Great question! Shaking longer than the prescribed time generally doesn't affect the COA since we set the shake times in each SOP to ensure the sample is fully extracted. If you were to shake less than the prescribed time the LightLab could report lower than actual since the cannabinoids may not be fully extracted from the sample.

We would like to help you, but we aren't sure what part of LightLab's analysis technique you're taking issue with. Nearly all laboratory HPLC methods use solvent extraction as a primary sample preparation technique. We have multiple sets of third party published data to support our performance that we are always happy to share. Note that in the latest proficiency test (Sept 2022) LightLab outperformed two thirds of the participating laboratories so we believe strongly that our technique is proven out with data.

@@orangephotonics7168 I never mentioned solvents at all. Cannabis flower is not the same as concentrates and it is not to be treated as a pharmaceutical that you simply crush or grind and analyze the powder. Grinding does not, in any way, provide a homogenous or representative sample of that flower. Grinders are a GUARANTEED way to lose trichomes. First of all, you only took a small part of the flower that was ground up. Grinders do not homogenize the ground matter. You are left with a pile of various plant components with different particle sizes and densities. That scoop is not representative of the flower that was ground. Unless you can ensure homogenous particle size, you have 0 evidence to suggest the scoop your taking from that grinder is truly representative or homogenous. On top of that, anyone that has ever used a grinder knows that there are plenty of trichomes that get smeared on the teeth and sides of the grinder, greatly reducing the potency results (I've tested this using a grinder, mortar and pestle, etc). Anyone using this method is losing at LEAST 3% THCa on their results if they use this method. It can be up to 6/7% in my experience. I think I'm learning your ignorance stems from cannabis and not chemistry. Which is fine, but to put this much effort into this instrument just to use this sad method is just...yikes 😬 I can see why cops are your target customer base🤣 If you guys want to hire some actual chemists that understand cannabis, let me know. I can send some your way.

Thank you for clarifying your position. Yes, we would agree that grinding a small amount of sample can be troublesome, and is not what we would recommend in a typical industrial application. This was meant to be a simple sales example of how an analysis is performed, not a full instruction video for a customer. We have application notes that describe sampling and preparation methods for various analysis types, and we generally recommend using a large scale homogenization mill for dried material, typically at least several grams depending on the application. The preparation and sampling techniques we recommend for pheno hunting are quite different than those for determining extraction efficiency in an extraction vessel for example. A large portion of our R&D is focused on sample preparation since this is truly one of the most important aspects of ensuring in-house testing provides value and saves money. Thank you for pointing this out- certainly we are on the same page as to the importance of sampling and preparation in cannabis analysis.

Thank you Tyler and I'm sorry we're just seeing your comment now. I believe you are referring to the differences between D8THC and D9THC. From a chemical perspective, there really is only one double bond difference. Technically that means that some of the hydrogens are connected in different places since carbon has 4 bonding locations. Any of the bonds not shown in organic chemistry generally have an assumed hydrogen attached. So along with the double bond movement, the carbon at different locations will swap from having one hydrogen attached to two. Again, this is usually assumed in organic chemistry when a hydrocarbon has a double bond, but technically that's right- hydrogen atom locations are also shifted with the D8 configuration.

Thanks for your question Eadan. D8THC has the same number of atoms as D9THC. This is what is called an "isomer"- same chemical formula but different arrangement of the atoms. The only difference, in this case, is the location of one double bond as mentioned during the talk. You may be thinking of "Varin" cannabinoids, such as THCV, which actually have two fewer carbon atoms on their tail. Stay tuned, I'm sure we will be discussing Varin cannabinoids soon!

@@orangephotonics7168 Thanks! I liked your explanation a lot, I was actually thinking of thcv, and thcp, hearing how the longer tail makes it stronger, now I see the difference between isomers and modifications

Slight wheezing from the Effex dispos?

@@GQFJB Nope. Cluster headaches and hard lumps appearing on my temples. It was from their carts, not the dispos. My cart went on to leak, and once I eliminated using it the symptoms went away.

Delta effex sells garbage

@@TNoStone nah they dont

Dan... Flower mode LOD is 0.5%, meaning the LightLab in this run mode will read upwards of 11 analytes to a reading as low as 0.5% if the compound is present. Within Hemp compliance mode the LightLab will look at a much lower wavelength in order to reach LOD of 0.05%. In this run mode, the LightLab ignores all other cannabinoids present. We only focus on THCA and Delta 9 and allow the other cannabinoids to saturate. I am happy to review this in further detail if you would like to reach out to me directly at [email protected]

The Selective Separation Columns are good for 25 tests. LightLab will keep track of how many tests have been run on a column so you know when it's time to change it.

The LightLab will still operate, however it will remind you that a calibration is due. If the instrument is not serviced annually, it will eventually fail. Calibration services require the LightLab to be sent back to our facility and can take roughly 2 weeks to turn-around.

what causes calibration to be needed is it number of tests that have been done through it or is it the bumping around of being mobile thank you in advance

Good question. The instrument can measure samples that are wet or dry; however, we recommend drying samples to get the best accuracy. In addition, if you know the moisture content of sample you can input your measured moisture value and LightLab will correct for the sample's moisture content.

Hello Fernando - please get in touch with our technical sales team for a conversation. We look forward to speaking with you.

That is a good question Mikhael. The LightLab is a lab-grade analytical tool. It uses liquid chromatography (LC) to separate and quantify the cannabinoids present in the sample. LC is a standard method of testing used by analytical laboratories and regulators. Apologies for missing your question!

So is this machine worth it? It just tests thc and no terps?

@@thembrelectric LightLab 3 is quite robust. Think of it as a portable HPLC for cannabis analytes. It tests a host of cannabinoids and total terpenes - Δ9THC, THC-A, CBD, CBDA, CBN, CBG, CBGA, CBNA, CBCA, CBC, Δ6a, 10a-THC, total terpenes (semi-quant).

At low quantities tests are about $5 per test. Of course the cost per test drops as test volume increases.

@@orangephotonics7168 What all does it test for?

@@thembrelectric LightLab tests 11 cannabinoids and terpenes in 9 sample types - Δ9THC, THC-A, CBD, CBDA, CBN, CBG, CBGA, CBNA, CBCA, CBC, Δ6a, 10a-THC, total terpenes (semi-quant). It also offers Total Potential THC in Hemp Compliance mode.

Good question. We use multiple UV wavelengths.

Apologies for missing your question! Technically yes, though we operate differently than an HPLC. We rely on spectroscopy as well as chromatography data. We vary the pump speed and separation across a sample run to maximize separation when there is no spectroscopic differences. We speed things up, intentionally allowing peak overlap, when there are spectroscopic differences.

Ya, this method is highly inaccurate. Do not waste your money.

Hi @@timr8431 , You might be thinking of NIR, which has a range of +/- 10%. This system is an HPLC, not NIR. Liquid Chromatography is the standard testing method for cannabis analysis and is the method used by the vast majority of testing labs. Happy to chat if you'd like to DM us.

@@orangephotonics7168 No, I'm talking specifically about this video. I'm well aware of cannabinoid analytics. I'm a chemist in a cannabis lab haha I run the UPLC every single day. Your sample prep is horrid.

@@timr8431 Thanks for your comment, but we believe in numbers, not simply "inaccurate" or "good". We participate in both NIST and University of Kentucky proficiency testing and have calculated repeatability and reproducibility values using ASTM E691 statistics, all of which is publicly available. If your laboratory publishes similar data it would be interesting to compare, but simply saying we are "inaccurate" isn't useful without a comparison to other data. Our sample preparation is certainly simpler than a typical laboratory preparation, but LightLab is able to avoid the dilution step due to the column design we use. By avoiding dilution our preparation avoids one of the largest sources of error in LC analysis. This far and away outweighs any added error through our simplified process. We recently ran a blinded test against 3 iso certified laboratories likely similar to your own (again these data are publicly available) and it was clear that LightLab was equal to, and in many cases outperformed, the laboratories. Feel free to reach out if you would like to review any of our data or analysis.