Farm to final product; role of chromatography, mass spectrometry in cannabis industry

Master of ScienceDepartment of Chemical EngineeringKeith L. HohnThe Cannabis industry is an emerging market that has recently evolved, providing everything from medical treatment for a wide range of maladies to recreational use. In the same way the industry has expanded so quickly and the uses for cannabis are so all-encompassing, so has the demand increased for advanced instrumentations to ensure safety and quality of the cannabis product as it makes its journey from farm to patient. Cannabis-based products (whether they’re for medical purposes, industrial hemp, or recreational cannabis) all require various test panels encompassing complex analytical instrumentation to guarantee safety and quality before reaching consumers. The safety of cannabis is of great concern, especially in medical cannabis patients who are immunocompromised. For this reason, contamination from natural or synthetic origin needs to be screened to deem the product’s safety. In the cannabis plant, there are 144 cannabinoids and 120 terpenes, as well as other phytochemicals that are extracted, purified, and processed to cater to specific applications. These techniques include Super Critical Fluid Extraction (SFE), organic solvent extraction, and processing of varying degrees such as infused cannabis product. Each step of processing means introducing potential biological and chemical contaminants such as residual solvents, pesticides, heavy metals, or microbial contaminants. Additionally, storage conditions can exacerbate levels of these contaminants. Lastly, the cannabis plant is an excellent bio-accumulator; this means the potential contamination of pesticides and heavy metals from fertilizer, water sources or pesticide applications are likely. To ensure the plant’s safety, various tests enforced by state or federal regulators are carried out by chemical engineers or chemists as quality control before the release of cannabis-infused products. Some of the processes to ensure cannabis safety include the separation techniques Liquid Chromatography (LC) and Gas Chromatography (GC), and Ultraviolet (UV) and Mass Spectrometer (MS) to detect levels of contaminants. Most of the mandated tests panels involve LC, GC, UV, and MS analysis. Often, the instruments needed to perform the test panels demand a significant operating cost and are a critical component of a company’s operations to ensure compliance with state and regulatory bodies. This forces technical staff to be knowledgeable and involved in designing or operating the instrumentation. This report contains a detailed historical perspective of Cannabis, tracking its evolution as an industry to its present state. The current status of Cannabis legality and regulation in the U.S is also examined. Also included is an overview of Chromatography and Mass Spectrometry, and how they apply to the Cannabis industry. Additionally, a case study of the medical marijuana (MMJ) program in Missouri and the industrial hemp program in Kansas are explored in greater detail. Lastly, my collaboration with the hemp test lab at Kansas State University in establishing test methods for cannabinoids’ characterization is discussed

Chemical warfare agent simulants in Gamble’s fluid: Is the fluid toxic? Can it be made safer by inclusion of solid nanocrystalline metal oxides?

Citation: Karote, Dennis, Brandon Walker, Huaien Dai, Ramaswamy Krishnamoorthi, Janis Voo, and Shyamala Rajagopalan. “Chemical Warfare Agent Simulants in Gamble’s Fluid: Is the Fluid Toxic? Can It Be Made Safer by Inclusion of Solid Nanocrystalline Metal Oxides?” Edited by Meehir Palit. Journal of Chemistry 2013 (December 5, 2012): 641620. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/641620.The reactions of chemical warfare agent simulants, 2-chloroethyl ethyl sulfide (2-CEES) and di-i-propyl fluoro phosphate (DFP), in fluids have been investigated. Data analyses confirm the major degradation pathway to be hydrolysis of 2-CEES to 2-hydroxyethyl ethyl sulfide, along with minor self-condensation products. Among the three fluids examined, 2-CEES degradation was the fastest in Gamble’s fluid during a 96 h period. Upon addition of Exceptional Hazard Attenuation Materials (EHAMs) to 2-CEES containing Gamble’s fluid, degradation was generally improved during the first 24 h period. The 96 h outcome was similar for fluid samples with or without EHAM 2 and EHAM 4. EHAM 1-added fluid contained only one degradation product, 2-nitroethyl ethyl sulfide. DFP degradation was the slowest in Gamble’s fluid, but was enhanced by the addition of EHAMs. FTIR and solid state 31P NMR confirm the destructive adsorption of 2-CEES and DFP by the EHAMs. The results collectively demonstrate that 2-CEES and DFP decompose to various extents in Gamble’s fluid over a 96 h period but the fluid still contains a considerable amount of intact simulant. EHAM 1 appears to be promising for 2-CEES and DFP mitigation while EHAM 2 and EHAM 4 work well for early on concentration reduction of 2-CEES and DFP