I’m a student at LSSU pursuing a B.S. in Cannabis Business and Cannabis Chemistry, and I’m spending the summer in Minnesota interning with the Department of Agriculture. I’ve been helping them set up the state’s reference lab and develop analytical testing methods for cannabis products ahead of the recreational market launch.
As part of that process, they asked me to reach out to trusted labs and communities to request SOPs we can use as reference material while building out our own validated methods. This forum came to mind, so I figured I’d throw a post up and see if anyone would be willing to share what their lab is using.
If you’re not comfortable sharing everything, I totally understand. The two areas they’re prioritizing right now are cannabinoid profiling (potency) and residual solvent testing. So if you’re open to sharing either, or even just some general insight on how your lab approaches these methods, it would go a long way.
I appreciate you taking the time to read through this, and I’m hoping to get more active on here throughout the summer. I’m also excited to connect with some of you in person at a few events this year! Sending positive energy to you all
Cannabinoid concentration (potency) testing varies at our lab based on material origin and whether it was subjected to isomerization or not. Plants, plant extracts, and isolates made from those extracts can all be tested on HPLC just fine. GCMS allows us to achieve better separation compared to the HPLC, so it is useful for that main reason.
I know this applies mainly to finding an SOP but since the title mentions it’s for the MN Dept of AG. I’d like to say that since we have a weird potency limit on concentrates, I think a lot of people are looking to abuse the system and make testing basically useless like it is in hemp for THCa (excluding KCA and I’m sure a few other labs).
I think right now there is an understanding in Minnesota that there is a 15% testing variance, I think getting this minimized, accurately identifying additional cannabinoids, and removing the total potency limit is something that could greatly benefit Minnesota. This would eliminate any shadyness with labs like we currently see in hemp (“working” to achieve a potency) and reduce the risk a consumer is receiving a diluted product due to the concentrate potency limit.
Something that might also be important in addition to residual solvent testing would be to do vape additive testing (Phytol, Squalene, Vitamin E, MCT oil, Triethyl Citrate).
Might be of help (first redirects to second):
Thanks for reading, glad to see that the Dept of Ag is looking to improve the process. I know a rep from the OCM recently spoke about testing at a CannaClub but I unfortunately missed it.
I agree with all of your points. Personally, I think the allowable variance is far too broad, and the current potency cap only incentivizes manufacturers to use additives to dilute the product. In reality, the potency limit becomes almost meaningless when a 15% variance is allowed because products capped at 80% could end up testing as high as 92%.
I’ve brought this up with the Office of Cannabis Management, and I’m hopeful that we’ll see improvements over time. The person I spoke with was open to feedback and mentioned that everything is still in the early stages.
Also, thank you for sharing those resources! I sincerely appreciate it.
I definitely agree with you that the potency varience is too wide. As someone who works in the edible space here if I can’t keep it within 10%, I probably have no business making edibles.
Jolly green:
It would be nice to hear you say: we have alloted $50k dollars for consulting fees concerning proprietary SOPs..
Do you put out requests such as this to calibrate and service your GCMS from Agilent?
Why don’t you ask some of those unemployed welfare recipients in MN to come to work for free while you are at it?
ASTM has test methods and guidance documents, which are easily transferrable to SOPs. If you are a member then you can get all of these plus all drafts of on-going work items for the low low price of $115 per year.
Regarding the “+/-15%” variance. Just now, most interlaboratory studies have shown that the interlaboratory difference for testing cannabis products (flower, concentrates, and edibles) is greater than 10% (sometimes as high as 30%, for things like microbials).
That means that while your intra laboratory results might be well within +/- say 2% of the true value (accuracy!) and within say RSD of less than 2% of each replicate (precision!) that is not generally the case for inter laboratory studies. And since most often the case is that when someone questions a test result they are looking at inter lab instead of intra lab - it makes sense to align that with the science.
Those numbers are often broad because of on-going differences in sample preparation methods, instrumentation, and even the accuracy/precision of certified reference standards - as well as, issues with standard stability (which is not great for THCa, THC, or CBDa…)
I also agree that starting with residual solvents from USP is a solid foundation. Probably you should also consider headspace testing - depending on the residuals being looked for.
No need to reinvent the wheel.
And probably no reason to pay a consultant.
But if you wanted to pay a consultant. I am available.
It would be nice if I could say that, but I’m just a summer intern, and not a long-term representative of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. I’m working on a short-term project to support method development and ensure quality standards in cannabis testing. If my request for assistance came off in a selfish/negative way, then I apologize as that wasn’t my intention at all.
I’ve reached out to a few labs I’m well connected with, and when I brought pricing back to the Department, the response was to explore free options instead.
I was recently added as a student member on the D37 committee, so I’ll definitely be digging into those ASTM resources. Really appreciate you sharing your insight here; thank you!
https://x.com/i/status/1948049324992082268
Copy and paste.
Billion dollar fraud associated with MN state gov, and you are here asking for freebies? Seriously, I mistakenly noted $50K above, new fees start at $5M. We can work with that. So you pay UMN $22-32 k/y to learn from them , and they tell you to ask us? Seriously, this forum has some experience in dealing with the corrupt.
