Not saying that special kind of orange sugar chicken mixed with tiger dicks wouldn’t work but I was thinking trichloromethane aka chloroform. Not my first choice for obvious reasons
Damn I was hoping those calorie counter doodads would be a $20 harbor freight sorta thing them ain’t cheap huh
1 Like
Haha yeah the cost has something to do with why we don’t seeing them used I suppose—kind of a niche r&d thing. Seeing around $3k on ebay but I would have to spend time to better figure what exactly is needed
I’d be naive if I said all distillates crystallize at the same rate. Sorry if I came under that impression. Test results will be done today.
I can forward you to someone who can run DSC scans for pay – has to be hemp though, no THC.
BTW, I have personally observed the effect of waxes dropping out separately of CBD in cold pentane. Take unwinterized distillate and dissolve in pentane, then filter it when everything’s crashed. Looking closely, you will see TWO kinds of solids, one hard CBD crystal, the other a more flaky wax material. They do not co-crystallize. Them being all mixed up, like someone said earlier, is the result of having been homogenized later.
I don’t know which one crashes first, but I “dewaxed” using tweezers to separate the two crystal types (keeping patron saint Louis Pasteur in my heart). Perhaps a winnowing machine could automate the process?
3 Likes
I was informed that PP #5 is food safe, safe to heat, and safe to handle hot products.
What is it? Polypropylene (PP) is somewhat stiff but less brittle than some other plastics. It can be made translucent, opaque or a different color when it is manufactured. PP generally has a high melting point, making it particularly suitable for food packaging products that are used in microwaves or cleaned in dishwashers, for example.
How is it used? PP is commonly used in food packaging to make yogurt containers, maple syrup containers, cream cheese containers and sour cream containers, as well as prescription drug bottles.
FDA Approved for food contact? Yes.
Recyclable: Yes. To be sure, check with your community recycling center.
What Plastics Are Approved for Food Contact Applications? – Custom-Pak, Inc..
Polypropylene is a widely used plastic. You likely have polypropylene plastic in your fridge and cupboards right now: it’s regularly used in reusable food storage containers. It’s also the resin used to make yogurt containers and other single-serving tubs.
PP plastics are approved for food contact. They are inert materials and do not present a health hazard to the consumers. The FDA began to approve recycled polypropylene as food-safe in 2013.
Polypropylene’s high melting point makes it suitable for microwaveable food containers. It’s nonvolatile and doesn’t react to liquids, acids, or bases, so it’s perfect to store a wide variety of foods.
Plastic items with a number 5 on them are made of polypropylene, or PP, which is a combination of propylene monomers and is petroleum-based. Aside from being strong and durable, it also works very well for living hinges (think about the flap on a package of Tic-Tacs) because of it’s resistance to fatigue. It’s frequently combined with other plastics to achieve different characteristics. It’s very stable and resistant to high temperatures, making it ideal for holding or heating hot foods.
Can you microwave polypropylene?
This type of plastic is literally meant to be microwave-safe, so yes.
Is plastic number 5 (PP) safe for babies?
You won’t have to worry too much about baby toys and accessories that include polypropylene because it’s such a stable plastic and doesn’t leach chemicals, even with warm or hot liquids being stored inside. Other plastics would have a definite problem being heated or even holding hot water inside.
Food containers made from polypropylene
Because of its food safety rating, heat resistance, and ability to bend back and forth repeatedly without breaking, you’ll find plastic number 5 all over the grocery store shelves. The coolest example is the so-called ‘living hinge’ that you’ll find on many condiment bottles and containers. They allow you to open and close a product without losing the lid!
Polypropylene is billed as being very safe for humans because it is unlikely to leach any chemicals into any food or beverages that it might hold. Additionally, its high heat resistance means that it’s frequently used in applications in which heat will be applied (such as the microwave)
1 Like
I’m glad you were able to clear that up
1 Like
First COA is what @ruderalis710 provided me.
Second COA is what my licensed prop64 tested with no dilution ratio… 1:1 methanol dilution to show low minors. The distillate was completely melted and mixed before sending to lab. We did not take a piece off the top.
At this point, I’m not sure I’d ever purchase again.
3 Likes
The variance between the labs seems to be within the margin of error no? I’ve zero skin in this but I’m curious what a secondary (third) lab would have this tested back at. Like if @kcalabs, @Dr_Jebril, @Remedy or someone else tested it and we saw where it came back - closer to your lab or @Ruderalis710’s lab
2 Likes
@FTGLabs We’ve been advised to just stick with one lab and calibrate based on that. But we’re seeing like 7%-12% variance more or less on the potency of D8 alone for the same exact sample. Highly confusing.
But the reason labs are having this difficulty is tied to the difficulty of splitting deltas via chroma to produce the pure peaks - it’s hard to split deltas even on mm-sized columns.
2 Likes
https://www.projectcbd.org/sites/projectcbd/files/downloads/cannabis-lab-testing-comparison.pdf
https://acslabcannabis.com/blog/education/how-accurate-are-thc-potency-tests/
In 2011 two cannabis organizations challenged 10 labs to test 6 of the same cannabis samples for THC potency. The results of the Ring Test revealed that testing procedures were far from standardized, or perfect for that matter. The majority of labs produced results that deviated within 20% of each other. While that’s considered a “normal” variation, the ideal deviation would be no more than 15%. But three of the labs produced results that were far from normal, deviating by 25%+ on more than half of the samples. This indicated glaring accuracy errors, which are still common today. Such discrepancies are unacceptable for cannabis patients and consumers who rely on accurate potency measures to take the right dose for their conditions.
The tests seem to be within a normal limit of variance of one another. Neither lab is testing incorrectly. Both labs most likely have different sample preparation, different pipettes (with differing calibration schedules), different HPLC units (with different calibration curves), and different operating procedures for running their testing, not to mention multiple technicians running samples.
From my reading, conversations with scientists, and personal experience- 5-15% is relatively normal variance between labs that are given samples from the same batch to test.
I’ll take a 5% variance. But anything more than that draws my attention. 7-12% sounds ridiculous in my opinion, but on d8 or newly discovered cannabinoids I can understand.
I paid based off cannabinoids, so on paper I’m being shorted around 70,000mg per kilo of distillate.
1 Like
@mgucci Please send me a photo of the bottles with the lot number/batch number and masses of each bottle to my cell #. I will reference that with the production/shipping team to ensure you received the correct batch and mass of product. I sent you multiple COA’s when we were discussing the purchase so it is possible the wrong batch went out and we’ll do what we can to make it right.
Edit: I just saw the batch number in your photo above, curious if its the same for every bottle. Sending you a DM now.
Edit #2: This is our third party of the product you received, based on the photo you posted above being batch CW-HC-20020
2003CCT0960.2481 - CW-HC-20020 (2) (1).pdf (502.8 KB)
We’ll test it if you want accurate results. @Ruderalis710 we’re right down the road from you if you need sample pickup or dropoff.
4 Likes
They sent me the wrong batch, my results weren’t wrong.
BTW: A study done in 2011 is irrelevant. We didn’t even know what CBD was 10 years ago, and I bet most of you didn’t either.
"In 2011 two cannabis organizations challenged 10 labs to test 6 of the same cannabis samples for THC potency. "
2 Likes
You rather mean that cbd industry was nothing compared to today.
Because CBD has been studied since mid-18th century… and I think there mass standardized cbd/thc tests since at least the 90"s, related to fiber/oil hemp classic industry, and pharma to some extent.
3 Likes
Sorry for my frustration, the second time in 2 weeks I’ve received a wrong batch from a company. All I want is ND THC distillate -_-
3 Likes
Get up with @Bret_HoneyGold. He’s got nice ND distillate.
2 Likes
“The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.”
6 Likes
We’ve purchased isolate that tested 96% at two labs from @Bret_HoneyGold, so we will most likely not purchase anything again.
Inb4imtoldmylabsarewrong
Anyways, this a review for ruderalis. I wouldn’t advise advertising in someone elses lab review.
3 Likes