In‑House Potency for Process Control: How to Use HPLC Beyond COAs

Introduction

Increasingly, extraction and manufacturing teams invest in HPLC systems to meet third‑party testing requirements—and then relegate them to the lab as a COA generator. That’s a missed opportunity. When used correctly, in‑house potency testing becomes a real‑time operational tool that reduces cycle time, improves yield, and supports defensible decision‑making on the shop floor.

This post explains practical, standards‑aligned ways to integrate in‑house potency HPLC process control into cultivation harvesting, extraction runs, decarboxylation, distillation, and finished‑goods release. You’ll walk away with sampling templates, method tradeoffs, system suitability guidance, dashboard metrics, and a realistic cost/ROI framework.

Why in‑house potency for process control?

• Reduce expensive hold times: instead of waiting days for third‑party COAs, quick in‑house checks let operators act within hours.
• Increase yield capture: potency-informed cuts and decarb endpoints minimize loss of active cannabinoids and terpenes.
• Improve consistency: trending potency across batches surfaces drift in extraction or distillation performance.
• Defensible results: with the right calibration and system suitability program you can produce repeatable, auditable data suitable for internal release decisions and trending.

Credible standards to anchor your program

Before you implement, align your approach with national reference resources and consensus methods:

• AOAC’s Cannabis Analytical Science Program (CASP) provides community standards, method performance requirements and proficiency testing for cannabinoid quantitation: https://www.aoac.org/scientific-solutions/casp/
• NIST’s Hemp Plant Reference Material (RM 8210) gives traceable control material for cannabinoids and toxic elements useful in calibration verification and method performance checks: https://www.nist.gov/publications/characterization-reference-material-8210-hemp-plant
• USDA and state sampling guidance is essential when drawing pre‑harvest lots for compliance testing (sample collection rules vary by jurisdiction): https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/SamplingGuidelinesforHemp.pdf

These references make in‑house results more defensible and help you design acceptance bands that balance practicality with traceability.

Three high‑value use cases for in‑house HPLC potency

1) Pre‑harvest scouting (harvest timing)

• Goal: determine optimal harvest window so lots stay within target cannabinoid profiles and legal THC limits.
• Practical plan: collect composite samples from representative plants per USDA/State guidance within 30 days of expected harvest. Run a fast assay for total THC and primary cannabinoids. Use trend lines over 7–14 days to decide when to harvest.
• Impact: avoids over‑mature harvests that force downgrades or rework, and reduces risk of out‑of‑spec lots.

2) In‑process checks (crude, decarb, distillate, intermediates)

• Goal: provide rapid, actionable readouts during extraction, decarboxylation, and distillation to optimize endpoint decisions.
• Examples:
• Crude potency and impurity trends after winterization to decide whether additional cleanup is needed.
• Decarb conversion checks – monitor the decrease in acidic cannabinoids (e.g., CBDA) and increase in neutral forms (CBD) to target conversion %, not just time/temperature.
• Distillation cut performance – measure fraction potency to shift collection windows and maximize terpene/cannabinoid capture.
• Frequencies: run 1–3 checks per batch at critical junctions; this keeps analytics from becoming the bottleneck but provides enough checkpoints to control yield and quality.

3) Finished goods release and trending

• Goal: internal release decisions, stability trending, and production KPI tracking.
• Use in‑house potency for final confirmation, then periodically verify with an accredited third‑party for compliance COAs.
• Track batch‑level KPIs over time (see dashboards below) to find process drift early.

Designing sampling plans that don’t overwhelm analysts

A pragmatic sampling plan balances statistical representativeness with lab throughput and costs.

• Start with risk‑based stratification: prioritize samples from lots with known variability (different genetic lines, irrigation events, non‑uniform canopies).
• Use composite sampling for high‑volume lots to reduce sample count while preserving representativeness.
• Keep a sliding scale: frequent sampling for new processes or suppliers; reduced sampling for stable, validated operations.
• Example plan for a mid‑scale extractor:
• Pre‑run crude: 1 composite sample per 10 kg feedstock
• Post‑winterization: 1 sample per shift
• Post‑decarb: 1 sample per batch
• Distillation: 1 sample per major fraction (heads/body/tails)

Quick‑turn methods vs full‑resolution methods

• Quick‑turn methods (9–20 minutes): optimized to provide fast, repeatable quantitation for targeted cannabinoids. Ideal for process checkpoints where speed and repeatability matter more than full chromatographic separation. Portable HPLC analyzers can deliver results in ~9 minutes for targeted panels (e.g., 9–11 cannabinoids) which is ideal for shop‑floor decisions.
• Practical example: Orange Photonics’ LightLab series is designed for fast, non‑technical use and is suited for rapid process checks. (See portable option below.)
• Full‑resolution methods (25–60+ minutes): required when full cannabinoid separation, isomer resolution, or regulatory COAs are needed. These methods are more tolerant of complex matrices and necessary for final certification or forensic separation of isomers.

Tradeoffs: quick methods reduce holding time and operator disruption but may not separate co‑eluting isomers. Retain a full‑resolution method for periodic verification and suspect results.

Throughput: portable vs benchtop

• Portable, purpose‑built HPLC analyzers (lightweight benchtops with simplified workflows) can often process a sample in ~9–12 minutes and require minimal operator training. These systems are ideal for frequent process checks and pre‑harvest scouting.
• Benchtop UHPLC/HPLC systems using full resolution methods commonly run 20–40 minutes per sample (depending on column and gradient) but can be multiplexed with autosamplers for overnight runs.
• Choose the instrument to match your sampling cadence: if you need dozens of quick checks per week, a portable analyzer plus a benchtop for confirmations is a sensible combo.

Cost per sample and ROI considerations

External labs: typical market rates for cannabinoid potency COAs range widely, often $100–$250 per sample depending on region and scope.

In‑house allele (ballpark) cost drivers:

• Consumables (solvents, filters, vials): $5–$20/sample
• Column amortization and maintenance: $5–$15/sample
• Labor (prep + run + reporting): $10–$40/sample
• Overheads (instrument depreciation, QC materials): $5–$20/sample

Conservative in‑house all‑in costs: $25–$90 per sample depending on throughput and automation. If you run 500–1,000 process checks per year, shifting even a portion in‑house can deliver payback in months. Example: a $27,000 benchtop HPLC that reduces external testing by $75,000/yr can pay back in <12 months (plus intangible benefits: shorter hold times, higher yield).

Calibration, system suitability and defensibility

To make decisions on the floor you need confidence in the numbers. Design a program that’s defensible without being overbearing:

• Daily/Shift System Suitability Test (SST): check retention time, %RSD of replicate injections, theoretical plates, and tailing factor using a standard mix. Use USP <621> style parameters as guidance for acceptable ranges. See primer on system suitability: https://www.mtc-usa.com/kb-article/aa-03965
• Calibration verification: run a mid‑level check standard or a NIST RM‑traceable material (e.g., NIST RM 8210) weekly or on every new batch of samples. NIST resources: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2024/07/rm-measuring-cannabinoids-and-toxic-elements-hemp
• Method validation: for any quick method document linearity, accuracy (recovery), precision (repeatability/intermediate precision), LOD/LOQ and specificity. Aim for practical targets: repeatability RSD ≤2–5% for routine matrices and recoveries within 85–115% for most cannabinoids, aligned with AOAC SMPRs where applicable.
• Recordkeeping: store raw chromatograms, SST logs, calibration curves and corrective actions so internal release actions are auditable.

Dashboards and KPIs that operational teams use

Create a compact dashboard so operators and managers can act:

• Yield per batch (%CBD extracted per kg biomass)
• Conversion during decarb (percent acidic → neutral cannabinoid)
• Distillation cut performance (potency and terpene %, fraction yields)
• Batch consistency (control charts for potency over last 10 batches)
• Sample turnaround (hours between sample receipt and result)

Keep visuals simple: a time series plus control chart for each KPI gives immediate visibility to process drift and short‑lived events.

Implementation timeline & SOP checklist

Phase 1: Pilot (30–60 days)

• Select 1–2 high‑value use cases (e.g., decarb monitoring, post‑crude check).
• Choose quick‑turn method, train 1–2 operators.
• Run parallel samples with a third‑party lab for 4–8 weeks to build correlation.

Phase 2: Scale (3–6 months)

• Expand sampling plan and automate sample prep where possible.
• Create dashboards and integrate results with batch records.
• Establish SST and calibration schedules.

Phase 3: Continuous improvement (6–12 months)

• Use trending to adjust process setpoints, supplier specs, and SOPs.
• Maintain periodic third‑party verification and participate in proficiency testing (AOAC CASP).

SOP checklist (starter)

• Sample ID and chain of custody
• Extraction and dilution SOP for the matrix
• Instrument SST and calibration verification
• Result review and acceptance criteria
• Corrective action path for out‑of‑spec results
• Record retention policy

Preventive maintenance & calibration frequency

• Daily: SST, solvent filter checks
• Weekly: calibration verification with standards
• Monthly/Quarterly: column performance review, pump/seal checks
• Annual: full instrument qualification (IQ/OQ/PQ) if used for regulated release; consider vendor service contracts

Urth & Fyre support and recommended gear

If you’re building an in‑house program, consider a combined approach: a portable rapid analyzer for frequent process checks and a benchtop HPLC for confirmations and method development. Urth & Fyre curates benchtop HPLC analyzers and portable systems and offers services like method selection support, sample‑prep SOPs, and referrals for calibration and qualification partners.

Recommended gear: https://www.urthandfyre.com/equipment-listings/hemp-cannabinoid-analyzer---hplc-high-performance-liquid-chromatography

If you need a fast portable option for shop‑floor checks consider a purpose‑built analyzer like Orange Photonics’ LightLab series: https://www.urthandfyre.com/equipment-listings/orange-photonics-lightlab-3-cannabis-analyzer---potency-testing-lab-

Final takeaways

• Treat in‑house potency HPLC process control as a production tool, not just a COA generator. Quick checks reduce time‑to‑decision, limit rework and improve yield.
• Use standards (AOAC CASP, NIST RM 8210) to make your program defensible and auditable.
• Balance quick‑turn and full‑resolution methods: use the former for frequent decisions and the latter for confirmation.
• Start small, validate correlation with external labs, and scale sampling once stability and precision are proven.

Ready to build an in‑house potency program? Explore curated HPLC analyzers, portable units, and our consulting services to design a sampling plan and method set that fits your operation. Visit https://www.urthandfyre.com to browse listings and request method support.