As a result of sitting down and focusing on all of this with our chemist today, we are looking into adding rows to our COA’s showing total percentage of “unknowns” and total percentage of sulfurs, then a row showing total percentage of components (which will be the sum of total hydrocarbons, total sulfurs, and total unknowns). This number will always read as 100%, but will allow a comparison of total hydrocarbon content to the full composition of the gas rather than only in relation to themselves (also resulting in 100%).
Of note, in my time with the company, we have never released product into the market with even 1% “unknowns.” This can be a cause of confusion when comparing our COA’s to some others because our COA’s will show a 100% result both when solely analyzed for hydrocarbons and when parsed against the full composition of the sample.
Edit: Forgot to include that I would propose adding to our standard that all COA’s should allow the customer to clearly identified purity based on total composition of a sample.
I only want to see 100% on a coa if it is 100% ingredients shown on the COA. If you can not quantify every single ingredient in that entire cylinder at a parts per BILLION level, add them all together and get 1 billion I do not want to see 100% anywhere on the COA from my perspective. If there are things in there not being tested for that is ok but it should no longer add up to 100% maybe 99.97898% or something like that but considering an impurity at 2 parts per BILLION in a tank could result in 1 part per million in my extract I need to know what percentage unknown I’m dealing with to have any chance of figuring this out if the problem is coming from something that is not currently tested for.
So I probably didn’t word that very well but that’s what we’re proposing to fix the problem. It’d be something like:
Total hydrocarbons: x.xxxx%
Total sulfurs: x.xxxx%
Total unknowns: x.xxxx%
Total:100.0000%
We would have to list these separately to remain compliant with the 2163 method (I.e. the hydrocarbon analysis will still total 100%) but I will put up an example when we work one up to see if y’all think it’s clear.
So you’d only have a potential contaminant if: i) there is anything other than 0.0000% in the “Total Unknowns” row, ii) if the hydrocarbon analysis contains a contaminant we identify in our new standard at a level other than 0.0000%, or iii) if the total sulfurs is anything above our standard threshold (which I think should be 0, but it’s open for input currently).
What I would recommend to fix the problem is to issue a COA (supplemental if need be for the lab to meet its QAM requirements on the method) which shows results “un-normalized”. If the numbers don’t add up to 100%, then there are unquantified components in the gas (which is exactly the data we’re looking for). It’s still an impurity even if you don’t know what it is. External calibration, CCV’s and/or internal standards should give us sufficient confidence that the results are accurate.
Ok understood. I’ll pull out the standard tomorrow and see exactly what’s allowable. If it requires normalization maybe we can add normalized results on a second page (or issue a supplement as you recommended). If we are required to list normalized results, I think I would prefer to keep it the same document though but with the “un-normalized” data front and center since that’s what y’all are wanting to see at a glance.
I think we’re all lucky to be part of a community where this conversation can even take place. We’re smarter together than any one of us is individually .
I have more coming on sulfurs, single phase liquid sampling, olefins, remediation measures. With everyone’s help we can sort all this out so y’all have the products you deserve.
I just think the more data. The more the consumer has to make an informed decision. I’ve talked to so many gas companies over the last few days. Some mad at me. Some enjoying this conversation and some genuinely trying to better themselves.
I’m just kinda dumbfounded no one really noticed all the 100% coas till I mentioned it. I was like how is everyone’s gas perfect but I’m always finding lubricants in my collections in the past. Weird.
I wish you and your team a lotta success. And that goes for all the gas people here. I have deceit relationship with most if not all the gas people and wish everyone the best!
Definitely more data. But we can go beyond that. What olefin hydrocarbons do we not want to see in our products? What sulfur limitations? Do we need a standardized single phase sampling method? How should our tests be run and the data quantified and presented?
There’s A LOT to sort through and nail down here. I know my posts are long (and getting longer lol) but I’m trying to end each one with a proposal to include as part of a centralized “forum standard” for these solvents. And that’s where we need to put collective our heads together.
I buy gas with .1% unknowns. I use a whole tank and add another one in. I now have ~.2% unknowns in my tank minus whatever is left in the product. This keeps adding up and up and up.
I may not notice a difference on my first second or third run. It might even take me 100 runs. At some point it’s going to leave more and more unknowns in the product which would cause an issue.
As an extractor we need to know the how much is in there, how much is acceptable, and do a complete purge of the system every x tanks to clear the unknowns.
Am I wrong in thinking maybe this isn’t just a bad gas issue but an issue of people scaling and using more and more butane and the unknowns adding up into levels higher than we’ve seen?
Even this solution sounds fine. If you want to show what percentage is unknown in any clear way that’s exactly what I’m looking for! Can you get THC to do this for me?
I’m sure that’s an issue. I’m not familiar enough with extraction SOP’s to give you any guidance as to cleaning procedures and intervals but there are plenty here who are. And at the new gas standard with greater levels of transparency, maybe that possibility is reduced? Or at the very least you’ll have the information you need to make a more informed decision about the potential buildup in your system.
For you? Anything. I can’t speak for THC but I can pull the right strings for customers I’ve set them up with.
We’ll work up a few sample formats over the next few days and see what y’all think is the most useful. Once we finalize I’ll call your rep and let him know what you need.
Thats a valid point, assuming its not from a new tank, my operating tank is rarely empty. Only when cleaning it but then running multiple new tanks into it over time. Potentially compounding whatever might be in there.
.