True Terpenes

terpenes

#41

My lab did some internal analysis of the Viscosity product and we made a provisional identification of Pristane. To be clear this was only a provisional identification and we are not super confident in this result.


#42

I ran the viscosity mix on my GC and it’s definitely a forest of peaks. The first picture is cannabinoid method by Restek and the second is a terpene method by Smith et Al, J. AOAC Int., 98,6,2015: pp 1503-1522.

The top temp of the terpene method is 300 degrees C. Beta caryophyllene for reference elutes at 13.7 minutes. Based on this I’m guessing we’re looking at a blend of terpene/terpenoids c20 to c25 branched alkanes (diterpenes to sesterterpenes). I’ll try to get my friend with a HS-GC MS to run this, so we can get to the bottom of it all.

Update: My friend will run this stuff. Update when I have it.


#43

Awesome… whats it mean? Lol… sounds like TT is in the clear so far? As i take a break from the cloners…


#44

TT is in blue
Abstrax in red

I ran Absrax diluent on a hotter method and it had 1 main peak. The TT viscosity is like a fat bell curve of a mixture across 3 minutes (30 degrees on my method). I’ll post them overlaid in a sec.

True terpenes blend is the gnarliest thing I’ve ever seen on GC and used to do coal liquefaction…

Still doesn’t mean it’s mineral oil, it just looks like it on GC.

GCs of mineral oil


#45

It would be interesting to get some mass spec or nmr structural data


#46

Need a GS/MS scan on this. Looks like what we used to call “blobane” AKA unresolved peaks poorly retained by column stationary phase. A smaller injection probably also is called for.

I mean this raises a deeper question though. Let’s say it is not mineral oil; it’s actually some terpene that just happens to have similar retention time and column interaction. What would lead us to believe this product is any healthier than mineral oil? Like TT said there are 30,000 terpenes and i’ll tell you one thing for sure: they haven’t all had safety assays done on them. I don’t see why one should put their faith in some unknown mess of hydrocarbons just because they happen to possess an isoprene unit somewhere in their structure. What would that prove?


#47

Ive used both if those companies terps and hated them. So did all my customers. True terpenes isolated terps are the best around. Profiles are so so, i make my own with better results. True terps customer service is also the best ive experienced in this industry


#48

shill acct


#49

TT best around?

Thats some funny sheet right there!


#50

“True terpenes isolated terps are the best around” ! Maybe, if you like Pinesol lol


#51

I’ll dilute it more on Monday but in comparison to Abtrax (same dilution) it’s a mess of peaks that does resemble a hydrocarbon fraction. Hopefully my guy will have MS data by Friday.


#52

Im pretty sure floraplex dilutent is the exact same stuff. If you drop the temp of this stuff below 50 degrees itll start to seperate, even in carts. Both the floraplex and true terpenes blends do this, wouldnt it be safe to say theyre probably close to the same things then?


#53

Honestly the resolution is so bad that even GCMS might not be able to get a good identification. It could require a totally different column with a different and thicker stationary phase to even get good enough separation to match ions. But hopefully that will not be the case. Some times with an overly large injection a single molecule can get smeared out like that but still get good ID. I used to observe that a lot with samples containing glycerin.


#54

Can you sell terps to licensed stores in CA if your terps contain no THC?


#55

I talked to my testing guy. He told me that he would have to get a standard of squalene and pristane in order to eliminate or identify those terpenes. Does “blobane” refer to whatever else you dont specifically look for? Or is it specific different compounds?


#56

“Blob-ane” is a joke. It means compounds that come out as a blob instead of good peak shapes. Usually a hard to identify mess of peaks that are close together. It can also be from a compound with very different polarity from the column like glycerol on a nonpolar column, or from a huge injection that overwhelms the columns adsorbing capacity.


#57

Copy so if a lab tested for pristane and they test a sample containing pristane is it then possible to get back an inconclusive test due to improper loading column composition, etc? Wouldnt they just run another test from the same sample to get conclusive results?

Is liquid injection the only way to test for these kinds of terpenes?

If a lab doesnt test for a specific mystery terpene and a sample contains that terpene would the results come back as unreadable blob-ane? Or would the test show the exact properties of the mystery terpene and they just dont know which one to match it to?


#58

Let me explain how GCMS works. You have a whole library of compounds, each with a documented ion spectrum. When you click on a peak in the chromatography readout, it will bring up the ion spectrum of that peak, and the software will produce a list of compounds in it’s database that are the most similar to that one. Usually one will be clearly correct.

So in order for it to recognize a compound, that compound needs to be well separated from all the other compounds in the sample. If two compounds come out right on top of each other, their spectra will be all mixed together, and the library won’t be able to find a match.

It is different from GC-FID, because it can identify any compound in the material, whether you were originally looking for it or not. But it has to be a well separated peak.

The issue with a blob like this is that it is likely a bunch of peaks that are all spread out on top of eachother, so the ion reading will be gibberish. This doesn’t have to be the case though. For instance in the other example I gave, where the blob is truly one peak that is just spread out from bad chromatography, the MS can still identify it because it’s still a pure compound peak without interferences.


#59

So are you saying that if we did identify one or more compounds in the blob it would still be a blob and be made up of any number of unknown compounds?

Does the blob in any way correspond to the margin of error of a test? Like the bigger the blob will give a bigger margin of error?


#60

Please see our official statement here: https://trueterpenes.com/viscosity-statement/