This article takes a look at major atomic spectroscopy techniques and compares their performance characteristics.

What Atomic Spectroscopic Technique Is Right for Your Laboratory?

Click here to see the first issue of Cannabis Patient Care

Cannabis Patient Care

Dr. Henion is an Emeritus Professor of Toxicology at Cornell University where he participated as a member of the College of Veterinary Medicine commencing in 1976. He co-founded Advion BioSciences in 1993 where he then served as President and CEO until 2006 when he became CSO of Advion, Inc.

Dr. Henion’s research covers a broad landscape, ranging from areas involving gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) and liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS) techniques. His accomplishments don’t end in research, Dr. Henion has received three 

 (Honorary Doctorate) degrees in recognition of his international reputation in modern analytical techniques from the University of Ghent, Uppsala University, and Albany University. During his time at Cornell University, Dr. Henion explored the areas of LC–MS utilizing atmospheric pressure ionization (API) sources. He has published 235 peer-reviewed papers in scientific literature, trained around 100 students, post-doctoral scientists, and trainees. All while receiving 12 patents for inventions developed from his research. Through his work, Dr. Henion has received a variety of awards recognizing his efforts to analytical chemistry and entrepreneurship.

In April 2017, Dr. Henion was awarded the Outstanding Contribution to Anti-Doping Science Award from the Partnership for Clean Competition (PCC) for his development of a novel Book-Type Dried Plasma Spot Card. Following suit, Dr. Henion was honored as the winner of the 2018 Bioanalysis Outstanding Contribution Award (BOSCA) in the fall of 2017.

As of December 2019, Dr. Henion retired from Advion, Inc. and is now utilizing his time and knowledge as a consultant on behalf of Henion Enterprises.

® Editorial Advisory Board please visist: 

www.cannabissciencetech.com/cannabis-science-and-technology-editorial-advisory-board

Articles

Cannabis Science and Technology® is pleased to announce the addition of Jack Henion to its editorial advisory board (EAB).

Jack Henion Joins Cannabis Science and Technology®’s Editorial Advisory Board

Cannabis Science and Technology®, Cannabis Patient Care™

 and Havas ECS are excited to announce a new partnership to bring a comprehensive training curriculum to all levels of students: health care professionals, patients, parents, caregivers and budtenders.

“Education is key to our mission and core values,” said Mike Hennessy Jr., president and CEO of MJH Life Sciences™, the parent company of 

. “We are thrilled to offer our professional audience the opportunity to become more qualified in understanding the endocannabinoid system and its therapeutic context from an innovative well- credentialed education partner.”

The curriculum features three course offerings, allowing one to learn the basics of the endocannabinoid system or earn continuing medical education (CME) credits in either a three-CME course or a 12-CME course.

” is a foundational course designed to introduce health care professionals to the endocannabinoid system (ECS) and its therapeutic potential. Successful completion of this online learning system confers a total of three AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™ and an Introduction to Endocannabinoid Medicine certificate from 

Certification in Endocannabinoid Medicine

” is a comprehensive course for medical professionals interested in gaining accredited certification in endocannabinoid medicine. Successful completion of all four levels modules confers a total of 12 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™ and a Certificate in Endocannabinoid Medicine from 

” is an interactive learning system designed to introduce any learner to the ECS and its potential therapeutic impact. Those successfully completing this module receive an Endocannabinoid Science Certificate from 

, we are able to offer a comprehensive educational resource that includes exceptional medical cannabis content, thought-provoking condition-specific webcasts, and exam-based endocannabinoid system certification for medical professionals, patients, caregivers, and industry professionals,” said Rob Dhoble, managing director of Havas ECS.

To learn more about the different courses and enroll, please visit 

® is a multimedia platform that focuses on educating the legal cannabis industry about the science and technology of analytical testing, quality control, extraction and cultivation. The magazine is accompanied by an online component that provides relevant information and tutorials for all members of the cannabis industry.

 magazine is an educational resource for patients, doctors, nurses, pharmacists and caregivers on the latest research, benefits and treatment options cannabis provides for a variety of illnesses. Each issue of the publication will focus on a specific disease or ailment that cannabis has been shown to be an effective remedy for. The brand will cover the current research, patient testimonials, medical perspectives and advocacy work. Our mission is to educate the medical community on the viable treatment options patients are experiencing with cannabis and the ongoing research into cannabis and cannabinoids worldwide. 

™, the largest privately held, independent, full-service medical media company in North America dedicated to delivering trusted health care news across multiple channels.

Havas ECS (Endocannabinoid Science) is an education and communications services company committed to health professional and consumer understanding of the endocannabinoid system, to better inform self-care, clinical decision making, and evidence-based reimbursement of medical cannabis and cannabinoid therapeutics. Havas ECS offers educational programs that increase participant understanding, and communications solutions that engage health and medical stakeholders on behalf of manufacturers, employers, insurers, governments, and medical groups. For more information, please visit 

. Havas ECS is a division of Havas Health & You. Havas Health & You unites Havas Life, Health4Brands (H4B), Havas Lynx, Havas Life PR and Havas Health Plus, all wholly owned health and communications networks, with the consumer health businesses and practices of Havas Creative Group. Its customer-centric approach has the talent, tenacity and technology that health-and-wellness companies, brands and people need to thrive in today's world. For more information, go to 

Cannabis Science and Technology® Media Contact

The comprehensive training curriculum is for all levels of students and features three course offerings.

Cannabis Science and Technology® and Cannabis Patient Care™ Partner with Havas ECS to Offer Endocannabinoid Educational Courses

The National Basketball Association (NBA) and National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) announced they will stop testing players for cannabis use during the 2020–2021 season in response to the stress and quarantining brought on by the COVID-19 global pandemic.

In 2020, the NBPA sought to resume their 2019-2020 season but were met with the challenges brought on by the pandemic. To keep the players, coaches, reporters, medical personnel, and other staff safe, the NBA formed an isolation zone at Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida (1). There players were able to play behind closed doors and were tested for COVID-19 every other day to prevent further infections. Other sports such as the National Hockey League (NHL) formed similar isolation zones in “hub cities” (2).

The isolation zone soon became known as the Orlando “bubble.” In the bubble, the NBPA temporarily suspended random recreational cannabis tests but continued testing for performance-enhancing drugs. On December 3, 2020, freelance journalist Ben Dowsett reported that the NBA and NBPA reached an agreement to continue the policy of not testing for cannabis. Currently, this joint agreement will remain for at least the 2020-2021 season. “Sources say this decision is largely based on COVID safety—just another way of limiting unnecessary contacts,” said Dowsett (3).

The no-testing cannabis policy was aimed at preventing unnecessary close contact and to relieve players’ stress levels while they trained and continued quarantining in the bubble. NBA spokesman Mike Bass, mentioned that the NBA and NBPA chose to extend the policy due to the “unusual circumstances” the world is experiencing right now. Health experts believe that the COVID-19 virus might be circulating for at least two years. Although cannabis testing is paused for the time being, random testing for performance-enhancing drugs will continue.

The decision to halt cannabis testing comes not long after the United Nations Commission for Narcotic Drugs (CND) held a momentous vote to remove cannabis from Schedule IV (4), a category containing drugs such as cocaine and heroin, which was spurred on from a recommendation from the World Health Organization (WHO). In November 2020, five states in the US had passing cannabis legalization measures on their election ballots (5). Successively, a month later, the US House of Representatives voted on two bills to federally legalize cannabis and expand medical cannabis research (6). Thus, highlighting a growing view of acceptance for cannabis.

Under pressure for some time now to remove random cannabis testing, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver, has not rejected the idea of making the current pause on cannabis testing policy permanent or hinted at introducing newer policies. Silver has mentioned that the NBA will be handling the topic with a “careful approach” to prevent sending the wrong message to young basketball fans who look up to NBA stars (7).

https://www.cannabisnewswire.com/420-with-cnw-nba-announces-no-testing-for-cannabis-next-season/

https://www.cbssports.com/nhl/news/nhl-hub-cities-edmonton-toronto-will-host-all-stanley-cup-playoff-games/

https://twitter.com/Ben_Dowsett/status/1334602489023197184?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1334603861789532160%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es2_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fweedmaps.com%2Fnews%2F2020%2F12%2Fnba-players-wont-be-tested-for-marijuana-next-year-as-league-weighs-permanent-change%2F

https://www.cannabissciencetech.com/view/united-nations-removes-cannabis-from-schedule-iv-category

https://techcrunch.com/2020/11/04/cannabis-legalization-measures-set-to-pass-in-5-states/

https://www.cannabissciencetech.com/view/congress-passes-two-historic-cannabis-reform-bills

https://www.ibtimes.com/nba-commissioner-taking-cautious-approach-after-suspending-marijuana-testing-2020-21-3096179

For the 2020-2021 season, the National Basketball Association (NBA) has chosen to freeze random cannabis testing on players, limiting their potential risk of exposure to COVID-19.

NBA Halts Cannabis Testing on Basketball Players This Season

In March 2020, the United States was in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. We shut the entire country down and ground the economy to a halt in an effort to slow the spread of the virus. Think back to March, and how much uncertainty we were living under.

Nine months later, the FDA approved two COVID-19 vaccines under emergency authorization. Before New Year’s Day, millions of Americans had received the vaccine, including front-line physicians and health care providers and nursing home patients, our most vulnerable citizens.

Nine months. Take a moment to let that sink in.

The mainstream media has crafted a narrative around the COVID-19 pandemic that’s almost entirely negative. For the purpose of ratings, they have described the U.S. response to the pandemic as blundering from one mistake to the next. This narrative is false.

There is another way — a more accurate and underappreciate way — to tell the story of the last nine months. It is a story of heroism, innovation and precise science, performed under unbelievable pressure.

Let’s not mince words: The United States and the world needs to appreciate the role of the pharmaceutical industry — the researchers, physicians and business leaders — who are rescuing the world from COVID-19. It’s the medical breakthrough of our lifetime.

Instead of dwelling on why many in the media are ignoring this, let’s review some facts.

Since the discovery of COVID-19, here is what scientists have accomplished: They identified a novel virus, unlocked and sequenced its genetic code, created new therapies to save lives, and developed multiple safe and effective vaccines using messenger RNA technology, a technology hopefully applicable to future vaccine development. Margaret Liu, M.D., a member of the 

The United States has two vaccines approved for emergency use, one from 

, and the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine has been approved for 

 undergoing human clinical trials at the moment, including 20 in phase 3 trials. In the United States and around the world, the pharmaceutical industry has answered the call and invested heavily in this effort.

This was the fastest vaccine development program in history, and it’s not even close. David Pride, M.D., a microbiologist at the University of California San Diego, 

 that vaccines typically take 10 to 15 years to develop. Until the COVID-19 pandemic, the fastest development timeline was four years, for the mumps vaccine.

Many government systems moved quickly to lessen the burden of onerous regulations and provide funding so that vaccines could be developed quickly but with still rigorous standards. Perhaps it should be a lesson to all of us that regulation and innovation can be calibrated more effectively during “normal” times as industry races to develop new therapies for our world’s other pandemics — cancer, diabetes, heart diseases, and more.

The next step of the process — distribution of the vaccine — will be as challenging as the development phase, if not more so. But again, the pharmaceutical industry is rising to the occasion. Factories around the world are working in overdrive to produce hundreds of millions of vaccine doses.

Already, less than a month after the Pfizer vaccine was approved, more than 15.4 million doses of vaccine have been distributed across the country, and more than 4.6 million people have received their first dose, 

. Many patients are already receiving their second dose.

While 15.4 million doses are impressive, some expected 20 million doses. But even that is moving the goal line a bit, as six months ago many observers didn’t think we’d get a vaccine until 2021.

 told us that the holidays slowed the rollout considerably. Nancy Messonnier, M.D., a physician with the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the CDC, 

 in administered vaccines during these first few days of 2021.

Every day, more people will be vaccinated. After health care workers and our most vulnerable citizens, other frontline workers will be next. Teachers will be vaccinated so our children can return to school. And soon, all Americans will be able to go to their doctor or walk into a CVS or Walgreens and receive the vaccine.

Remember, we did all this in nine months, with the help, dedication and expertise of our pharmaceutical industry heroes. Next time you turn on the TV and see negativity, turn it off. Imagine instead where we will be nine months from now.

Mike Hennessy Sr is the founder and chairman of MJH Life Sciences.

The COVID-19 vaccine, and the speed at which it was developed, is the medical breakthrough of our lifetimes.

How Pharmaceutical Innovation Is Saving the World

In early December 2020, the US House of Representatives approved the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment, and Expungement (MORE) Act in an historic vote. Through this momentous bill, it brings a relief-inducing effect for those advocating for the legalization of cannabis (1). For years, reform advocates have fought for the day where they would see a full floor vote ending prohibition in a chamber of Congress.

Under the MORE Act, cannabis would be federally descheduled, expunge records of individuals with prior convictions, and impose a federal 5% sales tax (2). This federal tax would remain at 5% the first two years and then increase by 1% each year until capping out at 8%. After five years, taxes would then be applied to cannabis products based on weight rather than price.

Although it has received passage through the House, many do not feel the bill will receive favorable support in the currently Republican-controlled Senate. Vice President-elect Kamala Harris (D-CA) is the lead sponsor for the Senate companion version of the bill.

Debate on the House floor strongly consisted of Democrats stating their case on how the reform will help address the racist war on drugs, while Republicans counter-argued that cannabis’s legalization would bring harms to public safety and children. Those opposed, such as Rep. Adrien Smith (R-NE), disputed that cannabis legalization’s time was not now and that there were more pressing matters such as COVID-19 relief (1).

“Across this nation, thousands of men and women have suffered needlessly from the federal criminalization of marijuana, particularly in communities of color and have borne the burden of collateral consequences for those ensnared in criminal legal systems that have damaged our society across generations,” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) said in her opening remarks (1). “This is unacceptable, and we must change our laws. It is time for Congress to catch up with the reforms that states are enacting.”

Rep. Lou Correa (D-CA) urged Congress to “align federal cannabis laws with the will of the people.” Correa also showed his appreciation for House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the bill’s sponsor, for including one of his proposals which required a study of the benefits of medical cannabis for veterans in an adopted manager’s amendment. “Let’s take full advantage of the medical benefits of cannabis,” said Correa (1).

“The bottom line is, this vote is about freedom,” Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) mentioned (1). “It’s about freedom of choice for every American to make their own decisions for themselves without fear of the government coming and arresting them.”

Advocates remained optimistic about the MORE Act’s advancement through Congress but the bills prospects in the GOP-controlled Senate this session are not entirely promising. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel (R-KY) has been showing support for the hemp industry but strongly condemns further cannabis reform. Even with the bill unlikely to move forward through the Senate, many are embracing the historic nature of a vote by a chamber of Congress.

“This vote marks the first time in 50 years that a chamber of Congress has ever revisited the classification of cannabis as a federally controlled and prohibited substance, and it marks the first time in 24 years—when California became the first state to defy the federal government on the issue of marijuana prohibition—that Congress has sought to close the widening chasm between state and federal marijuana policies,” said Justin Stekal, political director of NORML (1). “By establishing this new trajectory for federal policy, we expect that more states will revisit and amend the archaic criminalization of cannabis, establish regulated consumer marketplaces, and direct law enforcement to cease the practice of arresting over half a million Americans annually for marijuana-related violations—arrests which disproportionately fall upon those on people of color and those on the lower end of the economic spectrum.”

Chief executive officer of the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA), Aaron Smith expressed that, “the symbolic and historical importance of the MORE Act passing in the House cannot be overstated,” (1).

On December 9, 2020, days after approving to federally legalize cannabis, the US House of Representatives advanced a separate bill aiding to promote research into the plant and allowing scientists to access cannabis from state-legal dispensaries (3). Known as the bipartisan Medical Marijuana Research Act, which was previously passed out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee in September (4).

Lead sponsors of this legislation were Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD). “The cannabis laws in this country are broken, especially those that deal with research,” Blumenauer said on the House floor prior to the vote (3). “It’s a narrow bill that fixes one of many broken cannabis laws. And I want to hasten to add that this in no way negates the need to move forward with other areas of legalization… But this is sort of a foundational question. No matter where you are, there’s no reason the federal government should impede this critical research.”

Currently, it is not clear whether the GOP-controlled Senate will take up the Medical Marijuana Research Act before the end of the current Congress. If it does manage to be brought to the floor, it is expected to receive bipartisan support. In its original drafting, researchers were able to gain access to cannabis from additional federally approved private manufacturers. In September, an amendment was approved to include a component expanding access for scientists, who were now able to use cannabis products from state-legal dispensaries.

For the past half a century, researchers have only been able to study cannabis grown at a single federally approved facility at the University of Mississippi (Oxford, Mississippi). Many have complained that it is very difficult to obtain the product and that it is of low quality. One study performed displayed that the federal cannabis is more similar to hemp than to the cannabis consumers use in the real world (5).

Cannabis is steadily gaining more attention and evolving as it garners support. Hopefully, the MORE Act and Medical Marijuana Research Act will be picked up by the Senate and receive a favorable outcome.

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/house-approves-federal-marijuana-legalization-bill-in-historic-vote/

https://www.cannabissciencetech.com/view/us-house-of-representatives-to-vote-on-momentous-cannabis-legalization-bill-in-september

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/house-approves-marijuana-research-bill-days-after-voting-to-federally-legalize-cannabis/

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/congressional-committee-approves-marijuana-bill-that-will-allow-research-on-dispensary-cannabis/

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/federally-produced-marijuana-is-closer-to-hemp-than-commercial-cannabis-study-shows/

Congress passes the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment, and Expungement (MORE) Act and the Medical Marijuana Research Act in two historic votes, signifying a growing shift toward cannabis legalization.

Congress Passes Two Historic Cannabis Reform Bills

In part I of this series I made the case for how US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation will help our industry make safer and effective medicines profitably. In this and upcoming installments I will take a detailed look at how FDA regulation will impact cannabis businesses. Expect to see changes in how we manufacture, formulate, and test our products. Regulation will also mean increased record keeping, and will impact how employees are hired and trained. In this installment, I discuss how the need for increased testing will impact extractors.

In a previous column I made the case for “cannabis is medicine, test it like medicine,” and promoted the use of the pharmaceutical industry testing paradigm in our industry (1). This paradigm requires what I call “cradle-to-grave” testing, meaning testing is not just required at the end of the manufacturing process, but at every point in the supply chain and at every manufacturing step.

If we were to follow the journey of a cannabidiol (CBD) molecule from being synthesized inside a cannabis plant to its presence in a tincture bottle, it might look something like this:

Grower ➡ Extractor ➡ Dispensary ➡ Customer

Of these four stages, the one where the most testing will be required is the extractor.

Many in this industry don’t like to think of it this way, but an extractor is a chemical manufacturer. They perform operations including extraction, precipitation, distillation, and dissolution, all of which are chemical processes. And yes, extractors are pharmaceutical manufacturers because they are making cannabis medicines. Let’s walk through the process that a typical manufacturer might go through to turn hemp into a medium-chain triglyceride (MCT) oil tincture and discover when and where testing will be done. If your process differs from this one, please try to imagine at which steps in your process testing should be done.

What Cradle-To-Grave Testing Looks Like for Extractors

The incoming hemp biomass will need to be analyzed by the full complement of tests that states have in place for final products. You should perform a cannabinoid profile on your raw plant material, to make sure you are getting what you paid for and to make sure this material is appropriate for the processing you are about to perform on it. You should also obtain a terpene profile on this biomass as terpenes are an important part of the user experience, and to make medicines consistently you need to know the amount of all the active ingredients in your raw material including terpenes. There exist methods for analyzing for cannabinoids and terpenes in biomass that are appropriate for in-house testing (2).

You will also want to test the biomass for pesticides. These materials are of course highly regulated (3). The problem with inhalable products is that it introduces pesticides directly into the bloodstream. Also, it is well known that some pesticides can concentrate during the manufacturing process. So, even if biomass has acceptable levels of pesticides, an extract or distillate made from it may be above legal limits, which is why it is important to test biomass for pesticides. Some methods for pesticide analysis in cannabis can be found in the literature (4–7).

Biomass should also be tested for heavy metals. Most states regulate the concentrations of the “four metals of the apocalypse:” arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and lead (8). These metals are highly toxic and have no useful biological function, hence the need to limit human exposure to them. The problem with cannabis is that it has been shown to bioaccumulate metals. So even if the water, soil, and other agricultural inputs have acceptable levels of metals, the plant may concentrate them until they are at unacceptable levels. This is why you can’t assume that metals testing on water and soil will predict the metals content of biomass, you have to test the plant material as well. There exist methods for analyzing for metals in cannabis plant material (9).

Biomass should also be tested for mold, fungi, mycotoxins, moisture, water activity, and anything else your state regulations require. In the pharmaceutical industry, incoming raw materials are tested extensively for identity, potency, and purity. We need to do the same in our industry. Why? Because the products we make are going into and onto human beings, so we need to do all within our power to protect the health and well being of our customers.

After purchasing biomass a processor will then typically extract it with a solvent to concentrate the cannabinoids and terpenes. Amongst the solvents used are hydrocarbons such as butane, ethanol, and supercritical CO

. Since the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will require you to test after every manufacturing step, raw extracts need to be tested before being further processed. At this point a cannabinoid profile should be measured to see how efficient the extraction was. I have seen extractors use this data to optimize their extractions and increase yield by 10% to 20%. So not only is cradle-to-grave testing the right thing to do, it is also the profitable thing to do. There exist analyzers and methods for measuring cannabinoids and their stability in cannabis extracts (10,11).

Raw extracts are then often dissolved in ethanol and the resultant solution is placed in a freezer to precipitate the fats and waxes. These are then filtered out. While working as a laboratory director for a cannabis extractor, we found that the filtered fats and waxes contained 20–30% cannabinoids. That is a lot potential product and money to be throwing away. Testing the precipitate at this point allows optimization of the winterization process, reducing the amount of cannabinoids thrown away, ethanol used, and freezing conditions, thus increasing profitability.

After winterization we have a solution of cannabinoids in ethanol. We of course need to get rid of the ethanol, which is often times removed by rotary evaporation. The concern here is that we get rid of all the ethanol. Having the ability to test for residual solvents at this point is important to insure compliance with extant regulations. Also, when we go to distill a winterized extract if there is residual solvent present it will form bubbles and cause the liquid in the pot to “burp,” sending undistilled material up into the distillation column. This is best avoided. Methods exist for determining residual solvents in cannabis (12). After evaporation of the solvent, the winterized extract should be tested for cannabinoids to insure the process has been performed according to standard operating procedures.

Winterized extracts are often times heated to decarboxylate them. This reaction involves the carboxylic acid functional group of an acid cannabinoid splitting off a molecule of CO2 to yield the non-acid form. Here are two of the more important reactions:

The reason we do this is that the cannabis plant does not give us much tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or CBD, the economically important cannabinoids, but their acid precursors tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA) and cannabidiolic acid (CBDA). The FDA will require testing throughout this process to make sure that decarboxylation is done in a controlled, safe, and reproducible fashion. It also makes economic sense to test for cannabinoids during this reaction to make sure it is performed to completion, and if you know when it is done you can save time, energy, and money. So, yet again testing is the profitable thing to do. Mid-infrared (IR) spectroscopy can be used to follow this reaction to completion (13).

At some extractors decarboxylation is performed by heating the biomass. As a chemist I have reservations about this as the plant material is chemically complex, and heating will produce all kinds of side reactions that may adversely affect the color and flavor of extracts made from this biomass. That is why I recommend to my extraction customers that they heat the winterized extract to decarboxylate rather than the biomass.

After winterization and decarboxylation our extract is now ready to be distilled to concentrate the cannabinoids. Winterized and decarboxylated extracts should be tested prior to distillation because they are a starting material and we want to know what we are putting in the pot to make sure it is of appropriate composition. Small amounts of distillate can be drawn off during the process and tested to make sure the distillation is going according to plan. Lastly, the final batch of distillate should be tested for potency to make sure the product made is within specifications. Methods exist to test distillate for cannabinoids (14).

Let’s imagine at this point we have a distillate that is 90% CBD and we want to make an MCT oil tincture out of it. First, the MCT oil itself must be tested for identity. My own work with IR spectroscopy has shown that the chemical composition of MCT oil varies greatly from vendor to vendor and batch to batch. Therefore, you need to invest in the ability to test MCT oil to make sure you are getting a quality and reproducible starting material. And since MCT oil is a raw material that goes into a product that will be ingested by human beings, the FDA will require it to be tested as well.

To make your tincture you may either weigh out the ingredients or dispense them by volume. In the case of weighing, you will need to have a balance that has been calibrated using what are called National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable standards. NIST is the Federal government agency tasked with issuing standards and standard reference materials for US industry. There exist well established standards and methods for calibrating balances, or devices that dispense liquids by volume. You will need to make sure your balances and dispensers are calibrated in a NIST-consistent fashion to pass muster with the FDA.

Let’s say we finally have an MCT oil tincture that according to the weights used is 5 weight % CBD. At this point you will be expected to test this final product to make sure you have the CBD amount right. You will be required to test each batch of tincture, and you should test a representative sample of the tincture bottles you make as well. In-house compatible methods exist for tincture analysis (15).

As I have pointed out in the past, third party testing is not a substitute for in-house testing because it is too slow (1). Imagine you make a batch of extract and it must be tested before you can process it further. You could take a sample, send it out for testing, and wait days or weeks for results. In the meantime your extract is losing potency, taking up space, and not making you any money. If you had your own in-house cannabis analyzer you could get results in a few minutes, streamlining your manufacturing process.

However, third party cannabis laboratories still have a role to play. Regulations require that your final product be tested by a third party laboratory for testing to make sure it is compliant with applicable laws and label claims. This battery of tests may include a cannabinoid profile, terpenes, pesticides, heavy metals, and so forth.

A recent informal survey I saw showed that upwards of 2/3 of extractors are not doing any in-house testing. This is crazy for two reasons. First, by not doing in-house testing you are losing money as indicated above. Secondly, by not testing you will not produce a consistent product. This product will more often disagree with your label claims, meaning it will more often fail compliance testing. This will drive up your costs since you have to re-test, remediate, or scrap your product.

Be Prepared to Set Up a Testing Laboratory

Because of the need for significant amounts of in-house testing, all extractors should set up an in-house testing laboratory. In a perfect world where money is no object, I would like to see all cannabis businesses have the ability to test for cannabinoids, terpenes, pesticides, and heavy metals amongst other things. The reality of course is that this is terribly expensive. Pesticide analyzers can cost more than $500k, and heavy metals testers can cost over $200k, so these are not practical for most cannabis businesses. However, there exist cannabis potency analyzers that cost around $25k that are capable of giving a cannabinoid profile on a wide variety of samples (16). When advising cannabis businesses who are building out an in-house laboratory, I recommend that they start with a potency analyzer. As you saw above, potency testing is the most informative and most often type of in-house testing performed. In fact, advice on how to build out a laboratory would make for a good future column.

FDA regulation means that cannabis extractors need to think of themselves as pharmaceutical manufacturers and act accordingly. This includes cradle-to-grave testing. We walked through a typical extraction process, and saw the need for testing biomass, raw extract, winterized extract, the decarboxylation reaction, distillates, and final products. We also discussed the role of third party laboratories in all this, and the practicality of cannabis businesses setting up their own analytical laboratories.

California Bureau of Cannabis Control Regulations, Section 5719.

R. Jordan, L. Asanuma, D. Miller, and A. Maherone, 

A. Dalmia, E. Cudjoe, T. Astill, J. Jalali, J. Weisenseel, F. Qin, M. Murphu, and T. Ruthenberg, 

https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I1362951A423B4B44BCD7D0698108A1D4?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&bhcp=1

https://www.perkinelmer.com/lab-solutions/resources/docs/app_nexion_icp_ms_titan_mps_heavy_metals_in_cannabis_014714_01.pdf

https://www.agilent.com/en/solutions/cannabis-hemp-testing/residual-solvents-testing-for-cannabis-hemp

B.C. Smith, C. Fucetola, K. Erhmentraut, and T. Hagan, 

,is Founder, CEO, and Chief Technical Officer of Big Sur Scientific. He is the inventor of the BSS series of patented mid-infrared based cannabis analyzers. Dr. Smith has done pioneering research and published numerous peer-reviewed papers on the application of mid-infrared spectroscopy to cannabis analysis, and sits on the editorial board of 

. He has worked as a laboratory director for a cannabis extractor, as an analytical chemist for Waters Associates and PerkinElmer, and as an analytical instrument salesperson. He has more than 30 years of experience in chemical analysis and has written three books on the subject. Dr. Smith earned his PhD on physical chemistry from Dartmouth College.

How will the need for increased testing impact extractors?

The FDA is Coming…Will the Cannabis Industry Be Ready? Part II: In-House Testing for Extractors

As refinement methods grow in the world of cannabis extracts, here we explore various refinement methods for removal of plant waxes from cannabis extract.

More than 400 chemical compounds have been identified in the cannabis plant (Figure 1). Some of these compounds are targeted during extraction and others, such as waxes, are extracted alongside the targeted compounds. Plant waxes are composed of a variety of compounds, such as fatty acids, hydrocarbons, esters, lactones, and alcohols (1). Most plants, including cannabis, produce waxes that exist on the plant’s surface. The purpose of the plant’s wax layer is to modulate hydration and protect the plant’s exposed surface (2). The cannabis wax layer is easily soluble in many solvents that are used for cannabis extraction, such as supercritical CO

, ethanol, and hydrocarbon extraction. While waxes prove to be useful to plants, they are often an undesirable by-product of extraction methods. Waxes dramatically impact the viscosity as well as the complex chemical profile of cannabis extract.

The viscosity, clarity, and flavor of cannabis extracts are all distinct characteristics of the various concentrate products found in the cannabis marketplace. Currently, the primary wax fractionation process in the industry is called 

Winterization is the process of removing fats and waxes from botanical oils to prevent crystallization of certain compounds in the oil.

Not only does the winterization process reduce the viscosity of an extract, it also increases the concentration of other desirable compounds such as cannabinoids and terpenes. The winterization process involves mixing crude extract with organic solvents like high-proof ethanol over heat to dissolve the extract (Figure 2). Once dissolved, the ethanol–extract solution is frozen to facilitate crystallization of the waxes. Once thoroughly frozen, the solution is processed through vacuum filtration to separate wax solids from the oil–ethanol solution.

As cannabis and hemp operations have begun to scale up, pressure has increased on advancements in winterization and filtration technology. Winterization continues to be a bottleneck in the refinement process. Extraction operators have continuously developed more selective extraction methods to fractionate the wide range of cannabis compounds. These methods are moving closer to selective separation of desirable from undesirable components. However, refinement processes of some fractions are still used to meet quality, consistency, and efficiency standards. For example, “wax fractions” would be winterized to extract any cannabinoids that may still be in the fraction to ensure all cannabinoids are captured in the process. The various desirable fractions would then be mixed together or used separately to create final products.

Ethanol extraction equipment manufacturers have innovated by significantly lowering extraction temperatures as well as sequentially linking extraction and post-processing steps into one unified system. Reducing extraction temperature has increased the extraction efficiency by selectively extracting cannabinoids and leaving behind undesirable compounds such as wax and chlorophyll. Full service processing equipment, which would sequentially complete extraction, winterization, filtration, and solvent evaporation in one piece of equipment, has continued to rise in popularity. This significantly reduces hands-on labor and has amplified efficiency from start to finish.

The aforementioned full service ethanol processing equipment model has not yet been successfully implemented in other extraction methods. However, I believe in the very near future supercritical CO

 extraction equipment manufacturers will have the technical capability to selectively filter wax from the raw CO

 cannabis extract within the supercritical CO

 system itself. This may be implemented via in-line filtration paired with improved selective fractionation capability, but all of this has yet to be seen.

Finally, centrifuge technology has continued to surface as an option for selective separation of waxes from cannabinoid and terpene fractions. Using centrifugal force, heavy waxes are pulled to the bottom of the vessel physically separating the chemical components. However, the cost of a centrifuge large enough for efficient operations is a significant investment. This technology requires massive up-front capital costs with a long return on investment (ROI) time line.

After reviewing the various methods of wax fractionation, it is clear that time, equipment costs, and operating costs play a significant factor in deciding which method to implement in daily operations at cannabis and hemp facilities. Due to the relatively minimal investment in standard vacuum filtration, it continues to be the primary wax fractionation method to date. I am eager to see the technology strive to improve wax fraction purity and overall process efficiency as this industry develops.

(5), 539-48 (2005). doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2005.09.011. Epub 2005 Sep 30. PMID: 16199061.

(2), 1120-1129 (2012). doi:10.1104/pp.112.198473.

H. Zhong‚ M. Watanabe, H. Enomoto‚ F. Jin‚ A. Kishita‚ T.M. Aida, and R.L. Smith, Jr., 

https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b00310

 is the founder, CEO, and Chief Extractor of Heylo. With a background in chemistry and clinical research, Lo was inspired to explore cannabis as a medicine and to enter the emerging industry. She joined Eden Labs, a leading CO

 extraction equipment manufacturer to support and expand a Research and Development department. There she managed the development of their latest and greatest CO

 extraction system. In 2017, after working with Eden Labs and another cannabis processor, Lo launched Heylo with a mission to help people get more out of life with cannabis.

Here we explore various refinement methods for removal of plant waxes from cannabis extract.

Methods and Advancements in Wax Fractionation from Cannabis Extract

Given the magnitude of the energy use in cannabis cultivation operations, resource benchmarking is especially important. Benchmarking is commonly performed for commercial and industrial buildings and is a crucial tool for determining baseline and efficient facility performance, allowing building managers and operators to measure facility performance year over year, and compare against similar properties. Cannabis operations are challenging to benchmark, but there are specialized tools that can measure key performance indicators (KPIs) for production and resource efficiency. By monitoring, quantifying, and ranking KPIs, cannabis businesses can become more efficient and competitive in changing markets. Understand what information to gather for cultivation operations, which KPIs are important, and how to interpret a performance benchmark.

Here you will learn what information to gather for benchmarking cultivation operations, which key performance indicators (KPIs) are important, and how to interpret a performance benchmark report.

Benchmarking is commonly performed for commercial and industrial buildings and is a crucial tool for determining baseline and efficient facility performance, allowing building managers and operators to measure facility performance year over year, and compare against similar properties. Given the magnitude of the energy use in cannabis cultivation operations, resource benchmarking is especially important. Just like financial benchmarking enables a comparative assessment of a firm’s performance, so does resource benchmarking for production processes.

Cannabis operations are challenging to benchmark, but there are specialized tools that can measure KPIs for production and resource efficiency. By monitoring, quantifying, and ranking KPIs, cannabis businesses can become more efficient and competitive in changing markets.

Resource Benchmarking Evaluates Competitive Performance

Established cultivators in various markets may be managing high operational expenses because of geographic region and real estate costs, site location and associated energy sources and suppliers, building type, and building systems such as lighting, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), and dehumidification. As businesses evaluate the cost-effectiveness of their 

 (1), resource benchmarking is a key pathway to assessing the operating capabilities of growers and cannabis businesses. With energy and water costs making up almost half of the total operating expenses and consumer interest in corporate action on climate change and environmental and social responsibility increasing, measuring and reporting resource efficiency is increasingly critical.

What gets measured gets managed. Resource benchmarking is the process of tracking and reviewing a property’s annual energy and water use over time in relation to itself or other buildings. Like stepping on a scale, energy benchmarking is the first step in a strategic energy management process (2).

Cannabis cultivation facilities are industrial and agricultural buildings, and are challenging to benchmark using traditional tools because of the diverse production activities performed within. Effective benchmarking for productive and profitable cannabis cultivation operations requires a specialized and vetted tool offering KPIs with a transparent and standardized calculation methodology. In commercial buildings, the U.S. Department of Energy’s 

 is often used to measure energy use intensity (EUI), a KPI measuring whole-building energy use in units of kBtu per gross square foot of building area.

To walk the walk of efficient production, operators must learn how efficiently they currently produce cannabis and use energy and water to establish a baseline. Continuously measuring against baselines on a recurring basis enables operators to measure and report performance as they improve efficiency over time. Benchmarking EUI for buildings and processes is crucial for determining baseline and efficient facility performance. Controlled environment agriculture processes are more challenging to assess using a metric based on building area alone (EUI), and production-oriented metrics are essential to include so competitive performance from operation to operation can also be understood on a basis of resource consumption per unit of final product.

Operators engaged in strategic energy management processes can compare facility energy and water efficiency and productivity values year-over-year for the same building—comparing you against yourself—and between buildings of the same type—comparing you against your peers to learn how changes in operational procedures, retrofit projects, and expansion into new space is affecting your bottom line.

Cannabis PowerScore: Specialized Benchmarking for Cannabis

As a non-profit advocacy organization, Resource Innovation Institute (RII) cultivates resource efficiency for a better agricultural future, and part of our mission includes providing objective, brand-agnostic education to the cannabis industry (3). A key element of RII’s market transformation work is our Cannabis PowerScore resource benchmarking platform (4). In 2017, RII brought together its initial Technical Advisory Council of cultivators, design and construction partners, and energy efficiency engineers to determine how to quantify the energy performance of cannabis cultivation operations. The group advised the development of the Cannabis PowerScore benchmarking platform and established cannabis-centric KPIs evaluating resource efficiency and productivity.

The Cannabis PowerScore benchmarking platform is a free, non-profit, peer-reviewed, and confidential suite of tools designed by and for cultivators and their construction partners. Detailed facility information is never sold or shared with anyone without consent. RII has built trust as an objective source of information about resource efficiency in cultivation operations and Cannabis PowerScore is used by hundreds of facilities throughout North America.

While individual facility information is anonymized, RII analyzes the aggregate Ranked Data Set to inform governments, utilities and industry leaders who share an interest in advancing producer efficiency with quarterly resource benchmarking reports (5). Ultimately, trends from PowerScore and these reports will help the industry establish standards and a leadership recognition system.

Key Performance Indicators for Efficiency and Productivity

The PowerScore platform includes a survey, visualizations, and dashboards for competitive performance reporting at the facility and portfolio level. The survey calculates comparative efficiency performance metrics using submitted facility details including building construction, building systems, and annual resource usage and production.

At the facility level, PowerScore provides a Performance Benchmark report for each year of facility performance that summarizes resource efficiency and productivity KPIs and an overall Facility Ranking against operations from the Ranked Data Set growing in similar environments (see Figure 1). Facility Ranking is a proxy for overall resource efficiency performance, and provides a holistic apples-to-apples comparison of cultivation facility competitiveness across similar cultivation approaches.

Performance Benchmarks report calculated KPIs for energy, water, waste and, soon, carbon emissions. Energy KPIs modify traditional EUI by using flowering canopy area instead of gross building area. Annual cannabis flower production is used to create new productivity KPIs by dividing production totals by annual consumption of energy and water and generation of waste.

Facility energy and water efficiency and productivity are critical KPIs that can measure both business competitiveness and brand risk:

 Annual energy use per square foot, in units of kBtu/sq. ft. of flowering canopy; energy use includes all energy sources such as electricity, natural gas, delivered fuels, backup generation, and renewable energy generation. A lower value is better; a higher value is worse.

 Efficiency of annual produced grams of dried cannabis flower per kBtu of total (all fuels) annual energy use using a facility’s annual production and whole-facility energy consumption totals. A higher value is better; a lower value is worse.

 Annual water use per square foot, in units of gal/sq. ft. of flowering canopy. A lower value is better; a higher value is worse.

 Efficiency of annual water use
in units of annual produced grams of dried cannabis flower per gallon. A higher value is better; a lower value is worse.

At the portfolio level, groups of facilities using similar cultivation approaches can be grouped together and compared against peer operations in the Ranked Data Set using competitive performance reports. Figure 2 is summarizing electric facility energy efficiency for several indoor, greenhouse, and outdoor operations (orange bars) and comparing them against the relevant groups of facilities in the Ranked Data Set (green bars).

Baselines for Electric Facility Energy Efficiency and Productivity

The Ranked Data Set of PowerScore helps cultivators understand baseline resource efficiency and productivity, and describes average performance among US producers in early regulated states to establish baselines for KPIs for comparisons and competitive reports. As more facilities benchmark with PowerScore, comparisons by climate zone will become feasible for even more accurate KPI comparisons across peer groups. Table I lists the 151 operations currently recorded in the Ranked Data Set and their average KPIs in October 2020.

Benchmarking Operations Using High-Performance Equipment

Success stories from the PowerScore Performance Benchmark reports are revealing the promise of efficiency investments. KPIs for some facilities seem to validate that certain techniques and technologies are driving efficiency. As one leading-edge example, an Oregon facility underwent a retrofit from high pressure sodium vapor (HPS) to light emitting diode (LED) lighting, which resulted in a 68% improvement in electric facility energy efficiency (g/kBtu).

Analysis of the aggregate Ranked Data Set suggests that most facilities, regardless of legacy equipment installed, have the opportunity to save at least 30% of energy expenses through efficiency measures. A recent RII benchmarking report showed that indoor cannabis cultivation operations growing with LED for flowering achieve 34% better average electric facility efficiencies and 80% better average electric production efficiencies than indoor facilities using double-ended (DE) HPS lighting for the flowering growth stage. However, some operations using LED lighting solutions perform better than other LED facilities due to cultivator techniques and actual environmental conditions in grow rooms.

Performance variability results from contributions of several factors including the quality of the lighting system, lighting controls, the limitations of the site, or the actions of the cultivator. Most long-term cannabis cultivators need to learn how to evaluate the state-of-the-art LED lighting solutions available on the market today and adapt to effectively install and operate them. Others are bound by the ability of their building’s HVAC systems to condition the internal space despite the quality of the building envelope, ductwork and piping, and ventilation equipment.

Producing cannabis efficiently with high-performance equipment like LED lighting systems is possible if cultivators and facility operators measure KPIs on a quarterly or annual basis. Benchmarking helps cultivators learn how they currently perform, and how they compare against their baseline performance benchmark and the average performance benchmarks of cultivators growing like them to quantify the benefits of efficient technology and prove the value of projects to investors. Get started on your efficiency journey at CannabisPowerScore.org.

https://www.cannabissciencetech.com/view/hvacd-controls-for-plant-health-product-quality-and-energy-efficiency-in-cultivation-and-drying-processes

https://www.burlingtonelectric.com/benchmarking

https://resourceinnovation.org/press-release/study-of-cannabis-energy-use-shows-indoor-cultivation-operations-using-led-lighting-demonstrate-better-efficiency/

, is the Technical Director of RII and manages the organization’s Technical Advisory Council. She is an LED-lit home cultivator. While serving Burlington Electric Department customers, she incentivized horticultural LED lighting equipment through energy efficiency programs, and has commissioned LED lighting designs and installed systems in commercial and industrial buildings, including greenhouses used for academic research on hemp and other cultivars. She authored the RII 

Best Practices Guides on HVAC and LED Lighting for Cannabis Cultivation and Controlled Environment Agriculture.

 She has a B.S. in Architectural Engineering from the University of Wyoming and an M.S. in Civil Engineering from Stanford University. She is a licensed Civil Professional Engineer in California and Vermont.

Understand what information to gather for cultivation operations, which KPIs are important, and how to interpret a performance benchmark.

Resource Benchmarking for  Competitive and Efficient Cannabis Cultivation and Production Processes

Since the introduction of the first commercially available flame atomic absorption spectrophotometer (FAAS) in the early 1960s, there has been an increasing demand for better, faster, easier-to-use, and more flexible trace element instrumentation. A conservative estimate shows that in 2019, the market for atomic spectroscopy-based instruments was well in excess of $1 billion in annual revenue, and that doesn’t include after-market sales and service costs, which could increase that number by an additional $500 million. As a result of this growth, we have seen a rapid emergence of more sophisticated, easier-to-use equipment. Moreover, with an increase in the number of manufacturers of atomic spectroscopy instrumentation and its sampling accessories, together with the availability of traditional solid sampling techniques—such as X-ray fluorescence (XRF) and newer techniques such as microwave-induced optical emission spectroscopy (MIP-OES), laser induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS), and laser ablation laser ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (LALI-TOFMS)—the choice of which technique to use is often unclear. It also becomes even more complicated when budgetary restrictions allow only one analytical technique to be purchased to solve a particular application problem. This article takes a look at the major atomic spectroscopy techniques and compares their performance characteristics and, in particular, examines the limits of quantitation for the four heavy metals (lead [Pb], aresnic [As], cadmium [Cd], and mercury [Hg]) currently being regulated in cannabis and hemp by most states in the US. Note: A more expanded version of this article can be found in my book, 

Measuring Heavy Metal Contaminants in Cannabis and Hemp

To select the best technique for a particular analytical problem, it is important to understand exactly what the problem is and how it is going to be solved. For example, if the requirement is to monitor copper at percentage levels in a copper plating bath and it is only going to be done once per shift, flame atomic absorption (FAA) would adequately fill this role. Alternatively, when selecting an instrument to measure 24 elemental impurities in pharmaceutical products according to 

This article takes a look at the major atomic spectroscopy techniques and compares their performance characteristics and in particular examines the limits of quantitation for the four heavy metals (Pb, As, Cd, and Hg) currently being regulated in cannabis and hemp by most states in the US.

Featured Content

What Atomic Spectroscopic Technique Is Right for Your Laboratory?

Cannabis Patient Care