D8 still high and needs a small tweak but TAC is good
10 Likes
@TenneseeJed looking really nice!
It is starting to look like you and a handful of others can get 98-99% total cannabinoids consistently.
We havenât added more analytes to this test, so maybe your method isnât producing those huge isomer (more specifically the isos) concentrations.
Compliance is one thing, but having the unknowns down to a minimum is where the quality narrative needs to move toward.
11 Likes
Itâs all in the work up 
1 Like
Is that 2nd or 1st?
What are those other 4 peaks?
Weâre thinking iso-d8, iso-d9, cis-d9, and maybe d6a,10a or another isomer d7?
And probably more isomers in those peaksâŚ
2nd pass
1 Like
So, a few look to be the same size as the d9 peak. Does that mean weâre actually looking at 70-80% d8//d9 and another 20-30% is other isomers?
Or maybe a better question. Whatâs the total measure area of all peaks; known and unknown. compared to the area of the d8//d9 peaks?
Signal for one compound does not equal the same signal for a different compound. It depends on the detector. On the GC-MS/MS, the signal is dependent on how the compound behaves in the mass spec. d8 and d9 behave/ionize/fragment differently despite being very similar compounds.
On a UV/PDA detector, it depends on how they absorb UV light. You cannot quantify unknowns based on other compounds, it is simply not accurate. The only way to accurately quantify these compounds is to compare them to a reference standard at a known value.
1 Like
Did you test 100mg sample and 99.9% of it was d9 and d8? So thereâs only 0.1mg non thc?
Possibly and then consider our measurement uncertainty.
Those peaks on the GC are all MW 314, so theyâre most likely all THC isomers given CBD is ND.
Anything between cbd and cbn should have a similar molecular weight, mind you Iâve only ran a gc-fid for a few years, so maybe the chromatography is different?
By your own reasoning could any peaks outside the range be responsible for even more of the weight of the sample as you said âyou canât quantity without a standardâ? So this could be a 50% pure sample by weight as easily as it could be a 99.9% pure?
Does your COA only then say the ratio of d9 to d8 and nothing else? Is it verified by weight?
So what % area are they in relation to the d8 and d9? As their area should count the same?
And what is that uncertainty (invisible error bars)?
+/-3%
Ah I guess that makes sense
So for every 100g of this distillate youâd expect no less than 96-99g of thc d9 and thc d8 combined? The other isomers wouldnât weigh more than the 1-3g? Or what is the margin of error there? Just unknown?
Yeah, so our MU is lower for concentrates compared to flower, which is closer to 12% and is probably even lower now compared to when we last calculated it.
Iâd say that Iâd agree with those statements. The uncertainty is applied to each analyte. Trying to account for every last 0.01% in a sample with confidence is futile.
MU is affected by the standard, instrument, volumetric flasks, the personnel, the equation used to calculate MU, the environment, etc.
1 Like
What do you wash your silica with?