新しいRestek.comへようこそ!新しいサイトをご案内します。また、フィードバックも歓迎します。

ご使用のウェブブラウザは2021年6月30日をもってReste.comでサポートされなくなります。
お手数ですが、その他のウェブブラウザをインストールしてください。詳しくはこちらをご覧ください

CBD Infused Beverages: The Recovery Dilemma…Solved?

By
  • Jamie L. York, PhD
タグ
  • #カンナビノイド
  • #製品の選択
  • #Q-sep QuEChERS Sample Prep
  • #食品
  • #メソッド開発
  • #メソッドの最適化
  • #サンプル前処理と大気サンプリング
  • #リファレンススタンダード
  • #リファレンススタンダード分野別
  • #ボタニカル
  • #サンプル前処理製品
  • #QuEChERS
  • #ブログ
  • #ボタニカル
  • #カンナビス
  • #QuEChERS
  • 共有 :

blog-CBD-infused-beverages-the-recovery-dilemma-solved.jpg

If this is the first you’re hearing of the recovery dilemma in CBD infused beverages, part I can be found here. In this blog I’d like to talk about how we were able to overcome some of the challenges outlined in part I.

CBD infused beverages are everywhere. I see them at the grocery store, gas station, and even at the liquor store. As popular as these beverages are, they are challenging from an analytical standpoint to test for potency. During the formulation process, it takes some finesse to get hydrophobic compounds, such as cannabinoids, to emulsify with a water-based beverage, which makes this type of matrix uniquely challenging to analyze.

Recovery experiments are a routine part of method development, and it is especially important for a sample such as infused beverages, where an emulsion has to be broken before the analyte can be detected. We’d need access to both the base beverage and the stabilized emulsions in order to perform standard addition based recovery, so how can we perform recovery experiments in their absence?

To overcome this obstacle, a potency in beverage matrix proficiency test (PT) was used to confirm the efficacy of the developed sample preparation method. A PT is a great way to measure the performance of your method objectively and to ensure that your methodology is suitable for its intended purpose. In this case, the PT contained 5 cannabinoids at unknown concentrations in a carbonated base beverage. The beverage was taken though the sample preparation process, analyzed, and the results were submitted to the PT provider. The results were confirmed to fall within the acceptable reporting range indicating that our method was working as intended.

Feeling confident in our method now that the recovery dilemma had been addressed, additional samples were obtained locally, tested, and compared with their label value. CBD infused sparkling flavored water, drink powder, concentrated beverage, and juice were obtained for analysis. Carbonated beverages were sonicated for 30 minutes prior to use. Each sample was prepared by aliquoting 10 mL of beverage into a 50 mL centrifuge tube. 10 mL of ACN was added to the sample along with an EN QuEChERS salt packet (catalog number 25849). The sample was then shaken by hand for 1 minute followed by vortexing for 30 seconds. The samples were transferred to a shaker table and shaken for 10 minutes followed by centrifugation at 4200 rpm for 10 minutes. An aliquot was transferred to an autosampler vial. Concentrated samples were further diluted before analysis. All samples were extracted in triplicate and analyzed in triplicate. Below is a summary of the results:

Type of CBD infused beverage

CBD mg label claim per container (mg)

Experimentally determined mg CBD per container (mg)

Concentration label claim (ppm)

Experimentally determined concentration (ppm)

% RSD

% Difference

Flavored Sparkling Water- 1

25

27.4

70.4

77.3

3

10

Flavored Sparkling Water- 2

25

28.5

70.4

80.2

1

14

Drink Powder

10

13.3

40.0

53.1

2

33

Concentrated beverage- 1

50

61.7

848

1045

23

23

Concentrated beverage- 2

50

30.0

848

491

15

42

Juice Drink- 1

10

8.70

40.0

24.9

3

13

Juice Drink- 2

10

11.5

40.0

46.1

2

15

Table 1. Summary of results for CBD infused beverages.

The results of this analysis were very similar to the label claim for both flavored carbonated waters and both juice drinks ranging from 10-15% difference from their label value. Both concentrated beverages and drink powder had higher percent differences from their label claims ranging from 23-42%. The high %RSD for the concentrated beverages suggests that the sample may not be homogenous which could help explain the difference from the label claim.   There could also be an actual discrepancy in CBD concentration in the sample or the QuEChERS methodology may not be fully breaking the emulsion.

While QuEChERS was able to break the emulsion for the PT, this is not a foolproof workflow for determining recovery. The ideal situation would be to perform recovery experiments with each type of beverage using the base beverage and stabilized emulsions, but without having access to these, a good way to demonstrate method effectiveness is to test the workflow using a PT. Is your lab currently running this analysis or interested in running this analysis? Let us know in the comment section below!

Interested in a certain topic and want it covered in the next blog? Send us an email with your cannabis laboratory/workflow questions and topics and it could be our next blog post!

関連資料

CBD Infused Beverages: The Recovery Dilemma

資料を読む