AOAC CASP Meeting Book

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2022 1:00PM – 5:00PM

at the

AOAC 2022 MID-YEAR MEETING Gaithersburg MarriottWashingtonian Center Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA

AOAC Mid-Year Meeting Wednesday, March 16, 2022 | 1:00pm – 5:00pm ET

MEETING AGENDA

I. WELCOME, INTRODUCTIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (1:00PM – 1:05PM) David Schmidt, Executive Director, AOAC INTERNATIONAL

II. PROGRAM REVIEW & PROCESS OVERVIEW (1:05PM – 1:20PM) Christopher Dent, Sr. Manager, AOAC Science Programs, AOAC INTERNATIONAL

III. THE CHANGING REGULATORY LANDSCAPE (1:20PM – 1:45PM) Susan Audino, Audino & Associates / AOAC CASP Science Advisor

IV. GUEST SPEAKER: CANNABIS REGULATORS ASSOCIATION (CANNRA) (1:45PM – 2:15PM) Lori Dodson, Sr. Advisor, Maryland Medical Cannabis Commission

V. REPORT FROM THE CANNABIS CHEMISTRY WORKING GROUP: CANNABIS BEVERAGES (2:15PM – 3:15PM) • Heavy Metals, Pesticides: Julie Kowalski, Kowalski Science Support • Cannabinoids, Residual Solvents: Holly Johnson, Chief Science Officer, AHPA

VI. UPDATE ON AOAC PROFICIENCY TESTING PROGRAM (3:30PM – 3:45PM) Shane Flynn, Sr. Director, Laboratory Proficiency Testing Program, AOAC

VII. Update on ALACC Revision (3:45PM – 4:00PM) Susan Audino, Audino & Associates / AOAC CASP Science Advisor

VIII. CANNABIS DRYING GUIDANCE DOCUMENT *(4:00PM – 4:30PM) Holly Johnson, Chief Science Officer, AHPA • Discussion and Vote

IX. REPORT FROM THE MICROBIAL CONTAMINANTS WORKING GROUP (4:30PM – 5:00PM) Julia Bramante, Lead Scientist Cannabis Reference Laboratory, Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment • Discussion and vote on the proposed Cannabis Microbiology Validation Guidelines*

X. ADJOURN (5:00PM) Scott Coates, Sr. Director, AOAC Research Institute, AOAC INTERNATIONAL

02/14/22 Version 4 – Subject to Change Without Notice

Break at 3:15PM

*Item requires a live vote

AOAC INTERNATIONAL – Cannabis Analytical Science Program, March 16, 2022, Presenter Bios

PRESENTER BIOS

JULIA BRAMANTE, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT

Julia Bramante is the Cannabis Reference Laboratory Manager and Lead Scientist at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, in which the lab’s primary focus is conducting in depth method development and validation studies for application to reference methods. Additionally, Julia is the Chair of the AOAC CASP Microbial Contaminants Working Group, Chair of the AOAC CASP Microbial Contaminants Expert Review Panel, and serves on the AOAC CASP Cannabinoids and Chemical Contaminants Expert Review Panels. She also serves as Chair of the

Cannabis Chemistry Subdivision of the Division of Chemical Health and Safety of the American Chemical Society, a position she has held since January of 2019. She is also a member of the AOAC Official Methods Board..

LORI DODSON, MARYLAND MEDICAL CANNABIS COMISSION / CANNRA

Lori Dodson currently serves as a Senior Advisor for the Maryland Medical Cannabis Commission and the Co ‐ Chair for the CANNRA Laboratory Testing Sub ‐ Committee. Over the years, Lori has been actively involved in developing cannabis policy and regulations, specifically in the area of cannabis testing. Prior to coming on board at the commission, Lori served the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene where she was responsible for regulating and inspecting forensic and clinical laboratories in Maryland. Ms. Dodson has a Masters of Science in

Biomedical Research from the University of Maryland ‐ Baltimore and a Bachelors of Science in Medical Technology from Wichita State University. Lori is married with two very active children and a dog, and loves competing in endurance sports.

AOAC INTERNATIONAL – Cannabis Analytical Science Program, March 16, 2022, Presenter Bios

PRESENTER BIOS HOLLY E. JOHNSON, AMERICAN HERBAL PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION Holly E. Johnson Ph.D., is the Chief Science Officer for the American Herbal Products Association (AHPA). She previously served for three years as Laboratory Director for Alkemist Labs, an ISO 17025 accredited natural products testing lab specializing in botanical dietary supplements. Dr. Johnson took her Ph.D. in Pharmacognosy at the College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois – Chicago (UIC), under renowned Pharmacognosist and

researcher Dr. Norman Farnsworth. Holly was awarded a National Institutes for Health (NIH) Fellowship and trained at the UIC/NIH Center for Botanical Dietary Supplements. She was a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Institute for EthnoMedicine studying the etiology of neurodegenerative disease, and also worked for Waters Corporation conducting technical training and regulatory consulting for pharmaceutical and supplements companies. She is currently a Research Associate with the National Tropical Botanical Garden and serves on AOAC working groups, stakeholders’ panels, and expert review panels for Foods and Dietary Supplements. She is a member of the United States Pharmacoepia’s (USP) Medical Cannabis Expert Panel, the Editorial Board of the Journal of AOAC International, and she serves on the Advisory Boards of the American Botanical Council and the American Herbal Pharmacoepia. Holly has over 20 years’ experience working with natural products & botanicals and spent many happy years conducting research on medicinal plants and giving courses at the University of Hawaii.

JULIE KOWALSKI, JKSS LLC Julie Kowalski is a technical consultant primarily serving the cannabis and hemp testing market. She earned her graduate degree in Analytical Chemistry from Pennsylvania State University. Her professional experience includes

troubleshooting, method development and validation for GC, GC ‐ MS, LC, and LC ‐ MS/MS in addition to pesticide residue analysis and chromatography method development. She has previously served as the President of the North American Chemical Residue Workshop, served on AOAC Expert Review Panels, the Cannabis Scientific Task Force for Washington State and is currently chairing the AOAC CASP Chemical Contaminants Working Group.

PROGRAM OVERVIEW AOAC MID-YEAR MEETING

MARCH 16, 2022

MARRIOTT GAITHERSBURG

WASHINGTONIAN CENTER

1

2

Overview & Updates

AOAC Standards Development

Cannabis Analytical Science Program Overview

3

• Documents a community’s

• Used to adopt AOAC Official

What are SMPRs?

analytical method needs.

Methods by Expert Review

Panels.

• Very detailed description of the

analytical requirements.

• Published as a standard in the

OMA and in the Journal of AOAC

• Includes method acceptance

International.

requirements.

4

On April 8, 2008, PCR Methods for Detection of Bacillus anthracis in Aerosol Collection Filters and/or Liquids, was approved by the Stakeholder Panel on Agent Detection Assays (SPADA). This would become AOAC’s first SMPR.

In 2009, AOAC replaced the terms “acceptance criteria” with “Standard Method Performance Requirements” (SMPR).

History of SMPRs at AOAC

Numerous SMPRs for the Stakeholder Panel on Agent Detection Assays (SPADA) were developed soon after and the format was duplicated for other efforts. Soon, AOAC was producing numerous SMPRs every year.

A standard format was developed and agreed in 2010.

SMPR is now a registered service mark of AOAC

5

Basis for method acceptance and approval.

Guidance to method developers for the development of new methods.

Advance the state-of-the-art in a particular direction.

How are SMPRs Used?

Address specific analytical needs.

Allow AOAC to reach a broader community of method developers and users.

Development time = 3 to 6 months.

6

Advisory panel explains their needs regarding methods in that specific area and assigns a working group to begin the standards development process.

Working group chair and members develop SMPR through a series of meetings.

SMPR

AOAC staff will post draft SMPRs to the AOAC website.

Development

Collect and compile comments.

Working group chair addresses comments.

Process

Approval process / voting

Staff works with working group chair to prepare SMPR for publication.

7

• Chemistry & microbiology • Quantitative & qualitative • Definitions • Evaluation recommendations • Expected results • Informative sections

Appendix F Covers:

8

Funding Policy

Objectives

• AOAC does not accept funding from any organization involved in the

• Facilitate a forum where the science of cannabis analysis is discussed with

cultivation, manufacture, distribution or possession of cannabis as

scientific experts.

long as it is federally illegal in the US.

• Facilitate the development and publication of cannabis and hemp-specific

methods and standards.

• AOAC does not advocate for or against the use or legalization of

Identify cannabis and hemp reference materials.

cannabis.

• Establish a cannabis and hemp proficiency testing program in accord with

• Our mission is consistent with ensuring public health and food safety

International Standards

by facilitating the development of methods for testing cannabis in

• Provide analytical and laboratory management training

food, feed or other substances of interest to determine the

best available science to promote public health.

• Provide resources and education to regulators responsible for establishing

rules and laws around cannabis and hemp.

• Fund provided by the analytical community consisting of testing

laboratories, technology providers, test kit companies, and other

associations.

9

SMPRs Developed: 2017 - 2022

SMPR 2018.011: Identification and

SMPR 2017.001: Quantitation of Cannabinoids in Cannabis Concentrates

SMPR 2017.002: Quantitation of Cannabinoids in Dried Plant Materials

SMPR 2017.019: Quantitation of Cannabinoids in Edible Chocolate

SMPR 2019.001: Detection of Aspergillus in Cannabis and Cannabis Products

Quantitation of Selected Pesticide Residues in Dried Cannabis Materials

SMPR 2019.002: Identification and Quantitation of Selected Residual Solvents in Cannabis Derived Materials

SMPR 2019.003: Quantitation of Cannabinoids in Plant Materials of Hemp (low THC varieties of Cannabis)

SMPR 2020.001: Determination of Heavy Metals in a Variety of Cannabis and Cannabis Derived Products

SMPR 2020.012: Detection of Shiga Toxin Producing Escherichia coli in Cannabis and Cannabis Products

SMPR 2020.013: Mycotoxin Screening Technique in Cannabis Plant Material and Derivatives

SMPR 2022.XXX Cannabinoids in Beverages

SMPR 2022.XXX Heavy Metals in Beverages

SMPR 2021.010: Quantitative Mycotoxins

SMPR 2021.009: Total Yeast and Mold

Find them all at: https://tinyurl.com/caspsmprs

10

• AOAC OMA 2018.11 Quantitation of Cannabinoids in Cannabis Dried Plant Materials, Concentrates, and Oils

• AOAC OMA 2018.10 Cannabinoids in Dried Flowers and Oil

• AOAC OMA: Method for the Quantification of Cannabinoids in Edible Chocolate by High-Pressure Liquid Chromatography: Single Laboratory Validation*

• AOAC OMA: Quantitating Cannabinoids in Edible Chocolates Liquid Chromatographic Separation with Photodiode Array Detection*

• AOAC OMA 2021.03: Determination of Heavy Metals in a Variety of Cannabis and Cannabis-Derived Products

• Matrix Extensions of OMA 997.02, OMA 2002.11, and 2018.02* for Total Yeast and Mold in Cannabis

* Publication pending

CASP Methods Approved as of March 16, 2022

11

11

Training and Education Accomplishments

Setting Up a Cannabis Lab (330 registrants)

Microbial Contaminants in Cannabis (397 registrants)

Heavy Metals in Cannabis (271 registrants)

Chemical Contaminants in Cannabis (240 registrants)

USDA Update on Final Hemp Rules (193 Registrants)

Vape Science Panel (156 Registrants)

12

Working Groups: Proficiency Testing

• Chair of PT Working Group (and Subgroups)

Other Subgroups

Dr. Brent (Walter) Wilson

o

o AOAC is determining a schedule for the remaining subgroups o Certain subgroups take priority based on WG feedback Other Subgroups  Moisture/Aw-this group has met once and will be scheduled to meet soon o

• Technical requirements for the following potential PT programs have been determined:

Cannabinoids

o

Pesticide Residues  The technical recommendations will be provided to the Advisory Task Force for implementation

o

• Moisture/Aw (reporting would be a component of other PT program areas)

Advisory Task Force has been formed

 Terpenes  Heavy Metals  Mycotoxins  Residual Solvents

• The Microbial Contaminants Subgroup met on 4-30-21 o The meeting was well attended, and members provided excellent feedback on technical recommendations

13

Questions about the PT Working Group? Contact Shane Flynn, Director of PT at CASP_PT_WG@aoac.org

13

Ballot for Cannabinoids in Beverages

Ballot for Heavy Metals in Beverages

Coming Soon…

Comment Periods: Residual Solvents in Beverages , Micro Validation Guidelines

Mid-year meeting

• Live Vote on Cannabis Microbial Validation Guidelines • Live Vote on Cannabis Drying Guidance Document

New Calls for Method

• •

Cannabinoids in Cannabis Beverages Heavy Metals in Cannabis Beverages

14

CASP Advisory Panel

CASP

Microbial Working Group

Chemistry Working Group

Proficiency Testing

Training Development

Community

Conformity Assessment

{ AOAC Staff & CASP Science Advisor }

15

15

CASP Community • This is you!

• All are invited to semi-annual in person CASP meetings.

• Consists of all members of the working groups, advisory panel, expert review panels and anyone who has signed up for the CASP mailing list.

• How we communicate our offerings to the community AND where we source our experts for the various working groups, ERPs, training sessions, etc.

If you want to join ONLY the CASP Community, visit http://tinyurl.com/CASPAOAC and select “mailing list only” OR the working group(s) you would like to join.

16

16

Advisory Panel

• Determines the priorities and direction of the program

• Meet quarterly to review program progress and when needed discuss priorities

• Different levels of membership (Pioneer, partner, affiliate, and now government)

• Members join at an organizational level

• Staff contact is Alicia Meiklejohn, Director of Business Development, ameiklejohn@aoac.org.

17

17

Affiliate • Horiba • CEM Corporation • Hygiena • Canopy Growth • Q Laboratories • Medicinal Genomics • Antylia • PSI Labs • Meter Group

Pioneer • AFDO • SōRSE Technology • Millipore Sigma • Deibel Bioscience

Partner • Eurofins

CASP Advisory Panel Members

Government • MD Department of Agriculture • University of CA, San Diego

Want to join the Advisory Panel and set next year’s priorities? Contact Alicia Meiklejohn, Director, Governance and Business Development, ameiklejohn@aoac.org

18

2022 Survey Results

19

• Complete 2021 Projects (on or around MYM 2022)

Micro Validation Guidance

Drying Guidance Document

Beverages

Confirmed 2022 Workplan

• Standards Dev Groups Commence 2022 Workplan

Microbial Contamination of Edibles

Cannabis Containing

(a) Dietary Supplements

(b) Hempseed Oil

• Training Dev Group will develop training sessions around the following

themes:

Testing Cannabis Beverages

Validation of Cannabis Testing Methods

20

Cannabis Microbiology Working Group

• Chair is Julia Bramante of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

• Most recent project was guidelines for cannabis microbiology, a new appendix for the AOAC Official Methods of Analysis.

• Next, as per the Advisory Panel’s survey, they will start looking at microbial contamination of edibles, taking a product centric approach.

• Most of this group’s work will lead to SMPRs, standards that methods need to meet to become OMAs via AOAC ERP review.

If you want to join any of our CASP working groups, visit http://tinyurl.com/CASPAOAC and select your desired groups.

21

21

Cannabis Chemistry Working Group

• Merger of the Chemical Contaminants Working Group and the Cannabinoids Working Group

• Co-Chairs are Holly Johnson, AHPA and Julie Kowalski, Kowalski Science Solutions

• Will focus on cannabinoid content and chemical contamination of finished products. NOT Micro.

• Most of their work will lead to SMPRs, standards that methods need to meet to become OMAs via AOAC ERP review.

• Could also be developing guidelines, other standard documents, whatever the community needs.

22

22

Working Groups: Training Development

• Chaired by Toby Astill, PerkinElmer.

• Organized several educational sessions with input from working group members.

• Will continue to develop training sessions as per the Advisory Panel’s priorities.

• Survey feedback showed a high level of satisfaction with sessions so far.

23

23

CASP Conformity Assessment • Three Expert Review Panels (ERPs) for CASP:

• Variety of Potential Method Submissions • Cannabinoids

• Cannabinoids ERP, Chair: Melissa Phillips, NIST

• Pesticides

• Chemical Contaminants ERP, Chair: Andrew Pham, Epic Labs • Microbial Contaminants ERP, Chair: Julia Bramante, Colorado Dept. of Public Health and Environment

• Residual Solvents

• Salmonella

• Aspergillus

• See them all at www.aoac.org

Recent Meetings:

Upcoming Meetings: March 30, 2022: Total Yeast and Mold Matrix Extension TBD June, 2022: Quantitative Mycotoxins (new method)

April 28, 2021: Cannabinoids ERP, two methods approved August 3, 2021: Chemical Contaminants ERP, one method approved August 5, 2021: Microbial Contaminants ERP, two matrix extensions approved December 14, 2021: Microbial Contaminants ERP, one method approved December 15, 2021: Cannabinoids ERP, reviewed but not approved

24

24

Open Calls for Methods

• Details at www.aoac.org

25

New Call for Methods!

26

Thank you, CASP Community!

Scott Coates Program Lead Effective March 16

Allison Baker Coordinator, Science Programs

• Susan Audino, CASP Science Advisor (Audino & Associates)

AOAC CASP Staff

• Deborah McKenzie • Alicia Meiklejohn

• Katie Bergmann • Shane Flynn • Dawn Frazier • Jonathan Goodwin

• Palmer Orlandi • David Schmidt

27

So long!

www.linkedin.com/in/christopher-james-dent

www.facebook.com/christopher.j.dent

28

The Changing Regulatory Landscape

Susan Audino, PhD Science Advisor, AOAC CASP Susan.Audino@gmail.com

1

A Jump Back in Time

TEAM CANNABIS: Cynthia Ludwig

– AOCS

Holly Johnson Seth Wong John MacKay

– Alkemist Labs – TEQ Analytics – Waters Corp.

Roger Brauninger – A2LA

2

• Medical Patients ~ 1.5 to 2M • Adults • Muscle spasms caused by multiple sclerosis • Glaucoma • Anemia caused by chronic illness such as HIV • Crohn’s Disease • Psychiatric Disorders including PTSD

• Children

• Seizure Disorders • Attention Deficit Disorder • Autism

• Recreational Users

3

MAP OF MARIJUANA LEGALITY BY STATE | DISA Updated February 2022

4

5

• 2015

• Each state self ‐ regulated • A flurry of activities with non ‐ profit and other advocacy groups began to emerge • Accreditation Bodies began increased awareness and realized cannabis testing would become a staple • Major conferences for cannabis related businesses • CANNRA formed in November 2020 • Advocacy groups continue; some have merged • Accreditation Bodies have specialized “cannabis” assessors • Major conferences for cannabis related businesses, the scientific community , and international publications.

Progress

• 2022

6

Another Jump Back in Time

7

2017 • 5 states do not require independent testing • 4 states “may” include testing, but nothing strict • About 10 states ambitious require testing • 5 states require testing and require labs be ISO/IEC 17025 accredited • 1 state requires TNI accreditation • 1 state requires testing by DEA authorized/certified laboratory • At least 5 states currently require testing as outlined in the AHP Monograph … or better 2022 • 10 states do not require independent testing • 29 states have rigorous requirements for testing • Some states “recommend” but do not require testing

Requirements for Testing: Then and Now

8

• MYM: Stakeholder Panel for Strategic Food Analytical Methods • Starting Advisory Panel: • SPEX • SCIEX • SC Labs • GW Pharmaceuticals (now Jazz Pharmaceuticals) • Sigma Aldrich • CEM

2017: AOAC takes action

9

Develop 2 SMPRs

• Determine potency of defined cannabinoids in select food matrices • Determine residual pesticide residues in dry plant materials

GOAL in 2017

10

Launched in 2019 * Advisory Panel Growth

• Expand response to laboratory needs for sound scientific methods • Provide bridge between science & scientists and regulations & regulatory bodies

11

SMPRs Developed: 2017 ‐ 2021

SMPR 2018.011: Identification and

SMPR 2017.001: Quantitation of Cannabinoids in Cannabis Concentrates

SMPR 2017.002: Quantitation of Cannabinoids in Dried Plant Materials

SMPR 2017.019: Quantitation of Cannabinoids in Edible Chocolate

SMPR 2019.001: Detection of Aspergillus in Cannabis and Cannabis Products

Quantitation of Selected Pesticide Residues in Dried Cannabis Materials

SMPR 2019.002: Identification and Quantitation of Selected Residual Solvents in Cannabis Derived Materials

SMPR 2019.003: Quantitation of Cannabinoids in Plant Materials of Hemp (low THC varieties of Cannabis)

SMPR 2020.001: Determination of Heavy Metals in a Variety of Cannabis and Cannabis Derived Products

SMPR 2020.012: Detection of Shiga Toxin Producing Escherichia coli in Cannabis and Cannabis Products

SMPR 2020.013: Mycotoxin Screening Technique in Cannabis Plant Material and Derivatives

SMPR 2021.009: Total Yeast and Mold

SMPR 2021.010: Quantitative Mycotoxins

Find them all at: https://tinyurl.com/caspsmprs

12

• AOAC OMA 2018.11 Quantitation of Cannabinoids in Cannabis Dried Plant Materials, Concentrates, and Oils

• AOAC OMA 2018.10 Cannabinoids in Dried Flowers and Oil

• AOAC OMA: Method for the Quantification of Cannabinoids in Edible Chocolate by High-Pressure Liquid Chromatography: Single Laboratory Validation*

• AOAC OMA: Quantitating Cannabinoids in Edible Chocolates Liquid Chromatographic Separation with Photodiode Array Detection*

• AOAC OMA 2021.03: Determination of Heavy Metals in a Variety of Cannabis and Cannabis-Derived Products

• Matrix Extensions of OMA 997.02, OMA 2002.11, and 2018.02* for Total Yeast and Mold in Cannabis

13

13

AOAC Responds to Critical Needs

• CASP

• USDA Hemp Requirements • Guidance for Drying • Guidance for Micro validation

• Research Institute

• Emergency Response Validations – molecular testing

14

Improper specification limits such as “LOD, LOQ” prompt labs to reduce instrument sensitivity. Trace amounts of pesticide residues that are ubiquitous prompt labs to find ways to ‘skirt around’ requirements.

Regulatory Landscape Impedes Ethical Science

Testing into compliance is real.

Dry ‐ labbing continues to occur.

Laboratory shopping is at an all ‐ time high.

Collaborative efforts between/among labs may result in creation of unfair playing field. Misunderstanding and mis ‐ application of Measurement Uncertainty and Measurement Bias are used to bolster desired appearance of test results.

15

Back to the Future

16

• Designer cannabinoids, for example Δ 10, Δ 8 • Do these represent exploitation of regulations? • Are they synthetic or natural? Or both? • How can regulations and the scientific community improve the technical landscape before similar situations become “crises”?

Additional Challenges/Problem Areas

17

• Regulatory Bodies that perform their own random/unannounced audits may create adversarial relationship with lab.

• Labs that are required to perform field sampling are not following statistically significant methods.

Additional Challenges/Problem Areas

• “Whistleblowers” may be one lab fabricating or exacerbating issues with a competitor lab.

• Poor technology and poor expertise are rewarded.

18

We are making progress.

The regulatory landscape can continue along the path of improvement by utilizing resources.

Summary

Laboratories can continue along the path of improvement by utilizing resources.

CASP will continue to answer the call of regulations by facilitating the development of sound standard test methods that are approved by several teams of experts vetted to the highest standards by AOAC International.

19

THANK YOU CASP Progress made possible by Christopher Dent and the entire AOAC Staff

CASP Advisory Panel

CASP Working Group Chairs Holly Johnson Julie Kowalski Julia Bramante Brent Wilson Toby Astill

CASP Working Group Members: MANY from around the world!

20

Julie Kowalski Co-chair Cannabis Chemistry Working Group

March 16, 2022 AOAC INTERNATIONAL Annual Meeting

1

Cannabis Containing Beverages

• Teleconferences ~2/month • One SMPR completed and approved Determination of Heavy Metals in Cannabis Containing Beverages • Draft published Dec 2, 2021 • Approved in early 2022 • Currently working on one SMPR Determination of Pesticides in Cannabis Containing Beverages

2

Determination of Heavy Metals in Cannabis Containing Beverages

3

Determination of Heavy Metals in Cannabis Containing Beverages

4

Determination of Heavy Metals in Cannabis Containing Beverages

5

Determination of Heavy Metals in Cannabis Containing Beverages

6

Determination of Heavy Metals in Cannabis Containing Beverages

7

Determination of Heavy Metals in Cannabis Containing Beverages

8

Determination of Heavy Metals in Cannabis Containing Beverages

9

Determination of Heavy Metals in Cannabis Containing Beverages

10

Determination of Heavy Metals in Cannabis Containing Beverages

Approved Will be published soon

11

DRAFT: Pesticides in Cannabis Containing Beverages

• Teleconferences ~2/month • Matrix Categories • Analyte list and target levels • Rest of SMPR

12

DRAFT: Pesticides in Cannabis Containing Beverages • Matrix Categories

13

DRAFT: Pesticides in Cannabis Containing Beverages • Matrix Categories

14

DRAFT: Pesticides in Cannabis Containing Beverages • Matrix Categories • in process

• guidance on categories (“high fat”) • How to use in validation guidance?

matrix claim specific

require all

require some

15

DRAFT: Pesticides in Cannabis Containing Beverages • Matrix Categories • in process

• guidance on categories (“high fat”) • How to use in validation guidance?

matrix claim specific

require all

require some

16

DRAFT: Pesticides in Cannabis Containing Beverages • Up Next…pesticides and target levels

Spreadsheet with states/countries Required pesticides and action levels Confirmed for beverage specific regulations

Thank You! Diana McKenzie Richard Middlebrook

17

Thank you Any questions?

Julie Kowalski julie@kowalskiscience.com

18

19

Holly E. Johnson, Ph.D.

Chief Science Officer

American Herbal Products Association

16 March 2022

1

Product Centric Working Group: Beverages

Quantitation of cannabinoids in beverages SMPR

2

Product Centric Working Group: Beverages

Quantitation of cannabinoids in beverages SMPR

0.0002

3

Product Centric Working Group: Beverages

Quantitation of cannabinoids in beverages SMPR

4

Product Centric Working Group: Beverages

Quantitation of cannabinoids in beverages SMPR

5

6

7

8

9

10

Product Centric Working Group: Beverages

Quantitation of cannabinoids in beverages SMPR

11

Product Centric Working Group: Beverages

Quantitation of cannabinoids in beverages SMPR

12

Product Centric Working Group: Beverages

Quantitation of cannabinoids in beverages SMPR

Comment 1: · Include Delta 10 THC as it is gaining attention.

Somewhere include the need to use glass consumables for experimentation as cannabinoids are purported to adhere to plasticware

13

Product Centric Working Group: Beverages

Quantitation of cannabinoids in beverages SMPR

Comment 2:

1. I would recommend to consider a LOQ at a lower concentration than 0.002 for the following reason: Consider the example of a 12 oz beverage serving containing 5 mg THC or CBD per serving as may be common in the industry. This beverage contains 0.00147% of the cannabinoid, which is lower than the current LOQ. At a LOQ of 0.002%, a 12 oz beverage would need to contain more than 6.8 mg of THC to avoid reporting as non-detectable. This is not sufficiently low, in my opinion. 2. Likewise the max concentration range of 15% seems too high , because at this concentration a beverage serving size would be 60 mg for a liquid containing 10 mg of a cannabinoid. Also the solubility or dispersibility limits the practical concentration. 3. I don't see that ethanol or hydroethanol tinctures are included in the list of matrices, nor are carbonated water, botanicals or essential oils/terpenes and flavors listed as part of the matrices. Why were these omitted? Considering these may be some the most common interference factors inherent to cannabis drinks, they should be listed in the set of matrices.

14

Product Centric Working Group: Beverages

Quantitation of cannabinoids in beverages SMPR

Comment 3:

118 Table 1B. May consider CBL and CBLA cannabinoids.

Nano-emulsion or encapsulated formulations commonly found in infused beverages - likely identified in the sample preparation?

Working closely with the manufacturer for "blank" matrix would be helpful or obtain a commercially available SRM could also assist in determining the success of the method

15

NEW - Product Centric Working Group Product category: Beverages

Evaluation of stakeholder needs Testing requirements by State

Priorities: pesticides, residual solvents, microbiology

16

Product Centric Working Group: Residual Solvents in Beverages SMPR

17

18

Product Centric Working Group: Residual Solvents in Beverages SMPR

19

Product Centric Working Group: Residual Solvents in Beverages SMPR

20

Product Centric Working Group: Residual Solvents in Beverages SMPR

21

Product Centric Working Group: Residual Solvents in Beverages SMPR

22

Product Centric Working Group: Residual Solvents in Beverages SMPR

23

Product Centric Working Group: Residual Solvents in Beverages SMPR

24

Product Centric Working Group: Residual Solvents in Beverages SMPR

25

Product Centric Working Group: Residual Solvents in Beverages SMPR

26

Questions?

Holly E. Johnson, Ph.D.

Chief Science Officer

American Herbal Products Association

16 March 2022

27

Cannabis & Hemp Proficiency Testing Program

0

 CASP Proficiency Testing Working Group

(Chair) Dr. Brent Wilson of NIST

(AOAC) Shane Flynn, Senior Director of PT (AOAC) Chad Stephan, Program Coordinator of PT

1

1

Proficiency Testing Working Group  (Chair) Dr. Brent Wilson of NIST  Working Group  Subgroups- each met several times  Cannabinoids

 Terpenes  Moisture  Heavy Metals

 Mycotoxins  Pesticides  Residual Solvents  Microbials

2

2

Proficiency Testing Working Group  Objective  Different from other WGs  To determine technical requirements needed

 Time for analyses  Report needs  Statistical needs  Method Information  Equipment information

to develop a proficiency testing program in cannabis/hemp flower based on SMPRs  Sample size  Reporting units  Frequency  Specific analytes to report for

3

3

Developed by the stakeholders, for the stakeholders

4

4

Proficiency Testing Program Development  What Next?  Advisory Task Force  Differs from WG  Objective of Advisory Task Force

 Advisory Task Force has been set up with 11 members  Advisory Task Force will start to meet to address any questions that come up during development

 The Advisory Task Force will consist of 8-12 volunteers selected by AOAC. The task force will help implement the technical recommendations that have been determined by the subgroups

5

5

Proficiency Testing Program Development  Proficiency Testing Website  Technical requirements from subgroups used  Section for each group of analytes was created  Secure and confidential  Report  Condition of samples upon receipt  Safe handling of samples  Method information  Results  SAS statistical software created  Z-scores and other statistics  Receive final technical report and results  Assign reviewer function

6

6

Proficiency Testing Program Development  Samples  Test Material Provider  Finalizing Agreement  DEA License  Hemp and > 0.3% THC Cannabis  Unique Program

7

7

Proficiency Testing Program Development  Comprehensive samples  Based on feedback  Sample 1  Cannabinoids  Sample 2  Pesticide residues  6-8 spiked residues

 Future analytes  Mycotoxins (to be added)  Residual solvents (to be added)

 Terpenes  Moisture  Heavy Metals

8

8

Proficiency Testing Development  Comprehensive program  Potency (cannabinoids, terpenes), moisture, heavy metals and pesticides  Potency, moisture, heavy metals  Pesticides

9

9

Proficiency Testing Program Development  Program process  Lab enrolls 30 days prior to a shipment

 Labs are notified and reminded of shipment 5-10 days prior to shipment  Samples shipped overnight to lab  3 weeks to analyze and report  Final technical report and results issued to labs within 30 days of program due date  Usually, 2 weeks after due date

10

10

Proficiency Testing Program Development  Pilot Round  Dried Hemp Flower Matrix  20 labs selected based on criteria  Analytes tested for  Geographic locations  Others  Scheduled for May 2, 2022  First Live Round  Scheduled for November 2022  Add Mycotoxins and Residual Solvents

11

11

Proficiency Testing Program  Future Programs  Microbials  1. Salmonella  2. Aspergillus  3. Yeast & Mold  4. E. coli (Shiga Toxin)

 Specific Products/Matrices  Gummies  Chocolate  Beverages

12

12

AOAC Has the Tools for Cannabis Laboratories  Working Groups  SMPR  OMA  ALACC-new Cannabis Appendix  Proficiency Testing

13

13

For More Information Contact AOAC PT Staff Cannabis_PT@AOAC.org

14

14

Update on ALACC Revisions

Susan Audino, PhD

Science Advisor, AOAC CASP

Susan.Audino@gmail.com

1

ISO/IEC 17025:2017 has limitations

• Gold Standard for ALL Labs!

• “Beautifully Ambiguous”

• The standard does not require employment of the ‘best science’

• The standard does not guarantee the best or most trustworthy test results

• The standard does not offer strict guidance to mitigate known risks

• AOAC embraced the opportunity to provide some direction/guidance in light of the ambiguity… in the food/feed sector • The challenges are bountiful in this nascent cannabis-testing industry that is operated by young/inexperienced scientists and new/inexperienced business owners

2

Analytical Laboratory Accreditation Criteria Committee (ALACC)

3

American Council of Independent Labs (ACIL)

www.acil.org/page/About_ACIL

• Trade Association representing independent, commercial scientific and testing laboratories.

• Founded in 1937

• Vision: “Realizing a healthy safe environment for society through the application of unbiased, scientific testing.” • Mission: “Providing the independent testing community with advocacy, education, and alliances to enable members to better address environmental and product risks to the public.”

• Values: “Ethical, Objective and Quality Business Practices”

4

Independent Laboratories Institute (ILI)

2018: Guide to a Harmonized National Cannabis Laboratory Accreditation Program (CannaLAP)

Developed by:

o Industry-expert stakeholders

o Laboratory personnel

o Accreditation Bodies

o Regulatory Bodies

“Developed to provide inputs into a consistent approach to each state’s accreditation process by developing the basic quality requirements for the accreditation of laboratory testing of cannabis plant material, cannabis-based products, or hemp across the nation.”

5

December 2021 TASK Accepted!

Great Fit with AOAC Mission

and CASP Objectives

Create an ALACC Appendix for Cannabis Labs using the work established by ACIL/ILI

6

Experienced Sub-Committee Team

17025:2017 Section 6

Glossary & Nomenclature

17025:2017 Sections 4 & 5

17025:2017 Section 7

17025:2017 Section 8

Special Considerations

Lead: Joe Konshnik

Lead: Shawn Kassner

Lead: Brad Stawick

Lead: Jane Weitzel

Lead: Jane Weitzel

Lead: Matt Sica

Chair: Susan Audino

7

Additional Team Members

Chad Stephan , AOAC

Tracy Szerszen , PJLA

Shane Flynn , AOAC

Keith Klemm , ANAB

Sarah Dorris , A2LA

Danny Noe , FDA

Aniko Solyom , Gass Analytical

Leeza Akimenko, PJLA

Heather Krug , CDPHE

Erik Paulson , Infinite Cal

Josh Swider , Infinite Cal

Danielle Houston , PJLA

8

Amazing Work Products in Short Time

Glossary & Nomenclature: LOD and LOQ, Cannabis, Marijuana, Hemp, etc. Not always straightforward yet critical to SMPR and Standards. 17025, sections 4 & 5: Specific risks do exist for cannabis laboratories, for example confidentiality is risked every time a lab uses state-required METRC to report test results, or when testing a sample into compliance. Special Considerations: Unique challenges exist for cannabis labs. This section is intended to identify some of the most significant risks. For example: Legal risks to labs and clients on basis of country, state, federal regulations; moisture correction requirements for hemp analysis; and ensuring proper scientific practices. Note: this is not a comprehensive list!

9

Next Steps

• ALACC is currently in scheduled 5-year review.

• The Cannabis Subcommittee has compiled information/data that will comprise the Cannabis Appendix in the next ALACC revision. • The draft (Cannabis-centric) document will be available for review by stakeholders within the next 1-2 months. • The required AOAC channels and processes will be followed to integrate that cannabis appendix into the revised ALACC document; document business as usual!

• Our hope is to have a revised ALACC document published within 6-9 months.

10

THANK YOU

THANK YOU to all members of the Subcommittee.

Special Appreciation for the Collaboration with ACIL

Susan Audino

Susan.Audino@gmail.com

410.459.9208

11

Holly E. Johnson, Ph.D.

Chief Science Officer

American Herbal Products Association

16 March 2022

1

A brief history.. Pre-CASP Stakeholder Panel for Strategic Foods Analytical Methods (SPSFAM) Cannabis Working Group SMPRs:

SMPR 2017.001 Cannabinoids in Cannabis Concentrates

SMPR 2018.011 Pesticides in Cannabis

SMPR 2017.002 Cannabinoids in Dried Plant Materials

SMPR 2017.019 Cannabinoids in Chocolate

2

A brief history.. Pre-CASP Stakeholder Panel for Strategic Foods Analytical Methods (SPSFAM) OMAs:

AOAC Official Method 2018.10 Cannabinoid in Dried Flowers and Oil Liquid Chromatographic Method

AOAC Official Method 2018.11 Quantitation of Cannabinoids in Cannabis Dried Plant Materials, Concentrates, and Oils using Liquid Chromatography–Diode Array Detection Technique with Optional Mass Spectrometric Detection

3

A brief history.. Pre-CASP Stakeholder Panel for Strategic Foods Analytical Methods (SPSFAM) OMAs:

AOAC Official Method 2018.11 Quantitation of Cannabinoids in Cannabis Dried Plant Materials, Concentrates, and Oils using Liquid Chromatography–Diode Array Detection Technique with Optional Mass Spectrometric Detection

Reported Results on an as-is basis

4

Agricultural Improvement Act 2018 (aka the 2018 Farm Bill)

“…any cannabis plant, or derivative thereof, …, that contains not more than 0.3 percent delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol ("THC”) on a dry - weight basis .

CASP Cannabinoids Working Group:

5

Agricultural Improvement Act 2018 (aka the 2018 Farm Bill)

“…any cannabis plant, or derivative thereof, …, that contains not more than 0.3 percent delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol ("THC”) on a dry - weight basis .

CASP Cannabinoids Working Group:

Definition for “Dry weight basis”:

Dry weight basis: Reported results are mathematically corrected for the amount of moisture present in the sample at the time of weighing.

6

Agricultural Improvement Act 2018 (aka the 2018 Farm Bill)

“…any cannabis plant, or derivative thereof, …, that contains not more than 0.3 percent delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol ("THC”) on a dry - weight basis .

AOAC Official Method 2018.11 Quantitation of Cannabinoids in Cannabis Dried Plant Materials, Concentrates, and Oils using Liquid Chromatography–Diode Array Detection Technique with Optional Mass Spectrometric Detection Reported Results on an as-is basis; Modified 2018.11 to include an LOD procedure so results reported on a dry weight basis

Compliance testing – hemp or not hemp?

7

USDA AMS guidance on hemp testing: (https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/TestingGuidelinesforHemp.pdf)

8

USDA AMS guidance on hemp testing: (https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/TestingGuidelinesforHemp.pdf)

9

USDA AMS guidance on hemp testing : (https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/TestingGuidelinesforHemp.pdf)

10

Objective To provide guidance for laboratories in developing standard operating procedures for processing hemp plant materials received fresh from the field (approximate moisture 70-80%) to obtain a moisture content appropriate for grinding (generally <15%) when preparing samples for determining total THC on a dry weight basis, for example when using AOAC 2018.11 or other appropriate methods. Cannabinoids Working Group: Laboratory guidance for drying field-fresh hemp plant samples in preparation for determination of total THC on a dry weight basis

11

Cannabinoids Working Group: Laboratory guidance for drying field-fresh hemp plant samples in preparation for determination of total THC on a dry weight basis

12

Cannabinoids Working Group: Laboratory guidance for drying field-fresh hemp plant samples in preparation for determination of total THC on a dry weight basis

13

Cannabinoids Working Group: Laboratory guidance for drying field-fresh hemp plant samples in preparation for determination of total THC on a dry weight basis

14

Cannabinoids Working Group: Laboratory guidance for drying field-fresh hemp plant samples in preparation for determination of total THC on a dry weight basis

15

Cannabinoids Working Group: Laboratory guidance for drying field-fresh hemp plant samples in preparation for determination of total THC on a dry weight basis

16

Cannabinoids Working Group: Laboratory guidance for drying field-fresh hemp plant samples in preparation for determination of total THC on a dry weight basis

17

Cannabinoids Working Group: Laboratory guidance for drying field-fresh hemp plant samples in preparation for determination of total THC on a dry weight basis

18

Cannabinoids Working Group: Laboratory guidance for drying field-fresh hemp plant samples in preparation for determination of total THC on a dry weight basis

19

Cannabinoids Working Group: Laboratory guidance for drying field-fresh hemp plant samples in preparation for determination of total THC on a dry weight basis

20

Many thanks to : Chris Dent, AOAC Susan Audino, AOAC Advisor Dustin Sawyer, Rock River Laboratory, Inc. Frank Sikora, Division of Regulatory Services, University of Kentucky Don Gilliand, G-SQUARED Consulting

21

Questions?

Holly E. Johnson, Ph.D.

Chief Science Officer

American Herbal Products Association

28 August 2021

22

Laboratory Guidance - Drying Field-Fresh Hemp Plant Samples in 1 Preparation for Determination of Total THC on a Dry-Weight Basis 2 AOAC Cannabinoid Analytical Science Program (CASP) Working Group 3 4

5 6 1.0 Objective 7

The objective of this Appendix is to provide general guidance for laboratories to aid in 8 the development of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) appropriate for processing hemp 9 plant materials received fresh from the field. Field-fresh materials typically have a higher 10 moisture content of 70-80% (1) requiring a preliminary drying step to reduce moisture content to 11 a value that is sufficiently low (approx. 15%). Dried, milled samples are needed for requisite 12 sample preparation by appropriate methods including AOAC 2018.11 for the determination of 13 total tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) on a dry-weight basis. 1 1 4 5 2.0 Purpose and Scope 16 This document offers guidance to be used by laboratories to aid in the development of 17 procedures to sufficiently dry field-fresh hemp material. The purpose of the procedure is to dry 18 the material enough to facilitate adequate grinding and homogenization prior to analysis. The 19 scope of this guidance is limited to the initial drying step only and is not intended to be used as 20 the primary procedure used for sample preparation for determination and reporting total THC. 21 Complete sample preparation details are described within published methods such as AOAC 22 OMA 2018.11 (2). 23 In this context, the drying procedure needed and discussed herein is a preliminary step 24 that, while representing an important step to ensuring that sample integrity is maintained, is not 25 intended for use to directly generate final, reportable results for total THC (dry-weight basis). 26 It is critical for laboratories to develop a procedure in such a way that it can be applied in 27 a consistent manner to minimize the introduction of measurement error as well as maintain 28 sample integrity. During procedure development and validation, the laboratory should identify, 29 evaluate and document critical steps and parameters of the final procedure, assess overall 30 performance and address details that produce inconsistencies or errors in the final reported 31 results for total THC (dry-wight basis). This document provides guidance with that 32 documentation. 3 3 3 4

Draft Version 20.6

2

3 3 5 6 37 3.0 Introduction and Background – Drying Hemp Plant Materials 38 39 Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) for determination of total THC (dry-weight basis) in 40 hemp explicitly state that hemp plant samples must be delivered to the testing laboratory as 41 harvested from the field, i.e. in field-fresh condition (3). In this state and immediately post- 42 harvest, the material will have a moisture content of between 70 – 80% and, while the USDA 43 AMS rule does not mandate a specific drying process or procedure it does outline that testing 44 laboratories “remove the majority of water” from hemp material prior to milling and 45 homogenizing. 46 This initial drying step is crucial to the removal enough moisture from the plant material 47 received by the laboratory to facilitate effective grinding and homogenization while not changing 48 the material and possibly introducing analytical error. However, this step is not intended to take 49 the material completely to dryness as it will undergo additional sample preparation prior to 50 analysis for the determination of total-THC (dry weight basis). Rather, the target moisture 51 content after this initial drying step is 10-15%. Moisture content significantly higher than this 52 and the material will not mill properly. Moisture content less than 10% can result from overly 53 aggressive drying and lead to change in cannabinoid profile and should also be avoided. 54 Consequently, the sample drying procedure is intended only to be used in preparing field- 55 fresh hemp plant materials for subsequent regulatory analysis that reports total THC through full 56 decarboxylation of tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THC-A) or using the approved mathematical 57 calculation for total THC shown below in Eq. (1): 5 5 8 9 Total THC = 0.877 * THC-A + delta-9 THC Eq. (1) 6 6 0 1 62 minimize compromising the sample and introducing analytical error to the reported total-THC 63 Requirements specified by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) The drying procedure developed by the laboratory must be carefully crafted in order to

Draft Version 20.6

3

Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs