Cannabinoids in Oral Fluid: Limiting Potential Sources of Cannabidiol Conversion to Δ9- and Δ8-Tetrahydrocannabinol

Author(s):  
Cynthia Coulter ◽  
Jarrad R Wagner

Abstract In late 2019 the National Laboratory Certification Program (NLCP) published an article reporting on the potential analytical conversion of 7-carboxy-cannabidiol (CBD-COOH) to 11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid (THC-COOH) in urine samples. (1) The same conversion is possible in oral fluid with the parent analyte cannabidiol (CBD) converting to Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC) and Δ8-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ8-THC) under strong acidic conditions. With the recent rise in states legalizing the use of THC and the availability of products containing only CBD, unless the analytical in vitro conversions are controlled, the detection of Δ9-THC or Δ8-THC in oral fluid may not clarify whether the donor was using a CBD product, licit or illicit THC product. Authentic oral fluid samples submitted for cannabinoid analysis were subjected to multiple sample preparation procedures and extraction methods to determine the conditions that allow CBD to convert to THC. CBD single analyte controls prepared from a certified THC-free source were added to the batch to monitor the rate of conversion. Samples were prepared using a base hydrolysis, solid phase extraction, derivatization, and analysis by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS-MS). The base hydrolysis and derivatization were tested independently and did not contribute to the conversion rate. Adjusting the pH of the sample preparation and extraction from pH 2.0 to pH 5.0 changed the conversion rate from 5% to 1%. A pH of 6.0 was not strong enough to extract the cannabinoids efficiently. Removing the acid component of the preparation and extraction procedure eliminated the conversion to THC; however, this did reduce the analyte recovery depending on which extraction column was used. Processing time also contributed to the conversion rate. With smaller trial runs, conversion was not always seen but with larger validation batches low level conversion of 1–2% was observed. A fully validated LC–MS-MS method utilizing solid-phase extraction was developed for CBD, Δ9-THC, Δ8-THC, and cannabinol (CBN). The method specifically targets those analytes found in oral fluid after CBD administration and those that are seen during in vitro CBD conversion. CBD administration was performed using a certified THC-free CBD control.

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 493-504 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peta A. Neale ◽  
Werner Brack ◽  
Selim Aït-Aïssa ◽  
Wibke Busch ◽  
Juliane Hollender ◽  
...  

Effect recovery for bioassays was evaluated and was similar to recovery by chemical analysis for the studied SPE methods, providing support of bioassay use for water quality monitoring.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (7) ◽  
pp. 788-800 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natasa P. Kalogiouri ◽  
Victoria F. Samanidou

Background:The sample preparation is the most crucial step in the analytical method development. Taking this into account, it is easily understood why the domain of sample preparation prior to detection is rapidly developing. Following the modern trends towards the automation, miniaturization, simplification and minimization of organic solvents and sample volumes, green microextraction techniques witness rapid growth in the field of food quality and safety. In a globalized market, it is essential to face the consumers need and develop analytical methods that guarantee the quality of food products and beverages. The strive for the accurate determination of organic hazards in a famous and appreciated alcoholic beverage like wine has necessitated the development of microextraction techniques.Objective:The objective of this review is to summarize all the recent microextraction methodologies, including solid phase extraction (SPE), solid phase microextraction (SPME), liquid-phase microextraction (LPME), dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME), stir bar sorptive extraction (SBSE), matrix solid-phase dispersion (MSPD), single-drop microextraction (SDME) and dispersive solid phase extraction (DSPE) that were developed for the determination of hazardous organic compounds (pesticides, mycotoxins, colorants, biogenic amines, off-flavors) in wine. The analytical performance of the techniques is evaluated and their advantages and limitations are discussed.Conclusion:An extensive investigation of these techniques remains vital through the development of novel strategies and the implication of new materials that could upgrade the selectivity for the extraction of target analytes.


1992 ◽  
Vol 607 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georgina Hotter ◽  
Gloria Gómez ◽  
Isabel Ramis ◽  
Gloria Bioque ◽  
Joan Roselló-Catafau ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 89 (4) ◽  
pp. 517-523 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ke-Jing Huang ◽  
Cong-Hui Han ◽  
Ying-Ying Wu ◽  
Chao-Qun Han ◽  
De-Jun Niu ◽  
...  

A simple and efficient solid-phase extraction – spectrofluorimetric method has been developed to determine glutathione (GSH). Fluorescent probe N-(4,4-difluoro-5,7-dimethyl-4-bora-3a,4a-diaza-s-indacene-3-yl)methyl)iodoacetamide (BODIPY Fl-C1-IA) was used as the derivatization reagent. The procedure was based on a BODIPY Fl-C1-IA selective reaction with GSH to form the highly fluorescent product BODIPY Fl-C1-IA–GSH, using a solid-phase extraction column and spectrofluorimetric determination. The variables affecting analytical performance were studied and optimized. The calibration graph using the preconcentration system for GSH was linear over the range of 1–200 nmol/L with a limit of detection of 0.05 nmol/L (signal-to-noise ratio = 3). The relative standard deviation for six replicate determinations of GSH at the 100 nmol/L concentration level was 3.9%. The method was applied to water samples and average recoveries between 87.5% and 111.5% were obtained for spiked samples.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document