Hey everyone
Can I get some possible answer please !
Lab processed oil and we tested it it popped with a fraction of D8. Can carbon cause that ??? Different people are telling me diff things so I wanted to ask the community for answers as well. Suspecting color remediation gone wrong and carbon didn’t get out all the way therefore caused weird fractions
Please help image|690x457
You can get small amounts of isomerization like that just from heat
How big was the batch?
imo a D8 level of .0918% will not do much to throw off desired cannabinoid %s, pretty negligible amount and in my experience not uncommon to see. i wouldn’t worry until you get this on a repeated basis and/or at higher %
Batch was about 700 lbs
It’s a pretty well known fact that powders will cause isomerization… Just saying…
Acid typically is the culprit in a lot of these isomerization cases. If it was just heat, I would expect it to tend more toward degradation products like CBN. That being said, heat would speed up acid catalyzed isomerization, so it would make an existing acid problem worse.
Lab testing for D8 is kind of a crapshoot, unless they’re specifically testing for it. It’s really difficult to differentiate between D8 and D9 on a chromatogram unless your method is specifically designed to separate and resolve the two peaks. It’s entirely possible the lab is just reporting some noise at the D8 retention time in their method because D8 and D9 peaks overlap significantly in many standard chromatography methods.
Edit: Just double checked the CoA. Less than 0.1% D8 is nothing to be concerned about. Normal variance between multiple runs of the exact same sample can vary a few percentage points so your 0.09% D8 is well within the margin of error on most testing methods. Based on this I’m leaning more toward #2 above.
Double Edit: Damn 96% total cannabinoids and a good minor profile? However your lab made it, that’s some damn fine product there.
That could be naturally occurring at that level also. I’ve got a strain where the distillate consistently tests between 1-1.5% d8. That’s with no crc or powder filtration.
Which strain? Is it just one special cut or it’s true breeding??
It’s a IBL sour diesel I’ve had for 17-18 years now.
@Dr.stanky do you see D8 in flower tests?
this strain might be really useful for folks trying to educate OLCC in Oregon.
@notagreedybroker your thought that it could be your CRC process is certainly in line with OLCC’s thinking. Where are you located?
New OLCC rules for artificially derived cannabinoids and CRC
What’s it smell like?
I’d probably have to have them run a trace analysis on it to catch it in the flower, but it should show up on that.
I usually don’t run strain specific if I plan to distill it, so it took a while to figure out what was doing it. As a combined salad run the numbers were even lower on the d8. I started to separate runs and found the culprit.
After that I had just assumed the little bit of d8 was why I’ve liked that sour cut for so long. It’s only recently been replaced as my daily driver/go to work strain. The thc is not as high as a lot of the things going around today, but it’s got this special high I had previously attributed to the terp profile.
Dead skunk run over by a leaking tanker truck 
All South African strains have natural D8
0.1/1.3% Durban poison the most famous
The Durban Poison I worked with for several years would hit 5-6% THCV in an extract sometimes. Never saw d8 via GC FID or third party COA.
Got a different cut in the oven right now. OLCC will be getting flower COA’s if there is any D8 In there…
Ive never heard of african strains containing d8 but have heard that about THCv, specifically in durban poison
The thing is, heat alone CAN cause isomerization. Acid is just a catalyst, allowing the isomerization reaction to take place at lower temperatures. Pressure can increase the rate at which heated isomerization occurs, too.
This brings up a good point, @mcpikeig . Instead of just outright banning D8 and other isomers, the OLCC and other regulators should decide upon a maximum allowable percentage, just as they have done with D9-THC in “hemp”.
But then they’d need to get a maximum % allowable and actually justify that… Aka research/work to form a valid opinion… Nah not gonna happen anytime soon. Expect more phoned in guidance that makes minimal sense with maximal CYA. Crowd source is the best you’ll get I’d bet.
Oh, you mean like all that research & work they did to validate their decision to assign the [<0.3% Δ9-THC = “hemp”] regulatory parameter? 
I am painfully aware of the arbitrary nature of these decisions, @Labdog … In truth, I don’t actually support the idea of setting such limits, but I feel like that should have been the first small step in the wrong direction, so they could at least have some insight into what they are doing wrong, rather than just blotting their eyes and boxing their ears from the very outset of such a myopic overreach, ya know?!
There would be much more room for innovation in the hemp market if the regulatory parameter was even raised to <1% Δ9-THC. It’s a shame how many high-yielding/disease-resistant strains are not commercially viable solely because of this arbitrary number.
