Tag Archives: cannabis

The Practical Chemist

Potency Analysis of Cannabis and Derivative Products: Part 2

By Rebecca Stevens
2 Comments

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

  1. Chemical Constituents of Marijuana: The Complex Mixture of Natural Cannabinoids. Life Sciences, 78, (2005), pp. 539
  2. 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
  3. 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)

amandarigdon
The Nerd Perspective

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

By Amanda Rigdon
2 Comments
amandarigdon

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.

Photo: Michelle Tribe, Flickr
Photo: Michelle Tribe, Flickr

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…

Spiral Galaxy Milky Way
The Milky Way

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.

FDAIn 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.

green apple with slice isolated on the white background.

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)

U.S. Senators to Treasury: Protect Banking for Cannabis

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

On Wednesday, ten U.S. Senators from both sides of the aisle signed a letter pleading with the U.S. Treasury Department to help with banking for cannabis businesses, according to Lisa Lambert of Reuters. The letter seeks some form of protection for cannabis-friendly banks and credit unions, even those doing business with ancillary companies.

Notable signatories include Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts), Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont) and Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon). “Most banks and credit unions have either closed accounts or simply refused to offer services to indirect and ancillary businesses that service the marijuana industry,” states the letter. “A large number of professionals have been unable to access the financial system because they are doing business with marijuana [sic] growers and dispensaries.”

U.S. Capitol in early December Photo: US Capitol, Flickr
U.S. Capitol in early December
Photo: US Capitol, Flickr

According to a spokesman, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network will be addressing it. It is unclear exactly how Sen. Jeff Sessions, Trump’s attorney general nomination, would deal with cannabis-friendly states, let alone banking for them.

Many think Sessions would restrict access, ramp up federal crackdowns and make it difficult for cannabis businesses to grow. Once again however Jeff Sessions has not shared any plans on enforcing the Controlled Substances Act or cracking down on legal cannabis.

OHA Addresses Oregon Growing Pains, Changes Testing Rules

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

Last week, the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) published a bulletin, outlining new temporary testing requirements effective immediately until May 30th of next year. The changes to the rules come in the wake of product shortages, higher prices and even some claims of cultivators reverting back to the black market to stay afloat.img_6245

According to the bulletin, these temporary regulations are meant to still protect public health and safety, but are “aimed at lowering the testing burden for producers and processors based on concerns and input from the marijuana industry.” The temporary rules, applying to both medical and retail products, are a Band-Aid fix while the OHA works on a permanent solution to the testing backlog.

Here are some key takeaways from the rule changes:

Labeling

  • THC and CBD amounts on the label must be the value calculated by a laboratory, plus or minus 5%.

Batch testing

  • A harvest lot can include more than one strain.
  • Cannabis harvested within a 48-hour period, using the same growing and curing processes can be included in one harvest lot.
  • Edibles processors can include up to 1000 units of product in a batch for testing.
  • The size of a process lot submitted for testing for concentrates, extracts or other non-edible products will be the maximum size for future sampling and testing.

    Oregon Marijuana Universal Symbol for Printing
    Oregon Marijuana Universal Symbol for Printing

Sampling

  • Different batches of the same strain can be combined for testing potency.
  • Samples can be combined from a number of batches in a harvest lot for pesticide testing if the weight of all the batches doesn’t exceed ten pounds. This also means that if that combined sample fails a pesticide test, all of the batches fail the test and need to be disposed.

Solvent testing

  • Butanol, Propanol and Ethanol are no longer on the solvent list.

Potency testing

  • The maximum concentration limit for THC and CBD testing can have up to a 5% variance.

Control Study

  • Process validation is replaced by one control study.
  • After OHA has certified a control study, it is valid for a year unless there is an SOP or ingredient change.
  • During the control study, sample increments are tested separately for homogeneity across batches, but when the control study is certified, sample increments can be combined.

Failing a test

  • Test reports must clearly show if a test fails or passes.
  • Producers can request a reanalysis after a failed test no later than a week after receiving failed test results and that reanalysis must happen within 30 days.
Gov. Kate Brown Photo: Oregon Dept. of Transportation
Gov. Kate Brown
Photo: Oregon Dept. of Transportation

The office of Gov. Kate Brown along with the OHA, Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) and Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) issued a letter in late November, serving as a reminder of the regulations regarding pesticide use and testing. It says in bold that it is illegal to use any pesticide not on the ODA’s cannabis and pesticide guide list. The letter states that failed pesticide tests are referred to ODA for investigation, which means producers that fail those tests could face punitive measures such as fines.

Photo: Michelle Tribe, Flickr
Photo: Michelle Tribe, Flickr

The letter also clarifies a major part of the pesticide rules involving the action level, or the measured amount of pesticides in a product that the OHA deems potentially dangerous. “Despite cannabis producers receiving test results below OHA pesticide action levels for cannabis (set in OHA rule), producers may still be in violation of the Oregon Pesticide Control Act if any levels of illegal pesticides are detected.” This is crucial information for producers who might have phased out use of pesticides in the past or might have began operations in a facility where pesticides were used previously. A laboratory detecting even a trace amount in the parts-per-billion range of banned pesticides, like Myclobutanil, would mean the producer is in violation of the Pesticide Control Act and could face thousands of dollars in fines. The approved pesticides on the list are generally intended for food products, exempt from a tolerance and are considered low risk.

As regulators work to accredit more laboratories and flesh out issues with the industry, Oregon’s cannabis market enters a period of marked uncertainty.

First Nevada Cannabis Lab Receives ISO 17025 Accreditation.

By Aaron G. Biros
1 Comment

On December 7th, 374 Labs received ISO 17025 accreditation, becoming the first in Nevada to do so. The laboratory, based in Sparks, Nevada, is state-certified and now the only ISO 17025 accredited lab in the state, according to a press release. The laboratory is a member in both the Association of Commercial Cannabis Laboratories (ACCL) and the Nevada Cannabis Laboratory Association (NVCLA).

Managing Partner Alec Garcia at the LCMS/MS
Managing Partner Alec Garcia at the LCMS/MS

“As Nevada transitions into an adult-use cannabis market, it’s very important that the state’s cannabis testing laboratories are held to the highest standards – and ISO 17025 is a requirement of top testing laboratories in all industries from biotech to forensics in most major countries,” says Dr. Jeff Angermann, assistant professor in the University of Nevada, Reno’s School of Community Health Sciences.

Laboratory Technician Bevan Meade working on sample preparation.
Laboratory Technician Bevan Meade working on sample preparation.

According to the release, 374 Labs was a driving force behind Nevada’s round robin cannabis lab testing program. That program, administered by the Nevada Division of Public and Behavioral Health (DPBH) and the Nevada Department of Agriculture (NDA), sends cannabis samples to each state-certified cannabis lab for a full analysis, measuring the consistency in test results across labs. “In other states proficiency involves testing pre-prepared, purified samples and neglects the challenges of coaxing out delicate analytes from the complex array of compounds found in actual marijuana,” says Laboratory Director Jason Strull. “I commend the DPBH and NDA for facilitating such an advanced quality program.”

Also notable is the announcing of their partnership with Clean Green Certified, a third-party certification (based on USDA organic certification) for sustainable, organically based cannabis cultivation. “Nevada allows certain levels of pesticides like Myclobutanil on its certified marijuana, so we wanted a way for patients and consumers to able to distinguish marijuana that is grown using organic methods,” said Laboratory Director Jason Strull. According to Michael Seibert, managing member of 374 Labs, they have already started performing inspections for the third-party certification and the first facility inspected was Silver State Trading in Sparks, Nevada (certified for both production and cultivation).

Recount Effort Stops, Maine Cannabis Legalization Moves Forward

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

Update: The No on Question 1 Campaign has rescinded their recount effort, according to the Portland Press Herald. “We promised folks that if we came to a point where we could not see any chance of reversing the result, we would not drag the process out,” says Newell Augur, legal counsel for No on 1 campaign. “We are satisfied that the count and the result are accurate.”

On Election Day in Maine, voters were heavily divided on Question 1, a ballot initiative that would legalize recreational cannabis. Voters passed the initiative, but with a very narrow margin, according to a WGME article.

Maine Capitol building Photo: Mark Goebel, Flickr
Maine Capitol building
Photo: Mark Goebel, Flickr

Out of almost 760,000 ballots, Question 1 passed by a margin of only 4,073 votes, roughly 50.2% in favor and 49.8% against. Maine Secretary of State Matt Dunlap says State Police is responsible for collecting the physical ballots and bringing them to Augusta. Dunlap’s office is coordinating with volunteers to recount each vote by hand.

Dunlap is quoted saying there would have to be significant vote changes in every town to indicate any discrepancies in the polling. He says the state can recount up to 25,000 votes a day, but with the upcoming holidays, the recount will continue into 2017.

According to International Business Times, Gov. Paul LePage, who is a cannabis legalization opponent, has said he would delay the process of legalization even if the measure passed. He also said he would speak with president-elect Donald Trump regarding the enforcement of federal cannabis prohibition. Governor Lepage said if the Trump administration embraces states with legal cannabis then he too would honor the voters’ wish to legalize recreational cannabis.

The Practical Chemist

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

By Rebecca Stevens
No Comments

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).

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)

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
teganheadshot
Quality From Canada

Near Infrared, GC and HPLC Applications in Cannabis Testing

By Tegan Adams, Michael Bertone
5 Comments
teganheadshot

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:

  1. It is ground at a low temperature into a fine powder;
  2. A solution is added to the ground powder;
  3. An extraction is repeated 6 times to ensure all cannabinoids are transferred into a common solution to be used in testing instrumentation.
  4. 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

  1. HPLC is the most recommended instrument used for product release in a regulated environment.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
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.

Gage Skidmore, Flickr
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.

 

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.