Tag Archives: CBGA

An Evaluation of Sample Preparation Techniques for Cannabis Potency Analysis

By Kelsey Cagle, Frank L. Dorman, Jessica Westland
No Comments

Sample preparation is an essential part of method development and is critical to successful analytical determinations. With cannabis and cannabis products, the analyst is faced with a very challenging matrix and targets that may range from trace level through percent level thus placing considerable demands on the sample preparation techniques.1 The optimal sample preparation, or “extraction”, method for potency analysis of cannabis flower was determined using a methanol extraction coupled with filtration using regenerated cellulose filters. 

In the United States (US), Canada, and other countries where medicinal and/or adult recreational cannabis has been legalized, regulatory entities require a panel of chemical tests to ensure quality and safety of the products prior to retail sales2. Cannabis testing can be divided into two different categories: Quality and Safety. Quality testing, which includes potency analysis (also known as cannabinoid testing or cannabinoid content), is performed to analyze the product in accordance with the producer/grower expectations and government regulations. Safety testing is conducted under regulatory guidelines to ensure that consumers are not exposed to toxicants such as pesticides, mycotoxins, heavy metals, residual solvents and microbial contaminates.

Potency testing evaluates the total amount of cannabinoid content, specifically focusing on tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). In the US, the biggest push for accurate total THC is to differentiate between hemp (legally grown for industrial or medicinal use), which is defined as cannabis sativa with a THC limit ≤ 0.3 %, and cannabis (Cannabis spp.), which is any cannabis plant with THC measured above 0.3 %3. Potency testing is typically performed by liquid chromatography (LC) with UV detection to determine the quantity of major cannabinoids.

In addition to reporting THC and CBD, their respective precursors are also important for reporting total potency. Tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA) is the inactive precursor to THC while cannabidiolic acid (CBDA) is the precursor to CBD.4,5

Methods and Materials

Sample Preparation

All samples were homogenized using an immersion blender with a dry material grinder. The nominal sample amounts were 200 mg of flower, 500 mg of edibles, and 250 mg of candy samples.

Potency Extraction Method (1)

Twenty milliliters (mL) of methanol (MeOH) was added to each sample. The samples were mechanically shaken for 10 minutes and centrifuged for 5 minutes.

Potency Extraction Method (2)

Ten mL of water was added to each sample. The samples were mechanically shaken for 10 minutes. 20 mL of acetonitrile (ACN) was then added to each sample and vortexed. An EN QuEChERS extraction salt packet was added to the sample. The samples were placed on a mechanical shaker for 2 minutes and then centrifuged for 5 minutes.

Each extract was split and evaluated with two filtration/cleanup steps: (1) a regenerated cellulose (RC) syringe filter (Agilent Technologies, 4 mm, 0.45 µm); (2) a PFTE syringe filter (Agilent Technologies, 4 mm, 0.45 µm). The final filtered extracts were injected into the ultra-performance liquid chromatograph coupled with a photodiode array detector (UPLC-PDA) for analysis.

Figure 1: Calibration curve for THC potency

Calibration

Standards were obtained for the following cannabinoids at a concentration of 1 mg/mL: cannabidivarin (CBDV), tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV), cannabidiol (CBD), cannabigerol (CBG), cannabidiolic acid (CBDA), cannabigerolic acid (CBGA), cannabinol (CBN), tetrahydrocannabinol (9-THC), cannabichromene (CBC), tetrahydrocannabinol acid (THCA). Equal volumes of each standard were mixed with MeOH to make a standard stock solution of 10 ug/mL. Serial dilutions were made from the stock to make concentrations of 5, 1, and 0.5 ug/mL for the calibration curve (Figure 1).

Instrumental Method

All instrument parameters were followed from Agilent Application Note 5991-9285EN.8 A UPLC with a PDA (Waters Corp, Milford, MA) detector was employed for potency analysis. An InfinityLab Poroshell 120 EC-C18, 3.0 x 50 mm, 2.7 um column (Agilent Technologies, Wilmington, DE) was utilized for compound separation. The organic mobile phase composition was 0.05 % (v/v) formic acid in HPLC grade MeOH and the aqueous mobile phase composition was 0.1 % (v/v) formic acid in HPLC grade water. The mobile phase gradient is shown in Table 1. The flow rate was 1 mL/min (9.5 minute total program), injection volume was 5 uL, and column temperature was 50 °C.

Table 1: LC mobile phase gradient for potency samples6

Discussion and Results

Table 2 summarizes the relative standard deviations (% RSD) were found for the THC calibrator (at 1 ug/mL) and one extract of a homogeneous sample (utilizing 7 replicates).

Table 2- %RSD values for the instrument response precision for THC in both the calibrations and the homogeneous extract.

The cannabinoid potency of various cannabis plant and cannabis product samples were determined for the various extraction techniques In the chromatograms THC was observed ~8.08 minutes and CBD was observed ~4.61 minutes (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Chromatogram of the 10ug/mL calibrator for potency/cannabinoid analysis

Total potency for THC & CBD were calculated for each sample using the equations below. Equation 1 was used because it accounts for the presence of THCA as well as the specific weight difference between THC and THCA (since THCA will eventually convert to THC, this needs to be accounted for in the calculations).

Table 3 shows the % THC and the total THC potency values calculated for the same flower samples that went through all four various potency sample preparation techniques as described earlier. Figure 3 also provides LC chromatograms for flower sample 03281913A-2 and edible sample 03281912-1.

Table 3-THC and Total THC potency values for the same cannabis flower sample processed through the combination of extractions and cleanups.
Figure 3: Potency/Cannabinoid analysis chromatogram for flower sample 03281913A-2 (red trace) and edible sample 03281912-1 (green trace).

The results indicated that with the “Potency Extraction Method 2” (ACN/QuEChERS extraction) coupled with the RC filter provided a bias of 7.29 % greater for total THC % over the other extraction techniques. Since the other 3 techniques provided total THC values within 2% of each other, the total THC of the sample is more likely ~14%.

Since the sample dilution for the above data set reduced the CBD content, an undiluted sample was run and analyzed. This data is reported in Table 4.

Table 4- CBD and Total CBD potency values for the same cannabis flower sample processed through different sample preparation techniques.

The CBD results indicated that with the “Potency Extraction Method 1” (methanol extraction) coupled with RC filter, allowed for a greater CBD recovery. This may indicate the loss of CBD with an ACN/QuEChERS extraction.

With an average ~14% total THC and 0.06% total CBD for a homogenous cannabis flower sample, the optimal sample preparation extraction was determined to be a methanol extraction coupled with filtration using a regenerated cellulose filter. Since potency continues to remain at the forefront of cannabis regulatory testing it is important to utilize the right sample prep for your cannabis samples.

References

  1. Wang M, Wang YH, Avula B, Radwan MM, Wanas AS, Mehmedic Z, et al. Quantitative Determination of Cannabinoids in Cannabis and Cannabis Products Using Ultra-High-Performance Supercritical Fluid Chromatography and Diode Array/Mass Spectrometric Detection. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2016;62(3):602-11.
  2. Matthew Curtis, Eric Fausett, Wendi A. Hale, Ron Honnold, Jessica Westland, Peter J. Stone, Jeffery S. Hollis, Anthony Macherone. Cannabis Science and Technology, September/October 2019, Volume 2, Issue 5.
  3. Sian Ferguson. https://www.healthline.com/health/hemp-vs-marijuana. August 27, 2020.
  4. Taschwer M, Schmid MG. Determination of the relative percentage distribution of THCA and 9-THC in herbal cannabis seized in Austria- Impact of different storage temperatures on stability. Forensic Science International 2015; 254:167-71.
  5. Beadle A. CBDA Vs CBD: What are the differences? [Internet]. Analytical Cannabis. 2019 [cited 2020 Apr 22]; https://www.analyticalcannabis.com/articles/cbda-vs-cbd-what-are-the-differences-312019.
  6. Storm C, Zumwalt M, Macherone A. Dedicated Cannabinoid Potency Testing Using the Agilent 1220 Infinity II LC System. Agilent Technologies, Inc. Application Note 5991-9285EN

Research Suggests Cannabis Could Help Treat Covid-19

By Cannabis Industry Journal Staff
No Comments

One study published in the Journal of Natural Products two weeks ago proposes using the cannabinoid CBDA in conjunction with vaccines to prevent SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) infection. The study was conducted in a lab and says that cannabinoid acids (CBGA, THCA-A, CBDA, etc.) can bind to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, blocking cell entry and effectively prevent infection.

Another study published in Science Advances claims cannabidiol (CBD) inhibits SARS-CoV-2 replication and helps prevent infection by inducing endoplasmic reticulum stress response and innate immune responses. The study was conducted in cells and mice, but also had groups of human patients that tested positive for Covid-19 less after taking CBD. “In matched groups of human patients from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, CBD (100 mg/ml oral solution per medical records) had a significant negative association with positive SARS-CoV-2 tests,” reads the abstract.

Two studies in Israel, one proof-of-concept study and one early-stage clinical trial, have just launched examining the effects of CBD on patients already infected with Covid-19.

The structure of cannabidiol (CBD), one of 400 active compounds found in cannabis.

All of this research already underway does not mean that cannabis prevents Covid-19. In fact, one clinical trial in Brazil that has finished, found no evidence that CBD helped patients with mild Covid-19. Published in the Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research Journal, patients with mild Covid-19 received 300 mg of CBD for 14 days or a placebo. The study suggests that clinical trials should be conducted for the effects of CBD on patients with severe Covid-19, not just mild symptoms.

The clinical trial in Israel that is trying to study the effects of CBD on patients with severe Covid-19 is having trouble finding participants because the newer Omicron variant mainly produces only mild to moderate symptoms.

It is far too early to tell if any of these studies will show evidence of cannabis treating Covid-19, let alone if they mean cannabis products can be used as a treatment or preventative for Covid-19. However, the research is significant and we should keep an eye on any developments that come from those studies.

Statnews.com said it best:

“The latest hubbub is an example of both the promise of cannabinoids — components of cannabis — as potential therapies, but also the hype around them, which can far outpace the evidence that they work. It’s left researchers and consumer advocates scrambling to warn people that patients shouldn’t be turning to over-the-counter products or recreational marijuana in hopes that it might protect them from Covid-19.”

Dr. Zacariah Hildenbrand
Soapbox

Cannabis and the Environment: Navigating the Interplay Between Genetics and Transcriptomics

By Dr. Zacariah Hildenbrand
No Comments
Dr. Zacariah Hildenbrand

It is that time of year where the holidays afford us an opportunity for rest, recuperation and introspection. Becoming a new father to a healthy baby girl and having the privilege to make a living as a scientist, fills me with an immeasurable sense of appreciation and indebtedness. I’ve also been extremely fortunate this year to spend significant time with world-renowned cannabis experts, such as Christian West, Adam Jacques and Elton Prince, whom have shared with me a tremendous wealth of their knowledge about cannabis cultivation and the development of unique cannabis genetics. Neither of these gentlemen have formal scientific training in plant genetics; however, through decades of experimentation, observation and implementation, they’ve very elegantly used alchemy and the principles of Mendelian genetics to push the boundaries of cannabis genetics, ultimately modulating the expression of specific cannabinoids and terpenes. Hearing of their successes (and failures) has triggered significant wonderment and curiosity with respect to what can be done beyond the genetic level to keep pushing the equilibrium in this new frontier of medicine.

Lighting conditions can greatly impact the expression of terpenes (and cannabinoids) in cannabis.Of course genetics are the foundation for the production of premium cannabis. Without the proper genetic code, one cannot expect the cannabis plant to express the target constituents of interest. However, what happens when you have an elite genetic code, the holy grail of cannabis nucleotides if you will, and yet your plant does not produce the therapeutic compounds that you want and/or that are reflective of that elite genetic code? This ‘loss in translation’ can be explained by transcriptomics, and more specifically, epigenetics. In order for the genetic code (DNA) to be expressed as a gene product (RNA), it must be transcribed, a process that is modulated by epigenetic processes like DNA methylation and histone modification. In other words, the methylation of the genetic code can dictate whether or not a particular segment of DNA is transcribed into RNA, and ultimately expressed in the plant. To put this into context, if the DNA code for the enzyme THCA synthase is epigenetically silenced, then no THCA synthase is produced, your cannabis cannot convert CBGA into THCA, and now you have hemp that is devoid of THC.So what is the best lighting technology to enhance the expression of terpenes? 

With all of that being said, how do we ensure that our plants thrive under favorable epigenetic conditions? The answer is the environment; and the expression of terpenes is an ideal indicator of favorable environmental conditions. While amazing anti-inflammatories, anti-oxidants and metabolic regulators for humans, terpenes are also extremely powerful anti-microbial agents that act as a robust a line of defense for the plant against bacteria and pests. So, if the threat of microbes can induce the expression of terpenes, then what about other environmental factors? I am of the opinion that the combination of increased exposure to bacteria and natural sunlight enhances the expression of terpenes in outdoor-grown cannabis compared to indoor-grown cannabis. This is strictly my opinion based off of my own qualitative observations, but the point being is that lighting conditions can greatly impact the expression of terpenes (and cannabinoids) in cannabis.

A plant in flowering under an LED fixture

So what is the best lighting technology to enhance the expression of terpenes? Do I use full spectrum lighting or specific frequencies? The answer to these questions is that we don’t fully know at this point. Thanks to the McCree curve we have a fundamental understanding of the various frequencies within the visible light spectrum (400-700nm) that are beneficial to plants, also known as Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR). However, little-to-no research has been conducted to determine the impacts that the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum (also categorized as ‘light’) may have on plants. As such, we do not know with 100% certainty what frequencies should be applied, and at what times in the growth cycle, to completely optimize terpene concentrations. This is not to disparage the lighting professionals out there that have significant expertise in this field; however, I’m calling for the execution of peer-reviewed experiments that would transcend the boundaries of company white papers and anecdotal claims. In my opinion, this lack of environmental data provides a real opportunity for the cannabis industry to initiate the required collaborations between cannabis geneticists, technology companies and environmental scientists. This is one field of research that I wish to pursue with tenacity and I also welcome other interested parties to join me in this data quest. Together we can better understand the environmental factors, such as lighting, that are acting as the molecular light switches at the interface of genetics and transcriptomics in cannabis.