Difference between revisions of "Journal:The cannabinoid content of legal cannabis in Washington State varies systematically across testing facilities and popular consumer products"
Shawndouglas (talk | contribs) (Created stub. Saving and adding more.) |
Shawndouglas (talk | contribs) (Saving and adding more.) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|alt = <!-- Alternative text for images --> | |alt = <!-- Alternative text for images --> | ||
|caption = | |caption = | ||
|title_full = The cannabinoid content of legal cannabis in Washington State varies systematically across testing facilities and popular consumer products | |title_full = The cannabinoid content of legal cannabis in Washington State varies<br />systematically across testing facilities and popular consumer products | ||
|journal = ''Scientific Reports'' | |journal = ''Scientific Reports'' | ||
|authors = Jikomes, Nick; Zoorob, Michael | |authors = Jikomes, Nick; Zoorob, Michael | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
|download = [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22755-2.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22755-2.pdf] (PDF) | |download = [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22755-2.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22755-2.pdf] (PDF) | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ombox | |||
| type = content | |||
| style = | |||
| text = This article contains rendered mathematical formulae. You ''may'' require the [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tex-all-the-things/cbimabofgmfdkicghcadidpemeenbffn?hl=en TeX All the Things] plugin for Chrome or the [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/native-mathml/ Native MathML] add-on and [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/MathML_Project/Fonts fonts] for Firefox if they don't render properly for you. | |||
}} | |||
{{ombox | |||
| type = content | |||
| style = width: 500px; | |||
| text = This article should not be considered complete until this message box has been removed. This is a work in progress. | |||
}} | |||
==Abstract== | |||
The majority of adults in the U.S. now have state-legal access to medical or recreational cannabis products, despite their federal prohibition. Given the wide array of pharmacologically active compounds in these products, it is essential that their [[Biomolecule|biochemical]] profile is measured and reported to consumers, which requires accurate [[limswiki:Laboratory|laboratory]] testing. However, no universal standards for laboratory testing [[Protocol (science)|protocols]] currently exist, and there is controversy as to whether all reported results are legitimate. To investigate these concerns, we analyzed a publicly available [[seed-to-sale]] traceability dataset from Washington State containing measurements of the [[cannabinoid]] content of legal cannabis products from state-certified laboratories. Consistent with previous work, we found that commercial ''[[Cannabis]]'' strains fall into three broad [[chemotype]]s defined by the [[tetrahydrocannabinol]]:[[cannabidiol]] (THC:CBD) ratio. Moreover, we documented systematic differences in the cannabinoid content reported by different laboratories, relative stability in cannabinoid levels of commercial flower and concentrates over time, and differences between popular commercial [[Cannabis strains|strains]]. Importantly, interlab differences in cannabinoid reporting persisted even after controlling for plausible confounds. Our results underscore the need for standardized laboratory methodologies in the legal [[cannabis industry]] and provide a framework for quantitatively assessing [[Laboratory quality control|laboratory quality]]. | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 21:54, 22 March 2019
| Full article title |
The cannabinoid content of legal cannabis in Washington State varies systematically across testing facilities and popular consumer products |
|---|---|
| Journal | Scientific Reports |
| Author(s) | Jikomes, Nick; Zoorob, Michael |
| Author affiliation(s) | Leafly Holdings, Harvard University |
| Primary contact | Email: Contact author via journal |
| Year published | 2018 |
| Volume and issue | 8 |
| Page(s) | 4519 |
| DOI | 10.1038/s41598-018-22755-2 |
| ISSN | 2045-2322 |
| Distribution license | Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International |
| Website | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22755-2 |
| Download | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22755-2.pdf (PDF) |
 |
This article contains rendered mathematical formulae. You may require the TeX All the Things plugin for Chrome or the Native MathML add-on and fonts for Firefox if they don't render properly for you. |
|
|
This article should not be considered complete until this message box has been removed. This is a work in progress. |
Abstract
The majority of adults in the U.S. now have state-legal access to medical or recreational cannabis products, despite their federal prohibition. Given the wide array of pharmacologically active compounds in these products, it is essential that their biochemical profile is measured and reported to consumers, which requires accurate laboratory testing. However, no universal standards for laboratory testing protocols currently exist, and there is controversy as to whether all reported results are legitimate. To investigate these concerns, we analyzed a publicly available seed-to-sale traceability dataset from Washington State containing measurements of the cannabinoid content of legal cannabis products from state-certified laboratories. Consistent with previous work, we found that commercial Cannabis strains fall into three broad chemotypes defined by the tetrahydrocannabinol:cannabidiol (THC:CBD) ratio. Moreover, we documented systematic differences in the cannabinoid content reported by different laboratories, relative stability in cannabinoid levels of commercial flower and concentrates over time, and differences between popular commercial strains. Importantly, interlab differences in cannabinoid reporting persisted even after controlling for plausible confounds. Our results underscore the need for standardized laboratory methodologies in the legal cannabis industry and provide a framework for quantitatively assessing laboratory quality.
References
Notes
This presentation is faithful to the original, with only a few minor changes to presentation. Some grammar and punctuation was cleaned up to improve readability. In some cases important information was missing from the references, and that information was added.
