I think I probably still need more context. There are methods to do this kind of work. Without using a GC (which is too hot…) but all of those methods still require vaporization or some other kind of combustion to get the stuff to become a vapor to be trapped as a gas. You know? So you are losing a portion.
Why are we concerned with losing the portion? What am I missing here? We could start by quartering and establish how much of an ACID there was in mols. Then we could use the GC and establish how much of each kind of substance is present (without switching away from established science) and then we could back calculate the total amount that would have been acidic to begin with.
The level of calculations needed… I mean its a lot.
I’m not sure about the other hypothesis that are given in the links because of these two items.
- Vapor/Combustion does not necessarily happen at the same rate of change and energy exchange as decarb
- You could potentially control decarb rate and therefore allow it to be carried away by other vapors (not necessarily vaporized itself…but many things are just carried along) and you might do this by modulating the pH during sample prep OR by placing it on a solid state resin during sample prep.
In either case - I’m still not sure why people are interested in the amount of THCa that might be available as a vapor.
And are we just trying to do this in a lab setting - or are we trying to do this like for science and then wanting to make a manufacturing process out of it?
I suppose that’s possible. My autism often gets in the way of understanding things that are sarcastic. Originally I thought the request was sarcastic… but then you posted about it MORE. And so I figured there was actually a reason that people were inquiring. And since I love these adventures, I figured I’d ask more questions about the why - and then propose some possibilities for how.
I suppose my real question is - do we actually need it to be a vapor (i.e. a gas in its gas for on the critical pathway) or do we just need it to be an aerosol (i.e. probably not a gas, but certainly able to be inhaled…) Cause those are different things. And I cannot tell what people are actually asking for.
In any case - collecting on a membrane should tell you how things are going (if you had a process for vaporizing or combusting you wanted to use). And you could also do instant IR collecting, cause you can just dab a little on the wafer and check it over and over again…depending on the wafer you could even start at X and then heat the damn thing and just keep running the same wafer over and over again.
There was a study… that indicated that an inhale of COMBUSTED cannabis included more than just THC… ah yes, this one: Chemical and physical variations of cannabis smoke from a variety of cannabis samples in New Zealand - PMC
In this study it shows that there is particulate that is inhaled during combustion activities (smoking) and that that particulate contains cannabinoids, including THC and terpinoids and such. They are, sadly, using the GCMS for their testing! However, they also use a non-GC method, but they don’t quantify the cannabinoids, because they are actually interested in terpenoids.
Looks like someone else also posted a study on vaporizer efficiency, which indicates a similar path - which is that particulate matter is inhaled at the same time, that matter may not have been fully decarbed yet.
Honestly - that makes the fact that you only absorb like 30-50% of what you are smoking make a bit more sense… because its not actually THC yet, so its not going through the same pathway that the tests are looking for.
But still - please help me understand why inquiring minds need to know. <3
You the best!