With a sense of history and a better understanding of the regulations and standards affecting cannabis testing and use, this chapter can finally dig into the specifics of the current and future state of laboratory testing of cannabis and related products in the U.S. Here we look at the analytical aspects of cannabis, methods and guidelines used as well as the equipment and software typical to cannabis testing labs.

-----Return to the beginning of this guide-----

3. Laboratory testing of cannabis

Analyzing the chemical constituents of marijuana is a difficult task due to its matrix, and the task becomes even more difficult when it's added to food and other matrix types, requiring established and consistent methods for testing.[1][2] As mentioned previously, regulators, users, and the testing industry are calling for improved standardization of both the production and testing of medical and recreational marijuana. Without proper testing, several issues are bound to arise[3][4][5][6][7][8]:
  • label claims may not match actual contents;
  • contaminants may linger, causing illness or even death;
  • chemical properties and medicinal benefits of specific strains and their unique cannabinoid-terpene profiles can't be isolated; and
  • research on potential therapeutic qualities can't be replicated, hindering scientific progress.

In 2011—a year before any U.S. state had enacted broad legalization of recreational marijuana—California NORML reported that its assessment of analytical cannabis testing laboratories' accuracy found that while California labs broadly reached +/- 20 percent consistency from a replicate sample, three out of 10 provided unfavorable results on at least half of their tests. Similar wide-ranging discrepancies were also found among edibles, extracts, and tinctures, and NORML found that none of the labs could reach two decimal points precision of cannabinoid results despite laboratory claims stating otherwise.[8] Another report out of the state of Washington in January 2015, not long after recreational marijuana sales to the public (requiring accredited lab testing prior) began[9], found blind tests of recreational marijuana at dispensaries could range as much as 7.5 percent in accuracy from its corresponding label.[4] Further issues in 2016 with alleged partiality by some Washington testing laboratories prompted emergency proficiency testing rules to be enacted.[10][11] ("Proficiency testing" essentially requires a laboratory in question to test a sample with known properties, and then those results are compared to those of a neutral third-party lab testing the same sample.) Additional testing problems in Alaska and Washington labs in late 2017 found high disparities between two different testing labs, as well as a laboratory that couldn't "properly perform a coliform test that looks for bacteria."[12]

These discrepancies and deficiencies highlight the growing need for homogenization of testing methods and procedures, if not nationally at least across an entire state. Such homogenization would, in theory, not only positively affect the quality of product but also provide greater consumer confidence that label and product match. As Marketing Director Scott Kuzdzal of Shimadzu pointed out during a January 2017 webinar on analytic testing of cannabis, poor preparation, lack of thorough testing, and the manual process itself—which can introduce user error, particularly when good laboratory practices aren’t used—all can contribute to discrepancies between label and product.[13] When dispensaries, edible manufacturers, and supplement companies perform insufficient lab testing or overstate claims on labels, it reduces consumer confidence, and both state and federal authorities—including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—have to interject.[10][11][14]

As was mentioned at the end of the previous section on state regulation, efforts to improve testing methods and procedures, with the goal of seeing the best of them become standards, are ongoing. Where are those efforts now, and where are they going? Before we can examine that, we first need to briefly look at what aspects of cannabis are actually being analyzed.

3.1 Analytical aspects of cannabis

3.1.1 Cannabinoids

As of mid-2018, somewhere between 104 upwards to more than 140 of the more than 750 constituents of Cannabis sativa have been identified as cannabinoids[15][16][17], active chemical compounds that act in a similar way to compounds our body naturally produces, and new cannabinoids continue to be identified during cannabis research.[17][18] Many of our body's cells have cannabinoid receptors capable of modulating neurotransmitter release in the brain and other areas.[19] The plant's cannabinoids vary, with each bonding to specific receptors in our body, providing differing effects. From a theoretical and medical standpoint, crafting a strain of cannabis that has specific cannabinoids that can aid with a particular malady, while also carefully reproducing the grow conditions to consistently make that strain in the future, is a desirable but difficult goal to achieve.[20] However, even as new strains are developed, identifying an existing strain effectively has its own set of challenges, as Mudge et al. point out: "the total [tetrahydrocannabinol] and [cannabidiol] content is not sufficient to distinguish strains [though] a combination of targeted and untargeted chemometric approaches can be used to predict cannabinoid composition and to better understand the impact of informal breeding program and selection on the phytochemical diversity of cannabis."[17]

Lab testing of cannabinoids is done primarily as a measure of psychoactive "potency," though cannabinoids have many other potential therapeutic uses. Current laboratory testing looks at only a handful of cannabinoids; more research and development of analytical techniques that can quickly and accurately detect and separate the the rest is required.[6] Some of the major cannabinoids tested for include[17][21][22][23]:

  • THC (∆9-Tetrahydrocannabinol): This is the most commonly known cannabinoid found in cannabis, notable for its strong psychoactive effects and ability to aid with pain, sleep, and appetite issues. Included is its analogue ∆8-Tetrahydrocannabinol (which shows notably less strong psychoactive effects than ∆9[24]) and its homologue THCV (Tetrahydrocannabivarin), which tends to appear in trace amounts and has a more pronounced psychoactive effect, but for a shorter duration. THCV shows promise in fighting anxiety, tremors from neurological disorders, appetite issues, and special cases of bone loss. Also notable is Δ9-THCA (Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinolic acid), a non-psychoactive biosynthetic precursor to THC.
  • CBC (Cannabichromene): This non-psychoactive cannabinoid is found in trace amounts; however, it tends to be markedly more effective at treating anxiety and stress than CBD (see next). It's also notable for its anti-inflamatory properties and potential use for bone deficiencies.
  • CBD (Cannabidiol): CBD is a non-psychoactive component of cannabis, typically accounting for up to 35 to 40 percent of cannabis extracts. It acts as a counter-balance to THC, regulating its psychoactivity. It's been researched as a treatment for anxiety, sleep loss, inflammation, stress, pain, and epilepsy, among other afflictions. Included is its homologue CBDV (Cannabidivarin), which is also non-psychoactive and demonstrates promise as a treatment for epileptic seizures. Also notable is CBDA (Cannabidiolic acid), a non-psychoactive biosynthetic precursor to CBD.
  • CBG (Cannabigerol): This cannabinoid is also non-psychoactive but only appears in trace amounts of cannabis. If has potential as a sleep aid, anti-bacterial, and cell growth stimulant. Also notable is CBGA (Cannabigerolic acid), a non-psychoactive biosynthetic precursor to CBG.
  • CBN (Cannabinol): CBN is mildly psychoactive at best and appears only in trace amounts in Cannabis sativa and Cannabis indica. It occurs largely as a metabolite of THC and tends to have one of the strongest sedative effects among cannabinoids. It shows promise as a treatment for insomnia, glaucoma, and certain types of pain.

3.1.2 Terpenes

Mandated lab testing of terpenes—volatile organic compounds that distinctly affect cannabis aroma and taste—is done primarily as a way to ensure proper labeling of cannabis and related products, including extracts and concentrates, so buyers have confidence in what they are purchasing.[25][26][27] However, additional lab research goes into terpenes as they also show potentially useful pharmacological properties[25][27][28], and they demonstrate synergies (referred to at times as the "entourage effect") with cannabinoids that largely still require further exploration.[7][28][27][29] Testing for specific terpenes (discussed later) is less of a standardized practice, though it's rapidly improving.[25] Commonly tested terpenes by third-party testing labs include[27][26][28][7][23][30]:

3.1.3 Contaminates

Generally speaking, a contaminant is an unwanted substance that may show up in the final product, be it recreational marijuana or a pharmaceutical company's therapeutic tincture. The following are examples of contaminants that laboratories may test for in cannabis products.

Pesticides: Pesticides represent the Wild West of not only growing cannabis but also performing analytical testing on it. One of the core issues, again, is the fact that on the federal level marijuana is illegal. Because it's illegal, government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) don't test and create standards or guidelines for what's safe when it comes to residual pesticides, let alone how to best test for them.[31][32] Additionally, researchers face their fair share of difficulties obtaining product to test. The end result is we don't know much about how inhalation of pesticide-coated marijuana smoke affects long-term health[31][32], and we have few standard methods for pesticide application and testing.[7][33] With numerous pesticide products and little oversight on what growers apply to their plants, combined with the technical difficulty of testing for pesticides in the lab, pesticides remain one of the most difficult contaminants to test for.[7][33] That said, several classes of of pesticides are commonly applied during cannabis cultivation and can be tested for by labs[22][6][34]:

  • avermectins: functions as an insecticide that is useful against mites, which are a common problem for cultivators
  • carbamates: functions as an insecticide, similar to organophosphates, but with decreased dermal toxicity and higher degradation
  • organophosphates: functions as the base of many insecticides and herbicides, valued for its easy organic bonding
  • pyrethroids: functions as the base of most household insecticides and exhibits insect repellent properties

Solvents: In 2003, Canadian Rick Simpson published a recipe of sorts for preparing cannabis extract via the use of solvents such as naphtha or petroleum ether. Claiming the resulting oil helped cure his skin cancer, others hoping for a cure tried it, and the solvent method of preparation grew in popularity. Dubious healing claims aside, the solvent extraction method remains viable, though it has evolved over the years to include less harmful solvents such as supercritical carbon dioxide, which has low toxicity, low environmental impact, and beneficial extraction properties.[7][35][36] However, chemical solvents are still used, and if not evaporated out properly, the remaining solvents can be particularly harmful to sick patients using the extract. As for what solvents should be tested for, it gets a bit trickier, though Chapter 467 of United States Pharmacopeia and The National Formulary, the Oregon Health Authority's December 2015 technical report on contaminant testing of cannabis, and the Massachusetts Department of Public Health's response to public comments on cannabis testing provide helpful guidance. Listed solvents include benzene, butane, cumene, dimethoxyethane, hexane, and pentane, among others.[6][22][7][34][37][38]

Heavy metals: 2013 research on contaminant testing on the behalf of Washington State provides insights into heavy metals and why they're looked for in cannabis testing. That research, as well as other sources, tell us[6][22][7][39]:

  • Heavy metals contribute to several health problems, including those of a neurological nature.
  • Cannabis can "hyperaccumulate metals from contaminated soils."
  • Research parallels can be found in tobacco research and how the FDA regulates heavy metal content in foods.
  • The most prominently tested heavy metals include arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), and nickel (Ni).

Mycotoxins and microorganisms: "The ideal conditions for cannabis growth are also ideal for the growth of potentially harmful bacteria and fungi, including yeast and molds," say Shimadzu's Scott Kuzdzal and William Lipps, "therefore microbial contamination poses health risks to consumers and immunocompromised individuals."[21] In truth, these concerns have already borne out. In fact, the University of California, Davis reported in February 2017 one of its patients had contracted an incurable fungal infection from inhaling aerosolized marijuana. They later tested 20 marijuana samples from Northern California dispensaries—using specialized techniques—and found a wide variety of potentially hazardous microorganisms.[40]

The degree to which such contaminants commonly appear in grown and stored cannabis material and to which microbiological contaminants should be tested is not clear, however. As mentioned previously, neither the U.S. EPA or neighboring Health Canada provide any significant guidance on cannabis testing, including microbiological contaminants.[41] Like heavy metal testing, parallels are drawn from microbial testing guidelines and standards relating to tobacco and food, where they exist.[41] As warm, moist environments are conducive to microorganism growth, maintaining stable moisture levels during cultivation and storage is essential. Regularly measuring water activity—how moist something is—is particularly useful as a front-line preventative tool to better ensure microbial growth is limited.[34] Regardless, testing of some kind is still required by many U.S. states, including for organisms such as[21][22][7][34][40][41][42][43]:

3.2 Methods and guidelines

Note: It would be beyond the scope of this guide to include every state's laws and guidelines on cannabis testing; entities such as Leafly Holdings[44] provide such online resources. However, we may eventually add this information into this guide in a future update.

Now that we've addressed what's being tested for, we can move on to how they're being tested and what's being done to improve testing methods and procedures, including associated guidelines and recommendations. This section will focus on current and promising techniques using generalizations based on information from multiple sources. If any guidelines and recommendations are known, they'll be included.

3.2.1 Sampling

Random, representative sampling is encouraged. When dealing with solid cannabis, BOTEC Analysis recommends a "quartering" method that divides the sample into four equal parts and takes portions from opposite sections of a square-shaped arrangement of the sample. For liquid cannabis products, remembering to stir before sample collection is advised.[22] When deriving a sample from a cannabis-laden edible, the QuEChERS approach used by food safety labs for pesticide testing has practical use.[45] In fact, a variety of parallels have been drawn from the food and herbal medicine industries' sampling guidelines, including from the Codex Alimentarius Commission's CAC/GL 50-2004 General Guidelines on Sampling as well as various chapters of the United States Pharmacopeia and The National Formulary.[22][46] As the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) points out, "[g]ood sampling is key to improving analytical data equivalency among organizations," and it provides a solid base for any future testing and standardization efforts.[22]

Additional sampling insight can be found by examining other states' guidelines, e.g., Massachusetts' Protocol for Sampling and Analysis of Finished Medical Marijuana Products and Marijuana-Infused Products for Massachusetts Registered Medical Marijuana Dispensaries.[47]

3.2.2 Cannabinoid testing

Quantifying cannabinoids for label accuracy is a major goal of testing, though calculation and testing processes may vary slightly from state to state. Despite any differences, laboratorians generally agree that when testing for cannabinoids such as THC and CBD, as well as their respective biosynthetic precursors THCA and CBDA, the methodology used must be scrutinized. The naturally occurring THCA of cannabis isn't psychoactive; it requires decarboxylation (a chemical reaction induced by drying/heating that releases carbon dioxide) to convert itself into the psychoactive cannabinoid THC. Chemical calculations show that the process of decarboxylation results in approximately 87.7 percent of the THCA's mass converting to THC, with the other 12.3 percent bubbling off as CO2 gas.[48] The problem with this in the testing domain is gas chromatography (GC) involves heating the sample solution. If you, the lab technician, require precise numbers of both THCA and THC, then GC analysis poses the risk of under-reporting THC total values.[22] As such, liquid chromatography-diode array detection (LC-DAD) may be required if a concise profile of all cannabinoids must be made, primarily because it provides environmental stability for them all during analysis. If GC is used, the analysis requires extra considerations such as sample derivatization.[22][7][49][50]

The APHL briefly describes analysis methods of cannabinoids using both LC and GC on pages 31–32 of their May 2016 Guidance for State Medical Cannabis Testing Programs. They also point to New York Department of Health - Wadsworth Center's various guidance documents (MML-300, -301, and -303) for methodologies when testing sample types other than solids, particularly using high-performance liquid chromatography photodiode array detection (HPLC-PAD).[22][51] Also worth noting is that ASTM's Subcommittee D37.03 is working on various standard methods for determining cannabinoid concentrations using different chromatography techniques[52], while the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (AOAC) has already developed a Standard Method Performance Requirement (SMPR) for analyzing cannabinoids in hemp (i.e., low THC cannabis varieties).[53] Overall, methods used in cannabinoid testing include[22][7][51][54][55][56]:

Also worthy of note is recent investigation of viably using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy as a more affordable and rapid solution to identifying cannabinoid contents and profiles of samples. Conferences[57], research[58][59][60], and articles[61][62][63] over the last few years have advanced the use of NMR spectroscopy for cannabinoid analysis.

3.2.3 Terpene testing

Identifying and quantifying terpenes is one of the more difficult tasks facing laboratorians[7]:

Terpenes present an analytical challenge because they are nonpolar and structurally similar, and many structural isomers exist. Mass spectrometry (MS) cannot distinguish terpenes that co-elute from a GC column because many have the same molecular weight and share fragment ions.

Of course, types of gas chromatography work; but like cannabinoids, terpenes can degrade with the high heat of gas chromatography.[56] Combined with the problems mentioned above, highly specialized gas chromatography processes that include additional steps, such as full evaporation technique headspace gas chromatography flame ionization detection (FET-HS-GC-FID), can be used to produce cleaner results, particularly for volatile components.[7] It's less clear if high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) is used frequently; some entities such as Eurofins Experchem Laboratories claim HPLC works best for them[56], while others such as Restek Corporation claim the method is problematic at best.[64]

Overall, methods for terpene identification and analysis include[7][30][55][65][56][66][67]:

  • Full evaporation technique–headspace–gas chromatography–flame ionization detection (FET-HS-GC-FID; tends to be semi-quantitative)
  • Gas chromatography–flame ionization detection (GC-FID)
  • Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS)
  • Gas chromatography–vacuum ultraviolet spectroscopy (GC-VUV)
  • Headspace–gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (HS-GC-MS)
  • Headspace–solid-phase microextraction (HS-SPME)
  • High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC; may have limitations due to coelution of terpenes and cannabinoids at certain ranges[64])

3.2.4 Contaminant testing

LC MS pic.jpg
Pesticides: Gas and liquid chromatography methods are by and large the staple of testing methods for pesticides, which remain "the hardest analyses that are going to be done in the cannabis industry."[7] Notably, high-performance liquid chromatography–tandem-mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS) tends to be one of the most thorough methods says Emerald Scientific's CTO Amanda Rigdon. "Ninety-five percent of the pesticides out there can be analyzed by HPLC-MS/MS, although there are some that you would need a GC-MS/MS for," she says.[7] A popular sample extraction method for detecting multiple pesticide residues in cannabis is the QuEChERS (quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe) method, which shows "acceptable recoveries and relative standard deviations" for almost all known pesticides[1][68][69][70], though the release of heat and increase in pH of QuECHERS may degrade particularly sensitive pesticides in the sample.[71] However, other methods such as solvent extraction (such as with acetonitrile) with dispersive solid-phase extraction (dSPE) cleanup[68][70][71] and energized dispersive guided extraction (EDGE) may also been used.[67] Common testing methods that have been used, after sample preparation, include[22][66][67][69][70][71]:
  • Gas chromatography–electron capture detection (GC-ECD)
  • Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS)
  • Gas chromatography–tandem-mass spectrometry (GC-MS/MS)
  • Liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC-MS; also high-performance or HPLC-MS)
  • Liquid chromatography–tandem-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS; also high-performance or HPLC-MS/MS)

For quantification of pesticides in cannabis, the AOAC's SMPR 2018.011, EPA's Residue Analytical Methods (RAM), and FDA's Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM) provide guidance to labs.[22][72][73][74]

Solvents: Testing for solvents is largely standardized into a few options, which have parallels to existing pharmaceutical testing standards outlined in Chapter 467 of United States Pharmacopeia and The National Formulary (USP <467>)[37][22][7][66][75][76]:

  • Headspace–gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (HS-GC/MS)
  • Headspace–gas chromatography–flame ionization detection–mass spectrometry (HS-GC-FID-MS)
  • Full evaporation technique–headspace–gas chromatography–flame ionization detection (FET-HS-GC-FID)

Massachusetts and Oregon—and likely other states—have used a variety of guidance documents such as USP <467>, reports from the Commission of the European Communities' Scientific Committee on Food (now the European Food Safety Authority), and the International Conference on Harmonization's (ICH) Q3C(R5)[22][38][34][37] to set their action level testing values for particular solvents. The AOAC provides another standardized option in the form of their SMPR 2019.002.[77]

Heavy metals: The methods used for quantifying levels of highly toxic metals in plants depend on ease-of-use, level of accuracy, and overall cost. Sample preparation typically includes the use of closed-vessel microwave digestion to get the sample into solution for analysis.[67][78] Once prepared, the following methods are most common for testing cannabis and other plants for heavy metals[6][22][7][79][66]:

For quantification of metals in cannabis, the U.S. FDA's ICP-MS methodology document is often used.[22][80]

Mycotoxins and microorganisms: A standard method of testing for the existence of microorganisms is through the process of culturing a sample in a Petri dish, a common diagnostic method in microbiology. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) is also used, particularly to identify mycotoxins. However, Petri culture analysis isn't rigorous, and ELISA can be time consuming, as it's limited to one mycotoxin per test.[6][7][41] The following are other, more precise techniques that are improving laboratorians' analyses, particularly using DNA snippets of microbiological contaminants[6][7][41][81][82]:

The extent of mycotoxin testing required remains in question by several entities. The APHL claims "[t]here is no readily available evidence to support the contention that cannabis harbors significant levels of mycotoxins."[22] The Oregon Health Authority takes a more middle-ground approach, noting that testing for E. coli and Salmonella will "protect public health," though Aspergillus only deserves a warning for people with suppressed immune systems due to its prevalence in the environment.[34] USP <561> recommendations largely limit mycotoxin testing of botanical products to those borne from root or rhizome material[83], "which THC-containing cannabis products presumably do not possess," emphasizes the APHL.[22] Regardless, U.S. Pharmacopeia's Chapter 561 remains a useful document for testing guidelines and limits regarding microbials[83][22], as does the AOAC's SMPR 2019.001 for the detection of Aspergillus.[84] In the less common case of dealing with powdered cannabis—a relatively new THC extract form—Chapter 2023 provides at least some testing parallels, though Dr. Tony Cundell, a microbiologist consulting for the pharmaceutical industry, suggests USP <2023> doesn't go far enough for immunocompromised patients.[85]

Somewhat related and worth mentioning is moisture content testing. As previously mentioned, warm, moist environments are conducive to microorganism growth, and regularly measuring water activity is useful for the prevention of microbial growth.[34] The APHL references specifications from the Dutch Office of Medical Cannabis that recommend water content be between five to ten percent in cannabis.[22]

3.3 Laboratory accreditation

The accreditation of a cannabis testing laboratory should also be briefly addressed. As it currently stands, these labs and their relevant tests are typically accredited to the ISO/IEC 17025 standard. This includes the likes of the ANSI National Accreditation Board (ANAB)[86] and the American Association of Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA).[87] However, through the American Council of Independent Laboratories (ACIL) and its Cannabis Working Group (CWG), a specific national standard for cannabis lab accreditation is beginning to take shape. Referred to as CanNaLap (Cannabis National Laboratory Accreditation Program) and based on ISO/IEC 17025, the national standard has been developed "as a mechanism to ensure the effective performance of all cannabis testing labs operating in the United States."[88] Additionally, the ACIL also seeks for the FDA and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to "support and endorse" CanNaLap "as a means to establish standards of competency for testing market participants."[88] ANAB has already begun to address CanNaLap as part of its supplemental accreditation requirements[86], though time will tell if CanNaLap becomes a fully adopted nation accreditation standard in the U.S.

3.4 Reports

There's little in the way of standardization for lab reporting of cannabis test results, though some U.S. states have outlined requirements for what must be included in such reports. The Oregon Health Authority's Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 333, Division 64, Section 0100: Marijuana Item Sampling Procedures and Testing stipulates that any report must include total THC and total CBD (by dry weight) and, if discovered, "up to five tentatively identified compounds (TICS) that have the greatest apparent concentration." It also lays out requirements for pesticides, failed tests, limits of quantification, and specimen identifiers such as test batch number.[89] California dictates reported values for cannabinoids and contaminates be shown on the COA with three significant figures and water-activity level at two significant digits, as well as "pass" and "fail" statuses, demographics, sample history, test methods used, and more.[90]

Pennsylvania provides another example with its medical marijuana program (28 Pa. Code Chapter 1171), which includes a section on test results and reporting (1171.31). The regulations stipulate reporting by electronic tracking system, with stipulations on using certificates of analysis which include lot/batch number and the specific compounds and contaminants tested.[91] Regulations aside, it's largely up to the laboratory—and often by extension, the software they're using—to decide how a report is formatted. Some labs like Seattle-based Analytical 360 offer clean, color-based certificates of analysis, with high-magnification photographs, the chromatogram, potency, cannabinoid content, contaminant content, and explanation of limits, with the name of the approving analyst.[92][93] Others may simply generate a computer printout with the basic data and a legend.[94] Reports may originate from the measuring device itself (e.g., an integrator in a chromatography device), a middleware or data station attached to the instrument, or a laboratory information management system (LIMS) that accepted data from the instrument.[95]

Though not directly related to laboratory testing, it's worth noting states also have their own reporting requirements for growers, processors, and dispensaries. Both Oregon and Washington, for example, require monthly reports related to medical marijuana transfers.[96][97]

3.5 Lab equipment

As indicated in previous sections, spectrometry and chromatography have played and will continue to play an important role in cannabis laboratory testing. This should not be surprising: "mass spectrometry is superior to other spectral techniques in such features as sensitivity, selectivity, generation possibility of molecular mass/formula, and combinability with chromatography."[98] Analyzing complex chemical compounds that have many features and which are at times difficult to differentiate from each other proves challenging, but these technologies excel in meeting that task.[98] Refer to the previous "Methods and guidelines" section to note the specific technology associated with each molecule and contaminant. Aside from spectrometry and chromatography equipment, the analysis of microorganisms in cannabis may turn to DNA analysis methods that require additional equipment such as a thermal cycler (qPCR) or sequencer (WMGS), or ELISA, which utilizes a photometer or spectrophotometer. Of course, preparing and storing samples requires equipment as well, such as microplates, centrifuges, comparison standards, capillaries, chemicals, columns, Petri dishes, scales, and disposable gloves. Software-based data management systems may also constitute equipment and are discussed in the next section.

When it comes to purchasing lab equipment specifically for cannabis testing, a 2015 interview with Emerald Scientific's CTO Amanda Rigdon (then with Restek Corporation) provides good advice[99]:

  • Industry-specific instrumentation isn't needed in most cases as most of the techniques and equipment used in food and herbal medicine testing have strong parallels to cannabis testing.
  • That said, some sample preparation tools, standards, and consumables specifically marketed to the industry may very well make the job quicker and more reliable.
  • Appropriate sample preparation techniques are just as vital as the equipment you use.
  • Do your research; many instrument companies are examining methodologies usable on conventional equipment, lessening the need for more expensive devices.
  • If buying used equipment, make sure the original manufacturer is still in business and producing consumables and replacement parts. Make sure your planned methods match the equipment, and make sure it's not so old that it can't be serviced by a qualified technician.

For more on specific laboratory equipment and vendors, see the fifth chapter in this guide.

3.6 Software

Laboratories increasingly depend on software to analyze, store, and share critical data from instruments and experiments.[100] This has led to the development of laboratory-specific software like the laboratory information management system (LIMS), electronic laboratory notebook (ELN), and chromatography data system (CDS; sometimes CDMS). These and other software systems such as "seed-to-sale" programs can also play an important role in the cannabis testing laboratory.

3.6.1 LIMS

Laboratories of all types use LIMS software to manage the wide variety of data, testing and analysis workflows, and other enterprise activities typical of them. This generally includes—but is not limited to—sample receipt, workflow management, sample tracking and analysis, quality control, instrument data management, data storage, reporting and document management.[101] The cannabis testing laboratory is no exception, though its activities differ slightly from, for example, a clinical pathology laboratory. As such, a few additional features outside of what's typically found in a generic LIMS are required.

Features that may be incorporated into a cannabis testing LIMS that you might not necessarily find in an all-purpose LIMS include[102][103][104][105][106]:

  • sample loading screens optimized for the industry, including differentiation between medical and recreational marijuana
  • pre-loaded compliant test protocols, labels, and reports optimized and readily adjustable for a rapidly changing industry
  • tools for creating new, compliant test protocols, labels, and reports
  • a web API to integrate with state-required compliance reporting systems
  • chain-of-custody (CoC) tracking, when necessary
  • support for inventory reconciliation

As previously discussed, industry-specific test protocols largely focus on cannabinoids, terpenes, and a wide variety of contaminates, including excess water. However, as regulations continue to be in a state of flux and not particularly standardized, most LIMS developers are including the ability for users to adjust their protocols and even add new ones. And while CoC functionality is not entirely foreign to generic LIMS, it's particularly important in an industry where currently transporting even a cannabis test sample across state lines can create huge problems.

In cases where daily sample processing is infrequent and only a couple of chromatography machines are used, laboratories may weigh a decision between a LIMS and a chromatography-specific CDS, although the ability to produce an acceptable certificate of authenticity (CoA) and document the CoC are still factors, along with any state reporting requirements.

Cannabis LIMS solutions

The following LIMS solutions in Table 1 are known to specifically offer features that support the cannabis testing laboratory:

Table 1. Known LIMS solutions publically marketed as addressing the needs of cannabis testing labs
LIMS solution Developer
ApolloLIMS Common Cents Systems, Inc.
Bika LIMS Bika Lab Systems (Pty) Ltd and
the SENAITE Foundation
CannabLIS Cannabliss New England, LLC
CannaLIS Specialty Testing Solutions Ca, LLC
CannaQA LIMS LabLynx, Inc.
CGM LABDAQ CompuGroup Medical AG
CloudLIMS and FreeLIMS, LLC
Confident Cannabis LIMS CC Software, LLC
Element LIMS Promium, LLC
LabWare GROW LabWare, Inc.
LabFlow AINZ Corp.
Lockbox LIMS Third Wave Analytics, Inc.
Matrix Gemini Autoscribe Informatics, Inc.
Omega LIMS Khemia Software, Inc.
QBench Junction Concepts, Inc.
QLIMS OnQ Software Pty. Ltd.
reLIMS Carobar Business Solutions, LLC

3.6.2 CDS

Scientists on the research side of cannabis are certainly using CDSs from Agilent, Thermo Scientific, Waters, and other to manage the data coming out of their chromatography equipment[107][108][109], and slowly but surely some of those CDSs are beginning to also support spectrometer data management in a similar way.[110] Additionally, some chromatography system developers will collaborate with CDS vendors to develop software drivers—code that essentially acts as a translator between a device and a program—so chromatography devices can interact fully with the CDS.[111]

The CDS likely has a place in the cannabis testing lab as well, though it may depend on the lab's data management needs and goals. In more complex labs with multiple instruments and significant daily processing workflows, a LIMS may make more practical sense.

CDS solutions

Some vendors like Thermo Fisher Scientific—discussed in the next chapter—offer a CDS in conjunction with its other chromatography systems marketed for the cannabis testing industry. Other common CDS options include:

3.6.3 Seed-to-sale

The use of seed-to-sale software is an emerging trend that is only tangentially related to laboratory testing of cannabis. Rather than at testing laboratories, seed-to-sale software is found at cultivation sites, production facilities, and dispensaries, and that software is typically designed to be able to integrate with testing laboratory or other software. The goal: create a complete record of transaction, from the grown plant to the lab, producer, and seller. This sort of tracking is mandated in various ways by many U.S. states with legalization laws. "It’s there to prevent the diversion of marijuana, which the federal government still lists as a Schedule I substance, the most dangerous class of drugs," wrote Daniel Rothberg of the Las Vegas Sun in December 2015. "Tracking also ensures product safety, assists with audits and helps facilitate recalls."[112] This type of software is able to track plant yields, attempted theft or diversion, patient preferences, extraction methods, batch weights, and various financial statistics for analysis.[113][112]

Seed-to-sale software vendors

The following vendors are a representative sample of those who offer a seed-to-sale system for the cannabis industry:


  1. 1.0 1.1 DePalma, A. (10 September 2018). "Challenges of Cannabis Contaminant Testing". Lab Manager. LabX Media Group. Retrieved 08 January 2020. 
  2. Cummings, J. (2018), "Gurus of Pesticide Residue Analysis [The Cannabis Scientist"] (PDF), The Analytical Scientist (Texere Logo Texere Publishing Ltd) (0218), 
  3. Hazekamp, A.; Fischedick, J.T. (2012). "Cannabis - from cultivar to chemovar". Drug Testing and Analysis 4 (7–8): 660–7. doi:10.1002/dta.407. PMID 22362625. 
  4. 4.0 4.1 Bush, E. (18 February 2015). "World’s strongest weed? Potency testing challenged". The Seattle Times. The Seattle Times Company. Retrieved 08 January 2020. 
  5. Rutsch, P. (24 March 2015). "Quality-Testing Legal Marijuana: Strong But Not Always Clean". Shots. National Public Radio. Retrieved 08 January 2020. 
  6. 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 Kuzdzal, S.; Clifford, R.; Winkler, P.; Bankert, W. (December 2017). "A Closer Look at Cannabis Testing" (PDF). Shimadzu Corporation. Retrieved 13 January 2021. 
  7. 7.00 7.01 7.02 7.03 7.04 7.05 7.06 7.07 7.08 7.09 7.10 7.11 7.12 7.13 7.14 7.15 7.16 7.17 7.18 7.19 Cassiday, L. (October 2016). "The Highs and Lows of Cannabis Testing". INFORM. American Oil Chemists' Society. Retrieved 13 January 2021. 
  8. 8.0 8.1 "How Accurate Is Cannabis Potency Testing?". California NORML. 21 September 2011. Retrieved 08 January 2020. 
  9. "FAQs on I-502". Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board. Retrieved 03 February 2017. 
  10. 10.0 10.1 Young, B. (05 January 2016). "Some pot labs in state failed no pot at all, says scientist". The Seattle Times. The Seattle Times Company. Retrieved 03 February 2017. 
  11. 11.0 11.1 Coughlin-Bogue, T. (11 March 2016). "To Combat Inconsistency, Washington Testing Labs Turn to Self-Policing". Leafly - Politics. Leafly Holdings, Inc. Retrieved 03 February 2017. 
  12. Ritchie, H. (29 April 2018). "Inconsistency in Cannabis Lab Testing". Terpenes and Testing Magazine. Retrieved 15 November 2018. 
  13. Kuzdzal, S.A. (19 January 2017). "Webinar: Opportunities & Challenges in Cannabis Analytical Testing". Shimadzu Corporation. Archived from the original on 19 January 2017. Retrieved 03 February 2017. "Source is actual webinar." 
  14. "2016 Warning Letters and Test Results for Cannabidiol-Related Products". Public Health Focus. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 31 August 2016. Retrieved 03 February 2017. 
  15. Radwan, M.M.; ElSohly, M.A.; El-Alfy, A.T. et al. (2015). "Isolation and pharmacological evaluation of minor cannabinoids from high-potency Cannabis sativa". Journal of Natural Products 78 (6): 1271-6. doi:10.1021/acs.jnatprod.5b00065. PMC PMC4880513. PMID 26000707. 
  16. Solymosi, K.; Köfalvi, A. (2017). "Cannabis: A Treasure Trove or Pandora's Box?". Mini-Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry 17: 1123–91. doi:10.2174/1389557516666161004162133. 
  17. 17.0 17.1 17.2 17.3 Mudge, E.M.; Murch, S.J.; Brown, P.N. (2018). "Chemometric Analysis of Cannabinoids: Chemotaxonomy and Domestication Syndrome". Scientific Reports 8: 13090. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-31120-2. 
  18. Citti, C.; Linciano, P.; Russo, F. et al. (2019). "A novel phytocannabinoid isolated from Cannabis sativa L. with an in vivo cannabimimetic activity higher than Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol: Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabiphorol". Scientific Reports 9: 20335. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-56785-1. 
  19. World Health Organization (2016). Hall, W.; Renström, M.; Poznyak, V. ed. The health and social effects of nonmedical cannabis use. World Health Organization. pp. 95. ISBN 978921510240. 
  20. Rahn, B. (22 January 2014). "Cannabinoids 101: What Makes Cannabis Medicine?". Leafly - Cannabis 101. Leafly Holdings, Inc. Retrieved 03 February 2017. 
  21. 21.0 21.1 21.2 Kuzdzal, S.; Lipps, W. (2015). "Unraveling the Cannabinome". The Analytical Scientist (0915). Retrieved 19 January 2017. 
  22. 22.00 22.01 22.02 22.03 22.04 22.05 22.06 22.07 22.08 22.09 22.10 22.11 22.12 22.13 22.14 22.15 22.16 22.17 22.18 22.19 22.20 22.21 Association of Public Health Laboratories (May 2016). "Guidance for State Medical Cannabis Testing Programs" (PDF). pp. 35. Retrieved 01 February 2017. 
  23. 23.0 23.1 Rahn, B. (09 October 2014). "Understanding Cannabis Testing: A Guide to Cannabinoids and Terpenes". Leafly - Cannabis 101. Leafly Holdings, Inc. Retrieved 03 February 2017. 
  24. "delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol". NCI Drug Dictionary. National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. Retrieved 08 February 2017. 
  25. 25.0 25.1 25.2 Habib, R.; Finighan, R.; Davenport, S. (24 August 2013). "Testing for Psychoactive Agents" (PDF). BOTEC Analysis Corp. Retrieved 08 February 2017. 
  26. 26.0 26.1 "Tests Offered". CMT Laboratories. Retrieved 08 February 2017. 
  27. 27.0 27.1 27.2 27.3 "Terpene Profiling Services". The Werc Shop. Retrieved 08 February 2017. 
  28. 28.0 28.1 28.2 Andre, C.M.; Hausman, J.-F.; Guerriero, G. (2016). "Cannabis sativa: The plant of the thousand and one molecules". Frontiers in Plant Medicine 7: 19. doi:10.3389/fpls.2016.00019. PMC PMC4740396. PMID 26870049. 
  29. Wachsberger, K. (02 February 2016). "Terpene Testing: The future of Cannabis is here". Bloom Blog. Bloom City Club. Retrieved 08 February 2017. 
  30. 30.0 30.1 "Terpene Analysis". SC Labs, Inc. Retrieved 08 February 2017. 
  31. 31.0 31.1 Borel, B. (31 August 2015). "The Wild West of Marijuana Pesticides". The Atlantic. The Atlantic Monthly Group. Retrieved 09 February 2017. 
  32. 32.0 32.1 Zhang, S. (07 August 2015). "Nobody Knows What to Do About Pesticides in Legal Marijuana". Wired. Condé Nast. Retrieved 09 February 2017. 
  33. 33.0 33.1 Deibel, C. (29 January 2019). "Pesticide Testing: Methods, Strategies & Sampling". Cannabis Industry Journal. Retrieved 20 February 2020. 
  34. 34.0 34.1 34.2 34.3 34.4 34.5 34.6 Farrer, D.G. (December 2015). "Technical Report: Oregon Health Authority’s Process to Determine Which Types of Contaminants to Test for in Cannabis Products, and Levels for Action" (PDF). Oregon Health Authority. Retrieved 09 February 2017. 
  35. Romano, L.L.; Hazekamp, A. (2013). "Cannabis oil: Chemical evaluation of an upcoming cannabis-based medicine" (PDF). Cannabinoids 1 (1): 1–11. 
  36. Peach, J.; Eastoe, J. (2014). "Supercritical carbon dioxide: A solvent like no other". Journal of Organic Chemistry 10: 1878-95. doi:10.3762/bjoc.10.196. PMC PMC4168859. PMID 25246947. 
  37. 37.0 37.1 37.2 "<467> Residual Solvents" (PDF). United States Pharmacopeia and The National Formulary. United States Pharmacopeial Convention. 01 July 2007. Archived from the original on 04 August 2016. Retrieved 21 June 2019. 
  38. 38.0 38.1 Bureau of Healthcare Safety and Quality (12 February 2016). "Response to Public Comments" (PDF). Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Retrieved 14 February 2017. 
  39. Daley, P.; Lampach, D.; Sguerra, S. (12 September 2013). "Testing Cannabis for Contaminants" (PDF). BOTEC Analysis Corp. Retrieved 09 February 2017. 
  40. 40.0 40.1 "UC Davis study finds mold, bacterial contaminants in medical marijuana samples". UC Davis. 07 February 2017. Retrieved 10 February 2017. 
  41. 41.0 41.1 41.2 41.3 41.4 Kennard, M. (02 June 2014). "You are Probably Smoking Mouldy Weed - Why Does Quality Assurance Matter?". Populace. Tantalus Labs. Retrieved 21 June 2019. 
  42. "Microbiological study of Cannabis samples". Fundación CANNA. 2014. Retrieved 10 February 2017. 
  43. McPartland, J.M. (2013). "Chapter 30: Contaminants and Adulterants in Herbal Cannabis". In Russo, E.B.. Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential. Routledge. pp. 478. ISBN 9781136614934. 
  44. Rough, Lisa. "Leafly’s State-by-State Guide to Medical Cannabis Testing Regulations". Leafly - Industry. Leafly Holdings, Inc. 
  45. Rigdon, A. (12 May 2016). "Extraction Method for Cannabinoid Analysis in Edibles: Too Much of a Good Thing". ChromaBLOGraphy. Restek Corporation. Retrieved 16 February 2017. 
  46. Codex Alimentarius Commission. "CAC/GL 50-2004 General Guidelines on Sampling" (PDF). pp. 69. Retrieved 15 February 2017. 
  47. Bureau of Health Care Safety and Quality (05 February 2016). "Protocol for Sampling and Analysis of Finished Medical Marijuana Products and Marijuana-Infused Products for Massachusetts Registered Medical Marijuana Dispensaries" (PDF). Massachusetts Department of Public Health. pp. 25. Retrieved 17 February 2017. 
  48. "Why 0.877?". Confidence Analytics. 10 February 2016. Retrieved 16 February 2017. 
  49. Rigdon, A. (29 July 2015). "Accurate Quantification of Cannabinoid Acids by GC – Is it Possible?". ChromaBLOGraphy. Restek Corporation. Retrieved 16 February 2017. 
  50. Rigdon, A. (09 September 2015). "Accurate Quantification of Cannabinoid Acids and Neutrals by GC – Derivatives without Calculus". ChromaBLOGraphy. Restek Corporation. Retrieved 16 February 2017. 
  51. 51.0 51.1 Division of Environmental Health Sciences, Laboratory of Organic Analytical Chemistry (03 November 2015). "Measurement of Phytocannabinoids using HPLC-PAD, NYS DOH MML-300" (PDF). New York State Department of Health. pp. 34. Retrieved 15 February 2017. 
  52. "Subcommittee D37.03 on Laboratory". ASTM International. Retrieved 25 February 2020. 
  53. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (12 November 2019). "New guidelines require laboratories to meet AOAC Standard Method Performance Requirements for Quantitation of Cannabinoids in Hemp". AOAC News. Retrieved 25 February 2020. 
  54. Leghissa, A.; Smuts, J.; Qiu, C. et al. (2018). "Detection of cannabinoids and cannabinoid metabolites using gas chromatography with vacuum ultraviolet spectroscopy". SSC Plus 1 (1): 37–42. doi:10.1002/sscp.201700005. 
  55. 55.0 55.1 "Cannabis Testing: Quality You Can Trust" (PDF). Sigma-Aldritch Co. LLC. 2016. Retrieved 15 February 2017. 
  56. 56.0 56.1 56.2 56.3 Adams, T.; Bertone, M. (30 November 2016). "Near Infrared, GC and HPLC Applications in Cannabis Testing". Cannabis Industry Journal. Innovative Publishing Co. LLC. Retrieved 15 February 2017. 
  57. Zailer, E. (02 January 2019). "Recap of the First NMR Cannabis Meeting". Spectral Service AG. 
  58. Wang, X.; Harrington, P.B.; Baugh, S.F. (2017). "Comparative Study of NMR Spectral Profiling for the Characterization and Authentication of Cannabis". Journal of AOAC International 100 (5): 1356–64. doi:10.5740/jaoacint.17-0089. PMID 28718398. 
  59. Marchetti, L.; Brighenti, V.; Rossi, M.C. et al. (2019). "Use of 13C-qNMR Spectroscopy for the Analysis of Non-Psychoactive Cannabinoids in Fibre-Type Cannabis sativa L. (Hemp)". Molecules 24 (6): 1138. doi:10.3390/molecules24061138. 
  60. Siudem, P.; Wawer, I.; Paradowska, K. (2019). "Rapid evaluation of edible hemp oil quality using NMR and FT-IR spectroscopy". Journal of Molecular Structure 1177: 204–08. doi:10.1016/j.molstruc.2018.09.057. 
  61. May, M. (28 September 2017). "NMR Spectroscopy: Producing a chemical fingerprint of cannabis". Analytical Cannabis. Retrieved 21 June 2019. 
  62. Bennett, P. (31 December 2018). "Cannabis Testing Explained: What’s in Your Cannabis?". Leafly. Retrieved 21 June 2019. 
  63. Conn, P. (14 March 2019). "Cannabis: Trends in Analytical Research". The Pittsburgh Conference on Analytical Chemistry and Applied Spectroscopy, Inc. Retrieved 21 June 2019. 
  64. 64.0 64.1 Herring, T. (29 December 2016). "Can HPLC-UV Be Used For Terpenes Analysis In Cannabis?". ChromaBLOGraphy. Restek Corporation. Retrieved 21 June 2019. 
  65. Hodgson, A.; Cochran, J. (12 February 2018). "Vacuum Ultraviolet Spectroscopy: A New Tool for Gas Chromatography Analysis of Terpenes in Flavours and Fragrances". LC GC 14 (2): 12–16. 
  66. 66.0 66.1 66.2 66.3 "Cannabis Testing Laboratory Solutions" (PDF). Shimadzu Corporation. Archived from the original on 27 March 2016. Retrieved 21 June 2019. 
  67. 67.0 67.1 67.2 67.3 CEM Corporation (25 July 2018). "Analyzing Pesticide Residue of Cannabis". AZO Materials. AZoNetwork. Retrieved 15 November 2018. 
  68. 68.0 68.1 LCGC (August 2016). "Real-World Chromatography Applications: Current Trends in Cannabis, Environmental, Food, Pharmaceutical, and Biopharmaceutical Analysis" (PDF). LCGC North America 2016-2017 Annual Industry Trends and Directory Issue. UBM. pp. 584–7. Retrieved 15 November 2018. 
  69. 69.0 69.1 Kowalski, J.; Dahi, J.H.; Rigdon, A. et al. (2017). "Evaluation of Modified QuEChERS for Pesticide Analysis in Cannabis". LC GC 35 (5): 8–22. 
  70. 70.0 70.1 70.2 Winkler, P.C.; Egerton, D.; Butt, C. et al. (06 June 2018). "Pesticide Testing for the Cannabis Industry: The Importance of LC-MS/MS for Obtaining Accurate Results in a Complex Matrix". Labcompare Featured Articles. CompareNetworks, Inc. Retrieved 15 November 2018. 
  71. 71.0 71.1 71.2 Jordan, R.; Asanuma, L.; Miller, D.; Macherone, A. (19 June 2018). A Comprehensive Approach to Pesticide Residue Analysis in Cannabis. 1. UBM. 
  72. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (26 August 2018). "AOAC SMPR 2018.011 - Standard Method Performance Requirements (SMPRs) for Identification and Quantitation of Selected Pesticide Residues in Dried Cannabis Materials" (PDF). Retrieved 25 February 2020. 
  73. "Residue Analytical Methods (RAM)". United States Environmental Protection Agency. 20 February 2016. Retrieved 14 February 2017. 
  74. "Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM)". United States Food and Drug Administration. 07 June 2015. Retrieved 14 February 2017. 
  75. Poceva Panovska, A.; Acevska, J.; Stefkov, G. et al. (2016). "Optimization of HS-GC-FID-MS Method for Residual Solvent Profiling in Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients Using DoE". Journal of Chromatographic Science 54 (2): 103–11. doi:10.1093/chromsci/bmv123. PMID 26290585. 
  76. L'Heureux, M.L. (20 April 2018). "Advancing Chromatography Methods for Cannabis Analysis". Cannabis Science and Technology. UBM. Retrieved 21 June 2019. 
  77. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (09 October 2019). "AOAC SMPR 2019.002 - Standard Method Performance Requirements (SMPRs) for Identification and Quantitation of Selected Residual Solvents in Cannabis-Derived Materials" (PDF). Retrieved 25 February 2020. 
  78. Boyle, R.; Ferrell, E. (21 September 2018). "Selecting Microwave Digestion Technology for Measuring Heavy Metals in Cannabis Products". Cannabis Science and Technology 1 (3). 
  79. Davis, D.; Long, K.; Masone, J.; Firmin, P. (August 2015). "Analysis of "The Big Four" Heavy Metals in Cannabis by USN-ICP-OES" (PDF). Shimadzu Corporation. Retrieved 14 February 2017. 
  80. "Analysis of Foods for As, Cd, Cr, Hg and Pb by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS)" (PDF). United States Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. 25 April 2011. Retrieved 14 February 2017. 
  81. Thompson III, G.R.; Tuscano, J.M.; Dennis, M. et al. (2017). "A microbiome assessment of medical marijuana". Clinical Microbiology and Infection: S1198-743X(16)30605-X. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2016.12.001. PMID 27956269. 
  82. L'Heureux, M.L. (06 August 2018). "Testing for Pesticides and Mycotoxins in Cannabis: How to Meet Regulatory Requirements". Cannabis Science and Technology. UBM. Retrieved 21 June 2019. 
  83. 83.0 83.1 "<561> Articles of Botanical Origin" (PDF). United States Pharmacopeia and The National Formulary. United States Pharmacopeial Convention. 01 July 2007. Retrieved 15 February 2017. 
  84. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (09 October 2019). "AOAC SMPR 2019.001 - Standard Method Performance Requirements (SMPRs) for Detection of Aspergillus in Cannabis and Cannabis Products" (PDF). Retrieved 25 February 2020. 
  85. Cundell, T. (31 July 2015). "Microbiological attributes of powdered cannabis". American Pharmaceutical Review. CompareNetworks, Inc. Retrieved 15 February 2017. 
  86. 86.0 86.1 "Cannabis Testing Laboratory Accreditation Program". ANSI National Accreditation Board. Retrieved 25 February 2020. 
  87. "Cannabis Testing Laboratory Accreditation Program". American Association of Laboratory Accreditation. Retrieved 25 February 2020. 
  88. 88.0 88.1 "ACIL Cannabis Testing Recommendations" (PDF). American Council of Independent Laboratories. 2019. Retrieved 25 February 2020. 
  89. "Oregon Health Authority, Public Health Division, Division 64, Accreditation of Laboratories". Oregon Administrative Rules. Oregon Secretary of State. Retrieved 08 January 2021. 
  90. Bureau of Marijuana Control. "Bureau of Marijuana Control Proposed Text of Regulations - Testing Laboratories" (PDF). State of California. Retrieved 16 January 2021. 
  91. "Title 28 - Health and Safety, Department of Health - 28 Pa. Code Ch. 1171 - 1171.31. Test results and reporting". Pennsylvania Code (Fry Communications, Inc). Retrieved 08 January 2021. 
  92. "Certificate of Analysis - Sample: Godzilla" (PDF). Cannabis Chronicles. 07 July 2014. Retrieved 16 January 2021. 
  93. "Current Test Results". Analytical 360, LLC. Retrieved 16 January 2021. 
  94. Hydrio (August 2016). "Can you help me analyze lab reports of cannabis oil?". Beyond Chronic: Ask Old Hippie. Retrieved 16 January 2021. 
  95. McKenna, M. (18 June 2015). "Setting Up Your Cannabis Lab for Potency Testing". SlideShare. GenTech. Archived from the original on 27 December 2016. Retrieved 16 January 2021. 
  96. Public Health Division. "Reporting Requirements for Tracking Medical Marijuana". Oregon Health Authority. Retrieved 16 February 2017. 
  97. "Chapter 314-55 WAC: Marijuana Licenses, Application Process, Requirements, and Reporting". Washington Administrative Code. Washington State Legislature. 16 November 2016. Retrieved 16 February 2017. 
  98. 98.0 98.1 Milman, B.L. (2010). "Chapter 2: Techniques and Methods of Identification". Chemical Identification and its Quality Assurance. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 23–39. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15361-7_2. ISBN 9783642153617. 
  99. Taylor, M. (23 June 2015). "Cannabis Testing Opens Up a Whole New Market". Laboratory Equipment. Advantage Business Media. Retrieved 17 February 2017. 
  100. "Laboratory Informatics". 09 April 2011. Archived from the original on 25 April 2015. Retrieved 17 February 2017. 
  101. Skobelev, D.O.; Zaytseva, T.M.; Kozlov, A.D. et al. (2011). "Laboratory information management systems in the work of the analytic laboratory". Measurement Techniques 53 (10): 1182–1189. doi:10.1007/s11018-011-9638-7. 
  102. Biros, A.G. (23 October 2015). "Using LIMS in Cannabis Laboratories". Cannabis Industry Journal. Innovative Publishing Co. LLC. Retrieved 21 June 2019. 
  103. "LIMS for Cannabis Testing". Promium, LLC. Retrieved 21 June 2019. 
  104. "LabLynx LIMS - Cannabis". LabLynx, Inc. 20 January 2017. Retrieved 21 June 2019. 
  105. Audino, S. (07 February 2018). "Managing Cannabis Testing Lab Workflows Using LIMS". Cannabis Industry Journal. Retrieved 13 January 2021. 
  106. Paszko, C. (27 November 2018). "Selecting a LIMS for the Cannabis Industry". LabCompare. Retrieved 21 June 2019. 
  107. Purschke, K.; Heinl, S.; Lerch, O. et al. (2016). "Development and validation of an automated liquid-liquid extraction GC/MS method for the determination of THC, 11-OH-THC, and free THC-carboxylic acid (THC-COOH) from blood serum". Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 408 (16): 4379-88. doi:10.1007/s00216-016-9537-5. PMC PMC4875941. PMID 27116418. 
  108. Albertini, T.; Caruso, A. (2015). "Determination of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and Its Main Metabolites Using GC Triple Quadrupole Mass Spectrometry" (PDF). Thermo Fisher Scientific. Retrieved 17 February 2017. 
  109. Layton, C.; Reuter, W.M. (23 January 2017). "Analysis of Cannabinoids in Hemp Seed Oils by HPLC Using PDA Detection" (PDF). PerkinElmer, Inc. Retrieved 17 February 2017. 
  110. Davies, A.N. (12 April 2016). "Central spectroscopic data systems: Why are chromatographers so much better equipped?". Spectroscopy Europe. John Wiley & Sons Ltd; IM Publications LLP. Retrieved 21 June 2019. 
  111. "Waters Empower Shimadzu GC Driver Version 2". Shimadzu Scientific Instruments. Archived from the original on 24 June 2016. Retrieved 21 June 2019. 
  112. 112.0 112.1 Rothberg, D. (29 December 2015). "Software Firms Benefit from Government’s Seed-to-Sale Marijuana Tracking". Government Technology. e.Republic, Inc. Retrieved 21 February 2017. 
  113. Smyth, H. (21 June 2016). "Track and Trace vs. Seed to Sale". MJ Freeway Blog. MJ Freeway, LLC. Retrieved 21 February 2017. 

-----Go to the next chapter of this guide-----

Citation information for this chapter

Chapter: 3. Laboratory testing of cannabis

Title: Past, Present, and Future of Cannabis Laboratory Testing and Regulation in the United States

Edition: Third edition

Author for citation: Shawn E. Douglas

License for content: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International

Publication date: March 2020

Comments are closed.