I have access to a triple quadrupole mass spectrometer and an incredibly talented analytical chemist who will likely exchange time on the machine and operator to give you extremely detailed accounts of exactly what the hell your D8 SOP is making… DM me and let’s talk rates- I’m getting some samples prepped to run this week
Analyze your material, if it’s not run on a mass spec -it’s boof!
I was just informed by dr jebrel that ms can not differentiate D8 from D9 in this forum
in the isomerization thread.
are they using FID as suggested by the good doctor.
I would think that from what I understand (the mass of D8 and D9 being the same and only a double
bond position difference) that if it is run on a ms it is boof.
I would be happy to be proven wrong here though as I am thinking of getting a hapsite
though I must say wishing to hunt ecgonine and tryptamines in the australian bush my
intentions are only evil 
I have just been given a conflicting report from a private message.
he/she/it (who knows in this world) states that you can detect a difference from D8 and D9 with ms
I would say if thats the case the ionization is different based on where the double bond is.
I will wait to see what others have to say 
I hope you find what you’re looking for. I’ll know who’s responsible when I read about the Aussie substituted ecgonines wave of 2021 lol
I have this dream that goes much like the map of ukraine in lord of war.
instead its the australia map made from australian extracts.
fight club you know if I am happy to talk about it its not going out to the public.
awaiting anti drug comments here … mkay
proton NMR is a good way to differentiate d9 from d8. You would look at the j coupling constants and splitting pattern from the 1,1-disubstituted olefins as one would be closer to two protons versus one proton. The downside is that this relies on having pure fractions not a jumbled mess.
and three faze power and really expensive liquid helium.
great for the ones in the serious business but a little bee like me way out of my league.
so how are the companies that sell analysis finding there D8 and D9 measurements.
no wonder everyone is going ape shit over bad D8 results from the professionals.
also I wonder if the pigs are able to truly tell the percentage of D8 from D9 then and are
they charging people wrongly.
this is very very important to find out as it will give people a defense in court.
notice they use FID
I’m no analytical chemist but
I’m way less interested in seeing the difference between D8/d9
And seeing what the fuck is the mystery meat that makes up the other % of peoples product
If it is truly a delta THc
Great
What is the mystery meat is what you should all be concerned with
Once that has been substantiated via mass spec
Then you can measure delta-dicks
your going to want a library with those compounds in it then I would think.
everyone would not be going on about testing companies being to slack to add new samples
to there library if it was that easy.
the spectra that comes from a gc/ms to my knowledge is not like raman or NMR and doesn’t tell
you functional groups or where they lie.
its more a signature I think and you want a copy of the signature to match.
there is an easy way to test it.
pull a weird arse spectra from some total synth journal that is not in the nist library.
give it to your mate and see if he/she can tell you what it is.
Pretty sure I can still produce better data with my GC-FID. 
I’m ready to be challenged.
The spectra of d8 and d9 are actually really different from one another. The only information you get with an FID is a retention time.
Well there are here subtilities in this topic.
I said that this is not straightforward at all with a MS, nor, I believe, with a MS/MS, unless one employs tricky specific transformation on the isomers (and have done the same on the standards…).
Now @Rowan is referring to a triple quad. This is the level below the QTOF.
Perhaps the resolution of mass fragments becomes good enough to distinguish various THCs. But still with some indepth knowlede of the sample…
Someone mention NMR above, off course this is the most convenient method, but for pure compounds.
Thus, what really matters is the quality of the separation between d8 and d9 (and the others) before bringing them to any detector. Therefore, a MS won’t be much more usefull than a simpler FID if the separation is not sufficient enough.
Also FID was generally advised in Forsensics method for d9 in natural products (not in human samples) because it is simple, and using the right method, it works.
Indeed, the MS and related method becomes much more of use for the unknown.
You cannot necessary tel what they are, but you could at least tell what they are not…
so if one was to use a modified column for the GC it might work ?
probably not what people want to have to do.
No it is not needed, and not feasible. HPLC uses packed column, GC can as well, but more generally uses capillary columns. The building is also not the same.
It needs to get a hplc column which would be polar and long enough, and setting up a consistent method. Analysis time should be extended in any case.
GC triple is THE tool for identifying what all that other junk is. It performs its own derivatization (layman’s terms: it breaks the things then measures them) and has extremely good resolution. It’s definitely the right tool for the job here. The next step would be isolating the impurities and running NMR to identify their finer traits (isomer data etc) but that’s a ton of work due to the sample sizes needed for NMR. Most of the impurities can probably be identified via library info anyways
for a none pure sample that was isomerized I would think so but pure CBD will not make
much more than just broken or side reacted cannabinoids which I would think would not be
in the library.
ie the terpenes in oils would have there by products from the reaction mapped.
I have a copy of nist and schrodinger so ill have a look to see what cannabinoids are contained.
I’m not an analytical chemist so iight butcher this explanation but here’s the benefit to triple quad: when trying to identify unknown compounds, you want as much data that is unique to that compound as possible, but also data that can be interpreted without already knowing what the compound is. Like @Dr_Jebril said, GC FID gets you pretty much one piece of data (retention time). GC-MS gets you retention time and mass/charge ratio. GC triple gets you both those things, but then also gets you those values for the parts of those compounds. Sometimes those parts are whole functional groups which can readily be identified using the library. Now you have a much more complete data set to make a decision from
Here’s a good article to give some background on GC/triple:
https://cen.acs.org/articles/96/i10/triple-quadrupole-turns-40-mass.html
