Evidence

Why moisture results need a method, not just a percentage

A 2025 NIST interlaboratory study explains why moisture measurements need method context before two reports can be compared.

By POSH STAR LAB · · 2 min read

NIST IR 8574 · Published 28 April 2025

Sources and editorial method
KEY IDEA

A shared sample does not guarantee a shared result.

The evidence

NIST’s CannaQAP Exercise 3 examined moisture measurements in one supplied hemp material. Its report, published 28 April 2025, describes a wide spread of results from participating laboratories using different drying methods. The authors identify a need for consistent methods to improve measurement accuracy and precision. [1]

Why a reader should care

Our editorial interpretation: a moisture number is incomplete without its measurement context. Before comparing reports, record the material, method and reporting basis. Two percentages with identical units may still describe results obtained under different analytical definitions.

Limits of the finding

This exercise concerns one hemp material and laboratory comparability. It is not a validation of every concentrate matrix, a product safety verdict or evidence for a particular POSH STAR batch. The report is an established 2025 publication, not a newly announced discovery. [1]

A useful documentation habit

Retain the original report alongside any summary. If two values disagree, describe that discrepancy and ask what each method measures before assuming one material changed. This is a reading practice, not drying or processing guidance.

Sources & further reading

  1. Yarberry et al. (28 April 2025), NIST IR 8574 — CannaQAP Exercise 3 Moisture Final Report

Research findings and public-agency definitions are attributed above. Reading checklists are editorial guidance, not laboratory findings.

Back to journal