The AOAC has far more value than you give it credit for. Maybe give some thought to your “missing points of view” on this one.
Are the analytes extracted from the 0.5g flower now contained in 5.5ml of solvent? No they are in 5ml of solvent and minimal in 0.5g of SOLIDS that were your sample. That is the logic and you can argue with it but my PT and round robin results say otherwise.
Basically you are assuming the sample is a liquid or fully dissolves in a liquid… This is not the scenario… Maybe for a pharma pill though
Did you miss that point of view because you were viewing something else entirely and don’t have any experience except with pharma? Because that’s what them aoac folk would do
Your interpreation that I am assuming the sample is a liquid is incorrect. I did not assume that at all. One can perform 1/10 dilutions with powdered plant tissue as a 1/10 weight/weight dilution (i.e., w/w) , as a 1/10 weight/volume dilution (i.e., w/v), or as a 1/10 volume/volume dilution (i.e., v/v). The choice of which one to use is situational and dictated by logical factors. Your example that uses “~0.5g + 5ml ACN:MeOH” is a 1/11 (w/v) dilution. If you had a bit more appreciaton for the standards and methods put forward by highly experienced groups like the AOAC, you would likely know this already.
I will take my 30+ years of experience in plant biochemistry and plant extractions over your inexperienced answers any day of the week amigo. Go ahead and keep doubling down on your inexperienced answers, that’s no skin off my back.
To put forth the idea that the AOAC did not include plant biochemists and other hightly experienced plant scientists in the development of SOPs for extracting certain plant metabolites (or classes of plant metabolites) again comes off as inexperienced.
There are multiple people in this thread simply trying to help you understand that your thoughts and comments about the AOAC are off the mark. Trashing the AOAC in the way that you have done above says far more about you than it does about the AOAC.
Your resistence to your missing points of view is unfortunate.
Best of luck with your work.
2 Likes
Further supported by this:
So in recap, apparently it is not even worth the $200 for the AOAC methods (and all the comments regarding them), better just start from scratch. Yeah… Okay…
Indeed if you want to be told what to do by some bunch of folk that have never had to produce a coa for a paying client… Pay that 200$ and get a bunch of hyperbole that will not be of use in your testing system. They have no thought on throuput, no fs about consumables costs or sustainability at scale. So yes if you want a purely academic opinion… Go for it.
Ok so I extract 0.5g of flower in 5ml of solvent. Are the analytes from the sample now contained in 5.5ml of solvent? Is that really a 1/11 dilution? For a solid/liquid extraction? You logic that out and explain your reasoning.
Hide behindyour “experience” if you will but you need to prove your reasoning still. I’m not as servile as you’d like… I’m an merican you need to show me.
Also you ever done a PT on cannabis potency? Any of these plant scientists ever extracted +20% flower?
Or, like anyone else who’s spent 6 figures on bad lab results (which I think is a much larger club here than it should be), you don’t give a fuck about throughput because you actually need accurate answers. Maybe you’re not inexperienced, maybe you just have the outlook of one of the 1000 shitty PE funded Chad labs that can’t get the same answer on the same sample twice
3 Likes
I think it’s weird that this chat doesnt have ethanol on it.
1 Like
I concur, I didn’t really notice that until you said something!
You know what they say: “You can lead a horse to water…”
Are you getting the correct answer? Is that something about water?
I concur, youd really need to know the MC of the flower to really get that volume correct. Because if like 10%MC, we are adding 0.05ml h2o to the mix… potentially. I think you are right its probably more like 1/10.1.
Man you guys are good at this physics stuff!
Oh shit we forgot the cannabinoids… well thats potentially 20-30%, so we’ll say 20% and call it good. So potentially 30% of the flower going into solution? Man thats 1/10.3… we going to include lipids too? Maybe figure out the eq factor for the potentially soluble sugars?
Shit, hell of a day! going to need to update the old method after fucking months of validation…
Sorry man are you concurring that im a in a chad governed lab… true you might be damn close… there are chads in my life… omg the chads.
Or are you saying they are now in 5ml of damn solvent?
1 Like
I was agreeing with Cassin that it was weird that ethanol isn’t listed as a solvent used on the list. I have no clue what you got going on Homie! I’m just here for the info, hash, and people. I totally give you a virtual hug! (Just hug yourself, but feel awkward about it.)
3 Likes
Dang thought I had a cohort. You know that is weird in the chart, feels strange not seeing that very obvious solvent. I saw ethyl acetate as ethyl alcohol… confirmation bias is real stuff.
Ill do you one better and manifest that virtual hug into a real hug and get me some chad hugs in, itll be weird… they dont like getting their popped collars all messed up.
1 Like
They ran out of cannabis, which solvent would you all have preferred they replaced in lieu of EtOH?
So I have some salt encrusted lava rocks at about 20% salt. I put 0.5g of the rocks in 5ml water and stir. Is the salt now in 5.5ml of water?
Hope the aoac folk are not inflating numbers by 10%. We want those accurate numbers right? Nobody would ever want inflated numbers.
Toluene, tis silly
This is why we use gravimetric measurements…
6 Likes
So I put the 0.5g of salty rocks in 5g of water… Is the salt now in 5.5g of water?
And sid, if you are paying that much for a testing project with a lab, you had better do your due diligence. Like test out their variance beforehand by sending them two of the same samples a month apart. Ask the director what their expected variance is across your sample type… hold them to it.
But what kind of samples are you expecting to be the same? Flower or extracts? Because flower has natural variance of upwards of 10% but definitely 7% not uncommon across a harvest batch. Now homogeneous extract should be below 5% variance.
Some labs in some states are required to do a dup extraction with every test batch so they can directly state to you the expected spread on that specific batch. Ask for that if they have to do a dup.
Sorry you got burned on test results, our allowable variance is 20% per state regs but personally I don’t ever like to see more than 5% even on flower samples. Our lab is pretty Chad but I still don’t allow inflation of numbers. And I would not let unrepeatable results fly except maybe for d8 but that shit be hard to integrate
Here’s a concentration sheet you can check out
5c-concentration-worksheet-ans-key (1).pdf (133.3 KB)