By Rebecca Stevens

As mentioned in Part 1, the physiological effects of cannabis are mediated by a group of structurally related organic compounds known as cannabinoids. The cannabinoids are biosynthetically produced by a growing cannabis plant and Figure 1 details the biosynthetic pathways leading to some of the most important cannabinoids in plant material.

Potency figure 1 — Figure 1: The biosynthetic pathway of phytocannabinoid production in cannabis has been deeply studied through isotopic labeling experiments

The analytical measurement of cannabinoids is important to ensure the safety and quality of cannabis as well as its extracts and edible formulations. Total cannabinoid levels can vary significantly between different cultivars and batches, from about 5% up to 20% or more by dry weight. Information on cannabinoid profiles can be used to tailor cultivars for specific effects and allows end users to select an appropriate dose.

Routine Analysis vs. Cannabinomics

Several structurally analogous groups of cannabinoids exist. In total, structures have been assigned for more than 70 unique phytocannabinoids as of 2005 and the burgeoning field of cannabinomics seeks to comprehensively measure these compounds.¹

Considering practical potency analysis, the vast majority of cannabinoid content is accounted for by 10-12 compounds. These include Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cannabidiol (CBD), cannabigerol (CBG), Δ9-tetrahydrocannabivarian (THCV), cannabidivarin (CBDV) and their respective carboxylic acid forms. The cannabinoids occur primarily as carboxylic acids in plant material. Decarboxylation occurs when heat is applied through smoking, vaporization or cooking thereby producing neutral cannabinoids which are more physiologically active.

Potency Analysis by HPLC and GC

Currently, HPLC and GC are the two most commonly used techniques for potency analysis. In the case of GC, the heat used to vaporize the injected sample causes decarboxylation of the native cannabinoid acids. Derivatization of the acids may help reduce decarboxylation but overall this adds another layer of complexity to the analysis² ³. HPLC is the method of choice for direct analysis of cannabinoid profiles and this technique will be discussed further.

A sample preparation method consisting of grinding/homogenization and alcohol extraction is commonly used for cannabis flower and extracts. It has been shown to provide good recovery and precision² ³. An aliquot of the resulting extract can then be diluted with an HPLC compatible solvent such as 25% water / 75% acetonitrile with 0.1% formic acid. The cannabinoids are not particularly water soluble and can precipitate if the aqueous percentage is too high.

To avoid peak distortion and shifting retention times the diluent and initial mobile phase composition should be reasonably well matched. Another approach is to make a smaller injection (1-2 µL) of a more dissimilar solvent. The addition of formic acid or ammonium formate buffer acidifies the mobile phase and keeps the cannabinoid acids protonated.

The protonated acids are neutral and thus well retained on a C18 type column, even at higher (~50% or greater) concentrations of organic solvent² ³.

Detection is most often done using UV absorbance. Two main types of UV detectors are available for HPLC, single wavelength and diode array. A diode array detector (DAD) measures absorbance across a range of wavelengths producing a spectrum at each point in a chromatogram while single wavelength detectors only monitor absorbance at a single user selected wavelength. The DAD is more expensive, but very useful for detecting coelutions and interferences.

References

Chemical Constituents of Marijuana: The Complex Mixture of Natural Cannabinoids. Life Sciences, 78, (2005), pp. 539
Development and Validation of a Reliable and Robust Method for the Analysis of Cannabinoids and Terpenes in Cannabis. Journal of AOAC International, 98, (2015), pp. 1503
Innovative Development and Validation of an HPLC/DAD Method for the Qualitative and Quantitative Determination of Major Cannabinoids in Cannabis Plant Material. Journal of Chromatography B, 877, (2009), pp. 4115

Rebecca is an Applications Scientist at Restek Corporation and is eager to field any questions or comments on cannabis analysis, she can be reached by e-mail, rebecca.stevens@restek.com or by phone at 814-353-1300 (ext. 2154)

December 15, 2016

The Nerd Perspective

Pesticide Detection in Cannabis: Lab Challenges and Why Less Isn’t Always More

By Amanda Rigdon

2 Comments

Almost as soon as cannabis became recreationally legal, the public started to ask questions about the safety of products being offered by dispensaries – especially in terms of pesticide contamination. As we can see from the multiple recalls of product there is a big problem with pesticides in cannabis that could pose a danger to consumers. While The Nerd Perspective is grounded firmly in science and fact, the purpose of this column is to share my insights into the cannabis industry based on my years of experience with multiple regulated industries with the goal of helping the cannabis industry mature using lessons learned from other established markets. In this article, we’ll take a look at some unique challenges facing cannabis testing labs, what they’re doing to respond to the challenges, and how that can affect the cannabis industry as a whole.

The Big Challenge

Over the past several years, laboratories have quickly ‘grown up’ in terms of technology and expertise, improving their methods for pesticide detection to improve data quality and lower detection limits, which ultimately ensures a safer product by improving identification of contaminated product. But even though cannabis laboratories are maturing, they’re maturing in an environment far different than labs from regulated industry, like food laboratories. Food safety testing laboratories have been governmentally regulated and funded from almost the very beginning, allowing them some financial breathing room to set up their operation, and ensuring they won’t be penalized for failing samples. In contrast, testing fees for cannabis labs are paid for by growers and producers – many of whom are just starting their own business and short of cash. This creates fierce competition between cannabis laboratories in terms of testing cost and turnaround time. One similarity that the cannabis industry shares with the food industry is consumer and regulatory demand for safe product. This demand requires laboratories to invest in instrumentation and personnel to ensure generation of quality data. In short, the two major demands placed on cannabis laboratories are low cost and scientific excellence. As a chemist with years of experience, scientific excellence isn’t cheap, thus cannabis laboratories are stuck between a rock and a hard place and are feeling the squeeze.

Responding to the Challenge

One way for high-quality laboratories to win business is to tout their investment in technology and the sophistication of their methods; they’re selling their science, a practice I stand behind completely. However, due to the fierce competition between labs, some laboratories have oversold their science by using terms like ‘lethal’ or ‘toxic’ juxtaposed with vague statements regarding the discovery of pesticides in cannabis using the highly technical methods that they offer. This juxtaposition can then be reinforced by overstating the importance of ultra-low detection levels outside of any regulatory context. For example, a claim stating that detecting pesticides at the parts per trillion level (ppt) will better ensure consumer safety than methods run by other labs that only detect pesticides at concentrations at parts per billion (ppb) concentrations is a potentially dangerous claim in that it could cause future problems for the cannabis industry as a whole. In short, while accurately identifying contaminated samples versus clean samples is indeed a good thing, sometimes less isn’t more, bringing us to the second half of the title of this article.

Less isn’t always more…

In my last article, I illustrated the concept of the trace concentrations laboratories detect, finishing up with putting the concept of ppb into perspective. I wasn’t even going to try to illustrate parts per trillion. Parts per trillion is one thousand times less concentrated than parts per billion. To put ppt into perspective, we can’t work with water like I did in my previous article; we have to channel Neil deGrasse Tyson.

The Milky Way galaxy contains about 100 billion stars, and our sun is one of them. Our lonely sun, in the vastness of our galaxy, where light itself takes 100,000 years to traverse, represents a concentration of 10 ppt. On the surface, detecting galactically-low levels of contaminants sounds wonderful. Pesticides are indeed lethal chemicals, and their byproducts are often lethal or carcinogenic as well. From the consumer perspective, we want everything we put in our bodies free of harmful chemicals. Looking at consumer products from The Nerd Perspective, however, the previous sentence changes quite a bit. To be clear, nobody – nerds included – wants food or medicine that will poison them. But let’s explore the gap between ‘poison’ and ‘reality’, and why that gap matters.

In reality, according to a study conducted by the FDA in 2011, roughly 37.5% of the food we consume every day – including meat, fish, and grains – is contaminated with pesticides. Is that a good thing? No, of course it isn’t. It’s not ideal to put anything into our bodies that has been contaminated with the byproducts of human habitation. However, the FDA, EPA, and other governmental agencies have worked for decades on toxicological, ecological, and environmental studies devoted to determining what levels of these toxic chemicals actually have the potential to cause harm to humans. Rather than discuss whether or not any level is acceptable, let’s take it on principle that we won’t drop over dead from a lethal dose of pesticides after eating a salad and instead take a look at the levels the FDA deem ‘acceptable’ for food products. In their 2011 study, the FDA states that “Tolerance levels generally range from 0.1 to 50 parts per million (ppm). Residues present at 0.01 ppm and above are usually measurable; however, for individual pesticides, this limit may range from 0.005 to 1 ppm.” Putting those terms into parts per trillion means that most tolerable levels range from 100,000 to 50,000,000 ppt and the lower limit of ‘usually measurable’ is 10,000 ppt. For the food we eat and feed to our children, levels in parts per trillion are not even discussed because they’re not relevant.

A specific example of this is arsenic. Everyone knows arsenic is very toxic. However, trace levels of arsenic naturally occur in the environment, and until 2004, arsenic was widely used to protect pressure-treated wood from termite damage. Because of the use of arsenic on wood and other arsenic containing pesticides, much of our soil and water now contains some arsenic, which ends up in apples and other produce. These apples get turned into juice, which is freely given to toddlers everywhere. Why, then, has there not an infant mortality catastrophe? Because even though the arsenic was there (and still is), it wasn’t present at levels that were harmful. In 2013, the FDA published draft guidance stating that the permissible level of arsenic in apple juice was 10 parts per billion (ppb) – 10,000 parts per trillion. None of us would think twice about offering apple juice to our child, and we don’t have to…because the dose makes the poison.

How Does This Relate to the Cannabis Industry?

The concept of permissible exposure levels (a.k.a. maximum residue limits) is an important concept that’s understood by laboratories, but is not always considered by the public and the regulators tasked with ensuring cannabis consumer safety. As scientists, it is our job not to misrepresent the impact of our methods or the danger of cannabis contaminants. We cannot understate the danger of these toxins, nor should we overstate their danger. In overstating the danger of these toxins, we indirectly pressure regulators to establish ridiculously low limits for contaminants. Lower limits always require the use of newer testing technologies, higher levels of technical expertise, and more complicated methods. All of this translates to increased testing costs – costs that are then passed on to growers, producers, and consumers. I don’t envy the regulators in the cannabis industry. Like the labs in the cannabis industry, they’re also stuck between a rock and a hard place: stuck between consumers demanding a safe product and producers demanding low-cost testing. As scientists, let’s help them out by focusing our discussion on the real consumer safety issues that are present in this market.

*average of domestic food (39.5% contaminated) and imported food (35.5% contaminated)

November 30, 2016

The Practical Chemist

Appropriate Instrumentation for the Chemical Analysis of Cannabis and Derivative Products: Part 1

By Rebecca Stevens

1 Comment

Election Day 2016 resulted in historic gains for state level cannabis prohibition reform. Voters in California, Maine, Massachusetts and Nevada chose to legalize adult use of Cannabis sp. and its extracts while even traditionally conservative states like Arkansas, Florida, Montana and North Dakota enacted policy allowing for medical use. More than half of the United States now allows for some form of legal cannabis use, highlighting the rapidly growing need for high quality analytical testing.

For the uninitiated, analytical instrumentation can be a confusing mix of abbreviations and hyphenation that provides little obvious information about an instrument’s capability, advantages and disadvantages. In this series of articles, my colleagues and I at Restek will break down and explain in practical terms what instruments are appropriate for a particular analysis and what to consider when choosing an instrumental technique.

Potency Analysis

Potency analysis refers to the quantitation of the major cannabinoids present in Cannabis sp. These compounds are known to provide the physiological effects of cannabis and their levels can vary dramatically based on cultivation practices, product storage conditions and extraction practices.

The primary technique is high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) coupled to ultraviolet absorbance (UV) detection. Gas chromatography (GC) coupled to a flame ionization detector (FID) or mass spectrometry (MS) can provide potency information but suffers from issues that preclude its use for comprehensive analysis.

Pesticide Residue Analysis

Pesticide residue analysis is, by a wide margin, the most technically challenging testing that we will discuss here. Trace levels of pesticides incurred during cultivation can be transferred to the consumer both on dried plant material and in extracts prepared from the contaminated material. These compounds can be acutely toxic and are generally regulated at part per billion parts-per-billion levels (PPB).

Depending on the desired target pesticides and detection limits, HPLC and/or GC coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) or high resolution accurate mass spectrometry (HRAM) is strongly recommended. Tandem and HRAM mass spectrometry instrumentation is expensive, but in this case it is crucial and will save untold frustration during method development.

Residual Solvents Analysis

When extracts are produced from plant material using organic solvents such as butane, alcohols or supercritical carbon dioxide there is a potential for the solvent and any other contaminants present in it to become trapped in the extract. The goal of residual solvent analysis is to detect and quantify solvents that may remain in the finished extract.

Residual solvent analysis is best accomplished using GC coupled to a headspace sample introduction system (HS-GC) along with FID or MS detection. Solid phase microextraction (SPME) of the sample headspace with direct introduction to the GC is another option.

Terpene Profile Analysis

While terpene profiles are not a safety issue, they provide much of the smell and taste experience of cannabis and are postulated to synergize with the physiologically active components. Breeders of Cannabis sp. are often interested in producing strains with specific terpene profiles through selective breeding techniques.

Both GC and HPLC can be employed successfully for terpenes analysis. Mass spectrometry is suitable for detection as well as GC-FID and HPLC-UV.

Heavy Metals Analysis

Metals such as arsenic, lead, cadmium, chromium and mercury can be present in cannabis plant material due to uptake from the soil, fertilizers or hydroponic media by a growing plant. Rapidly growing plants like Cannabis sp. are particularly efficient at extracting and accumulating metals from their environment.

Several different types of instrumentation can be used for metals analysis, but the dominant technology is inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). Other approaches can also be used including ICP coupled with optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES).

An inductively coupled plasma torch used in MS reaches local temperatures rivaling the surface of the sun. Image by W. Blanchard, Wikimedia — An inductively coupled plasma torch used in Optical Emission Spectroscopy (OES) reaches local temperatures rivaling the surface of the sun. Image by W. Blanchard, Wikimedia

November 30, 2016

Quality From Canada

Near Infrared, GC and HPLC Applications in Cannabis Testing

By Tegan Adams, Michael Bertone

5 Comments

When a cannabis sample is submitted to a lab for testing there is a four-step process that occurs before it is tested in the instrumentation on site:

It is ground at a low temperature into a fine powder;
A solution is added to the ground powder;
An extraction is repeated 6 times to ensure all cannabinoids are transferred into a common solution to be used in testing instrumentation.
Once the cannabinoid solution is extracted from the plant matter, it is analyzed using High Pressure Liquid Chromatograph (HPLC). HPLC is the key piece of instrumentation in cannabis potency testing procedures.

While there are many ways to test cannabis potency, HPLC is the most widely accepted and recognized testing instrumentation. Other instrument techniques include gas chromatography (GC) and thin layer chromatography (TLC). HPLC is preferred over GC because it does not apply heat in the testing process and cannabinoids can then be measured in their naturally occurring forms. Using a GC, heat is applied as part of the testing process and cannabinoids such as THCA or CBDA can change form, depending on the level of heat applied. CBDA and THCA have been observed to change form at as low as 40-50C. GC uses anywhere between 150-200C for its processes, and if using a GC, a change of compound form can occur. Using HPLC free of any high-heat environments, acidic (CBDA & THCA) and neutral cannabinoids (CBD, THC, CBG, CBN and others) can be differentiated in a sample for quantification purposes.

Near Infrared

Near infrared (NIR) has been used with cannabis for rapid identification of active pharmaceutical ingredients by measuring how much light different substances reflect. Cannabis is typically composed of 5-30% cannabinoids (mainly THC and CBD) and 5-15% water. Cannabinoid content can vary by over 5% (e.g. 13-18%) on a single plant, and even more if grown indoors. Multiple NIR measurements can be cost effective for R&D purposes. NIR does not use solvents and has a speed advantage of at least 50 times over traditional methods.

The main downfall of NIR techniques is that they are generally less accurate than HPLC or GC for potency analyses. NIR can be programmed to detect different compounds. To obtain accuracy in its detection methods, samples must be tested by HPLC on ongoing basis. 100 samples or more will provide enough information to improve an NIR software’s accuracy if it is programmed by the manufacturer or user using chemometrics. Chemometrics sorts through the often complex and broad overlapping NIR absorption.

Bands from the chemical, physical, and structural properties of all species present in a sample that influences the measured spectra. Any variation however of a strain tested or water quantity observed can affect the received results. Consistency is the key to obtaining precision with NIR equipment programming. The downfall of the NIR technique is that it must constantly be compared to HPLC data to ensure accuracy.

At Eurofins Experchem , our company works with bothHPLC and NIR equipment simultaneously for different cannabis testing purposes. Running both equipment simultaneously means we are able to continually monitor the accuracy of our NIR equipment as compared to our HPLC. If a company is using NIR alone however, it can be more difficult to maintain the equipment’s accuracy without on-going monitoring.

What about Terpenes?

Terpenes are the primary aromatic constituents of cannabis resin and essential oils. Terpene compounds vary in type and concentration among different genetic lineages of cannabis and have been shown to modulate and modify the therapeutic and psychoactive effects of cannabinoids. Terpenes can be analyzed using different methods including separation by GC or HPLC and identification by Mass Spectrometry. The high-heat environment for GC analysis can again cause problems in accuracy and interpretation of results for terpenes; high-heat environments can degrade terpenes and make them difficult to find in accurate form. We find HPLC is the best instrument to test for terpenes and can now test for six of the key terpene profiles including a-Pinene, Caryophyllene, Limonene, Myrcene, B-Pinene and Terpineol.

Quality Systems

Quality systems between different labs are never one and the same. Some labs are testing cannabis under good manufacturing practices (GMP), others follow ISO accreditation and some labs have no accreditation at all.

From a quality systems’ perspective some labs have zero or only one quality system employee(s). In a GMP lab, to meet the requirements of Health Canada and the FDA, our operations are staffed in a 1:4 quality assurance to analyst ratio. GMP labs have stringent quality standards that set them apart from other labs testing cannabis. Quality standards we work with include, but are not limited to: monthly internal blind audits, extensive GMP training, yearly exams and ongoing tests demonstrating competencies.

Maintaining and adhering to strict quality standards necessary for a Drug Establishment License for pharmaceutical testing ensures accuracy of results in cannabis testing otherwise difficult to find in the testing marketplace.

Important things to know about testing

HPLC is the most recommended instrument used for product release in a regulated environment.
NIR is the best instrument to use for monitoring growth and curing processes for R&D purposes, only if validated with an HPLC on an ongoing basis.
Quality Systems between labs are different. Regardless of instrumentation used, if quality systems are not in place and maintained, integrity of results may be compromised.
GMPs comprise 25% of our labour costs to our quality department. Quality systems necessary for a GMP environment include internal audits, out of specification investigations, qualification and maintenance of instruments, systems controls and stringent data integrity standards.

November 30, 2016

Biros' Blog

Trump’s Cabinet Not Cannabis-Friendly, But Don’t Panic Yet

By Aaron G. Biros

No Comments

President-elect Donald Trump nominated Sen. Jeff Sessions from Alabama for Attorney General and Rep. Tom Price from Georgia as the new Health Secretary. Those appointments still require Senate approval before they are officially members of the cabinet. Neither of the picks to head the Department of Justice (DoJ) and the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) is friendly to cannabis.

What’s the bad news?

Both of those agencies are at the center of any federal regulation of cannabis, including access for research. As Attorney General, Jeff Sessions would essentially have the ability to block any rescheduling efforts, as outlined in the Controlled Substances Act.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, (R), 69. Photo: Gage Skidmore, Flickr

Sessions has made inflammatory, racist remarks and showed his disdain for cannabis users on multiple occasions. He disgracefully said at a Senate hearing in April, “Good people don’t smoke marijuana.” When he was a federal prosecutor, Sessions was a prominent advocate for the War on Drugs, and perhaps even still is.

Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) Photo: Gage Skidmore, Flickr — Rep. Tom Price (R-GA)
Photo: Gage Skidmore, Flickr

Tom Price, a Republican Congressman from Georgia, has voted repeatedly against pro-cannabis legalization bills, including twice against the Veterans Equal Access Amendment as well as the Rohrabacher/Farr Amendment, which “prohibits the use of funds in the bill to supersede State law in those States that have legalized the use of medical marijuana.” NORML’s Georgia Scorecard gave Tom Price a D grade for his previously voting against pro-cannabis bills.

What’s the good news?

While Sen. Jeff Sessions is certainly no friend to legal cannabis, I believe he is not a serious danger to the cannabis industry. This op-ed on CNN does a terrific job at summing up Sessions’ potential threat to the cannabis industry, but also why it may not be cause for a total panic. The author mentions a laundry list of DoJ priorities over cannabis, but I think the larger issue at hand is states’ rights.

Republicans are historically passionate when it comes to keeping states’ rights sovereign. With cannabis’ big wins on Election Day, a majority of the country’s population now lives in states where cannabis is legal.

aaronsmithncia — Aaron Smith, executive director of NCIA

There is too much momentum behind legal cannabis for a new administration to waste precious resources and time on trying to disrupt it. States are getting too much tax revenue from regulating cannabis to just let the DoJ interfere with their economies. “Voters in 28 states have chosen programs that shift cannabis from the criminal market to highly regulated, tax-paying businesses,” says Aaron Smith, executive director of the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA). “Senator Sessions has long advocated for state sovereignty, and we look forward to working with him to ensure that states’ rights and voter choices on cannabis are respected.” Smith’s words in the NCIA statement are pointed and clear: this is a states’ rights issue at heart and they must respect that.

By forcing the states’ rights issue to the front, it is possible to put legal cannabis in a bipartisan lens, thus eliminating the possibility of a few old drug war stalwarts disrupting the industry. While rescheduling efforts could be thwarted for the coming years, I have faith that the federal government will not interfere with states that legalize cannabis.

November 16, 2016

Operational Inefficiencies in Commercial Cannabis Cultivation

By Drew Plebani

2 Comments

From the perspective of sustainable cannabis cultivation models, it seems clear that outside of the particular cultivation methodology adopted, that operational efficiency and the implementation of lean manufacturing principles will be necessary for successful and truly “sustainable” businesses, in the current, ever growing, cannabis space.

Implementing lean manufacturing principles as an integral part of the cannabis cultivation facility just makes sense- it is a manufacturing operation after all. From a lean perspective, doing away with the non-value-added costs in the supply chain and production model are quite important.

Let’s look at this case study as evidence for the necessity of operational efficiency:

A 300-light flowering, indoor cultivation facility in Colorado.

The system was purchased with ongoing pest/disease issues, recent updates to Colorado’s approved pesticide list, had prompted the implementation of an updated integrated pest management (IPM) program, which had been moderately successful in developing an albeit short-term solution to keeping ongoing root aphids, powdery mildew, and botrytis, to name a few, at bay.

This existing facility was producing roughly 60 pounds of trimmed cannabis per week, equivalent to almost $6M annual gross, however they were losing a percentage of their yields to product that did not pass Colorado’s contaminant testing requirements.

It is important to note that any deviation from the existing manufacturing schedule and system would create a change to the potential productivity of the system, for better or worse.

At the most basic level, one would hope that a new operator taking over an existing facility would analyze the system and implement incremental or perhaps major changes to create more efficient and profitable outcomes. That being said, currently the average grower likely doesn’t have much understanding of the lean manufacturing process. That will undoubtedly change.

When we look at basic manufacturing facility operations, on an annual gross potential basis, each daily task not completed on the existing manufacturing timeline is, at least, a 0.3% (1/365) loss in potential productivity. In monetary terms, for this particular facility, each 0.3% equates to a potential $18,000 in lost productivity.

The information that follows is taken from observations during the first week of this facility ownership transition and below is a generalized outline representing just one aspect of the operational inefficiencies (created or existing) that were observed :

Plant group A put into flowering 4 days behind schedule (4 days x 0.3%) =1.2%
Plant group B transplanted 3 days behind =0.9%
Plant group C transplanted 7 days behind =2.1%
Plant group D (clones) taken 7 days behind =2.1%
IPM applications not completed for 7+ days

That equals a 6.3% loss in potential annual productivity, which translates into a rough estimate of up to $378,000 in lost revenue.

Changes to the nutrient program in the midst of the plant’s life cycle had created nutrient deficient plants in all stages of vegetative and flowering growth, coupled with changes to the existing IPM program, all add to the potential losses incurred. Deviations in the plant nutrition program and IPM scheduling are hard to quantify mid-cycle, but will certainly be quantifiable when the hard numbers come home to roost.

These inefficiencies, once compounded, could potentially equal more than a 20% loss in potential productivity during the subsequent 3.5 month plant cycle. The current 60 pounds-per-week would likely be reduced for the next 2 months, down to roughly 50 pounds, or even much less, per-week. This could become a loss upwards of $500,000 in annual potential revenue in the first quarter of operation alone.

These seemingly small and incremental delays in the plant production cycle are all greatly compounded. The end result is that each subsequent cycle of plants is slightly smaller due to delays in transplanting and less days at maximized vegetative growth, etc. Undoubtedly, the cumulative effect of these operational inefficiencies creates a significant drop in the existing level of productivity, with the end result being a significant, undesired loss of revenue.

The sum of the lessons learned from this cultivation facility, is this: a sustainable operation, in the most pragmatic sense, is an efficient one both in terms of productivity and in terms of the carbon footprint and waste generated. The more streamlined and successful the operations are, the greater likelihood of success. Perhaps all of this is to say don’t forget about all the little parts that make up the whole, and strive to create a work environment/corporate culture that empowers your employees, your managers and all involved to participate and contribute to the process of improving the operations for mutual benefit.

Lessons learned from the aerospace manufacturing industry: Even the smallest zip tie on a spaceship matters! Some food for thought: If it’s truly beneficial it should stick around… If it is beneficial and it’s not sticking around, then there are limiting factors in the system that need to be addressed.

November 16, 2016

Soapbox

Labeling Cannabis Products is a Booming Market

By Marsha Frydrychowski

1 Comment

Legal marijuana sales are expected to hit $6.7 billion in 2016, with the market expected to climb to $21.8 billion in sales by 2020. As legal cannabis sales rise, cannabis labels are quickly becoming one of the fastest growing markets for label manufacturers.

An Industry Gaining Legitimacy

Since California first legalized medical cannabis in 1996, the cannabis industry has grown considerably. Voters in four states legalized recreational cannabis last week on Election Day, including California, which is currently the world’s 6^th largest economy. Voters in another four states legalized medical cannabis as well, bringing the total to 28 states with some form of legalization measure.

The market is moving ahead and will not be limited to small businesses and dispensaries either. Already, more than 50 publicly traded companies have blitzed the market, including pharmaceuticals, medical growers and even major tech companies.

An example of a cannabis flower label in Oregon with all of the required information.

What’s more, public support for full cannabis legalization is at an all-time high 61 percent, according to a recent survey from the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. The market is here to stay.

Cannabis flower labels

Legal cannabis has primarily consisted of dispensaries selling cannabis flower or leaves (ready-to-smoke marijuana) in pouches or childproof containers. Regulations have essentially required two cannabis labels for the pouches: a branded label on the front and a regulatory label on the back. Many dispensaries also use pre-printed pouches.

Similar to the way alcohol labels must contain information for alcohol content, the informational labels that sit on the backs of pouches are legally required to provide certain accurate information, including:

The universal symbol required on all cannabis products in Colorado

THC %
CBD %
Net weight in grams
Lab name and test number confirmation
Batch number
Date tested
Strain name
Warning Label

And cannabis flower labels are just the beginning. Many smoke-free product categories are emerging with similar labeling requirements. These often allow for increased branding opportunities that will afford better profit margins for label suppliers. Some of the many products in this young category include:

Edibles — such as dark chocolates, baked goods, snack crackers and teas infused with cannabis.
Topicals — such as pain-relieving lotions and creams.
Tinctures — cannabis-infused oils that are applied in drops to the tongue.

Bottom line: For label and packaging suppliers, cannabis represents one of the fastest growing market opportunities today and the opportunities extend way beyond labeling for the flower itself.

Managing Compliance

As more and more states move toward legalization and regulation, uneven laws in different states are increasingly governing the market. Businesses must respond to ever-changing requirements, including labeling standards. While many dispensaries have gotten away with minimalist labels, states are increasingly demanding dispensaries meet more stringent legal requirements. For example, Oregon passed new labeling requirements this year and products that failed to meet them by October 1, 2016 were not allowed on store shelves.

Label suppliers entering the market must keep abreast of the changing regulations and be able to help brands navigate them. They need to work to understand the intricacies of this new market, rather than simply looking to redirect the capabilities they already possess. See the original post here.

November 3, 2016

Soapbox

How Cannabis Can Positively Impact California’s Drought

By Lukian Kobzeff

2 Comments

As the drought in California persists and quickly becomes the new hydrological norm, many within the state have embraced efforts to find ways and means to live within the drought forced water “budget.” Because of the importance of water conservation, the cannabis industry should embrace its socio-ecological responsibility and seize the opportunity to help shift the perception of cannabis cultivation into that of a sustainable, high-value agricultural crop that can be grown in an environmentally safe manner, while using water efficiently.

The intersection of Prop 64, MCRSA and the drought provides the cannabis industry with a unique opportunity to positively impact water conservation. Because legal cannabis cultivators are just now designing blueprints for grow sites, these cultivators are in a position to build infrastructure and systems specifically designed to achieve permanent, sustainable water conservation.

By embracing and championing water conservation, the cannabis industry will achieve two goals: being a collaborative player in the larger community working towards sustainable water use and enhancing the overall perception of the cannabis industry in the conscious of the general public. For an industry seeking legitimacy, there is no better way to put cannabis in the mainstream conscious than by embracing environmentally responsible philosophies. Here are a few measures the cannabis industry should embrace:

Measure

The current drought has generated a state-wide conversation about tracking and recording water usage. Some commentators believe California is suffering from a water data problem. Recently passed AB 1755 is a step by California to address that shortcoming by creating a technology platform to aggregate and share water data. Cannabis cultivators should get onboard with measuring water usage. One method is to install sensitive flow meters in each drip station to precisely measure water used during each grow cycle. First, this provides the cultivator with a precise data set. Precise data sets are extremely important, especially when trying to achieve the two-part-goal of conserving water and maximizing crop yield. Second, having precise data sets allows the cultivator to determine, from harvest-to-harvest, increasingly precise ratios of input (water) to output (flower). Most likely, this input:yield ratio is subject to diminishing returns at the margin; that is, adding additional water will not proportionately increase crop yield. For instance, 50 units of water could produce 50 units of crop, but 75 units of water might only produce 55 units of crop. By measuring the input (water), the cultivator is able to identify the precise threshold where diminishing returns set in and can therefore reduce the “diminishing returns” water usage, saving money and conserving water.

Collaborate

Building on water-usage data collection, cultivators can then collaborate with each other and with water agencies. By sharing data sets, cultivators can quickly develop ideal input:yield ratios, can better understand how water usage fluctuates within each discreet grow cycle and can develop methods such as deficit irrigation and real-time soil moisture measurements. This collective industry knowledge will help each individual cultivator to reduce water-usage. In collaborating with local water boards, the boards will better understand how much water is being used and conserved by the industry. Additionally, if the boards have a more precise understanding of the expected usage per season or per specific period in a grow cycle required by cultivators in their jurisdictions, those boards can better plan for the peaks and troughs in water demand. Besides data sharing, agencies and cultivators can collaborate in developing “fill stations” (offering free, non-potable recycled water for irrigation), or help fund development of direct potable water technologies and other recycled water technologies. Collaboration amongst growers and with water boards will lead to greater water conservation.

Energy Saving

An ancillary benefit to water conservation behaviors is the reduction of energy consumption. It takes an immense amount of energy to pump and transport water to end-users, such as cultivators. Reducing water usage in turn reduces energy consumption, because less water used means less water transported and disposed of. This is one method for indoor cultivators to offset energy consumption. In addition to reducing energy usage by conserving water, cultivators can follow Irvine Ranch Water District’s example of implementing an energy storage system to reduce costs and ease energy demand during peak hours. Indoor cultivators should adopt the same basic structure and mechanics: install Tesla battery packs to store energy for use during peak hours (when electricity is more expensive) and recharge the batteries at night when demand is low (and electricity is cheaper).

Opportunities Abound

This is an exciting time in California’s history, with the pending election of Prop 64, the passage of MCRSA, and the opportunities present in the water-energy nexus. The $6 billion cannabis industry has an incredible opportunity to have a far-reaching impact on water-conservation. By being an active collaborator conserving water, the cannabis industry can position itself as a trendsetter and private sector leader in sustainable and eco-conscious methods, technologies, and processes.

November 2, 2016

The Practical Chemist

Building the Foundation of Medical Cannabis Testing – Understanding the Use of Standards and Reference Materials – Part 2

By Joe Konschnik

No Comments

In the last article I referred to the analogy of the analytical reference material being a keystone of the laboratory foundation, the stone upon which all data relies. I then described the types of reference materials and their use in analytical testing in general terms. This article will describe the steps required to properly manufacture and deliver a certified reference material (CRM) along with the necessary documentation.

A CRM is an exclusive reference material that meets strict criteria defined by ISO Guide 34 and ISO/IEC 17025. ISO is the International Organization for Standardization and IEC is the International Electrotechnical Commission. These organizations work together to set globally recognized standards. In order for a reference material to be labeled as a CRM it must 1) be made with raw or starting materials which are characterized using qualified methods and instruments, 2) be produced in an ISO-accredited lab under documented procedures, and 3) fall under the manufacturer’s scopes of accreditation. Verifying a CRM supplier has these credentials is easily done by viewing their certificates which should include their scopes of accreditation.

There are many steps required to produce a CRM that meets the above three criteria. The first step requires a review of the customer’s, or end-user’s requirements to carefully define what is to be tested, at what levels and which analytical workflow will be used. Such information enables the producer to identify the proper compounds and solvents required to properly formulate the requested CRM.

The next step requires sourcing and acquiring the raw, or starting materials, then verifying their compatibility and stability using stability and shipping studies in accordance with ISO requirements. Next the chemical identify and purity of the raw materials must be characterized using one or more analytical techniques such as: GC-FID, HPLC, GC-ECD, GC-MS, LC-MS, refractive index and melting point. In some cases, the percent purity is changed by the producer when their testing verifies it’s different from the supplier label. All steps are of course documented.

The producer’s analytical balances must be verified using NIST traceable weights and calibrated annually by an accredited third party provider to guarantee accurate measurement. CRMs must be prepared using Class A volumetric glassware, and all ampules and vials used in preparation and final packaging must be chemically treated to prevent compound degradation during storage. Next, CRMs are packaged in an appropriate container, labeled then properly stored to maintain the quality and stability until it’s ready to be shipped. All labels must include critical storage, safety and shelf life information to meet federal requirements. The label information must be properly linked to documentation commonly referred to as a certificate of analysis (COA) which describes all of the above steps and verifies the traceability and uncertainty of all measurements for each compound contained in the CRM.

My company, RESTEK, offers a variety of documentation choices to accompany each CRM. Depending on the intended use and data quality objectives specified by the end-user, which were defined way back at the first step, three options are typically offered: They include gravimetric only, qualitative which includes gravimetric, and fully quantitative which includes all three levels of documentation. The graphic to the right summarizes the three options and what they include.

It’s important to understand which level you’re purchasing especially when ordering a custom CRM from a supplier. Most stock CRMs include all three levels of documentation, but it’s important to be sure.

Understanding what must be done to produce and deliver a CRM sets it apart from other reference material types, however it’s important to understand there are some instances where CRMs are either not available, nor required and in those situations other types of reference materials are perfectly acceptable.

If you have any questions or would like more details about reference materials please contact me, Joe Konschnik at (800) 356-1688 ext. 2002 by phone, or email me at joe.konschnik@restek.com.

October 27, 2016

Biros' Blog

Election Day is a Decisive Moment for the Cannabis Industry

By Aaron G. Biros

No Comments

In less than two weeks on November 8^th, voters in five states will head to the polls to decide if they want to legalize recreational cannabis. California, Nevada, Arizona, Massachusetts and Maine all have initiatives on the ballot that could legalize recreational cannabis for adult use. Polls in each state show a majority of voters support the initiatives.

This New York Times article suggests that November 8^th could be a major turning point in the movement to legalize cannabis in the United States. Even if the initiatives fail in most of those states, California’s initiative, which is expected to pass, could be the linchpin for federal legalization. California’s giant economy, coupled with its ability to drive national policy on social issues, sets the stage for rapid industry growth.

COLOR-PIC — Matt Karnes, founder of GreenWave Advisors

According to Matt Karnes, founder of GreenWave Advisors, the significance of California’s measure also lies in the merging of medical and recreational regulatory schemes. His firm sees a trend where “initially bifurcated marijuana markets will merge under a shared regulatory system into substantially larger enterprises.” Karnes believes the California market will conservatively reach $2.6B in 2016 and grow to $6.7B by 2021, which represents a 5-year compound annual growth rate of roughly 21%. “Should California vote to legalize recreational use this November, we expect implementation of a combined regulated market as soon as 2018,” says Karnes. “A combined California market is significant, not only because of its sheer size (~55% of the U.S. market), but it would also mark the first state to implement regulations for a fully legal market without initial oversight of medical use purchases.”

The presidential election is equally as important for the future of the legal cannabis industry. According to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, if she is elected into office then she will “reschedule marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule II substance.” This would have a dramatic impact on the growth of the industry, most notably by easing banking and financing restrictions. Whether she will actually follow through with her plans, if elected, to reschedule cannabis is yet to be known. Regardless, this is the first time in history that a candidate with a majority of the country’s support is introducing this concept. That represents a serious shift in mainstream attitude toward cannabis. That represents the normalization of cannabis.

Jane West, CEO of lifestyle brand Jane West and co-founder of Women Grow

Jane West, chief executive officer of the lifestyle brand Jane West and co-founder of Women Grow, believes this represents the country finally taking cannabis legalization seriously. “Given the poll results that have been publicly available, it seems likely that three or more of the initiatives will pass,” says West. “By November, about 20% of Americans will be living in states where it is legal to consume cannabis. This will accelerate the process of bringing marijuana out of the shadows, and more adults will be comfortable using this enjoyable, relatively benign substance socially and openly.” Normalizing cannabis can look like a lot of things, but mainly it takes away the counterculture stigma and puts it in a light where its regular use is not frowned upon, which could be instrumental in gaining public support.

Leah Heise, chief executive officer of Women Grow, agrees with West’s prediction that at least three of those states will vote to legalize recreational cannabis, citing Maine, Massachusetts and California as favorites. “Additionally, with the likelihood that more than half the states in the United States support some type of cannabis program within their boundaries, a clear message is being sent to the federal government regarding legalization on a federal level,” says Heise. “I don’t think the federal government will be able to continue to enact its cannabis policy through executive orders and funding bills. Real legislative attention will have to be given to the issue.” That legislative attention could come in the form of the CARERS Act, which would reschedule cannabis.

If you are in favor of legalizing cannabis and want to see some change within your lifetime, what can you do to help? Vote. There has never been a more important election year for legal cannabis.