Kava Science Kava Quality Standards Project Near Completion

[HeadHodge]

I think it's important to note that (as per your posted doc) that Lebot's acetone test that you perform for your customers is only qualitative in nature. While Smitdt's approach is based on real quantitative measurements.

I'd be more interested in knowing what it takes to perform testing using Schmidt's method and what informational parameters (aka data attributes) result from the test.

 

[HeadHodge]

Dr. Schmidt is using an HPLC method described in "HPLC analysis of flavokavins and kavapyrones from Piper methysticum Forst" by Meissner which allows quantitative measurement of KLs and FKs in the same run. The parameters under discussion for noble/two day determination include FK/KL, FKB/KL, FKB/K, K/KL and K/DHM. I've made some preliminary runs using this method and results are looking good. Detection is at two wavelengths (220 & 355nm), but I've just added a dual detector and the rest of the equipment is on the way.

The biggest problem is time and expense. Dr. Schmidt's method takes over 50 minutes per run vs the ~24 minutes per run for KLs only. Considering the necessary triplicate runs, that's rather daunting. Conversion to UHPLC is possible, but that raises filtration requirements and requires a different column, all of which add up quick.

Bottom line, if one were to use this as the singular method of noble/two day determination it would take approximately 3 hours per sample, so clearly the qualitative test has a place. The experts realize this, and the acetone method isn't going to disappear. I expect it will be standardized and used as a screening method, eliminating costly tests of obviously two day kava.

Awesome. Glad to hear you'll be able to duplicate the test. Now I understand why I can't get the data I'm looking for. Because you don't have it. But I'm encouraged that some day you will.

I guess I would be happy seeing the full monty on a vendors product at least once, then just the acetone test (even without the Chemotyping if that would save time) after that for batch quality control. If the acetone test red flags the batch, then another full blown Schmidt run could be done. That way you have data for a 'basis' vs 'batch' comparision over time.
I do think the Schmidt test should be done at least once for each product, whether it's noble or not, to capture it's basis numbers. JMHO.

Just a suggestion, but it would be nice if, at some point, you could perform any other feasible tests as part of the basis test, in order to capture a more detailed profile for the product.

 

[HeadHodge]

Maybe the answer is there and I missed it, but if you were to do totally 'blind' tests on a group of products, how would you know for certain the product was noble or non-noble? And is there any measurable fingerprint resulting from the test that could indicate which type of cultivar it is?

 

[HeadHodge]

I'm sure you'll find this funny, but I just realized your table (on your site) contains kl levels in it. I was so busy grabbing the chemotype itself, I didn't realize they were there.

Another recommendation... I think it would be nice to see your table show the kl readings as percentages in chemotype order. I know it's just simple math, but I think it would be useful to the person viewing the table (like me for instance ).

 

[Edward]

Maybe the answer is there and I missed it, but if you were to do totally 'blind' tests on a group of products, how would you know for certain the product was noble or non-noble? And is there any measurable fingerprint resulting from the test that could indicate which type of cultivar it is?

Wouldn't the orange colour of the liquid indicate that?

 

[HeadHodge]

Wouldn't the orange colour of the liquid indicate that?

Don't know that's why I asked. It's not clear to me whether Schmidts test involves acetone or not and whether acetone involves part of their proposed standard. The reason I say that because the doc says Schmidts test is quantitaive while the acetone test is qualitative in nature. Which led me to think that maybe Schmidts test isn't using acetone.

 

[HeadHodge]

Basically, every test is totally blind - that's one of the problems for everyone in setting precise standards. Dr. Schmidt and Dr. Lebot have both stated that they have to personally identify the plant and harvest it themselves to be sure of what they get. My positively identified noble/two day samples are limited to those supplied by Chris and a few other reliable farmers, but I will soon have more as Dr. Schmidt has offered to send portions of the ones he obtained from all the islands. But you have to realize the difference between noble and two day coloration is very obvious, both visually and through actual colorimetric measurement. Subtleties of adulteration are less obvious, but still very detectable when measured. The key is basing the system on known, positively identified cultivars, and that's what we're doing now. The "interim" standards I use now are actually quite lax.

Dr. Schmidt's tests are HPLC and do not involve acetone testing. His data consists of quantitative measurements of the six KLs and FKA/B/C only. Various comparisons such as FKB/KL, K/KL etc will be the indicator in that system. Dr. Lebot's data includes the same (by HPTLC), plus colorimetric and genetic information.

Thanks kind of discouraging to hear (i.e. that comparison samples are required). I was hoping for a foolproof test that could be done indepently by anyone.

 

[HeadHodge]

...My positively identified noble/two day samples are limited to those supplied by Chris and a few other reliable farmers,...

Well that answers my other question about why there is a heavy bias in the stats towards testing GHK products.

 

[HeadHodge]

Comparison samples won't be required by everyone, but they are vital for setting the standards. Once the method is validated, labs won't have to have samples other than those under test. Consumer testing will also be possible, but only with the use of calibrated filters and with less accuracy mid-scale.


By "bias in the stats" do you mean bias towards the products, or simply that they more often appear in my results? If the latter, that is because they are among the few reliable standards I have available right now.

Yes I meant the latter. And the reason you've given is what I meant also. I've never thought of you as being personally biased (even if you are *)

*Note: I'm practicing @Deleted User01's dig style. I've analyzed his technique and have concluded his digs are like sneaker farts. You don't realize they are there until it's too late and everyone starts running for the door. You always know who did it, because the owner can never smell their own farts and happily remains seated at the table.

 

[Zac Imiola (Herbalist)]

Yeah exactly... I'm burdened with those as well

 

[Deleted User01]

Hey @HeadHodge and @Deleted User, what's with all the making fun of my "intestinal idiosynchracies". Don't piss me off now or not only will they be "sneakers" but I will add a little
"meaner than catshit" to the mix.

 

[HeadHodge]

Hey @HeadHodge and @Deleted User, what's with all the making fun of my "intestinal idiosynchracies". Don't piss me off now or not only will they be "sneakers" but I will add a little
"meaner than catshit" to the mix.

Catshit is not a problem. Catpiss is another. If it gets in your rug or floor boards, you might as well sell your house than try to get rid of it.
I was just having a little fun at your expense (just stick it on my tab). Here's a Headgie hug for you:

 

[Deleted User01]

Ok Headgie, I accept the hug and I promise to lay off the "sneakers". Scout's honor.