Those urchins look like cbd forming but you got it tested…
I’m at a loss too
finally someone said it! that would be my guess, due to the nuke’em and azamax
I would say D10 makes sense because of the sulphur. Not the nukem or azamax.
2 Likes
ah.
yeah idr what exactly makes the D10 isomer, but I remember it being related to shit being sprayed on the plant. so when I saw nuke’em/azamax, that was my first thought.
and this
1 Like
(first hit for D10 Sulphur…)
1 Like
Getting everything sent off for another round of testing. Hopefully have some updates for everyone early next week!
In the meantime here’s the chromatogram for the chalky white substance I was able to isolate!
Oh yeah d10, it always gets mislabeled as cbc with the outdated labs
8 Likes
The bastards. I even asked initially if that could be it and was told “defintely not” but that’s just what I pulled out? This would be minus the cannabinoids fraction that popped with thca… so still a bit of a mystery I suppose until I get this next test done.
The worst part is they KNEW it wasn’t cbc but still denied my idea of d10
If u relayed that it was extracted with bho from traditional trim, i would probably said the same thing, “no way” but somethings definitely getting converted somehow.
There isnt any possible way u still have some of the biomass unextracted do u or even some crude that wasnt processed? Id love to see where it actuallt converted over. U said u made batters and other products with it, so my assumption is that it happened during the distilling with the high temps
1 Like
Nah they didn’t have that info, the only thing they were aware of is that it fully crashed out on me and it was “distillate” in their defense my state highly discourages mingling between the testing facilities and the producers. So there isn’t really a good cohesion of knowledge, it’s very frustrating.
Unfortunately no. This is a third party contract so everything was ran and sent out the door once it passed testing. I would be able to track down test results and could probably get my hands on the chromatograms for it however.
folks have been discussing that the “mystery peak” wasn’t CBC since 2018…
2 Likes
I honestly got tunnel vision and was focused on it being a contaminant because of the thca.
Mostly why I figured I’d post, started to feel like I was in an echo chamber ha
I also will almost always question my own process/tech before turning to something outward.
2 Likes
Retested and it is most definitely d10, appreciate the feedback and resources provided by everyone!
10 Likes
Would outing the lab that called CBC be appropriate now?
And/or reporting their demonstrated competence to the appropriate regulatory body so others aren’t also forced to pay $$ for nonsense?
At the very least they need a remedial reading list and a pointer to the appropriate CRM’s…
2 Likes
Unfortunately CBC elutes basically directly on top of d10 and has a similar finger print.
The kicker is that d6a10a elutes even more directly on top of Cbc and it has an even more similar UV fingerprint. So even the lab that identified it as d10 may have missed some d6a10a in the front of that peak.
We can’t really criticize labs for this mistake in any state that doesn’t specifically regulate d10. And right now to my knowledge there’s only one state that does that - Utah
I beg to differ.
There is doing the bare minimum the state requires, and there is doing it right.
If, as an analytical lab director, you can’t tell your customers what they need to know, because you don’t know enough about cannabinoid isomerization during their (Standard Operating ) procedures, then you ought be reading more.
@SauceBossNW how do you feel about that characterization? Am I expecting too much again?
You’re probably right that having something in place to avoid misreporting of d10/CBC is something every lab should have.
Some labs in California at one point stopped testing for cbc altogether. Others like KCA will tell you it’s there but you have to pay a bit extra for a gcms result if you want real testing.
1 Like
While we certainly can (and do) provide that level of expertise to our customers, I do not think that is par for the course for our industry. Many of our competitors undercut our prices by cutting costs wherever they can legally, such as limiting their cannabinoid panels to the bare minimum required by the state and hiring the cheapest labor they can find. Those analysts/QA folks aren’t going to be examining peaks with anywhere near the level of expertise or attention to detail that is due.
In my experience, most labs aren’t willing to take a deep dive into the chromatograms for individual customer samples unless you pay them consulting fees, and even then you may just get an answer of “what we originally found stands”.
So while I personally don’t think you are expecting too much, the reality of the situation is that COAs (and cannabis lab testing in general) have become commodified.
6 Likes