2 Likes
is that why my rock and roll doesnāt sell anymore 
I want some of the gooood shit
3 Likes
nice one brother 
Hi all, a little late to this thread, but here is some information my team put together.
d8-d9 THC on Mass Spec.pdf (145.7 KB)
Weāre already separating the d8 and d9 in all of these samples weāre receiving.
If you are reading this and believe your d8 has non-detect d9 in it then I highly recommend retesting it with us, especially if youāre in a hemp only state.
5 Likes
That is some great info! Looks like breaking the stuff before/while measuring it is in fact useful!
this being the key.
so your chromatographing the product first and then running the fractions through gc/ms.
this fixes the problem of the gc not separating the two products properly.
question how do you tell the amount of D8 and D9 in the fraction that has the two overlaping
in it.
so you would be able to tell the amount of D9 to an extent but would not the ovelaping fraction
have the same problem or is there enough separation of the two isomers that you have
a clean fraction of solvent between the two ?
thank you for the information.
I agree that this method is a good one.
Based on the paper @kcalabs posted, they have different ratios of the fragmentation products. By taking the profile of that overlapping section, it would be trivial to establish the fraction of each present to produce the profile witnessed
yes they are saying as they turn up the energy they get a difference in intensity at 191 and 313 m/z.
but the intensity of 245 and to an extent 179 stay the same.
so are they only separating the THC from the rest and measuring the 191 against 245 to tell
how much of both there are as they have different intensities at 191 above 40 NCE.
he states he is separating the d8 and d9.
If thereās overlap with an unknown we will see contamination of the fragmentation but d8 and d9 are easy to separate with analytical scale chromatography. The GC or the LC method will separate them. Once separated by chromatography the MS will have no trouble detecting them.
Correct me if Iām wrong but I thought the issue isnāt with d8 and d9 convoluting. The main issue is a new peak which convolutes with d9, which may trick us into thinking itās d9. Seems likely to be a cbd degradation product but is definitely not d8.
Iāll post an image today on my instagram showing a sample with these extra peaks in the d9 region.
8 Likes
Weāve seen the same coelution on both the d9 and d8. They appear to be other isomers of THC, but we have yet to identify them.
4 Likes
Is it MS data that makes you think they are isomers of THC?
1 Like
Yes the main issue here are the peak co-eluting in many of these fast (below 10 minutes) analyses done by many labs.
I get much more consistent while I only use FIDā¦ the key is the correct separation. In my case I use a hp35ms column. Both d9 and d8 are separated from each other, but still come with minor neigbours. I suspect it might be delta7 and delta6 in my case.
3 Likes
Weāre thinking the same thing with d6 and d7.
3 Likes
I might be missing it, is there fragmentation data?
Our LC-PDA shows similar peaks. I need to brush up on my MS knowledge
It was run on a triple quad in MRM. Weāre monitoring multiple fragments listed in the chromatograms.
4 Likes
Quality content throughout this thread
5 Likes
Isnāt there a rule against that sort of thing around here these days?
8 Likes
they reversed the rule, around the same time they caged that obnoxious little Mockingbird- seems related, who knows though- Iām just a paranoid schizophrenic who lives out behind the dumpsters at the local university science hall, thinks hes a racoon whos been turned into a human by a witch or something.
3 Likes
Ptosic acid kool-aid test?
2 Likes