Hi folks,
I’m curious about the production methods for THC-P, and possible impurities remaining in the final product.
Does anyone know what they typically are, and how big a health risk they pose?
Edit: After reading a few more posts, I’ll accept the “it’s complicated and we don’t really know” position. I am still curious to hear opinions from people more knowledgeable about this. What is a realistic perspective for the risks and how clean is “clean enough?”
I sure hope we’re farther along as this is being sold all over.
@Photon_noir what say you?
@kcalabs how about the testing angle? What do you see?
@LaurelCrestLabs what’s your take?
To further the “its complicated and we don’t know” statement…if it were pharma and impurities could not be tolerated, then the API would need to be purified via crystallization or chromatography. And if someone was doing crystallization or chromatography on an API, then it really shouldn’t be a challenge to reach 97-99% purity.
If you consider the synthesis route of CBDP to THCP you see much of the same byproducts as the CBD to THC route, but rather their -P homolog variants. Of course, the purity of the starting material matters, plus the route taken to get to CBDP in the first place.
So the primary impurities would probably be off-target products, similar to as described in the post “A working list of byproducts formed during acid catalyzed CBD conversions.”
I have read claims like “you may inadvertently create any number of unwanted and unknown byproducts. It’s common for these byproducts that form to have toxic or carcinogenic side effects.” And semi/synthetic “natural” cannabinoids have a bad reputation as “gas station chemical soup.” Heavy metals, nasty products from the catalysts, etc.
So of course, higher purity is preferred. But absent >97-99% purity, is there evidence of specific compounds known to be harmful? And are these found by typical quality analysis?
The genuine answer, so far, is “No.” None of the compounds found in analyses of properly prepared semisynthetic cannabinoids (iow, all catalyst, solvent, and other reagents have been removed) is actually known to be harmful at the levels found in user dosages. In fact, many of them have been found by one or more studies to have medicinal effects of some kind.
If referring to the weirdo cannabinoid byproducts, then yes. Whether or not they are identified properly depends on the standardized references run on the instrument and not. Generally, if an unknown peak falls inside the range of retention times bounding the known (standardized) cannabinoids, then it is most likely another cannabinoid. I have yet to see otherwise in a chromatogram.
Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible for analyses to cover the entire spectrum of potential contaminants (i.e. pretty much all chemicals). That’s why it is important for producers to always have open, unrestricted access to testing, where they should have no fear of reprisal for seeking analysis that includes whatever unusual chemicals they may have used. They just need to ask the testers to look for them, and if they can, they will!.
So…
…are fearmongering horseapples, usually distributed by those with opposing vested interests.
But…
…may be true in places without legal access to testing. Prohibition ALWAYS hurts the quality standards for recreational and home-made medicinal substances.