious we are talking about THC; maybe I felt as you do now when you implied I were so 'stupid' not to get that.
We're even, so: :smoke out:

Peace?

Besides, I read your Dutch article as good as I could (using German, English, French, and a lil bit dictionary) and they do not state the methods used. Indicating GC/FID is no method, it's an instrument

.

I didn't say it's bogus but from a scientific point of view the information provided doesn't suffice (I couldn't find any citation regarding the methods or the reference labs).
I read several publications (not necessarily the ones cited because these aren't published by the reference labs but are to a good part standard cannabis literature and stuff by Mechoulam et al. and about cannabis botany and pharmacology) and that's why I'm not happy.

Again, sorry for the confusion.

Bubbleblower · Nov 10, 2014

Only Ornamental said:
Indicating GC/FID is no method, it's an instrument .

Don't change my words please, I never said it was a method, I said this was (just the chemical analysis part):

Chemical analysis

Capillary gas chromatography analysis with flame ionisation detection (GC-FID) was performed at the DeltaLab in Poortugaal, the Netherlands. In the laboratory, marijuana samples were cut into smaller parts and reduced to powder by mortar, and seeds and woody parts were removed. Duplicate 0.100 g samples were each dissolved in a methanol/chloroform (4:1) solution. For the hashish, a piece of fresh material from the inside of the block was cut and duplicate 0.100 g samples were each dissolved in the methanol/chloroform (4:1) extraction solution. Hashish and marijuana samples were ultrasonely extracted in a twostep procedure and centrifuged. The extracts obtained were immediately analyzed. The reference standards for D9-THC, CBD and CBN were obtained from Lipomed (Switzerland).

GC analyses were performed using an HP5890 series II gas chromatograph equipped with an HP7673A auto-sampler, capillary injector and HP flame ionization detector. The column was a 25 m 6 0.32 mm CPsil8CB, df 0.25 m (Varian Chrompack). Totalchrom Nelson (PE-Biosystems) software was used for data analysis. Helium was used as the carrier gas. Nitrogen was used as ‘make-up’ gas for the detector, and hydrogen and compressed air were used as the combustion gases. The following instrument parameters were used for monitoring the samples: air 3.2 Bar; hydrogen 1.8 Bar; column head pressure 12 psi; split flow rate 20 ml/min; make up gas pressure 4.5 Bar; injector temperature 2808C; detection temperature 3008C; oven temperature 2508C isotherm. Runtime was 8 minutes. The instruments were calibrated each time columns were changed and routinely checked for compliance with the calibration response factor for D9-THC relative to internal standard, which was constant. Introduction of cannabis extracts into the GC under the described circumstances results in decarboxylation of all nonderivatized cannabinoid acids to their neutral form. Hence the D79-tetrahydrocannabinol measured corresponds to native D79-tetrahydrocannabinol plus its acid counterparts present in the plant material (Giroud, 2002).

Control and validation of the method used

An internal laboratory audit by an independent Dutch laboratory was performed to verify the method used. To validate the method, 30 samples were also analyzed by both GC-FID and GC in combination with mass spectrometry (GC-MS). These ‘duplo’-results never deviated by more than 5%. Furthermore, a number of samples were analyzed in the DeltaLab and also in two laboratories in the United Kingdom (Huntingdon Forensic Science Services in Huntingdon and Birmingham) and Switzerland (Dr. R. Brenneisen, Laboratory of Phytopharmacology, University of Bern).

The results of the validation studies are shown in Tables 1a, 1b and 1c. Table 1a shows THC levels in 36 homogenized samples of Dutch cannabis (marijuana (n= 24) and hasj (n= 12)) in the DeltaLab and Huntingdon Forensic Science Service in Huntingdon. Table 1b shows THC levels in six homogenized samples of Dutch marijuana measured in three laboratories: the DeltaLab (NL), and the Huntingdon Forensic Science Services in Huntingdon (UK) and Birmingham (UK), respectively. Table 1c shows the THC levels in marijuana measured in two laboratories, the DeltaLab (NL) and the Laboratory of Phytopharmacology of the University of Bern (CH). For this study, both Swiss and Dutch marijuana samples were analyzed. These samples were not homogenized before they were split in two. To compare the results from the different laboratories, a Bablok-Passing analysis for linear regression was performed (Passing and Bablok, 1983).

These reports are not only made for the Dutch government, but also for the WHO, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction.

All members of the UN must make them using the same methods, it's not “fodder for mass-market” at all.

Now in 2004 average THC level in the most popular “nederwiet” (not the strongest) after being handled many times and put in these small dimebags was 20.4% (and that research was flawed as it would have been higher if they had regular customers buy the samples).

We have had varieties score close to 40% just THC.

May be it is interesting to figure out how these THC levels doubled in only 5 years time.

I remember the effect all too well, suddenly we had zombie grass, so I never smoked coffeeshop weed again.

My theory is the doubling of the THC and the coughlock effect were not caused by genetics, but by chemicals.

Only Ornamental · Nov 10, 2014

Bubbleblower said:
Don't change my words please, I never said it...

Hello

(found it

)

Let's make a deal:
Just assume that I mean you no harm nor try to turn the words in your mouth or anything in that direction no matter what. Written posts in foreign languages aren't the best way to have a proper dialogue... (and guilty as charged, I'm often rather blunt, sometimes even a bit cynical but without unfounded provocation never malicious on purpose). :huggg:

Highly appreciate the English version! Thanks for taking the time! Seeing it like that is WAY better. Now, it's really a method and for once a nearly complete and pretty detailed one.
As it was also used by R. Brenneisen (who unfortunately retired and the whole research group with him

) I can quite safely assume that the % given are mass percent [m/m].
But (not criticising you) I still wonder how many of the commercial labs (not federal reference labs) use a 'clean' method...

Could it be that some breeders/vendors spike their weed with pure (isolated or synthetic) THC? I've already heard of artificially flavoured weed and got to try once some orange fizzy and raspberry flavoured stuff, was like Egyptian shisha tobacco: :puke:

Arf · Jul 23, 2016

Chimera does a lot of terpene testing, you might want to share notes with him.

Storm Shadow · Aug 24, 2016

http://www.esciencecentral.org/jour...mic-markers-in-cannabis-2329-6836-1000181.pdf

Cannabinoids and Terpenes as Chemotaxonomic Markers in Cannabis

SirStynkalot · Aug 30, 2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEC_17025
http://american-safe-access.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/AHP_Cannabis_Monograph_Preview.pdf

you'll have to order the Monograph, the full version isn't available online yet that I know of. Between those two documents you will learn everything you need in order to build and own a testing lab from scratch and you will learn how every test works and how to run the test in the most statistically significant way. Reading between the lines will tell you how to cheat almost every states' testing protocols. In order to run one of these businesses professionally you pretty much need a PhD plus work experience but anyone with a scientific mind can work their way through these documents well enough to understand how labs are run, how the tests are designed, what the strengths and weaknesses of each type of test are, etc. You just can't run them professionally. And once you read those you'll understand why you probably wouldn't want to.

Enjoy!

Search

Potency Testing, Terpene Profiling, & Accuracy?

Bubbleblower

Member

Only Ornamental

Spiritually inspired agnostic mad scientist

Only Ornamental

Spiritually inspired agnostic mad scientist

Only Ornamental

Spiritually inspired agnostic mad scientist

Bubbleblower

Member

Only Ornamental

Spiritually inspired agnostic mad scientist

Bubbleblower

Member

Only Ornamental

Spiritually inspired agnostic mad scientist

Arf

Member

Storm Shadow

Active member

SirStynkalot

Member

Latest posts

Latest posts