We recently purchased a Purple PRO for RnD purposes. We were wondering if the bench could read THC %'s <0.3? We’re running hemp samples with a COA of 2.5% THC and 6% CBD. Our sampling was way off in the first 6 runs but the last couple have had a consistent <3% THC, but our CBD% has overshot by an error of 4% each time. Any idea what variable could be interfering with a proper reading? The moisture content is fairly low for the biomass and the material was grinded/cleaned up prior to loading.
1 Like
So this same model will soon be able to measure extract potency by downloading new software? Will y’all be offering these upgraded software at a cost or…? If I were to purchase then you won’t come out with a new one that can do extracts months later?
AwesoMe product by the way. Right on time for fuck boy season. It’s rough out there right now
my head chemist in our testing lab always tells me agilent is the ferrari.
2 Likes
Anyone here ever hear of gemmacert?
I checked out their website and it seems they offer similar features to purpl on their device.
I’d love to know if anyone tried it and what the pros and cons are.
In early 2020 my extractor manufacturing company was going to be a Purpl Pro dealer so we bought 4 of the devices (minimum order). After receiving them, but before offering them to our customers, I created and executed a test grid comparing results of the device against Health Canada-approved lab results of a variety of Canadian Licenced Producer cannabis strains. Despite PurPl Scientific’s claims of fast and accurate, the PurPl Pro was inconsistent and extremely sensitive to humidity levels. I tried to reach their customer service but was unable to make contact until I called the President directly (poor customer service). When I did make contact with their technical guy he told me that water measurement was in development and would be an optional upgrade. When I showed him my test results he acknowledged that humidity did affect the results but that they felt it was close enough as-is. He also told me that oil testing would not be available for quite some time. I subsequently told the president that the product did not perform as advertised and that I could not offer it to my customers in its current state of development. The president told me that the best he could do was a 50% refund. I took the refund only because it was better than nothing - but I felt then, and I feel now, that I was forced to the refund under duress. In my opinion, the product does not work as advertised and their business practice is offensive. Let the buyer beware.
10 Likes
Something like this has potential, especially as a screening tool to check relative levels through the grow/extraction process or relative levels between similar samples. This allows a A LOT of samples with minimal prep without having to pay/run for HPLC or TLC. Once you have a large sample set, you can then confidently choose a more accurate analysis.
However, the sampling method is important. I’ve seen it used on a couple of occasions. It did not measure fresh flower the same has dried. An AVB hemp sample measured 5% CBD. I’m interested in seeing how the moisture and extract analysis plays out.
1 Like
my mentor in college used plenty of agilent instruments. they tend to be solid. every company has their strengths/weaknesses
If anyone is the Ferrari it’s probably Sciex. Given Agilent is probably the most common analytical brand in labs, they’re like the Ford.
3 Likes
I beta tested the Purpl Pro for flower prior to release to the public. And don’t directly work for Purpl Scientific. But am friends with a bunch of the staff. As of 9-18-20 the Purpl Pro only tests for THC and CBD along with water activity and moisture content. The unit has the ability to be upgraded on software side which concentrate testing will be coming online in the near future. But as of now it doesn’t register numerically over 30% it just says >30 on test samples (flower) over 30% thc. Ive found a 2% margin of error or swing. Which can go higher or lower. Purpl doesn’t replace lab testing…its nothing more than a tool to dial in feeding and drying of buds. It performs for us better on cultivation side than extraction with the exception of testing biomass and trim for processing. Hope this helps. CHASE@TERP ISLE
1 Like
I wish the unit measurements were down to the hundredth but its rounded to the nearest whole #. The unit isnt a replacement for a lab testing. Ive found it to be a really good way to dial in the moisture on drying so curing can be at connoisseur % instead of being rushed to market.Depending on what part of the US the material is coming from ive seen trim and biomass in the 3%-12% range.
I’m ONLY interested in a device like this to test trim in the field. Is this unit one of the better ones out there for that purpose only ? Thanks …
1 Like
@TheGratefulPhil we’re sorry you didn’t have a good experience. We provided quite a level of technical support, as well as provided a refund beyond what was agreed in the contract.
You’re @ ing the wrong person, as I said above I watched it action and was pleased with the result for what was advertised.
3 Likes
I have this machine, I’ve tested it at our grow multiple times. It’s a decent machine, the test results aren’t 100% accurate but they’re never real far off from the lab results. It’s a good way to find out around what your flower will test at but it is in no way 100% accurate.
Homies at the local grow shop used to have one of these available for use for friends. One thing I noticed was you definitely have to be anal about cleaning the lens off every use, this could lead to some common user error in giving people wrong results.
I think the most attractive use of this system is more likely for brokers, rather than growers. You can easily use this to identify hemp pounds(like a whole lotta people accidentally bought in 2021).
I also had some fun seeing which local Humboldt seed co crosses had some cbd in them. Good to find 1:1 or 2:1 cbd:thc pounds to use for salves.
The grow director seems to love it. Swears it’s accurate but when I run samples on my HPLC and compare it’s just not close at all. If you had 5 phenos and ranked them 1-5 in terms of THC highest to low, you’d get very different orderings with Purpl vs HPLC
Here’s the thing about these near-IR testers… They can only measure the potency of a very small area on the surface of the bud. Like you are just getting data from less than 1 square mm that is touchingthe lense and only on the very surface.
So you might get a high reading because a clump of trichomes was pressing on the lense… You might read low because some leaf/stem surface was measured. The results are not representing the bud as a whole (as in the average potency of 1g), your getting surface readings… Hell might be completely accurate for that one tiny spot but useless as representing the average potency of a sample batch. Best you can do to get a representation of the whole would be to take multiple readings in different spots and average them.
Could still be a handy tool in some situations but just need to keep these limitations in mind.
To contrast this, a normal analytical lab would grind 1g+ of flower and extract the cannabinoids from the entire sample, giving an average potency for that 1g+ which hopefully is representative of the entire (15lb?) batch (depending on how homogenous the batch was).
2 Likes
These things are really only good for determining if the material you’re buying some weight of is THC or hot hemp. Nothing more annoying than some shady fucker selling hemp as thc material and getting ripped off and then stuck with a product your people aren’t interested in.