Northern Lab

I see your point and agree with it, however, the reality is very few, if any, of those herbals are as famous or controversial as cannabis. The curse of success, I guess. It is also true that a market functions best when the consumer has as much useful information about the products they're buying. The primary value I see in chromatography, in any form - home kits, labs, etc - is the ability to spot CBD. Not so much quantify it, just qualify it. Granted, CBD is not the end all be all of cannabinoids, but it is definitely useful to some people. I think it's important for people to have access to that information, and they can with most home kits. I know that Grey Wolf has had quite a bit of extract tested for residual solvent. They have access to labs out west that can do solvent analysis. I believe it can be done with a GC and FID or HPLC, but you will only get resolution down to PPM. A GCMS set up properly would have higher resolution, down into ppb, and I believe that is what the folks out west are using for residual solvents.

He has a good point, though. It was a huge miscalculation to popularize the phrase 'medical marijuana'. The word 'medical' leads us down this path, IMO it has nothing to do with actual cannabis. If there were a nationwide movement touting medical tomatoes, it would also lead here. I am against mandatory testing, FTR.

Ugh. That woman and her outfit. I wish Zach still owned Cannalytics. He was a stand up guy and a true friend to the community.

No Yes No comment...

Well, someone's nose could qualify the presence of a terpene with some practice, but quantifying it would be a bit too subjective. Cannabinoids are odorless, so determining presence of THC, CBD, or any others is not possible. A particularly fragrant sample (lots of terps present) COULD sometimes indicate corresponding high levels of cannabinoids, but it certainly isn't reliable enough to bank on.

There was a certain 'organic' pesticide released a couple years ago for use on cannabis. Word is it was developed by a couple of retired Dow chemists. Had high levels of spiromesifin, IIRC, which isn't exactly organic. Lol. Skulduggery abounds.

Hard to say. All I ever got was a strain name. Most of the time the grower had no idea whether it was sativa or indica dominant. I had to look it up most of the time. Some folks would brag up their sample, but words make no difference to the GC analysis.

Actually, that was me, but, alas, my equipment is no longer used to that purpose. I guess I can stick around and serve as the temporary lab devils advocate if you all wish... Ask me anything, I will answer to the best of my knowledge.

Yes, in a nutshell. Very controlled temps of both the vaporizing source and the condensing media is critical. Minimizing vapor exposure to oxygen is also critical to prevent oxidation. A nitrogen purged unit may work, as may a vacuum system. Cheers.

Most of the time it's best to build a custom unit from lab glassware and equipment. There are a few bench top units available that may be adapted to this practice. Obviously they aren't cheap. I would by German if I were in the market. I don't regularly sample oil myself, I base my times and temps off of process observation and the graph posted earlier. I've also read that rapid decarboxylation doesn't happen until 225, so speed is also a consideration.

I'm not here to tell you you're doing it wrong. Just sharing.

Oh, ok.

GM, you need a fractionation still...

http://skunkpharmresearch.com/decarboxylation/

I usually place a beaker of raw extract on a hot plate at 300 degrees. I place a temp probe in the extract. You can watch the lighter components boil off one at a time as the temp rises. Depending on batch size, decarbing usually takes approximately 30 minutes, while holding the extract above 250 and below 290 for at least 20 minutes, or until I see the tiny co2 bubbles slow or stop. There are terps with higher bp's than cannabinoids, so those are left behind. GM, I would suggest capturing them all at once, instead of individually, at least at first.