My Arometrix Extraction Finder doesn't see 10mg/ml CBD isolate in Heptane

CannaBusiness
, ,
1

… but my grass (species unknown, possibly some sort of Fescue) has detectable levels of CBD and d9. Allegedly.

These tests were all performed in the same manner with the same equipment at the same time by the same operators. We ensured that the liquid fraction went directly over the sensor when put through the finder.

Trial 01 - CBD Isolate in Heptane - Arometrix saw zero cannabinoids

Arometrix Trial 02 - Grass in Isopropyl alcohol - lots of chlorophyll, minor cannabinoid peaks

Arometrix Trial 03 - Grass in Isopropyl alcohol - lots of chlorophyll, minor cannabinoid peaks

Arometrix Trial 04 - Therapeutic rag? - major cannabinoid peaks [this was just for fun, don’t pile on Arometrix for this one]

Arometrix Trial 05 - CBD Isolate in Heptane - zero cannabinoids

This article by Arometrix suggests that pure lab standards were detected similarly to what they saw from distillation data. I’m not an expert in this technology so I’ll refrain from comment on what that means relative to the data I just collected.

What does this mean?

It means that I have zero evidence that the Arometrix unit is actually detecting cannabinoids. It looks like it’s detecting pigments or something else that is generally co-extracted with the cannabinoids.

I don’t have any data on fats and waxes, yet.

It definitely looks like it sees chlorophyll.

So, if you’re not extracting the pigments that it’s looking for, you’re not going to see your cannabinoids.

Hypothesis:
If you extract two types of material that have differing pigment content but identical cannabinoid content, you may see wildly different results from the Arometrix.

Does that mean it’s not a useful tool? No.

But it sure looks to me that it doesn’t actually measure cannabinoids.

@cyclopath @AlexSiegel @Photon_noir

18 Likes
2

Yikes! By the way, grass extract made me lol.

13 Likes
3

Nice trials!

I would definitely keep testing the sensor because although I think you’re right about cannabinoids, there are still a lot of useful things it can see!

Some limitations do exist. For example the grass sample may not be reading much because of the cloudiness of the sample. The sensor can possibly barely “see” through it to detect the light produced by the chlorophyll. That, or it’s all happening too quickly for the sensor to get a good reading (it’s a flickering light, not continuous)

Edit; since you can clearly see the excitation peak, I’m not sure why it’s not reading more intensely. I would try a clearer green solution and a cap on the bottom of the sensor so you can let the solution sit for a few minutes

6 Likes
4

@arometrix

Interesting find indeed! I have been told in the past when you are using the FF with a solvent solution it does better if you restrict the outlet flow and make sure your FF is full of liquid and not just a stream slowly flowing over the sensor.

I love our FF but i also never had the ability to use it during our remediation runs to separate cbd from thc. the CBD peak overlaps the thc peak and unless you have a clean separation of cbd and thc it will always show up as cbd and the thc will be hidden in there.

It was an extremely helpful in tracking the fractions of impurities vs cannabinoids and when flushing our columns we could easily see when it was flushed all the way. but not so much for separating individual noids.

3 Likes
5

This is a great point, you can change the refresh rate, maybe its set to slow right now.

3 Likes
6

Mooooo

1 Like
7

what @thesk8nmidget said. I cant see but it looks like a quick pour through and its not filling up that cylinder.

Very cool as review though. Hope you can repeat this with the outlet side closed off and see if the results are the same. Been wondering about this.

Obviously it works though, you can watch summit researches video on it being used during an oil distillation.

8

My big question is more, why did it fail to detect pure CBD?

9 Likes
9

Its probably because the UV light doesn’t really produce much usable data, it is instead the white light portion of the source signal that does any work and is what is used instead while masquerading as a UV sensor.

If you were to put a UV band-pass filter on the source light that blocks all of the visible white light spectra, would you have any signal at all at the detector?

No filter on the detector - Source light only. That way it is just a fluorescence only sensor.

3 Likes
10

I’ll likely do this next week. However, I would be more optimistic and would put it higher on my priority list if there was any response at all from the sensor when we tested it.

There was zero response from it with actual CBD. However, there was plenty from the iso, with the same method and the same people at the same time.

It may turn out that for all practical purposes, when used post-fuge or on a distillation rig, the Arometrix system and sensor may give you what amounts to a pretty accurate answer to the question of “are there any cannabinoids in the product stream we’re working with?”

The relationship between the cannabinoids and whatever they’re actually detecting instead of the cannabinoids could be so tightly coupled at these points that it’s a reliable signal.

But the fact that it (apparently) does not actually directly respond to cannabinoids is concerning.

To me, that implies there are probably situations where it is not reliable for one reason or another.

And I don’t know what those situations are.

5 Likes
11

I always wanted an audit on this tech. Yippee

6 Likes
12

As I collect information I’ll share it, but to be honest this is gonna be a low priority for me.

I’ll use it where it has been validated as reasonably trustable and otherwise leave it in the toolbox.

I need solutions, not problems.

5 Likes
13

Amen, still an appreciated read. None running here to my knowledge and I see super clear

1 Like
14

Send me a DM for a run down on how it works!

I’m developing a fluorescence detector and I think we can bring some useful new tech forward. Thread coming soon accompanied by hardware options

7 Likes
15

I cant ellabortate much but i know a reputable scientific company that wouldnt sell this product for a very legitimate reason. Glass reflects uv/light. How can anything it reads be accurate when their is studies(i will try to find again) that did the exact same thing but used quartz and none of aro numbers lined up with theirs.

2 Likes
16

Because its a scam. I mean oops

1 Like
17

Can it detect things yes, is the nm range it detects in accurate? Hell no.

18

Reflecting UV light is not as much of an issue in this case. There are plenty of fluorescence cuvettes that are made of glass which allow something like 90% transmittance.

It’s a thing in itself that arometrix is using a glass tube rather than a square. That is really a cool thing that probably we wouldn’t expect to work well based on the science but they tried it and it works. There’s very few high pressure or vacuum options that aren’t tubes so we’re happy to sacrifice perfect science for useability there

The compounds we’re measuring using UV Fluorescence are mostly pigments and actually light up like crazy. If you know what to look for and how to read the peaks, the tech is super useful. The hardware I’m coming out with is going to be called the Pigment Scanner. @pdxcanna is designing it mostly

6 Likes
19

^^ hahaha oh man I wonder how badly that scanning system wants to see what I’ve seen.

20

It definately has its uses but whats the point of collecting innacurate data points when they can just make a quarts version. I looked thru their posts and it seems they deleted all my questions asking about when/if it comes in quartz lol