the less ingredients in the pot before you add acid and heat, the more likely you are to get a defined end product. beyond that, I have no data.
just sending samples out to any old third party lab doesn’t really solve the “side reactions” problem imo. you need to sit down with the chemist and examine the before and after chromatograms meticulously to know if you’re getting off target products formed.
side reactions have me concerned with using d8 in any products. I tried ordering some off someone here, had a negative response and that got me thinking about what the other 11ish % of the distillate was. So, i don’t sell d8
Thanks. I have already talked to the chemist at our testing lab to do just that!
Our current experiment are on CBD isolate, much simple to understand whats going on. Im done with the distillate part, Always come up with weird results.
Interesting, thanks. Maybe I should convert a bit to isolate and try both that way too for comparison sake.
I threw a buddies “D8” sample on the GC I’m currently trying to pull back to functional only yesterday.
in addition to d8, CBD, delta9, and CBN, there was also a peak in the vicinity of THCV which I have come to associate with D10…along with a couple of others I can’t begin to put names on.
BTW, i used to experiment my shit, vaped, and really have not any weird side effect… im used to try pharmacologically Active components and fairly confidente that at least my batches where at least not deadly harmful…
I ordered some that gave me a headache and instant stomach lockup/constipation; made me very concerned about cleanup/side reactions, residual reagents…
This is what I want to avoid.
I used my stuff all night long during new years Eve, like literally all night long, really nice Buzz with no side effects, also It helped a lot with alcool hangover too…
Btw, i washed my stuff very well, innorder to remove solvents and acid at least… Dont know the side product, but at least for my experience nothing harmful, at least in short time (i clearly dont know long terme exposure)
SRI-GC with FID:
THCV has the shortest retention time. presumed D10 peak has a very similar retention, haven’t had them in the same injection. CBC runs closer (essentially on top of) to CBD in this setup.
only those running HPLC can mistake CBC and D10. even then it depends on the column and method used, and how much attention the operator is paying to the other wavelengths on their DAD.
It sounds like I should send you the samples after I’m done instead of our local lab…
nah, the GC in question is one I’ve been using for years, but getting time on it these days requires co-ordination (I’m getting it back in shape so I can use it, but it belongs to a facility that I no longer work for). you really want an analytical chemist with an LC-MS who is willing to spend some time digging into the ID’s.
a GC FID can only tell you how long it took to get through the tube, and that it burns. a tandem quadrapole mass spec gives waaaay more clue
Ok, so what’s the best testing method to determine all the constituents of a product with absolute certainty? No guessing. When I’m done it would be great to know with absolute certainty there isn’t anything harmful from side reactions?
triple quad MS with a trap should get you most of the way there.
pretty sure you can do denovo ID’s with those critters. there will certainly be folks who will want more data than this sort of machine can provide for denovo ID’s, but if you’re starting from a defined product, chances are you won’t have anything showing up that nobody has ever seen before.
where is the “ask a chemist” button?!?
I know @MagisterChemist has spent time running 3rd party analytics.
@AlexSiegel is probably the most qualified to answer D10 questions.
@anon6488101?
Happy to run tests for you, you are in california so it shouldn’t be difficult. DM me here.
We will quantify d8, d9, d10 and d6a10a THC for you. Additional mystery peaks will be reported as well
Based on the limited info I have (because I didn’t go back and read through this entire thread) LC/MS is what I would suggest for as close to “absolute certainty” as possible.
You have to remember that LC is the separation and the MS is the detector. So if you don’t get great separation, then your detector can struggle with providing certainty (which is a factor of repeatability/reproducibility/accuracy/precision, all of which are/should be covered in the method validation, provided you have a good chemist).
That being said, mass spec uses a different type of detection method (as opposed to UV/VWD/DAD) called a “mass to charge ratio” that’s essentially unique to each analyte under investigation. This is why mass spec is used in clinical toxicology (how i was trained), especially as it pertains to drug discovery. In other words, you have to have quite a bit of certainty when analyzing a rehab patient’s urine before you report a positive result and then potentially ruin that individuals life. So I’d say it’s as close as you might be able to get.
When it comes to the data analysis, it’s possible to still have false positives for a number of reasons (usually chromatography related), but some data analysis programs give you an option to download a chemical “library” which acts as a reference database, allowing you to actually look at the statistics of how likely the peak is to be a certain analyte.
So “certainty” I think would be a factor of the lab you’re using, the skill of the chemist, the equipment, and the sample itself.
