So…Big Sur Scientific has had 5 days to follow the link I provided them.
Guess I’ll do that paraphrase:
Much like the other non-distructive units (eg Sage, GemmaCert) they’re using IR.
what differentiates them is they will build a custom profile for your material. They claim this gives them the ability to quantify terpenes in flower and extracts. Without a standard (or even a solid ID yet), quantifying Δ10/10a THC would not be possible but if Δ10/10a is an issue for you, there are probably some tricks that could be played to at least bring it to your attention.
they’re more expensive that their competitors… and charge for those profiles.
Had a question come to me regarding sugar analysis…here was my reply (inadvertently off-list):
If I understand you correctly, you’re looking for a way to assess the ‘completeness’ of an enzymatic cellulose to fermentable sugar conversion. Seems to me there should be some inexpensive ways to do this that come out of brewing tech…like fermentation hydrometers (measure specific gravity/density where one compound is the main contributor, like glucose/sucrose), or refractive index devices, like this one:
Hope this helps…I detoured myself looking for more specific sugar analytical methods, so I might be able to get a handle on sugar extraction with ethanol. We get gross deposits like this in our WF if we don’t do brine washes (Ugh!). These deposits are hard (read: brittle), water soluble, sweet (yes, I did taste them!), and really foul up our WFD. I’m targeting them for derivatization, so I can identify them by GC/MS.
I’ve been using an HP 6890 GC-FID with a method from Restek. I was wondering what methods others are using because I don’t feel too confident about my results.
HPLC is the way to go for the quantification. It’s fairly expensive and solvent dependent which is why I went wuth GC. Realistically in house testing is for my own process improvements so I will just run three tests and average the results.
Just saw the SRI 420 today. For $4k I’d say it was the best bang for your buck and I can see setting folks up with them. What I saw suggests a longer column could certainly be hacked in on top of the fid to get better resolution.
Just curious what 2 detectors you had on a single column? I assume 1 fid? What was the other and what were you testing for with it?
Would their split ferrule setup allow 2 columns on the same injector? I imagine not because who’s to guarantee exactly “x” amount goes to column a and “x” amount goes to column b
I knew that was coming…don’t remember & I couldn’t find the machine in SRIs current line up.
It was their cannabis “pesticide detection” machine, but wasn’t particularly suited for the task. Certainly not the way it’s owner was running it. I walked away once I figured out just how little it was contributing to patient safety. Apparently I didn’t file the details.
Once I got it setup and running, I realized their “pesticide screen” was nonsense (as it was being implemented). There was no convincing the company owner of that.
He also handed out lab samples as party favors…so I had to find work elsewhere.
I’ve had a couple of projects that employed SRI GCs…if you proceed cautiously with their simpler detectors (FID, maybe ECD), you’re probably on solid ground. NPD (Nitrogen-phosphorus by “thermionic” detection) and DELCD (halogens) are a lot shakier. The biggest problem with the latter two is that the detector elements lose sensitivity gradually, potentially letting you think you’re still getting data, while it’s disappearing before your very eyes. Both have “consummable” components that always seem to go south when you need to answer a burning question.
Those detector elements aren’t cheap…both the NPD “beads” and the DELCD “reactors” were a few hundred each, The NPD is a nitrogen/phosphorous detector, very sensitive (pg/g) to a lot pf pesticides that are nitrogen containing, so you could target myclobutanil as an example. The DELCD is a “dry electrolytic conductivity detector” that’s sensitive to halogen-containing compounds. Both are largely element-specific, so they’re blind to compounds that don’t contain those elements.
I know Sri went back on their site and rewrote the pesticides information for all their gc’s. Apparently they don’t work too well. That text in the post above that I took from their site was all crossed out and old information
For the right application, SRI GCs can work well. Trace analysis of pesticides is not that application. Visit a testing lab and ask what they’re using for pesticides. Remember, the action levels are parts per billion, in relatively complex samples.
