Skip to main content

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

From: Semi-quantitative analysis of cannabinoids in hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) using gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry

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