Just now reading the Cannabis QAP released back in July 2021. Anyone else combed through? Thoughts? Specifically in section 2, pages 29-48.
3 Likes
For any laboratories or in-house folks on this forum that are not already aware, you should sign up for these exercises. These are free proficiency tests that would typically run you $1k+ to perform.
The only downside is the process is slow.
6 Likes
We all discuss the need for procedural verification across all labs so maybe we get similar results. Ahhh Testing…besides the Chads, this is one of the biggest thorns in our sides.
2 Likes
Bless you… More.of this litwrature is required.
This will be my halloween read!
thanks mate good read
2 Likes
Am I getting this right… they sent out decarbed hemp oil and had labs report on the CBDA and THCA? And then the RSD on those is huge? Mmm real shocker there.
1 Like
It seems there was trace amount of the acidic forms in the oil.
Most laboratories reported that THCA was present in the samples at or below their LOQ (nonzero values). The low levels resulted in large consensus ranges and between-laboratory variabilities (28 % to 85 %)
Though, when submitting results you are not allowed to report a “ND”, only <LOQ which needs to be reported as well (e.g. <0.01%), so really it was a lot fewer laboratories who actually saw the trace amounts.
• Approximately 5 % of the laboratories reporting results used LC-MS or LC-MS/MS
methods with most having adequate LOQs to determine THCA at the consensus levels in
Hemp Oil 1, Hemp Oil 2, and Hemp Oil 2a.
• Approximately 93 % of the laboratories reporting results used LC-UV or LC-PDA methods with only 17 %, 22 %, and 12 % of these laboratories with sufficient LOQs to determine THCA at the consensus levels in Hemp Oil 1, Hemp Oil 2, and Hemp Oil 2a, respectively.
Edit: Had to look at the submissions guidelines again for clarity:
If the analyte was not detected (below LOD) or not quantified (below LOQ), the numerical
limit (LOQ) should be entered (e.g., “< 0.02” instead of “< LOQ” or “ND”).