Lab Failure? Or My Failure?

The nature of false positive errors like this is generally sporadic, not systematic, so an R&D test gives no real protection; unless, of course, this was not lab error and you actually did have this contamination. I’ve had failed results because a lab mixed my vial up with someone else’s. The idea that the labs themselves have no power to inform the state of gross errors like this will lead to complete absurdities.

2 Likes

Agilent 5973ms/7890gc w/ The “research” loadout from Gerstel.( MPS autosampler, DHS, purge n trap, Cool on column, SPME, DHS, liquid inj…you name it.) This one also has the LTN columns outside, so with my dean switch, I can heartcut or analyze TIC on 4 different columns or just cut one analyte and send it where I want (heartcut). Has cryofocused inlet on front(also Gerstel) and just a split/splitless in the back. Has an FID on it, but it doesn’t get much use.

So. This is one of 4 of my baby’s. I have a Leco tof with a Dual XL mps autosampler on it. Same bells and whistles. But this beast is a 2D Tof (breaths ln2 to modulate the chromatography) it’s got the bad ass 3d chromatography. Like a topical map. It’s deconvolution is on point and their software package is second to none.

The other 2 GC/MS are 7890s with 5973s on them with chemstation E.02.02 on them. But I’m running the Agilent DRS software pack. If you get it to work, it really makes the old beasts operate like a newer model.

That’s the volatile side.
We have some HPLC 1200s with uv and DAD and one shimadzu 8050ms system(newset member). And an older ICP-OES.

We can test it all. I do flavor and fragrance traditionally. But this new gig has me doing residuals, HM, potency, and taste analysis inhouse. Out for COA full make-up after.

Anyways. That’s the fancier analytical stuff. I’ll post a couple pics.

1 Like

My issue with pH solutions is that the owner of it also owns their own cannabis company but has someone else hold their testing license for them. Seems pretty shady to me. Cannalysis is the only lab I really trust.

1 Like

That’s my biggest concern, at least with the ethanol. That’s the only one that I’m not 100% sure wasn’t actually in our sample.

The real question that i would like to know, is whether or not it’s possible to be fully decarbed with ethanol still in solution. Are there any conditions where such a thing is even possible?

If the ethanol was introduced after the decarb perhaps

It just occurred to me that if there was some condensation building up along the inside of the beaker, it could be reintroduced the solution when poured out, or it could even just drip back down the glass. I’m gonna have to pay attention to that next time I’m decarbing. Interesting…

1 Like

You guys aren’t making me excited for my licensed facility…

1 Like

It’s not exactly what people imagine, trust me. Yes, you can make decent returns on your investment but you will be an expert whoop jumper by the time your finished.

Well then at the very minimum I’ll have that :slight_smile:

Yeah it’s crazy some of the things the state had us do on our Ranch and that was just a cultivation LIC. :man_facepalming: The manufacturing LIC isn’t as bad but there are still whoops to jump thru, especially for the Type 7.

For this to be his laboratory contamination he would have to have those chemicals in his laboratory. Not only does he not have them, he had to look up what they were.
These solvents are typical in the analytical environment. Typical for sample extractions and for cleaning procedures.

2 Likes

Sorry you have to go through this. There were significant peaks for six solvents altogether for the RSA. I think it’s likely these solvents were the same solvents used for analytical reference standards and somehow contamination caused your sample to fail. Mobile phase in GC are unreactive gases like helium.

FID isn’t necessarily inferior for detecting ethanol. My preliminary sense is that this is some kind of human related lab error.

Unfortunately, as others mentioned, CA setup testing in such a way that labs are assumed to perform flawless sampling and testing procedures because they’re ISO 17025.

Far more unforgiving for the extraction scene than what I was accustomed to in Oregon. Not too surprising I suppose, CA really over complicated this to hell, with three separate regulatory agencies, separate websites and regulations, myriad of sub-license types.