Vaporization is an increasingly prevalent means to consume cannabis, but there is little guidance for manufacturers or regulators to evaluate additive safety. This paper presents a first-tier framework for regulators and cannabis manufacturers without significant toxicological expertise to conduct risk assessments and prioritize additives in cannabis concentrates for acceptance, elimination, or further evaluation. Cannabinoids and contaminants (e.g., solvents, pesticides, etc.) are excluded from this framework because of the complexity involved in their assessment; theirs would not be a first-tier toxicological assessment. Further, several U.S. state regulators have provided guidance for major cannabinoids and contaminants. Toxicological risk assessment of cannabis concentrate additives, like other types of risk assessment, includes hazard assessment, dose-response, exposure assessment, and risk characterization steps. Scarce consumption data has made exposure assessment of cannabis concentrates difficult and variable. Previously unpublished consumption data collected from over 54,000 smart vaporization devices show that 50th and 95th percentile users consume 5 and 57 mg per day on average, respectively. Based on these and published data, we propose assuming 100 mg per day cannabis concentrate consumption for first-tier risk assessment purposes. Herein, we provide regulators, cannabis manufacturers, and consumers a preliminary methodology to evaluate the health risks of cannabis concentrate additives.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9782653 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/toxics10120771 | DOI Listing |
J Clin Pharmacol
January 2025
Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Experimental Therapeutics, College of Pharmacy, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Recreational cannabis use has increased notably in the United States in the past decade, with a recent surge in oral consumption. This trend has raised concerns about driving under the influence. Current cannabis-impaired driving laws lack standardization, with some states implementing blood Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) per se limits (1, 2, and 5 ng/mL).
View Article and Find Full Text PDFNat Commun
January 2025
Department of Pharmaceutics, University of Washington School of Pharmacy, Seattle, WA, USA.
Prenatal cannabis use is associated with neurodevelopmental deficits, likely due to exposure to the psychoactive cannabinoid, (-)-Δ-tetrahydrocannabinol, and its active metabolite, (±)-11-OH-Δ-tetrahydrocannabinol. To determine causality, preclinical studies mimicking human fetal cannabinoid exposure must be conducted. Here we show cannabinoid concentrations across gestation in maternal plasma and paired fetal tissues in trimester 1 and 2 and maternal plasma and fetal umbilical venous plasma in trimester 3.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Econ Entomol
January 2025
Department of Entomology, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.
Industrial hemp, Cannabis sativa L., is an herbaceous annual plant that has recently re-entered crop production both in the field and in greenhouses within the United States. Like many agronomic crops, hemp production faces several insect pest challenges.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFSci Rep
January 2025
Department of Life Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Via Giuseppe Campi 103-287, 41125, Modena, Italy.
The present study was aimed at revealing the metabolic changes that occurred in the cellular lipid pattern of acute and chronic myeloid leukaemia cells following treatment with cannabidiol (CBD). CBD is a non-psychoactive compound present in Cannabis sativa L., which has shown an antiproliferative action in these type of cancer cells.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFAm J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol
January 2025
Research Institute of the, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.
The increasing shift from cannabis smoking to cannabis vaping is largely driven by the perception that vaping to form an aerosol represents a safer alternative to smoking and is a form of consumption appealing to youth. Herein, we compared the chemical composition and receptor-mediated activity of cannabis smoke extract (CaSE) to cannabis vaping extract (CaVE) along with the biological response in human bronchial epithelial cells. Chemical analysis using HPLC and GC/MS revealed that cannabis vaping aerosol contained fewer toxicants than smoke; CaSE and CaVE contained teratogens, carcinogens, and respiratory toxicants.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!