How to recognize a isomerized D9 coa

So several members have asked my opinion on coa s of Thc D9 distillates
Most of you know that in general I like to make products that resemble another whether that is infused flower or hasj as long as one is honest as to how it was made
Well up next is the high Thc D9 Isomerized distillate on the list


This is a typical example of what such a COA would look like
It will contain in 95% of the cases the 3 main cannabinoids
Cbd as in the Cbd issolate that was the starting material of the isomerization reaction

Thc delta 9 wich is the goal of this reaction

Thc delta 8 wich is a consequence of this reaction

And NO other cannabinoids present wich is telltale sign that this product is NOT made from Thc D9 rich biomass ( cannabis)

In any natural D9 distillate there are always minors ( small amounts of diffrent cannabinoids ) often present in amounts no more than 0.5% of TAC (Total Amount of Cannabinoids )
Cbg as the mother of most cannabinoids is often present
CBN as the degradation product of THC is often present ( if fresh biomass was extracted and the distillation done on a wiper or a skilled spd runner this might be a little difrent )
And then the others
Cbd-v Thc-v (cbc) etc etc so at least 2 of these minors is present in 95% of the cases

Is your product safe a clean isomerized product is.
yet sadly I am seeing reports that many of these products are not cleaned up to
Par ( including my own )
So wich should you buy ?
For now I would recomend buying distillates with as TAC of at least 95% visible cannabinoids and that does not oxidize differently (super fast )

Tac 98% of 85% D9 <less phosforic on ethanol
Tac 95-98%. 73% D9 < less ptsa on hexane
Tac 95-98%. 93% D9 < less phosforic on heptane
Tac 98% 91% D9< ionic resins
Tac 98.6% 97.3% D9 <. TiBA on hexane

High D9 isomerizations can be preformed with
Many more compounds
Of wich I have no refrance
Beta-molsieves , CSA , and other sulfonic acids , etc etc

Least one should buy is a distillate with no scent wich in general is a sign that the isomerization product has been distilled

Hope this clarify s most


D8 could also originate from trace of AC following color remediation of natural d9.

True some minor such as CBC, CBG, CBD, THCv, CBN should be there. But one could still add some of them, eg mix in some cbd/cbg extract with it…

The definitive fingerprint of synthetic products is the presence of a series of THC isomers (exo-THC in particular) which are never seen neither in natural products, nor in natural d9 partially altered because of CRC.


So find some minor cannabinoids, a sprinkle of cbg isolate maybe- blend in some hemp mother liquor,

Voila, minor cannabinoids


So people should ask for the chromatogram (and compare it to a truly natural sample). All notable peaks present in the cannabinoid window should be identified. The list of natural candidates is limited.

1 Like

giphy (3)
Hempsters: “Oh you want full spectrum?”


Very good point the Thc isomers will be a clear indicator yet sadly they stay hidden for most GC are not setup with these standerds
As for mixing and blending all can be replicated for sure
An understanding of strains can give valeuble info as well
Simple example Dutch amnesia haze has NO detectable level of Cbd in a concentrate it barely gets to 1% Cbd content if does
Knowing what biomass was supposedly used to make your D9 distillate can give an indication of the content to expect

There are several labs tha show results and coa on the web some reading treu these will give a nice foundation as to wich strains hold what


Issue is most d9 distillates are not organized based on original strain.


Indeed most standards remain elusive and accessibke only to licensed labs… besides the exo-THC which is more widely available from Sigma and not regulated (at least not the last time I bought one CRM).

I believe one should expect CBD:d9 ratio between 1:50 and 1:200. Lower ratio is suspect for cut. More is not imossible, but rarer.


I find myself asking. When it comes out @ 99.9%, will it really matter?


It would matter to me. I will always pay more for THC extracted from weed as opposed to THC made from CBD.

I’m probably just some dumb idiot but I liken it to lab manufactured meat. Sure, they’re the same molecular makeup technically, but I’m gonna buy grass fed beef instead and happily pay a premium for it.


@Dr_Jebril @iontrap @kcalabs and anyone else with a functioning mass spectrometer. Is the converted molecule (d9) similar or identical?


I find this comparison to be flawed ultimately.

Grass fed beef is the function of that animals care and life. Distillate is not. Distillate can come from literal garbage no one would ever touch otherwise.

What would be the difference between 1000 grams of molecularly identical d9 from boof and 1000 grams from conversion, assuming both were cleaned up to 99.9%?

Is boof weed more valuable than CBD isolate and some time to make and clean up an identical product?

Let’s not pretend distillate is made from premium flower


Like I said, I’m dumb, and a bit of a hippie. My experiences with my health have shown me that anything I consume should have the absolute minimum of processing done to it.

In my opinion, the flawed logic exists in growing a plant that makes one molecule, and converting it into another molecule that literally the same plant already makes. Just get your target molecule from the plant directly instead of using subversive methods to accomplish the same goal.


I understand what you’re saying and why; and by all means, you’re entitled to doing so! I have no issue one way or another.

On a small scale, this may be fine, but to the industry - and I’m talking pharmacology not cannabis, this doesn’t work. Large scale drug manufacturing doesn’t rely on getting the ideal target compound from a plant; thank god for that.

I wonder whats likely to have more contaminates. Bio mass or isolate.

It can in fact. The interest of CBD is that can be sourced from plants at scale much more easily, since hemp can be grown in more places, and without specific infrastructures for security. Also it does not compete with d9 flowers.


You say that as though all the CBD kilos didn’t come from poorly handled hemp plants being mass harvested by combines. Half the CBD biomass I’ve seen had bugs, dirt, and plastic in it. So, you’re taking this (generally) extremely poor quality biomass, isolating the CBD, and then using strong acids to convert it. You then have to clean it up, redistill it (again) and then run chromatography to get it up to 99.9% with no fear of toxic byproducts in the ppb range.

Once again, I’ll take the cow over the hotdog.

I believe thats called pharmaceutical grade.

You may liken it to:

This analogy is flawed again. You have a hot dog at the end of the day no matter what, from bio mass or CBD. Your cow isn’t any less processed.

Are you denying shipments that use adsorbents or AC as they absolutely alter the chemical composition of your hotdog made from your special grass fed beef?

I suspect not.

Yes, the end product goes through distillation and chromatography; doesn’t your biomass distillate?

I seem to remember a whole shit load of MEDICAL marijuana, some I smoked personally, being contaminated for years.

Being plant based doesn’t make it better, safer or otherwise. I have invested an ungodly amount of my personal money on GC-FID and now GC-MS systems so I can test what I consume. I know as a consumer I am far and away alone in doing so.

Molecule to molecule, coming from a plant enzyme or an acid, the end result is the same.

1 Like

Of course it can. I’m not arguing it doesn’t happen. I’m arguing that to get the same end result we use any means we can to get the compound of interest. Be it enzymes, bacteria, ion exchange or acids.

The end result is what matters, caring how you got to it is only a matter of preference and not science.

Can you prove you are not affecting the chirality of the molecule?

I’m not. Care to explain how they are altered?

Sure, am I doing it to remove known carcinogens? No, I’m doing it to increase potency.

'Member when we thought the Earth was flat because we couldn’t prove otherwise with science yet? Good times.

Point being just because the science currently states there is no difference does not mean there’s no chance of that changing in the future.

Magic is just science we don’t understand yet.

1 Like