“By achieving ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation, TEQ Analytical Labs believes that we can address the concerns throughout the cannabis industry regarding insufficient and unreliable scientific analysis by providing our clients with state-required tests that are accredited by an international standard,” says Seth Wong, president of TEQ Analytical Laboratories. According to a TEQ Analytical press release, accreditation to this standard confirms that laboratories have the management, quality, and technical systems in place to ensure accurate and reliable analyses, as well as proper administrative processes to confirm that all aspects related to the sample, analysis and reporting are standardized, measured and monitored.
By implementing ISO 17025 accreditation, the laboratory monitors systems and processes central to analyses in an effort to minimize discrepancies and variability in test results. According to Roger Brauninger, biosafety program manager at A2LA, this type of accreditation demonstrates their competence and commitment to rigorous science. “It is encouraging to have testing laboratories taking ownership of the quality of the work performed,” says Brauninger. “Reliable testing will be imperative to insure safety of the products out on the market as this industry continues to expand.” As the first accreditation of its kind in North America, Brauninger hopes this will open the doors for more cannabis laboratories to acknowledge their role in demonstrating scientific competency for the industry.
Tripp Keber, president and chief executive officer of Dixie Brands, Inc., commends the achievement. “At Dixie Brands, we believe that cannabis is powerful, that quality is important, and that accurate dosing is of supreme importance,” says Keber. “Because Dixie is committed to delivering a safe, consistent, and accurately dosed product, lab testing is a vital component to our manufacturing processes.”
“TEQ’s achievement of ISO 17025 accreditation instills great confidence to Dixie Brands that our consumers’ health and safety is ensured and that they will enjoy a reliable and predictable experience with our product each and every time,” adds Keber. “Dixie’s strategic relationship with TEQ continues to build long-term brand value.” This kind of accreditation helps build trust in laboratories’ clients knowing they can provide accurate results repeatedly.
If your laboratory utilizes an HPLC system for cannabinoid and pesticide analysis, it can be a daunting task to select a stationary phase that is both practical and sufficient for the separation at hand. Typically, when developing a new method, an analyst will either evaluate a column they already have in house or seek out a referenced phase/dimension in the literature before exploring other available alternatives.
Chemical structure of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)
A C18 phase is an excellent first choice for non-polar or slightly polar compounds. If the analyte in question has a minimum ratio of three carbon atoms for every heteroatom, it will be sufficiently retained on this phase. THC and other relative cannabinoids are prime candidates for separation via C18 due to their non-polar nature and structural components.
In addition to a universal C18 phase, alternative selectivity options do exist for laboratories concerned with the analysis of cannabinoid content. Another prevalent column choice features an aromatic or poly-aromatic stationary phase. Compatible with highly aqueous mobile phases, aromatic and poly-aromatic columns primarily rely on hydrophobic and π-π interactions as their main analyte retention mechanisms. Poly-aromatic phases provide enhanced retention and are more hydrophobic when compared to a single phenyl ring structure. While C18 phases are not ideal for resolving structural isomers, poly-aromatic columns are capable of separating these ring-based compounds. Chromatographers with a background in forensic analysis may be very familiar with this type of HPLC column due to its extensive use in drug testing applications.
Chemical structure of chlormequat, a hazardous polar pesticide commonly banned for use in cannabis cultivation
Besides cannabinoid content, many cannabis scientists are equally concerned with accurate quantitation of pesticides within a given sample. Many pesticides that have found themselves on regulatory lists in states such as Massachusetts, Washington or Nevada are extremely polar. In order to increase retention of these compounds, and thus improve your overall chromatographic method, it can be extremely advantageous to select a column that allows you to start your gradient at 100% aqueous mobile phase. An aqueous or polar modified C18 column contains an embedded polar group, polar side chain or polar end-capping to allow for separation of polar compounds, while still retaining and resolving non-polar analytes. For laboratories that necessitate the use of only one analytical column, an aqueous C18 phase will allow for separation of monitored pesticides without compromising the quality of cannabinoid data produced.
One must also take into account column length, pore size and particle size when purchasing a column. For the purposes of any cannabis related analysis, a pore size of 100-120Å will suffice. Larger pore columns are typically reserved for large peptides, proteins and polymers. Depending on the sensitivity and resolution needed within your laboratory, particle size can range from 1.8-5um, with the highest sensitivity and resolution coming from the smaller particle size. Core shell technology is also a popular option for laboratories who want to keep the pressure of their HPLC system low, without sacrificing any quality of their resolution. Column lengths of 50 or 100 mm are common for chromatographers who want to achieve sufficient sample separation while keeping their run times relatively short.
Regardless of the HPLC phase selected, it is very important that a guard cartridge is also used. Guard cartridges are traditionally the same phase and particle size of the HPLC column choice and help to prolong analytical column life. They provide additional sample clean up and are widely recommended by the majority of chromatography experts. Upon reviewing one’s options for HPLC phases and acquiring the necessary guard column, your cannabis laboratory will be ready to get the most out of your HPLC system for your analysis needs.
Emerald Scientific recently announced results for their latest round of the semi-annual Inter-Laboratory Comparison and Proficiency Test (ILC/PT), and the outcomes may bode well for one of the most vital quality and safety aspects of the cannabis industry. According to Cynthia Ludwig, director of technical services at the American Oil Chemists’ Society (AOCS), there are no official methods for cannabis testing from an internationally recognized non-profit organization known to provide ‘official methods’ to various industries, so method validation needs to be done in-house, which is very costly and time-consuming. Cannabis testing labs are charged with the difficult task of providing honest, consistent and accurate results for potency, pesticide residue, residual solvents and contaminants. AOCS partnered with Emerald Scientific in this round of ILC/PT and preformed the statistical analysis and reports. For the first time in The Emerald Test’s history, participants were able to review all of the raw data and were given a consensus mean, z-scores and kernel density plots in order to compare themselves to other participants.
Emerald Scientific’s ILC/PT program measures how accurately a cannabis lab performs along with comparing it to other labs for an indicator of variability and ways to improve, according to a press release. 46 cannabis laboratories participated in The Emerald Test’s latest round of proficiency testing for potency and residual solvents. Cynthia Ludwig sits on the advisory panel to give direction and industry insights, addressing specific needs for cannabis laboratories. Kirsten Blake, director of sales at Emerald Scientific, believes that proficiency testing is the first step in bringing consistency to cannabis analytics. “The goal is to create some level of industry standards for testing,” says Blake. Participants in the program are given data sets, judged by a consensus mean, so labs can see their score compared to the rest of the cannabis testing industry.
Proficiency tests like The Emerald Test give labs the ability to view how consistent their results are compared to the industry’s results overall. According to Ludwig, the results were pleasantly surprising. “The results were better than expected across the board; the vast majority of labs were within the acceptable range,” says Ludwig. The test is anonymous so individual labs can participate freely. “The overall performance of the participating labs in the Potency and Solvent Residue Emerald Test were very encouraging,” says Ludwig. “All but a couple of labs had the majority of their results fall within two standard deviations of the consensus mean, which is generally accepted as being within the acceptable limits to most evaluators.” Although requirements for labs testing cannabis differ in each state, Ludwig says the results show the ability of these labs to competently perform the tests and generate reliable results. “Given the lack of harmonized regulations, this is a testament to the self-imposed quality standards the industry is trying to achieve.”
Reggie Gaudino, Ph.D., vice president of scientific operations and director of genetics at Steep Hill Laboratories. (photo credit: Preston Gannaway)
Among the laboratories that participated, Steep Hill Laboratories joined the test at two of their locations. Reggie Gaudino, Ph.D., vice president of scientific operations and director of genetics at Steep Hill Laboratories, believes that tests like the Emerald Test ensure that the cannabis labs are performing their function to the best of their ability, which is extraordinarily important. “We, and not just Steep Hill, but all testing labs, are the custodians of quality and safety for the cannabis industry,” says Gaudino. “If we are not doing our best to ensure the quality of our science is beyond reproach, then we are failing the consumer; if even one person gets sick or dies because a lab cut corners and tried to make extra money, that is one person too many.” Accurate testing comes from internal and external proficiency testing.
According to Gaudino, how cannabis labs perform in The Emerald Test can affect every aspect of cannabis consumption: “Correct dosing from potency analysis reports, identification of as many, if not all, active compounds known to enable the consumer to make a determination as to which strain, edible or concentrate would be most beneficial and assurance that there are no harmful chemicals or biological contaminants on cannabis or cannabis derivatives; all of it stems from being able to accurately test.” Gaudino is a major proponent of The Emerald Test because it provides some measure of consistency and accuracy in the cannabis industry. Until more consistent regulations for cannabis testing are formed on a national scale, self-imposed quality standards such as The Emerald Test helps labs, growers and consumers know they are getting reliable data.
The American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) and Americans for Safe Access (ASA) announced yesterday a collaboration to develop a cannabis-specific laboratory accreditation program based upon the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025 and ASA’ s Patient Focused Certification (PFC) Program. Accreditation under this program will offer the highest level of recognition and provide the most value to the laboratory and users of the products tested, according to a press release published yesterday. ASA is the largest medical cannabis patient advocacy group in the United States. “A2LA is pleased to partner with ASA to offer a cannabis testing laboratory accreditation program to ISO/IEC 17025 as well as the additional laboratory requirements from ASA’s Patient Focused Certification Program,” says Roger Brauninger, biosafety program manager at A2LA.
Pictured left to right: Kristin Nevedal, Program Manager, PFC at ASA; Jahan Marcu, Ph.D Chief Scientist, PFC at ASA; Roger Brauninger, BioSafety Program Manager, A2LA; Michelle Bradac, Senior Accreditation Officer, A2LA
The program affirms that cannabis laboratories are compliant with state and local regulations and ensures that they adhere to the same standards that are followed by laboratories used and inspected by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) among other regulatory bodies. The two non-profit organizations will offer their first joint training course at A2LA’s headquarters in Maryland from July 11th to the 15th. During this course, participants will receive training on PFC’s national standards for the cultivation, manufacture, dispensing, and testing of cannabis and cannabis products, combined with ISO/IEC 17025 training.
The guidelines for cannabis operations that serve as the basis for this accreditation program were issued by the American Herbal Products Association (AHPA) Cannabis Committee, an industry stakeholder panel, and have already been adopted by sixteen states. “We are very excited to see the PFC program join the ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation efforts to help fully establish a robust and reliable cannabis testing foundation,” says Jeffrey Raber, chief executive officer of The Werc Shop, a PFC-certified cannabis testing laboratory. “It is a great testament to ASA’s commitment to quality in their PFC program by partnering with a world-renowned accrediting body to set a new standard for cannabis testing labs.”
According to Kristin Nevedal, program director of PFC, this is an important first in the industry. “This new, comprehensive accreditation program affirms laboratory operations are meeting existing standards and best practices, adhering to the ISO/IEC 17025 criteria, and are compliant with state and local regulations,” says Nevedal. “This program is the first of its kind developed specifically for the cannabis industry, giving confidence to patients as well as regulators that their test results on these products are accurate and consistent.”
“The program will combine the expertise and resources of the country’s largest accreditation body with the scientific rigor and knowledge base of the nation’s largest medical cannabis advocacy group, benefitting the myriad of laboratories tasked with analyzing cannabis products,” says Nevedal. According to Brauninger, a cannabis-specific accreditation program is vital to the industry’s constantly shifting needs. “The ability to now offer a cannabis testing laboratory accreditation program that is tailored to address the unique concerns and issues of the industry will help to add the necessary confidence and trust in the reliability and safety of the cannabis products on the market,” says Brauninger. “Those laboratories that gain accreditation under this program will be demonstrating that they adhere to the most comprehensive and relevant set of criteria by their compliance to both the underlying framework of the internationally recognized ISO/IEC 17025:2005 quality management system standard and the specific guidelines issued by the AHPA Cannabis Committee.” This type of collaboration could represent a milestone in progress toward achieving a higher level of consumer safety in the cannabis industry.
Despite the title, this article is not about weight loss – it is about generating valid analytical data for quantitative analyses. In the last installment of The Practical Chemist, I introduced instrument calibration and covered a few ways we can calibrate our instruments. Just because we have run several standards across a range of concentrations and plotted a curve using the resulting data, it does not mean our curve accurately represents our instrument’s response across that concentration range. In order to be able to claim that our calibration curve accurately represents our instrument response, we have to take a look at a couple of quality indicators for our curve data:
correlation coefficient (r) or coefficient of determination (r2)
back-calculated accuracy (reported as % error)
The r or r2 values that accompany our calibration curve are measurements of how closely our curve matches the data we have generated. The closer the values are to 1.00, the more accurately our curve represents our detector response. Generally, r values ≥0.995 and r2 values ≥ 0.990 are considered ‘good’. Figure 1 shows a few representative curves, their associated data, and r2 values (concentration and response units are arbitrary).
Figure 1: Representative Curves and r2 values
Let’s take a closer look at these curves:
Curve A: This represents a case where the curve perfectly matches the instrument data, meaning our calculated unknown values will be accurate across the entire calibration range.
Curve B: The r2 value is good and visually the curve matches most of the data points pretty well. However, if we look at our two highest calibration points, we can see that they do not match the trend for the rest of the data; the response values should be closer to 1250 and 2500. The fact that they are much lower than they should be could indicate that we are starting to overload our detector at higher calibration levels; we are putting more mass of analyte into the detector than it can reliably detect. This is a common problem when dealing with concentrated samples, so it can occur especially for potency analyses.
Curve C: We can see that although our r2 value is still okay, we are not detecting analytes as we should at the low end of our curve. In fact, at our lowest calibration level, the instrument is not detecting anything at all (0 response at the lowest point). This is a common problem with residual solvent and pesticide analyses where detection levels for some compounds like benzene are very low.
Curve D: It is a perfect example of our curve not representing our instrument response at all. A curve like this indicates a possible problem with the instrument or sample preparation.
So even if our curve looks good, we could be generating inaccurate results for some samples. This brings us to another measure of curve fitness: back-calculated accuracy (expressed as % error). This is an easy way to determine how accurate your results will be without performing a single additional run.
Back-calculated accuracy simply plugs the area values we obtained from our calibrators back into the calibration curve to see how well our curve will calculate these values in relation to the known value. We can do this by reprocessing our calibrators as unknowns or by hand. As an example, let’s back-calculate the concentration of our 500 level calibrator from Curve B. The formula for that curve is: y = 3.543x + 52.805. If we plug 1800 in for y and solve for x, we end up with a calculated concentration of 493. To calculate the error of our calculated value versus the true value, we can use the equation: % Error = [(calculated value – true value)/true value] * 100. This gives us a % error of -1.4%. Acceptable % error values are usually ±15 – 20% depending on analysis type. Let’s see what the % error values are for the curves shown in Figure 1.
Table 1: % Error for Back-Calculated Values for Curves A – D
Our % error values have told us what our r2 values could not. We knew Curve D was unacceptable, but now we can see that Curves B and C will yield inaccurate results for all but the highest levels of analyte – even though the results were skewed at opposite ends of the curves.
There are many more details regarding generating calibration curves and measuring their quality that I did not have room to mention here. Hopefully, these two articles have given you some tools to use in your lab to quickly and easily improve the quality of your data. If you would like to learn more about this topic or have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me at amanda.rigdon@restek.com.
The American Oil Chemists’ Society (AOCS) held its annual conference in Salt Lake City this week, with a track focused on cannabis testing and technology. Cynthia Ludwig, director of technical services at AOCS and member of the advisory panel to The Emerald Test, hosted the two-day event dedicated to all things extraction technology and analytical testing of cannabis.
Highlights in the discussion surrounding extraction technologies for the production of cannabis concentrates included the diversity of concentrate products, solvent selection for different extraction techniques and the need for cleaning validation in extraction equipment. Jerry King, Ph.D., research professor at the University of Arkansas, began the event with a brief history of cannabis processing, describing the physical morphologies in different types of extraction processes.
J. Michael McCutcheon presents a history of cannabis in medicine
Michael McCutcheon, research scientist at Eden Labs, laid out a broad comparison of different extraction techniques and solvents in use currently. “Butane is a great solvent; it’s extremely effective at extracting active compounds from cannabis, but it poses considerable health, safety and environmental concerns largely due to its flammability,” says McCutcheon. He noted it is also very difficult to get USP-grade butane solvents so the quality can be lacking. “As a solvent, supercritical carbon dioxide can be better because it is nontoxic, nonflammable, readily available, inexpensive and much safer.” The major benefit of using supercritical carbon dioxide, according to McCutcheon, is its ability for fine-tuning, allowing the extractor to be more selective and produce a wider range of product types. “By changing the temperature or pressure, we can change the density of the solvent and thus the solubility of the many different compounds in cannabis.” He also noted that, supercritical carbon dioxide exerts tremendous pressure, as compared to hydrocarbon solvents, so the extraction equipment needs to be rated to a higher working pressure and is generally more expensive.
John A. Mackay, Ph.D., left at the podium and Jerry King, Ph.D., on the right
John A. Mackay, Ph.D., senior director of strategic technologies at Waters Corporation, believes that cannabis processors using extraction equipment need to implement cleaning SOPs to prevent contamination. “There is currently nothing in the cannabis industry like the FDA CMC draft for the botanical industry,” says Mackay. “If you are giving a child a high-CBD extract and it was produced in equipment that was previously used for another strain that contains other compounds, such as CBG, CBD or even traces of THC extract, there is a high probability that it will still contain these compounds as well as possibly other contaminants unless it was properly cleaned.” Mackay’s discussion highlighted the importance of safety and health for workers throughout the workflow as well as the end consumer.
Jeffrey Raber, Ph.D., chief executive officer of The Werc Shop, examined different testing methodologies for different applications, including potency analyses with liquid chromatography. His presentation was markedly unique in proposing a solution to the currently inconsistent classification system for cannabis strains. “We really do not know what strains cause what physiological responses,” says Raber. “We need a better classification system based on chemical fingerprints, not on baseless names.” Raber suggests using a chemotaxonomic system to identify physiological responses in strains, noting that terpenes could be the key to these responses.
Cynthia Ludwig welcomes attendees to the event.
Dylan Wilks, chief scientific officer at Orange Photonics, discussed the various needs in sample preparation for a wide range of products. He focused on sample prep and variation for on-site potency analysis, which could give edibles manufacturers crucial quality assurance tools in process control. Susan Audino, Ph.D., chemist and A2LA assessor, echoed Wilks’ concerns over sample collection methods. “Sampling can be the most critical part of the analysis and the sample size needs to be representative of the batch, which is currently a major issue in the cannabis industry,” says Audino. “I believe that the consumer has a right to know that what they are ingesting is safe.” Many seemed to share her sentiment about the current state of the cannabis testing industry. “Inadequate testing is worse than no testing at all and we need to educate the legislators about the importance of consumer safety.”
46 cannabis laboratories participated in The Emerald Test’s latest round of proficiency testing for potency and residual solvents. Cynthia Ludwig sits on the advisory panel to give direction and industry insights, addressing specific needs for cannabis laboratories. Kirsten Blake, director of sales at Emerald Scientific, believes that proficiency testing is the first step in bringing consistency to cannabis analytics. “The goal is to create some level of industry standards for testing,” says Blake. Participants in the program will be given data sets, judged by a consensus mean, so labs can see their score compared to the rest of the cannabis testing industry. Proficiency tests like The Emerald Test give labs the ability to view how consistent their results are compared to the industry’s results overall. According to Ludwig, the results were pleasantly surprising. “The results were better than expected across the board; the vast majority of labs were within the acceptable range,” says Ludwig. The test is anonymous so individual labs can participate freely.
The AOCS cannabis working groups and expert panels are collaborating with Emerald Scientific to provide data analytics reports compliant with ISO 13528. “In the absence of a federal program, we are trying to provide consistency in cannabis testing to protect consumer safety,” says Ludwig. At the AOCS annual meeting, many echoed those concerns of consumer safety, proposing solutions to the current inconsistencies in testing standards.
This column is devoted to helping cannabis analytical labs generate valid data right now with a relatively small amount of additional work. The topic for this article is instrument calibration – truly the foundation of all quality data. Calibration is the basis for all measurement, and it is absolutely necessary for quantitative cannabis analyses including potency, residual solvents, terpenes, and pesticides.
Just like a simple alarm clock, all analytical instruments – no matter how high-tech – will not function properly unless they are calibrated. When we set our alarm clock to 6AM, that alarm clock will sound reproducibly every 24 hours when it reads 6AM, but unless we set the correct current time on the clock based on some known reference, we can’t be sure when exactly the alarm will sound. Analytical instruments are the same. Unless we calibrate the instrument’s signal (the response) from the detector to a known amount of reference material, the instrument will not generate an accurate or valid result.
Without calibration, our result may be reproducible – just like in our alarm clock example – but the result will have no meaning unless the result is calibrated against a known reference. Every instrument that makes a quantitative measurement must be calibrated in order for that measurement to be valid. Luckily, the principle for calibration of chromatographic instruments is the same regardless of detector or technique (GC or LC).
Before we get into the details, I would like to introduce one key concept:
Every calibration curve for chromatographic analyses is expressed in terms of response and concentration. For every detector the relationship between analyte (e.g. a compound we’re analyzing) concentration and response is expressible mathematically – often a linear relationship.
Now that we’ve introduced the key concept behind calibration, let’s talk about the two most common and applicable calibration options.
Single Point Calibration
This is the simplest calibration option. Essentially, we run one known reference concentration (the calibrator) and calculate our sample concentrations based on this single point. Using this method, our curve is defined by two points: our single reference point, and zero. That gives us a nice, straight line defining the relationship between our instrument response and our analyte concentration all the way from zero to infinity. If only things were this easy. There are two fatal flaws of single point calibrations:
We assume a linear detector response across all possible concentrations
We assume at any concentration greater than zero, our response will be greater than zero
Assumption #1 is never true, and assumption #2 is rarely true. Generally, single point calibration curves are used to conduct pass/fail tests where there is a maximum limit for analytes (i.e. residual solvents or pesticide screening). Usually, quantitative values are not reported based on single point calibrations. Instead, reports are generated in relation to our calibrator, which is prepared at a known concentration relating to a regulatory limit, or the instrument’s LOD. Using this calibration method, we can accurately report that the sample contains less than or greater than the regulatory limit of an analyte, but we cannot report exactly how much of the analyte is present. So how can we extend the accuracy range of a calibration curve in order to report quantitative values? The answer to this question brings us to the other common type of calibration curve.
Multi-Point Calibration:
A multi-point calibration curve is the most common type used for quantitative analyses (e.g. analyses where we report a number). This type of curve contains several calibrators (at least 3) prepared over a range of concentrations. This gives us a calibration curve (sometimes a line) defined by several known references, which more accurately expresses the response/concentration relationship of our detector for that analyte. When preparing a multi-point calibration curve, we must be sure to bracket the expected concentration range of our analytes of interest, because once our sample response values move outside the calibration range, the results calculated from the curve are not generally considered quantitative.
The figure below illustrates both kinds of calibration curves, as well as their usable accuracy range:
This article provides an overview of the two most commonly used types of calibration curves, and discusses how they can be appropriately used to report data. There are two other important topics that were not covered in this article concerning calibration curves: 1) how can we tell whether or not our calibration curve is ‘good’ and 2) calibrations aren’t permanent – instruments must be periodically re-calibrated. In my next article, I’ll cover these two topics to round out our general discussion of calibration – the basis for all measurement. If you have any questions about this article or would like further details on the topic presented here, please feel free to contact me at amanda.rigdon@restek.com.
Anytime a cannabis sample enters a laboratory, the sample is received, handled, weighed, identified and traced throughout the testing and disposal process. Laboratories working with cannabis must have quality systems in place to ensure every action taken to test the cannabis sample is documented and in compliance with good manufacturing practices. Eurofins-Experchem’s sample receipt and handling SOPs includes the following key elements.
Purpose: The purpose of the SOP is outlined to make sure it’s outcome is understood
Scope: The Scope of the SOP explains what events the SOP is intended to avoid and which events the SOP is intended to encourage
Responsibilities: All positions that the SOP affects are outlined
Initial Receipt of the Sample: Samples are submitted to Eurofins Experchem Laboratories with a Sample Information Form. In Canada, cannabis is regulated as a controlled substance. Controlled substances come with a special shipping document and must be weighed upon receipt to the lab to make sure the weight is the same as the client has indicated. Cannabis samples received are inspected to ensure no tampering or damage has occurred to the sample before it is tested. Any temperature and/or storage requirements are noted and followed. If any conditions are not understood the client is contacted for clarification immediately. Pending the sample’s conditions are met, the sample is placed into the laboratory.
Procedure: Eurofins Experchem uses its own sample tracking software to track a sample across the lab. A unique project number and date of entry is given to the sample. Client name, product name, condition of sample, test(s) performed, ID or lot number and size of samples are all recorded. A sticker is attached to the sample to clarify.
Rush Samples: Rush samples are stamped “RUSH” in red and are placed in a priority sequence. The sample is placed in the safe until required for testing. If the product is not cannabis, the sample is placed on a shelf corresponding with the actual day of the month it was received and entered into sample tracking. If the sample requires cold temperatures it is placed in a refrigerated area and monitored in a similar way.
Discrepancies: Any discrepancies in information found on the sample that may differentiate from what the client requests will be communicated to the client upon finding.
Controlled Documents: Stickers, original lab specification sheets, sample submission forms, and SOP training evaluation questionnaires.
Results: As soon as testing is completed, lab results are approved by quality assurance reviewers. A Certificate of Analysis (COA) is electronically and automatically sent through the sample tracking system to the client’s email.
Last week’s Pittcon, the world’s leading conference and expo for laboratory science, brought together thousands of laboratory equipment companies, scientists and laboratory professionals in Atlanta. This year’s meeting made history, as it featured Pittcon’s first cannabis conference.
Generating quite a bit of buzz at the show in Atlanta, the inaugural Cannabis Labs Conference brought Pittcon attendees, cannabis industry leaders and scientists together to discuss the changing landscape of cannabis testing, the need for standards and cannabis laboratory methods. The improvement of quality standards, outside industry expertise and noting the industry still has a long way to go were some of the themes that came out of the talks.
Nic Easley, CEO of Comprehensive Cannabis Consulting, delivered the keynote presentation.
Nic Easley, chief executive officer of Comprehensive Cannabis Consulting (3C), delivered the keynote, addressing concerns over consumer safety and lab testing standards in such a fast-paced market. “What we need now are outside industry experts to help guide this industry with standards and proper analytics,” he said. “With increased efficiencies and competition in the cannabis marketplace, our ethics need to be called into question as the industry reaps its profits.”
Other highlights included the sharing of new validation methods. Scott Radcliffe, technical support scientist at Romer Labs, Inc., presented his findings on the validation of immunoassays for the detection of pathogens and mycotoxins in cannabis. Amanda Rigdon, applications chemist at Restek, Inc., also led a discussion on the opportunities and challenges for method validation in the evolving cannabis industry.
Scott Radcliffe, technical support scientist at Romer Labs, discussing the validation of immunoassays for the detection of pathogens in cannabis.
Rigdon provided a glimpse into the amount of work it takes for method validation. “You can have all of the regulations in the world but that does not guarantee that you will produce good data,” Rigdon said. “We need good science, which is lacking currently in the industry.”
Amanda Rigdon, applications chemist at Restek, leading a talk on method validation
“We need to show proficiency with a standardized method and that comes through full validation which, requires a lot of money, time and work,” Rigdon added. These components of validation include accuracy, precision, recovery, selectivity, specificity and proper instrument calibration. “The bottom line is labs need a method that is reproducible and robust,” she said. Rigdon also shared her data from recent methods validation at a cannabis laboratory in Spokane, Washington.
Next year’s Cannabis Labs Conference is scheduled to take place in Chicago during the week of March 5, 2017. To hear more about the Cannabis Labs Conference, sign up for the CannabisIndustryJournal newsletter.
The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) recently implemented a set of temporary rules effective through June 28th of this year with the goal to establish a set of regulations for cannabis testing by October 1st. An investigation by The Oregonian highlighted some of the previous problems with cannabis testing in the state.
The most impactful rule changes include The NELAC Institute (TNI) mandatory standards for laboratories that the Oregon Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ORELAP) will use to accredit labs. Initial rules in the Oregon medical cannabis program, HB 3460 from 2013, did not specify accreditation rules for cannabis testing.
The OG Analytical laboratory in Eugene, Oregon is working to comply with new regulations, including new sample collection rules
ORELAP currently performs accreditation for lab testing under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. The new cannabis testing rules will give ORELAP the authority to accredit and regulate cannabis labs in the state of Oregon.
Rodger Voelker, Ph.D., laboratory director of OG Analytical in Eugene, OR, believes these rules are monumental in establishing legitimacy in cannabis testing. “These new rules have major repercussions mainly because they require not only getting accreditation, but maintaining it with very strict requirements,” says Voelker. “That also includes procedural guidelines that very carefully outline the quality of laboratory practices and establishes a set of criteria for method validation.”
Rodger Voelker, lab director at OG Analytical laboratory
Voelker notes that two of the biggest changes are in quality control and data management. “The documentation they require is very thorough and strict with the idea that any aspect of an analysis can be replicated,” adds Voelker. “This is a real win for us in my opinion because now we have an agency that can issue the appropriate credentials as well as have the authority to make punitive measures.”
The timeline for implementation with temporary rules allows state regulators to work with laboratories to perform accreditation and bring laboratories up to speed. According to Shannon Swantek, ORELAP compliance specialist, products that dispensaries sell in medical and recreational markets are required to be tested under the new rules and in the analyte lists by an ORELAP accredited laboratory, starting on October 1st.
Swantek’s job is to accredit cannabis labs to the TNI standards, which is essentially very similar to ISO 17025, just with more prescriptive measures and the ability to pair with state agencies to enforce rules after accreditation. “The timeline for accreditation is dependent on how ready the lab is and how compliant they are to the TNI standard already,” says Swantek. “The culture had gotten so fraudulent that the legislature felt Oregon needed some serious, more strict rules in place.”
Labs need very expensive instruments to perform all of the testing required by OHA
One of the biggest changes coming to Oregon cannabis testing is the new sampling requirement. “An accredited laboratory employee must take the sample because sampling is where a lack of training or outright fraud is skewing results, which occurs when a grower brings in a sample not representative of the batch,” adds Swantek. Sample preparation methods will also be required to be more robust to meet the action limits of pesticide testing in particular, helping to identify lower levels like parts-per-billion, according to Swantek.
Reports were also lacking key information in the past. The new rules will require more information such as the procedure used, the analyst carrying it out, dilution factors and any other information you need to theoretically reproduce the result. This will result in more accurate labels on products.
Many are concerned that the new lab testing requirements will raise the price of testing too much. In reality, those current prices are not realistic for accurate data, which points to the rampant fraud that ORELAP is trying to eradicate. “The old rules were written in such an ambiguous way that the prices were set by laboratories without a proper quality program or even without proper instrumentation,” says Swantek.
OG Analytical had to close its doors briefly to meet accreditation
The accreditation process will require particularly robust quality control systems in labs. “Accreditation to the TNI Standard means that lab quality systems will require a documentation system, training procedures, record keeping, personnel requirements, organization details, proof of no conflicts of interest and corrective actions if noncompliant,” adds Swantek. “We single out each method or procedure, look at their raw data and proficiency testing and determine if they are meeting the technical requirements.”
According to Voelker, other industries have learned to adjust their costs with stringent lab testing rules. “I get that no one wants to pay more for lab testing, but the reality is that joining the world of commodities comes with additional costs to ensure consumer safety,” says Voelker. These rule changes will undoubtedly bring more consistency to Oregon’s cannabis industry with accurate lab testing and help the OHA shed more light on issues surrounding consumer safety.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
We use tracking pixels that set your arrival time at our website, this is used as part of our anti-spam and security measures. Disabling this tracking pixel would disable some of our security measures, and is therefore considered necessary for the safe operation of the website. This tracking pixel is cleared from your system when you delete files in your history.
We also use cookies to store your preferences regarding the setting of 3rd Party Cookies.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
By implementing ISO 17025 accreditation, the laboratory monitors systems and processes central to analyses in an effort to minimize discrepancies and variability in test results. According to Roger Brauninger, biosafety program manager at A2LA, this type of accreditation demonstrates their competence and commitment to rigorous science. “It is encouraging to have testing laboratories taking ownership of the quality of the work performed,” says Brauninger. “Reliable testing will be imperative to insure safety of the products out on the market as this industry continues to expand.” As the first accreditation of its kind in North America, Brauninger hopes this will open the doors for more cannabis laboratories to acknowledge their role in demonstrating scientific competency for the industry.
