Chromatography Forum

While doing research on HPLC analysis of cannabis, I "discovered" this approach, which is based on NIR of solids.

http://quantacann.com/features/instant/
http://www.triqsystems.com/products/quantacann.html
http://morganlesko.com/cbd/2012/02/13/quantacann/

Considering a complex nature of the cannabis, I have a doubt that this technique can accurately determine THC and other cannabinoids. The claim that it is more accurate then HPLC baffles me. IS this for real or people just uploading the image with all relevant information and then "group of experts" based on how the picture looks like are "determining" the potency of particular lot.

There are a number of service of this type offering onsite NIR analysis and off-site data analysis. NIR is used for many analysis in a variety of industries.

However for the individual user calibration can be an issue. The instrument is calibrated by plotting the NIR reading vs the result from a reference method on the same sample. Also you need quite a lot of data points for even a minimal calibration (I've seen recommendations of 100 - 150 to start) but you can continually add to it over the couse of time.

Removing this need for calibration maintenance is where this type of service comes in.

In my opinion it is a bogus reading. When people buy cannabis even from dispensaries it can contain a mixture. I can get buds of the plant, soak it in MeOH-Chloroform, extract some of the cannabis, dry the weed and analyze it. It might show a similar profile and "calculation" will be different than HPLC results for both samples, soaked and not soaked. I bet you that if you run a parallel test by HPLC the data will be different. In my opinion you don't even need to do NIR, because people provide you with information on strain and other stuff. You can look at it and say this is AK-47 and it contain 18.3% of THC....and this people are charging $5,000/per months for renting QuantaCann. If you look at promotional stuff they they the right words "cloud", "social network", "highly professional scientists", "statistically proven results" and all other rubbish. This is just my opinion.

Hi; Just in addition to what JGK mention; NIR is a secundary technique; this means that requires to be calibrated agains a reference method; for such a reason never could be more accurate than the reference Method (HPLC?) what is true is that could be more precise because it requires much less Sample prep.

Regards.

Oscar