We don’t see any with a primary fragment at 277. Do you have one in mind? It probably isn’t a cannabinoid.
1 Like
In my experience they do not fragment differently on MS/MS. Tried lots of different collision settings and could not see any difference. I’d love to see some difference in fragments though if anyone has seen it.
Also, single quad ms still has its place in ID of cannabinoids (obviously not isomers though). I like em still because no molecular pump required and they are generally more robust (not as picky about impurities, less moving parts = more uptime) also they are like 3x smaller than a tqd.
2 Likes
I’ve got zero. with MS. MS/MS or smashy/smashy/smash. except for filling the later with liquid N2 or He once upon a time.
hoping to change that.
2 Likes
I run an ion trap that can definitely do MRM (basically only quantifying certain mass peaks), I’m not sure if standard quadrupole mass specs can do that standard. I believe they can. Triple quad can run quantification on the major fragments and then smashes the resulting ions again and you can quantify the sub-parts which makes for much more decisive identification of what exactly is coming through. You might have a completely unresolved peak when doing total ion count, but then you can go back and look at the peaks for the spectra of the compounds you’re looking for (d8 and d9 respectively) and you basically ignore the signal from the one you’re not looking for.
6 Likes
Sid, have you seen a difference in fragmentation of d8 VS d9? Like what are the transitions you are seeing? I would love to discuss. Maybe it would be better done in another thread though to avoid this dumpster fire.
3 Likes
interesting. I was using an agilent 6890 with a 5973msd for reference. 30cm capillary column, He carrier gas, RT of d8 and d9 at like 6.8min vs 7.1min (CBD at 6.3 for reference). MW was 314.
I assumed from Harvey '87 that the fragmentation pattern could be due to the isopropyl group on C6 leaving on iso-THC’s due to the methyl group on C11 being less susceptible than the isopropyl in the iso-THCs, but I could never find the MS data for the iso-THCs or the majority of compounds listed as byproducts in the toxics papers from 2021.
Given the relatively high abundance of 2 compounds with a primary m/z of 277, especially in more thermodynamically unstable environments, iso-THC isomer soup was the best guess I could come pup with.
I can’t believe I’m discussing MS fragmentation patterns on a thread called Pegasus Tears on an industry forum with the most respected analytical lab in the US. Our industry needs some sort of peer-reviewed platform where educated discussions and review doesn’t happen alongside whatever the hell this thread is.
11 Likes
I’m going to double check with my analyst to make sure he is including the iso-THCs in that review of m/z.
The iso-THCs elute close to CBD on our method and I think we have a bit more resolution between them.
I agree about the discussion. Maybe we can get this split off.
3 Likes
Its called a free for all, good sir
10 Likes
Thanks for the split!!
2 Likes
thank you 
I personally don’t have any real data regarding d8/9 fragmentation, honestly KCA is the authority in my eyes. They were able to perform some d8/9 THCV quantification for us and I was extremely impressed by the resolution they were able to get. Peaks were almost 100% overlapped with some unknowns before doing an ion screen
1 Like
This is the fragmentation pattern of d9THC. I’m not seeing a way for d8THC to fragment differently really.
@kcalabs, are you guys seeing a difference in fragmentation for d9 VS d8?
2 Likes
I am currently working with a company to help solve the fraudulent COAs. They have created a way to verify COAs quickly with the use of a QR code. As long as the third party lab has their system in place, the customer or anyone in the freight business can quickly determine if the COA on the oil is real or not. KCA if you are interested in hearing more about it, please send me a message.
QR codes = not a proof of the product before you.
URLs and system backend is where the crosschecking / temp URL with expiration/ number of times viewed / downloaded are all website work possibilities.
Nobody here has a chain of custody that doesn’t allow for potential fraud. The market doesn’t have a system like that for hemp and it barely does for thc.
Can’t stop bad actors.
1 Like
when they test our liters in Michigan they require that all the bottles be hot and they make us stir them up before they remove the sample. ensures that that sample is collectively all the same from each level.
Yes it does. I’m literally trying to sell the product that will held with fraud on COAs. I can’t stop people from putting the wrong COA with that product, but I can ensure that the customer can verify that the COA is real from the third party lab, if they are using the software I can provide.
1 Like
@chempistry are you able to share the mass spectral data you’re getting for the two compounds? Do you have more of the material that we can test for you?
@labdog the fragmentation from that graphic is from LCMS. The GCMS fragmentation is different and the abundance of the ions differ.
@Valkyries11 we’ve spoken to a couple groups about this and using blockchain. Is the service ready for use? Are you with Ionization?
2 Likes
Yes, I am with Ionization and the software is ready for use.
I’ll gladly point out concerns and put that to a test. No disrespect meant but everything can be broken.
Block chain systems are hacked, frauded, forked every day. Just like coas.
How does the magical blockchain protect me from someone swapping products in person and keeping the same qr code?
Purchase item on blockchain.
Empty and pour out.
Resell item with same QR code.
Block chain now tracks a scam product without ever knowing.
Even worse. Sell item on blockchain from start as scam. Next buyer who sells it on blockchain is now the scammer documented.
6 Likes
Test results and COA’s issued through Cann-ID are automatically captured and secured using SICPA’s CERTUS blockchain keyless signature infrastructure. Data can be verified by anyone with a mobile device validating on the CERTUS secure website. This is applicable to COA’s, transportation manifest, and to verify chain of custody through a third party lab.
As far as swapping material in person, there isn’t anything I can help with that. That requires trust and verification of material upon receiving or shipping. I am currently a lab director who works for a hemp lab as well. I make sure to verify all incoming received material with the original COA to a third party test to ensure I received the proper material. All of my outgoing material leaves with a QA package. This ensures the customer can quickly find any information on the lot received, including COAs from biomass all the way to the final product.