Testing for pesticides in cannabis and hemp

Mar 25, 2022 | Blogs, Cannabis, Food / Beverage, Food and Beverage | 0 comments

Read time: 2 minutes

As we all know pesticide and mycotoxin testing regulations differ in each state. The applicable pesticides used can differ by crop (hemp vs. cannabis) and pesticide effectiveness on cannabis and hemp in the first place is currently in doubt. Inside the laboratory, different extraction methods can lead to different recoveries and different instrumentation will have different detection limits.

In a recent talk during Technology Networks ‘The Science of Cannabis Cultivation 2021 Online Symposium’, our customer Stephen Goldman, Kaycha Labs covered how cultivators and laboratories can reliably mitigate the risk of toxin compounds in their products to ensure regulatory compliance and robust methodology. Here, Stephen answers questions submitted during the session:

Is there a difference when testing for contaminants in cannabis vs hemp? Yes, the difference in cannabinoids leads to differing interferences and the different techniques used to manufacture both products can lead to different contaminants being introduced. The same can be said for different cannabis chemovars, where those high in THC, CBD, CBC, CBG, etc will yield different interference profiles that will need to be addressed as part of your contaminant
Why is cannabis such a tricky matrix to work with? It has hundreds of molecules capable of interfering, but the largest reason is the product diversity is so large. Cannabis is being put into everything. This diversity of products presents a big challenge for analytical chemists. Not only may unique sample preparations be required, but the lack of certified reference materials for this array of products makes it difficult to demonstrate the accuracy of a given test method.
How do we get all testing labs on the same page in terms of testing equipment and procedures? We need standardization. Federal standardization is the only thing that can accomplish this. Although, even then, it is unlikely that we would see standardization on testing equipment. Based on other consensus and/or regulatory testing methods, they would likely prescribe a sample preparation regime and then outline method performance benchmarks (e.g., accuracy, precision, quantitative range, etc.) that must be met.

Discover the LC-MS/MS solution for your pesticide testing in cannabis. Discover now >

Related to RUO-MKT-11-14270-A

Why middle‑down and subunit MS analyses powered by EAD are transforming biopharmaceutical characterization

As an analytical strategy, middle-down mass spectrometry (MS) workflows characterize biotherapeutic proteins by analyzing large, digested protein fragments or defined subunits, rather than fully intact proteins (top-down) or digested peptides (bottom-up). A middle-down strategy combines the strengths of top-down and bottom-up approaches by delivering high sequence coverage and structural specificity while maintaining relatively simple sample preparation. In practice, middle-down analysis enables accurate mass measurement, rapid sequence confirmation, and localization of key post-translational modifications (PTMs) on protein subunits that are directly relevant to product quality.

Why electron-activated dissociation (EAD) improves sequence variant analysis in biopharma LC/MS workflows

In biopharmaceutical development, sequence variants (SV) are considered an inherent risk of producing complex proteins in living systems. Sequence variants are unintended changes to the amino acid sequence of a biotherapeutic and can be caused by errors in transcription or translation in the host cell, or cell culture and process conditions. Detailed analysis of SVs is important in process and product development to ensure the drug’s safety and efficacy. Even low‑level sequence variants can have significant implications for product quality, safety, and efficacy, making their accurate detection and characterization a critical requirement across development, process optimization, and regulatory submission.

How NFD improves impurity detection and peak integration in CE SDS workflows

CE‑SDS remains a cornerstone assay for characterizing fragmentation, aggregation, and product‑related impurities in therapeutic proteins. UV detection has been the long‑standing standard. However, it frequently struggles with baseline noise, limited sensitivity for minor fragments, and subjective integration.

Posted by

Matt Noestheden

Matt is the Market Development Manager for the Cannabis, Food and Environmental markets in the Americas at SCIEX. Matt brings 15 years of LC-MS experience to this role, spanning the pharmaceutical, environmental, food and cannabis industries. Matt loves talking about all things mass spectrometry, so reach out if you have any questions at matt.noestheden@sciex.com.

0 Comments