Run the conversion, clean up the product with chromatography…I don’t see why it’s not feasible to get very high purity D9 conversion product. Sure, it may require some GC and LC mass spec screenings to verify potential unknowns and byproducts that may be present, but if they can be identified and further purified out, it should be the same as just running extraction.
If I can extract and purify Linalool from cannabis, isolate it and create a 99% pure terpene from plant extract vs creating a 99% pure synthetic linalool from organic synthesis… and assuming that 1% does not contain harmful or toxic byproducts, in either scenario, then to me they are the exact same. So it goes with D9 and just about every other small molecule out there that can be both extracted naturally or created through organic synthesis.
At the end of the day something like this is only ever as good as the person performing the synthesis and the due diligence they put into creating a safe synthetic product, but whether or not synthetic itself is or isn’t any better, to me they are both the exact same.
Now…getting regulators to understand the whole situation and making sure proper testing is in place to find these contaminants and identify them…well that’s another story. For all intents and purposes in legal states, it’s probably in their best interest to not allow synthetic D9 until they are confident in the various synthetic processes used and understand the proper contaminants and toxic byproducts that should be tested for prior to allowing it to go to market.
I think it’s a fools errand even trying to mandate the testing labs to try and catch synthetics… There is no way to know whether some person will invent a new synthesis pathway with a whole new set of impurities and then they will skate by whatever the “old” impurities the labs was mandated to look for.
When a drug is debuted it needs to pass clinical trials showing safety and the synthetic assays must be spelled out in advance. The only reason cannabis products avoided this was because we could say “well people have been consuming them for 10000 years without dying”. We assume that nothing naturally found in the plant is too dangerous. IMO unless a company is willing to go through phase 1,2,3 type trials, synthetic THC should be completely banned.
You make a very good point and there is absolutely a very big disparity between pharmaceutical and food grade synthetic products made commercially (and the trials and regulatory hurdles they have to go through to even get to market) and people running D9 conversions in legal or non-legal markets for a compound that is still not even federally legal.
But overall I do agree with your point on the regulatory side that synthetic D9 should not be allowed in the market unless there was some way to confirm how it is done and it was regulated properly (such as you mentioned, going through a long process of trials and studies with a specific conversion method). Considering regulations are all state specific, and you can’t get federal funding for stuff like this…there is very little opportunity to implement synthetic D9 in a safe and compliant manner in the legal markets.
Not my work, redistilling does essentially zero to change cannabinoid profile. Probably gonna pass on it given Oregon’s stance on “synthetic” cannabinoids.
Outside chance it was converted…
@Dr_Jebril: any informed guesses on the unlabeled peaks here? The first two are in the vicinity of thcv
We’ve made tinctures, carts and gummies with both. Not much difference in my experience. I am fairly confident a solid clean converted D9 can be made consistently and it will absolutely do the job for 99 percent of folks.
This COA here do not say that there is no iso-THC.
There are 5% unreported. And it is HPLC-UV.
Who know here if this 92% d9 is not in fact 70% d9 + 22% iso…
I use a different method, but here it look like GC as well, with similar elution order.
The peak before the d8 should be iso-THC (pehaps together with little exo-THC).
The two peak at the vicinity of d9-THCv seems to be quite systematic of converted products.
There are usually similar species (two peaks) at these same earlier retention times.
The peak after d9-THC is likely not CBG.
There should be a handfull of other minors unknown also (below 0.2% for most).
Edit: @cyclopath I did not paid attention that you are dealing with a distilled natural d9… don’t you ? My comments above applies to converted cbd.
It should be plant derived D9, because it’s s in metrc in OR
That doesn’t mean it IS.
I’ve seen natural D9 abused to a greater extent and was certain of the source that time (because it was me that screwed it up). it looked similar. Only with considerably more (45%?) of the early eluting peak(s)
HPLC confirms CBN and CBG. Didn’t check to see if anything could be confused with CBC (probably don’t have a standard).
The lab member that picked up the sample says he could see their rig was leaking when he was by…and the operator was clueless.
I’m reasonably confident I’m just looking at piss poor distillation technique, mainly because I don’t believe these guys are even close to sophisticated enough to have managed this from CBD
We are submitting it for third party testing, but don’t actually expect the lab to raise any red flags. We’ll see.
You are right I misread the report. 2% unreported indeed (mind also the uncertainities)… but iso-d9-thc is not listed neither. Co-elution with d9 cannot be rulled out based on this sole report.
But even here maybe Im mistaking that main byproduct found in d9 synthesis for cis-d9 (as listed in Ceriliant poster).
It is for sure different to the iso-d8 found in d8 synthesis, it is only intermediary in this other process. By analogy, I assumed it as iso d9, because this is the main byproduct in d9 synthesis from CBD. All the samples (from tiba) Ive seen were 70% d9 with 20% of this byproduct.
It is not exo for sure.
Also do not rely too much on these papers. They do contain valuable data, but also assumptions, error, and quite some unclarities… what method did they use for analyzing the various reaction results ? Seems it relies mostly on TLC.
EDIT: I do apologize for the multiple edits and mispells I tried to reply form my phone but the touch screen sucks…
EDIT#2: Later this evening, I will post an overlay of a “classic” D8 (PTSA) and D9 (tiba) synthesis, to make my point clearer.
I did not produce these specific samples myself.
But I’m aware of the underlying process, and I estimated they are quite representative.
The (suspected) iso-THCs are indicated with the question marks (4.5% and 22% in the d8 and d9 sample respectively). Both samples contain a trace of the other one (and a trace of CBD as well).
If the PTSA reaction is stopped in early time, the product will actually contain more of the d9, and also more of the blue “?”… thus both are intermediary in the reaction to d8 and red “?”…
Exo-THC is 0.24% in the d8 sample, and 0.28% in the d9 sample…
In fact it does not seem to be related to the strenght of the acid.
In this paper they just say that acidic condition will push the reaction further to the last step, for both path.
PTSA produces the least of iso-THC amongst other acids like CSA, PSA, sulfonic resins… while I believe it is still a stronger acid. This may have rather to do with the morphology of the acidic catalyst.
Up to now I did not paid very close attention to the numbering in this mechanism but in fact now I realize it is mixing both monoterpenoid and dibenzobyran numberings (depending on the path).
Then if their identification of the mechanism is correct, then the blue “?” would be the delta8-iso-THC (or “delta6-iso-THC”, folowing the more conventional dibenzobyran numberings), and the red “?” would be the delta4(8)-iso-THC (or “delta6a(6)-iso-THC”).
Recently I tried to make d9 from cbd and got that. I did it several times. Kept getting 94-96% d9 and that small peak right before d9 around 5.7 mins. Cbn comes out at 4.2 mins. Does anyone have any idea what that remaining 4-6% might be?
