Articles

Digital Edition

View our interactive January/February 2024 digital edition.

Cannabis Science and Technology January/February 2024 Interactive Digital Edition

In this, the second installment of the calibration science series, we will introduce a second type of error besides random error, called systematic error. We will see how accuracy measures both types of error, discuss how to quantitate error by measuring signal-to-noise ratios, and how to improve data quality despite the presence of error by averaging observations together.

In the first installment of this series, (1) we covered precision and accuracy and the fact that that they are different. We also covered some of this ground early on in the history of the cannabis analysis columns (2) but will go into more detail here. The concepts of precision and accuracy are illustrated in 

The bullseye in Figure 1 represents the true value of the quantity being measured, and the seven data points are repeat measurements of the same quantity.

 is a measure of the spread in a series of measurements of the same quantity. 

 is a measure of how far you are off from the true value. The leftmost target in Figure 1 shows data that are imprecise because it is scattered all over the place. This scatter in the data is called by many names including dispersion and variance. These data are inaccurate because the data points are on average far away from the true value. The middle target in Figure 1 shows data that is precise but inaccurate. The data are precise because the seven measurements are all clustered close together. However, the data are inaccurate because they are centered far from the bullseye. This target is key to understanding that precision and accuracy are different things. The rightmost target in Figure 1 shows data that is precise and accurate because the data are tightly clustered together and are centered on the bullseye.

Another concept introduced previously is that of random error. Random error is caused by variables in the universe that we do not always have control over, a list of which was given last time (1).

The second type of error that can be present in data is 

 Systematic error means that a measurement is always off by the same amount in the same direction from the true value. Systematic error is also known as 

. A classic example of systematic error is when you forget to reset your clock when Daylight Savings time happens in the Spring (remember “spring ahead, fall back”). If you forget to reset your clock it will always be an hour behind the rest of the country, always off by the same amount, and it will always be off in the same direction, always an hour slow. The beauty of systematic error is that it is easy to spot and correct. In the case of our clock, the systematic error can be eliminated by simply setting the clock forward an hour. In other types of data, if you know there is bias, for example, all the potency measurements from your chromatograph are high by 1% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the solution is simply to subtract 1% from all the THC measurements made with this instrument.

The sign of random noise is random, that is, its sign varies between being positive and negative randomly over time. Therefore, we quote the error in a measurement as ± whatever the error is. For example, the magnitude and error in the chromatographic determination of the THC level in a cannabis bud may be 20 ±0.1 wt. %. The ±0.1 is also called the 

, a term you might have heard in reference to opinion polls. The margin of error is often times quoted as half the total error because the spread in measured values can equally likely be above or below the true value. All measurements and margins of error should be quoted with the correct number of significant figures, a topic we have covered previously (3).

Another measure of data quality other than precision and accuracy is the


ratio or SNR for short. The SNR is the ratio of the magnitude of the thing being measured to the error in the measurement as seen in 

The signal in this case could be, for example, the peak height or area of a chromatographic or spectroscopic peak. This is illustrated by the infrared spectra of a polystyrene sample seen in 

The top spectrum in green has an SNR of 27. Note that the peaks are easy to see here. The middle spectrum in brown has an SNR of 4. The random, jagged up and down stuff you see is noise; pretty ugly, isn’t it? In this case, the polystyrene peaks are discernible but just barely above the noise level. The bottom spectrum in red has an SNR of 1.2. In this situation, the peaks and the noise are about the same magnitude, and it is next to impossible to see the polystyrene peaks.

In general, a peak in a spectrum or chromatogram is considered real if it has an SNR of >= 3, but this is the bare minimum. Spectrometers and chromatographs are capable of SNRs of 100 or greater, and data of this high quality should always be your goal. SNR values can also be used in the calculation of limits of quantitation and detection, which we will discuss in a future column.

Now that we have discussed the many sources of random noise, the real question is how to reduce it. Of course, use of well-calibrated instruments and careful experimentation are one way to reduce noise. However, there will always be noise in your measurements. What do we do then? We take advantage of the fact that the sign of random noise is random as illustrated in 

Seen are two raw signals from the detector on an infrared spectrometer. These are called interferograms, and these two scans were measured on a Fourier transform infrared spectrometer (FTIR) (4) one right after the other. These signals could just easily be from the detector on a chromatograph—the principles here are all the same. Note that in the two interferograms the signal is the same, a value of 9 V, which means the instrument and sample are stable, always a good thing. However, note that in the first scan the noise level is 0.25 and in the second scan it is -0.15. When we average the two scans, we obtain the result seen in


Note that the average noise, 0.05, is less than the absolute value of either of the individual noise measurements, namely 0.25 and 0.15. Averaging observations works because when the positive and negative going noise points are added together, they have a tendency to cancel each other.

The key then to reducing random noise is to 

 In FTIR this is done by averaging scans; for measuring potency or pesticide levels in cannabis samples this means analyzing multiple aliquots of the same sample and averaging them together. As it turns out, SNR and the number of observations averaged together are proportional to each other as given by 

where SNR is the Signal-to-Noise Ratio and N is the number of observations averaged together.

Note then that SNR improves with the square root of the number of observations averaged together. This is illustrated in 

The top spectrum in Figure 4 shows the noise in a spectrum measured with an FTIR using one scan. The random, jagged, up and down ugliness that is noise, is clearly seen. The bottom spectrum in Figure 4 shows the noise level measured on the same instrument under the same conditions except that 100 scans were averaged together. The two spectra in Figure 4 were plotted using the same 

-axis limits and so can be compared to each other. Note that the amount of noise is significantly reduced in the bottom spectrum. Using Equation 3, we would expect the bottom spectrum to have (100)

 or 10 times less noise than the top spectrum. I confirmed this by measuring the noise levels in the two spectra. Yes, averaging measurements really reduces random noise.

I realize that for things like pesticide and potency measurements on cannabis samples, obtaining 100 analyses of the same sample and averaging is nigh impossible. However, even averaging 3 measurements helps. For example, let’s say the THC level in a cannabis bud is measured as 20±2%. If we averaged 3 measurements of the THC levels in this sample, we would expect the noise level to be reduced by (3)

 or a factor of 1.73. The margin of error then for the average THC value would be (2/1.73) = 1.2, which we would write as 20±1.2%. We have almost halved the error in the THC measurement by simply analyzing 3 aliquots instead of one. I strongly recommend that cannabis labs run their samples in duplicate or triplicate and average the results to reduce the amount of error in their measurements.

Systematic error, or bias, is when a measurement is always off from the true value by the same amount in the same direction. Unlike random error which cannot be completely corrected, systematic error can be eliminated by adding or subtracting the known bias from each measurement.

The SNR is a measure of data quality and is simply the size of a measurement divided by the noise in that measurement. Naturally, SNR is something we want to maximize. This can be done by averaging observations together to reduce the random noise. We saw that the SNR improvement goes as the square root of the number of measurements added together.

Smith, B., Calibration Science, Part I: Precision, Accuracy, and Random Error, 

Smith, B., Error, Accuracy, and Precision, 

Smith, B., Significant Figures and Margin of Error-Or Why the Fourth Decimal Place in Your Potency Reading is Probably Meaningless, 

Smith, B., Fundamentals of Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy, 

, PhD, 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.
Direct correspondence to: 

Smith, B., Calibration Science, Part II: Systematic Error, Signal-to-Noise Ratios, and How to Reduce Random Error, 

Cannabis Analysis 

Here, we will introduce systematic error, discuss how to measure signal-to-noise ratios, and more.

Calibration Science, Part II:  Systematic Error, Signal-to-Noise Ratios, and How to Reduce Random Error

This column shares the latest findings from academic researchers exploring the impacts of emerging technology on hemp grown for cannabidiol (CBD).

Limited experiments have analyzed the responses of hemp (yield and CBD content) to daily light integral (DLI) and light quality. Three autoflowering hemp cultivars were grown in a greenhouse under four DLI treatments to determine response (flower yield and CBD content) to light. A follow-up experiment explored photoperiodic hemp response to greenhouse supplemental light spectrum (90:10 red:blue; 60:40 red:blue; white Light Emitting Diode [LED]; and High-Pressure Sodium [HPS]) on flower yield and content of CBD and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).

Cornell researchers in Dr. Neil Mattson’s laboratory have performed several experiments with cannabinoid hemp that have uncovered insights useful to cannabis growers. Their work has been funded by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) (1) and managed by the Greenhouse Lighting and Systems Engineering (GLASE) consortium (2). This article describes the results of two 2021 experiments.

Impact of DLI on Hemp Yield and CBD Content

Cannabis sativa for either THC or CBD is considered a high light requiring crop despite little information available in the scientific literature.

Traditionally, it is recommended to provide 30-40 mol·m

 daily light integral (DLI) making this a higher light requiring crop than tomatoes or other fruiting crops. Some information is available in the literature for photoperiodic (such as how short days induce flowering) cannabis. For example, Rodriguez-Morrison, et al. (2021) reported linear increases in flower dry yield as the DLI increased from 8.6 to 77.8 mol·m

. Across this broad DLI range a 0.5% increase in yield was reported for every 1% increase in DLI. Amazingly, cannabis responded positively to more light than is provided by the sun on a sunny day in the middle of summer (maximum possible DLI of 65 mol·m

). As opposed to typically grown photoperiodic cannabis, autoflowering cannabis cultivars are seed-propagated and do not require short days to flower (photoperiod insensitive). No information is available in the scientific literature on the response of autoflowering cannabis to DLI.

The objective of this experiment was to determine the flower yield and cannabinoid (CBD and THC) response of three autoflowering hemp cultivars to DLI in greenhouse production.

The experiment used Cornell’s Light and Shade System Implementation (LASSI) lighting control algorithm (3) in four adjacent glass greenhouses at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York to grow three autoflowering hemp cultivars under DLI treatments of 15, 20, 25, and 30 mol·m

). Seeds of autoflowering cultivars AutoCBD (supplier, Phylos), Maverick (supplier, Kayagene) and Pipeline (supplier, Kayagene) were germinated in moist paper towels on July 18, 2021. Two days later on July 20, seeds of each cultivar were planted in two-gallon containers with a peat-perlite substrate (Lambert LM-111) and placed into one of four greenhouse sections. A quantum sensor placed in the center of each greenhouse measured light intensity and was used by LASSI to make supplemental lighting and shade decisions to reach the greenhouse DLI targets. The experiment was arranged as a randomized complete block design with plants arranged in six blocks (each with one plant of each cultivar), in each of the four greenhouses. During the experimental period, plants were drip irrigated as needed with a fertilizer prepared from Jack’s 5-12-26 (JR Peters) and Calcium Nitrate 15.5-0-0 (Yara). Nutrient solution pH was maintained at 5.5–5.8 and electrical conductivity (EC) was maintained at 2.0 dS/m. Plants were harvested 84 days after seeding, air dried for 10 days, and flowers were separated from leaves and stems. Cannabinoid content of the apical meristem was analyzed using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC).

When cultivars were grouped together, optimum flower dry weight was reached at 20 mol·m

 and did not further increase at higher DLIs. Individual cultivar responses were not statistically significant but exhibited patterns of optimal DLI for yield at 20 mol·m

DLI did not significantly impact the percentage of CBD or THC. However, for both cannabinoids there was a pattern for Maverick that increasing DLI led to an increase in CBD/THC, for example, CBD increased from 7.5 to 10% as DLI increased from 15 to 30 mol·m

The Cornell researchers found that DLI responses of autoflowering CBD hemp are cultivar specific. Some cultivars (such as AutoCBD and Pipeline) appear to have lower DLI requirements than other cultivars (such as Maverick). In general, these autoflowering (non-photoperiodic) cultivars seem to have lower DLI requirements than photoperiodic hemp, though further research is required to study additional cultivars (especially directly comparing autoflowering to photoperiodic), as well as across a wider range of DLIs.

Impact of Greenhouse Supplemental Light Quality on Hemp Yield and CBD Content

Very little information is available in the scientific literature on the impact of greenhouse supplemental light quality on hemp yield or cannabinoid content. Anecdotal evidence suggests that higher blue light can be used to keep plants shorter (desirable in greenhouse environments), and that higher blue light may impact cannabinoid concentration (CBD or THC), but one recent paper found that increasing blue fraction of photons from 4 to 20%, did not impact plant height, decreased flower yield by 12%, and did not impact THC/CBD concentration (4). With CBD hemp, it is desirable to promote higher CBD accumulation; however, if the same treatment also causes THC concentration to be higher that may be undesirable if it passes the 0.3% threshold.

The objective of this experiment was to determine the impact of greenhouse supplemental light quality (including 90:10 red:blue LED, 60:40 red:blue LED, white LED, and HPS) on the plant morphology, flower yield, and content of CBD and THC for photoperiodic hemp cultivars. In addition, due to lights made available from a supplier we were able to include additional treatments: R:B LED with an added far-red peak and R:B LED with an added UV-A peak.

Stem tip cuttings of 10-16cm length of cultivars ‘TJ’s CBD’ and ‘T2’ were taken from mother plants for vegetative propagation. The cuttings were dipped in Clonex rooting hormone and placed into 3.8 x 3.8 cm rock wool cubes, and put into 1020 trays. Trays were then placed into a misting system that provided a 10-second misting of water every 15 min. The cuttings received an 18-hr photoperiod that consisted of natural daylight as well as supplemental HPS lighting to avoid early flowering. Cuttings of both cultivars were maintained under these conditions in the propagation house for three weeks. Upon successfully rooting the plants, they were first transplanted into 10 cm pots and subsequently into 11-liter (three-gallon pots) with LM-111 all-purpose potting mix (LM-111, Lambert Peat Moss, Rivière-Ouelle, Canada). After transplanting, the plants were moved to grow benches and provided with HPS lights at 250 µmol·m

 for vegetative growth for three weeks. During this stage, plants received an 18-hr photoperiod. Following the vegetative growth period, plants were moved under their respective lighting treatments and a 12-hr photoperiod was commenced to initiate flower induction (see 

). Watering took place on an as-needed basis with a 200 mg/L nitrogen fertilizer made with 15-5-15 Cal Mag Jack’s Professional LX Water-Soluble Fertilizer (JR Peters Inc., Allentown, Pennsylvania). Greenhouse temperatures were maintained with day/night temperatures of 25.5/16.5 °C. Supplemental lighting treatments were provided for 10 weeks at 200 µmol·m

 for 12-hr daily resulting in a supplemental DLI of 8.6 mol·m

The lighting treatments had an impact on mean dry flower weight for TJ’s CBD but not T2. The HPS and White LED treatments had greater mean dry flower weights than the 60:40, 90:10, Far-red and Ultraviolet A (UVA) treatments.

Lighting treatments showed an effect on TJ’s CBD cultivar but not the T2 cultivar. Within the TJ’s CBD cultivar, the white LED treatment had higher THC concentrations than 60:40, 90:10, Far-red and UVA treatments while the Far-red treatment also had lower THC concentrations than HPS.

White LED light treatment results are very promising for replacing less energy efficient HPS fixtures with white LEDs.

Please note that commercial producers should always evaluate new production practices at a small scale before widespread adoption as each operation’s cultivars and growing environment may differ substantially from an experimental setting.

Continue following the GLASE hemp research in the “Cultivation Classroom” column throughout this year. A future article will describe findings from research conducted in 2022 and 2023 that explored hemp responses to lighting and CO

GLASE would like to acknowledge the following Cornell University individuals who conducted the research: Nicholas Kaczmar and Paul Reum.

https://glase.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Technical-Reportissue5.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248988

, PE, is a Senior Energy Engineer at Energy Resources Integration (ERI), a clean energy consulting firm developing a sustainable future for our planet through cost-effective energy management. She leads emerging technologies studies exploring innovative solutions to save electricity and natural gas in commercial, industrial, and agricultural buildings. Gretchen is also the Executive Director of Cornell University’s Greenhouse Lighting and Systems Engineering (GLASE), an academic consortium pioneering climate-smart agricultural technology demonstrations and workforce development. She has worked with over 250 growers and researchers to optimize greenhouses and indoor farms through her emerging technology research, efficiency program implementation, and consultation with growers across North America. Gretchen is the former Technical Director of Resource Innovation Institute (RII). She is a licensed Civil Professional Engineer in California and Vermont.

Schimelpfenig, G., Cornell University Research on Hemp Responses to Light Treatments, Part 1, 

The Cultivation Classroom

This article provides insights on the latest findings from academic researchers exploring the impacts of emerging technology on hemp grown for cannabidiol (CBD).

Cornell University Research on Hemp Responses to Light Treatments, Part 1

The cannabis industry continues to demand high purity cannabis extracts at a low cost. The demand has forced innovation within extraction and refinement. Many manufacturers are seeking automation, consolidating systems and process steps, and scaled up equipment. This article seeks to understand the opportunities and challenges as manufacturers implement automation and scaling up production.

Cannabis extraction technology has undergone significant advancements in recent years, driven by the need for cost effective, efficient, and standardized production processes. The cannabis industry continues to demand high purity cannabis extracts at a low cost. The demand has forced innovation within extraction and refinement. Many manufacturers are implementing automation, scaling up equipment, and consolidating systems and process steps. This article explores the latest developments in cannabis extraction technology, with a focus on automation and scaled-up methods. This includes the key technological innovations, their benefits, and potential challenges in the quest for improved efficiency and product quality.

Automation in cannabis extraction is a critical aspect of modernizing the industry, offering several advantages in terms of efficiency, precision, and quality control. Automated solvent extraction systems have become prevalent in the cannabis industry, enabling precise control over extraction parameters. These systems utilize advanced robotics and computerized controls to optimize the extraction and enhance the efficiency and reproducibility. Below are several ways in which automation can be effectively utilized in cannabis extraction:

: Automated systems can precisely control the introduction and recovery of solvents in the extraction process. This ensures accurate and consistent ratios of solvent and solute.

: Automation allows for real-time monitoring and control of temperature and pressure. Automated temperature monitoring is beneficial for automated ethanol extraction where the temperature of the solvent dramatically impacts the extraction. Automated temperature and pressure monitoring is particularly important for techniques like supercritical fluid extraction, where precise conditions are crucial for optimal cannabinoid and terpene extraction and separation. Temperature and pressure monitoring can often happen remotely, giving operators the flexibility to work on other processes during passive extraction time.

: Automation allows for the continuous monitoring and recording of key parameters during extraction. This data can be analyzed to optimize processes, troubleshoot issues, and ensure consistency across batches.

: Automation can be used during extraction and refinement processes to monitor and verify the quality of the extracted compounds. This includes analyzing the concentration of the target compounds and identifying any contaminants. This documents real-time extraction and refinement progress and efficiency.

: Advanced automation can incorporate adaptive control algorithms that adjust extraction parameters in real-time based on variations in raw material characteristics. This adaptability contributes to consistent product quality and efficient extraction, even when working with different batches of cannabis. Adaptability also facilitates the creation and implementation of extraction methods specific for desired chemical profiles. This is especially relevant for optimizing the extraction of specific cannabinoids or terpenes, allowing for tailored products to meet market demands.

: Robots can be used for the precise weighing, handling, and introduction of cannabis biomass into the extraction equipment. This reduces the likelihood of errors and ensures uniformity in the starting material.

One straightforward approach to scale up extraction is to increase the size of individual extraction equipment. This allows for processing larger volumes of raw materials in a single batch, improving overall throughput. However, there are several ways to scale up extraction and output without solely relying on larger equipment. Below are some ways to increase throughput without increasing the size of any one piece of equipment.

: Multiple extraction units can be operated simultaneously in parallel. This parallel processing approach increases overall extraction capacity without the need for significantly larger individual units. This also allows for manufacturing to continue in the event of an extraction system maintenance issue. If one large unit is utilized for extraction and experiences a maintenance issue, the manufacturing stops until the issue is resolved. If many smaller units are utilized and one unit has a maintenance issue, the other units can continue operating.

: Transitioning from batch processing to continuous flow systems can significantly enhance scalability. Continuous extraction systems operate continuously, minimizing downtime between batches and allowing for a more seamless scalable production process. Continuous flow can be especially effective for ethanol extraction, solvent recovery, and distillation.

Automation and scaling up processes bring numerous benefits to cannabis extraction and refinement, however, there are also associated challenges. The benefits and drawbacks of automation should be carefully considered when manufacturers are considering whether or not to implement automation in all or part of their processes or to scale up production methods.

The initial investment, technical expertise required for implementation and setup, and the need for consistent maintenance, calibration, and monitoring, are all vital for harnessing the benefits of automation and methods of scaling up.

The advancements in cannabis extraction technology, driven by automation and scaled-up methods, mark a significant leap forward in the industry. These innovations offer improved efficiency, scalability, and consistency in the production of cannabis-derived products. While challenges exist, the continued integration of cutting-edge technology is essential for meeting the demands of a rapidly growing market and ensuring the long-term sustainability of the cannabis industry. As technology continues to evolve, further refinements and innovations are expected, shaping the future landscape of cannabis extraction.

 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.

Friesen, L., Automation and All-In-One Systems, 

Extraction Science

The cannabis industry continues to demand high purity cannabis extracts at a low cost. Here, we investigate the opportunities and challenges as manufacturers implement automation and scaling up production.

Automation and  All-In-One Systems

In the last ten years, organizations worldwide have made it part of their mission to create methodologies and standards for the cannabis industry. Each organization has its role in helping the industry to advance the science and increase the methods to aid in cannabis testing and safety. ACIL, or the American Council of Independent Laboratories, founded in 1937, is a trade association representing independent, commercial scientific, and testing laboratories. Their mission is to provide education and advocacy to their member industries and laboratories to address environmental and product risks to the public. Their vision is realizing a healthy, safe environment for society through the application of unbiased, scientific testing. In this column, we will discuss the involvement of ACIL with the cannabis industry and highlight the advocacy and guidance work the group is accomplishing on behalf of the cannabis community, especially regarding a newly published guidance document for cannabis laboratories and testing.

Prior to the start of the 20th century, cannabis was an important economical and practical commodity in the United States (US). In the 1600s, colonial Americans were required to cultivate cannabis crops for use in a wide variety of products from paper and fabric to medicinal preparations. By the 1800s, cannabis was a widely recognized medicinal plant with many preparations recognized by world pharmacopeias. During the 19th century and the early 20th century, cannabis rose to widespread use but also became the object of restriction around the world.Only within the last century cannabis was consigned to the likes of illicit substances in the US and around the world.

In 1906, the US Pure Food and Drug Act required labeling products that contained psychogenic substances such as cannabis and alcohol. The 1914 Harrison Act (US) made the use of cannabis criminal. In 1937, the US Marijuana Tax Act criminalized all cannabis. This was coincidentally the same year an organization was founded to advocate for public safety by American laboratories called the American Council of Commercial Laboratories, which was later incorporated in New York State as the American Council of Independent Laboratories (ACIL).

Despite its illegal status, the research into cannabis in the last few decades has continued and expanded. Now in the 21st century, regulatory agencies have begun to introduce (or restore) cannabis into their compendium of regulated legal products. Organizations like ACIL and many others have taken the lead in not only guiding the cannabis industry and regulatory bodies but providing the scientific frameworks to help hone data-driven methods to protect and promote consumer health and safety. As we head into 2024, we can look back on the last decades and see the progress the cannabis industry has made over the years its reemergence into the wider public consciousness in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

ACIL is a leader in crafting the scientific foundations or benchmarks that define accurate science for laboratories with their advocacy and guidance documents. Now in its 87th year, ACIL continues to operate as the nation’s oldest and most recognized trade association representing independent laboratories. These laboratories represent a wide array of scientific disciplines that engage in testing, product certification, consulting, and research. The organization’s vision and mission are to “realize a healthy safe environment for society through the application of unbiased, scientific testing” by “providing the independent testing community with advocacy, education, and alliances to enable members to better address environmental and product risks to the public,” (1). The organization is based on three core values: 1) ethical, objective, and quality business practices, 2) community and collaboration, and 3) anticipate trends and provide leadership under a code of ethics that builds on advocacy, education, and alliances (see 

ACIL builds upon the principles of alliances, education, and advocacy in practical ways. They bring together a variety of professionals in the laboratory industry to collaborate toward creating opportunities and content, as well as promote advocacy of the industries to the policymakers to enact change to benefit public health and safety. The laboratories and organizations represented in ACIL cover the gambit of testing types and services and concentrate under four primary organizational sections including: Environmental Sciences, Conformity Assessment, Construction Materials Engineering & Testing (CMET) and Food Sciences (which includes the Cannabis Working Group).

The Cannabis Working Group (CWG) started as a directive from ACIL’s board of directors to explore the cannabis testing industry to establish whether ACIL could take a hand in helping cannabis laboratories by allowing for alliances, education, and advocacy.

As related by Joseph Konschnik (formerly of Restek, and a founding member and advisor to the working group), “…in 2016, the Board of Directors (BOD) of ACIL at the time, decided to explore the cannabis testing industry to evaluate whether or not ACIL could be a resource in helping cannabis testing labs to grow and thrive in a somewhat confusing regulatory climate. The BOD delegated this task to the Food Sciences Section and with the assistance of ILI (Independent Laboratories Institute) formulated a strategy to engage with both ACIL member labs who were already testing cannabis in their state, and non-ACIL member labs to learn more about their specific needs and priorities.”

Following that initial directive, the ACIL invited small number of cannabis testing laboratories to their 2017 annual meeting in Portland, Oregon, to learn about the cannabis industry and determine if ACIL should take a more active role in this new laboratory space. Many attending the meeting felt that ACIL could be an advocate for the needs of the cannabis laboratory community.

“…Other trade groups [advocate] for cannabis businesses in general, they have little bandwidth or desire to spend their political capital advocating for the needs of analytical laboratories,” Zachary Eisenberg, VP/COO of Anresco Laboratories—a food and cannabis testing laboratory based in San Francisco said. “Labs are just too small in number and in size to warrant their attention. Also, their interests can sometimes differ from others in the cannabis supply chain. ACIL is the only established national organization specifically advocating on behalf of private laboratories, so the fit is intuitive.”

Joseph Konschnik, CWG advisor added, “Other trade associations were focused on the entire industry’s needs which at the time were banking, taxation, product quality, labeling, in addition to testing, but very few were focused only on testing. Organizations at the time pursuing regulatory control over testing published guidance documents which were written by attorneys, or non-laboratory professionals. ACIL was the only organization at the time which was equipped to address exclusively the needs of testing labs from the perspective and based on the experience of independent testing labs. ACIL’s approach was to offer the best science-based guidance based on its 80 years of experience and success advocating for US testing labs’ interests to both federal and state government agencies and legislative communities.”

The meeting generated a lot of information which clearly showed that cannabis laboratories could indeed fit well into the framework of ACIL and needed the advocacy, education and alliances that could be established through ACIL.

“We had a brainstorming session and opened a dialogue and asked the labs to tell us what they needed,” Konschnik commented. “As you can imagine it was a pretty engaged and active meeting where we filled up about 10 or 12 pages on the wall that day with needs that the industry had. We reported back and the board decided to take it to the next level.”

In early 2018, the Cannabis Working Group (CWG) was formed under the leadership of the Food Sciences Section (FSS) of ACIL. Very quickly, the group began to see a large task list that could be tackled by the organization, but the most important task was to try and harmonize all the information being provided by various outside organizations to the cannabis laboratories and apply practical and achievable guidelines to the different laboratory processes.

“At the following Spring meeting the Cannabis Working Group was approved to be formed to narrow down that list of things to one thing since ACIL is a small organization,” Konschnik mentioned. “We figured we could do one thing, so what was the one thing we could do from this list of many needs? We identified that the labs felt their biggest need was harmonization of testing procedures and accreditation throughout the industry.”

The very first goal of this newly formed committee was to establish its goals and then harmonize all the advice, regulations, methodologies, and information being given to the cannabis laboratories into one place and then apply realistic and achievable scientific benchmarks to these procedures. Up to this point many of the regulations and methods were based on advice from assessors and lawyers and not necessarily guided by laboratory scientists. Throughout 2018 and 2019, the committee drafted its proposed recommendations which eventually were published as the ACIL Cannabis Testing Recommendations Document (2).

The core of the document lies around five of ACIL’s recommendations for best practices that include:

 of laboratories testing cannabis based on internationally recognized consensus standards of laboratory practice, as assessed by non-governmental accrediting bodies.

Develop a regulatory framework (in cooperation with regulating agencies) to allow 

 of small quantities of cannabis and/or tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) containing products to be shipped across US state lines
for reference standards, testing purposes and public health studies.

Collaborate with agencies responsible for product safety, efficacy, and inspection to develop 

standards and protocols for the entire cannabis testing workflow 

from sampling, handling, and inspecting to testing cannabis products for human and veterinary uses.

to accredited cannabis testing laboratories to accept samples and perform other types of testing such as food safety, product safety, and pharmaceutical environmental to support product development, safe/responsible uses, and health outcomes.

Ensure that sampling and testing for regulatory purposes is independent, representative, and consistent with 

 established through consensus standards generated by professional scientific organizations.

Using the guiding principles of their recommendation document, the CWG then set out to tackle these issues starting with national accreditation of cannabis laboratories. Cannabis laboratories wanted to be part of a national accreditation program that could be recognized throughout the US so that if a laboratory expanded into another state their accreditation process and standards would still be applicable. The CWG consulted a wide variety of outside accreditation bodies and consensus standards organizations to gather support and guidance to create a national accreditation scheme for the cannabis laboratory industry.

ACIL’s CWG had believed they had found their first goal in drafting a nationally harmonized accreditation scheme and program. During the final stages of the document in 2020 and 2021, the group was hit with multiple hurdles including the COVID-19 pandemic and pushback from other organizations that felt they already had produced viable accreditation documents. The group had to reevaluate their priorities in a COVID reduced world and do some self-evaluation to see if what were proposed in the accreditation scheme and program could be best accomplished by ACIL or by other organizations. Despite all the effort of the CWG on their document and the fact that ACIL had set up accreditation programs for other laboratories (which are still currently a part of ACIL’s scope), the committee felt that the cannabis laboratory industry would be better served by collaborating with AOAC International in their efforts to implement a cannabis addendum to their already established laboratory accreditation programs rather than try to establish, maintain, and govern their own program.

The community engaged by ACIL is very connected and fosters affiliations, relationships, and collaborations between the different advisory, regulatory, and standards organizations. To be transparent, most ACIL members (myself and others quoted in this article) participate in, are members of, and hold leadership roles in many, if not all, the important laboratory and scientific organizations including ASTM International, AOAC, AOAC Cannabis Advisory Science Panel (CASP), Cannabis Regulators Association (CANNRA), and United States Pharmacopeia (USP). It is often through these connections and partnerships that education and harmonization can fully be promoted and supported.

Once ACIL decided that the accreditation program would not be able to be fully managed within the organization, members collaborated with other organizations like AOAC and AOAC Accreditation Guidelines for Laboratories (ALACC) to offer the work they had completed to be incorporated into the larger AOAC efforts. These collaborations move in all directions as ACIL members have been asked to present their documents and guidance to contribute to the working groups of these other organizations in return thus building on the principles of promoting good science and public health through affiliation and education.

The CWG turned their attentions to the next need of the cannabis laboratories—education and harmonization. The focus of the group moved from accreditation towards producing a harmonization document that could be used as a tool to message and guide regulators and legislatures. Unlike other similar cannabis laboratory documents produced by other organizations, the purpose of the document would be harmonize and synthesize the existing advice and regulations into a scientifically approachable source of information. The content would be created by actual cannabis industry scientists, consultants, and regulators rather than the lawyers and officials.

“It is the labs that participated and the people who live and breathe the cannabis industry…we looked at what is doable,” Josh Swider, Co-Founder/CEO Infinite Chemical Analysis Labs and co-chair for ACIL’s CWG said. “The labs that wrote this (guide) asked what is realistic…what can people actually achieve in a reasonable amount in scientific possibilities… What can we really do and achieve as ACIL? What can other labs achieve too? What should be expected from (a lab) by a regulator?”

The purpose of the CWG was redirected into producing a guidance document based on science that was achievable and valid rather than just a synthesis of the regulations and methodologies dictated by states and organizations. In turn, then the purpose of the ACIL document would be to educate those legal and regulatory bodies in the state of the science to create or amend methods and regulations to real world, scientifically based metrics.

“[The guidance document is] science based; designed to offer the best possible science-based guidance to the regulatory and legislative communities,” Konschnik stated.

The first draft of the harmonization guide was produced between 2020 and 2021. Initial reviews by outside organizations and some state cannabis programs liked the initial content of about 10 pages but felt a lot more detail was needed. Feedback indicated that there was a need for detail on each type of testing, scope by scope (microbiology, cannabinoids, moisture, pesticides, etc.). The CWG went back to the drawing board and detailed appendices were created.

By the end of 2022, ACIL’s “Guide to Harmonizing Cannabis Laboratory Quality and Testing Practices” was ready for final comments and review (3). It contains science-based guidance and best practices for laboratory testing of cannabis and hemp plants, extracts, and finished products.

The 49-page guide contains 18 sections of guidance for laboratory quality management systems (QMS) (consistent with ISO/IEC Guide 17025) and additional guidance specific to testing cannabis in the US. These sections include best practices for all aspects required for a QMS; and eight additional appendices (over 30 pages) covering cannabis methods, acceptance criteria, and achievable targets (see 

The guide is intended as a tool to educate and influence state and federal regulatory agencies, legislatures, and staff as to the realizable targets for cannabis testing. It is also intended for use by laboratories, consensus standards development organizations, and accreditation bodies. It is ACIL’s hope that the document can be used by policymakers to harmonize testing requirements among the states. The guide has been shared with other organizations engaged in cannabis policy in hopes of being included in their decision processes as well.

As the guide’s introduction states:“ [The guide] was developed to recommend guidance for a consistent and science-based approach to regulatory processes by describing basic quality assurance requirements for the laboratories testing marijuana and/or hemp plant materials and their derivatives across the nation. The document was developed with the aid of industry experts and stakeholders including laboratories, accreditation bodies, and input from state regulatory bodies. The document is meant to be a living resource to support the growing cannabis and hemp industries and encourage a level playing field with regard to quality management systems, technical quality control, and method requirements for testing laboratories.”

The ultimate goals for ACIL’s CWG committee and their guidance document are three-fold: a national harmonized regulatory program for hemp and cannabis in the US; the adoption of regulations and laws in cannabis that employ guidance from science-based advisors to adopt policy based on good science; and finally, once such laws are passed, have the guidance adopted by regulatory bodies based on these scientific recommendations.

The guidance document immediately became a method of communicating to regulators, legislators, and staff, the importance of cannabis testing with realizable targets for public health and safety. ACIL staff, including ACIL’s Government Relations Director, Michael Oscar, lobbied tirelessly to ensure the organization’s message of advocacy did not remain unheard by the governing bodies. “[ACIL’s] role in federal advocacy is to educate, advocate, and legislate on behalf of ACIL and the commercial independent laboratory community as it relates to public health and safety; especially as it relates to cannabis,” Michael Oscar said.

The guidance document was widely distributed to federal and state government officials to educate and advocate for the cannabis industries push to ensure public health. Zachary Eisenberg, co-chair of the CWG, feels that there is a gap in knowledge at the state and federal levels which ACIL’s guide could fill by addressing the unique quality and safety issues of cannabis products. That lack of knowledge further extends to how to properly regulate the laboratories that test cannabis and hemp. Eisenberg mentioned, “That is a major problem for this industry, as without reasonable and enforceable regulation, there can be perverse economic incentives for laboratories to inflate results and/or pass failing products. ACIL’s role, as it relates to cannabis, is to provide objective and science-based information and guidance to regulators, consensus organizations, private laboratories, and the industry as a whole so they can implement fair and meaningful standards and analytical requirements that protect public health and safety.”

ACIL members believe that the organization, due to its smaller size and dedication to education and advocacy, can respond more quickly to changes in the laboratory industry especially the cannabis market. As changes occur, documents like the “Guide to Harmonizing Cannabis Laboratory Quality and Testing Practices” can be quickly updated.

“Having a group like ACIL means we can use this as a starting point,” Josh Swider explained. “We can add and modify our documents a lot more quickly than other organizations. We can be a lot nimbler at this kind of thing. The labs are seeing challenges day to day; we can predict what is happening.”

As problems develop or legislation changes, ACIL can quickly become involved to help write position papers, or lobby for changes.

“When the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued their Hemp Interim Final Rule, ACIL immediately scheduled a meeting with key decision makers at the agency to relay our thoughts and concerns,” Eisenberg said. “The USDA then modified their proposed rules less than a week later, in line with our recommendations. That is the value of ACIL—it has access to and the respect of federal agencies and regulators.”

To further the education regarding cannabis and hemp after the 2018 Farm bill, ACIL’s Independent Laboratories Institute (ILI), a non-profit, 501(c)(3), scientific educational organization established in 1992, composed a position paper discussing the deficiencies of hemp testing to explain the laboratories’ position on testing (4). The institute explained that the gaps were created in the 2018 Farm Bill by their lack of education regarding hemp and cannabis from a scientific and testing point of reference.

Overall, the efforts of ACIL’s advocacy for cannabis testing has aided the industry and public health and will continue to do so in the future. Mike Oscar stated, “[ACIL has] supported medical marijuana research legislation that has become federal law, and we are currently working with the House and Senate Agriculture Committee Staff as they continue to draft the 2024 Farm Bill regarding hemp. We will continue to monitor the SAFER Act as it matriculates through the Senate and the House in 2024.”

I would like to acknowledge and thank all the individuals who contribute their knowledge, expertise, time, and efforts in aid of not only the organizations that support the cannabis scientific community and the laboratory and scientific communities overall including:

Joseph Konschnik, now an independent consultant representing Restek Corporation, an ACIL Associate member, and advisor to the Cannabis Working Group; Zachary Eisenberg, VP/COO of Anresco Laboratories and co-chair of the ACIL CWG; Josh Swider, Co-Founder/CEO Infinite Chemical Analysis Labs and co-chair for ACIL’s CWG; Michael Oscar, ACIL’s Government Relations Director; in addition to many other ACIL members, CWG members, and ACIL staff. Thank you all for your help and efforts.

If anyone would like more information regarding the work being done by ACIL or the CWG, we invite you to visit the ACIL website at www.acil.org or contact any of the contributors who generously gave of their time both within ACIL and for this column. All the documents highlighted can be downloaded for free from the ACIL website. For more information, contact Shannon Oscar at 

www.acil.org/resource/resmgr/cannabis/acil_cannabis_testing_recomm.pdf

www.acil.org/resource/resmgr/press-releases/Deficiencies_in_Hemp_Testing.pdf

www.acil.org/resource/resmgr/cannabis/2023-1-Guide-to-Harmonizing-.pdf

is a Senior Applications Scientist with Spex, an Antylia Scientific company and has been a member of many cannabis advisory committees and working groups for cannabis including NACRW, AOAC, and ASTM.

Atkins, P., Advocacy for the Harmonization of Cannabis Industry Regulation: Role and Guidance from the American Council of Independent Laboratories (ACIL) in Cannabis Policy, 

Navigating the Lab

A look at the advocacy and guidance conducted by the ACIL within the cannabis industry.

Advocacy for the Harmonization of Cannabis Industry Regulation:  Role and Guidance from the American Council of Independent Laboratories (ACIL) in Cannabis Policy

New methodologies were developed for the analysis of residual solvents and terpenes using a single gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) system that are approximately 50% and 30% faster for the solvents and terpenes, respectively, compared to the original applications. This article describes the parameters for the implementation of the new methods on existing or new GC–MS systems. These methodologies offer laboratories the ability to run both residual solvent and terpenes analyses on a single platform without the need to change any consumable, such as liners and columns. The single platform-two analyses approach is ideal for start-up labs that may not be at full capacity while they ramp up sample volume. As a laboratory grows however, these methodologies are easily reimplemented on individual hardware platforms dedicated to a specific analysis. Both methods use helium as the carrier gas.

Residual solvents and terpenes analyses are integral applications for regulatory testing laboratories. These tests are to ensure compliance and provide a chemical fingerprint of the terpene profiles in myriad cannabis or hemp products. While residual solvent analysis is generally only applicable to more refined products derived from cannabis or hemp, terpenes analysis can be applied to almost any material ranging plant biomass to topical lotions and everything in between. The purpose of this work was to improve analytical efficiency and overall productivity on a single gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) platform using helium as carrier gas. The methodologies perform both residual solvent and terpenes analyses without the need to change any component of the GC–MS system. We have previously demonstrated the utility of this approach (1,2).

Please note, all part numbers provided in this section are specific to Agilent Technologies, Inc.Common hardware included:Intuvo 9000 Gas Chromatograph (G3950A) configured with a mid-column backflush FlowChip (option #881); multimode inlet (MMI) and guard chip (G4587-60665) or a split/splitless inlet (S/SL) and guard chip (G4587-60565); Agilent 7650A 50-position automatic liquid sampler (ALS) (G4567A); blue line ALS 10 µL syringe with PTFE tip (G4513-80220); a 4 mm ultra inert, low pressure drop, glass wool split liner (5190-2295); two DB-select 624 ultra inert columns (15 m X 0.25 mm I.D. x 1.4 µm film thickness [122-0314UI-INT]); and a 7697A headspace sampler configured with a 0.5 mL loop (G45556-80105) and two loop adaptors (G4556-20177). XLSI weldment was used for side mount of the 7697A headspace sampler transfer line (G3969A). In addition, a 5-m deactivated DB-ProSteel transfer line (160-4535-5) was used. An Agilent 5977B mass selective detector (MSD) with extractor EI source (G7077BA or G7076BA) with a 9 mm extractor lens (G3870-20449) was also used. Agilent Mass Hunter software was used for data acquisition and quantitative analysis. See 

This work built upon and improved prior art for the analysis of residual solvents and terpenes in cannabis and hemp matrices. The primary intent was to improve efficiency and productivity using helium as a carrier gas for a single platform to perform both analyses without the need to change any hardware or consumables. The terpenes method used liquid injection and the solvents method employed headspace—all through a single GC inlet on the GC–MS system. The resulting methodologies met or exceeded the limits of detection, limits of quantitation, accuracy, and precision as the original referenced methods. Chromatographic examples are provided in the 

This work developed and verified method parameters for the analysis of residual solvents and terpenes in cannabinoid and hemp products using the Agilent 7697A-Intuvo 9000/5977B headspace-GC–MS system with liquid injection. The hardware and consumables offer a single platform that can analyze both chemotypes. Accuracy, precision, range, linearity, limits of detection, and quantitation met or exceeded those of the previous work developed in our laboratories. This new, and novel analytical approach has already been successfully implemented in laboratories across North America.

Agilent products and solutions are intended to be used for cannabis quality control and safety testing in laboratories where such use is permitted under state and country law (DE17556094).

Hollis, J.S., Harper, T., and Macherone, A., Terpenes Analysis in Cannabis Products by Liquid Injection using the Agilent Intuvo 9000/5977B GC/MS System. Agilent application note 5994-2032EN. 

Harper, T., Hollis, J.S., and Macherone, A., Novel Residual Solvents Analysis of Cannabinoid Products with the Agilent Headspace-GC/MS System. Agilent application note 5994-1926EN. 

, PhD, was the Strategic Technical Scientist with Agilent Technologies. His expertise in the application of LC–MS and GC–MS methodologies in drug discovery and medicinal chemistry, metabolomics, and exposomics. For the past 6+ years, Anthony led a team of Agilent scientists for the development, deployment, and support of analytical testing methodologies for cannabis and hemp products. 

 is a Senior Applications Chemist for GC–MS systems with Agilent Technologies. 

Hollis, J., Macherone, A., Fast Residual Solvents and Terpenes Analyses in Cannabis and Hemp Products, 

Feature

An explanation of the parameters for the implementation of the new methods for the analysis of residual solvents and terpenes using a single gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) system.

Fast Residual Solvents and Terpenes Analyses  in Cannabis and Hemp Products

The seed-to-sale cycle of cannabis product development can be a cumbersome one. With so many environmental considerations throughout the cultivation process and the complex make-up of the cannabis plant itself, contaminated flower—crops that fail quality indicator or pathogen tests—is a standard part of the industry that every cultivator and processor must account for in their process.

When failure occurs, an organization may have the option to remediate the product. With a continued lack of federal oversight into the cannabis industry, there is discourse surrounding the topic of remediation—when to remediate and how to implement upstream strategies to minimize the need for it.

To be clear, contamination will happen despite your best efforts and a remediation option is a needed step in any quality control program because it can sometimes be the most straightforward path to maximizing the output of a crop. That being said, remediation can’t be an automatic blanket fix for poor cultivation practices, as some organizations are adopting a policy of remediating 100% of their crop in an effort to eliminate the risk of failed products. While the proactivity of this approach is understandable, running an entire crop through remediation can be time consuming and is mostly unnecessary, as it’s rare to have 100% of the crop require remediation. As the industry works towards identifying best practices for remediation, it makes the most sense to focus on the situations in which remediation can be used for maximizing results, as well as the risk mitigation steps growers can take to ensure more product meets compliance standards.

Remediation should be incorporated into any well developed quality control program. Depending on the situation, remediation may need to be used on a failing crop, but should not be instituted without a clear and concise plan for its implementation. In other situations, remediation becomes a much more preventative measure such as when working with cultivators who grow outdoors or in grow facilities with unregulated environments. Take the upper Midwest for example; there are many growers in Michigan and New York who grow close to the shores of the Great Lakes and are subject to the wind currents bringing in microbes from the surfaces of the lakes. Depending on season, air filtration systems may not be sufficiently designed to handle increases in microbial load. We see similar situations with Florida during hurricane season; facilities can lose power for days to weeks at a time and remediation can be the only way to salvage a crop that’s been overexposed to higher levels of humidity. Growers may also want to minimize the use of pesticides on the crop, and thus, remediation becomes a first line of defense in keeping crops viable.

Preventive Actions to Minimize the Need for Remediation

To mitigate the need for excessive remediation, there are four key areas where growers should focus their efforts on a quality prevention plan:

This is an area where you truly cannot get too granular, and the overall goal should be to minimize the path of human contact and microbes. The flow of your operation should be linear—starting with grow rooms, progressing to harvesting areas, then further to drying and curing rooms. For example, people shouldn’t be walking back through the harvesting room to get to curing. It’s also imperative to have established protocol for people entering any part of the facility, including details on uniforms and personal protective equipment (PPE) to fully optimize your procedures.

When it comes to microbial contaminants, you can’t fix what you don’t know, so an extremely thorough monitoring plan for your air, water, surfaces and equipment is essential. Paying attention to how often things like water filtration systems are cleaned and monitoring where and when airflow is allowed into the plants from open doors goes a long way in minimizingcontaminant exposure to your crop. Contaminants like 

 are prevalent everywhere and without strict monitoring processes, you’re significantly increasing your risk of exposure.

This one seems obvious, but again, is somewhere you can never be too granular. Good cleaning and sanitation standards will go far to help minimize risk of contamination. Procedures like using an alcohol wipe to sterilize cultivation tools between plants, enacting PPE fundamentals, and implementing best practices from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) procedures go a long way.

The thread that runs through all of these preventive measures is multipoint testing. A multipoint testing plan used throughout the lifecycle of your crop is essential to maximizing output. When selecting a diagnostic partner, look for onethat manages your quality indicator testing through every step and can help identify gaps in your monitoring process and efforts. This ultimately helps minimize the amount of crop you’ll need to remediate. Without a trusted testing partner, you won’t know what you don’t know—and you’re far more likely to end up in situations where you’re remediating more of your crop than is actually necessary.

Remediation isn’t a new concept to the cannabis industry and its implementation isn’t going anywhere. Remediation and mitigation processes are an essential component of producing most perishable commodities, ranging from meat and produce to cannabis. Implementing a well rounded quality program may seem like a lot of upfront work and investment but the end result is improved efficiencies with resources, maximized product output and ultimately a path to ensuring consumer safety. As the old adage goes,

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

 is a Sr. Manager Scientific Affairs at bioMerieux. Direct correspondence to: 

Bird, P., Let’s Talk About It: Cannabis Remediation, 

This article explains four key areas growers should focus on to mitigate the need for excessive remediation.

Let’s Talk About It: Cannabis Remediation

Cannabis extract manufacturers have exerted much effort in finding the proper ratios of major cannabinoids, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), for their formulations. Formulators also ruminate over choosing cannabis flower based on their minor cannabinoid profiles associated with C. sativa and C. indica, like cannabinol (CBN), cannabigerol (CBG), and cannabichromene (CBC) ratios.

As markets mature, manufacturing terpene blends have become a new art form and a differentiating factor for potential therapeutic applications. Many consumers are paying more attention to the terpene levels in cannabis products.

Did you know that dried flower, fresh flower, and extracted terpenes all have different levels of terpenes at different stages? Continue reading for a primer on terpene formulation considerations.

Terpene Preservation Methods for Formulation

The cannabis plant has over 400 known terpenes (1), but drying and extraction minimize or degrade the potency of terpenes because of how volatile (2) they are.

When you buy dried flower for smoking, you are lucky to get 1-3% terpene content. If you extract the same dried flower instead, you will only capture half the terpenes (0.5-1.5%) (3), and in many cases, the method of extraction and distillation will degrade and change the existing terpenes.

The most common dried flower extraction method is ethanol extraction; to some extent, carbon dioxide (CO

) extraction is still used. Both techniques are less about the terpenes and more about the efficient and exact extraction of major and minor cannabinoids. Both will produce roughly the same extract, with CO

 enthusiasts claiming they will capture more terpenes and disregarding the capture of incredible amounts of undesirables and the ultimate use of ethanol at later stages. Either way, there is a limited amount of terpenes to catch in dried flower; you can only do so much if you have roughly 2% terpenes in dried flowers.

As markets mature, manufacturing terpene blends have become a new art form and a differentiating factor for potential therapeutic applications. Here, we dive deeper into the insights of terpene formulation considerations.

January/February 2024

Cannabis Science and Technology January/February 2024 Interactive Digital Edition

Calibration Science, Part II: Systematic Error, Signal-to-Noise Ratios, and How to Reduce Random Error

Cornell University Research on Hemp Responses to Light Treatments, Part 1

Automation and All-In-One Systems

Advocacy for the Harmonization of Cannabis Industry Regulation: Role and Guidance from the American Council of Independent Laboratories (ACIL) in Cannabis Policy

Fast Residual Solvents and Terpenes Analyses in Cannabis and Hemp Products

Let’s Talk About It: Cannabis Remediation

Considerations for Formulating Extracts with Terpenes