Does anyone know what lab has the ability to the largest amount of cannabinoids? As well as other constituents terpenes, flavonoids, esters…Looking to get as granular as possible. Thanks!
1 Like
A lot of labs have different types of expanded panels. Two that stand out off the top of my head are KCA in Kentucky who will quantify isomers if asked to. There’s also Infinite Analytical in San Diego who can also test for trace isomers if asked.
4 Likes
Awesome! Thank you
Across all of our methods we can test for 70 cannabinoids at the moment. Our terpene method was also developed in house and avoids the inaccuracies when using headspace. We’d be happy to look into testing other substances or we may be able to refer you to another lab that can.
10 Likes
Awesome. Thank you, I will send you a PM!
1 Like
You guys are running liquid inj for terps?
please elaborate on inaccuracies caused by headspace sampling for terp analysis.
2 Likes
Headspace analysis of terpenes (and residual solvents) is biased toward more volatile substances than injection analysis because the more volatile substances more readily enter the headspace. Consequently, less volatile terpenes and terpenoids like the sesquiterpenes and diterpenes are often underrepresented in the findings from headspace analysis. Also, other components in the sample can affect volatility and, therefore, quantitative estimates of the terpenes in headspace analysis. For headpsace, ideally, a calibration curve needs to be analyzed for each matrix. This is much less likely with direct injection, so external calibration curves can be used.
12 Likes
Thank you for asking.
…and thank you @kcalabs for all your contributions around here.
Makes me wonder about teaching one of these headspace auto-injectors a new trick…
2 Likes
Definitely good to consider those less volatile analytes of interest! How would you propose to set up matrix matched calibrations ? spike methyl cellulose for flower? spike distillate for concentrates?
We try to minimize bias towards those by keeping sample mass as low as possible, while high enough to maintain an adequate LOQ. Also using high vial pressurization setting. This really helps to keep the instrument clean from sample contamination.
I can double check , but I don’t believe we are historically low on PT results for heavier analytes in our HS methods
To be quite honest, we thought it’d be best to develop a new method rather than try to solve the matrix-specific challenges.
I suspect the PT results may be based on headspace analysis from the start, which may explain why.
1 Like
@qma hmmm
1 Like
About what? Headspace vs. liquid injection? Theres pros and cons to both, so we’re not going to preach that headspace is wrong. Its just not our preference.
1 Like
1 Like
You have no idea what your talking about
I was actually referencing KCA’s amazing knowledge to qma for something we have already been discussing prior to this thread.
You actually are a… nvm🤣
1 Like
Yea PT results are always a toss up between manufacturers , lots, and specific test methods.
Some account for results submitted by all the participants to determine pass / fail , some are analyzed by the PT manufacturer to determine pass / fail , some are just based on what the manuf spikes .
PM’ing you for details on your liq inj method
Do you have an SRI GC?
No, we don’t. We have Shimadzus and Agilents.
1 Like
Pricey to operate
Give the people more detector options to run with an SRI.
SRI single quad mass spec would be dope for a budget lab.
I’ve heard more people asking about sulfur testing too. A cheap sulfur chemiluminescence (SCD) would also be bad ass
I’ll design them for you
3 Likes