What ND Means on a 7-OH Lab Report
ND is one of the most useful and most easily overstated terms on an alkaloid report. It means not detected for the submitted sample under the laboratory's method and reporting limits. It does not mean that an analyte is mathematically impossible, absent from every future lot, or absent from a different finished product made from the sample.
That distinction is especially important when reading 7-hydroxymitragynine results during the 2026 federal scheduling process. The DEA notice uses numerical threshold language. A careful document review must therefore keep the result, units, LOD, LOQ, sample identity, and product stage together.
ND, LOD, and LOQ are connected
| Field | Plain-language meaning | What it does not prove |
|---|---|---|
| ND | The laboratory did not detect the analyte for the submitted sample under its stated method | Absolute zero in all material or future products |
| LOD | The method's stated limit of detection | A finished-product specification |
| LOQ | The method's stated limit of quantification | A universal legal threshold |
| Sample ID | The laboratory identity for the submitted material | Every flavor, package, or later lot |
| Matrix | The type of material tested, such as concentrate | That a later tablet or edible was independently tested |
Read the result in a fixed order
- Confirm the analyte name. 7-OH may appear as 7-hydroxy mitragynine or 7HMG.
- Confirm the sample ID and client-supplied sample name.
- Confirm the matrix or material type.
- Read the LOD and LOQ with their units.
- Read the reported result in every displayed unit.
- Read the report date and any scope or reproduction language.
- Match the record to the actual product stage being discussed.
A real source-material example
The current 90% MIT-CH source-material report used in the Kratom Paradise documentation system identifies sample SD260624-014, internal reference 141690, with the matrix listed as concentrate. The report lists 7-hydroxy mitragynine with an LOD of 0.008 ppm, an LOQ of 0.025 ppm, and an ND result. It separately reports mitragynine at 86.87%, or 868.73 mg/g, for that concentrate sample.
Those fields belong together. Quoting ND without the sample identity and reporting limit would remove context. Quoting 86.87% without stating that it is the result for a submitted concentrate sample would also remove context.
Source material is not the finished tablet
Kratom Paradise has confirmed that the current MIT chewable tablets use the 90% MIT-CH concentrate represented by internal reference 141690. That manufacturing relationship makes the concentrate report relevant to the ingredient chain. It does not transform the source-material report into a finished-tablet report.
Manufacturing adds another stage. Finished tablets contain the source material in a manufactured format and may include other ingredients. A finished-product assay would test the tablet after that process. Without such a report, the source result should not be restated as though the laboratory tested each tablet, each flavor, or each production lot.
Why per-article language needs finished-product facts
The DEA notice describes both concentration thresholds and, for certain alternative articles, a total of more than 1.00 milligram of 7-OH in the article. Applying that wording to a specific finished product requires the finished product's identity and relevant analytical facts. A source concentrate marked ND is meaningful evidence about that submitted source sample, but it is not a substitute for product-specific legal review.
Better and worse ways to write an ND statement
| Wording | Assessment |
|---|---|
| The source report for sample 141690 lists 7-OH as ND at a 0.025 ppm LOQ | Specific and appropriately scoped |
| The tablets have zero 7-OH | Overbroad; the report did not test finished tablets and ND does not mean absolute zero |
| Every tablet lot is COA certified | Unsupported unless every identified lot has matching finished-product evidence and the certification claim is authorized |
| The tablet line uses the documented 90% MIT-CH source concentrate | Acceptable when the manufacturing relationship is documented and the source-versus-finished distinction stays visible |
| DEA compliant | Avoid; a laboratory result does not certify legal compliance |
Questions to ask when a report is linked
- What exact material was submitted?
- Who provided the sample identity to the laboratory?
- Is this an input, intermediate material, or finished product?
- Which lot or batch does the result cover?
- Are the units ppm, percent, mg/g, mg per unit, or another measure?
- What do the report's LOD and LOQ mean under the stated method?
- Does the document contain restrictions on reproduction or promotional use?
Does ND stay true forever?
No result should be detached from the sample and date printed on its report. A later source lot, a different supplier, or a manufactured finished product is a new evidence question. If a store continues to reference an older report, the page should identify the relationship accurately and avoid implying that the old sample result automatically retested later material.
Can two laboratories report different limits?
Yes. Laboratories can use different validated methods, instruments, reporting conventions, LODs, and LOQs. That is another reason to compare complete records instead of treating the letters ND as a universal numerical result.
For current product-to-document relationships, use the MIT Product Documents & COA Center. For the federal timeline, use the DEA 7-OH Scheduling Tracker.
Official sources and further reading
- DEA July 1, 2026 announcement
- Federal Register notice for 7-OH above specified thresholds
- Federal Register notice for mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16
- FDA consumer information about enhanced 7-OH products
- FDA and Kratom
This guide explains laboratory terminology and document scope. It does not certify a product, interpret a contract, or provide medical or legal advice.