Posted on

does weed ashes help your hair grow

Does weed ashes help your hair grow

Flushing is a common step in the cultivation process, which is practiced by a majority of cannabis growers. The procedure helps in cleansing the cannabis or medical marijuana, but curing may play a more significant factor overall.

Visual Review: Even though different marijuana strains vary in color and consistency, you can still scan the flower for a particular red flag: mold. It’s best to err on the side of caution and not cut off the mold and continue consuming the flower. Not to mention, if the cannabis is yellow or brown, it’s most likely a low-grade product.

two hands holding a cannabis joint on a finger clipObserve The Color

Everyone wants clean cannabis, and analyzing the quality of your cannabis ash is one way to weed out the good buds from the bad ones. If you’ve ever had a headache, irritated lungs, or sore throat after smoking cannabis, there are likely leftover contaminants in your flower. With this simple guide on how to read your cannabis ash, we’ll give you the adequate knowledge to inspect your smoldering joint.

Seek Out Clean Cannabis

If you do find dark grey to burned black ash, there’s a good chance the cannabis flower was not properly flushed and/or cured well. With leftover undesirable sugars and minerals due to inefficient curing, you will experience a throat-burning feeling to match the dark-colored ash. Having said that, the color of your cannabis ash shouldn’t be the only detail you observe if you enjoy smoking weed.

Does weed ashes help your hair grow

Because of the logistics involved in collecting multiple types of measures from 12 participants, the exact timing of early specimen collections was somewhat variable; consequently, all specimen times should be considered as nominal values (i.e., ±10 min).

THCCOOH concentrations were measured by a current, validated GC-MS method by CRL. Briefly, 40 ng/mL of internal standard (THCCOOH-d9, Cerillant Corp., Round Rock, TX) was added to 1 mL of specimen and the sample was hydrolyzed with 0.2 mL of 5N NaOH. After hydrolysis, 1.5 mL of glacial acetic acid (pH 4) was added and THCOOH was extracted with a solid phase column (3 mL J-65 cation exchange, Biochemical Diagnostics, Edgewood, NY, USA). The column was eluted with 1.5 mL of n-butyl chloride/triethylamine (80/20, v/v) and the eluate was evaporated and derivatized with bistrimethylsilyltrifluoroacetamide (BSTFA). The specimen was transferred to an injection vial and analyzed on an Agilent 5,975 GC/MS. Ions (m/z) monitored were 380 and 479 for the internal standard and 371, 473 and 488 for THCCOOH. The calibration standard (single point calibration) contained 15 ng/mL of THCCOOH and 40 ng/mL of THCCOOH-d9. Four controls (negative, 6 ng/mL, 18.5 ng/mL, pooled positive urine for hydrolysis control) were assayed with each batch. The method had a limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ) for THCCOOH of 0.75 ng/mL and an upper limit of linearity (ULOL) of 600 ng/mL. Specimens with concentrations ≥ULOL were diluted to provide accurate quantitation. Criteria for acceptance of results included the following: retention times of analyte and internal standard within ±2% of the calibrator; ion ratios within ±20% of the calibrator; and positive control concentrations ±20% of established concentrations.

Analytical methods

TP, true positive; TN, true negative; FP, false positive; FN, false negative.

The sensitivity, specificity and agreement of the immunoassays for detection of cannabinoids in urine were calculated by comparison of the qualitative immunoassay response at different cutoff concentrations to the quantitative GC–MS result for THCCOOH. The confirmation cutoff concentration of ≥15 ng/mL for THCCOOH, as utilized in the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (22), was used to determine if a specimen was positive. True-positive (TP) (immunoassay response ≥ cutoff concentration and GC–MS positive), true-negative (TN) (immunoassay response < cutoff concentration and GC–MS negative), false-positive (FP) (immunoassay response ≥ cutoff concentration and GC–MS negative), and false-negative (FN) (immunoassay response < cutoff concentration and GC–MS positive) were calculated versus GC–MS at the 15 ng/mL cutoff concentration. Diagnostic sensitivity, 100 × [TP/(TP + FN)]; diagnostic specificity, 100 × [TN/(TN + FP)]; and agreement, 100 × [(TP + TN)/(TP + TN + FP + FN)] were calculated at multiple screening cutoff concentrations.

Sensitivity, specificity and agreement

Written informed consent was obtained prior to study participation. The study was approved by the Johns Hopkins Medicine Institutional Review Board and conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the Helsinki Declaration. All subjects were compensated for their participation.