Tag Archives: QC

Reducing Cross Contamination in Your Lab

By Nathan Libbey
No Comments

Cross Contamination

Cross Contamination – noun – “inadvertent transfer of bacteria or other contaminants from one surface, substance, etc., to another especially because of unsanitary handling procedures. – (Mariam Webster, 2021). Cross contamination is not a new concept in the clinical and food lab industries; many facilities have significant design aspects as well as SOPs to deliver the least amount of contaminants into the lab setting. For cannabis labs, however, often the exponential growth leads to a circumstance where the lab simply isn’t large enough for the number of samples processed and number of analytical instruments and personnel needed to process them. Cross contamination for cannabis labs can mean delayed results, heightened occurrences of false positives, and ultimately lost customers – why would you pay for analysis of your clean product in a dirty facility? The following steps can save you the headaches associated with cross contamination:

Wash (and dry) your hands properly

Flash back to early pandemic times when the Tik Tok “Ghen Co Vy” hand washing song was the hotness – we had little to no idea that the disease would be fueled mostly by aerosol transmission, but the premise is the same, good hand hygiene is good to reduce cross contamination. Hands are often the source of bacteria, both resident (here for the long haul; attached to your hands) and transient (easy to remove; just passing through), as they come into contact with surfaces from the bathroom to the pipettor daily (Robinson et al, 2016). Glove use coupled with adequate hand washing are good practices to reduce cross contamination from personnel to a product sample. Additionally, the type of hand drying technique can reduce the microbial load on the bathroom floors and, subsequently tracked into the lab. A 2013 study demonstrated almost double the contamination from air blade technology versus using a paper towel to dry your hands (Margas et al, 2013).

Design Your Lab for Separation

Microbes are migratory. In fact, E. coli can travel at speeds up to 15 body lengths per second. Compared to the fastest Olympians running the 4X100m relay, with an average speed of 35 feet per second or 6 body lengths, this bacterium is a gold medal winner, but we don’t want that in the lab setting (Milo and Phillips, 2021). New lab design keeps this idea of bacterial travel in mind, but for those labs without a new build, steps can be made to prevent contamination:

  • Try to keep traffic flow moving in one direction. Retracing steps can lead to contamination of a previous work station
  • Use separate equipment (e.g. cabinets, pipettes) for each process/step
  • Separate pre- and post-pcr areas
  • Physical separation – use different rooms, add walls, partitions, etc.

Establish, Train and Adhere to SOPs

Design SOPs that include everything- from hygiene to test procedures and sanitation.

High turnover for personnel in labs causes myriad issues. It doesn’t take long for a lab that is buttoned up with cohesive workflows to become a willy-nilly hodgepodge of poor lab practices. A lack of codified Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) can lead to a lab rife with contaminants and no clear way to troubleshoot the issue. Labs should design strict SOPs that include everything from hand hygiene to test procedures and sanitation. Written SOPs, according to the WHO, should be available at all work stations in their most recent version in order to reduce biased results from testing (WHO, 2009). These SOPs should be relayed to each new employee and training on updated SOPs should be conducted on an ongoing basis. According to Sutton, 2010, laboratory SOPs can be broken down into the following categories:

  • Quality requirements
  • Media
  • Cultures
  • Equipment
  • Training
  • Sample handling
  • Lab operations
  • Testing methodology
  • Data handling/reporting/archiving
  • Investigations

Establish Controls and Monitor Results

Scanning electron micrograph shows a colony of Salmonella typhimurium bacteria. Photo courtesy of CDC, Janice Haney Carr
Scanning electron micrograph shows a colony of Salmonella typhimurium bacteria. Photo courtesy of CDC, Janice Haney Carr

It may be difficult for labs to keep tabs on positivity and fail rates, but these are important aspects of a QC regimen. For microbiological analysis, labs should use an internal positive control to validate that 1) the method is working properly and 2) positives are a result of target analytes found in the target matrix, not an internal lab contamination strain. Positive controls can be an organism of choice, such as Salmonella Tranoroa, and can be tagged with a marker, such as Green Fluorescent Protein in order to differentiate the control strain. These controls will allow a lab tech to discriminate between a naturally contaminated specimen vs. a positive as a result of cross-contamination.

Labs should, in addition to having good QC practices, keep track of fail rates and positivity rates. This can be done as total lab results by analysis, but also can be broken down into customers. For instance, a lab fail rate for pesticides averages 4% for dried flower samples. If, during a given period of review, this rate jumps past 6% or falls below 2%, their may be an issue with instrumentation, personnel or the product itself. Once contamination is ruled out, labs can then present evidence of spikes in fail rates to growers who can then remediate in their own facilities. These efforts in concert will inherently drive down fail rates, increase lab capacity and efficiency, and result in cost savings for all parties associated.

Continuous Improvement is the Key

Cannabis testing labs are, compared to their food and clinical counterparts, relatively new. The lack of consistent state and federal regulation coupled with unfathomable growth each year, means many labs have been in the “build the plane as you fly” mode. As the lab environment matures, simple QC, SOP and hygiene changes can make an incremental differences and drive improvements for labs as well as growers and manufacturers they support. Lab management can, and should, take steps to reduce cross contamination, increase efficiency and lower costs; The first step is always the hardest, but continuous improvement cannot begin until it has been taken.

References

Margas, E, Maguire, E, Berland, C. R, Welander, F, & Holah, J. T. (2013). Assessment of the environmental microbiological cross contamination following hand drying with paper hand towels or an air blade dryer. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 115(2), 572-582.

Mariam Webster (2021. Cross contamination. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cross%20contamination

Milo, M., and Phillips, R. (2021). How fast do cells move? Cell biology by the numbers. Retrieved from http://book.bionumbers.org/how-fast-do-cells-move/

Robinson, Andrew L, Lee, Hyun Jung, Kwon, Junehee, Todd, Ewen, Perez Rodriguez, Fernando, & Ryu, Dojin. (2016). Adequate Hand Washing and Glove Use Are Necessary To Reduce Cross-Contamination from Hands with High Bacterial Loads. Journal of Food Protection, 79(2), 304–308. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-15-342

Sutton, Scott. (2010). The importance of a strong SOP system in the QC microbiology lab. Journal of GXP Compliance, 14(2), 44.

World Health Organization. (2009). Good Laboratory Practice Handbook. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/tdr/publications/documents/glp-handbook.pdf

Is Your CBD Product Verifiably Natural?

By Jordan Turner
No Comments

Natural product analysis using Carbon-14 is a valuable scientific tool that can be used to confirm the naturality of cannabidiol-based (CBD) ingredients by verifying the percentage of a product that is obtained from naturally-sourced ingredients. Determining the percentage of biobased content in a product allows companies to ensure their CBD ingredients are truly natural-derived, identify the presence of synthetic adulterants, and authenticate marketing and “natural” labeling claims.

Why consider natural product analysis using Carbon-14 to validate your natural CBD products?

Carbon-14 is an isotope present in naturally-sourced materials. Natural product analysis measures the percentage of Carbon-14 present in an ingredient or product. Higher percentages indicate that a product is primarily or completely made with natural-sourced ingredients as opposed to synthetic, petroleum-derived alternatives. These cheaper, synthetic alternatives created from petroleum-based sources cannot be measured using Carbon-14. A product that is all-natural and completely plant-sourced will show a result of 100% biobased content whereas a low or zero percentage will reveal a product that is partially or completely formulated with synthetic adulterants.

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

Why should you be concerned with verifying the naturality of your CBD products? In recent years, the popularization of CBD extract has increased its demand as an ingredient in personal care and cosmetic products. Higher costs associated with the use of natural CBD extract instead of artificial extracts leads to the use of adulterated ingredients by some manufacturers or false label claims that a product is natural when it is not.

How can you prove your products are the real deal and ensure your customers are sure they’re getting the natural ingredients they expect? Artificial ingredients derived from petrochemical sources do not contain any carbon-14 content. The results of natural product analysis reveal the percentage of a sample that is procured from natural sources, allowing manufacturers and quality assurance teams to confirm their CBD ingredients and products are not synthetic or adulterated and to strengthen claims that their product is truly natural-derived.

Natural product analysis can authenticate the natural content of your CBD products. Validating naturality with Carbon-14 testing strengthens label and marketing claims and confirms your products and ingredients are completely natural and do not contain cheap synthetic adulterants. By verifying the percentage of our product that comes from natural sources as opposed to artificial, petrochemical sources, you can guarantee your product is genuinely made with natural CBD extract.

Arizona To Implement Mandatory Lab Testing

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

Good news came to patients using medical cannabis in Arizona earlier this week: Lawmakers in Arizona unanimously passed SB1494 through the state’s House and Senate, the bill requiring mandatory lab testing for medical cannabis products. Arizona Governor Doug Ducey is expected to sign the bill and has ten days to do so.

Arizona Governor Doug Ducey

When Governor Ducey signs the bill into law it will mark the first time since the state legalized medical cannabis in 2011 that a measure to protect patient safety via lab testing will be implemented. According to the bill, beginning November 1, 2020, all cannabis products shall be tested prior to sales “to determine unsafe levels of microbial contamination, heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, growth regulators and residual solvents and confirm the potency of the marijuana to be dispensed,” (Page 6, Section 36-2803).

The bill requires dispensaries to provide test results to patients immediately upon request. Dispensaries need to display a sign notifying patients of their right to see “certified independent third-party laboratory test results for marijuana and marijuana products for medical use,” according to the text of the bill (Page 7, Section 36-2803.01).“There will have to be some serious planning, but other states have achieved this and we can too.”

Under the new bill, the Arizona Department of Health Services will adopt rules to certify and regulate labs, establishing requirements like health and safety protocols, mandatory quality assurance program and standards, chain of custody and sampling policies, adequate records, accreditation, proficiency testing, among other requirements (Page 6-7, Section 36-2803).

Ryan Treacy, co-founder of the Arizona Cannabis Laboratory Association (ACLA) and CEO/Founder of C4 Laboratories, says this is a major turning point for Arizona’s cannabis industry. “We have been devoid of regulations with regard to testing the entirety of the program since it was legalized; This will be a significant change,” says Treacy. “Now patients can make sure they are getting a safe and clean product and getting exactly what they paid for.”

For those in the know when it comes to cannabis testing in the United States, the new requirements will look very similar to other states with testing requirements. One particularly unique aspect of the new program, however, is the establishment of a “Medical Marijuana Testing Advisory Council,” made up of stakeholders representing different interests in Arizona’s cannabis industry. Members of the council will include representatives from dispensaries, labs, cultivators, concentrate producers, edibles producers, as well as registered patients, caregivers, a representative from the Arizona Department of Public Safety, a licensed health care provider and “any other members deemed necessary by the director,” reads the text of the bill (page 16, Section 36-2821).

Ryan Tracy, co-founder of the ACLA and founder/CEO at C4 Labs.

“Other states like California have complained about detection limits, while Arizona is taking a unique approach with an advisory council with stakeholders in the cannabis industry,” says Treacy. “So that when the Department of Health Services promulgates rules, they are taking into account the challenges in the cannabis industry specifically. We have a chance to do this right and avoid pitfalls we’ve seen in other states.”

One problem worth mentioning for Arizona’s cannabis industry: Dispensaries have not been required to test products for patients since medical cannabis was legalized back in 2011. That means many producers could be very used to operating procedures that don’t account for lab testing. With mandatory lab testing, some producers may be behind the curve when it comes to mitigating contamination.

According to Treacy, this could disrupt the supply chain a little bit. “When testing becomes mandatory in November 2020, dispensaries will need a full panel of tests performed on their samples,” says Treacy. “With the entire market now required to complete a full panel in depth analysis on each product, product testing will become a more time-consuming stop in the supply chain. So companies will need to work that into their plan to meet regulation requirements to prevent a bottleneck and maintain patients’ access to their cannabis medicine.”

Arizona has a chance to prevent that type of bottleneck seen in states that implemented testing requirements, like California for example. “When you have a habitual history of not testing products, it can be very hard to change, which adds to Arizona’s challenges,” says Treacy. “We need to make sure this does not affect access for patients and the ability of the industry to continue to flourish and grow.”

While Treacy thinks the transition will be difficult for some, it’s absolutely necessary for Arizona’s patients to access clean and safe medicine. “There will have to be some serious planning, but other states have achieved this and we can too.”

The Need for Standardization in Medical Cannabis Testing

By Andrew James
2 Comments

There has been a move towards the legalization of cannabis for medical and/or recreational use across many countries and US states in recent years, leading to greater demand for accurate potency and safety testing. Despite this, there are currently no standardized regulations between states or countries for quality control including content, composition, adulterants, potency or levels of toxic residues. As such, in many cases where regulations are in place, testing is generally carried out at a small number of approved independent testing laboratories.

The need for self-regulation has led to the growth of portable gas chromatography (GC) being used in the field of cannabis testing.This lack of clarity makes it difficult for consumers to make informed decisions about what they are purchasing, an issue which could be damaging to the industry’s changing reputation. As it stands, producers of cannabis and cannabis-derived products can supply goods with potentially harmful contaminants such as fungi or pesticide residues, which are potentially threatening to human health. Most cannabis products sold legally in the US are required to be tested and labelled for THC, the chemical responsible for most of cannabis’s psychoactive effects. A US study found that as few as 20% of recreational cannabis products are accurately labelled with only 17% of products reviewed accurately labelled for THC content (i.e. within 10% of the labeled value). It also found 23% were under labelled, and 60% were over labelled.

If cannabis were to be categorized as a regulated pharmaceutical drug, it would be rigorously tested to comply with stringent rules and regulations regarding quality and safety of the product, as are all other drugs. However, as there is currently no centralized regulatory body that oversees this, the responsibility of quality assurance falls to the grower, manufacturer and sometimes the consumer.

The Need for Cannabis Analysis

The most common requirement when testing cannabis is positive identification and quantification of the total THC:CBD ratio. In a highly competitive marketplace, this information is important, as cannabis consumers tend to equate THC levels with price. In many instances, lower THC products are cheaper and higher THC concentrations make products more expensive. Without robust systems in place for sufficient testing, this information cannot be accurately determined, meaning the customer often cannot make an informed decision.

Pesticide use is surprisingly common in the cannabis cultivation industry

In addition to potency testing, one of the core issues facing the industry and by extension, the end consumer, is the prevalence of pesticides in cannabis products. In the Netherlands, the Ministry of Environment and Health reported that over 90% of cannabis plants tested had pesticides on them. While steps have been taken to tackle this, the lack of cohesion in testing standards combined with the onus on individual labs to carry out testing, has led to some issues within the industry.

Many individual retailers in the U.S. and internationally are self-testing for impurities such as pesticides, heavy metals and microbials. While there is a clear need for standard testing across all locations, the need for self-regulation at present has led to the growth of portable gas chromatography (GC) being used in the field of cannabis testing.

Using GC as an analytical tool 

With the increased need for quality control and quality assurance in the largely unregulated cannabis industry, technology is now more accessible to smaller companies and to people with minimal laboratory experience. There are a range of cannabis testing packages available for smaller individual labs which offer more mobile testing with affordable packages. The lower entry price makes GC analysis affordable for more laboratories while still delivering reliable, high quality results.

Portable GC instruments can offer high quality potency testing, pesticide screening, terpene and flavor profiling, and residual solvents analysis. These instruments can give growers and processors an accurate result of cannabinoid percentages, a fundamental piece of information for growers and dispensaries. Systems can be configured for manual injection or a range of autosampler options can be added.

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

GC enables the rapid and accurate identification and quantification of the THC:CBD ratio. This is important for companies which are carrying out self-testing as it allows their customers to have assurances in the short term over the quality of their product, as well as reducing any potential risks to public health.

An example of this in practice is the use of GC by Dutch company Shamanics which carries out testing service for coffee shops in the Netherlands. The company conducts terpene analysis and potency testing to assure the quality of the products it supplies, with a portable GC, which offers the flexibility required without any established guidelines on testing in place.

When testing for potency using the GC, they look for total THC and CBD by converting the acidified versions of the cannabinoids into neutral forms within the heat of the GC injector. The process has flexibility which means that if they need to see both the acidified and neutral versions, they can do this by derivatizing the sample. The accuracy of this process is crucial to Shamanics and similar companies within the industry so that they can accurately judge the quality of a product, and relay this information to retailers and consumers.

The future of GC in standardized testing

While the growing availability of portable GC instruments and the increasing sophistication of individual labs means more companies are able to self-test products, there is still a significant hurdle to overcome in terms of standardising and regulating both the medical and recreational cannabis markets. Where regulation is brought in it should be consistent across states and countries and most importantly, it should be monitored and enforced. In the meantime, responsible producers are using the technology available to them to provide consumers with guarantees that their cannabis products are safe and of a high quality.

Health Canada Issues Voluntary Cannabis Recall Guide

By Marguerite Arnold
1 Comment

Last month, Health Canada published a Voluntary Recall Guide to help producers not only stay in compliance but run their operations better. While it will certainly prove to be a critically useful guide for Canadian LPs who are now subject to domestic regulations, it is also a highly useful document for others. Namely, newly legalizing U.S. states and even European countries now looking for guidance on how to shape, structure and regulate their own burgeoning domestic cultivation markets either underway now or about to start.

What Is Of Particular Interest?

While it may sound like a no-brainer, the guide lays out, albeit in very broad strokes, the kinds of procedures all licensed producers should be implementing anyway to efficiently run a compliant business.

It could be considered, on one level, a critical start-up business guide for those still looking for guidance in Canada (as well as elsewhere). Domestically, the document is clearly a handy template, if not something to create checklists from, in setting up a vital and at this point, mandatory part of a compliant cultivation facility in Canada.

The guide also covers not only domestically distributed product but that bound for export.

One of the more intriguing aspects of the guide is also how low tech it is. For example, the guide suggests that a license holder responsible for recall notices, plan on quick response methods that include everything from a self-addressed postcard to an email acknowledgement link.

That said, recalls must be reported to the government exclusively via an email address (no mail drop is listed). And suggestions about media outlets to which to submit recall notices are noticeably digitally heavy. Websites and social media platforms are suggested as the first two options of posting a recall. Posters at retailers is listed dead last.

What is also notable, not to mention commendable, is the inclusion of how to include supply chain partners in recall notices, as well as the mandate to do it in the first place.

Also Of Note

Also excellent is the attempt to begin to set a checklist and process about evaluating both the process of the recall itself and further identification of future best practices.Health Canada also expects companies to show proof of follow up efforts to reach non-responders all along the supply chain.

For example, the report suggests that LPs obtain not only feedback from both their supply chain and consumers involved, but elicit information on how such entities and individuals received the information in the first place. Further, the volume of responses (especially from end consumers) or lack thereof should be examined specifically to understand how effective the outreach effort actually was in reaching its target audience.

This is especially important because Health Canada also expects companies to show proof of follow up efforts to reach non-responders all along the supply chain.

Regulatory Reporting Guidelines

One of the reasons that this guide is so useful is that Health Canada also expects to receive full written reports touching upon all of the issues it lays out within 30 days of the recall announcement itself.

In turn, this is also a clear attempt to begin to start to document quality controls and attempts to correct the same quickly in an industry still plagued by product quality issues, particularly at home, but with an eye to overseas markets.

As such, it will also prove invaluable to other entities, far beyond Canadian LPs involved in the process this document lays out. Namely, it is a good comprehensive, but easy to follow and generally applicable guide for new states (in the case of the US) if not national governments in Europe and beyond who are now starting to look at regulating their own burgeoning industries from the ground up.

Dr. Ed Askew
From The Lab

Quality Plans for Lab Services: Managing Risks as a Grower, Processor or Dispensary, Part 5

By Dr. Edward F. Askew
No Comments
Dr. Ed Askew

Protection in the Court of Public Opinion

In the last four articles, I have outlined areas that impact your operations as they apply to laboratory quality programs. But this article will take a different path. It will focus on protecting your crop and brand along with any business that utilizes your crop, such as dispensaries or edible manufactures in the court of public opinion.

Now, the elephant in the room for cannabis companies is the difference between rules written by the state and their enforcement by the state. There are many anecdotal stories out there that can be used as case studies in identifying ways to protect your brand. Remember, consumers and the media caught them, not the regulators.

Cheating in the cannabis industry: growers, dispensaries, edibles manufactures, etc. This includes:

  1. Finding laboratories that will produce results that the client wants (higher potency numbers)
  2. Not testing for a particular contaminant that may be present in the cannabis product.
  3. Selling failed crops on the gray or black market.
  4. Claiming to regulators that the state rules are unclear and cannot be followed (e.g. So, give me another chance, officer)

So why should you be worried? Because, even if the state where you operate fails to enforce its own rules, the final end-user of your product will hold you accountable! If you produce any cannabis product and fail to consider these end-users, you will be found out in the court of public opinion by either the media or by the even more effective word of mouth (e.g. Social Media).

So, let’s take a look at some recent examples of these problems:

  1. “Fungus In Medical Marijuana Eyed As Possible Cause In California Man’s Death”
  2. “Pesticides and Pot: What’s California Smoking?”
  3. “Buyers beware: California cannabis sold Jan. 1 could be tainted”

Each of these reports lists contamination by microbial stains or pesticides as being rampant within the California market whose products are used for medical or recreational use. Just imagine the monetary losses these cannabis businesses faced for their recalled cannabis product when they got caught. Remember, consumers and the media caught them, not the regulators.Institute a quality program in your business immediately.

How can you be caught? There are many different ways:

  1. Consumer complaints to the media
  2. Secret shopper campaigns (more to come on that in the next article)
  3. Media investigations
  4. Social media campaigns

What are the effects on your business? Product recalls such as these two to hit the California market recently.

So, what should you do to produce an acceptable product and provide reasonable protection to your cannabis business? Institute a quality program in your business immediately. This quality program will include areas of quality assurance and quality control for at least these areas.

  1. Growing
  2. Processing or formulating
  3. Shipping
  4. Dispensing
  5. Security
  6. Training of staff
  7. Laboratory services

Setting up and supporting these programs requires that your upper management impose both a rigorous training program and make employee compliance mandatory. Otherwise, your business will have an unreasonable risk of failure in the future.

Further information on preparing and instituting these types of quality assurance and quality control programs within your business can be found at the author’s website.

Dr. Ed Askew
From The Lab

Quality Plans for Lab Services: Managing Risks as a Grower, Processor or Dispensary, Part 4

By Dr. Edward F. Askew
No Comments
Dr. Ed Askew

In the last three articles, I discussed the laboratory’s responses or defenses used to reply to your questions about laboratory results that place stress on the success of your business. The Quality Control (QC) results can cause this stress if they are not run correctly to answer the following questions:

  1. Are the laboratory results really true?
  2. Can the laboratory accurately analyze sample products like my sample?
  3. Can the laboratory reproduce the sample results for my type of sample?

Now let’s discuss the most important QC test that will protect your crop and business. That QC sample is the Matrix Sample. In the last article in this series, you were introduced to many QC samples. The Matrix Sample and Duplicate were some of them. Take a look back at Part 3 to familiarize yourself with the definitions.

The key factors of these QC sample types are:

  1. Your sample is used to determine if the analysis used by the laboratory can extract the analyte that is being reported back to you. This is performed by the following steps:
    1. Your sample is analyzed by the laboratory as received.
    2. Then a sub-sample of your sample is spiked with a known concentration of the analyte you are looking for (e.g. pesticides, bacteria, organic chemicals, etc.).
    3. The difference between the sample with and without a spike indicates whether the laboratory can even find the analyte of concern and whether the percent recovery is acceptable.
    4. Examples of failures are from my experiences:
      1. Laboratory 1 spiked a known amount of a pesticide into a wastewater matrix. (e.g. Silver into final treatment process water). The laboratory failed to recover any of the spiked silver. Therefore the laboratory results for these types of sample were not reporting any silver, but silver may be present. This is where laboratory results would be false negatives and the laboratory method may not work on the matrix (your sample) correctly. .
      2. Laboratory 2 ran an analysis for a toxic compound (e.g. Cyanide in final waste treatment discharge). A known amount of cyanide was spiked into a matrix sample and 4 times the actual concentration of that cyanide spike was recovered. This is where laboratory results would be called false positives and the laboratory method may not work on the matrix (your sample) correctly.
  2. Can the laboratory reproduce the results they reported to you?
    1. The laboratory needs to repeat the matrix spike analysis to provide duplicate results. Then a comparison of the results from the first matrix spike with its duplicate results will show if the laboratory can duplicate their test on your sample.
      1. If the original matrix spike result and the duplicate show good agreement (e.g. 20% relative percent difference or lower). Then you can be relatively sure that the result you obtained from the laboratory is true.
      2. But, if the original matrix spike result and the duplicate do not show good agreement (e.g. greater than 20% relative percent difference). Then you can be sure that the result you obtained from the laboratory is not true and you should question the laboratory’s competence.

Now, the question is why a laboratory would not perform these matrix spike and duplicate QC samples? Well, the following may apply:

  1. These matrix samples take too much time.
  2. These matrix samples add a cost that the laboratory cannot recover.
  3. These matrix samples are too difficult for the laboratory staff to perform.
  4. Most importantly: Matrix samples show the laboratory cannot perform the analyses correctly on the matrix.

So, what types of cannabis matrices are out there? Some examples include bud, leaf, oils, extracts and edibles. Those are some of the matrices and each one has their own testing requirements. So, what should you require from your laboratory?

  1. The laboratory must use your sample for both a matrix spike and a duplicate QC sample.
  2. The percent recovery of both the matrix spike and the duplicate will be between 80% and 120%. If either of the QC samples fail, then you should be notified immediately and the samples reanalyzed.
  3. If the relative percent difference between the matrix spike and the duplicate will be 20% or less. If the QC samples fail, then you should be notified immediately and the samples should be reanalyzed.

The impact of questionable laboratory results on your business with failing or absent matrix spike and the duplicate QC samples can be prevented. It is paramount that you hold the laboratory responsible to produce results that are representative of your sample matrix and that are true.

The next article will focus on how your business will develop a quality plan for your laboratory service provider with a specific focus on the California Code Of Regulations, Title 16, Division 42. Bureau Of Cannabis Control requirements.

Orange Photonics Introduces Terpenes+ Module in Portable Analyzer

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

Last week at the National Cannabis Industry Association’s (NCIA) Cannabis Business Summit, Orange Photonics unveiled their newest product added to their suite of testing instruments for quality assurance in the field. The Terpenes+ Module for the LightLab Cannabis Analyzer, which semi-quantitatively measures terpenes, Cannabichromene (CBC) and degraded THC, adds three new chemical analyses to the six cannabinoids it already reports.

CBC, a cannabinoid typically seen in hemp and CBD-rich plants, has been linked to some potentially impactful medical applications, much like the findings regarding the benefits of CBD. The module that tests for it, along with terpenes and degraded THC, can be added to the LightLab without any changes to hardware or sample preparation.

Dylan Wilks, chief technology officer of Orange Photonics
Dylan Wilks, chief technology officer of Orange Photonics

According to Dylan Wilks, chief technology officer of Orange Photonics, this could be a particularly useful tool for distillate producers looking for extra quality controls. Cannabis distillates are some of the most prized cannabis products around, but the heat used to create them can also create undesirable compounds,” says Wilks. “Distillate producers can see potency drop more than 25% if their process isn’t optimized”. With this new Terpenes+ Module, a distillate producer could quantify degraded THC content and get an accurate reading for their QC/QA department.

We spoke with Stephanie McArdle, president of Orange Photonics, to learn more about their instruments designed for quality assurance for growers and extractors alike.

Stephanie McArdle, president of Orange Photonics
Stephanie McArdle, president of Orange Photonics

According to McArdle, this could help cultivators and processors understand and value their product when terpene-rich products are the end goal. “Rather than try to duplicate the laboratory analysis, which would require expensive equipment and difficult sample preparation, we took a different approach. We report all terpenes as a single total terpene number,” says McArdle. “The analyzer only looks for monoterpenes (some common monoterpenes are myrcene, limonene and alpha-pinene), and not sesquiterpenes (the other major group of cannabis terpenes, such as Beta- Caryophyllene and Humulene) so the analysis is semi-quantitative. What we do is measure the monoterpenes and make an assumption that the sesquiterpenes are similar to an average cannabis plant to calculate a total terpene content.” She says because roughly 80% of terpenes found in cannabis are monoterpenes, this should produce accurate results, though some exotic strains may not result in accurate terpene content using this method.

The LIghtLab analyzer on the workbench
The LIghtLab analyzer on the workbench

As growers look to make their product unique in a highly competitive market, many are looking at terpenes as a source of differentiation. There are a variety of areas where growers can target higher terpene production, McArdle says. “During production, a grower may want to select plants for growing based on terpene content, or adjust nutrient levels, lighting, etc. to maximize terpenes,” says McArdle. “During the curing process, adjusting the environmental conditions to maximize terpene content is highly desirable.” Terpenes are also beginning to get recognized for their potential medical and therapeutic values as well, notably as an essential piece in the Entourage Effect. “Ultimately, it comes down to economics – terpene rich products have a higher market value,” says McArdle. “If you’re the grower, you want to prove that your product is superior. If you’re the buyer, you want to ensure the product you buy is high quality before processing it into other products. In both cases, knowing the terpene content is critical to ensuring you’re maximizing profits.”

Orange Photonics’ LightLab operates very similarly to instruments you might find in a cannabis laboratory. Many cannabis testing labs use High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) to analyze hemp or cannabis samples. “The primary difference between LightLab and an HPLC is that we operate at lower pressures and rely on spectroscopy more heavily than a typical HPLC analysis does,” says McArdle. “Like an HPLC, LightLab pushes an extracted cannabis sample through a column. The column separates the cannabinoids in the sample by slowing down cannabinoids by different amounts based on their affinity to the column.” McArdle says this is what allows each cannabinoid to exit the column at a different time. “For example, CBD may exit the column first, then D9THC and so on,” says McArdle. “Once the column separates the cannabinoids, they are quantified using optical spectroscopy- basically we are using light to do the final quantification.”

Dr. Ed Askew
From The Lab

Quality Plans for Lab Services: Managing Risks as a Grower, Processor or Dispensary, Part 3

By Dr. Edward F. Askew
No Comments
Dr. Ed Askew

Editor’s Note: The views expressed in this article are the author’s opinions based on his experience working in the laboratory industry. This is an opinion piece in a series of articles designed to highlight the potential problems that clients may run into with labs. 

In the last two articles, I discussed the laboratory’s first line of defense (e.g. certification or accreditation) paperwork wall used if a grower, processor or dispensary (user/client) questioned a laboratory result and the conflicts of interest that exist in laboratory culture. Now I will discuss the second line of defense that a laboratory will present to the user in the paperwork wall: Quality Control (QC) results.

Do not be discouraged by the analytical jargon of the next few articles. I suggest that you go immediately to the conclusions to get the meat of this article and then read the rest of it to set you on the path to see the forest for the trees.

QC in a laboratory consists of a series of samples run by the laboratory to determine the accuracy and precision of a specific batch of samples. So, to start off, let’s look at the definitions of accuracy and precision.QC Charts can provide a detailed overview of laboratory performance in a well-run laboratory.

According to the Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater:

Accuracy: estimate of how close a measured value is to the true value; includes expressions for bias and precision.

Precision: a measure of the degree of agreement among replicate analyses of a sample.

A reputable laboratory will measure the Accuracy and Precision of QC samples in a batch of user samples and record these values in both the analytical test report issued to the user and in control charts kept by the laboratory. These control charts can be reviewed by the user if they are requested by the user. These control charts record:

Accuracy (means) chart: The accuracy chart for QC samples (e.g., LRB, CCV, LFBs, LFMs, and surrogates) is constructed from the average and standard deviation of a specified number of measurements of the analyte of interest.

Precision (range) chart: The precision chart also is constructed from the average and standard deviation of a specified number of measurements (e.g., %RSD or RPD) for replicate of duplicate analyses of the analyte of interest.

Now, let’s look at what should be run in a sample batch for cannabis analyses. The typical cannabis sample would have analyses for cannabinoids, terpenes, microbiological, organic compounds, pesticides and heavy metals.

Each compound listed above would require a specific validated analytical method for the type of matrix being analyzed. Examples of specific matrixes are:

  • Cannabis buds, leaves, oil
  • Edibles, such as Chocolates, Baked Goods, Gummies, Candies and Lozenges, etc.
  • Vaping liquids
  • Tinctures
  • Topicals, such as lotions, creams, etc.

Running QC analyses does not guarantee that the user’s specific sample in the batch was analyzed correctly.

Also, both ISO 17025-2005 and ISO 17025-2017 require the use of a validated method.

ISO 17025-2005: When it is necessary to use methods not covered by standard methods, these shall be subject to agreement with the customer and shall include a clear specification of the customer’s requirements and the purpose of the test and/or calibration. The method developed shall have been validated appropriately before use.

ISO 17025-2017: The laboratory shall validate non-standard methods, laboratory-developed methods and standard methods used outside their intended scope or otherwise modified. The validation shall be as extensive as is necessary to meet the needs of the given application or field of application.

Validation procedures can be found in a diverse number of analytical chemistry associations (such as AOACand ASTM) but the State of California has directed users and laboratories to the FDA manual “Guidelines for the Validation of Chemical Methods for the FDA FVM Program, 2nd Edition, 2015”

The laboratory must have on file for user review the following minimum results in an analytical statistical report validating their method:

  • accuracy,
  • limit of quantitation,
  • ruggedness,
  • precision,The user must look beyond the QC data provided in their analytical report or laboratory control charts.
  • linearity (or other calibration model),
  • confirmation of identity
  • selectivity,
  • range,
  • spike recovery.
  • limit of detection,
  • measurement uncertainty,

The interpretation of an analytical statistical report will be discussed in detail in the next article. Once the validated method has been selected for the specific matrix, then a sample batch is prepared for analysis.

Sample Batch: A sample batch is defined as a minimum of one (1) to a maximum of twenty (20) analytical samples run during a normal analyst’s daily shift. A LRB, LFB, LFM, LFMD, and CCV will be run with each sample batch. Failure of any QC sample in sample batch will require a corrective action and may require the sample batch to be reanalyzed. The definitions of the specific QC samples are described later.

The typical sample batch would be set as:

  • Instrument Start Up
  • Calibration zero
  • Calibration Standards, Quadratic
  • LRB
  • LFB
  • Sample used for LFM/LFMD
  • LFM
  • LFMD
  • Samples (First half of batch)
  • CCV
  • Samples (Second half of batch)
  • CCV

The QC samples are defined as:

Calibration Blank: A volume of reagent water acidified with the same acid matrix as in the calibration standards. The calibration blank is a zero standard and is used to calibrate the ammonia analyzer

Continuing Calibration Verification (CCV): A calibration standard, which is analyzed periodically to verify the accuracy of the existing calibration for those analytes.

Calibration Standard: A solution prepared from the dilution of stock standard solutions. These solutions are used to calibrate the instrument response with respect to analyte concentration

Laboratory Fortified Blank (LFB): An aliquot of reagent water or other blank matrix to which known quantities of the method analytes and all the preservation compounds are added. The LFB is processed and analyzed exactly like a sample, and its purpose is to determine whether the methodology is in control, and whether the laboratory is capable of making accurate and precise measurements.

Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix/Duplicate (LFM/LFMD) also called Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate (MS/MSD): An aliquot of an environmental sample to which known quantities of ammonia is added in the laboratory. The LFM is analyzed exactly like a sample, and its purpose is to determine whether the sample matrix contributes bias to the analytical results. The background concentrations of the analytes in the sample matrix must be determined in a separate aliquot and the measured values in the LFM corrected for background concentrations (Section 9.1.3).Laboratories must validate their methods.

Laboratory Reagent Blank (LRB): A volume of reagent water or other blank matrix that is processed exactly as a sample including exposure to all glassware, equipment, solvents and reagents, sample preservatives, surrogates and internal standards that are used in the extraction and analysis batches. The LRB is used to determine if the method analytes or other interferences are present in the laboratory environment, the reagents, or the apparatus.

Once a sample batch is completed, then some of the QC results are provided in the user’s analytical report and all of the QC results should be recorded in the control charts identified in the accuracy and precision section above.

But having created a batch and performing QC sample analyses, the validity of the user’s analytical results is still not guaranteed. Key conclusion points to consider are:

  1. Laboratories must validate their methods.
  2. Running QC analyses does not guarantee that the user’s specific sample in the batch was analyzed correctly.
  3. QC Charts can provide a detailed overview of laboratory performance in a well-run laboratory.

The user must look beyond the QC data provided in their analytical report or laboratory control charts. Areas to look at will be covered in the next few articles in this series.

Dr. Ed Askew
From The Lab

Quality Plans for Lab Services: Managing Risks as a Grower, Processor or Dispensary, Part 2

By Dr. Edward F. Askew
No Comments
Dr. Ed Askew

Editor’s Note: The views expressed in this article are the author’s opinions based on his experience working in the laboratory industry. This is an opinion piece in a series of articles designed to highlight the potential problems that clients may run into with labs. 

In the previous article, I discussed the laboratory’s first line of defense (e.g. certification or accreditation) when a grower, processor or dispensary (user) questions a laboratory result. Now let us look behind this paperwork wall to the laboratory culture the user will encounter once their complaint is filtered past the first line of defense.

It is up to the client (processor, grower or dispensary) to determine the quality of the lab they use.In an ISO 17025 (2005 or 2017) and TNI accreditation, the laboratory must be organized into management, quality and technical areas. Each area can overlap as in the ISO 17025-2017 standard or be required to remain as separate sections in the laboratory as in the ISO 17025-2005 or TNI 2009 standards. ISO 17025 standards (e.g. 2005 and 2017) specifically require a separation of monetary benefits for laboratory results as it applies to the technical staff. This “conflict of interest” (CoI) is not always clearly defined in the laboratory’s day-to-day practices.

One example that I have experienced with this CoI separation violation goes back to my days as a laboratory troubleshooter in the 1990s. I was called into a laboratory that was failing to meet their Department of Defense (DoD) contract for volatile organic hydrocarbon analyses (VOAs) of soil samples by purge trap-gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy. I was required to “fix” the problem. What I determined was:

  • The analytical chemists performing the VOAs analyses were high school graduates with no coursework in chemistry or biology.
  • There was no training program in place for these analysts in instrument use, instrument troubleshooting and interpretation of the analytical results.
  • The only training the analysts received was for simple instrument set-up and basic instrument computer software use. (e.g. Push this button and send results to clerks)
  • Clerks with a high school degree and no analytical chemistry training in the business office generated the final reports and certified them as accurate and complete.

None of the staff was technically competent to perform any in-depth VOAs analytical work nor was the clerical staff competent to certify the results reported.

When I pointed out these discrepancies to the laboratory management, they declined to make any changes. The laboratory management had a direct monetary interest in completing all analyses at the lowest costs within the time limit set by DoD. If the laboratory did not complete the analyses as per the DoD contract, DoD would cancel the contract and not pay the laboratory.

The DoD, in a “Double Blind” test sample, later caught this laboratory.. A Double Blind test sample is used to check to see if the laboratory is performing the tests correctly. The laboratory does not know it is a test sample. So if the laboratory is cheating, they will be caught.This does not mean that all laboratories have staff or management issues

Once the laboratory was caught by DoD with the Double Blind, laboratory management claimed they were unaware of this behavior and management fired all analytical staff performing VOAs and clerical staff reporting the VOAs results to show DoD that it was a rogue group of individuals and not the laboratory management. The fired staff members were denied unemployment benefits as they were fired with cause. So, the moral to this story is if the analytical staff and specifically the clerical staff had wanted to hold the laboratory management accountable for this conflict of interest, they may have been fired, but without cause. The staff would have kept their reputation for honesty and collected unemployment benefits.

I have witnessed the “CoI above repeatedly over the last 30+ years both in laboratories where I have been employed and as a consultant. The key laboratory culture problems that lead to these CoI issues can be distilled into the following categories:

  • Financial CoI: In the financial CoI, the laboratory management must turn out so many analytical test results per day to remain financially solvent. The philosophical change that comes over management is that the laboratory is not producing scientific results, but is instead just churning out tests. Therefore, the more tests the laboratory produces, the more money it makes. Any improvement in test output is to be looked upon favorably and anything that diminishes test output is bad. So, to put this in simple terms: “The laboratory will perform the analyses quickly and get the report sent to the user so the laboratory can be paid. Anything that slows this production down will not be tolerated!” To maximize the Return on Investment (RoI) for the laboratory, management will employ staff that outwardly mirrors this philosophy.
  • I Need This Job CoI: This is the CoI area that poor quality lab technical staff and clerical staff most readily falls into. As outlined in the example above, both the analytical staff and clerical staff lacked the educational credentials, the technical training to be proficient in the use of the analytical instruments, ability to identify problems performing the analytical methods or complications in reporting analytical results. That means they were locked into the positions they held in this specific laboratory. This lack of marketable skills placed pressure on these staff members to comply with all directives from management. What happened to them in the end was regrettable, but predictable. Management can prey on this type of staff limitation.
  • Lack of Interest or Care CoI: This form of CoI is the malaise that infects poor quality laboratories, but can reach a level in management, quality and technical areas as to produce a culture where everyone goes through the moves, but does not care about anything but receiving their paycheck. In my many years of laboratory troubleshooting this type of CoI is the most difficult to correct. Laboratories where I had to correct this problem required that I had to impress on the staff that their work mattered and that they were valued employees. I had to institute a rigorous training program, require staff quality milestones and enforce the quality of work results. During my years of laboratory troubleshooting, I only had to terminate three laboratory staff for poor work performance. Unfortunately after I left many of these laboratories, management drifted back to the problems listed above and the laboratory malaise returned. This proves that even though a laboratory staff can achieve quality performance, it can quickly dissolve with lax management.

So, what are the conclusions of this article?

  • Laboratory culture can place profit over scientific correctness, accuracy and precision.
  • Laboratory management sets the quality of staff that determines the analytical results and report quality the user receives.
  • Laboratory quality can vary from acceptable performance to unacceptable performance over the lifetime of the laboratory depending on management.
  • This does not mean that all laboratories have staff or management issues. It is up to the client (processor, grower or dispensary) to determine the quality of the lab they use.

The next article in this series will introduce the user to the specific Quality Control (QC) analyses that an acceptable laboratory should perform for the user’s sample. These QC analyses are not always performed by accredited laboratories as the specific state that regulates their cannabis program does not require them. The use of these QC samples is another example of how laboratory’s with poor quality systems construct another paper work wall.