Hi,
Thought it could be helpful to share a chromatogram I have. (The sample tested is not yet distilled.)
There are a couple of peaks that would be interesting if someone could identify or speculate about.
The testing lab only searched for :
I’m guessing steroisomers, maybe cbc too Surprised they aren’t testing for cbc.
Can someone explain why the d9 is on the wrong side of d8 in comparison to any other chromatograph I’ve ever looked at? I’m used to seeing it as a hump on the other side.
It might be GC data (channel = GC_1, mV*min integration, etc). If that’s the case, D8 elutes before D9 in fused silica capillary columns. The run time substantiates this as well. However, GC data for potency analysis of cannabinoids is semi-quantitative at best, and this looks like the COA template for Altitude Consulting out of CO, so I’d call Mike up there and ask for his opinion as he’s extremely knowledgeable.
Relative to the other peaks—from what I’ve seen, the one right next to CBD is an un-cyclized intermediate, the peak to the right of D9 is D9,11 (exo), and the other byproducts are less easier to speculate about, though there have been several posts and papers about D4(8) and D(8) iso-THC’s as well as THCBF over the past year. The THCV is most likely D8THCV.
my guess:
CBDV, THCV, CBD, CBC, D8, D9, CBG CBN and two I’ve got no clue on in that order.
with that much D8 (conversion) then I’m wrong on CBDV and THCV…
Strongly disagree.
GC-FID works perfect for this specific purpose.
It is more reliable and more straightforward than HPLC. And notably cheaper.
The peak right after CBD is iso-d8.
Exo THC would be a smaller peak before d8, below 1%.
Then, regarding the remaining minors (often 20-50 species), these are likely stuff you never heard about before. THCV is very likely mistakenly identified.
noted! I only have access to a GCMS and should have mentioned that in the above post. we went through several iterations of quantitation of ‘synthetic’ matrices on a thermo/dionex UHPLC vs an agilent 6890 GC with a 5973 MSD and the thermo data ended up being more reliable to actually quantify the byproducts of these reactions.
Indeed. MS is in turns not that reliable in terms of quantifications. But FID is. Especially dealing with all these cannabinoids with similar masses, even with likely most of the unknowns found in these synthetic products.
