Molecular weight of CBD is 314.46g/mol CBDA is 358.48g/mol
314.46/358.48 = 0.877 So it’s the same as THC/THCA, 1 gram of CBDA decarboxylates to 0.877g of CBD.
THC and CBD have pretty much the same molecular weights.
2 Likes
Thank You sir 
If I was running the lab I would re-run the sample and try and figure out the disconnect.
If it was a common occurrence I’d recalibrate my instrumentation and order a second set of standards from another company.
If I submitted the sample for third party analysis I’d ask the lab director how they felt about the “new math” they were teaching in schools these days 
My favorite lab director didn’t seem concerned until he hit about 102%
1 Like
I’m glad some of us still can think and see the concern when something in the lab is over 99.999% . It is possible in my eyes and it was what was taught by my chem and physics teachers in h/s and college. If I remembered correctly when ever we did labs we always tried to get with in 5 percent of what the target was and no one ever get 100% always under unless a foreign substance got into the final product
2 Likes
So I’m buying my product for the mean time. I just got this delivered. Relabeled with same date and number but 15% difference on test results. What is the thoughts on that?
Blue label was stuck over the one on the box.
every measurement has some error associated with it, the uncertainty of measurement.
why the cannabis industry hasn’t caught up to this is beyond me.
without reporting the error associated with the data, the label values like the percent terpenes or cannabinoids by weight, are kind of useless. until then, the reported values on the label are taken as “truth”, when in reality they’re anything but, because in reality it’s probably more like a 95% probability the true value is in some range (ie 72-75%) with some error (+/- 0.3% or something…).
but I am sure if people started reading labels like “delta-9-thc: 78.21 % +/- 1.23” people would still freak out. but it might make lab shopping better because the good labs would aim for the smallest and most consistent uncertainty of measurement.
2 Likes
We called this tolerance crash in manufacturing, but when I googled it, nothing came up so that might have just been our shop jargon.
It makes sense that if everything tests at the upper limit of the accuracy range, you would end up with more than 100%.
Maybe they refined that batch and decided to retest for higher thc %? Definitely same batch based on the uid and what not.
I do the info panel stickers for products White labeled in our facility. I’m sure there’s others who do same thing but, upon getting test results for final COA all I do is transfer all info needed(such as; Thc, Cbd, terpenes and total cannabinoids) from that document onto the info panel labels. There was one case with a strain we processed “Kiwi Tree” that gave us over 100% TC.
What I was trying to say though is that it’s easy for who ever is translating COA Info to labels to manipulate the info to their advantage. I personally try to keep the numbers as true to the COA as possible, although due to the size of our labels I have had to round up percentages in occasions where for example the thc percentage was 92.37% I just leave at 92%. I can see how some people might fuck up and make the mistake of typing a wrong digit.
2 Likes
Keep in mind that terpenes are not a state mandated test, unlike thc/cbd and residual solvents, as such there is no mandatory proficiency testing for them and generally these state agencies don’t really care how accurate they are. Also most labs are testing for 14+ terpenes and they are not cheap/easy to calibrate compared to the big 4 cannabinoids, and again the state does not mandate how often to calibrate terpenes, so many labs are going to cut corners there.
All this is to say that terpene results are often going to be the least accurate results on the label. Could be a reason cannabinoids + terpenes add up to over 100%.
Also with cannabinoids, the states allow ±20% variance (I’ve often seen ±7% in real world for flower, and ±5% for concentrates even with good calibration and methods)… So if the stuff is truly 80% and your variance is ±20%, you are looking at 64 - 96% range… And this is completely acceptable according to the regs.
1 Like
I don’t know the rules there perfect. But expecting numbers to add up to 100% when doing chemistry that has errors of uncertainty that can be in the +/-10% range is kind of outside of the chemistry math house.
So you could have legally in most states with +/-10% label claim requirements, and even looser requirements on accuracy/precision… 71% to 86% THC and I’m going to assume that 6.37% terps is only the terps that they were testing for which is probably not even close to all of them.
So don’t be dismayed - probably semi potent, with the potential for a harsh cough (so many terps!) and hopefully generally enjoyable. 