Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Forensic Method Validation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee reviews validation to add delta‑7 and cis‑delta‑9 THC to semi‑quantitative GC screen

Unidentified Committee · October 8, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Committee members reviewed a full validation summary to expand an existing GC semi‑quantitative screen to include delta‑7 and cis‑delta‑9 THC isomers; presenters noted internal‑standard changes during validation and a 1% reporting threshold.

A committee meeting on forensic methods reviewed a full validation to add delta‑7 THC and cis‑delta‑9 THC to an existing gas chromatography semi‑quantitative screening method. Rachel (S3), who presented the summary, said the work expands an earlier method that already covered delta‑9 (trans), delta‑8, delta‑10 (9R/9S), and delta‑6a/10a isomers and that the lab applies a 1% threshold for determinations.

Rachel (S3) told members that androstenedione had been used as an internal standard earlier in the validation period but was removed from the procedures manual; the remaining validation experiments therefore excluded androstenedione. "The method originally started with the delta‑9 trans THC," she said, "and we included all previously validated matrices as well." Members asked no substantive technical questions and described the summary as thorough. Chair (S1) then moved the meeting forward to the second agenda item.

Why it matters: expanding the list of isomers the lab can detect by the semi‑quantitative screen could affect how casework samples are flagged for additional testing and reporting, and the removal or change of internal standards can alter quantitative comparability across legacy and new results.

Next steps: The committee closed review of both methods after the discussions; presenters will proceed with validation steps already outlined in their reports.