Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The 2018 Agriculture Improvement Act provides the distinction between illicit marijuana and legal hemp based on a 0.3% ∆ 9 -tetrahydrocannabinol (∆ 9 -THC) threshold. Consequently, forensic laboratories and regulatory agencies must implement analytical methods capable of qualitative identification and quantification of ∆ 9 -THC. Analysis is further complicated by the complex matrix of Cannabis sativa L., which contains various cannabinoid isomers. While liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) precludes cannabinoid decarboxylation and cannabinoid conversion limitations inherent to gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS), ∆ 9 -THC isomers remain nearly indistinguishable in both full scan and product ion mass spectra. This study characterizes 11 Cu-phosphine complexes to assess their ability to differentiate common cannabinoids found in cannabis plant material, as well as ∆ 9 -THC isomers that may be sprayed onto plant material, based on the formation of characteristic precursor or product ions. Specifically, the preferential binding affinity of cannabinoids to [Cu(PPh 3 ) 2 (ACN) 2 ]BF 4 , in combination with oxidative products generated through Cu-catalyzed O 2 activation, facilitates the formation of a characteristic ion at nominal m/z 915 for ∆ 9 -THC and no observable complex for CBD, enabling full scan isomer differentiation and eliminating potential CBD interference for ∆ 9 -THC quantitation. Similar behavior was observed for [Cu( (R)- BINAP)(ACN) 2 ]BF 4 and [Cu(dppf)(ACN) 2 ]BF 4 . A methanolic extract of an authentic cannabis sample was analyzed using the optimal Cu-phosphine complexes to evaluate applicability to real-world samples. By demonstrating the potential of Cu-phosphine ion complexation and introducing a novel approach to eliminate CBD interference, this study establishes the foundation for future research distinguishing illicit marijuana from legal hemp, potentially strengthening the capabilities of marijuana identification within forensic laboratories.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Couch et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: