User:Shawndouglas/sandbox/sublevel7

The term "cannabis laboratory" is a fairly broad description that covers a variety of types of labs that are involved in the fast-growing cannabis industry in any way. These can include soil, seed and fertilizer testing labs (in fact, state agriculture department labs can be included here, in states where the industry has been legalized), research labs, pharmaceutical labs, QC testing and certification labs, drug testing/pain management labs, and clinical testing labs.

That said, probably the most common type of cannabis lab in legalized states and Canada is the analytical/QA lab, to provide certified product analysis for labeling and to meet state/national standards and regulations. As the industry matures from its early "wild West" phase into more of an established and organized community, the vision of what a cannabis testing lab looks like has similarly been brought more sharply into focus. Standard tests look for various THC (∆9-Tetrahydrocannabinol) and cannabinoid-related results, pesticides, heavy metals, residual solvents, and microbial contaminants like E. coli, Salmonella, and various yeasts and molds.<ref name="Cannalab Tests">Biros, A.G. (11 January 2017). "Analyzing The Emerald Test Results: Cannabis Labs Making Progress". Cannabis Industry Journal. https://cannabisindustryjournal.com/feature_article/analyzing-the-emerald-test-results-cannabis-labs-making-progress/. Retrieved 08 January 2021. </ref> More recently, water activity has become a standard test in many canna labs as well.<ref name="Cannalab Water Activity">Demski, N. (September 2018). "Testing the Waters: Is My Cannabis Safe to Consume?". Terpenes and Testing Magazine. https://terpenesandtesting.com/category/testing/water-activity-testing-cannabis. Retrieved 08 January 2021. </ref><ref name="Cannalab Water Activity Test">Oberhill, D., Goldman, S. (14 May 2018). "Understanding Water Activity". Marijuana Venture Magazine. https://www.marijuanaventure.com/understanding-water-activity. Retrieved 08 January 2021. </ref> As the state of California has recently (January 2019) adopted their regulations into law, those tests and related thresholds and limits are arguably the best current template a lab might use to determine the requirements that are likely to apply to them in any other state as things progress.

Regulations and standards

Standards apply to cannabis labs as they do to any labs, and baseline certifications and standards include GLP/GALP, ISO/IEC 17025, and ISO 9001. Additionally, while some disconnects between federal and state laws do exist, quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) are still subject to 21 CFR Parts 210 and 211<ref name="21 CFR">Saman, A. (22 May 2016). "18 GMP Cannabis defintions you need to know". HempHacker.com. https://hemphacker.com/cgmp-definitions-for-the-cannabis-industry-21-cfr-part-210/. Retrieved 08 January 2021. </ref> Part 11, and, in New York for example, the DEA.<ref name="APHLGuide16">Association of Public Health Laboratories (May 2016). "Guidance for State Medical Cannabis Testing Programs" (PDF). pp. 35. https://www.aphl.org/aboutAPHL/publications/Documents/EH-Guide-State-Med-Cannabis-052016.pdf. Retrieved 08 January 2021. </ref>

Along with the several areas of testing related to the seed-to-sale industry come regulations and standards, managed by several different bodies. For instance, in California, state agencies involved include, among others, the<ref name="CCP18">"California Cannabis Portal". State of California. 2018. https://cannabis.ca.gov/. </ref>:

• California Department of Food and Agriculture (regulation and licensing of marijuana cultivation)
• California Department of Public Health (monitoring and licensing of the manufacturing of marijuana edibles)
• California Water Boards (regulation of the environmental impacts of growing marijuana on the water supply)
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (mitigation of cultivation-related impacts on local environments)
• California Department of Pesticide Regulation (regulation of what marijuana can be exposed to during cultivation)

Laboratories in most states will be subject to similar regulation, according to their particular role in the industry. There are various validation consultants and companies who have begun to specialize in this industry. Also, some standards organizations, resources and recommendations from existing organizations have emerged, including the:

• A2LA Cannabis Testing Laboratory Accreditation Program
• APHL Guidance for State Medical Cannabis Testing Programs
• Cannabis Industry Journal
• Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Marijuana reference library
• Foundation of Cannabis Unified Standards (FOCUS)
• Leafly's Cannabis testing regulations: A state-by-state guide
• National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA)
• ORELAP cannabis testing accreditation guidelines

For more about regulations and standards for cannabis laboratories, see Regulatory Compliance.

Testing and workflows

In the relatively short time the cannabis testing industry has been around, it has nonetheless settled into a fairly standard set of tests and methods. These fall into two main categories: potency and safety. Both are important, whether for medical applications or recreational use. Related to potency is a third category: strain validation, usually through terpene testing, and analyzing the balance between terpenes and cannabinoids to determine the particular product strain. Genetics testing falls into this category of strain determination as well, and it's also used for sex determination. All can be generally viewed as aspects of QA/QC.<ref name="CassidayTheHighs16">Cassiday, L. (October 2016). "The Highs and Lows of Cannabis Testing". INFORM. American Oil Chemists' Society. https://www.aocs.org/stay-informed/inform-magazine/featured-articles/the-highs-and-lows-of-cannabis-testing-october-2016. Retrieved 08 January 2021. </ref><ref name="CSI">Unger, P.; Brauninger, R.; Hudalla, C. et al. (December 2014). "Standards for Cannabis Testing Laboratories". Cannabis Safety Institute. Archived from the original on 01 September 2018. https://web.archive.org/web/20180901121108/http://cannabissafetyinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Standards-for-Cannabis-Testing-Laboratories.pdf. Retrieved 08 January 2021. </ref><ref name="SCLabs">Wurzer, J. (May 2016). "Applications of Cannabis Testing". SC Laboratories, Inc. https://www.medicinalgenomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/wurzer-CannMed2016.pdf. Retrieved 08 January 2021. </ref>

Standard cannabis QA testing includes<ref name="CO Ref">"Reference Methods for the Testing of Retail and Medical Marijuana". Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Marijuana%20Testing%20Method%20Reference%20Library.pdf. Retrieved 08 January 2021. </ref>:

• Potency (cannabinoids)
• Terpenoids (optional)
• Strain (terpenoid/cannabinoid ratios; optional)
• Residual solvents (volatile organic compounds or VOCs)
• Pesticides
• Heavy metals
• Water activity
• Moisture content
• Foreign materials
• Mold/fungus/yeast and microbiological contaminants/pathogens

These types of testing obviously break down into individual analytes and metabolites, with over 750 constituents existing in cannabis.<ref name="RadwanIso15">Radwan, M.M.; ElSohly, M.A.; El-Alfy, A.T. et al. (2015). "Isolation and pharmacological evaluation of minor cannabinoids from high-potency Cannabis sativa". Journal of Natural Products 78 (6): 1271-6. doi:10.1021/acs.jnatprod.5b00065. PMC PMC4880513. PMID 26000707. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=PMC4880513. </ref>

Methods and their workflows depend on the type of lab (extraction only, QA/QC, commercial, production), but generally (apart from extraction-only labs) they consist of easy, secure web portal-enabled test requests; chain of custody (COC) tracking of samples (with RFID or barcode); test/instrument assignment (see below for more on this); QC sample inclusion; any number of analyst, peer and/or supervisory reviews; notification of out-of-range results; and certificate of analysis (COA) reports (able to be emailed and/or retrieved by secure web portal).<ref name="KuzdzalACloser16">Kuzdzal, S.; Clifford, R.; Winkler, P.; Bankert, W. (December 2017). "A Closer Look at Cannabis Testing" (PDF). Shimadzu Corporation. https://www.ssi.shimadzu.com/sites/ssi.shimadzu.com/files/Industry/Literature/Shimadzu_Whitepaper_Emerging_Cannabis_Industry.pdf. Retrieved 08 January 2021. </ref>

Analytical aspects of cannabis

What aspects of cannabis are actually being analyzed, and how? The following, is taken from Chapter 3 of Past, Present, and Future of Cannabis Laboratory Testing and Regulation in the United States on LIMSwiki.

Cannabinoids

As of mid-2015, researchers have identified 104 of the more than 750 constituents of Cannabis sativa as cannabinoids<ref name="RadwanIso15">Radwan, M.M.; ElSohly, M.A.; El-Alfy, A.T. et al. (2015). "Isolation and pharmacological evaluation of minor cannabinoids from high-potency Cannabis sativa". Journal of Natural Products 78 (6): 1271-6. doi:10.1021/acs.jnatprod.5b00065. PMC PMC4880513. PMID 26000707. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=PMC4880513. </ref>, active chemical compounds that act in a similar way to compounds our body naturally produces, and new cannabinoids continue to be identified during cannabis research.<ref name="MudgeChemo18">Mudge, E.M.; Murch, S.J.; Brown, P.N. (2018). "Chemometric Analysis of Cannabinoids: Chemotaxonomy and Domestication Syndrome". Scientific Reports 8: 13090. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-31120-2. </ref><ref name="CittiANovel19">Citti, C.; Linciano, P.; Russo, F. et al. (2019). "A novel phytocannabinoid isolated from Cannabis sativa L. with an in vivo cannabimimetic activity higher than Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol: Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabiphorol". Scientific Reports 9: 20335. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-56785-1. </ref> Many of our body's cells have cannabinoid receptors capable of modulating neurotransmitter release in the brain and other areas.<ref name="WHOTheHealth16">World Health Organization (2016). Hall, W.; Renström, M.; Poznyak, V. ed. The health and social effects of nonmedical cannabis use. World Health Organization. pp. 95. ISBN 978921510240. http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/cannabis/en/. </ref> The plant's cannabinoids vary, with each bonding to specific receptors in our body, providing differing effects. From a theoretical and medical standpoint, crafting a strain of cannabis that has specific cannabinoids that can aid with a particular malady, while also carefully reproducing the grow conditions to consistently make that strain in the future, is a desirable but difficult goal to achieve.<ref name="RahnCannab14">Rahn, B. (22 January 2014). "Cannabinoids 101: What Makes Cannabis Medicine?". Leafly - Cannabis 101. Leafly Holdings, Inc. https://www.leafly.com/news/cannabis-101/cannabinoids-101-what-makes-cannabis-medicine. Retrieved 03 February 2017. </ref> However, even as new strains are developed, identifying an existing strain effectively has its own set of challenges, as Mudge et al. point out: "the total [tetrahydrocannabinol] and [cannabidiol] content is not sufficient to distinguish strains [though] a combination of targeted and untargeted chemometric approaches can be used to predict cannabinoid composition and to better understand the impact of informal breeding program and selection on the phytochemical diversity of cannabis."<ref name="MudgeChemo18" />

Lab testing of cannabinoids is done primarily as a measure of psychoactive "potency," though cannabinoids have many other potential therapeutic uses. Current laboratory testing looks at only a handful of cannabinoids; more research and development of analytical techniques that can quickly and accurately detect and separate the the rest is required.<ref name="KuzdzalUnrav15">Kuzdzal, S.; Lipps, W. (2015). "Unraveling the Cannabinome". The Analytical Scientist (0915). https://theanalyticalscientist.com/issues/0915/unraveling-the-cannabinome/. Retrieved 19 January 2017. </ref> Some of the major cannabinoids tested for include<ref name="MudgeChemo18" /><ref name="KuzdzalUnrav15" /><ref name="APHLGuide16">Association of Public Health Laboratories (May 2016). "Guidance for State Medical Cannabis Testing Programs" (PDF). pp. 35. https://www.aphl.org/aboutAPHL/publications/Documents/EH-Guide-State-Med-Cannabis-052016.pdf. Retrieved 01 February 2017. </ref><ref name="RahnUnder14">Rahn, B. (09 October 2014). "Understanding Cannabis Testing: A Guide to Cannabinoids and Terpenes". Leafly - Cannabis 101. Leafly Holdings, Inc. https://www.leafly.com/news/cannabis-101/understanding-cannabis-testing. Retrieved 03 February 2017. </ref>:

• THC (∆9-Tetrahydrocannabinol): This is the most commonly known cannabinoid found in cannabis, notable for its strong psychoactive effects and ability to aid with pain, sleep, and appetite issues. Included is its analogue ∆8-Tetrahydrocannabinol (which shows notably less strong psychoactive effects than ∆9<ref name="NIHDelta8">"delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol". NCI Drug Dictionary. National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-drug?cdrid=485262. Retrieved 08 February 2017. </ref>) and its homologue THCV (Tetrahydrocannabivarin), which tends to appear in trace amounts and has a more pronounced psychoactive effect, but for a shorter duration. THCV shows promise in fighting anxiety, tremors from neurological disorders, appetite issues, and special cases of bone loss. Also notable is Δ9-THCA (Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinolic acid), a non-psychoactive biosynthetic precursor to THC.

• CBC (Cannabichromene): This non-psychoactive cannabinoid is found in trace amounts; however, it tends to be markedly more effective at treating anxiety and stress than CBD (see next). It's also notable for its anti-inflamatory properties and potential use for bone deficiencies.

• CBD (Cannabidiol): CBD is a non-psychoactive component of cannabis, typically accounting for up to 35 to 40 percent of cannabis extracts. It acts as a counter-balance to THC, regulating its psychoactivity. It's been researched as a treatment for anxiety, sleep loss, inflammation, stress, pain, and epilepsy, among other afflictions. Included is its homologue CBDV (Cannabidivarin), which is also non-psychoactive and demonstrates promise as a treatment for epileptic seizures. Also notable is CBDA (Cannabidiolic acid), a non-psychoactive biosynthetic precursor to CBD.

• CBG (Cannabigerol): This cannabinoid is also non-psychoactive but only appears in trace amounts of cannabis. If has potential as a sleep aid, anti-bacterial, and cell growth stimulant. Also notable is CBGA (Cannabigerolic acid), a non-psychoactive biosynthetic precursor to CBG.

• CBN (Cannabinol): CBN is mildly psychoactive at best and appears only in trace amounts in Cannabis sativa and Cannabis indica. It occurs largely as a metabolite of THC and tends to have one of the strongest sedative effects among cannabinoids. It shows promise as a treatment for insomnia, glaucoma, and certain types of pain.

Terpenes

Mandated lab testing of terpenes—volatile organic compounds that distinctly affect cannabis aroma and taste—is done primarily as a way to ensure proper labeling of cannabis and related products, including extracts and concentrates, so buyers have confidence in what they are purchasing.<ref name="HabibTesting13">Habib, R.; Finighan, R.; Davenport, S. (24 August 2013). "Testing for Psychoactive Agents" (PDF). BOTEC Analysis Corp. http://lcb.wa.gov/publications/Marijuana/BOTEC%20reports/1c-Testing-for-Psychoactive-Agents-Final.pdf. Retrieved 08 February 2017. </ref><ref name="CMTLabs">"Tests Offered". CMT Laboratories. http://www.cmtlaboratory.com/test-services/tests-offered/. Retrieved 08 February 2017. </ref><ref name="WercShop">"Terpene Profiling Services". The Werc Shop. http://thewercshop.com/services/terpene-profiling-services/. Retrieved 08 February 2017. </ref> However, additional lab research goes into terpenes as they also show potentially useful pharmacological properties<ref name="HabibTesting13" /><ref name="WercShop" /><ref name="AndreCannabis16">Andre, C.M.; Hausman, J.-F.; Guerriero, G. (2016). "Cannabis sativa: The plant of the thousand and one molecules". Frontiers in Plant Medicine 7: 19. doi:10.3389/fpls.2016.00019. PMC PMC4740396. PMID 26870049. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=PMC4740396. </ref>, and they demonstrate synergies (referred to at times as the "entourage effect") with cannabinoids that largely still require further exploration.<ref name="CassidayTheHighs16" /><ref name="AndreCannabis16" /><ref name="WercShop" /><ref name="WachsbergerTerpene16">Wachsberger, K. (02 February 2016). "Terpene Testing: The future of Cannabis is here". Bloom Blog. Bloom City Club. http://www.bloomcityclub.com/terpine-testing-the-future-of-cannabis-is-here/. Retrieved 08 February 2017. </ref> Testing for specific terpenes (discussed later) is less of a standardized practice, though it's rapidly improving.<ref name="HabibTesting13" /> Commonly tested terpenes by third-party testing labs include<ref name="WercShop" /><ref name="CMTLabs" /><ref name="AndreCannabis16" /><ref name="CassidayTheHighs16" /><ref name="RahnUnder14" /><ref name="SCLabs">"Terpene Analysis". SC Labs, Inc. http://sclabs.com/terpene-analysis/. Retrieved 08 February 2017. </ref>:

• Bisabolol
• Caryophyllene
• Cymene
• Humulene
• Limonene
• Linalool
• Myrcene
• Phytol
• Pinene
• Terpinolene

Contaminates

Generally speaking, a contaminate is an unwanted substance that may show up in the final product, be it recreational marijuana or a pharmaceutical company's therapeutic tincture. The following are examples of contaminates that laboratories may test for in cannabis products.

Pesticides: Pesticides represent the Wild West of not only growing cannabis but also performing analytical testing on it. One of the core issues, again, is the fact that on the federal level marijuana is illegal. Because it's illegal, government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) don't test and create standards or guidelines for what's safe when it comes to residual pesticides, let alone how to best test for them.<ref name="BorelTheWild15">Borel, B. (31 August 2015). "The Wild West of Marijuana Pesticides". The Atlantic. The Atlantic Monthly Group. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/08/pot-marijuana-pesticide-legalization/401771/. Retrieved 09 February 2017. </ref><ref name="ZhangNobody15">Zhang, S. (07 August 2015). "Nobody Knows What to Do About Pesticides in Legal Marijuana". Wired. Condé Nast. https://www.wired.com/2015/08/nobody-knows-pesticides-legal-marijuana//. Retrieved 09 February 2017. </ref> Additionally, researchers face their fair share of difficulties obtaining product to test. The end result is we don't know much about how inhalation of pesticide-coated marijuana smoke affects long-term health<ref name="BorelTheWild15" /><ref name="ZhangNobody15" />, and we have few standard methods for pesticide application and testing.<ref name="CassidayTheHighs16" /><ref name="DeibelPesticide19">Deibel, C. (29 January 2019). "Pesticide Testing: Methods, Strategies & Sampling". Cannabis Industry Journal. https://cannabisindustryjournal.com/feature_article/pesticide-testing-methods-strategies-sampling/. Retrieved 20 February 2020. </ref> With numerous pesticide products and little oversight on what growers apply to their plants, combined with the technical difficulty of testing for pesticides in the lab, pesticides remain one of the most difficult contaminates to test for.<ref name="CassidayTheHighs16" /><ref name="DeibelPesticide19" /> That said, several classes of of pesticides are commonly applied during cannabis cultivation and can be tested for by labs<ref name="APHLGuide16" /><ref name="KuzdzalACloser16" /><ref name="FarrerTech15">Farrer, D.G. (December 2015). "Technical Report: Oregon Health Authority’s Process to Determine Which Types of Contaminants to Test for in Cannabis Products, and Levels for Action" (PDF). Oregon Health Authority. https://public.health.oregon.gov/PreventionWellness/marijuana/Documents/oha-8964-technical-report-marijuana-contaminant-testing.pdf. Retrieved 09 February 2017. </ref>:

• avermectins: functions as an insecticide that is useful against mites, which are a common problem for cultivators
• carbamates: functions as an insecticide, similar to organophosphates, but with decreased dermal toxicity and higher degradation
• organophosphates: functions as the base of many insecticides and herbicides, valued for its easy organic bonding
• pyrethroids: functions as the base of most household insecticides and exhibits insect repellent properties

Solvents: In 2003, Canadian Rick Simpson published a recipe of sorts for preparing cannabis extract via the use of solvents such as naphtha or petroleum ether. Claiming the resulting oil helped cure his skin cancer, others hoping for a cure tried it, and the solvent method of preparation grew in popularity. Dubious healing claims aside, the solvent extraction method remains viable, though it has evolved over the years to include less harmful solvents such as supercritical carbon dioxide, which has low toxicity, low environmental impact, and beneficial extraction properties.<ref name="CassidayTheHighs16" /><ref name="RomanoCannabis13">Romano, L.L.; Hazekamp, A. (2013). "Cannabis oil: Chemical evaluation of an upcoming cannabis-based medicine" (PDF). Cannabinoids 1 (1): 1–11. http://www.stcm.ch/en/files/hazekamp_cann-oil_2013.pdf. </ref><ref name="PeachSuper14">Peach, J.; Eastoe, J. (2014). "Supercritical carbon dioxide: A solvent like no other". Journal of Organic Chemistry 10: 1878-95. doi:10.3762/bjoc.10.196. PMC PMC4168859. PMID 25246947. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=PMC4168859. </ref> However, chemical solvents are still used, and if not evaporated out properly, the remaining solvents can be particularly harmful to sick patients using the extract. As for what solvents should be tested for, it gets a bit trickier, though Chapter 467 of United States Pharmacopeia and The National Formulary, the Oregon Health Authority's December 2015 technical report on contaminant testing of cannabis, and the Massachusetts Department of Public Health's response to public comments on cannabis testing provide helpful guidance. Listed solvents include benzene, butane, cumene, dimethoxyethane, hexane, and pentane, among others.<ref name="KuzdzalACloser16" /><ref name="APHLGuide16" /><ref name="CassidayTheHighs16" /><ref name="FarrerTech15" /><ref name="USPNF467">"<467> Residual Solvents" (PDF). United States Pharmacopeia and The National Formulary. United States Pharmacopeial Convention. 01 July 2007. Archived from the original on 04 August 2016. https://web.archive.org/web/20160804174451/https://www.usp.org/sites/default/files/usp_pdf/EN/USPNF/generalChapter467Current.pdf. Retrieved 21 June 2019. </ref><ref name="MDPHResponse">Bureau of Healthcare Safety and Quality (12 February 2016). "Response to Public Comments" (PDF). Massachusetts Department of Public Health. http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/docs/dph/quality/medical-marijuana/lab-protocols/external-comment-response-020416-final.pdf. Retrieved 14 February 2017. </ref>

Heavy metals: 2013 research on contaminant testing on the behalf of Washington State provides insights into heavy metals and why they're looked for in cannabis testing. That research, as well as other sources, tell us<ref name="KuzdzalACloser16" /><ref name="APHLGuide16" /><ref name="CassidayTheHighs16" /><ref name="DaleyTesting13">Daley, P.; Lampach, D.; Sguerra, S. (12 September 2013). "Testing Cannabis for Contaminants" (PDF). BOTEC Analysis Corp. http://lcb.wa.gov/publications/Marijuana/BOTEC%20reports/1a-Testing-for-Contaminants-Final-Revised.pdf. Retrieved 09 February 2017. </ref>:

• Heavy metals contribute to several health problems, including those of a neurological nature.
• Cannabis can "hyperaccumulate metals from contaminated soils."
• Research parallels can be found in tobacco research and how the FDA regulates heavy metal content in foods.
• The most prominently tested heavy metals include arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), and nickel (Ni).

Mycotoxins and microorganisms: "The ideal conditions for cannabis growth are also ideal for the growth of potentially harmful bacteria and fungi, including yeast and molds," say Shimadzu's Scott Kuzdzal and William Lipps, "therefore microbial contamination poses health risks to consumers and immunocompromised individuals."<ref name="KuzdzalUnrav15" /> In truth, these concerns have already borne out. In fact, the University of California, Davis reported in February 2017 one of its patients had contracted an incurable fungal infection from inhaling aerosolized marijuana. They later tested 20 marijuana samples from Northern California dispensaries—using specialized techniques—and found a wide variety of potentially hazardous microorganisms.<ref name="UCDavis17">"UC Davis study finds mold, bacterial contaminants in medical marijuana samples". UC Davis. 07 February 2017. http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/publish/news/newsroom/11791. Retrieved 10 February 2017. </ref>

The degree to which such contaminates commonly appear in grown and stored cannabis material and to which microbiological contaminates should be tested is not clear, however. As mentioned previously, neither the U.S. EPA or neighboring Health Canada provide any significant guidance on cannabis testing, including microbiological contaminates.<ref name="KennardYouAre16">Kennard, M. (02 June 2014). "You are Probably Smoking Mouldy Weed - Why Does Quality Assurance Matter?". Populace. Tantalus Labs. https://populace.tantaluslabs.com/you-are-probably-smoking-mouldy-weed-why-does-quality-assurance-matter/. Retrieved 21 June 2019. </ref> Like heavy metal testing, parallels are drawn from microbial testing guidelines and standards relating to tobacco and food, where they exist.<ref name="KennardYouAre16" /> As warm, moist environments are conducive to microorganism growth, maintaining stable moisture levels during cultivation and storage is essential. Regularly measuring water activity—how moist something is—is particularly useful as a front-line preventative tool to better ensure microbial growth is limited.<ref name="FarrerTech15" /> Regardless, testing of some kind is still required by many U.S. states, including for organisms such as<ref name="KuzdzalUnrav15" /><ref name="APHLGuide16" /><ref name="CassidayTheHighs16" /><ref name="FarrerTech15" /><ref name="UCDavis17" /><ref name="KennardYouAre16" /><ref name="CANNAMicro14">"Microbiological study of Cannabis samples". Fundación CANNA. 2014. http://www.fundacion-canna.es/en/microbiological-study-cannabis-samples. Retrieved 10 February 2017. </ref><ref name="RussoCann13">McPartland, J.M. (2013). "Chapter 30: Contaminants and Adulterants in Herbal Cannabis". In Russo, E.B.. Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential. Routledge. pp. 478. ISBN 9781136614934. https://books.google.com/books?id=qH-2Lj9x7L4C&pg=PT457&lpg=PT457. </ref>:

• Alternaria
• Aspergillus
• Cryptococcus
• E. coli
• Mucor
• Penicillium
• Salmonella

Methods and guidelines

Now that we've addressed what's being tested for, we can move on to how they're being tested and what's being done to improve testing methods and procedures, including associated guidelines and recommendations. It would be beyond the scope of this guide to include every state's laws and guidelines on cannabis testing; entities such as Leafly Holdings and NORML provide such online resources. Instead, this section will focus on current and promising techniques using generalizations based on information from multiple sources. If any guidelines and recommendations are known, they'll be included.

Sampling

Random, representative sampling is encouraged. When dealing with solid cannabis, BOTEC Analysis recommends a "quartering" method that divides the sample into four equal parts and takes portions from opposite sections of a square-shaped arrangement of the sample. For liquid cannabis products, remembering to stir before sample collection is advised.<ref name="APHLGuide16">Association of Public Health Laboratories (May 2016). "Guidance for State Medical Cannabis Testing Programs" (PDF). pp. 35. https://www.aphl.org/aboutAPHL/publications/Documents/EH-Guide-State-Med-Cannabis-052016.pdf. Retrieved 01 February 2017. </ref> When deriving a sample from a cannabis-laden edible, the QuEChERS approach used by food safety labs for pesticide testing has practical use.<ref name="RigdonExtract16">Rigdon, A. (12 May 2016). "Extraction Method for Cannabinoid Analysis in Edibles: Too Much of a Good Thing". ChromaBLOGraphy. Restek Corporation. http://blog.restek.com/?p=25790. Retrieved 16 February 2017. </ref> In fact, a variety of parallels have been drawn from the food and herbal medicine industries' sampling guidelines, including from the Codex Alimentarius Commission's CAC/GL 50-2004 General Guidelines on Sampling as well as various chapters of the United States Pharmacopeia and The National Formulary.<ref name="APHLGuide16" /><ref name="CACGL50-2004">Codex Alimentarius Commission. "CAC/GL 50-2004 General Guidelines on Sampling" (PDF). pp. 69. http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FStandards%252FCAC%2BGL%2B50-2004%252FCXG_050e.pdf. Retrieved 15 February 2017. </ref> As the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) points out, "[g]ood sampling is key to improving analytical data equivalency among organizations," and it provides a solid base for any future testing and standardization efforts.<ref name="APHLGuide16" />

Additional sampling insight can be found by examining other states' guidelines, e.g., Massachusetts' Protocol for Sampling and Analysis of Finished Medical Marijuana Products and Marijuana-Infused Products for Massachusetts Registered Medical Marijuana Dispensaries.<ref name="DPHMassProto16">Bureau of Health Care Safety and Quality (05 February 2016). "Protocol for Sampling and Analysis of Finished Medical Marijuana Products and Marijuana-Infused Products for Massachusetts Registered Medical Marijuana Dispensaries" (PDF). Massachusetts Department of Public Health. pp. 25. http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/docs/dph/quality/medical-marijuana/lab-protocols/finished-mmj/final-revised-mdph-mmj-mips-protocol.pdf. Retrieved 17 February 2017. </ref>

Cannabinoid testing

Quantifying cannabinoids for label accuracy is a major goal of testing, though calculation and testing processes may vary slightly from state to state. Despite any differences, laboratorians generally agree that when testing for cannabinoids such as THC and CBD, as well as their respective biosynthetic precursors THCA and CBDA, the methodology used must be scrutinized. The naturally occurring THCA of cannabis isn't psychoactive; it requires decarboxylation (a chemical reaction induced by drying/heating that releases carbon dioxide) to convert itself into the psychoactive cannabinoid THC. Chemical calculations show that the process of decarboxylation results in approximately 87.7 percent of the THCA's mass converting to THC, with the other 12.3 percent bubbling off as CO₂ gas.<ref name="CAWhy1">"Why 0.877?". Confidence Analytics. 10 February 2016. http://conflabs.com/why-0-877/. Retrieved 16 February 2017. </ref> The problem with this in the testing domain is gas chromatography (GC) involves heating the sample solution. If you, the lab technician, require precise numbers of both THCA and THC, then GC analysis poses the risk of under-reporting THC total values.<ref name="APHLGuide16" /> As such, liquid chromatography-diode array detection (LC-DAD) may be required if a concise profile of all cannabinoids must be made, primarily because it provides environmental stability for them all during analysis. If GC is used, the analysis requires extra considerations such as sample derivatization.<ref name="APHLGuide16" /><ref name="CassidayTheHighs16">Cassiday, L. (October 2016). "The Highs and Lows of Cannabis Testing". INFORM. American Oil Chemists' Society. https://www.aocs.org/stay-informed/read-inform/featured-articles/the-highs-and-lows-of-cannabis-testing-october-2016. Retrieved 08 January 2020. </ref><ref name="RigdonAccurateJuly15">Rigdon, A. (29 July 2015). "Accurate Quantification of Cannabinoid Acids by GC – Is it Possible?". ChromaBLOGraphy. Restek Corporation. http://blog.restek.com/?p=14961. Retrieved 16 February 2017. </ref><ref name="RigdonAccurateSept15">Rigdon, A. (09 September 2015). "Accurate Quantification of Cannabinoid Acids and Neutrals by GC – Derivatives without Calculus". ChromaBLOGraphy. Restek Corporation. http://blog.restek.com/?p=15135. Retrieved 16 February 2017. </ref>

The APHL briefly describes analysis methods of cannabinoids using both LC and GC on pages 31–32 of their May 2016 Guidance for State Medical Cannabis Testing Programs. They also point to New York Department of Health - Wadsworth Center's various guidance documents (MML-300, -301, and -303) for methodologies when testing sample types other than solids, particularly using high-performance liquid chromatography photodiode array detection (HPLC-PAD).<ref name="APHLGuide16" /><ref name="MML-300">Division of Environmental Health Sciences, Laboratory of Organic Analytical Chemistry (03 November 2015). "Measurement of Phytocannabinoids using HPLC-PAD, NYS DOH MML-300" (PDF). New York State Department of Health. pp. 34. https://www.wadsworth.org/sites/default/files/WebDoc/576578963/MML-300-01.pdf. Retrieved 15 February 2017. </ref> Also worth noting is that ASTM's Subcommittee D37.03 is working on various standard methods for determining cannabinoid concentrations using different chromatography techniques<ref name="ASTMSubD37.03">"Subcommittee D37.03 on Laboratory". ASTM International. https://www.astm.org/COMMIT/SUBCOMMIT/D3703.htm. Retrieved 25 February 2020. </ref>, while the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (AOAC) has already developed a Standard Method Performance Requirement (SMPR) for analyzing cannabinoids in hemp (i.e., low THC cannabis varieties).<ref name="AOACNew19">Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (12 November 2019). "New guidelines require laboratories to meet AOAC Standard Method Performance Requirements for Quantitation of Cannabinoids in Hemp". AOAC News. https://www.aoac.org/news/aoac-cannabinoid-standard-in-usda-guidelines/. Retrieved 25 February 2020. </ref> Overall, methods used in cannabinoid testing include<ref name="APHLGuide16" /><ref name="CassidayTheHighs16" /><ref name="MML-300" /><ref name="LeghissaDetection18">Leghissa, A.; Smuts, J.; Qiu, C. et al. (2018). "Detection of cannabinoids and cannabinoid metabolites using gas chromatography with vacuum ultraviolet spectroscopy". SSC Plus 1 (1): 37–42. doi:10.1002/sscp.201700005. </ref><ref name="SCCann16">"Cannabis Testing: Quality You Can Trust" (PDF). Sigma-Aldritch Co. LLC. 2016. http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/content/dam/sigma-aldrich/docs/Sigma-Aldrich/General_Information/1/cannabis-testing.pdf. Retrieved 15 February 2017. </ref><ref name="AdamsNear16">Adams, T.; Bertone, M. (30 November 2016). "Near Infrared, GC and HPLC Applications in Cannabis Testing". Cannabis Industry Journal. Innovative Publishing Co. LLC. https://www.cannabisindustryjournal.com/column/near-infrared-gc-and-hplc-applications-in-cannabis-testing/. Retrieved 15 February 2017. </ref>:

• Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR; has limitations, such as requiring standard samples tested w/ other methods)
• Gas chromatography-flame ionization detection (GC-FID; requires sample derivatization for both acid and neutral compounds; good with standards like 5α-cholestane, docosane, and tetracosane)
• Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS; requires sample derivatization for both acid and neutral compounds; good with standards like deuterated cannabinoids)
• Gas chromatography–vacuum ultraviolet spectroscopy (GC-VUV)
• High-performance liquid chromatography photodiode array detection (HPLC-PAD; stable for all forms of cannabinoids)
• High-performance liquid chromatography UV detection (HPLC-UV)
• Supercritical fluid chromatography (SFC; newer technology w/ added benefits)
• Thin-layer chromatography (TLC; older, less common technology)
• Ultra-performance chromatography (UPC; newer technology w/ added benefits)

Also worthy of note is recent investigation of viably using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy as a more affordable and rapid solution to identifying cannabinoid contents and profiles of samples. Conferences<ref name="ZilerRecap19">Zailer, E. (02 January 2019). "Recap of the First NMR Cannabis Meeting". Spectral Service AG. https://www.spectralservice.de/recap-of-the-first-nmr-cannabis-meeting/?lang=en. </ref>, research<ref name="WangComp17">Wang, X.; Harrington, P.B.; Baugh, S.F. (2017). "Comparative Study of NMR Spectral Profiling for the Characterization and Authentication of Cannabis". Journal of AOAC International 100 (5): 1356–64. doi:10.5740/jaoacint.17-0089. PMID 28718398. </ref><ref name="MarchettiUseOf19">Marchetti, L.; Brighenti, V.; Rossi, M.C. et al. (2019). "Use of ¹³C-qNMR Spectroscopy for the Analysis of Non-Psychoactive Cannabinoids in Fibre-Type Cannabis sativa L. (Hemp)". Molecules 24 (6): 1138. doi:10.3390/molecules24061138. </ref><ref name="SiudemRapid19">Siudem, P.; Wawer, I.; Paradowska, K. (2019). "Rapid evaluation of edible hemp oil quality using NMR and FT-IR spectroscopy". Journal of Molecular Structure 1177: 204–08. doi:10.1016/j.molstruc.2018.09.057. </ref>, and articles<ref name="MayNMR17">May, M. (28 September 2017). "NMR Spectroscopy: Producing a chemical fingerprint of cannabis". Analytical Cannabis. https://www.analyticalcannabis.com/articles/nmr-spectroscopy-producing-a-chemical-fingerprint-of-cannabis-292728. Retrieved 21 June 2019. </ref><ref name="BennettCanna18">Bennett, P. (31 December 2018). "Cannabis Testing Explained: What’s in Your Cannabis?". Leafly. https://www.leafly.com/news/science-tech/why-test-cannabis. Retrieved 21 June 2019. </ref><ref name="ConnCanna19">Conn, P. (14 March 2019). "Cannabis: Trends in Analytical Research". The Pittsburgh Conference on Analytical Chemistry and Applied Spectroscopy, Inc. https://pittcon.org/cannabis-trends-in-analytical-research/. Retrieved 21 June 2019. </ref> over the last few years have advanced the use of NMR spectroscopy for cannabinoid analysis.

Terpene testing

Identifying and quantifying terpenes is one of the more difficult tasks facing laboratorians<ref name="CassidayTheHighs16" />:

Terpenes present an analytical challenge because they are nonpolar and structurally similar, and many structural isomers exist. Mass spectrometry (MS) cannot distinguish terpenes that co-elute from a GC column because many have the same molecular weight and share fragment ions.

Of course, types of gas chromatography work; but like cannabinoids, terpenes can degrade with the high heat of gas chromatography.<ref name="AdamsNear16" /> Combined with the problems mentioned above, highly specialized gas chromatography processes that include additional steps, such as full evaporation technique headspace gas chromatography flame ionization detection (FET-HS-GC-FID), can be used to produce cleaner results, particularly for volatile components.<ref name="CassidayTheHighs16" /> It's less clear if high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) is used frequently; some entities such as Eurofins Experchem Laboratories claim HPLC works best for them<ref name="AdamsNear16" />, while others such as Restek Corporation claim the method is problematic at best.<ref name="HerringCanHP16">Herring, T. (29 December 2016). "Can HPLC-UV Be Used For Terpenes Analysis In Cannabis?". ChromaBLOGraphy. Restek Corporation. https://blog.restek.com/?p=33071. Retrieved 21 June 2019. </ref>

Overall, methods for terpene identification and analysis include<ref name="CassidayTheHighs16" /><ref name="SCLabs">"Terpene Analysis". SC Labs, Inc. http://sclabs.com/terpene-analysis/. Retrieved 08 February 2017. </ref><ref name="SCCann16" /><ref name="HodgsonVacuum18">Hodgson, A.; Cochran, J. (12 February 2018). "Vacuum Ultraviolet Spectroscopy: A New Tool for Gas Chromatography Analysis of Terpenes in Flavours and Fragrances". LC GC 14 (2): 12–16. http://www.chromatographyonline.com/vacuum-ultraviolet-spectroscopy-new-tool-gas-chromatography-analysis-terpenes-flavours-and-fragrance. </ref><ref name="AdamsNear16" /><ref name="ShimadzuCLTS">"Cannabis Testing Laboratory Solutions" (PDF). Shimadzu Corporation. Archived from the original on 27 March 2016. https://web.archive.org/web/20160327180816/https://www.ssi.shimadzu.com/products/literature/life_science/shimadzu_cannabis_brochure.pdf. Retrieved 21 June 2019. </ref><ref name="CEMAnal18">CEM Corporation (25 July 2018). "Analyzing Pesticide Residue of Cannabis". AZO Materials. AZoNetwork. https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=16383. Retrieved 15 November 2018. </ref>:

• Full evaporation technique–headspace–gas chromatography–flame ionization detection (FET-HS-GC-FID; tends to be semi-quantitative)
• Gas chromatography–flame ionization detection (GC-FID)
• Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS)
• Gas chromatography–vacuum ultraviolet spectroscopy (GC-VUV)
• Headspace–gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (HS-GC-MS)
• Headspace–solid-phase microextraction (HS-SPME)
• High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC; may have limitations due to coelution of terpenes and cannabinoids at certain ranges<ref name="HerringCanHP16" />)

Contaminate testing

Pesticides: Gas and liquid chromatography methods are by and large the staple of testing methods for pesticides, which remain "the hardest analyses that are going to be done in the cannabis industry."<ref name="CassidayTheHighs16" /> Notably, high-performance liquid chromatography–tandem-mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS) tends to be one of the most thorough methods says Emerald Scientific's CTO Amanda Rigdon. "Ninety-five percent of the pesticides out there can be analyzed by HPLC-MS/MS, although there are some that you would need a GC-MS/MS for," she says.<ref name="CassidayTheHighs16" /> A popular sample extraction method for detecting multiple pesticide residues in cannabis is the QuEChERS (quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe) method, which shows "acceptable recoveries and relative standard deviations" for almost all known pesticides<ref name="DePalmaChallenges18">DePalma, A. (10 September 2018). "Challenges of Cannabis Contaminant Testing". Lab Manager. LabX Media Group. https://www.labmanager.com/insights/2018/09/challenges-of-cannabis-contaminant-testing. Retrieved 08 January 2020. </ref><ref name="LCGCTrends16">LCGC (August 2016). "Real-World Chromatography Applications: Current Trends in Cannabis, Environmental, Food, Pharmaceutical, and Biopharmaceutical Analysis" (PDF). LCGC North America 2016-2017 Annual Industry Trends and Directory Issue. UBM. pp. 584–7. http://images2.advanstar.com/PixelMags/lcgc-na/pdf/2016-08-bg.pdf. Retrieved 15 November 2018. </ref><ref name="KowalskiEval17">Kowalski, J.; Dahi, J.H.; Rigdon, A. et al. (2017). "Evaluation of Modified QuEChERS for Pesticide Analysis in Cannabis". LC GC 35 (5): 8–22. http://www.chromatographyonline.com/evaluation-modified-quechers-pesticide-analysis-cannabis. </ref><ref name="WinklerPesticide18">Winkler, P.C.; Egerton, D.; Butt, C. et al. (06 June 2018). "Pesticide Testing for the Cannabis Industry: The Importance of LC-MS/MS for Obtaining Accurate Results in a Complex Matrix". Labcompare Featured Articles. CompareNetworks, Inc. https://www.labcompare.com/10-Featured-Articles/338461-Pesticide-Testing-for-the-Cannabis-Industry-The-Importance-of-LC-MS-MS-for-Obtaining-Accurate-Results-in-a-Complex-Matrix/. Retrieved 15 November 2018. </ref>, though the release of heat and increase in pH of QuECHERS may degrade particularly sensitive pesticides in the sample.<ref name="JordanAComp18">Jordan, R.; Asanuma, L.; Miller, D.; Macherone, A. (19 June 2018). A Comprehensive Approach to Pesticide Residue Analysis in Cannabis. 1. UBM. http://www.cannabissciencetech.com/dispersive-solid-phase-extraction-dspe/comprehensive-approach-pesticide-residue-analysis-cannabis. </ref> However, other methods such as solvent extraction (such as with acetonitrile) with dispersive solid-phase extraction (dSPE) cleanup<ref name="LCGCTrends16" /><ref name="WinklerPesticide18" /><ref name="JordanAComp18" /> and energized dispersive guided extraction (EDGE) may also been used.<ref name="CEMAnal18" /> Common testing methods that have been used, after sample preparation, include<ref name="APHLGuide16" /><ref name="ShimadzuCLTS" /><ref name="CEMAnal18" /><ref name="KowalskiEval17" /><ref name="WinklerPesticide18" /><ref name="JordanAComp18" />:

• Gas chromatography–electron capture detection (GC-ECD)
• Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS)
• Gas chromatography–tandem-mass spectrometry (GC-MS/MS)
• Liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC-MS; also high-performance or HPLC-MS)
• Liquid chromatography–tandem-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS; also high-performance or HPLC-MS/MS)

For quantification of pesticides in cannabis, the AOAC's SMPR 2018.011, EPA's Residue Analytical Methods (RAM), and FDA's Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM) provide guidance to labs.<ref name="APHLGuide16" /><ref name="SMPR2018.011">Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (26 August 2018). "AOAC SMPR 2018.011 - Standard Method Performance Requirements (SMPRs) for Identification and Quantitation of Selected Pesticide Residues in Dried Cannabis Materials" (PDF). https://www.aoac.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/SMPR2018_011.pdf. Retrieved 25 February 2020. </ref><ref name="EPAResidue17">"Residue Analytical Methods (RAM)". United States Environmental Protection Agency. 20 February 2016. https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/methods/rammethods/web/html/ram12b.html. Retrieved 14 February 2017. </ref><ref name="FDA_PAM">"Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM)". United States Food and Drug Administration. 07 June 2015. http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/LaboratoryMethods/ucm2006955.htm. Retrieved 14 February 2017. </ref>

Solvents: Testing for solvents is largely standardized into a few options, which have parallels to existing pharmaceutical testing standards outlined in Chapter 467 of United States Pharmacopeia and The National Formulary (USP <467>)<ref name="USPNF467">"<467> Residual Solvents" (PDF). United States Pharmacopeia and The National Formulary. United States Pharmacopeial Convention. 01 July 2007. Archived from the original on 04 August 2016. https://web.archive.org/web/20160804174451/https://www.usp.org/sites/default/files/usp_pdf/EN/USPNF/generalChapter467Current.pdf. Retrieved 21 June 2019. </ref><ref name="APHLGuide16" /><ref name="CassidayTheHighs16" /><ref name="ShimadzuCLTS" /><ref name="PocevaOpti16">Poceva Panovska, A.; Acevska, J.; Stefkov, G. et al. (2016). "Optimization of HS-GC-FID-MS Method for Residual Solvent Profiling in Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients Using DoE". Journal of Chromatographic Science 54 (2): 103–11. doi:10.1093/chromsci/bmv123. PMID 26290585. </ref><ref name="L'HeureuxAdvancing18">L'Heureux, M.L. (20 April 2018). "Advancing Chromatography Methods for Cannabis Analysis". Cannabis Science and Technology. UBM. http://www.cannabissciencetech.com/cannabis-voices/advancing-chromatography-methods-cannabis-analysis. Retrieved 21 June 2019. </ref>:

• Headspace–gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (HS-GC/MS)
• Headspace–gas chromatography–flame ionization detection–mass spectrometry (HS-GC-FID-MS)
• Full evaporation technique–headspace–gas chromatography–flame ionization detection (FET-HS-GC-FID)

Massachusetts and Oregon—and likely other states—have used a variety of guidance documents such as USP <467>, reports from the Commission of the European Communities' Scientific Committee on Food (now the European Food Safety Authority), and the International Conference on Harmonization's (ICH) Q3C(R5)<ref name="APHLGuide16" /><ref name="MDPHResponse">Bureau of Healthcare Safety and Quality (12 February 2016). "Response to Public Comments" (PDF). Massachusetts Department of Public Health. http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/docs/dph/quality/medical-marijuana/lab-protocols/external-comment-response-020416-final.pdf. Retrieved 14 February 2017. </ref><ref name="FarrerTech15">Farrer, D.G. (December 2015). "Technical Report: Oregon Health Authority’s Process to Determine Which Types of Contaminants to Test for in Cannabis Products, and Levels for Action" (PDF). Oregon Health Authority. https://public.health.oregon.gov/PreventionWellness/marijuana/Documents/oha-8964-technical-report-marijuana-contaminant-testing.pdf. Retrieved 09 February 2017. </ref><ref name="USPNF467">"<467> Residual Solvents" (PDF). United States Pharmacopeia and The National Formulary. United States Pharmacopeial Convention. 01 July 2007. Archived from the original on 04 August 2016. https://web.archive.org/web/20160804174451/https://www.usp.org/sites/default/files/usp_pdf/EN/USPNF/generalChapter467Current.pdf. Retrieved 21 June 2019. </ref> to set their action level testing values for particular solvents. The AOAC provides another standardized option in the form of their SMPR 2019.002.<ref name="SMPR2019.002">Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (09 October 2019). "AOAC SMPR 2019.002 - Standard Method Performance Requirements (SMPRs) for Identification and Quantitation of Selected Residual Solvents in Cannabis-Derived Materials" (PDF). https://www.aoac.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/SMPR-2019_002.pdf. Retrieved 25 February 2020. </ref>

Heavy metals: The methods used for quantifying levels of highly toxic metals in plants depend on ease-of-use, level of accuracy, and overall cost. Sample preparation typically includes the use of closed-vessel microwave digestion to get the sample into solution for analysis.<ref name="CEMAnal18" /><ref name="BoyleSelecting18">Boyle, R.; Ferrell, E. (21 September 2018). "Selecting Microwave Digestion Technology for Measuring Heavy Metals in Cannabis Products". Cannabis Science and Technology 1 (3). http://www.cannabissciencetech.com/metals/selecting-microwave-digestion-technology-measuring-heavy-metals-cannabis-products. </ref> Once prepared, the following methods are most common for testing cannabis and other plants for heavy metals<ref name="KuzdzalACloser16">Kuzdzal, S.; Clifford, R.; Winkler, P.; Bankert, W. (December 2017). "A Closer Look at Cannabis Testing" (PDF). Shimadzu Corporation. https://www.ssi.shimadzu.com/sites/ssi.shimadzu.com/files/Industry/Literature/Shimadzu_Whitepaper_Emerging_Cannabis_Industry.pdf. Retrieved 08 January 2020. </ref><ref name="APHLGuide16" /><ref name="CassidayTheHighs16" /><ref name="DavisAnalysis15">Davis, D.; Long, K.; Masone, J.; Firmin, P. (August 2015). "Analysis of "The Big Four" Heavy Metals in Cannabis by USN-ICP-OES" (PDF). Shimadzu Corporation. http://www.ssi.shimadzu.com/products/literature/aas/ssi-icp-002.pdf. Retrieved 14 February 2017. </ref><ref name="ShimadzuCLTS" />:

• Inductively coupled plasma–atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES), sometimes called inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES) (at times coupled with an ultrasonic nebulizer)
• Inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry (ICP-MS)
• Inductively coupled plasma–tandem-mass spectroscopy (ICP-MS/MS)

For quantification of metals in cannabis, the U.S. FDA's ICP-MS methodology document is often used.<ref name="APHLGuide16" /><ref name="FDAAnalysisofFoods11">"Analysis of Foods for As, Cd, Cr, Hg and Pb by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS)" (PDF). United States Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. 25 April 2011. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodborneIllnessContaminants/Metals/UCM272693.pdf. Retrieved 14 February 2017. </ref>

Mycotoxins and microorganisms: A standard method of testing for the existence of microorganisms is through the process of culturing a sample in a Petri dish, a common diagnostic method in microbiology. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) is also used, particularly to identify mycotoxins. However, Petri culture analysis isn't rigorous, and ELISA can be time consuming, as it's limited to one mycotoxin per test.<ref name="KuzdzalACloser16" /><ref name="CassidayTheHighs16" /><ref name="KennardYouAre16">Kennard, M. (02 June 2014). "You are Probably Smoking Mouldy Weed - Why Does Quality Assurance Matter?". Populace. Tantalus Labs. https://populace.tantaluslabs.com/you-are-probably-smoking-mouldy-weed-why-does-quality-assurance-matter/. Retrieved 21 June 2019. </ref> The following are other, more precise techniques that are improving laboratorians' analyses, particularly using DNA snippets of microbiological contaminates<ref name="KuzdzalACloser16" /><ref name="CassidayTheHighs16" /><ref name="KennardYouAre16" /><ref name="ThompsonAMicro16">Thompson III, G.R.; Tuscano, J.M.; Dennis, M. et al. (2017). "A microbiome assessment of medical marijuana". Clinical Microbiology and Infection: S1198-743X(16)30605-X. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2016.12.001. PMID 27956269. </ref><ref name="L'HeureuxTesting18">L'Heureux, M.L. (06 August 2018). "Testing for Pesticides and Mycotoxins in Cannabis: How to Meet Regulatory Requirements". Cannabis Science and Technology. UBM. http://www.cannabissciencetech.com/cannabis-voices/testing-pesticides-and-mycotoxins-cannabis-how-meet-regulatory-requirements. Retrieved 21 June 2019. </ref>:

• Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR)
• Whole metagenome shotgun (WMGS) sequencing
• Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization (MALDI)
• High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)
• Liquid chromatography–tandem-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)
• Liquid chromatography–electrospray ionization–tandem-mass spectrometry (LC-ESI-MS/MS)
• Liquid chromatography–atmospheric pressure chemical ionization–tandem-mass spectrometry (LC-APCI-MS/MS)

The extent of mycotoxin testing required remains in question by several entities. The APHL claims "[t]here is no readily available evidence to support the contention that cannabis harbors significant levels of mycotoxins."<ref name="APHLGuide16" /> The Oregon Health Authority takes a more middle-ground approach, noting that testing for E. coli and Salmonella will "protect public health," though Aspergillus only deserves a warning for people with suppressed immune systems due to its prevalence in the environment.<ref name="FarrerTech15" /> USP <561> recommendations largely limit mycotoxin testing of botanical products to those borne from root or rhizome material<ref name="USPNF561">"<561> Articles of Botanical Origin" (PDF). United States Pharmacopeia and The National Formulary. United States Pharmacopeial Convention. 01 July 2007. https://hmc.usp.org/sites/default/files/documents/HMC/GCs-Pdfs/c561.pdf. Retrieved 15 February 2017. </ref>, "which THC-containing cannabis products presumably do not possess," emphasizes the APHL.<ref name="APHLGuide16" /> Regardless, U.S. Pharmacopeia's Chapter 561 remains a useful document for testing guidelines and limits regarding microbials<ref name="USPNF561" /><ref name="APHLGuide16" />, as does the AOAC's SMPR 2019.001 for the detection of Aspergillus.<ref name="SMPR2019.001">Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (09 October 2019). "AOAC SMPR 2019.001 - Standard Method Performance Requirements (SMPRs) for Detection of Aspergillus in Cannabis and Cannabis Products" (PDF). https://www.aoac.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/SMPR-2019_001.pdf. Retrieved 25 February 2020. </ref> In the less common case of dealing with powdered cannabis—a relatively new THC extract form—Chapter 2023 provides at least some testing parallels, though Dr. Tony Cundell, a microbiologist consulting for the pharmaceutical industry, suggests USP <2023> doesn't go far enough for immunocompromised patients.<ref name="CundellMicro15">Cundell, T. (31 July 2015). "Microbiological attributes of powdered cannabis". American Pharmaceutical Review. CompareNetworks, Inc. http://www.americanpharmaceuticalreview.com/Featured-Articles/177487-Microbiological-Attributes-of-Powdered-Cannabis/. Retrieved 15 February 2017. </ref>

Somewhat related and worth mentioning is moisture content testing. As previously mentioned, warm, moist environments are conducive to microorganism growth, and regularly measuring water activity is useful for the prevention of microbial growth.<ref name="FarrerTech15" /> The APHL references specifications from the Dutch Office of Medical Cannabis that recommend water content be between five to ten percent in cannabis.<ref name="APHLGuide16" />

Reports

Along with increasingly specific regulations for handling and testing cannabis, including various track and trace systems, has come some standardization for lab reporting of cannabis test results, at least within a state or across Canada. Some U.S. states have outlined requirements for what must be included in such reports.

California's cannabis regulations include specific report requirements, including sample image, the words "Regulatory Compliance Testing" at top right and an overall pass/fail rating for the sample. Here are the COA minimum requirements:

1. The term “Regulatory Compliance Testing” in font no smaller than 14-point, which shall appear in the upper-right corner of each page of the COA. No text or images shall appear above the term “Regulatory Compliance Testing” on any page of the COA.
2. Laboratory’s name, licensed premises address, and license number;
3. Licensed distributor’s or licensed microbusiness authorized to engage in distribution’s name, licensed premises address, and license number;
4. Licensed cultivator’s, licensed manufacturer’s, or licensed microbusiness’ name, licensed premises address, and license number;
5. Batch number of the batch from which the sample was obtained. For cannabis goods that are already packaged at the time of sampling, the labeled batch number on the packaged cannabis goods shall match the batch number on the COA;
6. Sample identifying information, including matrix type and unique sample identifiers;
7. Sample history, including the date collected, the date received by the laboratory, and the date(s) of sample analyses and corresponding testing results;
8. A picture of the sample of cannabis goods. If the sample is pre-packaged, the picture must include an unobstructed image of the packaging;
9. For dried flower samples, the total weight of the batch, in grams or pounds, and the total weight, of the representative sample in grams;
10. For cannabis product or pre-rolls samples, the total unit count of both the representative sample and the total batch size;
11. Measured density of the cannabis goods;
12. The analytical methods, analytical instrumentation used, and corresponding Limits of Detection (LOD) and Limits of Quantitation (LOQ);
13. An attestation on the COA from the laboratory supervisory or management employee that all LQC samples required by section 5730 of this division were performed and met the acceptance criteria; and
14. Analytes detected during the analyses of the sample that are unknown, unidentified, or injurious to human health if consumed, if any.

(f) The laboratory shall report test results for each representative sample on the COA as follows:

(1) Indicate an overall “pass” or “fail” for the entire batch;

(2) When reporting qualitative results for each analyte, the laboratory shall indicate “pass” or “fail”; Bureau of Cannabis Control Order of Adoption - 116 of 138

(3) When reporting quantitative results for each analyte, the laboratory shall use the appropriate units of measurement as required under this chapter;

(4) When reporting results for each test method, the laboratory shall indicate “pass” or “fail”;

(5) When reporting results for any analytes that were detected below the analytical method LOQ, indicate “<LOQ”, notwithstanding cannabinoid results;

(6) When reporting results for any analytes that were not detected or detected below the LOD, indicate “ND”; and

(7) Indicate “NT” for any test that the laboratory did not perform.

(g) The laboratory supervisory or management employee shall validate the accuracy of the information contained on the COA and sign and date the COA.

Authority: Section 26013, Business and Professions Code. Reference: Sections 26100, 26104 and 26110, Business and Professions Code.<ref name="CA COA Regs">"CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 16, DIVISION 42. BUREAU OF CANNABIS CONTROL, Chapter 6, part 5726 Certificate of Analysis (COA)". California Code of Regulations. California Bureau of Cannabis Control. https://cannabis.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2019/01/Order-of-Adoption-Clean-Version-of-Text.pdf. Retrieved 08 January 2021. </ref>

Pennsylvania provides another example with its medical marijuana program (28 Pa. Code Chapter 1171), which includes a section on test results and reporting (1171.31). The regulations stipulate reporting by electronic tracking system, with stipulations on using certificates of analysis which include lot/batch number and the specific compounds and contaminates tested.<ref name="28PA1171">"Title 28 - Health and Safety, Department of Health - 28 Pa. Code Ch. 1171 - 1171.31. Test results and reporting". Pennsylvania Code (Fry Communications, Inc). http://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?file=/secure/pacode/data/028/chapter1171/s1171.31.html&d=reduce. Retrieved 08 January 2021. </ref> Regulations aside, it's largely up to the laboratory—and often by extension, the software they're using—to decide how a report is formatted. Some labs like Seattle-based Analytical 360 offer clean, color-based certificates of analysis, with high-magnification photographs, the chromatogram, potency, cannabinoid content, contaminate content, and explanation of limits, with the name of the approving analyst.<ref name="CC_A360">"Certificate of Analysis - Sample: Godzilla" (PDF). Cannabis Chronicles. 07 July 2014. http://cannabis-chronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/Godzilla.pdf. Retrieved 16 February 2017. </ref><ref name="C360Results">"Current Test Results". Analytical 360, LLC. http://analytical360.com/testresults. Retrieved 16 February 2017. </ref> Others may simply generate a computer printout with the basic data and a legend.<ref name="HydrioCan16">Hydrio (August 2016). "Can you help me analyze lab reports of cannabis oil?". Beyond Chronic: Ask Old Hippie. http://beyondchronic.com/question/can-you-help-me-analyze-lab-reports-of-cannabis-oil/. Retrieved 16 February 2017. </ref> Reports may originate from the measuring device itself (e.g., an integrator in a chromatography device), a middleware or data station attached to the instrument, or a laboratory information management system (LIMS) that accepted data from the instrument.<ref name="McKennaSetting15">McKenna, M. (18 June 2015). "Setting Up Your Cannabis Lab for Potency Testing". SlideShare. GenTech. http://www.slideshare.net/GenTechScientific/ica2015-cannabis-presentation. Retrieved 16 February 2017. </ref>

Though not directly related to laboratory testing, it's worth noting states also have their own reporting requirements for growers, processors, and dispensaries. Both Oregon and Washington, for example, require monthly reports related to medical marijuana transfers.<ref name="OMMPReporting">Public Health Division. "Reporting Requirements for Tracking Medical Marijuana". Oregon Health Authority. https://public.health.oregon.gov/DiseasesConditions/ChronicDisease/MedicalMarijuanaProgram/Pages/reporting.aspx. Retrieved 16 February 2017. </ref><ref name="314-55 WAC">"Chapter 314-55 WAC: Marijuana Licenses, Application Process, Requirements, and Reporting". Washington Administrative Code. Washington State Legislature. 16 November 2016. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=314-55&full=true. Retrieved 16 February 2017. </ref>

Lab equipment

As indicated in previous sections, spectrometry and chromatography have played and will continue to play an important role in cannabis laboratory testing. This should not be surprising: "mass spectrometry is superior to other spectral techniques in such features as sensitivity, selectivity, generation possibility of molecular mass/formula, and combinability with chromatography."<ref name="MilmanTech10">Milman, B.L. (2010). "Chapter 2: Techniques and Methods of Identification". Chemical Identification and its Quality Assurance. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 23–39. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15361-7_2. ISBN 9783642153617. </ref> Analyzing complex chemical compounds that have many features and which are at times difficult to differentiate from each other proves challenging, but these technologies excel in meeting that task.<ref name="MilmanTech10" /> Refer to the previous "Methods and guidelines" section to note the specific technology associated with each molecule and contaminate. Aside from spectrometry and chromatography equipment, the analysis of microorganisms in cannabis may turn to DNA analysis methods that require additional equipment such as a thermal cycler (qPCR) or sequencer (WMGS), or ELISA, which utilizes a photometer or spectrophotometer. Of course, preparing and storing samples requires equipment as well, such as microplates, centrifuges, comparison standards, capillaries, chemicals, columns, Petri dishes, scales, and disposable gloves. Software-based data management systems may also constitute equipment and are discussed in the next section.

When it comes to purchasing lab equipment specifically for cannabis testing, a 2015 interview with Emerald Scientific's CTO Amanda Rigdon (then with Restek Corporation) provides good advice<ref name="TaylorCanna15">Taylor, M. (23 June 2015). "Cannabis Testing Opens Up a Whole New Market". Laboratory Equipment. Advantage Business Media. http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/article/2015/06/cannabis-testing-opens-whole-new-market. Retrieved 17 February 2017. </ref>:

• Industry-specific instrumentation isn't needed in most cases as most of the techniques and equipment used in food and herbal medicine testing have strong parallels to cannabis testing.
• That said, some sample preparation tools, standards, and consumables specifically marketed to the industry may very well make the job quicker and more reliable.
• Appropriate sample preparation techniques are just as vital as the equipment you use.
• Do your research; many instrument companies are examining methodologies usable on conventional equipment, lessening the need for more expensive devices.
• If buying used equipment, make sure the original manufacturer is still in business and producing consumables and replacement parts. Make sure your planned methods match the equipment, and make sure it's not so old that it can't be serviced by a qualified technician.

Software

Laboratories increasingly depend on software to analyze, store, and share critical data from instruments and experiments.<ref name="VI11">"Laboratory Informatics". virtualinformatics.com. 09 April 2011. Archived from the original on 25 April 2015. http://web.archive.org/web/20150425070143/http://virtualinformatics.com/content/Laboratory_informatics.htm. Retrieved 17 February 2017. </ref> This has led to the development of laboratory-specific software like the laboratory information management system (LIMS), electronic laboratory notebook (ELN), and chromatography data system (CDS). These and other software systems such as "seed-to-sale" programs can also play an important role in the cannabis testing laboratory.

LIMS

Laboratories of all types use LIMS software to manage the wide variety of data, testing and analysis workflows, and other enterprise activities typical of them. This generally includes—but is not limited to—sample receipt, workflow management, sample tracking and analysis, quality control, instrument data management, data storage, reporting and document management.<ref name="SkobelevLab11">Skobelev, D.O.; Zaytseva, T.M.; Kozlov, A.D. et al. (2011). "Laboratory information management systems in the work of the analytic laboratory". Measurement Techniques 53 (10): 1182–1189. doi:10.1007/s11018-011-9638-7. </ref> The cannabis testing laboratory is no exception, though its activities differ slightly from, for example, a clinical pathology laboratory. As such, a few additional features outside of what's typically found in a generic LIMS are required.

Features that may be incorporated into a cannabis testing LIMS that you might not necessarily find in an all-purpose LIMS include<ref name="BirosUsing15">Biros, A.G. (23 October 2015). "Using LIMS in Cannabis Laboratories". Cannabis Industry Journal. Innovative Publishing Co. LLC. https://www.cannabisindustryjournal.com/feature_article/using-lims-in-cannabis-laboratories/. Retrieved 21 June 2019. </ref><ref name="PromiumELIMSCanna">"LIMS for Cannabis Testing". Promium, LLC. https://www.promium.com/markets/cannabis/. Retrieved 21 June 2019. </ref><ref name="LLLIMSCanna">"LabLynx LIMS - Cannabis". LabLynx, Inc. 20 January 2017. https://www.lablynxpress.com/index.php?title=LabLynx_LIMS_-_Cannabis. Retrieved 21 June 2019. </ref><ref name="AudinoManag18">Audino, S. (07 February 2018). "Managing Cannabis Testing Lab Workflows Using LIMS". Cannabis Industry Journal. https://cannabisindustryjournal.com/feature_article/managing-cannabis-testing-lab-workflows-using-lims/. Retrieved 21 June 2019. </ref><ref name="PaszkoSelecting18">Paszko, C. (27 November 2018). "Selecting a LIMS for the Cannabis Industry". LabCompare. https://www.labcompare.com/10-Featured-Articles/354722-Selecting-a-LIMS-for-the-Cannabis-Industry/. Retrieved 21 June 2019. </ref>:

• sample loading screens optimized for the industry, including differentiation between medical and recreational marijuana
• pre-loaded compliant test protocols, labels, and reports optimized and readily adjustable for a rapidly changing industry
• tools for creating new, compliant test protocols, labels, and reports
• a web API to integrate with state-required compliance reporting systems
• chain-of-custody (CoC) tracking, when necessary
• support for inventory reconciliation

As previously discussed, industry-specific test protocols largely focus on cannabinoids, terpenes, and a wide variety of contaminates, including excess water. However, as regulations continue to be in a state of flux and not particularly standardized, most LIMS developers are including the ability for users to adjust their protocols and even add new ones. And while CoC functionality is not entirely foreign to generic LIMS, it's particularly important in an industry where currently transporting even a cannabis test sample across state lines can create huge problems.

In cases where daily sample processing is infrequent and only a couple of chromatography machines are used, laboratories may weigh a decision between a LIMS and a chromatography-specific CDS, although the ability to produce an acceptable certificate of authenticity (CoA) and document the CoC are still factors, along with any state reporting requirements.

Cannabis LIMS solutions

LIMS solutions have increasingly emerged as the cannabis testing industry has expanded. One vendor who has designed a LIMS solution specifically for cannabis testing, and has several laboratory clients in various states and Canada, is the well-established LabLynx, Inc., who are also accredited with METRC track-and-trace.

CDS

Scientists on the research side of cannabis are certainly using CDSs from Agilent, Thermo Scientific, Waters, and other to manage the data coming out of their chromatography equipment<ref name="PurschkeDevelop16">Purschke, K.; Heinl, S.; Lerch, O. et al. (2016). "Development and validation of an automated liquid-liquid extraction GC/MS method for the determination of THC, 11-OH-THC, and free THC-carboxylic acid (THC-COOH) from blood serum". Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 408 (16): 4379-88. doi:10.1007/s00216-016-9537-5. PMC PMC4875941. PMID 27116418. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=PMC4875941. </ref><ref name="AlbertiniDeterm15">Albertini, T.; Caruso, A. (2015). "Determination of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and Its Main Metabolites Using GC Triple Quadrupole Mass Spectrometry" (PDF). Thermo Fisher Scientific. http://tools.thermofisher.com/content/sfs/posters/PO-GC-MS-THC-Metabolites-Triple-Quad-EN.pdf. Retrieved 17 February 2017. </ref><ref name="LaytonAnalysis17">Layton, C.; Reuter, W.M. (23 January 2017). "Analysis of Cannabinoids in Hemp Seed Oils by HPLC Using PDA Detection" (PDF). PerkinElmer, Inc. https://www.perkinelmer.com/lab-solutions/resources/docs/APP_Analysis-of-Cannabinoids-in-Hemp-Seed-Oils-by-HPLC-012317_01.pdf. Retrieved 17 February 2017. </ref>, and slowly but surely some of those CDSs are beginning to also support spectrometer data management in a similar way.<ref name="DaviesCentral16">Davies, A.N. (12 April 2016). "Central spectroscopic data systems: Why are chromatographers so much better equipped?". Spectroscopy Europe. John Wiley & Sons Ltd; IM Publications LLP. https://www.spectroscopyeurope.com/td-column/central-spectroscopic-data-systems-why-are-chromatographers-so-much-better-equipped. Retrieved 21 June 2019. </ref> Additionally, some chromatography system developers will collaborate with CDS vendors to develop software drivers—code that essentially acts as a translator between a device and a program—so chromatography devices can interact fully with the CDS.<ref name="ShimadzuWaters">"Waters Empower Shimadzu GC Driver Version 2". Shimadzu Scientific Instruments. Archived from the original on 24 June 2016. https://web.archive.org/web/20160624211051/http://www.ssi.shimadzu.com/products/product.cfm?product=gcdriver. Retrieved 21 June 2019. </ref>

The CDS likely has a place in the cannabis testing lab as well, though it may depend on the lab's data management needs and goals. In more complex labs with multiple instruments and significant daily processing workflows, a LIMS may make more practical sense.

CDS vendors

Some vendors like Thermo Fisher Scientific offer a CDS in conjunction with its other chromatography systems marketed for the cannabis testing industry. Other commons CDS solutions include:

• Chromera
• Compass Hystar
• Empower 3
• LabSolutions
• OpenLAB CDS
• PC/Chrom

Seed-to-sale

The use of seed-to-sale software is an emerging trend that is only tangentially related to laboratory testing of cannabis. Rather than at testing laboratories, seed-to-sale software is found at cultivation sites, production facilities, and dispensaries, and that software is typically designed to be able to integrate with testing laboratory or other software. The goal: create a complete record of transaction, from the grown plant to the lab, producer, and seller. This sort of tracking is mandated in various ways by many U.S. states with legalization laws. "It’s there to prevent the diversion of marijuana, which the federal government still lists as a Schedule I substance, the most dangerous class of drugs," wrote Daniel Rothberg of the Las Vegas Sun in December 2015. "Tracking also ensures product safety, assists with audits and helps facilitate recalls."<ref name="RothbergSoft15">Rothberg, D. (29 December 2015). "Software Firms Benefit from Government’s Seed-to-Sale Marijuana Tracking". Government Technology. e.Republic, Inc. http://www.govtech.com/state/Software-Firms-Benefit-from-Governments-Seed-to-Sale-Marijuana-Tracking.html. Retrieved 21 February 2017. </ref> This type of software is able to track plant yields, attempted theft or diversion, patient preferences, extraction methods, batch weights, and various financial statistics for analysis.<ref name="SmythTrack16">Smyth, H. (21 June 2016). "Track and Trace vs. Seed to Sale". MJ Freeway Blog. MJ Freeway, LLC. https://mjfreeway.com/blog/track-and-trace-vs-seed-to-sale. Retrieved 21 February 2017. </ref><ref name="RothbergSoft15" />

Seed-to-sale software vendors

The following vendors are a representative sample of those who offer a seed-to-sale system for the cannabis industry:

• Ample Organics, Inc. - Ample Organics
• Bio-Tech Medical Software, Inc. - BioTrackTHC
• Chetu, Inc. - Custom software solutions
• Dauntless Software, Inc. - Dauntless Retail
• Far-From-Groove'N, Inc. dba Viridian Sciences - Viridian Sciences
• Flourish Software, LLC - Flourish
• Franwell, Inc. - Metrc
• Green Bits, Inc. - Green Bits
• KindManage, LLC - Agrisoft
• MJ Freeway, LLC - MJ Platform
• Motagistics, LLC - 4S
• Open Systems, Inc. - Process Pro
• Progressive Software International - ProsoftXP
• Proteus Business Solutions, Inc. - PROTEUS420
• Pyrotree, Inc. - WebJoint
• Retail Innovation Labs, LLC - Cova
• SDY & Associates, LLC - LeafOps
• Silverware, Inc. - Silverleaf
• TheraCann International Corporation – ETCH Biotrace
• Trellis Solutions, Inc. - Trellis
• WeedTraQR, LLC - WeedTraQR
• Wilcompute Systems Group, Inc. - GrowerIQ

Future of cannabis regulation, testing, and market trends

What is the future of cannabis regulation, testing and the associated market? The following, is taken from Chapter 5 of Past, Present, and Future of Cannabis Laboratory Testing and Regulation in the United States on LIMSwiki.

On February 23, 2017, then White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer indicated for the first time that the Trump administration would indeed be ramping up enforcement in states that have legalized recreational marijuana use, stating "I do believe that you’ll see greater enforcement," adding that "there’s a big difference between the medical use ... that’s very different than the recreational use, which is something the Department of Justice will be further looking into."<ref name="KumarTrump17">Kumar, A.; Hotokainen, R. (23 February 2017). "Trump administration plans crackdown on recreational marijuana". McClatchy DC. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article134608704.html. Retrieved 02 March 2017. </ref> Five days later, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions continued to send pessimistic signals, stating he was "dubious about marijuana," and that "[w]e have a responsibility to use our best judgment ... and my view is we don’t need to be legalizing marijuana."<ref name="WheelerSessions17">Wheeler, L. (28 February 2017). "Sessions: 'We don't need to be legalizing marijuana'". The Hill. Capitol Hill Publishing Corp. http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/321525-sessions-we-dont-need-to-be-legalizing-marijuana. Retrieved 02 March 2017. </ref> Several days later, seemingly in response to both Spicer's and Sessions' comments, 11 U.S. senators sent a letter to Sessions asking him to keep in mind Trump's campaign promises of letting states decide their own fate on legalization efforts.<ref name="HotokainenEleven17">Hotokainen, R. (02 March 2017). "11 senators call on Trump team to allow sale of recreational marijuana". McClatchy DC. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article135996463.html. Retrieved 02 March 2017. </ref> Encouraging responses to these and other requests (e.g., rescheduling, expanded grow operations, expanded research) remain elusive, however, particularly due to an administration that seems to at best provide conflicting statements about the future of federal marijuana policy and at worst actively try to deceive the American people with misinformation and lies.<ref name="HoldenInside18">Holden, D. (29 August 2018). "Inside The Trump Administration’s Secret War On Weed". BuzzFeed News. BuzzFeed, Inc. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/dominicholden/trump-secret-committee-anti-marijuana?link_id=1&can_id=b87b7ccc1b21da88de179c339ca74652. Retrieved 15 November 2018. </ref><ref name="LasloWhy18">Laslo, M. (30 August 2018). "Why Is the White House Contradicting Trump’s Pot Policy?". Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone, LLC. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/why-is-the-white-house-contradicting-trumps-pot-policy-717524/. Retrieved 15 November 2018. </ref><ref name="LasloCongress18">Laslo, M. (05 October 2018). "Congress Is Getting Frustrated With the White House’s Pot Policy". Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone, LLC. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/weed-pot-policy-white-house-congress-trump-733285/. Retrieved 15 November 2018. </ref>

Until effective and demonstrable policy change takes place in the U.S. federal government concerning marijuana, researchers, doctors, patients, laboratory personnel, and entrepreneurs will have to keep fighting uncertainty and a convoluted patchwork of state and federal regulations. More certain is mounting evidence that a growing majority of U.S. voters believe the federal government should not be enforcing its laws in such states: 64 percent agreed on this in 2012<ref name="NewportAmericans12">Newport, F. (10 December 2012). "Americans Want Federal Gov't Out of State Marijuana Laws". Gallup, Inc. http://www.gallup.com/poll/159152/americans-federal-gov-state-marijuana-laws.aspx. Retrieved 02 March 2017. </ref>, rising to 71 percent in 2017.<ref name="QuinnipiacRepublicans17">"Republicans Out Of Step With U.S. Voters On Key Issues, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Most Voters Support Legalized Marijuana". Quinnipiac University. 23 February 2017. https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2432. Retrieved 02 March 2017. </ref> Despite such support, it may largely be up to the states in the future to twist the arm of the federal government. Legal representatives at Thompson Coburn expressed this idea well in a blog post in November 2016<ref name="Romza-KutzTheSilver16">Romza-Kutz, D.; Roth V., F. (15 August 2016). "The silver lining in the DEA’s refusal to reclassify cannabis". Tracking Cannabis. Thompson Coburn LLP. http://www.thompsoncoburn.com/insights/blogs/tracking-cannabis/post/2016-08-15/the-silver-lining-in-the-dea-s-refusal-to-reclassify-cannabis. Retrieved 25 January 2017. </ref>:

The cannabis industry may have to consider forcing the federal hand by providing credible data on the safety of cannabis as it was invited to do in the DEA decision, in addition to the continuing to support the groundswell of approval at the state level. At some point, in the near future, the state regulatory position and the federal position will have to be reconciled. The industry can and should prompt that reconciliation by a clear united message to federal lawmakers. Without that, it remains unlikely that agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), will change its position on cannabis. A lack of change will inhibit market growth and prevent the cannabis industry from reaching its potential.

The obvious issue of expanding research and testing on cannabis and addressing its safety is acquiring the product within a legal framework and a reasonable time frame. As mentioned previously, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has recognized the need for more federally approved growers than the NIDA center at the University of Mississippi (which came under fire in March 2017 for not testing its provided samples for mold and other contaminants in any standardized fashion<ref name="HellermanScientists17">Hellerman, C. (08 March 2017). "Scientists say the government’s only pot farm has moldy samples — and no federal testing standards". PBS NewsHour. NewsHour Productions, LLC. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/scientists-say-governments-pot-farm-moldy-samples-no-guidelines/. Retrieved 15 March 2017. </ref>), and in 2016 they began accepting applications for additional entities looking to grow marijuana for researchers.<ref name="81FR53846">"Applications To Become Registered Under the Controlled Substances Act To Manufacture Marijuana To Supply Researchers in the United States". Federal Register 81 (156): 53846–8. 12 August 2016. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/08/12/2016-17955/applications-to-become-registered-under-the-controlled-substances-act-to-manufacture-marijuana-to. Retrieved 27 January 2017. </ref> However, as of March 2020, no new growers have been federally approved. Additionally, complaints have been leveled at the University of Mississippi facility by researchers for not providing enough diversified samples that are more representative of what people are purchasing from dispensaries.<ref name="PiomelliCannabis18">Piomelli, D.; Weiss, S.; Boyd, G. et al. (2018). "Cannabis and the Opioid Crisis". Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research 3 (1): 108-16. doi:10.1089/can.2018.29011.rtl. PMC PMC5931647. PMID 29789812. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=PMC5931647. </ref>

Assuming the Trump administration acts on campaign promises—and signs point to the administration at least being on spoken record of supporting medical marijuana and associated research<ref name="MPPTrumpMMJ">"Trump on Marijuana Policy". Marijuana Policy Project. 12 February 2017. https://www.mpp.org/federal/trump-marijuana-policy/. Retrieved 03 March 2017. </ref>—researchers may eventually have more options for acquiring research-quality cannabis in the future. This should in turn allow researchers a shot at more focused studies that provide efficacy and safety data related to the medical use of cannabis.<ref name="Romza-KutzTheSilver16" /> In fact, this has been a goal of Dr. Susan Weiss, Division Director of Extramural Research at the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) for some time. In July 2016 testimony to the U.S. Judiciary Committee<ref name="WeissTestimony16">Weiss, S.R.B. (13 July 2016). "Testimony from Susan R.B. Weiss, Ph.D. on The State of the Science on the Therapeutic Potential of Marijuana and Cannabinoids before Judiciary Committee". ASL Testimony. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Archived from the original on 04 May 2017. https://web.archive.org/web/20170504180135/https://www.hhs.gov/about/agencies/asl/testimony/2016-09/the-state-of-the-science-on-the-therapeutic-potential-of-marijuana-and-cannabinoids/index.html. Retrieved 08 January 2020. </ref> and in an April 2017 research paper published in The International Journal of Drug Policy<ref name="WeissBuilding17">Weiss, S.R.B.; Howlett, K.D.; Baler, R.D. (2017). "Building smart cannabis policy from the science up". International Journal of Drug Policy 42: 39–49. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2017.01.007. PMC PMC5404989. PMID 28189459. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=PMC5404989. </ref>, Weiss cautiously recognized and promoted the need for further evidence-based cannabis research, emphasizing both the healthy and detrimental effects evident so far in the plant and its constituents. She said of recent federal actions towards this goal<ref name="WeissTestimony16" />:

Multiple agencies (NIH, ONDCP, DEA, and FDA) are working together to find ways to streamline the process to facilitate research while meeting international and legislative obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the Controlled Substances Act. In addition to actions taken by the Department of Health and Humans Services to eliminate the Public Health Services (PHS) committee review for non-federally funded marijuana research, the DEA recently streamlined the administrative process for CBD research to allow researchers to obtain a waiver of the requirement for review of changes to an approved protocol in their DEA research registrations, and is attempting to address the marijuana diversity and product development concern by licensing additional manufacturers.

Another recent and significant body of research that may have future influence on cannabis research itself is a massive January 2017 cannabis literature review published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. This 440-page report detailed the National Academies' findings after reviewing more than 10,700 abstracts related to cannabis. Among its final recommendations, the authors called for<ref name="NASEMTheHealth17">National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (12 January 2017). "The health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids: The current state of evidence and recommendations for research". The National Academies Press. pp. 440. doi:10.17226/24625. http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/reports/2017/health-effects-of-cannabis-and-cannabinoids.aspx. Retrieved 03 March 2017. </ref>:

• public and private entities to fund and support a national cannabis research initiative that looks to fill key knowledge gaps;
• government agencies to develop research methods and standards that may act as a guide towards higher-quality cannabis research;
• government agencies, non-profit associations, and state and local health departments to fund and support efforts to improve federal, state, and local public health surveillance systems and efforts; and
• government, non-government, and industry entities to work together towards developing a report on existing regulatory barriers to research and how to overcome them.

In January 2020, the topic of needing more legitimate cannabis sources for cannabis research was brought up yet again, this time in the context of an official hearing exclusively on cannabis by the House Health Subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, titled "Cannabis Policies for the New Decade." The hearing provided an opportunity for legislators to discuss the "catch-22" of regulation and medical research: "Research is restricted because cannabis is currently considered a Schedule 1 drug under the Controlled Substance Act, yet more research would better determine if marijuana should be rescheduled or descheduled."<ref name="SmithUSHouse20">Smith, J. (15 January 2020). "US House panel calls for stepped-up marijuana research, which could prove critical to federal reform". Marijuana Business Daily. https://mjbizdaily.com/us-house-panel-calls-for-stepped-up-marijuana-research-which-could-prove-critical-to-federal-reform/. Retrieved 18 February 2020. </ref> Lawmakers and witnesses both agreed that another limiter was having the University of Mississippi as the sole DEA-approved supplier of research-quality cannabis.

While the growing discussion on research is encouraging, some researchers such as Mayo Clinic psychiatrist and researcher Michael Bostwick have historically been less convinced that the barriers will fall—claiming federal entities shift too much focus on the detrimental effects and not enough on the potential benefits—and aren't optimistic about the direction the Trump administration will take.<ref name="GrantMari17">Grant, B. (23 January 2017). "Marijuana Research Still Stymied by Federal Laws". The Scientist. LabX Media Group. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/48122/title/Marijuana-Research-Still-Stymied-by-Federal-Laws/. Retrieved 03 March 2017. </ref> Despite this pessimism, predictions of substantial revenues in states where recreational marijuana is legalized or could be legalized persist.<ref name="MorrisTheNext16">Morris, C. (21 October 2016). "The next big billion-dollar cannabis markets investors are rushing to". CNBC. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/21/the-next-big-billion-dollar-cannabis-markets-investors-are-rushing-to.html. Retrieved 03 March 2017. </ref><ref name="ThomasBigPot17">Thomas, J.R. (07 February 2017). "Big pot of money waiting if CT legalizes marijuana, analysts say". The CT Mirror. The Connecticut News Project. http://ctmirror.org/2017/02/07/big-pot-of-money-waiting-if-ct-legalizes-marijuana-analysts-say/. Retrieved 03 March 2017. </ref><ref name="HoughtonTown17">Houghton, S. (14 February 2017). "Town Manager: Marijuana Shops Could Boost Tax Revenue". The Mashpee Enterprise. Enterprise Newspapers. http://www.capenews.net/mashpee/news/town-manager-marijuana-shops-could-boost-tax-revenue/article_c27b9b71-fb63-52de-bc24-fda320f38a32.html. Retrieved 03 March 2017. </ref> The latest national estimates by market research and analytics company New Frontier Data put the U.S. marijuana industry at $24 billion by 2025<ref name="WallaceReport17">Wallace, A. (22 February 2017). "Report: America’s marijuana industry headed for $24 billion by 2025". The Cannabist. The Denver Post. http://www.thecannabist.co/2017/02/22/report-united-states-marijuana-sales-projections-2025/74059/. Retrieved 03 March 2017. </ref>, with 400,000 total jobs expected by 2021.<ref name="GreenCannabis18">dispensaries.com (15 February 2018). "Cannabis Industry Likely to Employ More Than 400,000 By 2021, Study Projects". GreenEntrepreneur. https://www.greenentrepreneur.com/article/309022. Retrieved 25 February 2020. </ref> Yet entities such as the Denver-based Marijuana Policy Group and cannabis law firm Vicente Sederberg LLC preach caution when dealing with tax revenue estimates and economic projections in the U.S. cannabis market<ref name="WallaceReport17" />, pointing to CIBC World Markets' grossly inflated tax revenue estimate of $142 CAD ($106 USD) per resident in January 2016, an overshot of about 300 percent.<ref name="WallaceWhat16">Wallace, A. (22 December 2016). "What legal states need to know about sketchy pot tax predictions". The Cannabist. The Denver Post. http://www.thecannabist.co/2016/12/22/marijuana-sales-pot-taxes-colorado-estimates-projections/69831/. Retrieved 03 March 2017. </ref> "This is a fast-paced, changing market with varying different dynamics that have more to do based on governmental and regulatory dynamics than they do on consumer dynamics," said Vicente Sederberg's director of economics and research Andrew Livingston.<ref name="WallaceReport17" />

Indeed, current and future regulatory dynamics seem to be the biggest wildcards in making market-based predictions, with predicted tax and associated revenue estimates capable of both being significantly too high (by inadequately taking into account local and regional cultural and economic statuses) or too low (by not anticipating new states legalization efforts, research breakthroughs, or ties to other mainstream but related industries).<ref name="WallaceReport17" /><ref name="WallaceWhat16" /> Additionally, too much regulation can put a stranglehold on a state's cannabis program development—as it has done in Minnesota<ref name="PotterBig16">Potter, K. (12 August 2016). "Big losses for Minn. medical marijuana providers". MPR News. Minnesota Public Radio. http://www.mprnews.org/story/2016/08/12/big-losses-for-minn-medical-marijuana-providers. Retrieved 03 March 2017. </ref>—causing related grow-ops and laboratories to take significant losses or even go out of business.

Finally, on a social level, the push by many to legalize marijuana and, by extension, push for beneficial changes in federal marijuana policy, has been driven even further by dramatic increase in use of and health consequences surrounding opioids in the United States.<ref name="PiomelliCannabis18" /><ref name="BradfordOpioid18">Bradford, A.S.; Abraham, A.; Adams, G.B. (2018). "Opioid Death Rate Acceleration in Jurisdictions Legalizing Marijuana Use—Reply". JAMA Internal Medicine 178 (9): 1281–2. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3891. </ref><ref name="GoldmanNewYork18">Goldman, H. (13 July 2018). "New York Health Officials See Marijuana as an Alternative to Opioids". Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-13/n-y-health-officials-see-marijuana-as-an-alternative-to-opioids. Retrieved 15 November 2018. </ref><ref name="SukelCould18">Sukel, K. (01 May 2018). "Could Cannabis Legalization Help Ease the Opioid Crisis?". Pain Research Forum. International Association for the Study of Pain. https://www.painresearchforum.org/news/95694-could-cannabis-legalization-help-ease-opioid-crisis. Retrieved 15 November 2018. </ref> What's not clear is how effective a replacement cannabis would be. Dr. Weiss again provides context, this time in the February 2018 workshop Cannabis and the opioid crisis: A multidisciplinary review<ref name="PiomelliCannabis18" />:

I think we need to be very circumspect in what we are expecting from cannabis with respect to the opioid epidemic. There is no doubt that there are many patients suffering from pain, and we do not have a lot of options to treat it, especially chronic pain. Moreover, the cannabinoid system has a lot of promise regarding analgesic potential and alternative medication approaches. Whether it is the plant, components of the plant, or other strategies to modify endocannabinoid function—these are all possibilities that we need to explore to both help abate the opioid crisis and treat patients with pain who continue to suffer.

From that same workshop, several additional insights were revealed<ref name="PiomelliCannabis18" />:

• The National Academies' 2017 research recognizes "the classification of cannabis as a Schedule I substance [as something] that impedes the advancement of cannabis and cannabinoid research." Getting past that will require the federal government living up to its 2016 promise to expand approved grow-ops.
• Getting marijuana rescheduled is further challenged by the fact that an entire plant and its constituents are scheduled. Difficulties arise because when we talk about rescheduling marijuana, the question has to be asked: "Are you talking about a plant that is mostly THC, that is mostly CBD (cannabidiol), that has unspecified different components in it?"
• A major question remains concerning "whether cannabinoids and opioids interact at a pharmacological level." To further study this, not only do well organized studies need to be designed, but also, as previously mentioned, access to quality samples and a willingness to see the benefit in such research is still required.

As of February 2020, the Marijuana Data Collection Act is still making its way through the legal quagmire, stuck in the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.<ref name="CongressHR1587">"All Actions H.R.1587 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)". Congress.gov. U.S. Government. 08 April 2019. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1587/all-actions?overview=closed&KWICView=false. Retrieved 25 February 2020. </ref> Citing many of the previously mentioned issues and more, the proposed bill asks for the National Academy of Sciences "to conduct and update biennially a study on the effects of State legalized marijuana programs," among other tasks. Specifically the research would look at revenue impacts, medicinal use and safety, correlation with opioid abuse, criminal justice impacts, and employment impacts.<ref name="CongressHR6495">Gabbard, T. (24 July 2018). "H.R.6495 - Marijuana Data Collection Act". Congress.gov. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6495/text. Retrieved 15 November 2018. </ref><ref name="AngellFederal18">Angell, T. (24 July 2018). "Federal Report On Marijuana Legalization Required Under New Bill". Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomangell/2018/07/24/federal-report-on-marijuana-legalization-required-under-new-bill/#41b953e73532. Retrieved 15 November 2018. </ref> Whether or not this bill passes, one may argue that its intent is inline with the sentiment of representatives at Thompson Coburn: "forcing the federal hand by providing credible data on the safety of cannabis."<ref name="Romza-KutzTheSilver16" />

Lab testing

Future-looking estimates on cannabis lab testing are more difficult to find. The primary numbers being floated around originate from a June 2015 market report published by GreenWave Advisors titled Marijuana lab testing: An in depth analysis of investing in one of the industry’s most attractive plays. GreenWave suggested that if the U.S. were to quickly legalize cannabis at the federal level, lab testing revenues alone would be $553 million by 2020, $866 million including related activities such as data analysis and consulting.<ref name="DPAUnique16">"DigiPath, Inc.: A Unique Investment Vehicle in Laboratory Testing" (PDF). DigiPath, Inc. November 2016. pp. 28. http://digipath.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/DigiPath-Investor-Presentation-11.3.pdf. Retrieved 03 March 2017. </ref><ref name="SBSignal15">"Signal Bay Makes Strategic Acquisition in the $850M Cannabis Testing Market". Signal Bay, Inc. 24 September 2015. https://signalbay.com/company-news/signal-bay-makes-strategic-acquisition-in-the-850m-cannabis-testing-market/. Retrieved 03 March 2017. </ref><ref name="GWMari15">"Marijuana lab testing: An in depth analysis of investing in one of the industry’s most attractive plays". GreeenWave Advisors, LLC. June 2015. https://www.greenwaveadvisors.com/research/marijuana-lab-testing-an-in-depth-analysis-of-investing-in-one-of-the-industrys-most-attractive-plays/. Retrieved 03 March 2017. </ref> Another forward-looking statement by Research and Markets in March 2017 suggested the cannabis testing market across the globe could be valued at $1.4 billion by 2021, affected positively by legalization of medical cannabis, laboratory growth, and information technology adoption, negatively by analytical instruments' high costs and a "dearth of skilled professionals."<ref name="RMCannabis17">"Cannabis Testing Market to Reach $1.4 Billion by 2021 - Driven by Growing Number of Cannabis Testing Laboratories - Research and Markets". PR Newswire. Research and Markets. 31 March 2017. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cannabis-testing-market-to-reach-14-billion-by-2021---driven-by-growing-number-of-cannabis-testing-laboratories---research-and-markets-300432416.html. Retrieved 16 November 2018. </ref> A more conservative number was offered by Coherent Market Insights in July 2018, suggesting a global market at $1.5 billion by 2026<ref name="CMICannabis18">"Cannabis Testing Market Estimated to be Worth US$ 1.5 Billion by 2026". Coherent Market Insights. 09 July 2018. https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/press-release/cannabis-testing-market-estimated-to-be-worth-us-15-billion-by-2026-64. Retrieved 16 November 2018. </ref>, with Global Market Insights suggesting in July 2019 a number closer to $2.0 billion.<ref name="GMICanna19">"Cannabis Testing Market Size By Technology (Chromatography {Liquid Chromatography, Gas Chromatography}, Spectroscopy {Mass Spectrometry, Atomic Spectroscopy}), By Test Type (Potency Testing, Pesticide Screening, Residual Solvent Screening, Heavy Metal Testing, Terpene Testing, Mycotoxin Testing), By Service Provider (Laboratories, Manufacturers, Research Institutes), Industry Analysis Report, Regional Outlook, Application Potential, Competitive Market Share & Forecast, 2019 – 2025". Global Market Insights. July 2019. https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/cannabis-testing-market. Retrieved 25 February 2020. </ref>

As for advances in cannabis lab testing, Kuzdzal et al. of Shimadzu envision a future where improvements in standardization, quality control, and research will shift what is tested and how it's tested<ref name="KuzdzalACloser16">Kuzdzal, S.; Clifford, R.; Winkler, P.; Bankert, W. (December 2016). "A Closer Look at Cannabis Testing" (PDF). Shimadzu Corporation. Archived from the original on 19 January 2017. http://web.archive.org/web/20170210234439/http://event.lvl3.on24.com/event/13/38/14/4/rt/1/documents/resourceList1484589923854/emerging_cannabis_industry_whitepaper.pdf. Retrieved 19 January 2017. </ref>:

The cannabis industry and cannabis testing are in their infancies. As the need for better quality control continues and standardization is introduced, it is likely that lower limits for the various cannabis contaminants will be established and regulations will be introduced. Mass spectrometry will likely play a greater role in quantitation as detection levels are lowered and confirmatory tests are required. The health benefits of terpenes present in cannabis will also provide a fertile area of scientific research. CBD, CBG and other compounds appear to have a synergistic relationship with each other as well as with various THC forms and terpenes. This field needs much more investigation to determine mechanisms of action, bioavailability and health benefits.

Lab testing of cannabis should continue to provide more exact and useful results as methods and standards continue to evolve. Disparity of results between two labs for the same sample are continuing to narrow as states increasingly add testing requirements to their cannabis legislature.<ref name="NelsonHas16">Nelson, S. (03 August 2016). "Has Lab Testing Turned A Corner?". Cannabis Business Times. GIE Media, Inc. http://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/article/has-lab-testing-turned-a-corner/. Retrieved 03 March 2017. </ref> Those testing requirements are increasingly based off a growing body of recommendations, guidance, and standards developed by the likes of the Americans for Safe Access Foundation (ASAF), American Herbal Pharmacopoeia (AHP), American Herbal Products Association (AHPA), Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (AOAC), American Oil Chemists' Society (AOCS), and the Association of Public Health Laboratories.<ref name="InfocastNew16">"New Certification Program Brings Quality Assurance to the Medical Marijuana Industry". Information Forecast, Inc. 2016. http://infocastinc.com/industries/new-certification-program-brings-quality-assurance-to-the-medical-marijuana-industry/. Retrieved 02 February 2017. </ref><ref name="AHPARecomm16">Cannabis Committee, AHPA (02 February 2016). "Recommendations for Regulators – Cannabis Operations" (PDF). American Herbal Products Association. http://www.ahpa.org/Portals/0/pdfs/AHPA_Recommendations_for_Regulators_Cannabis_Operations.pdf. </ref><ref name="AHPCanna14">Upton, R.; Craker, L.; ElSohly, M. et al., ed. (2014). Cannabis Inflorescence: Cannabis spp.. American Herbal Pharmacopoeia. ISBN 1929425333. http://www.herbal-ahp.org/order_online.htm. </ref><ref name="AHPCanna14">Upton, R.; Craker, L.; ElSohly, M. et al., ed. (2014). Cannabis Inflorescence: Cannabis spp.. American Herbal Pharmacopoeia. ISBN 1929425333. http://www.herbal-ahp.org/order_online.htm. </ref><ref name="MarcuJahan16">Project CBD; Marcu, J. (16 March 2016). "Jahan Marcu: Cannabis Lab Testing & Safety Protocols". Project CBD. Project CBD. https://www.projectcbd.org/article/jahan-marcu-cannabis-lab-testing-safety-protocols. Retrieved 03 February 2017. </ref><ref name="EricksonCleaning17">Erickson, B.E. (13 November 2017). "Cleaning up cannabis". Chemical & Engineering News. American Chemical Society. https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i45/Cleaning-cannabis.html. Retrieved 15 November 2018. </ref><ref name="CassidayTheHighs16">Cassiday, L. (October 2016). "The Highs and Lows of Cannabis Testing". INFORM. American Oil Chemists' Society. https://www.aocs.org/stay-informed/read-inform/featured-articles/the-highs-and-lows-of-cannabis-testing-october-2016. Retrieved 03 February 2017. </ref><ref name="APHLGuide16">Association of Public Health Laboratories (May 2016). "Guidance for State Medical Cannabis Testing Programs" (PDF). pp. 35. https://www.aphl.org/aboutAPHL/publications/Documents/EH-Guide-State-Med-Cannabis-052016.pdf. Retrieved 01 February 2017. </ref> Already, the groundwork for standard methods is being created by the AOAC and ASTM International, which continue to work on standardizing the determination and quantitation of cannabinoid concentrations, residual solvents, and pesticide amounts.<ref name="AOACNew19">Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (12 November 2019). "New guidelines require laboratories to meet AOAC Standard Method Performance Requirements for Quantitation of Cannabinoids in Hemp". AOAC News. https://www.aoac.org/news/aoac-cannabinoid-standard-in-usda-guidelines/. Retrieved 25 February 2020. </ref><ref name="ASTMSubD37.03">"Subcommittee D37.03 on Laboratory". ASTM International. https://www.astm.org/COMMIT/SUBCOMMIT/D3703.htm. Retrieved 25 February 2020. </ref> Proficiency tests such as the Emerald Test<ref name="EmeraldTest">"The Emerald Test". Emerald Scientific, LLC. https://pt.emeraldscientific.com/. Retrieved 25 February 2020. </ref>, which allows multiple labs to test an anonymous sample and compare results, should also continue to drive improved performance from cannabis testing labs.<ref name="NelsonHas16" />

Another potential trend to keep an eye on with these testing laboratories: consolidation. Currently there's not a lot of data on the extent consolidation has affected the number of cannabis testing labs or how they operate; the industry is arguably still in its infancy. Regardless, mentions in press and practical examples demonstrate that consolidation is a real concern for the industry, if not now in the future. Suggestion of such came from Steep Hill Halent's CEO David Lampach in late 2013, anticipating "huge consolidation in general and fewer companies as a result."<ref name="LampachQA13">Lampach, D. (20 November 2013). "Q&A With CEO of Steep Hill Halent: US Cannabis Testing Market Could Hit $40M by 2016". Marijuana Business Daily. Anne Holland Ventures, Inc. https://mjbizdaily.com/qa-with-steep-hill-lab-ceo-david-lampach-cannabis-testing-market-could-hit-40m-in-2-years/. Retrieved 25 January 2017. </ref> The previously mentioned GreenWave Advisors as well as CannaSafe Analytics and Kramer Holcomb Sheik have also lent their voices to this idea in recent years.<ref name="TMIDigiPath15">CannabisFN (16 July 2015). "DigiPath (DIGP) Well Positioned To Take Advantage of $850M Cannabis Testing Market". The Marijuana Index. MJIC, Inc. http://marijuanaindex.com/digipath-digp-well-positioned-to-take-advantage-of-850m-cannabis-testing-market/. Retrieved 07 March 2017. </ref><ref name="SchroyerIndustry16">Schroyer, J. (January 2016). "Industry Snapshot: Testing Labs". Marijuana Business Magazine. Anne Holland Ventures, Inc. https://mjbizmagazine.com/industry-snapshot-testing-labs/. Retrieved 07 March 2017. </ref><ref name="KHSFiveKey18">"5 Key Things to Know About the Cannabis Testing Laboratory Business in California". Insights. Kramer Holcomb Sheik LLP. July 2018. https://www.khslaw.com/insights/cannabis-testing-lab-laws-in-california/. Retrieved 16 November 2018. </ref> Startup costs also tend to favor existing labs who merely extend their services as opposed to brand-new labs who have to acquire premises, equipment (and cannabis testing requires a selection - unlike a small clinical diagnostics lab, for instance, which may be able to get away with a single chem analyzer initially), software (LIMS), hire staff, get licensed, etc.