Table 5 Differences and improvements reported in the current method with respect to the most relevant and recent GC-MS studies for the separation, extraction, and cannabinoid analysis of Cannabis sativa inflorescence plant material
Typology | Reference cited | Previous operation used | Improvement | Differences |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Separation of material | Nil | – | Separation of trichomes from inflorescence plant material through freeze treatment and sieving | Detection of low abundance cannabinoids |
Plant material | Nil | – | 3.5 ± 0.1 mg of trichomes material for extraction | Less plant material. Increased number of cannabinoids detection and avoiding GC-MS blockage |
Plant material | (Cardenia et al. 2018) | 50 mg of plant material | 10.5 ± 0.3 mg of plant material | Less plant material |
Chemicals and reagents | Cardenia et al. (2018) | Extraction of chloroform and methanol (1:9) | Extraction in methanol | Avoiding chloroform (toxic) |
Chemicals and reagents | (Cardenia et al. 2018) | Extraction in 20 mL of solvent mix | Extraction in 1.5 mL of methanol | Less chemical used |
Chemicals and reagents | (Cardenia et al. 2018) | Analysis from methanol | Analysis from n-Hexane | Easier for the operator and avoiding plant material filtering |
Derivatisation | (Leghissa et al. 2018b) | Use of BSTFA | Comparison of BSTFA and MSTFA | Choice of MSTFA for better performance |
Derivatisation | (Cardenia et al. 2018) | 50 μL of pyridine and 150 μL of derivatisation agent | Only 90 μL derivatisation agent | Less agent saves costs for routine analysis |