Originally Posted by Gray Wolf
I submit that the right side of the curve does represent THC conversion to CBN, even if it is a decarboxylation graph.
The CBN doesn't rise proportionally, because its being broken down as well.
Conversion to CBN is conversion to CBN, which can only be determined by finding out how much CBN there is, not by finding how much THC you don't have. None is shown. CBN is quite stable and along with CBD suffers from none of the problems of THC distillation. The text from the second graph says At higher temperature, D9-THC is oxidised to form cannabinol. As the sum of D9-THCA-A, D9-THC and cannabinol does not reach 100%, it is assumed that polymeric material is formed also. If the time of exposure to temperature is changed, temperature needs to be adjusted to maximal conversion. With the chosen time, the maximal conversion is in the same range as it is in the injector of the GC system.
Let's analyze this statement. First, the second graph is not the authority you think, at face value, because no time is ever given. Kind of an important variable? Next, just because they say some reaction occurs, does not mean that it happens instantly or quantitatively or anywhere near.
Oh duh now I see that 8 is just a different representation of the handful of experiments in 3. So 15 minutes
. They didn't mention the intermediate dihydrocannabinol even though they showed it on the stacked chromatogram figure 3.
That's the better representation. That's one of the few places you'll see dihydrocannabinol mentioned much less shown on HPLC, yet they don't mention THCA converting to CBNA. They mention it as impurity in their THCA but don't show a peak for it. Anyhow it's not a ton of science being done here really, once again these are only what they are. This is an analytical not production journal.