A closer look at the benefits of incorporating drone technology into commercial cannabis operations.

Invasion of the Drones: How They Help Cannabis Growers Improve Crop Quality, Lower Costs, & More

PerkinElmer, Inc., recently launched a fully automated liquid handling sample preparation and liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS) analysis workflow for pesticide residue testing of cannabis and hemp flower samples (1). This new solution reportedly includes cannabis-optimized reagents and sample prep consumables as well as proprietary cannabis standard operating procedures (SOPs) and cloud-based tracking and reporting software. According to the company’s press release (1), with this workflow, in house and contract laboratories can increase pesticide analysis throughput with improved data quality, decrease laboratory waste, reduce the likelihood of operator error, and slash sample prep times to 2 hours from 6-8 hours when performed manually.

 The fully automated liquid handling sample preparation workflow starts with an integrated micro balance that captures and conveys sample ID and weight data. After, a multi-step sample preparation procedure is executed automatically by PerkinElmer’s liquid and sample handling system, the Janus® G3 420 Workstation which conducts sample vortexing, centrifuging, filtering, and diluting. It also includes integrated barcoding and scanning. The new One Pesticide420TM Reagent Kit offers calibration and quality control reagents along with the sample preparation consumables needed for consistent implementation of the new application-dedicated SOPs. Once the sample preparation is complete, the sample is then analyzed on PerkinElmer’s QSight® 420 LC–MS/MS instrument in sync with regulation frameworks, such as California’s meticulous ISO 17025:2017 and the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) pesticide regulation requirements.

 Lastly, the full sample traceability and instrument connectivity is delivered with the company’s new cloud-based SimplicityLab420TM software. With this technology, it is able to support easy batch creation and method transfer, regulation-ready reporting, integration with laboratory information management system (LIMS) systems, and remote workflow monitoring.

“On average, cannabis labs perform up to 1000 pesticide analyses per month and 60% of testing time is spent on manual sample preparation,” said Greg Sears, Vice President and General Manager, Food & Organic Mass Spectrometry, PerkinElmer (1). “By bringing together and automating all of the pieces a lab needs to tackle pesticide analysis, our new workflow solution provides a streamlined approach that helps increase productivity, compliance and consumer protection while also saving time and money.”

The innovations in cannabis testing and analysis are part of PerkinElmer’s broader safety and quality solutions for food.

https://ir.perkinelmer.com/news-releases/news-release-details/perkinelmer-launches-industry-first-fully-automated-workflow

Articles

Recently, PerkinElmer, Inc., announced a fully automated liquid handling sample preparation and liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS) analysis workflow for pesticide residue testing of cannabis and hemp flower samples.

PerkinElmer Introduces Fully Automated Workflow for Cannabis and Hemp Pesticide Residue Testing

The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to further regulate the cannabis industry (1), specifically cannabidiol (CBD) products. These regulations will undoubtedly reflect how the FDA currently regulates pharmaceutical and nutritional supplement products. Is FDA oversight necessary? What is the current state of the industry with respect to anticipated regulations? What does FDA oversight mean for cannabis businesses and the industry as a whole? In this, the first of a two-part series, I will give my view on the need for FDA involvement in our industry, and discuss the current state of things. In Part II, to be published in the next issue, I will discuss the specifics of what FDA regulation will mean for cannabis businesses.

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, passed by the United States Congress in 1938, gives the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the power to regulate the manufacture and sale of food, medicines, and cosmetics (2). The act was passed to protect the public from things such as dangerous patent medicines and tainted food. In essence, the FDA regulates any product that goes into or onto a human being. These products undergo greater scrutiny than others because of their potential to cause harm to us if not made properly. There is also an economic aspect to FDA regulation; people should get what they pay for.

The regulatory goal for the manufacture of medicines is that they be “safe and effective” (2). The first burden, safety, is always the minimum standard, part of the “above all else do no harm” idea enshrined in the Hippocratic Oath (3). The second burden, efficacy, is defined as (4): “Capacity for producing a desired result or effect.” This simply means that the drug must treat the disease for which it is being used.

The FDA has already approved the use of a cannabidiol (CBD)-based medicine called Epidiolex for treatment of certain types of epilepsy (5). This cannabis medicine is one of the first to undergo the rigors of the FDA’s drug approval process and come out the other side with the stamp of approval. This is the best proof yet that cannabis truly is medicine.

The challenge we face now is there's one CBD medicine with FDA approval, but thousands of companies are selling CBD containing products without FDA approval. This situation is—to the best of my knowledge—unprecedented; that an active pharmaceutical ingredient is made available to the general public before FDA approval. In a sense then, the horse is out of the barn. How does the FDA go about regulating an industry that has sprinted ahead of it in terms of product development and sales?

Is FDA Regulation of the Cannabis Industry Necessary?

At the Federal level, cannabis products with 0.3 weight percent or less total tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) are legal, but anything above this is illegal (6,7). States such as California and Colorado have full legalization of cannabis, other states allow some cannabis products but not others, and still others ban all cannabis products (8). This means there are numerous, overlapping, and competing sets of regulations the cannabis industry must comply with. This uneven regulatory landscape is a financial and logistical burden for cannabis businesses, particularly ones doing business in multiple states. An argument for FDA regulation is that with one overarching regulatory body there will hopefully be only one set of regulations all cannabis businesses must abide by, reducing the time and cost needed to comply with those regulations, hopefully boosting profitability.

I have been a longtime advocate that cannabis is medicine and that it should be tested like medicine (9). FDA regulation will require more and better testing at all steps in the cannabis product supply chain. My own work consulting with extractors has shown that implementation of in-house testing and quality control programs, though not necessarily cheap, reaps big benefits by increasing the control and understanding of manufacturing processes so more product can be made with less input, maximizing safety, quality, productivity, and profits. Believe or not, more regulation can lead to bigger not smaller profits.

What is the current state of industry compliance with potential FDA regulations?

I have been involved in the cannabis industry since it first became legal in Colorado in 2014. I have developed cannabis testing methods, sold equipment to cannabis businesses, worked as a laboratory director for an extractor, and now consult for cannabis businesses. I have visited dozens of cannabis businesses across the country including farms, extractors, and dispensaries. My firsthand observation is that the current state of the industry's compliance with potential FDA regulations is mixed at best.

I have seen cannabis businesses that are familiar with FDA regulations and are making a good faith effort to abide by these rules. But I have also seen true horror stories. I see people jumping into growing cannabis with no idea what strains to grow, how to prepare the soil, manage pests, or know when to harvest. I have seen extractors with no process control programs in place who have no understanding of what they are making, how they made it, and are unable to make the same thing twice. I see dispensaries selling products with completely different potency than claimed on the label (10). I see sectors of the industry refuse to listen to any arguments for the expansion of in-house testing and other regulations. I have had cannabis company executives say to me with a straight face that, “We don’t need to do in-house testing, the state takes care of that for us.”

One reason the FDA is taking a closer look at our industry is the extent of the product mislabeling problem. A recent report the FDA sent to the US Congress found a disturbing number of CBD products contain significantly less CBD than stated on their label, and some contained no CBD at all (11). This problem has been previously documented (12). This means cannabis patients are not getting the correct dose of medicine.

What would happen if something like this occurred in the pharmaceutical industry? Imagine the Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe (13) pharmaceutical company sold 100,000 antibiotic tablets that contained no antibiotic. Doctors would prescribe these pills in good faith, but their patients would not get better, instead getting sicker or possibly die since they are not receiving any medicine. Once it was discovered the pills were fake, imagine the bad press and billions of dollars in lawsuits that would be filed. The company would probably be shut down, and company executives may go to jail. We as a society do not tolerate this situation, which is why the FDA exists. And yet every day cannabis patients are taking medicine with the wrong dose of CBD in it. This threatens the health of our most important asset, our customers, and damages the credibility of our industry. The extent of this problem indicates to me that the current regulatory regime is not working. FDA regulation would standardize manufacture, testing, and labeling of cannabis products and would go a long way towards solving the mislabeling problem.

Besides the public health threat from mislabeling, there’s the economic threat as well. When people buy mislabeled CBD products they are not getting what they are paying for. If you bought a carton of milk at the grocery store and found upon getting it home it was half full would you be happy? Of course not. You would march right back to the grocery store with the offending carton in hand and ask for a refund. If this situation occurred regularly the grocery store may start losing customers. And yet people are buying CBD products with less than the stated potency on a regular basis. If we don’t tolerate this type of rip off in our own lives, why do we tolerate it in our industry? Since the current regulatory regime has failed to solve this problem, I believe oversight by the FDA is needed.

Another problem the FDA can help with is inter-laboratory error. This is the well documented problem where third party cannabis laboratories obtain significantly different results on the same samples (14–16). There are a number of causes for this problem including lack of standard analytical methods, lack of standard reference materials, and lack of training (15). At the moment, individual states are tasked with licensing third party cannabis laboratories, and many of these laboratories are certified by the International Standards Organization (ISO). This level of regulation is not working. In a study by myself and others published in this journal (14), distillate samples sent to five different state licensed, ISO certified laboratories returned THC values from 77% to 94%. This is unacceptable. FDA oversight will help with this problem by implementing the development of standard methods, standard reference materials, and training regimens.

There are numerous organizations working on developing standard cannabis analysis methods, including the American Herbal Products Association (AHPA) (17), American Society for Testing Materials (18), AOAC International (19), the United States Pharmacopeia (USP) (20), and the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST) (21). The work of these organizations is important, and I admire them for doing it. A problem I forsee is with so many organizations involved a number of different standard methods may be developed. From draft methods I have seen I find differences in proposed methods between these groups. We really need one agreed upon analytical method, or some kind of oversight to harmonize these methods with each other. The FDA can do that for us.

What Level of Regulation is Needed: Medicine or Dietary Supplement?

There are two levels of FDA regulation that cannabis products could be placed under—medicines or dietary supplements. Both types of regulation are stringent, but medicines must jump over a higher regulatory bar than dietary supplements to get to market. So, which of these levels of regulation are appropriate for the cannabis industry?

For decades, a large part of the justification for cannabis legalization is that it is medicine. I believe a reason the general public who are not recreational cannabis users have bought into cannabis legalization is that we believe it is medicine and that people should have access to the medicinal benefits of cannabis. If we are going to claim cannabis is a medicine we must be consistent and ask that it be regulated like medicine.

There are people in this industry trying to push for cannabis to be regulated as a dietary supplement. From an economic point of view that makes sense, it will be cheaper and easier to abide by dietary supplement regulations than medicinal ones. However, the main argument for cannabis legalization was that it is a medicine. We cannot now argue that cannabis is not a medicine, but a dietary supplement. If the general public is to believe we are a legitimate industry, we must give them a clear message as to why cannabis should be legal. Going back on what we said to gain legalization will not help our cause.

It is in everyone’s best interest to maintain as positive a public image as possible for the cannabis industry. The problems I have discussed above all damage our industry's reputation, resulting in lost sales and roadblocks to further legalization. The American public will not get behind us unless we can convince them that we can, as an industry, provide them with safe and effective medicines on a consistent basis. The current regulatory regime is clearly not giving us this outcome. FDA regulation will help the cannabis industry do a better job of making medicines and improve our public image, which will lead to a growing and prospering industry. FDA regulation is the right and profitable thing to do.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/fda-regulation-cannabis-and-cannabis-derived-products-including-cannabidiol-cbd

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Food,_Drug,_and_Cosmetic_Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-drug-comprised-active-ingredient-derived-marijuana-treat-rare-severe-forms

115th United States Congress, Senate Bill S.2667,” Hemp Farming Act of 2018.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/10/31/2019-23749/establishment-of-a-domestic-hemp-production-program

https://www.businessinsider.com/legal-marijuana-states-2018-1

https://hempindustrydaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/CBD-Marketplace-Sampling_RTC_FY20_Final.pdf

M.O. Bonn-Miller, M.J.E. Loflin, B.F. Thomas, J.P. Marcu, T. Hyke, and R. Vandrey, 

Journal of the American Medical Association

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey,_Cheatem_%26_Howe

https://www.aoac.org/scientific-solutions/casp/

https://www.usp.org/sites/default/files/usp/document/about/public-policy/2019-07-05-comment-from-usp-cannabis.pdf

https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/nist-tools-cannabis-laboratory-quality-assurance

, 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 lab 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.

What does FDA oversight mean for cannabis businesses and the industry as a whole?

The FDA is Coming…Will the Cannabis Industry Be Ready? Part I

Cultivating and drying cannabis involves maintaining target environmental conditions for optimal plant health and product quality, but growers using diverse heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and dehumidification (HVACD) systems experience different challenges with achieving and keeping spaces within target ranges. Infrastructure used to control these HVACD systems (HVACD controls) can vary in level of sophistication, which can affect plant growth and yield during cultivation, and flower aroma and appearance while product is drying and curing. Understand how building construction, HVACD equipment, and controls setpoints can affect your crop and operating expenses and learn tips about monitoring environmental conditions to further improve yields.

Maintaining target environmental conditions while you cultivate, dry, and cure cannabis is critical to ensuring optimal plant health and product quality. As cannabis grows, transpiration and yield can be maximized using heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and dehumidification (HVACD) equipment to control temperature and humidity. Likewise, as cannabis is dried and cured, to speed up the process while preserving terpene and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content, aroma, and appearance, you can maintain target conditions using diverse types of HVACD equipment.

You can use simple and sophisticated HVACD systems with varying levels of success. In this column, we explore your options for equipment and controls, how selection of temperature and humidity targets can affect your crop and operating expenses, and how monitoring environmental conditions can further improve yields.

To discuss the characteristics of HVACD systems, it is useful to understand the key terms related to heating, cooling, air conditioning, and dehumidification in cultivation facilities, their units of measurement and how they are used, why the terms are important to consider as a cultivator, and how the terms may be commonly misunderstood or misapplied.

As a non-profit advocacy organization, Resource Innovation Institute (RII) cultivates resource efficiency for a better agricultural future, and part of their mission includes providing objective, brand-agnostic education to the cannabis industry. In 2019, after a collaborative process involving 25 expert contributors and 29 peer reviewers, RII published two 

HVAC for Cannabis Cultivation and Controlled Environment Agriculture

 (1). Download the free guide to learn standardized terms and definitions for HVACD systems; assembling effective project teams; how to review manufacturers’ literature; crucial considerations when selecting equipment; and how to install and operate successful HVACD solutions in alignment with business models. RII's goal is to empower cultivators to achieve greater operational efficiencies in their cannabis business.

There are many ways to manage the heat and moisture you want to remove from your growing, drying, and curing spaces of your greenhouse or indoor cultivation facility. The capability of your HVACD equipment to meet and maintain your target environmental conditions will vary depending on the building in which you grow, dry, and cure, the HVACD systems you choose, and the way you control them.

HVACD Controls Approaches for Cultivation

Greenhouses and indoor facilities involve different kinds of building construction. 

—the intrusion of outdoor air inside buildings—is higher in ventilated greenhouses and lower in sealed greenhouses and indoor cannabis cultivation operations. Higher infiltration makes most greenhouses more sensitive to outdoor temperatures and humidity levels. Differences in building construction lead to different HVACD equipment being used in the two major types of cannabis cultivation approaches.

Cultivators experience different challenges with achieving and keeping spaces within target ranges when using different HVACD systems to maintain environmental conditions during cultivation and drying processes. Infrastructure used to control these HVACD systems can vary in level of sophistication, which can affect plant growth and yield during cultivation, and flower aroma and appearance while product is drying and curing.

HVACD Equipment and Controls in Ventilated Greenhouses

In greenhouses with high levels of infiltration, HVACD equipment for controlling temperature and humidity can be simple. In colder climates, greenhouses use mostly fuel-based hydronic (water-based) or convective (air-based) heating systems (2). To cool greenhouses, end wall ventilation fans and roof vents can be operated in stages, and you might have evaporative cooling wall systems installed on the opposite wall of ventilation fans for more cooling capacity. Dehumidification equipment is not commonly employed, and you might use ventilation equipment or roof vents to reduce humidity.

In many ventilated greenhouses, ventilation and cooling systems are operated manually. You can use automation systems to monitor environmental conditions and operate fans, roof vents, and cooling equipment in stages to improve plant health and avoid crop loss. Without more advanced HVACD controls systems, ventilated greenhouses struggle to achieve target environmental conditions (3).

HVACD Equipment and Controls in Indoor Facilities and Sealed Greenhouses

In indoor cultivation spaces and high-performance greenhouses with low levels of infiltration, you have a greater capability of controlling temperature and humidity with more complex and sophisticated HVACD equipment.

Indoor operations can use split direct expansion systems, electric and gas-fired chillers, geothermal systems, standalone portable dehumidifiers, de-coupled centralized desiccant systems, and integrated HVAC and dehumidification systems. You may choose to control humidity separately from temperature, or can manage both simultaneously for zones of grow rooms or your entire building using an integrated HVACD system.

HVACD systems for indoor cannabis cultivation are often controlled with automation systems that are more capable of balancing and meeting loads of your spaces and can offer a higher degree of environmental control than the simpler equipment used in greenhouses. Since your building is less sensitive to ambient temperature and humidity levels, your HVACD equipment is also more capable of achieving target environmental conditions.

Cannabis can be dried in several kinds of buildings, including barns, greenhouses, and indoor facilities. Infiltration is higher in barns and greenhouses, and lower in indoor cannabis drying operations. The common approaches to drying can be categorized in three process categories: ambient, heating, and dehumidification. Differences in building construction, final cannabis product, and desired drying time lead to different HVACD equipment being used in drying operations.

Ambient Equipment and Controls for Drying and Curing

In barns and greenhouses with high levels of infiltration, you can hang your cannabis flower in a barn or lay it out on greenhouse benches to dry using the outdoor air. Fans for ventilation and circulation of air may be the only HVACD equipment you employ to move moisture out of your drying shed.

Ambient approaches to drying and curing are more sensitive to changes in outdoor conditions. Daily temperature and humidity fluctuations can impact drying time and product quality without thoughtful air circulation and ventilation to achieve and maintain target environmental conditions throughout the drying process.

Heating Equipment and Controls for Drying and Curing

You may choose to use heated air to dry your cannabis. Heated drying equipment like plenum or rotary driers can use a variety of fuel sources and be sized to fit your harvest. These systems can be packaged tobacco driers or custom-built on-site for cannabis drying.

These systems also can offer electronic environmental setpoints so you can choose higher drying temperatures for quicker drying times, or modulate to lower temperature setpoints to avoid damaging trichomes or affecting appearance.

Dehumidification Equipment and Controls for Drying and Curing

Indoor facilities with low levels of infiltration might use equipment with a refrigeration cycle, such as dehumidifiers or heat pumps, to remove moisture from drying rooms. These systems cool air to remove moisture and some heat pump systems can be reversed to heat or cool depending on the application.

Dehumidification systems can offer more sophisticated environmental control at lower temperatures than heated drying equipment that may be desired for craft cannabis curing processes.

Choosing and Monitoring Target Environmental Conditions

Greenhouses and indoor facilities pose different challenges to achieving target conditions due to differences in infiltration, HVACD equipment employed, and sophistication of HVACD controls.

How you use the types of HVACD systems serving your cannabis operation matters. Whether you grow or dry cannabis in a greenhouse or indoors, the targets you choose for environmental conditions in grow rooms and drying areas can affect your crop and operating expenses. Resource efficiency has a direct impact on your profit and only the best operators will survive in this competitive market (4).

When considering target environmental setpoints for temperature and humidity, think about how much energy you would like to use to produce your cannabis, and how quickly you would like to get things done. Choosing low temperature and humidity setpoints for cultivation can result in higher capital and operating costs as your HVACD equipment must be sized larger to handle your standard operating procedures and also uses more power and runs more often to meet your desired conditions. Similarly, choosing very high or very low temperatures to remove humidity from cannabis flower during drying and curing can also impact energy costs (5).

To make informed decisions, monitor environmental conditions in your existing cultivation and drying areas to determine your current operating procedure. Understanding how your rooms currently run will help you make adjustments to more energy-efficient setpoints. To track ranges of chosen setpoints and also measure yourself against your competition, consider benchmarking your energy consumption and cannabis production with a purpose-built tool for cultivation such as RII's Cannabis PowerScore (6) to evaluate how harvest count, flower yields, and production efficiency change over time as you tweak your environmental setpoints.

https://resourceinnovation.org/resources/#published-studies

https://assets.bouldercounty.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/EIOF-BC-Cultivation-Assessment-Summary-Report_Final-5_4_20.pdf

https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/article/the-carbon-emission-impacts-of-greenhouse-cultivation/

https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/article/energy-efficient-cultivation-cannabis-resource-innovation-institute/

http://magazine.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/article/june-2020/coy-approach-hvac-balancing-grow-environment-capex-opex-yield.aspx

, is the Technical Director of Resource Innovation Institute (RII) and manages the organization’s Technical Advisory Council. She is a professional engineer in California and Vermont, a home cultivator, and an energy efficiency expert. She authored the RII 

LED Lighting for Cannabis Cultivation and Controlled Environment Agriculture

Learn tips about monitoring environmental conditions to further improve yields.

HVACD Controls for Plant Health, Product Quality, and Energy Efficiency in Cultivation and Drying Processes

During times of the COVID-19 pandemic, many laboratories are continuing to operate. Cannabis laboratories which are still operating face the same issues of safety and protection as the rest of the world’s laboratories. In this column’s edition, we will take an in depth look at the most common personal protective equipment in laboratories as well as cleaning procedures that can be enhanced to increase the safety of the laboratory personnel.

Most laboratory personnel are familiar with common laboratory personal protective equipment (PPE), but there are some differences in equipment and use that one often takes for granted as correct. There are different uses for each type of PPE and different ratings for equipment such as masks, respirators, gloves, and so forth that are dependent on the function they are intended for in the laboratory. There are some specialized PPEs that are only used in specific settings, which tend to benefit the laboratory’s clean setting rather than the laboratory technician.

Safety glasses, googles, and face shields protect the eyes of the wearer from a variety of substances, projectiles, biological agents, and other ocular dangers. Every day, about 2000 workers sustain eye injuries on the job and more than half are because of improper or lack of eye protection (1). Eye safety standards are dictated by several organizations including Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and American National Standards Institute (ANSI). 

Safety glasses are one of the most common eye protectors in the laboratory. These glasses should fit properly and have side shields in laboratories where projectiles or splashing is possible. OSHA requires safety glasses provide protection from hazards for which they are designed and can be disinfected. There are different classes of safety glasses and goggles with different ratings depending on their purpose and level of protection. All safety eyewear must withstand various impact tests and are rated as either high impact or basic impact. 

Basic impact ratings are determined by a “drop ball” test where a 1-in. diameter steel ball is dropped from 50 ft. onto the lens. High impact ratings are performed by shooting a ¼-in. steel ball at the lens at a speed of 150 ft/s. These high impact glasses have a “+” marking imprinted with the manufacturer’s trademark on the glasses; where basic impact glasses lack the “+” marking. ANSI ratings designate “+” as impact rated glasses and the unmarked variety as nonimpact rated (Table I).

Safety glasses can have a variety of different colored lenses, shading, and coatings appropriate to their application. Shaded lenses can help protect eyesight from bright light exposure from activities such as soldering, welding, and ampule sealing. The primary composition of safety glasses are plastics, such as polycarbonate.

Safety glasses only protect the wearer from flying particles and small debris or splashing. In laboratories where there are possible exposures to chemical fumes, gases, vapors, large splashes, or biological hazards, more protection is needed in the form of goggles, face shields, or full face respirators. Goggles are the next level of eye protection in the laboratory. They provide more protection from chemical and physical exposure than laboratory safety glasses. There are three basic types of goggles: direct vented goggles, indirect vented goggles, and nonvented goggles (Figure 1).

The first type of goggles (direct vented) allows free flow of air through the goggles with openings in the vented areas that are smaller than 1.5 mm. This type of goggle does not fully protect against vapors, biologicals, or splashes in the laboratory.

Indirect goggles have covered vents so there is no direct straight passage of air or hazards from the outside of the goggle to the inside. This type of configuration limits exposure from liquid splashes, but not from fumes, gases, or airborne biological agents.

The final type of goggles is nonvented goggles that have no passage or vent through the goggle in which the wearer can be exposed to vapors, chemicals, and biological agents. These types of goggles may or may not be gas-proof depending on material and rating. The primary component materials for goggles are combinations of polymers such as polycarbonate, polyvinyl chloride, and so on.

Another type of eye and face protection is a face shield. Face shields have become a point of discussion and debate during the COVID-19 pandemic. A face shield is a physical barrier to protect people from hazards such as projectiles, molten metals, and many forms of chemicals and chemical reactions. Face shields are intended for use in conjunction with glasses or goggles. Face shields do not offer protection from airborne biological contaminants, airborne mists, vapors, or gases. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) does not recommend the use of face shields as a replacement for masks.

As in the case of safety glasses and goggles, most face shields are made from plastics. The material selected for the face shield and other face and eye protection equipment must be examined for its chemical and physical characteristics to determine if it is suitable for different laboratory uses. Protective face and eyewear also must be properly fitted to provide optimal protection. 

Respirator face masks and face shields cover different parts of the face but generally cover the mouth and nose. Face shields offer the least amount of respiratory protection since they are only physical barriers to splashes and respiratory expulsions directed at the face. Face masks offer some level of respiratory protection depending on the material, type, and specifications of the mask. 

In the current pandemic, many types of face masks have become commonplace to protect against respiratory spread of the virus, but recent studies by Fischer and colleagues have shown significant differences on disease transmission based on the material and type of face mask (3). The most efficient masks were fitted N95 masks (trap up to 95% of particles) and surgical masks in relative droplet count. The highest droplet counts were found when either not wearing a mask or wearing a bandana or neck gaiter type of face covering. Face masks can be a tool for the filtration of particles depending on their rating. Fitted face masks are very different from the surgical masks and cloth masks being seen in pictures during this outbreak. All of the world organizations warn that a generic face mask is not a substitute for a fitted and regulated face mask or respirator. The question comes up regarding the differences between these masks and respirators. The answer is the level of protection and intended use.

Cloth masks have been recommended by the CDC to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to others (4). Cloth masks and coverings are the most basic form of mask and are not considered to be personal protective equipment. These masks do not make a close seal to the face, are not fitted, and primarily are meant to protect others from the wearer of the covering. 

Surgical masks or medical masks are loose-fitting coverings for the mouth and nose. These types of masks are intended for medical workers and are often fluid resistant to prevent some fluid transmission coming to and from the wearer. Most surgical masks are not considered to be a form of respiratory protection by the CDC. Masks that are tested under ASTM standards can be classified by filtration efficiency, fluid resistance, differential pressure, and flammability. Level 1 masks offer the lowest amount of protection and level three masks offer the most protection (5) (Table II).

Fluid resistance measures the resistance of the mask to penetration by liquids at high velocities with level three masks having the most protection. Differential pressure or breathability determines airflow through the mask with level one having the most airflow but the least protection. Bacterial and particle filtration relate the percent filtration of bacteria and particles above designated sizes. The flame spread or flammability exposes masks to a flame and measures time of spread. Class one materials means normal flammability and can be used as clothing.

Cloth masks, in general, do not provide the wearer with the highest level of protection but do help contain respiratory droplets. These masks are not true forms of PPE like respirators or other methods of face protection. Surgical or medical masks can offer some protection depending on their type and fit. The more efficient face protections are the fitted masks and respirators. 

Respirators filter particles, chemicals, and fumes depending on their specification using filtration chemicals or materials (Table III). Respirators are meant to protect the wearer from these agents and must be properly fitted and tested by a professional to ensure good seal and appropriateness for use. Respirators can either be designated as single use or as reusable depending upon material and filtration.

In the chemical laboratory, the most commonly used respirators are either air-purifying respirators for particles, gases, or a combination of laboratory hazards. These respirators can have different levels of coverage from full face to filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) and are rated by OSHA for an Assigned Protection Factor (APF). The APF of a facepiece gives the user the reduction of exposure expected with proper use and fit. An APF of 10 means the user’s exposure is reduced by 10% or 1/10th the exposure with proper use (6) (Figure 2).

Full facepiece respirators are a reusable respirator that employs cartridges, canisters, or filters and cover the entire face. The facepiece is made from a moldable material such as silicone or rubber that creates a seal with the face and must be fitted within a safety testing program. The full facepiece has a full clear plastic lens for eye protection. This respirator covers the face from the hairline to under the chin. The APF for a properly fitted full facepiece is about 50. 

A half facepiece respirator is similar to full facepiece respirators but lack the eye protection. These respirators lack the clear lens to protect the eyes and stop at covering the nose and mouth. These respirators can have the same types of filters and canisters found in full facepieces and the APF for most of these types of fitted devices is 10. 

Filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) remove particles from the inhaled airstream or path of the wearer and can include what we commonly refer to as N95 masks. OSHA defines FFR as a negative pressure particulate respirator that has an integrated filter as all or part of the facepiece (7). The letter designation of masks or respirators refers to whether the item is non-resistant (N), somewhat resistant (R ), or strongly resistant to oil (P). The number component determines the amount of particles filtered by the apparatus. An N95 respirator mask is not resistant to oil and filters at least 95% of the airborne particles. A P100 mask is strongly oil resistant and filters almost 100% (99.97%) of particles. FFRs form a seal around the user’s face and cover the mouth and nose, some are equipped with values. Often, N95 and other FFRs are disposable but there are some forms that can be cleaned and reused according to the manufacturer’s directions.

All respirators for proper use and protection must be fitted and undergo some form of fit testing to prove there is an air-tight seal before the masks or respirators are used. Most fit testing is completed prior to the first use of the mask, or when there is a change in type or model of respirator, a physical change to the person wearing the device, or on an annual basis. 

Fit testing can be qualitative or quantitative. Qualitative fit testing relies on the senses of the wearer to subjectively report taste, scent, and irritation to four test agents: banana oil, saccharin solution, a bitter solution, and irritant smoke (8). A quantitative fit test uses the same solutions but asses fit to a numerical response to measure penetration into the respirator. For more information, refer to CDC, OSHA, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) guidelines and instructions on selection and use of respirators and masks.

Protecting the Body: Gloves and Laboratory Coats

While respirators can be important tools for some laboratories and face masks are now part of daily life, it is more common that chemists and other laboratory scientists use basic PPE such as gloves and lab coats in addition to the goggles and safety glasses. All of these PPE items are needed for chemical protection but can also be used for protection against biological agents. As with face protection, there are different classes of body coverings that are dependent upon use.

Gloves as well can be made from a variety of materials which is important to understand since each type of glove has its own strengths and weaknesses. Many gloves are subject to issues of chemical or biological resistance, meaning not all materials are resistant to all agents and therefore offer limited protection. The factors in selecting disposable laboratory gloves are permeation, degradation, and size. 

Often laboratory employees don’t consider the size of a glove to be a factor in their effectiveness or the ability to work. Gloves that are too small can cause the material to be stretched too thin and become more permeable and subject to punctures. Small gloves can attribute to hand fatigue and irritation from pressure or rub points. Gloves that are too large can hinder movement and dexterity, which can cause accidents. Large gloves can slip off during use and if there is a rip or tear it may not be noticed because of the extra glove material. 

Gloves should be measured using the dominant hand by wrapping a tape measure to encircle the width of the hand or using a measurement from the wrist to the top of the middle finger. The measurement can then be converted into standard glove sizes or lettered glove sizes depending on the manufacturer (9). Medium gloves are meant for approximately a hand width of 8–9-in. with the subsequent sizes measuring up or down in about 1-in. increments. Medium gloves can accommodate a length of about 7 3/16-in. Please consult your glove manufacturer for proper fitting.

In addition to glove size, the chemical compatibility of laboratory gloves needs to be examined to ensure proper protection. Some gloves and other protective clothing, tested by ASTM or ANSI methods can be given a rating for chemical degradation and permeation. Degradation testing measures the effect of a chemical on the glove material as a percent weight change of the material. A percentage change of more than 30–40% in most cases is considered to be poor or not recommended for use with that chemical (10). Permeation resistance testing measures the rate chemicals can pass through the glove material in units of time to breakthrough or permeation rate (11) (Table IV).

In a tragically famous case of chemical exposure through gloves, a professor at Dartmouth College, Karen Wetterhahn, was preparing a dimethylmercury standard in a fume hood when one or two drops of the solution inadvertently spilled onto her latex gloves. She was working in a fume hood and wearing PPE, so she finished her preparation then removed the gloves and washed her hands. Several months later she was diagnosed with dimethylmercury poisoning. It is believed that the mercury solution permeated her latex gloves in less than 15 s. In less than a year after her exposure, Professor Wetterhahn died from her exposure.

Most disposable gloves common to chemical laboratories have lower resistance, higher permeation rates, and are faster to degrade than reusable gloves. Disposable gloves are only meant for incidental contact rather than prolonged exposure. These types of gloves should be disposed of immediately upon contact with a chemical or agent and replaced with new gloves after washing the hands. Intentional or prolonged contact with chemicals requires sturdier gloves made of durable materials with sufficient thickness to stop or delay permeation and degradation. 

The safety data sheets accompanying chemicals contain all the information regarding the safety and compatibility of those chemicals. The health and safety sections will often list conditions of use and safety precautions such as PPE required, glove materials suggested along with thickness of gloves and other materials. These data sheets also carry information on safe handling and disposal, which should be followed when disposing of PPE that may have been contaminated with that material.

The choice of the proper PPE is not the only factor in protection for the wearer. The matter in which PPE is put on and removed after use is important. Gloves, as was stated previously, should be of a compatible material for the purpose and must fit snugly but not so tight that they stretch and become compromised more quickly during use. Gloves should also not gap at the fingers.
After gloves are contaminated they can be removed by pulling one glove off with the still gloved hand and then using the inside portion of the glove to remove the second glove folding them into each other so the glove disposal packet has the contaminated or exposed areas contained inside
the packet.

Laboratory coats should fit properly and button. The cuffs should not hang down into the work area nor should the cuffs be too short to not cover the tops of the gloves when worn. Pockets should not contain items that cannot be exposed to contamination or infection. Laboratory coats should be changed frequently. The removal of the laboratory coat is similar to the gloves where the sleeves are removed inside out and the outside is folded inside to contain the contaminated area. The material of the laboratory coat or aprons should have the same chemical compatibility and resistance factors as other PPE in use. 

Many PPE items in the laboratory are disposable such as some gloves, face shields, and masks. Other items such as respirators, glasses, reusable gloves, and laboratory coats will need maintenance and cleaning. The first step in any cleaning is to check the manufacturers packaging, literature, and website for cleaning and compatibility instructions.

Many cleaning procedures detail some application of a cleaning product that will remove debris and contamination, but not damage the materials of the PPE. For example, if a respirator is being cleaned with an aggressive solvent such as acetone, it might melt or deform the plastic material and make the PPE unfit for use. 

Cloth items such as aprons and laboratory coats should only be cleaned by professionals using the correct handling procedures. Laboratory coats and other labware should never be placed in home or residential washers and dryers where they could cause more contamination, infection, or damage to people and equipment. Laboratory coats should be cleaned before significant stains and spills are visible. 

The first step to safety in a laboratory is cleaning and organization. To disinfect a laboratory properly against biological contamination it first must be generally clean. Dust and dirt attract and collect particles and chemicals. A thorough cleaning procedure must account for all areas from the ceiling to the floor to remove dirt and debris. Filters must be changed in hoods and environmental control systems. Trash must be removed and clutter discarded. After general cleaning, the process of disinfection can then occur. There are many chemical agents that can be used to disinfect a laboratory for viruses.

There are many commercial products for all types of settings. Most of these products have familiar active chemical agents such as alcohols, acids, chlorides, and so forth. The mode of action for these products is usually one of the three processes: dehydration of the biological agent or inactivation of chemical agent, disruption of cellular structures or chemical processes, or denaturing proteins and genetic materials.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published an extensive list of all of the commercial products for use in cleaning against viruses and COVID-19 on their website (13) (Table V). Commonly used laboratory solvents call be used for cleaning and disinfection including: ethanol, sodium hypochlorite, and more (Table VI) (14,15).

The common theme for all of these products, whether they are commercial products or laboratory produced disinfectants, is dwell time or contact time. 

 is the amount of time needed for the active agent to be in contact with a surface to be effective. There are very few instantaneously effective products and in most cases the solution needs to be applied for up to 10 min before wiping or washing the surface clean to ensure proper disinfection.

It is important to remember in the use of cleaners and cleaning agents that they are still chemicals capable of contaminating daily processes and operations. Alcohols and other solvents are common laboratory materials and may contaminate sensitive areas that may be used to measure volatile organics. These compounds can also kill microbiological experiments if not properly vented from the laboratory workspace. Chlorine compounds and acids can cause oxidation and contaminate experiments, metal components of instruments and equipment. Additional actions may be needed to ensure normal laboratory processes are not contaminated by the updated cleaning procedures.

Before cleaning and disinfecting an area, all porous materials such as paper, paper towels, and so on should be removed from the areas to be cleaned so as not to absorb chemicals. Select cleaning agents appropriate for the area to be cleaned with thought in mind as to the type of work that occurs in these areas and how that work will be affected by these agents. If possible, airflow and hood flow should be increased to drive fumes away from work areas. Chemical odor traps can be used to absorb volatile chemical fumes. Hoods and sensitive areas should be decommissioned during cleaning and allow several hours for fumes to dissipate.

Multiple spot cleanings should be scheduled during a shift with a plan for more extensive cleaning on a periodic basis. Deep cleaning plans and services should be outlined in a cleaning plan upon an exposure within the laboratory. Personal cleaning and hygiene plans as well as expectations should be discussed or notices posted to remind everyone to keep a cleaning plan in use.

Common laboratory procedures and practices are designed keep scientists safe from chemical and biological exposures. Now, at this time of heightened awareness it is appropriate to examine those practices and the personal protective equipment used in our laboratories to ensure that the tools meet the tasks. The everyday gloves we use in the laboratory are not one type or one size fits all purposes. Read the documentation for the PPE you are using and determine if it will protect you not only from the threat of biological exposure, but from the everyday solvents and acids that are part of your workflow. During this health crisis, use the opportunity to educate and improve upon the safety and cleanliness in the laboratory.

“Eye Safety | NIOSH | CDC.” 2020. May 18, 2020. 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/eye/default.html

“ANSI/ISEA Z87.1-2020: Current Standard for Safety Glasses - ANSI Blog.” 2020. 

https://blog.ansi.org/2020/04/ansi-isea-z87-1-2020-safety-glasses-eye-face/

E.P. Fischer, M.C. Fischer, D. Grass, I. Henrion, W.S. Warren, and E. Westman, 

CDC. 2020. “Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. February 11, 2020. 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html

F23 Committee. “Specification for Performance of Materials Used in Medical Face Masks.” ASTM International. Accessed August 12, 2020a. 

“A Guide to Air-Purifying Respirators” Accessed August 11, 2020. 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2018-176/pdfs/2018-176.pdf?id=10.26616/NIOSHPUB2018176

“Numerous Questions on Filtering Facepiece/Dusk Mask Respirators. | Occupational Safety and Health Administration.” n.d. Accessed August 12, 2020. 

https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2011-11-22-0

“Qualitative Fit Testing - Quick Tips #324 - Grainger Know How.” n.d. Accessed August 12, 2020. 

https://www.grainger.com/know-how/health/airborne-contaminants-noise-hazards/respiratory-protection/kh-qualitative-fit-testing-324-qt.html

“Safety Glove Size Chart - Grainger Know How.” n.d. Accessed August 12, 2020. 

https://www.grainger.com/know-how/safety/ppe-in-the-workplace/ppe-management/kh-safety-glove-size-chart-qt-306.html

"Gloves Selection Using ANSI-ISEA-105-2016 - Grainger Know How.” n.d. Accessed August 12, 2020. 

https://www.grainger.com/know-how/safety/ppe-in-the-workplace/hand-protection/kh-glove-selection-using-ansi-isea-105-2016-396-qt.html

“Test Method for Permeation of Liquids and Gases through Protective Clothing Materials under Conditions of Continuous Contact.” ASTM International. Accessed August 12, 2020b. 

“Safety Glove Chemical Compatibility Chart & Database from Cole-Parmer.” n.d. Accessed August 13, 2020. 

https://www.coleparmer.com/safety-glove-chemical-compatibility

List N: Disinfectants for Use Against SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) | Pesticide Registration | US EPA.” n.d. Accessed August 12, 2020. 

https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/list-n-disinfectants-use-against-sars-cov-2-covid-19

“Chemical Disinfectants | Disinfection & Sterilization Guidelines | Guidelines Library | Infection Control | CDC.” 2019. April 4, 2019. 

https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/disinfection/disinfection-methods/chemical.html

“Coronavirus-SARS-CoV-2-Guidance-Environmental-Cleaning-Non-Healthcare-Facilities.Pdf.” n.d. Accessed August 13, 2020. 

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/coronavirus-SARS-CoV-2-guidance-environmental-cleaning-non-healthcare-facilities.pdf

 is a Senior Applications Scientist with SPEX CertiPrep and a member of both the AOAC and ASTM committees for cannabis.

An in depth look at the most common PPE in laboratories and cleaning procedures that can be enhanced to increase safety.

Keeping Up-to-Date with Safety: A Look at PPE and Cleaning for Safety in the Laboratory

This second “Tech Innovations” column examines the state of the art in cannabis cultivation technology by first examining the history of cannabis growing operations—where it began, where it is going, and the forces behind its historic evolution. This column focuses on technology in use now, from setting up a grow to tracking each plant, and proposes new technology solutions that are either in place now or on the drawing board, all designed to both improve the grow efficiencies of cannabis and create more data analytics for better cannabis cultivation in the future.

The tech future of cannabis cultivation is already happening in some places around the country, borrowing from or even leading agricultural technology development already in use for growing other crops such as cut flowers.

Cannabis cultivation uses the same methods as other agricultural cultivation grow operations—either outdoor, greenhouse, or indoor—with important distinctions about what works best and why, all wrapped up in regulatory seed-to-sale reporting responsibilities on a new high dollar crop.

Growers have found that cannabis is more than just another agricultural plant. Yes, cannabis grows wild like a weed. But growing it commercially, and profitably, is about managing how this weed becomes a repeatable, valuable product that meets the expectations of a demanding consumer willing to pay for a quality agriculture product.

Today, as cannabis has been legalized in some form (medical, adult use, or both) across 33 states and the District of Columbia (1), with the likelihood of more to come, all three types of grow operations—outdoor, greenhouse, and indoor—continue to be used.

But there are, and will be, more states where cannabis grow operations don’t work outdoors because of winter and summer weather challenges.

Greenhouses may be the only choice for some states, but seasonal operational expenses associated with fluctuating weather and heating-venting-air conditioning (HVAC) demands could seriously affect earnings margins.

Other states joining the legalized cannabis grow community are compromised by smaller footprints of available land, as in built-out states such as New Jersey, leaving indoor farming (both updated hydroponic grows and new cultivation ideas such as vertical grows) as the only logical choice to make a profit off of a high-dollar crop like cannabis.

In Table I presented here, we showcase some of the new cultivation products that have been brought to market since 2019. Tables II-V are presented here in the online version of this column due to space considerations. These tables provide more details on each product that was submitted. 

 sent out a survey during the spring and summer of 2020 asking vendors to supply them with any cultivation products launched within the last year. Because information for this article is obtained sporadically over the course of many months, it is very possible that some information has been missed. The reader is encouraged to check with specific vendors for additional products as well as more-detailed information regarding what is covered here.

Location is critical for the outdoor grow because this type of cultivation operation faces many variables: weather, pest mitigation, irrigation challenges, and even challenges because of the atmosphere, as is the case in outdoor grows in and around mile-high Denver.

Year-round outdoor growing regions that are nearest to the equator—Jamaica, for instance—are better for larger sativa-dominant plants. Growers say it’s in these regions where the future of outdoor cannabis grows will naturally gravitate.

In the US, the outdoor cannabis grow has been the legacy grow operation for cannabis since the cultivation of cannabis began in earnest in the 1960s, mostly in California’s Emerald Triangle in Humboldt County. This area is still the largest producer of both black market and legal cannabis in the US today.

However, the Emerald Triangle grow area in northern California is not really an ideal setting, according to a recent study (2). Poor quality agricultural soil covers nearly 90% of the county. Cannabis requires water throughout its growing season, which takes place during Humboldt County’s dry season and can last up to 150 days. With the dry summers and falls in this area, irrigation of cannabis plants is needed on a nearly daily basis. It’s not the most commercially friendly method of growing cannabis, and not a leader in new uses of grow technology.

“If I am running a cannabis grow, I am running a business for profit,” said Jim Eaves, an agricultural economist at Universite Laval in Quebec City, Quebec Canada. “The real sun might have wonderful things it is providing. But if the market can’t perceive those things so that I can be compensated for the higher cost and higher risk of growing under the sun, that I have to incur for growing outside, then it’s not worth it.”

Brett Strauss, president and cofounder of FolioGrow, makers of a cloud-based horticulture productivity platform, explained that outdoor grows don’t embrace technology as much because the number of steps you have to take during the grow cycle is pretty slow. “But when you compress that down to two or three months like you do with indoor growing, all of a sudden all of the tasks become rapid fire,” he said. “If you have a plant that grows and harvests in 90 days and one that grows and harvests in 85 days, that’s five days that are valuable to me. That is five days of such things as rent, electricity, marketing. You have THC levels, speed to harvest, how well it is selling, what is my yield—all of these moving parts are going on. When you collect all of that data and you can look at it, you can make better decisions on what you should be doing.”

There are large cannabis greenhouse operations in both Canada and the US—such as the massive 40-acre Copper State Farms in Snowflake, Arizona (3); the Glass House Farms 505,000-square foot greenhouse in Carpinteria Valley near Los Angeles, California (4); or the Aphria Inc. greenhouse, which is 2.4 million square feet of cultivation space in Leamington, Ontario, Canada (5).

All offer the controls needed to get repeatable plant grows. But all come with their own set of drawbacks.

“The first instinct after cannabis was legalized was to take advantage of the free electricity of the sun,” said Eaves. “But the mistake of that is that the sun’s electricity is not free. You have to have a glass building and that’s not cheap. It’s not insulated. And now to allow that sun in, I have to have all this equipment to try to control my environment in a space where there is very little protection from heat.”

“You see growers struggling with the fact that now the cloud comes over, and the humidity spikes, and then the cloud goes away and its super dry and hot inside the greenhouse," said Eaves. "They are constantly fighting against radiation.”

Greenhouse glass is expensive. Controlling the sun and the indoor HVAC environment of a greenhouse is challenging. Meeting the environmental requirements about power and water usage can put a strain on the bottom line.

The greenhouse operator also has to find a way to mitigate the smell of the cannabis growing there, in accordance with local ordinances.

But there have been inventions for the greenhouse operation to help reduce costs. For example, greenhouses can be fitted or retrofitted with retractable energy-saving shade curtains, which can be used to adjust the heat inside the greenhouse; and boiler units using biomass for fuel to power heating units. Other ideas include installing hot water radiant floors for more controllable area and zone heating, further reducing overall heating costs.

When Colorado legalized adult use cannabis in 2014, there was a run on warehouse space in Denver and other jurisdictions in the state because most Colorado cities were required to have the grow and retail sales operations in the same building. Setting up grows in renovated industrial buildings wasn’t as straightforward as early growers had hoped. They began encountering issues with mold and HVAC access and use.

Growers who had come from outdoor grows, or worked in much smaller indoor grows, were now tasked with being environmental engineers and smart building designers while managing growing at scale—with sometimes disastrous consequences, such as losing an entire grow due to mold. The indoor concept evolved over time as hard lessons were learned.

Eaves said indoor farms immediately began disrupting the greenhouse models in cannabis cultivation. “The main value of growing indoors is that, when you are growing a lot of varieties, you have to create different environments. And that is just cheaper to do indoors than in a greenhouse,” he said.

There are only a few crops where the market demands more varieties than cannabis right now, and it is much easier to have a flexible manufacturing environment indoors explained Eaves. “Just the value of being able to respond to the customer rapidly and well, that alone will lead to indoor farms disrupting greenhouses in many parts of the world, for many different plants not just cannabis,” he said.

Indoor cannabis cultivation has essentially four big issues to deal with: lighting, HVAC, pest mitigation, and contamination such as mold or other pathogens that can come from either the building itself or the human working with the plants. All have come under more and more scrutiny and control as the industry evolves.

Early on, lights were the focus of getting a more efficient, better yield operation overall, and came with a set of pros and cons still being worked out today. Cannabis cultivation lighting has come down to a discussion of high pressure sodium (HPS), the early preferred light for cannabis for indoor grows, versus light emitting diodes (LED). But HPS lights generate too much heat, and tend to spread light too widely within a grow. LEDs are initially more expensive, but they operate cooler, use less electricity, and are more directable.

Eaves wrote in a white paper (6) that cannabis growers can buy a general-purpose, broad-spectrum LED (for example, a flood light used for lighting streets or warehouses) or they can buy an LED light with a spectrum that has been “tuned” specifically for horticulture applications.

From setting up a grow to tracking each plant, a look at new cultivation technology solutions designed to both improve  efficiencies and create more data analytics.

Featured Content

Invasion of the Drones: How They Help Cannabis Growers Improve Crop Quality, Lower Costs, & More