Been testing my products distilled,bud, for Δ8 and Δ9 % levels at a lab.
But that takes sending ,waiting time, and cost every test 50 euro’s What is the best home test kit that is affordable.
I now a good test rapport needs to be done with a expensive machine 10k/100k but maby there is a home tester thats 5% off thats fine for quick tests.
Saw a few but i need to now if work well? (had a google search)
for MyDx – CannaDx Sensor & Analyzer (not really clear from the reviews)
Sri gc will separate d8 and d9 and requires far less ancillary equipment than does an HPLC. Accuracy is dependant on your injection and calibration techniques. I think you’re looking around 13k. You can use many different pure solvents. Your method is heat ramping. Pretty simple stuff.
The company you are referencing even says you should use another testing method to quatify precisely on the patented case study… They say it is a QUALITATIVE testing method not quantitate. The first quote shows up to a FOURTY EIGHT % testing difference between gc-FIC and their TLC which i read is for quantitate while ms is to identify cannabinoids but why do we use MS so much in cannabis if FIC is used for quantitative reasons off topic, excuse me.
“The average percentages of each sample were compared. Differences between 15,40% and 48,82% were detected in quantifying THC and a 34,25% in quantifying CBD when comparing the two methods. The ratio of THC:CBD was proportionally comparable (Graph 2). When CBD and CBN were below 1%, there was an incoherence in terms of quantification, even though they were detected properly. This was the first straight forward comparative study between GC-FID and the TLC alpha-CAT’s protocol.”
" Alpha-CAT’s testing method has shown to be a valid qualitative tool for cannabinoid detection and gives reproducible results . However, only technicians well trained with alpha-CAT’s kit method can obtain semi quantitative results by using the alpha-CAT’s cannabinoids rulers . Gas or Liquid chromatographic analysis need to be used to quantify precisely cannabinoids, and other important secondary active compounds present in Cannabis."
Than why defend it when i was saying it was a ineffective method for quantitative results? OP was asking for a testing method within a 5% MOE, i dont believe you can consider something quantitative with a 48% Margin of error.
edit: holy shit i re read. thats a comma between 48, and 82 not a period
it my hands, validated against the GC, +/- 10% seemed realistic.
its the bosses hands? Guessing would have been better.
why defend it? I’m not. I am suggesting it is a lot cheaper to get into that any other option, and that in the right hands it is certainly useful for at home testing. it was considered appropriate for state mandated testing by both OR and WA for a number of years. CA too if irc.
$100 will get you on your way.
have you run it? compared it to GC?
I HAVE.
imo it is worth the effort for those with the right mindset.
(that might qualify as defending it )
edit: how about a link so we can all read the whole article?
eg things like
TLC is a low-cost method for cannabinoid analysis and approved by the United Nation Office on Drugs and Crimes (UNODC) for Cannabis routine
control of cannabinoid content and of Cannabis origin (Laboratory and Scientific Section UNODC, 2009) .
I have not run it, being educated on so and than debating it IS quantitative when you were familiar and actually practiced the companies method vs me reading one study’s a lil more disheartening. Flex that ethos, you are telling people it is quantitative while having experience in a subject tested and proven to have a 82% MARGIN OF ERROR?!
that is defending it/ a counterargument. Im not here to argue on testing or whos done it personally, that hurts your credibility even more that you are defending a method so inaccurate. i have a soft spot for misinformation/people being led astray.
wow really? so if the FDA approves it that means it all good now? so your just going to ignore hard data and listen to the governments opinion. ok im out
Are you seriously arguing that there is no such thing as quantitative TLC? Google that shit man, doesn’t take a degree. For what it’s worth, you can apparently buy a functional GCMS that’s 20 years old for $4500 (ask me how I know) but TLC is effectively used to quantify stuff every day of the week all over the world
I said i dont believe their is an accurate method within a 5% MOE, Send me a study man,
I was open to links, why do you think i read @cyclopath 's before counter arguing. I did google it i did not find anything. You can prove me wrong with a study at any time.
The last one used showed me that people claim it but the studys say otherwise.
Am i seriously debating the accuracy of something on a “scientific” educational forum? Yes… yes i am…
edit: their are quite a lot of other studies in that link you sent. id be lying if i said i was going to read thru them all rn but im not going to invalidate the possibility of its existence.
“The
lack of an adequate HPTLC method for the quantification of
∆9
-THC in cannabis and unavailability of both acidic and neutral
cannabinoid reference standards directed the objective of this
study: the development and validation of a rapid and accurate
HPTLC method using ICH (1996/2005) guidelines for the quantification of ∆9
-THC and qualitative analysis of the major neutral
cannabinoids in cannabis. Method validation was performed
with pure cannabinoid standards and method performance was
evaluated by analysing two different cannabis varieties and comparing results with those obtained with a validated HPLC system
(OMC, 2008).”
off topic, excuse me.
)