@bigbone, if you’d like I can put you in touch with our Scientific Director. Send me a DM and I can connect you guys. Our team has worked very long and hard at developing this specialized method to just open source it.
I’m confused as to why you’re now singing the praises of ISO 17025 after saying this in one of the other threads:
I don’t think people understand how BS ISO 17025 is. It is not difficult to get if you have the money to pay a company to come and issue it. The aren’t going to go beyond routine audits. I would be surprised if they responded to a lab customer questioning a lab they accredited with more than a generic response.
@anon1342 yes, DEA registration allows us to handle scheduled substances. I’ll send over a shipping declaration and our license to whoever wants to test.
I am all for lab verification but not single lab. If labs can submit validation reports demonstrating selectivity, precision, accuracy, linearity, and range with decent LOQs they should be able to be considered as a verified lab.
Does anyone have connections with an ISO 9001 standard producer that could possibly produce a proficiency test with 80-99% d8 and a small amount of d9? This would be a great way to verify a labs capability for testing d8 samples.
ISO 17025 doesn’t mean anything, but it does look good to most consumers.
By submitting a validation report for review you could still show the raw numbers and acceptance criteria without giving away IP. Just refer to an attached test method in the method validation report for any prep/instrument parameter references and I feel it would be totally acceptable to not attach the method.
part of the problem is the labs. opening this to multiple labs puts us back to where we are now.
I can show you 10 COA’s that say compliant D8 - they’re all BS.
@kcalabs has proven they’re responsive and qualified. One lab, we can trust vs multiple who we have no idea - and don’t know how responsive they’ll be to address errors. less headaches. If the results are disputed, let the slanger work it out with KCA. if that’s not worked out – have the slanger go to another lab and let the two labs work it out.
We need one result we can reasonably rely on. I can’t rely on results from multiple different labs.
If that is the general concensus of the memebers then I guess do what makes the community happy. I just don’t like the idea of one lab having a monopoly over testing if other labs can demonstrate capability for this testing. It is great if a lab can actually resolve the two peaks but where does accuracy come in? They could be quantifying the d9 at less than 0.3% but if that value lacks accuracy then we are back in the same boat when the Feds test it and it comes back hot.
What about this one ?
Does it fit your standards ?
Here it was a concentrated sample, and quite heterogeneous, aiming at spotting the small things. Usually d8 doesnt come with the right shoulder, and the one on the left is usually limited as well…
The area ratio of d8 is 58.47% and d9 is 3.94%. And the quantitative data (with another machine, another solvent, an internal standard), calibrated with CBD, says it is 56.00% d8, and 3.54% d9.
@AlexSiegel and @kcalabs are you down for a couple comparisons to make sure the community has compliant material?
If we were to throw a third in the mix I would suggest 2 River Labs in Sacramento. They have highest number of reference standards (3 moths ago…might not be the case anymore), and were very consistent with their readings of trace amounts of minor cannabinoids in my Tfree as dialed in tech over 3 months. Inhouse analytics were almost always inline with what 2 Rivers were.
I vote KISS - one lab. if there are problems - expand, change etc. three labs = 3xs the problems
Here’s the value to F4200 members:
D8 was born here by kingofthekush primarily; if F4200 has a reliable verification system, the D8 market will almost need to run thru F4200 b/c outside this verification its the wildwildwest.
I’d like to see F4200 become the gold standard for legitimate D8 development. It was born here – it should stay here and F4200 become the hub for D8 transactions and tek improvements.
one simple, single, reliable lab verification goes a long way to making that happen.
It looks like the D8 and D9 do baseline resolve. Are you using a GC-FID?
Have you identified the peak on the left of D8 between that and the exo? Looks like there might be a shoulder to the right of the D8. What about the peak on the right of the D9?
I’m talking about advancing the legal loophole of D8 - which flipped this from science experiment to business. I’m pretty sure @Kingofthekush420 led this with his posted analysis of of the CSA and then drive to refined commercial techniques. I could easily be wrong – just my recollection of the history.
Big Props to @Photon_noir and all others for their contributions – which were very significant.
This was being done by quite a few people. The forum opened the flood gates, and lead to all the hemp bois selling hot D8, which is what lead us to this point in time where everyones mad about hemp now having D9 in it. Wasn’t ever a problem when we were converting D9 to D8 in licensed markets.
The only peak I identified are marked here.
I doubt about CBL, which might be two peaks, and not CBL.
I also suspect the peak before d9-THCv to be d8-THCv.
Yes there are other things coming with d8 here, right and left.
Also with d9. I don’t know what they are.
There are not always there, it depend on the catalyst it seems. And in natural products, the d8 peak is cleaner, and exo is absent. In turns d9 often have small close neighbors.
