Yes, we are aiming at 3-5% RSD in all our analytical testing wich we check via an orhtagonal system. So our GC and LC are quite simillar although methods do differ.
But we were all pondering if we should go for this extra audit cost, and in the end at least someone of “authority” came and took a look at your validation… And that badge makes that clear when you have it on your website.
It is a mark of at least a moderate tendency to control oneself…
But making a 20%rsd wont bring much bussines imo:)
Eu goverment rules for handling illicit substances require a good security protocol and a responsible person then its more a matter of proving your a trusted person/insitute… Otherwise pretty simple:)
20% RSD for flower is not a bad dup if you are acknowledging that flower is inherently not homogeneous… as in the plant can vary 10% (absolute conc.) from top to bottom buds… also trichomes are super concentrated on the calyx and almost absent on stem… also the trichomes drop off and collect god knows where. So even with good homogenization of your bulk flower, your sample homogeneity is fucked before your lab monkies even try to do sample prep.
Also keep in mind that in the pharma industry a 15% RSD between homogeneous powder samples is acceptable. So 5% RSD is very acceptable… almost too acceptable? The enemy of good is perfection… some say.
Mmm with extracts… id say 5% RSD is about as good a number as you can reasonably expect. 3% is likely the variance of your instruments (prep and analytical), then of course add in the labmonkey business between sample preps.
Shit is hard to weigh ill say that. Between the textures of extracts and steep walls of tubes… shit is tough to weigh.
If said labs are not doing a blind proficiency test, are they really a validated testing lab? Id think most state approved labs are required to do yearly PT testing. I would not trust a lab that didn’t.
