Intralaboratory comparison of analytical methods for quantification of major phytocannabinoids
Language English Country Germany Media print-electronic
Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article
Grant support
RO0419
Ministerstvo Zemědělství
PubMed
30895348
DOI
10.1007/s00216-019-01760-y
PII: 10.1007/s00216-019-01760-y
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- Flame ionization detector, Gas chromatography, Liquid chromatography, Mass spectrometry, Phytocannabinoids,
- MeSH
- Cannabis chemistry MeSH
- Cannabinoids analysis MeSH
- Laboratories organization & administration MeSH
- Limit of Detection MeSH
- Flame Ionization methods MeSH
- Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry methods MeSH
- Reproducibility of Results MeSH
- Tandem Mass Spectrometry methods MeSH
- Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid methods MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Cannabinoids MeSH
This study compares alternative approaches for analyzing phytocannabinoids in different plant materials. Three chromatographic analytical methods (ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometric detection and gas chromatography with mass spectrometric and flame ionization detection) were evaluated regarding selectivity, sensitivity, analytical accuracy, and precision. The performance of the methods was compared and all three methods were demonstrated to be appropriate tools for analyzing phytocannabinoids in cannabis. Gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometric detection showed slightly better accuracy in determining phytocannabinoid acids, which are often difficult to quantify owing to their limited stability. Aspects of sample preparation, such as material homogenization and extraction, were also considered. A single ultrasonic-assisted ethanolic extraction of dried and powdered plant samples of cannabis was shown to be exhaustive for extracting the samples prior to analysis.
References provided by Crossref.org