That shoulder inside the first 2 triangles you reposted is of cbd-HQ.
It might be, but do you have mass spec data to prove it? That chromatogram I posted at the end shows peaks eluting with the same mass of THC. CBD-HQ or HU-331 has a different mass than THC. There is a very good chance there is a peak of d9-THC in there, but without the mass spec data we can’t say for sure.
3 Likes
That is not HU-331. I can say that with 95% confidence. I have never seen it in a d8 sample. Have you ran a HU-331 standard on the method? Yes, it does elute right around that region but 1) the UV spectra is totally different from d8 or d9, 2) as @kcalabs stated you can’t call that peak HU-331 just based on retention time, and 3) on a different type of chromatography (GC) the HU-331 peak elutes well (~7 minutes) before d9.
Also, you show a 50/50 d8/d9 standard run. Well, when you increase that d8 concentration to ~98% it leads to peak broadening and the once resolved (kinda) d9 peak becomes a shoulder. Before you argue the slightly different retention time of the d9 standard and the sample, it is known that matrix effects from your sample (vs a very pure standard) can shift the retention time of analytes in LC.
Lastly, there is an unknown (at least to me) cannabinoid that elutes around the same retention time as d9, but it is not HU-331.
Note: I do not know your actually HPLC method, but based on retention times I have a pretty good idea of what you are running.
9 Likes
So if the COA is modified what’s wrong with it
Will it still give a buzz
I just want to make some D8 tips and these have a low minimum order and seems like a good price value
Yes it will still give you a buzz. A d9 with d8 buzz. I’m a super positive person too, I’m just not buying anything anyone is selling because if I want something hot I’ll buy the fire. Sample some products before buying for resale. Send to a third party lab like @kcalabs offering to give anyone a free test / report if it is indeed d9 compliant.
The price dropped in half over the new dea regulations and drama over coas.
1 Like
I second @bigbone and at @kcalabs comments.
I would also add that sample nominal concentration matters, regarding the LOQ. If injecting a d8 rich sample at sufficiently low concentration, most of the minor component(s) would not be noticed.
The document showed here do no tell about the LOQ.
But it can be seen that the d8 rich sample was injected at a lower nominal concentration than in the D8:D9 1:1: sample… 
This demonstration could be strengthen by overlaying the d8 rich sample with a d8:d9 sample of similar proportion (e.g. 98% d8 and <0.3% d9) and with the same concentration.
The baseline should also be zoomed on.
If it is near pure, the minors (or their absence) needs to be emphasized.
8 Likes
i’ll take some if it’s hot the hotter the better 
1 Like
I want d8
1 Like
Interested in your D8. Dm me. Thx
Run any of your delta 8 and I bet it has some olivetol in it.
Is that a typical side product? I thought olivetol was used in different reactions as a base?
1 Like
There are multiple reactions leading to d8-THC that do not start with olivetol, but it is one of the starting materials used.
1 Like
Hi, do you still sell compliant d8?
1 Like
Read your little chromo explanation… but nothing about the difference in mass for CBD-HQ? And we have inspected the mass of that particular peak you are pointing to as CBD-HQ, it is the same as D9/8, 314. I see nothing heavier, which the HQ would be heavier (328), not even a little bit, not in pos or neg mode. Seems like that little white paper was written for chads by chads… me non-impressed.
Here is what the MS should look like according to Cayman (328 and 313):
3 Likes
Wait a fucking minute
This is chad weiner!?
2 Likes
2500… your crazy bro
This was also 13 months ago when they didn’t have scaling down quite yet soooooo…
2 Likes
my bad didnt check original date
2 Likes