Content uploaded by Minja Gerber
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Minja Gerber on Mar 13, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Phytomedicine Plus 4 (2024) 100520
Available online 29 November 2023
2667-0313/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Cure-All cannabidiol? The cannabidiol content of commercial products
Michaela Mouton , Minja Gerber , Frank Van der Kooy
*
Centre of Excellence for Pharmaceutical Sciences (Pharmacen™), North-West University, Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Cannabidiol
Cannabis sativa
CBD
Consumer products
Label claims
Δ
9
-THC
ABSTRACT
Background: The recent easing of regulations around the world regarding Cannabis sativa and its main active
compounds, such as cannabidiol (CBD), led to an explosion in the number of over-the-counter consumer prod-
ucts. The number of product types is surpassed by the vast quantity of products of each type, but even this is
exceeded by the associated health claims which range from the benign, such as ‘ghting inammation’, to the
completely asinine such as ‘ghting the tyranny of the urgent’ or ‘shedding light on your inner darkness’. Any
health claim should in the rst instance be supported by the product containing the correct actives at the correct
dosage.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to test a diverse range of commercially available product types including
soft drinks, honey, coffee, oils, gummy bears, chocolate, etc. that claim to contain CBD and compare the results to
their label claims.
Study design: Forty commercially available products were extracted and quantitatively analyzed.
Methods: Extraction efciency for all product types was conducted over a 1 h period using acetonitrile and
ultrasonication. Samples were taken every ve min and analyzed using a validated HPLC method. All products
were then extracted in triplicate using the applicable extraction time and quantitatively analyzed.
Results: Fifteen min of sonication was found to be adequate for the oils and drinks samples. The honey, chocolate
and gummies samples required initial dissolution in water followed by extraction with acetonitrile. The
remaining products required sonication of 45 min. It was found that only three products (7.5 %) contained CBD
levels within 90–110 % of their label claim. Two products had trace amounts of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol
and some of the products were completely devoid of CBD.
Conclusion: Mislabeling is of serious concern and this study shows that the problem not only includes problems
with the content of CBD, but also regarding the chemical properties such as containing “water-soluble CBD”
while it is insoluble in water, and the diverse number of health claims that in some cases have no foundation in
reality. This highlights not only the lax attitude of producers but also of the regulatory authorities in ensuring the
consistent quality of these products.
Introduction
The use of cannabidiol (CBD) containing products has gained interest
in recent years since it has been legalized in many countries. In 2019, the
World Health Organization (WHO) also proposed several changes be
made when cannabis preparations do not contain the psychoactive
compound, Δ
9
-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ
9
-THC) since CBD is not intox-
icating and has little evidence that it is of a public health concern
(McGregor et al., 2020).
Since legalization and the recommendations by the WHO were made,
a vast array of CBD products has been produced and can be purchased in
almost all health stores. Various product types are available including
cosmetics, personal hygiene products, edibles, oils, vaporizer products,
veterinary products, and a large number of health products making an
equally large number of (low-level) health claims. There has been a
marked increase in the popularity of these CBD products, devoid of the
psychoactive compound Δ
9
-THC, for its purported health benets to
such an extent that the market was valued at $3.67 billion in 2021 vs
only $2.8 billion in 2020 and is expected to grow at a compounded
annual rate of 47.5 % from 2022 to 2028 (Fortune Business Insights,
Abbreviations: ACN, acetonitrile; CBD, cannabidiol; CBDA, cannabidiolic acid; FDA, Food and Drug Administration; WHO, World Health Organization; Δ
9
-THC,
Δ
9
-tetrahydrocannabinol; Δ
9
-THCA, Δ
9
-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid; U.A.E, United Arab Emirates,.
* Corresponding author at: Center of Excellence for Pharmaceutical Sciences, North-West University, Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom, 2520, South Africa.
E-mail address: frank.vanderkooy@nwu.ac.za (F. Van der Kooy).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Phytomedicine Plus
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/phytomedicine-plus
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phyplu.2023.100520
Phytomedicine Plus 4 (2024) 100520
2
2021).
Many users of these products consider it as a cure-all medication,
which is mainly attributed to poor consumer education (Zenone et al.,
2021). One of the problems that has come to light is the many
misleading and false claims regarding the health benets of CBD prod-
ucts. Even though CBD is considered safe, these misleading claims can
potentially lead to some consumers, who suffer from serious ailments,
not getting the correct medication or treatment that they need (FDA,
2019; FDA 2020a).
With this rapidly increasing interest in CBD-containing products, the
need for proper regulations as well as quality control of these products
has become essential. For example, in a recent study, 80 CBD products
were tested, and it was shown that Δ
9
-THC was detected above the legal
limit in 52 of these products (Johnson et al., 2022a). In another study, 25
commercially available products were tested for Δ
9
-THC and CBD and
only three products were close to the label claim, 13 products contained
less than 50 % of the label claim, three products had Δ
9
-THC levels that
exceeded 0.3 % and one product consisted of 45 % Δ
9
-THC (Gurley
et al., 2020). Most of the non-prescription products have a relatively low
CBD daily dose, varying from 10 to 50 mg or 50–100 mg/ml in con-
centration. These doses were found to be therapeutically suboptimal in
clinical trials (Miller et al., 2020). Currently, in the United States of
America, CBD is regulated through intended use. Since CBD is a natural
product biosynthesized by Cannabis sativa L. (Cannabaceae) it is regu-
lated as either hemp or marijuana and is categorized as such based on
the Δ
9
-THC content. Products that are derived from hemp, which is
dened in the Agricultural Marketing Act as a cannabis plant that con-
tains less than 0.3 % Δ
9
-THC, are legal to sell, however, products that are
derived from marijuana are illegal to buy, sell or possess unless under a
Schedule I license (Li et al., 2021). In 2018, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) approved the drug Epidiolex for the treatment of
seizures in Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome and it was
also approved for treatment in tuberous sclerosis complex in 2020 (FDA,
2018, 2020b).
In South Africa, Δ
9
-THC is still regarded as an illicit substance unless
it is found in registered medications for therapeutic use, whereupon it is
regarded as a schedule 6 substance that can be obtained with a valid
prescription. Products that are processed from cannabis seeds may not
contain more than 0.001 % of Δ
9
-THC and are regarded as industrial
hemp. CBD is listed as a Schedule 4 or Schedule 0 substance depending
on whether it adheres to the following regulations: the maximum total
amount of CBD per sales pack is 600 mg and the maximum daily dose of
CBD is set out to be 20 mg with acceptable low-level health claims. For
preparations that are derived from processed cannabis plant material
Table 1
Categories of CBD products, dosages and country of origin.
Product ID Claimed CBD per dose (mg) Dose (mL) Δ
9
-THC content claim Lab tested Country of origin
Oils
1 8.30 1.00 No claim Yes USA
2 10.00 1.00 Δ
9
-THC free Yes RSA
3 20.00 1.00 No claim No RSA
4 2.50 0.75 No claim No RSA
5 16.70 1.00 No claim No USA
6 10.00 1.00 Δ
9
-THC free No USA
7 6.00 1.00 No claim No RSA
8 6.00 1.00 No claim No RSA
9 10.00 1.00 No claim No RSA
10 nas nas No claim No Spain
11 5.00 0.50 No claim No RSA
12 6.25 1.00 No claim No RSA
13 50.00* 1.00* Δ
9
-THC free No Spain
14 nas nas No claim No Spain
15 19.99 1.00 Δ
9
-THC free Yes RSA
16 nas nas No claim No Spain
Topicals
17 nas nas Δ
9
-THC free No RSA
18 15.00 8.00 No claim No Netherlands
19 nas nas No claim No RSA
20 nas nas No claim No Dubai
21 nas nas No claim No RSA
Drinks
22 5.00 50.00 Δ
9
-THC free No RSA
23 5.00 50.00 No claim No RSA
24 5.00 15.00 Δ
9
-THC free No RSA
25 5.00 7.00 No claim No RSA
26 10.00 300.00 No claim No RSA
27 5.00 500.00 No claim No RSA
28 6.00 300.00 No claim No RSA
29 6.00 300.00 No claim No RSA
30 20.00 100.00 Δ
9
-THC free No RSA
31 20.00 100.00 Δ
9
-THC free No RSA
32 20.00 100.00 Δ
9
-THC free No RSA
33 5.00 1.00 No claim No RSA
Other
34 Sachet 10.00 1.00 g No claim No RSA
35 Honey 5.00 5.00 g No claim No RSA
36 Coffee 20.00 5.00 g No claim No RSA
37 Chocolate 20.00 50.00 g Δ
9
-THC free No Indonesia
38 Coffee 4.00 10.00 g Δ
9
-THC Free No RSA
39 Gummies 20.00 5.00 g No claim No USA
40 Capsules 5.00 1 capsule No claim No RSA
nas =no amount stated.
* =total CBD mg/mL.
M. Mouton et al.
Phytomedicine Plus 4 (2024) 100520
3
and only contain the number of cannabinoids that are naturally present
in the source material, the nal product may not exceed 0.001 % of Δ
9
-
THC and a total of 0.0075 % CBD (Viviers et al., 2021).
Since the change in legislation in 2018, the South African market has
been ooded with different CBD-containing products. The aim of this
study was to test a variety of commercially available products to
determine if the CBD content correlates with the label claim and test for
the presence\absence of Δ
9
-THC. This study was conducted due to
various other international studies that have shown discrepancies be-
tween the products’ label claims and the actual CBD content (Gurley
et al., 2020; Johnson et al., 2022a). This may lead to further evidence for
the need for stricter legislation regarding the quality control of
CBD-containing products.
Material and methods
Product selection and categorization
All CBD products were purchased at local retail stores in South Africa
of which 29 were produced in South Africa and the remaining 11 in the
USA (4), Spain (4), U.A.E. (1), the Netherlands (1) and Indonesia (1)
(Table 1). Products were selected based on claims of CBD content which
included products that were listed as containing "hemp", "Cannabis sativa
seed" and "Cannabis Extract". No duplicate products were analyzed;
however, products from the same manufacturer were included. Upon
arrival, all products were inspected for packaging integrity to ensure all
products received were in original packaging and not tampered with. All
products were given a unique product ID. The purchased products were
categorized based on product type namely, "Oils”, “Drinks”, “Topicals”
and "Other". All products were stored as per labelled storage instructions
and products that did not provide labeling instructions, were stored at
room temperature away from direct light.
Sample preparation
Products were subjected to extraction testing over a 1-hour period.
This was conducted after it was observed that the honey sample
immediately solidied upon the addition of acetonitrile (ACN) risking
encapsulating CBD which might lead to the inadequate extraction of the
target analyte. ACN was added to all product types and sonicated for one
hour with 2 ml samples taken every 5 min for analysis to determine the
optimal time of extraction. Products such as honey (35), chocolate (37),
and gummies (39) did not dissolve fully in ACN even after sonication for
100 min. These products were rst dissolved in water (50 ml), sonicated
for 15 min after which the same volume of ACN was added followed by
sonication for another 15 min.
Products 1–16 (oils – 1 ml each) and 22–33 (drinks – 10 ml each)
were extracted with ACN (100 ml), followed by 15 min of sonication.
The samples were ltered with a 0.45 µm syringe lter into HPLC vials
and diluted to a concentration range that falls within the calibration
curve based on the product’s label claim (Laanet et al., 2022). Products
17–21 (topicals – 0.5 g each) and products 34, 36, 38 and 40 (0.5 g each)
were extracted with ACN but sonicated for 45 min. Products 34–40 were
weighed before extraction and dilution to ensure the correct amount of
product was diluted. All products were prepared in triplicate.
Analytical procedures
A Shimadzu iNexera LC-2040C system consisting of a quaternary
pump, solvent degasser, autosampler, column oven, and photodiode
array detector was used. A validated chromatographic analytical
method was used with separation achieved with a Zorbax Eclipse Plus
C
18
column (2.1 ×50 mm, 1.8 µm), with 0.1 % formic acid (A) and ACN
containing 0.1 % formic acid (B) used as the mobile phase. Gradient
elution was used and started at 65 % B for 2 min, increased to 100 % B at
2.5 min, and was kept at 100 % until 4.5 min, the system then returned
to 65 % until 7.5 min to allow for re-equilibration. The ow rate was set
at 0.4 ml/min and the column oven at 40 ◦C, the autosampler at 6 ◦C,
and the injection volume was 2 µL. The detection and quantication of
the cannabinoids were conducted at 210 nm for CBD and Δ
9
-THC and
221 nm for CBDA and THCA (Mouton et al., 2023).
Conrmation of the presence/absence of Δ
9
-THC was conducted
using the more sensitive Agilent Ultivo triple-quadrupole mass spec-
trometer consisting of a 1260 Innity II autosampler, 1200 quaternary
pump, column oven and the Ultivo TQ. A Multiple reaction monitoring
method for Δ
9
-THC was developed and the MRM transition of 315.2 to
77.1 m/z was used for quantication (MS settings; fragmentor voltage
96 V, collision energy 77 V, Gas temperature 325 ◦C, Gas ow 13 L/min,
nebulizer pressure 45 psi and capillary voltage 5000 V). The chro-
matographic system was the same as described above.
Reference standards of 1,000 µg/ml in ACN were purchased from
LCG standards (London, UK). The reference standards and their dilutions
were stored in vials that were wrapped in Paralm®, protected from
light, and stored at −20 ◦C. Water was obtained from a Rephile direct
Ultrapure & RO Lab water system (Boston, MA, US). HPLC grade
methanol, ACN, and formic acid were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich
(Johannesburg, RSA). The calibration standards were a mixture solu-
tion containing CBD, cannabidiolic acid (CBDA), Δ
9
-THC, and Δ
9
-tet-
rahydrocannabinolic acid (Δ
9
-THCA). This was prepared with an initial
concentration of 200 µg/ml in ACN, and serially diluted to obtain seven
concentrations of: 50.00, 25.00, 12.50, 6.25, 3.13, 1.56 and 0.78 µg/ml.
Calibration standards were prepared fresh before analysis.
Results and discussion
Extraction efciency
All product types were tested for extraction efciency over a 1 h
period. Fig. 1 provides the CBD concentration curve at different times
using 50 % ACN as the extraction solvent. It is clear that the sugary
content of chocolate, honey and gummies played a signicant role in
reducing the extraction efciency of ACN. For these product types, it
seems essential to rst dissolve the product in water after which ACN is
added to extract the hydrophobic CBD. The oils and drinks were
adequately extracted using ACN and sonication for 10–15 min whereas
the topicals and products 34, 36, 38 and 40 required sonication of 45
min for adequate extraction (Fig. S1 - Supplementary material).
Assessment of labeling accuracy
Products were assessed on their labeling accuracy, and this was
determined by the United States Pharmacopeia products purity guid-
ance, which sets the acceptable range for the labeling of products as
±10 %. Products were classied as over-labeled <90 %, under-labeled
>110 % and correctly labeled, 90–110 % (Table 2) (Allen et al., 2014).
Oils
Of the 16 samples tested in this category, sample 13 had the highest
claimed amount of CBD per ml (50 mg/ml). However, this was also the
product with the biggest variation by having 98.43 % less CBD than
claimed. Product 14 was produced by the same manufacturer and
clearly states that it consists of "essential CBD oil blends". However, the
amount of CBD is not stated, and no detectable levels of CBD could be
measured. Products 7–9 were produced by the same company with
product 7 claiming to be a CBD “Oil Isolate”, product 8 a CBD oil “Broad
Spectrum”, and product 9 “Full Spectrum”. A broad-spectrum CBD
product is generally produced from hemp extracts with selective
removal of Δ
9
-THC, whilst the other minor cannabinoids are retained.
While full-spectrum CBD products may still contain up to 0.3 % Δ
9
-THC
and other minor cannabinoids after processing, CBD isolates (product 7)
are supposed to only contain CBD. Both broad and full spectrum
M. Mouton et al.
Phytomedicine Plus 4 (2024) 100520
4
products can still contain some of the distinctive terpenes (Berthold
et al., 2023). However, when looking at the chromatogram of these 3
products there is not much of an observable difference between the Oil
Isolate and the Broad Spectrum with similar peaks arising on both
chromatograms (Fig. 2). Only three products out of 16 in this category
were within the range of 90–110 %, two of which are produced in USA
and one in South Africa. Eight products were over-labeled and one
product under-labeled. Three products did not state the amount of CBD
and did not have any detectable amount of CBD.
Fig. 1. Extraction efciency of dissolving Honey (A) and chocolate (B) in water followed by extraction with ACN.
Table 2
CBD product test results.
Sample ID Claimed concentration (µg/
mL)
Measured concentration (µg/mL ±
SD)
Product concentration variation (µg/
mL)
% Deviation from label
claim
% Recovery
Oils
1 41.29 45.05 ±1.55 3.76 +9.09 109.01
2 39.84 33.42 ±0.61 6.42 −16.11 83.71
3 41.58 39.44 ±0.80 3.11 −5.15 94.65
4 33.00 49.31 ±0.67 16.31 +49.42 149.18
5 41.57 43.86 ±1.80 2.29 +5.51 105.35
6 39.84 50.79 ±1.10 10.95 +27.48 126.71
7 20.00 11.42 ±0.08 8.57 −42.83 57.09
8 20.00 16.11 ±0.08 3.81 −19.06 80.74
9 33.33 17.03 ±0.07 16.31 −48.92 50.93
10 nas <LOD na na na
11 33.33 18.37 ±0.08 14.96 −44.88 55.18
12 31.25 5.23 ±0.02 26.02 −83.26 16.73
13 41.67 0.66 ±0.02 41.01 −98.43 1.57
14 nas <LOD na na na
15 33.33 24.08 ±0.07 0.04 −27.74 72.14
16 nas <LOD na na na
Topicals
17 nas 1.57 ±0.03 1.57 na na
18 50.68 0.78 ±0.01 49.89 −98.29 1.54
19 50.15 24.15 ±0.08 26.00 −51.84 48.15
20 2609.73 <LOD na na na
21 44.63 <LOD na na na
Drinks
22 20.00 11.02 ±0.11 8.98 −44.89 55.01
23 20.00 2.77 ±0.05 17.23 −86.13 13.87
24 16.67 14.56 ±0.05 2.10 −12.61 87.15
25 1.85 1.55 ±0.01 0.30 −16.24 5.28
26 11.11 2.04 ±0.05 9.07 −81.63 18.21
27 2.50 0.09 ±0.02 2.41 −96.55 62.25
28 5.00 1.69 ±0.04 3.31 −66.21 33.25
29 5.00 1.54 ±0.05 3.46 −69.10 30.39
30 10.00 0.43 ±0.03 9.57 −95.73 4.22
31 10.00 5.19 ±0.05 4.81 −48.07 51.75
32 10.00 5.18 ±0.04 4.82 −42.83 51.50
33 16.67 1.32 ±0.01 15.35 −92.09 7.91
Other
34 Sachet 50.00 15.70 ±0.05 34.3 −68.58 31.41
35 Honey 38.46 18.75 ±0.06 19.7 −51.19 48.77
36 Coffee 50.77 <LOD na −100.00 na
37 Chocolate 16.53 3.67 ±0.01 12.85 −77.78 22.21
38 Coffee 20.05 7.19 ±0.08 12.86 −64.12 35.88
39 Gummies 50.77 <LOD na −100.00 na
40 Capsules 50.00 42.11 ±0.09 7.89 −15.77 84.22
nas =no amount stated.
na =not applicable.
LOD =limit of detection.
M. Mouton et al.
Phytomedicine Plus 4 (2024) 100520
5
Topicals
This category had a total of ve products. Product 18 is sold as a face-
mask, and states that it was clinically proven as an "anti-aging ingre-
dient". This product had 98.29 % less CBD than stated on the packaging.
Product 20 is of interest because the label claim states that it contains 10
000 mg CBD hemp oil. The ingredient list claims that this product
consists of “Cannabis sativa leaf extract", however, no CBD could be
detected. The very distinctive odor of C. sativa could also not be sensed
by ve colleagues and hence, this product is unlikely to contain any
C. sativa extract. Product 21 is marketed as a CBD lip balm but contains
no labeling nor any indication regarding a CBD concentration and no
CBD was detected.
Drinks
Twelve products were tested in this category. None of the products
fell within the 90–110 % range stated by the USP; however, this was the
only group where all products were over-labeled. Product 27 showed a
deviation of 96.55 % compared to the label claim. These products all had
relatively low concentrations, which implies that they would probably
not have therapeutic benets when the CBD daily dose is taken into
consideration (Millar et al., 2019).
Products 22–25 (10–50 ml volumes) are all marketed as CBD shots
that the consumer is supposed to consume in entirety. Product 22 claims
to contain 5 mg CBD in one serving size but only contains approximately
2.76 mg. Product 23 claims to help with “energy and focus” and also
contains 5 mg CBD per 50 ml but contains 86.13 % less than claimed.
Product 24 states that CBD has “15 x more bioavailability” and also that
this product is a calming shot. This product was found to have the least
variation in this group with the product containing only 12.61 % less
CBD than claimed. All the products in this category are water-based and
due to the low aqueous solubility of CBD, it might explain the far lower
concentrations detected in all the products.
Other
This category had a total of seven products, which included CBD-
containing coffee, honey, capsules, gummy bears as well as sachets.
Six of the seven products were over-labeled, and 1 product was under-
labeled. Product 34 is sold as "water-soluble CBD sachets". However,
when this product was prepared in water, sonicated, and ltered no CBD
could be detected. By extracting with ACN, CBD could be quantied, and
the amount deviated 68.58 % from the label claim. Product 35 was a
CBD honey, which is said to help with "general well-being and immu-
nity". This product was over-labeled and had 51.19 % less CBD than
stated on the label claim. Two products contained no CBD, product 36
(CBD coffee) and product 39 (Gummies).
Product 36 very boldly proclaims “CBD Coffee” “CBD infused instant
coffee” and “20 mg CBD per serving” and yet no CBD could be detected.
Product 39 is of interest due to its somewhat outlandish claims such as
“Our extra strength CBD gummies are perfect for shedding light on your
inner darkness”. Analyzing this product for its CBD content, however,
revealed that it contains none.
Δ
9
-THC content and laboratory testing
Twelve products claim to be Δ
9
-THC-free (Table 1). No Δ
9
-THC
could be detected in any one of these products using LC-PDA and LC-MS
and hence, seems to be correctly labeled in this regard. Two products, 5
and 34 contained trace amounts of Δ
9
-THC. Product 5 is sold as a full
spectrum product and hence, may contain low concentrations of Δ
9
-
THC. Product 34, however, only claims to contain CBD and yet trace
amounts of Δ
9
-THC was detected.
Three products (1, 2 and 15) claim to be laboratory tested. Claims
such as this are designed to instill consumer condence in the quality of
the product and to distinguish them from competitors. The certicate of
analysis for all three products was requested but only the US-based
producer of product 1 responded, who, coincidentally, was also found
to be the only product to be correctly labeled. Products 2 and 15, pro-
duced in SA, were over-labeled by 16.1 and 27.7 %, respectively.
Conclusions
The results demonstrate as others have also shown, the negligent
mislabeling of CBD products (Johnson et al., 2022b; Liebling et al.,
2022). This mislabeling is not limited to only the actual CBD content, but
also regarding the chemical properties of CBD such as being
water-soluble (product 34). With a logP value of >6, CBD is simply not
soluble in water as was shown by preparing some of these products as
prescribed which led to undetectable levels of CBD upon analysis.
Funding
This research did not receive any specic grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-prot sectors.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Michaela Mouton: Investigation, Methodology, Conceptualization,
Validation, Writing – original draft, Data curation. Minja Gerber:
Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Frank Van der Kooy: Project
administration, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Visualization, Writing
– review & editing, Resources, Validation, Methodology.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing nancial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to inuence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to Pharmacen™, center of Excellence for
Pharmaceutical Sciences, North-West University for nancial support.
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.phyplu.2023.100520.
Fig. 2. Overlayed chromatograms from top to bottom; Cannabinoids reference
standards, product 7–9.
M. Mouton et al.
Phytomedicine Plus 4 (2024) 100520
6
References
Allen, L.V., Bassani, G.S., Elder, E.J., Parr, A.F., 2014. Strength and stability testing for
compounded preparations. USP Compound. Expert Committee 1–7.
Berthold, E.C., Kamble, S.H., Kanumuri, S.R.R., Kuntz, M.A., Senetra, A.S., Chiang, Y.H.,
McMahon, L.R., McCurdy, C.R., Sharma, A., 2023. Comparative pharmacokinetics of
commercially available cannabidiol isolate, broad-Spectrum, and full-Spectrum
products. Eur. J Drug Metab. Pharmacokinet 48, 427–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13318-023-00839-3.
Food and Drug Administration (2018). FDA approves rst drug comprised of an active
ingredient derived from Marijuana to treat rare, severe forms of epilepsy. https:
//www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-rst-drug-
comprised-active-ingredient-derived-marijuana-treat-rare-severe-forms (Accessed
29 May 2023).
Food and Drug Administration (2019). FDA is committed to sound, science-based policy on
CBD. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/fda-voices/fda-committed-sound-science
-based-policy-cbd (Accessed 27 May 2023).
Food and Drug Administration (2020a). FDA concludes that existing regulatory
frameworks for foods and supplements are not appropriate for cannabidiol, will
work with congress on a new way forward. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press
-announcements/fda-concludes-existing-regulatory-frameworks-foods-and-supple
ments-are-not-appropriate-cannabidiol (Accessed 8 November 2023).
Food and Drug Administration, 2020b. FDA Approves New Indication for Drug Containing
an Active Ingredient Derived from Cannabis to Treat Seizures in Rare Genetic Disease.
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-new-indi
cation-drug-containing-active-ingredient-derived-cannabis-treat-seizures-rare
(Accessed 27 May 2023).
Fortune Business Insights, 2021. Global cannabidiol market size, share, industry analysis.
https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/cannabidiol-cbd-market-103215
(Accessed 30 November 2023).
Gurley, B.J., Murphy, T.P., Gul, W., Walker, L.A., Elsohly, M., 2020. Content versus label
claims in cannabidiol (CBD)-containing products obtained from commercial outlets
in the State of Mississippi. J. Diet. Suppl. 17, 599–607.
Johnson, E., Kilgore, M., Babalonis, S., 2022a. Cannabidiol (CBD) product
contamination: quantitative analysis of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC)
concentrations found in commercially available CBD products. Drug. Alcohol.
Depend. 237, 109522 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2022.109522.
Johnson, E., Kilgore, M., Babalonis, S., 2022b. Label accuracy of unregulated cannabidiol
(CBD) products: measured concentration vs. label claim. J. Cannabis Res. 4, 28.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s42238-022-00140-1.
Laanet, P.R., Vaher, M., Saar-Reismaa, P., 2022. Micellar electrokinetic chromatography
method for the analysis of synthetic and phytocannabinoids. J. Chromatogr. A 1673,
463080.
Liebling, J.P., Clarkson, N.J., Gibbs, B.W., Yates, A.S., O’Sullivan, O.S., 2022. An analysis
of over-the-counter Cannabidiol products in the United Kingdom. Cannabis
Cannabinoid Res. 7, 207–213. https://doi.org/10.1089/can.2019.0078.
Li, J., Carvajal, R., Bruner, L., Kaminski, N.E., 2021. The current understanding of the
benets, safety, and regulation of cannabidiol in consumer products. Food Chem.
Toxicol. 157, 112600 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2021.112600.
McGregor, I.S., Cairns, E.A., Abelev, S., Cohen, R., Henderson, M., Couch, D., Arnold, J.
C., Gauld, N., 2020. Access to cannabidiol without a prescription: a cross-country
comparison and analysis. Int. J. Drug Policy 85, 102935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
drugpo.2020.102935.
Millar, S.A., Stone, N.L., Bellman, Z.D., Yates, A.S., England, T.J., O’Sullivan, S.E., 2019.
A systematic review of cannabidiol dosing in clinical populations. Br. J. Clin.
Pharmacol. 85, 1888–1900. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.14038.
Miller, O.S., Elder, E.J., Jones, K.J., Gidal, B.E., 2020. Analysis of cannabidiol (CBD) and
THC in nonprescription consumer products: implications for patients and
practitioners. Epileps. Behav. 127, 108514 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
yebeh.2021.108514.
Mouton, M., Gerber, M., Van der Kooy, F., 2023. Validation of a fast LC-PDA method for
the quantication of Cannabinoids in commercial tea samples. Rev. Bras.
Farmacogn. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43450-023-00461-z.
Viviers, H.J., Petzer, A., Gordon, R., 2021. An assessment of the potency related to
Cannabis-based products in the South African market. Forensic. Sci. Int. 322, 110754
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2021.110754.
Zenone, M.A., Snyder, J., Crooks, V., 2021. Selling cannabidiol products in Canada: a
framing analysis of advertising claims by online retailers. BMC Public Health 21,
1285. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11282-x.
M. Mouton et al.