Tag Archives: ethanol

October 7, 2021

Solvent Remediation – The Last Step for Safe, Clean Hemp Extraction

By Tom Bisbee

Botanical extraction is not specific to cannabis and hemp, and it is anything but new. Rudimentary forms of plant extraction have existed throughout history and evolved with high-tech equipment and scientific procedures for use in pharmaceuticals, dietary supplements and botanicals.

In food production, examples of hydrocarbon extraction processes are commonplace. Nut, olive and vegetable oil production use solvents to extract the oils. Decaffeinated coffee uses hydrocarbon extraction to remediate the caffeine, and making sugar from beets, or beer from hops, also requires solvents.

As such, the FDA has set guidelines for the amount of residual solvents considered safe for consumers to ingest. Yet, without FDA guidance in cannabis and hemp, many products aren’t being tested against these standards, and consumers will ultimately pay the price.

Understanding solvent remediation technology and processes

If we use ethanol extraction as an example, the extraction process is relatively simple. First, we soak the biomass in denatured or food-grade ethanol, ending up with a final solution that is 90-95% solvent. Then, we perform a bulk removal of the solvents, which takes out most, but not all, of the solvent. The next and final step should be to strip the remaining solvents from the extract entirely.

But, in order to do so effectively, you need the right equipment, and unfortunately, this is where many producers fall short. Many producers use a vacuum oven to apply heat while reducing the headspace pressure to lower the solvent’s boiling point and evaporate it off.

However, it’s a static environment in a vacuum oven, which means the material is stagnant. So, the process may effectively remove the solvents close to the surface, but solvents deep inside the material tend to get trapped without some type of agitation or mixing.

The appropriate final step to complete solvent remediation is wipe-film distillation, which feeds small volumes into a column, which is then wiped into a very thin film and heated under vacuum pressure. Although the equipment necessary is costly, this last step removes any residual solvents from the product to create a safe, effective and consumable product.

Residual solvents present huge risks

As stated, many of the same solvents used in cannabis and hemp extraction have been considered safe in food production for decades. Reviewing chemical data sheets, many of the acceptable limits on solvents were determined for ingestion, which is fine for edibles and tinctures, but many cannabis and hemp products are intended for inhalation or vaporization.

Just a few of the dozens of various products types on the market today, extracted with a variety of different solvents

Unfortunately, some solvents can have negative health impacts, especially for those using cannabis or hemp for medical purposes or with compromised immune systems. Plus, as a therapeutic and recreational substance, consumers may be consuming more than the recommended amount, as well as using the products several times a day. Unfortunately, long-term exposure or repeated inhalation of these residual solvents hasn’t been thoroughly researched.

For example, inhaling ethyl alcohol (ethanol) can irritate the nose, throat and lungs. Extended exposure can cause headaches, drowsiness, nausea, vomiting and unconsciousness. Repeated exposure can affect the liver and nervous system.

In the food industry, hexane is approved for extracting spices or hops, and this solvent is widely used in cannabis and hemp extraction. However, if used in an inhalable product, chronic exposure to hexane could be detrimental, with symptoms including numbness in the extremities, weakness, vision problems and fatigue.

Consumers deserve transparency

In the industry’s earliest days, companies were tight-lipped about their processes, the chemicals they used and how they removed them. Everyone thought they had the “secret sauce” and didn’t want to share their approach. Today, companies are more open about what they use, how they process it and providing that necessary transparency.

Lack of quality and consistent regulations in these industries creates confusion for the consumers and loopholes for producers. Some producers test for everything under the sun, and some producers know exactly which labs will pass their products, regardless of test results.

While the regulatory bodies are distracted by the amount of THC that might linger in products, getting sick is overshadowed by the risk of getting high. In the meantime, consumers are left to their own devices to determine which products are safe and which are not.

Although testing mandates and regulations will help clean up the industry, until then, consumers need to demand full-panel COAs that not only show cannabinoid potency but also accurately display the test results for residual solvents, pesticides and heavy metals.

May 27, 2021

Challenges with Process Scale Up in Cannabis/Hemp Extraction

By Darwin Millard

No Comments

What makes scaling up your process so difficult?

There are many factors that can lead to the challenges people face when scaling up their processes. These challenges are not unique to the cannabis/hemp industry, but they are exacerbated by the consequences generated from decades of Reefer Madness. In my time operating in the cannabis/hemp space, 15+ years, I have seen established equipment vendors and sellers of laboratory supplies, like Sigma-Aldrich (now Millipore-Sigma), Fisher-Scientific, Cerilliant, Agilent, and others, go from reporting individuals inquiring about certified reference materials to setting up entire divisions of their companies to service the needs of the industry. Progress. But we are still a fledgling marketplace facing many challenges. Let’s look at a few specific to process scale up.

Darwin Millard will deliver a presentation on this topic during the Cannabis Extraction Virtual Conference on June 29. Click here to learn more.Equipment Availability: Lack of available equipment at larger and larger process scales can severely impact project timelines. Making not only equipment acquisition difficult, but also limiting the number of reputable equipment manufacturers you can work with.

Non-Linear Expansion: NEVER assume your process scales linearly. Perhaps one of the most avoidable mistakes during process scale up. You will quickly find that for many processes you cannot just put in a larger unit and expect a proportional increase in output. This is because as process equipment increases so to must utilities and other supporting infrastructure, but not only that, process vessel geometry, proportions, and design are contributing factors to process efficiency as your scale of operations increases.

Hazardous Material Quantities: Just as important to the process as the equipment are the solvents and reagents used. As your scale of operations increases so does your demand and production of hazardous materials; solvents including carbon dioxide (CO2), ethanol, and liquid petroleum gases (LPG) like Butane and Propane are obvious hazards, but so too are the refrigerants used in the chillers, fuels used to power generators, steam created to heat critical systems, and effluents and wastewater discharged from the process and supporting systems. Not every municipality wants thousands of gallons of flammable substances and hazardous waste being generated in their backyard…

Contractor/Vendor Misrepresentation: Finding out in the middle of you project that your contractor or equipment vendor has never set up a system at this scale before is never a good feeling. Unfortunately, contractor and vendor misrepresentation of qualifications is a common occurrence in the cannabis/hemp space.

If all this was not bad enough, all too often the consequences of improper planning and execution are not felt until your project is delayed or jeopardized due to misallocation of funds or undercapitalization. This is especially true when scaling up your production capacity. Now let’s look at some ways to avoid these mistakes.

The Rule of 10

Construction drawings for a piece of process equipment.

When scaling up your process, NEVER assume that a simple linear expansion of your process train will be sufficient. It is often the case that process scale up is non-linear. Using the Rule of 10 is one way of scaling up your process through a stepwise iterative approach. The Rule of 10 is best explained through an example: Say you are performing a bench-top extraction of a few grams and want to scale that up to a few thousand kilograms. Before jumping all the way to your final process scale, start by taking a smaller jump and only increase your bench-top process by a factor of 10 at a time. So, if you were happy and confident with your results at the tens of grams scale, perform the same process at the hundreds of grams scale, then the thousands of grams scale, tens of kilograms scale, and so forth until you have validated your process at the scale of operations you want to achieve. By using the Rule of 10 you can be assured that your process will achieve the same yields/results at larger and larger scales of operation.

Scaling up your process through an iterative approach allows you to identify process issues that otherwise would not have been identified. These can include (but by no means should be considered an exhaustive list) improper heat transfer as process vessels increase in size, the inability to maintain process parameters due to inadequately sized utilities and/or supporting infrastructure, and lower yields than expected even though previous iterations were successful. However, this type of approach can be expensive, especially when considering custom process equipment, and not every processor in the cannabis/hemp space is going to be in the position to use tools like the Rule of 10 and instead must rely on claims made by the equipment vendor or manufacture when scaling up their process.

The Cannabis/Hemp Specific Process Equipment Trap

How many times have you heard this one before: “We have a piece of process equipment tailor-made to perform X,Y,Z task.”? If you have been around as long as I have in the cannabis/hemp space, probably quite a few times. A huge red flag when considering equipment for your expansion project!

Unless the equipment manufacturer is directly working with cannabis/hemp raw materials, or with partners who process these items, during product development, there is no way they could have verified the equipment will work for its purported use.

A good example of this are ethanol evaporation systems. Most manufacturers of evaporators do not work with the volumes of ethanol they claim their systems can recover. So how did they come up with the evaporation rate? Short answer – Thermodynamics, Heat Transfer, and Fluid Mechanics. They modeled it. This much surface area, plus this much heat/energy, with this much pressure (or lack thereof), using this type of fluid, moving through this type of material, at this rate of speed, gets you a 1000-gal/hr evaporator or some other theoretical value. But what is the real rate once an ethanol and cannabis/hemp solution is running through the system?

For a straight ethanol system, the theoretical models and experimental models are pretty similar – namely because humans like alcohol – extensive real-world data for ethanol systems exist for reference in designing ethanol evaporators (more accurately described as distillation systems, i.e. stills). The same cannot be said for ethanol and cannabis/hemp extract systems. While it is true that many botanical and ethanol systems have been modeled, both theoretically and experimentally, due to prohibition, data for cannabis/hemp and ethanol systems are lacking and the data that do exist are primarily limited to bench-top and laboratory scale scenarios.

So, will that 1000-gal/hr evaporator hit 1000-gal/hr once it is running under load? That’s the real question and why utilizing equipment with established performance qualifications is critical to a successful process scale up when having to rely on the claims of a vendor or equipment manufacturer. Except this is yet another “catch 22”, since the installation, operational, and performance qualification process is an expensive endeavor only a few equipment manufacturers servicing the cannabis/hemp market have done. I am not saying there aren’t any reputable equipment vendors out there; there are, but always ask for data validating their claims and perform a vendor qualification before you drop seven figures on a piece of process equipment on the word of a salesperson.

Important Takeaways

Improper design and insufficient data regarding process efficiencies on larger and larger scales of manufacturing can lead to costly mistakes which can prevent projects from ever getting off the ground.

Each aspect of the manufacturing process must be considered individually when scaling your process train because each element will contribute to the system’s output, either in a limiting or expansive capacity.

I go further into this topic in my presentation: Challenges with Process Scale Up in the Cannabis/Hemp Industry, later this month during Cannabis Industry Journal’s Extraction Virtual Conference on June 29^th, 2021. Here I will provide real-world examples of the consequences of improper process scale up and the significance of equipment specifications, certifications, and inspections, and the importance of vendor qualifications and the true cost of improper design specifications. I hope to see you all there.

Until then. Live long and process.

March 8, 2021

Recent Developments in Supercritical CO₂ Winterization

By Aaron Green

No Comments

Supercritical carbon dioxide (CO₂) extraction is a processing technique whereby CO₂ is pressurized under carefully controlled temperatures to enable extraction of terpenes, cannabinoids and other plant molecules. Once the extract is obtained the crude is often subjected to an ethanol winterization process to remove chlorophyll, fats and waxes.

Green Mill Supercritical is a Pittsburgh-based manufacturing and engineering company focused on cannabis and hemp extraction. The company offers a range of CO ₂ extraction equipment where users can tune and control their extraction methods. They recently announced a technology advance enabling winterization in-process, which has the potential to remove the need for ethanol winterization.

We spoke with Jeff Diehl, director of marketing at Green Mill Supercritical, to learn more about the new process. Jeff was working in the tech industry in San Francisco in 2017 when he was invited to join Green Mill by his cousin, Jeremy Diehl, who is the founder and CTO.

Aaron Green: Before we get to your new technology, can you explain what industry trends you are watching?

Jeff Diehl: A big thing that I watch is the premium extract space. More and more consumers are demanding higher premium extracts. They want differentiated products. They want products that are safe and that have some kind of meaningful connection to the specific plant from which they came. Right now, CO₂plays a small role in the market for those products. Most premium products are generated through hydrocarbon extraction. So, I am watching how people are using CO₂to create the next generation of safe, premium products.

Aaron: What is the normal process for a CO₂ extraction today?

Jeff Diehl, director of marketing at Green Mill Supercritical

Jeff: The current CO₂ extraction process generally consists of two major phases to producing your final extract. In the first phase, you have extraction where you get your crude product. The second phase is post-extraction where you do cleanup to get your refined oil. Within that post-extraction phase, most operations include an ethanol-based winterization process.

Aaron: What does the winterization step do, exactly?

Jeff: Winterization is about removing waxes. Your main extraction is considered crude because it’s got a lot of materials from the plant that you don’t want. The large majority of unwanted material is waxes. Winterization is the process of using a solvent, traditionally ethanol, to separate the waxes from the cannabinoids. There are multiple challenges inherent in ethanol-based winterization that introduce cost, time and product loss. It’s terribly inefficient. Plus, there will always be residual ethanol left in your final product, and that’s not something consumers appreciate.

Aaron: You’ve recently announced a new process at Green Mill that moves the winterization step into the supercritical CO₂ equipment. Can you explain how that works?

Jeff: With our process, which we call Real-Time Winterization, there is no ethanol involved in winterization anymore. It is all done with CO₂ during the primary extraction. That’s the major advance of our process and although it has been attempted before, no one has succeeded at doing it in a viable way. You take a process which is normally four days – one day for CO2 extraction and three days for ethanol winterization – and you do it all in less than a day. We have automated software, sensors and pumps that makes this all possible.

Aaron: How does the quality of the resulting product compare with the new process?

Jeff: You can see the difference right away, if you’re at all familiar with extraction. It just looks clean and bright. Lab analysis has been very positive thus far, but we continue to run tests. Our R&D team has done multiple tests, mostly on hemp and CBD. That’s because we don’t have a license for THC. We’re currently engaging with a licensed partner so that we can collect more data on THC-containing products, so we can give exact numbers. But with CBD, we’ve done multiple tests to validate the method and the technology, and are seeing consistently excellent results in regards to both purity of the product and efficiency of the process.

Aaron: How do yields compare between the processes?

Jeff: From the data that we’ve seen in the industry, it looks like when you winterize with ethanol, you leave anywhere from 5 to 10% of your cannabinoids behind in the waxes. That’s just lost. With Real-Time Winterization using CO₂ we have seen recovery rates as high as 99%. We are continuing to investigate that result with testing to make sure it was not an outlier, but in any case, recovery rates look promising.

Aaron: One of the other issues with ethanol is taxes and the ability to find food grade supply. Do you have any perspective you can share on that?

Jeff: There are a number of advantages to moving away from ethanol. The sheer quantity of ethanol is a factor. There are a lot of regulations and fire requirements around managing large quantities of ethanol. The ethanol winterization process itself is not just one process. There are multiple stages, from mixing, to freezing, to filtering, to removing the solvent. These are all opportunities for things to go wrong, so you’re always managing those risks. Multiple large pieces of equipment, including fume hoods, filter skids, cryo freezers and rotary evaporators, are expensive and require heavy management.

I think Elon Musk said the best process is no process. Anytime in an industrial process when you can remove steps in the process, that’s the direction you want to go in. And, that’s what we’ve done. With this recent work, we have effectively removed post processing for certain categories of end product.

Aaron: Do you have any patents on the new process?

Jeff: We have a patent pending on both the method and the equipment, which is allowing us to talk about this as much as we are.

Aaron: So, how does this work if somebody already owns an existing piece of Green Mill equipment? Is this something that can be retrofitted? Is it a software upgrade?

Jeff: There are two components. One is an equipment upgrade, which can be done retroactively for existing customers, and one is a methodology upgrade, which we assist our customers with. The automation software inherently can handle the settings that you need to run the methodology. In fact, it’s that software and the rest of our existing tech stack, the proprietary pump, the triple inline fractionation, the precision and stability of the overall system, that is what made this winterization advance possible.

Aaron: Where are you rolling this out first? And do you plan to go international?

Jeff: International is definitely in the plan, since we’ve already sold systems abroad. We are currently getting ready to announce the opening of our beta program with the new technology. So, we’re not ready to sell this widely at this time, but we are taking submissions from companies that want to get in early and join us at the forefront of CO₂ extraction innovation.

Aaron: Okay, great. Thanks Jeff, that’s the end of the interview.

July 19, 2019

Sustainable Plastic Packaging Options for Your Cannabis Products

By Danielle Antos

7 Comments

A large part of your company’s brand image depends on the packaging that you use for your cannabis product. The product packaging creates a critical first impression in a potential customer’s mind because it is the first thing they see. While the primary function of any cannabis packaging is to contain, protect and identify your products, it is a reflection of your company in the eyes of the consumer.

For all types of businesses across the US, sustainability has become an important component for success. It is increasingly common for companies to include sustainability efforts in their strategic plan. Are you including a sustainability component in your cannabis business’ growth plan? Are your packaging suppliers also taking sustainability seriously? More and more, consumers are eager to purchase cannabis products that are packaged thoughtfully, with the environment in mind. If you are using or thinking about using plastic bottles and closures for your cannabis products, you now have options that are produced from sustainable and/or renewable resources. Incorporating sustainable elements into your cannabis packaging may not only be good for the environment, but it may also be good for your brand.

Consider Alternative Resins

Traditionally, polyethylene produced from fossil fuels (such as oil or natural gas), has been used to manufacture HDPE (high density polyethylene) bottles and closures. However, polyethylene produced from ethanol made from sustainable sources like sugarcane (commonly known as Bioresin) are becoming more common.

Unlike fossil fuel resources which are finite, sustainable resources like sugarcane are renewable – plants can be grown every year. For instance, a benefit of sugarcane is that it captures and fixes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere every growth cycle. As a result, production of ethanol-based polyethylene contributes to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions when compared to conventional polyethylene made from fossil fuels, while still exhibiting the same chemical and physical properties as conventional polyethylene. Although polyethylene made from sugarcane is not biodegradable, it can be recycled.

Switching to a plastic bottle that is made from ethanol derived from renewable resources is a great way for cannabis companies to take positive climate change action and help reduce their carbon footprint.

For instance, for every one ton of Bioresin used, approximately 3.1 tons of carbon dioxide is captured from the atmosphere on a cradle-to-gate basis. Changing from a petrochemical-derived polyethylene bottle to a bottle using resins made from renewable resources can be as seamless as approving an alternate material – the bottles look the same. Ensure that your plastic bottle manufacturer is using raw materials that pass FDA and ASTM tests. This is one way to help reverse the trend of global warming due to increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO₂) in our atmosphere.

PET bottles derived from 100% recycled post-consumer material.

Another option is to use bottles manufactured with recycled PET (polyethylene terephthalate). Consisting of resin derived from 100% recycled post-consumer material, it can be used over and over. This is an excellent choice because it helps keep plastic waste to a minimum. Regardless of the resin you select, look for one that is FDA approved for food contact.

Consider Alternative Manufacturing Processes

Flame Treatment Elimination

When talking about plastic bottle manufacturing, an easy solution to saving fossil fuels is eliminating the flame treatment in the manufacturing process. Historically, this process was required to allow some water-based adhesives, inks, and other coatings to bond with HDPE (high density polyethylene) and PP (polypropylene) bottles. Today, pressure-sensitive and shrink labels make this process unnecessary. Opt out and conserve natural gas. For instance, for every 5 million bottles not flamed approximately 3 metric tons of CO₂is eliminated. This is an easy way to reduce the carbon footprint. Ask your cannabis packaging manufacturer if eliminating this process is an option.

Source Reduction (Right-Weighting)

When considering what type and style of bottle you want to use for your cannabis product, keep in mind that the same bottle may be able to be manufactured with less plastic. A bottle with excess plastic may be unnecessary and can result in wasted plastic or added costs. On the other hand, a bottle with too little plastic may be too thin to hold up to filling lines or may deform after product is filled. Why use a bottle that has more plastic than you actually need for your product when a lesser option may be available? This could save you money, avoid problems on your filling lines, and help you save on your bottom line. In addition, this will also help limit the amount of natural resources being used in production.

Convert to Plastic Pallets

If you are purchasing bottles in large quantities and your supplier ships on pallets, consider asking about plastic pallets. Reusable plastic pallets last longer than wood pallets, eliminate pallet moisture and improve safety in handling. They also reduce the use of raw materials in the pallet manufacturing process (natural gas, metal, forests, etc.) aiding in efforts towards Zero Net Deforestation. And, returnable plastic pallets provide savings over the long term.

If You Don’t Know, Ask Your Cannabis Packaging Partner

It is important to find out if your plastic packaging partner offers alternative resins that are produced from renewable sources or recycled plastics. It is also prudent to partner with a company that is concerned about the impact their business has on the planet. Are they committed to sustainability? And, are they eliminating processes that negatively affect their carbon footprint? What services can they provide that help you do your part?

When you opt to use sustainably produced plastic bottles and closures for your cannabis products, you take an important step to help ensure a viable future for the planet. In a competitive market, this can improve the customer’s impression of your brand, increase consumer confidence and help grow your bottom line. Not only will you appeal to the ever-growing number of consumers who are environmentally-conscience, you will rest easy knowing that your company is taking action to ensure a sustainable future.

January 22, 2019

From The Lab

I Was Wrong… und das ist auch gut so!

By Dr. Markus Roggen

3 Comments

I was wrong. And that’s a good thing! Based on all available data, I assumed that evaporating ethanol from a cannabis oil/ethanol solution would result in terpene loss. As it turns out, it doesn’t. There are so many beliefs and assumptions about cannabis: Cannabis cures cancer!¹ Smoking cannabis causes cancer!² Sativas help you sleep; Indicas make you creative!^3,4CBD is not psychoactive!⁵ But are these ‘facts’ backed by science? Have they been experimentally tested and validated?

I postulated a theory, designed experiments to validate it and evaluated the results. Simply putting “cannabis backed by science” on your label does not solve the problem. Science is not a marketing term. It’s not even a fixed term. The practice of science is multifaceted and sometimes confusing. It evolved from the traditional model of Inductivism, where observations are used in an iterative process to refine a law/theory that can generalize such observations.⁶ Closely related is Empiricism, which posits that knowledge can only come from observation. Rationalism, on the other hand, believes that certain truths can be directly grasped by one’s intellect.⁷ In the last century, the definition of science was changed from the method by which we study something, such as Inductivism or Rationalism, and refocused on the way we explain phenomena. It states that a theory should be considered scientific if, and only if, it is falsifiable.⁸ All that means is that not the way we study something is what makes it scientific, but the way we explain it.

I wonder how can we use empirical observations and rational deliberations to solve the questions surrounding cannabis? And more importantly, how can we form scientific theories that are falsifiable? Cannabis, the plant, the drug, has long been withheld from society by its legal status. As a result, much of what we know, in fact, the entire industry has thrived in the shadows away from rigorous research. It’s time for this to change. I am particularly concerned by the lack of fundamental research in the field. I am not even talking about large questions, like the potential medical benefit of the plant and its constituents. Those are for later. I’m talking about fundamental, mundane questions like how many lumens per square centimetre does the plant need for optimal THC production? What are the kinetics of cannabis extraction in different solvents? What are the thermodynamics of decarboxylation? Where do major cannabinoids differ or align in terms of water solubility and viscosity?

The lack of knowledge and data in the cannabis field puts us in the precarious position of potentially chasing the wrong goals, not to mention wasting enormous amounts of time and money. Here’s a recent example drawn from personal experience:Certainly, I cannot be the only one who has made an incorrect assumption based on anecdotes and incomplete data?

Some of the most common steps in cannabis oil production involve ethanol solutions. Ethanol is commonly removed from extraction material under reduced pressure and elevated heat in a rotary evaporator. I expected that this process would endanger the terpenes in the oil – a key component of product quality. My theory was that volatile terpenes⁹ would be lost in the rotary evaporator during ethanol¹⁰ removal. The close values of vapor pressure for terpenes and ethanol make this a reasonably assumed possibility.¹¹ In the summer of 2018, I finally got the chance to test it. I designed experiments at different temperatures and pressures, neat and in solution, to quantify the terpene lost in ethanol evaporation. I also considered real life conditions and limitations of cannabis oil manufacturers. After all the experiments were done, the results unequivocally showed that terpenes do not evaporate in a rotary evaporator when ethanol is removed from cannabis extracts.¹² As it turns out, I was wrong.

We, as an industry, need to start putting money and effort into fundamental cannabis research programs. But, at least I ran the experiments! I postulated a theory, designed experiments to validate it and evaluated the results. At this point, and only this point, can I conclude anything about my hypothesis, even if that is that my working theory needs to be revised. Certainly, I cannot be the only one who has made an incorrect assumption based on anecdotes and incomplete data?

There is a particular danger when using incomplete data to form conclusions. There are many striking examples in the medical literature and even the casual observer might know them. The case of hormone replacement therapy for menopause and the associated risks of cardiovascular diseases showed how observational studies and well-designed clinical trials can lead to contradicting results.¹³ In the thirties of the last century, lobotomy became a cure-all technique for mental health issues.¹⁴ Dr. Moniz even won the Nobel Prize in Medicine for it.¹⁵ And it must come as no surprise when WIRED states “that one generation’s Nobel Prize-winning cure is another generation’s worst nightmare.”¹⁶ And with today’s knowledge is impossible to consider mercury as a treatment for syphilis, but that is exactly what it was used as for many centuries.¹⁷ All those examples, but the last one in particular should “be a good example of the weight of tradition or habit in the medical practice, […] of the necessity and the difficulties to evaluate the treatments without error.”¹⁸ There is the danger that we as cannabis professionals fall into the same trap and believe the old stories and become dogmatic about cannabis’ potential.

We, as an industry, need to start putting money and effort into fundamental cannabis research programs. That might be by sponsoring academic research,¹⁹ building in-house research divisions,²⁰ or even building research networks.²¹ I fully believe in the need for fundamental cannabis research, even the non-sexy aspects.²² Therefore, I set up just that: an independent research laboratory, focused on fundamental cannabis research where we can test our assumptions and validate our theories. Although, I alone cannot do it all. I likely will be wrong somewhere (again). So, please join me in this effort. Let’s make sure cannabis science progresses.

References

No, it does not. There are preliminary in-situ studies that point at anti-cancer effects, but its more complicated. The therapeutic effects of Cannabis and cannabinoids: An update from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report, Abrams, Donald I., European Journal of Internal Medicine, Volume 49, 7 – 11
No, it does not. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24625.
No, it does not. The chemical profile of the plant dictates the biological effects on humans, not the shape of the leaf. Justin T. Fischedick, Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, Volume: 2 Issue 1: March 1, 2017
Indica and Sativa are outdated terms. Piomelli D, Russo EB. The Cannabis sativa versus Cannabis indica debate: An Interview with Ethan Russo, MD. Cannabis Cannabinoid Res 2016; 1: 44–46.
No, it is. CBD’s supposed “calming effects” is indeed a psychoactive effect. However, it is not intoxicating like THC. Russo E.B., Taming THC: potential cannabis synergy and phytocannabinoid-terpenoid entourage effects.Br. J. Pharmacol. 2011; 163: 1344-1364
As attributed to Francis Bacon.
See the work by philosopher Baruch Spinoza.
As theorized by Karl Popper.
Monoterpenes have a vapor pressure in the low to mid hundreds of Pascals at room temperature.
Vapor pressure of 5.95 kPa at 20˚C.
Furthermore, there is always the possibility of azeotropes in complex mixtures. Azeotropes are mixtures of two or more liquids that have different boiling points individually, but in mixture boil together.
Terpene Retention via Rotary Evaporator Application Note, Heidolph North America
https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/research/review-article/establishing-the-risk-related-to-hormone-replacement-therapy-and-cardiovascular-disease-in-women/20202066.article?firstPass=false
https://psychcentral.com/blog/the-surprising-history-of-the-lobotomy/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/António_Egas_Moniz
https://www.wired.com/2011/03/lobotomy-history/
https://www.infezmed.it/media/journal/Vol_21_4_2013_10.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11625051
Canopy Growth funds a professorship of cannabis science at UBC. Tilray collaborates with UCSD on a phase I/II clinical trial.
For examples see: NIBR, PMISCIENCE.
For examples see: CEMI, theAIRnet, Future Sky.
Research that does not lead to short-term stock value spikes but long-term progress

December 9, 2016

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 30^th 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.

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

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.

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.