S (a = 0.05/12 = 0.004 required; a = 0.01/12 = 0.0008 etc.) to control for Type 1 error. All

S (a = 0.05/12 = 0.004 required; a = 0.01/12 = 0.0008 etc.) to control for Type 1 error. All analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 20 or Prism GraphPad 6.0.Results Cannabinoid Profiles in Cannabis Cautioning SamplesThe results from the Cannabis Cautioning samples are presented in Table 1. As shown in Figures 2 and 3 the cannabinoid content of these samples was dominated by THC and THC-A, with low levels of all other cannabinoids analysed. As expected, levels of THC-A were far greater than THC, showing the dominance of the carboxylic acid precursor in plant materials. Absolute levels of THCtot in the Cannabis Cautioning samples ranged from 0.9 to 39.8 (Figure 2).Cannabinoid Profiles in Known Provenance SamplesThe results from the Known Provenance samples are presented Table 2 and in Figures 4 and 5. Results were broadly consistent with the Cannabis Cautioning samples with high levels of THC-A and THC, and low levels of all other cannabinoids in samples from both indoor and outdoor locations. Despite a wide range, 74 of street-level Cannabis Cautioning samples and 77 of Known Provenance samples contained at least 10 THCtot. Further, 43 of Cannabis Cautioning and 54 of Known Provenance samples contained at least 15 THCtot, the level recommended by the Garretsen Commission as warranting classification of cannabis as a “hard” drug in the Netherlands. The samples contained comparatively high amounts of CBGtot, with 1.18 in the Cannabis Cautioning samples and 2.32 CBGtot and 0.71 CBGtot in the outdoor and indoor Known Provenance samples. A total of 31 of all Cannabis Cautioning samples and 38 of all Known Provenance samples contained at least 1 CBGtot. Conversely, levels of all other cannabinoids with potential therapeutic value were negligible, and comprised only a fraction of the content of samples compared to THC and THC-A (Figures 2 and 3). Notably, 91 of Cannabis Cautioning samples and 85 of Known Provenance samples contained less than 0.1 CBDtot.Statistical AnalysisThere were strong positive correlations between the major cannabinoid values in the duplicate extracts from samples used in HPLC analyses (Cautioning samples: THCtot r2 = 0.81, CBDtot r2 = 0.61, CBGtot r2 = 0.79; Known Provenance samples: THCtot r2 = 0.68, CBDtot r2 = 0.41, CBGtot r2 = 0.96). Thus, for each cannabinoid, the mean values obtained from the two runs were used in statistical analyses. The majority of distributions for cannabinoid content were skewed. For those that were normally distributed, we checked for outliers using the method of Mehmedic and colleagues [5]; noDifferences in Urban/Rural Cannabinoid LevelsAmong the Cannabis Cautioning Samples, samples seized from rural locations differed in cannabinoid content from those seized from urban locations. Rural samples showed higher levels of THC (order IQ1 median 3.55 vs. 0.94 ; p,0.0001), THC-A (mean 16.48 vs. 12.50 ; p = 0.0005) and THCtot (mean 18.66 vs 12.38 , p,0.0001). Rural samples also contained higher levels of CBDtot (median 0.05 vs. 0.03; p,0.0001), CBG (median 1.43 vs. 0, p,0.0.0001), CBG-A (median 0.22 vs 0.10; p = 0.0006), CBGtot (median 1.58 vs. 0.17, p,0.0.0001), CBN (median 0.09 vs. 0.02, p,0.0.0001), CBC (median 0.09 vs. 0.02, p,0.0.0001) and THCV (median 0.03 vs. 0, p,0.0001).Cannabis Potency in AustraliaCannabis Potency in AustraliaFigure 1. Chromatograms of Ebselen price analysed cannabinoids. A) Chromatogram of calibration standard mixture of all analysed cannabinoids at 100 m.S (a = 0.05/12 = 0.004 required; a = 0.01/12 = 0.0008 etc.) to control for Type 1 error. All analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 20 or Prism GraphPad 6.0.Results Cannabinoid Profiles in Cannabis Cautioning SamplesThe results from the Cannabis Cautioning samples are presented in Table 1. As shown in Figures 2 and 3 the cannabinoid content of these samples was dominated by THC and THC-A, with low levels of all other cannabinoids analysed. As expected, levels of THC-A were far greater than THC, showing the dominance of the carboxylic acid precursor in plant materials. Absolute levels of THCtot in the Cannabis Cautioning samples ranged from 0.9 to 39.8 (Figure 2).Cannabinoid Profiles in Known Provenance SamplesThe results from the Known Provenance samples are presented Table 2 and in Figures 4 and 5. Results were broadly consistent with the Cannabis Cautioning samples with high levels of THC-A and THC, and low levels of all other cannabinoids in samples from both indoor and outdoor locations. Despite a wide range, 74 of street-level Cannabis Cautioning samples and 77 of Known Provenance samples contained at least 10 THCtot. Further, 43 of Cannabis Cautioning and 54 of Known Provenance samples contained at least 15 THCtot, the level recommended by the Garretsen Commission as warranting classification of cannabis as a “hard” drug in the Netherlands. The samples contained comparatively high amounts of CBGtot, with 1.18 in the Cannabis Cautioning samples and 2.32 CBGtot and 0.71 CBGtot in the outdoor and indoor Known Provenance samples. A total of 31 of all Cannabis Cautioning samples and 38 of all Known Provenance samples contained at least 1 CBGtot. Conversely, levels of all other cannabinoids with potential therapeutic value were negligible, and comprised only a fraction of the content of samples compared to THC and THC-A (Figures 2 and 3). Notably, 91 of Cannabis Cautioning samples and 85 of Known Provenance samples contained less than 0.1 CBDtot.Statistical AnalysisThere were strong positive correlations between the major cannabinoid values in the duplicate extracts from samples used in HPLC analyses (Cautioning samples: THCtot r2 = 0.81, CBDtot r2 = 0.61, CBGtot r2 = 0.79; Known Provenance samples: THCtot r2 = 0.68, CBDtot r2 = 0.41, CBGtot r2 = 0.96). Thus, for each cannabinoid, the mean values obtained from the two runs were used in statistical analyses. The majority of distributions for cannabinoid content were skewed. For those that were normally distributed, we checked for outliers using the method of Mehmedic and colleagues [5]; noDifferences in Urban/Rural Cannabinoid LevelsAmong the Cannabis Cautioning Samples, samples seized from rural locations differed in cannabinoid content from those seized from urban locations. Rural samples showed higher levels of THC (median 3.55 vs. 0.94 ; p,0.0001), THC-A (mean 16.48 vs. 12.50 ; p = 0.0005) and THCtot (mean 18.66 vs 12.38 , p,0.0001). Rural samples also contained higher levels of CBDtot (median 0.05 vs. 0.03; p,0.0001), CBG (median 1.43 vs. 0, p,0.0.0001), CBG-A (median 0.22 vs 0.10; p = 0.0006), CBGtot (median 1.58 vs. 0.17, p,0.0.0001), CBN (median 0.09 vs. 0.02, p,0.0.0001), CBC (median 0.09 vs. 0.02, p,0.0.0001) and THCV (median 0.03 vs. 0, p,0.0001).Cannabis Potency in AustraliaCannabis Potency in AustraliaFigure 1. Chromatograms of analysed cannabinoids. A) Chromatogram of calibration standard mixture of all analysed cannabinoids at 100 m.

Leave a Reply