It’s been awhile. Haven’t tried the Gemma. Might work. Don’t recall any sparkling reviews.
I went with the SRI 420 for portability (luggable), but should have let @srihugh1 talk me out of it. It works, but is too limited to justify the price in most instances. The 310 is a better machine. I’d like to add the back flushing trick to the one I’m currently working with.
As far as hplc? I’d probably go with Agilent. Haven’t touched one in years (about to change), but they were the standard once upon a time (HP) when I did use them.
I’ve been using various models of SRI GC-FID since about 2014.
Side question about autosamplers, Ive got a 5890 series 2 GC-FID, and I use the peaksimple data logger to read the data (which is great software). I’ll be setting up my autosampler in a week or two and am wondering if I can hook up the autosampler I have to peaksimple? Its a 7673 autosampler which I guess are commonly used on HP5890’s
I’m not an expert on this.
It was my impression you could start PeakSimple from the GC start output. The GC starts when the AS makes the injection. So everything starts at once.
Alternatively, I think its possible PeakSimple is the master and tells the AS to inject, then the AS tells the GC to start…
We have tested the GemmaCert thoroughly.
It gives very inconsistent results compared to GC and HPLC, and only seems to work well for dry plant material). You can forget to get reliable results when testing extracts of any kind. And if the extract melts around 50 C then it will drip down inside the machine, which must be cleaned, as samples are placed vertically.
OP Light lab is similar in use. Worked decent for flower and trim. Extracts would hit right 1/10 times with the setup provided by them. When using an analytic scale, it didn’t help much.
Never heard of the GammaCert though, their extract sensitivity says +/- 6% - looks like it just uses IR.
GemmaCert uses NIR-technology and can only measure CBD (CBD and CBDA) and THC (THC and THCA).
As I understand, the Lightlab uses HPLC-technology and can analyze 7 different cannabinoids, and offers additional models for cannabinoids and terpenes as well, but cost more than what the SRI Model 310 GC system cost, so GemmaCert and LightLab are in different leagues. Anyway, I cannot recommend buying GemmaCert due to its restrictions and false claims of identifying and quantifying the two most common cannabinoids in extracts. It’s only valid for dry plant material.
For the price of a new Sri 310-mm you can get a refurbished Agilent 1100.
The Sri is likely the better tool for the average user on this forum.
The Agilent is the tool to get if you have access to someone who can run it and want to identify acidics in a single test, or are doing process r&d and don’t want to manually bang samples every 7-15 minutes.
I don’t know anyone who has used a real GC or HPLC that would recommend a gemmacert or lightlab or any of the other similar tools that are marketed to this industry.
couldnt agree more with this statement. I bought a new sri gc for 10k and a used but 100% refurbished still sealed agilient 1100 for 12k. and have seen used ones go for around 7k a few times.
The agilent requires a lot more knowledge and time to dial in your methods and trouble shooting is vastly more complex.
The SRI GC is easy to self teach and you can get usable results the first day you get it with no training.
id like to get a gcms sooner than later. i enjoyed the SRI and once you get almost robotic with the injection… you can get accurate results on certain things… i really didnt like the fact thats its such a process to test thca and other acids.
the nice part about the sri is the supplies are dirt cheap and you can pretty much dial in your process inside 8 hrs just watching a few youtube videos.
they are pretty easy to get on the phone as well. especially if you break something and need a part overnighted.
you’ll still have the same issue testing acidics with a GC/MS. You gotta go to a liquid mobile phase vs a gas mobile phase to not have to use a derivative.
