Emerging Technologies for the Detection and Standardization of Cannabidiol in CBD oil

The global CBD oil phenomenon represents a paradigm shift in both consumer health markets and regulatory landscapes, driven by exponential market growth—projected to surge from $62.05 billion in 2024 to over $78 billion in 2025, with forecasts reaching $207–215.9 billion by 2029–2030, propelled by a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 20–29%.¹  This expansion is underpinned by evolving therapeutic applications, where accumulating preclinical and clinical evidence supports cannabidiol’s (CBD) efficacy in pain management, anxiety, sleep disorders, and inflammatory conditions, with consumer demand increasingly focused on mental health benefits, as evidenced by surveys indicating significant relief in anxiety (67%), depression (46%), and PTSD (41%) among users.²  The regulatory environment, however, remains fragmented: while the US FDA maintains a cautious stance, permitting only limited, prescription-based CBD products (such as Epidiolex for epilepsy), the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and national regulators like those in the UK and Canada have adopted more permissive frameworks for hemp-derived CBD in nutraceuticals and cosmetics, and India’s FSSAI is gradually clarifying its position as consumer interest grows.³  This regulatory patchwork, combined with the surge in e-commerce and retail channels, has led to a proliferation of CBD products, necessitating robust quality control and standardization protocols to ensure consumer safety and product integrity.⁴ The imperative for such controls is underscored by recurrent safety concerns, including the presence of psychotropic THC above legal thresholds, pesticide residues, heavy metals, residual solvents, microbial contamination, and adulterants such as synthetic cannabinoids, all of which have been implicated in major product recalls and scandals globally—highlighting the risks of inaccurate labeling, batch-to-batch inconsistency, and unverified efficacy claims.⁵ The investigative hurdles confronting cannabidiol extract assessment are multifaceted, originating from the intricate composition abundant in fats, aromatic hydrocarbons, and a varied spectrum of phytocannabinoids, each possessing unique molecular characteristics and biological effects.⁶   Additional complexities within the quantification domain arise from minimal target compound levels, structural parallels among analogous cannabinoid variants (including Δ⁸-tetrahydrocannabinol, Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol, and cannabinol), alongside the necessity for exhaustive multi-component characterization. Established techniques, particularly liquid chromatography employing ultraviolet or photodiode array monitoring (LC-UV/PDA) and vapor-phase separation utilizing combustion or mass-based identification (GC-combustion/MS), persist as benchmark protocols owing to their discriminatory power, detection limits, and capacity for precise phytocannabinoid measurement and impurity screening.⁷ However, these techniques are not without limitations: they require time-consuming sample preparation, often involving derivatization for certain analytes in GC, and are constrained by high operational costs, the need for specialized expertise, and laboratory-bound infrastructure, which limits their throughput and accessibility for routine or on-site analysis.⁸  Moreover, while these methods excel in targeted analysis, they may struggle with the simultaneous detection of structurally similar compounds in complex matrices, and their applicability to rapid, high-throughput screening is limited.⁹  Considering these obstacles, an urgent imperative exists to investigate novel assessment methodologies capable of overcoming the constraints of established approaches and satisfying the requirements of a dynamically transforming sector.¹⁰  The scope of this review is to critically evaluate novel approaches beyond established chromatographic techniques, focusing on their performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, speed, cost-effectiveness), applicability across different product types and regulatory environments, and potential for standardization.¹¹ Emerging technologies such as immunochromatographic assays, portable spectroscopic devices, and advanced electroanalytical sensors offer promising alternatives, enabling rapid, user-friendly, and cost-effective analysis with minimal sample preparation and the potential for field deployment.¹² Lateral flow immunoassay devices, such as these, utilize immunoreactive binding principles to deliver expedited approximate concentration data for cannabidiol and tetrahydrocannabinol, fulfilling requirements for immediate quality assessment and contaminant evaluation.¹³  Optical methodologies, encompassing shortwave-infrared (SWIR) and Raman scattering assessments, permit unaltered, concurrent evaluation of constituent distributions within cannabinoids and extraneous substances, whereas potentiometric transducers allow for discerning, tag-free identification possessing the potential for incorporation into field-deployable instrumentation.¹⁴  Each of these technologies has distinct advantages and limitations: while immunochromatography is rapid and user-friendly, it may lack the sensitivity and multi-analyte capability of chromatographic methods; spectroscopy offers high throughput and minimal sample preparation but requires robust calibration and may be affected by matrix effects; and electroanalytical sensors provide rapid, sensitive detection but are still in the early stages of validation for complex matrices.¹⁵  Figure 1 illustrates the stepwise process for cannabidiol (CBD) extraction from Cannabis, beginning with pre-treatments such as size reduction, drying, decarboxylation, solvent selection, defatting, and acid/base treatment. To achieve effective separation of cannabidiol, diverse extraction methodologies are employed, encompassing electromagnetic wave-facilitated, sound wave-aided, and pressurized carbon dioxide above critical state processes, alongside the utilization of molten salt and low-melting-point solvent systems. The final outcome is a purified cannabidiol extract, commonly used in pharmaceutical and therapeutic formulations.

 

 

Figure1: Extraction Process of Cannabidiol (CBD) from Cannabis

 

 

Figure 2: Cannabinoid Production Pathways

Standardization Strategies for CBD Oil:

Analytical Standardization:

Standardization strategies for CBD oil are essential to ensure product consistency, consumer safety, and regulatory compliance, with analytical standardization serving as a foundational pillar in this process.⁷⁵ Central to analytical standardization is the use of Certified Reference Materials (CRMs) for both CBD and major contaminants, including THC, pesticides, heavy metals, residual solvents, microbials, and synthetic cannabinoids. CRMs are characterized by their traceability to international measurement standards and provide the necessary benchmarks for method calibration, instrument validation, and proficiency testing across laboratories.³⁴ The availability and proper use of CRMs are critical for establishing the accuracy, precision, and reliability of analytical results, as demonstrated in recent studies where CRMs for cannabinoids have been employed to validate HPLC and GC methods for CBD and THC quantification, ensuring that laboratories can achieve consistent and comparable outcomes even when analyzing complex oil matrices.⁵⁵  In addition to reference materials, harmonized analytical protocols—such as those established by the United States Pharmacopeia (USP), the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), and the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH)—are integral to analytical standardization.²³ These guidelines specify rigorous requirements for method validation, including assessments of specificity, linearity, accuracy, precision (repeatability and intermediate precision), robustness, and range, as well as system suitability criteria to confirm that analytical systems are fit for purpose before routine use.⁵⁴  For example, in method validation studies for CBD and THC analysis, researchers have systematically evaluated chromatographic conditions, such as mobile phase composition, flow rate, column selection, and detector wavelength, to optimize analyte separation and detection sensitivity.⁶⁵  Robustness testing further ensures that analytical methods remain reliable under slight variations in operational parameters, a key consideration for routine quality control in commercial and regulatory environments.³⁵  The adoption of standardized methods also facilitates multi-laboratory comparability and supports regulatory oversight by enabling the establishment of universally accepted quality thresholds for CBD oil products.⁴⁹ Moreover, ongoing efforts by organizations such as AOAC INTERNATIONAL’s Cannabis Analytical Science Program (CASP) aim to develop consensus-based analytical standards and proficiency testing programs, further advancing the field toward global harmonization.⁶⁴ Together, the integration of CRMs and harmonized protocols underpins the analytical standardization of CBD oil, providing a robust framework for quality assurance, regulatory compliance, and consumer trust in a rapidly evolving and increasingly scrutinized market.²⁸

Process Control Technologies:

Process control technologies are increasingly vital in ensuring the consistent quality, safety, and traceability of CBD oil throughout its production lifecycle, with in-line near-infrared (NIR) sensors and blockchain-based traceability systems representing two of the most impactful innovations in this domain. In-line NIR sensors enable real-time, non-destructive monitoring of cannabinoid profiles, moisture content, and potential contaminants during critical stages of CBD extraction and formulation.¹⁹ These sensors are integrated directly into production lines, allowing for continuous data acquisition and immediate feedback to process operators. By leveraging chemometric algorithms and machine learning models, in-line NIR systems can rapidly analyze spectral data to quantify CBD, THC, and other cannabinoids, detect deviations from target specifications, and trigger automated process adjustments to maintain product consistency.²⁰ Recent applications in industrial settings have demonstrated the utility of in-line NIR for optimizing solvent extraction efficiency, monitoring solvent removal, and ensuring homogeneous blending of carrier oils, all of which contribute to batch-to-batch reproducibility and compliance with regulatory standards.³⁸ The ability to monitor critical quality attributes in real time reduces the risk of off-specification product, minimizes waste, and enhances overall process efficiency. Complementing these analytical advances, blockchain technology is being adopted to establish end-to-end traceability from cultivation to the final CBD product.⁴³ Blockchain-based systems create immutable, decentralized records of every step in the supply chain, including seed sourcing, cultivation practices, harvest dates, extraction parameters, laboratory testing results, and distribution logistics.⁵⁵ Each transaction or process event is cryptographically secured and time-stamped, ensuring data integrity and preventing unauthorized alterations. This level of transparency is particularly valuable in the highly regulated and scrutinized CBD market, where consumers, regulators, and industry stakeholders demand verifiable proof of product origin, quality, and compliance with safety standards.⁶³ Real-world implementations have shown that blockchain traceability can facilitate rapid product recalls in the event of contamination or regulatory non-compliance, support fair trade and sustainability initiatives by documenting ethical sourcing, and empower consumers with access to detailed product histories via QR codes or mobile applications.²² Together, in-line NIR sensors and blockchain traceability systems provide a robust framework for process control and quality assurance, enabling manufacturers to deliver safe, consistent, and trustworthy CBD oil products while meeting the evolving demands of regulators and consumers in a competitive global marketplace.⁶⁵

Regulatory Frameworks:

Regulatory frameworks governing CBD oil are complex and vary significantly across jurisdictions, reflecting diverse approaches to cannabis regulation, consumer safety, and market access. In the United States, the 2018 Farm Bill represents a pivotal regulatory milestone by federally legalizing hemp-derived products containing less than 0.3% Δ⁹-THC on a dry weight basis, while allowing states to impose additional restrictions or oversight.⁴⁹ However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has maintained a cautious stance on CBD as a dietary supplement or food additive, citing concerns over safety, efficacy, and the need for further research, which has resulted in a patchwork of state-level regulations and ongoing federal scrutiny.²⁹ In contrast, the European Union’s regulatory landscape is shaped by the Novel Food Regulations, which classify CBD as a novel food ingredient requiring pre-market authorization based on rigorous safety assessments.⁶⁶ This process involves submission of detailed dossiers to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), including toxicological, stability, and compositional data, and has led to a more centralized but often slower pathway to market approval for CBD products.²⁷ Other regions, such as Canada and Australia, have adopted hybrid models that combine elements of both approaches, emphasizing product safety, quality control, and consumer protection through comprehensive regulatory oversight.⁵⁵ Central to the implementation of these regulatory frameworks is the role of third-party testing, particularly by laboratories accredited to international standards such as ISO/IEC 17025.³⁸ These accredited labs provide independent validation of product composition, purity, and safety, ensuring that CBD oils meet established regulatory thresholds for cannabinoid content, contaminants (including pesticides, heavy metals, residual solvents, and microbials), and labeling accuracy.⁴⁴ Third-party testing not only enhances consumer trust and regulatory compliance but also supports product differentiation and market access by certifying adherence to global quality benchmarks.⁵⁶ Real-world examples include the widespread use of ISO 17025-accredited laboratories in the U.S. and EU for batch testing and certification of CBD products, as well as the development of industry-led quality assurance programs that leverage third-party verification to address regulatory uncertainties and market fragmentation.⁶⁶ Comparative analysis of global standards highlights the importance of harmonizing regulatory requirements, fostering international collaboration, and leveraging robust third-party testing to ensure the safety, efficacy, and consistency of CBD oil in an increasingly globalized and competitive marketplace.³⁶

Challenges and Future Perspectives:

Technical Hurdles:

The detection and standardization of cannabidiol (CBD) in oil-based products are fraught with technical hurdles, chief among them being matrix interference caused by the complex physicochemical composition of CBD oil, which contains high concentrations of lipids, terpenes, and structurally similar cannabinoids.³⁵ These matrix components often co-elute or produce overlapping spectral signals in chromatographic and spectroscopic analyses, leading to false positives/negatives, reduced sensitivity, and compromised accuracy—particularly when quantifying minor cannabinoids like cannabigerol (CBG), cannabinol (CBN), or trace Δ⁸-THC, which are increasingly recognized for their therapeutic potential but often exist at concentrations below 1% (w/w).⁶⁰ For instance, lipid-rich matrices can foul chromatographic columns, adsorb analytes, or quench fluorescence signals, while terpenes may interfere with UV/Vis or mass spectrometric detection due to their similar absorption profiles or isobaric masses.⁷² Advanced separation techniques, such as two-dimensional liquid chromatography (2D-LC) and high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS), have partially mitigated these issues, but challenges persist in achieving reproducible quantification of low-abundance cannabinoids without time-consuming sample clean-up or derivatization.⁷⁵ Simultaneously, the scalability of portable detection devices—such as handheld NIR spectrometers, electrochemical sensors, and immunochromatographic strips—remains a critical barrier to industrial adoption.²⁴ While these devices offer rapid, on-site screening, their transition from pilot-scale validation to high-throughput manufacturing environments is hindered by limitations in sensitivity, reproducibility, and durability under continuous use.⁵⁷ For example, portable NIR devices often require frequent recalibration to account for batch-to-batch variability in oil composition, and paper-based microfluidic kits may lack the precision needed for regulatory-grade quantification.⁴² Furthermore, the integration of these technologies into automated production lines demands robust hardware-software interfaces, real-time data analytics, and compliance with Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) standards, which are still under development for many emerging platforms.²¹

Regulatory and Ethical Gaps:

Regulatory and ethical gaps in the cannabidiol (CBD) industry remain a significant concern, primarily due to the lack of uniform global standards and the need for harmonization of THC-limits across different jurisdictions.³⁰ Currently, regulatory frameworks for CBD oil vary widely: in the United States, the 2018 Farm Bill permits hemp-derived products with less than 0.3% Δ⁹-THC by dry weight, while the European Union generally enforces a 0.2% THC threshold for hemp varieties; in other regions, such as Canada or Australia, THC limits and product classifications differ further, creating a fragmented legal landscape that complicates international trade, consumer safety, and product consistency.⁴³ This regulatory divergence not only hampers market access for manufacturers but also exposes consumers to risks associated with mislabeled or non-compliant products.³¹ The absence of universally accepted analytical methods and standardized reporting formats exacerbates these challenges, as laboratories in different countries may employ disparate techniques—such as HPLC, GC-MS, or immunoassays—resulting in variable results and uncertainty regarding product compliance.²² Additionally, the lack of harmonized THC-limits can lead to inadvertent legal violations for companies operating across borders, highlighting the urgent need for multilateral agreements and the adoption of internationally recognized standards, such as those developed by ISO or the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH), to ensure consistency in testing, labeling, and enforcement.⁴⁶ Furthermore, the ethical dimension of CBD production and analysis is increasingly coming to the fore, with growing consumer demand for transparency, sustainability, and social responsibility.⁶³ The traditional reliance on organic solvents for cannabinoid extraction and sample preparation raises environmental and occupational health concerns, prompting a shift toward greener, more sustainable analytical technologies.⁶² Innovations such as solvent-free extraction methods—including supercritical CO₂ extraction, pressurized hot water extraction, and mechanical techniques—are gaining traction for their ability to minimize hazardous waste, reduce energy consumption, and improve process safety.¹⁹ These green technologies not only align with global sustainability goals but also enhance the appeal of CBD products to environmentally conscious consumers.⁵⁹ The integration of renewable energy sources, closed-loop solvent recovery systems, and biodegradable packaging further underscores the industry’s commitment to reducing its ecological footprint.³² Moreover, the adoption of blockchain-based traceability platforms and third-party certification schemes can support ethical sourcing practices, fair labor standards, and the prevention of adulteration or contamination.⁶⁸ Addressing regulatory and ethical gaps will require concerted efforts from policymakers, industry stakeholders, and scientific communities to develop harmonized standards, promote the adoption of sustainable technologies, and foster transparency throughout the supply chain.⁷⁰ By bridging these gaps, the CBD industry can achieve greater legitimacy, consumer trust, and long-term viability in a competitive and rapidly evolving global market.⁷⁵

Emerging Trends:

Emerging trends in the analytical and regulatory landscape of CBD oil are rapidly reshaping the industry, with innovations that promise to enhance detection capabilities, ensure product integrity, and address the complexities of a globalized market.³⁸ Among the most transformative developments are lab-on-a-chip (LOC) systems designed for multi-analyte detection, which integrate microfluidic channels, miniaturized sensors, and advanced signal processing onto a single, portable platform.⁵⁹ These systems enable the simultaneous quantification of CBD, minor cannabinoids, terpenes, and a wide range of contaminants—including pesticides, heavy metals, residual solvents, and synthetic adulterants—in a single analytical run.⁶⁹ By leveraging microfluidic technology, LOC devices dramatically reduce sample and reagent volumes, accelerate analysis times, and enhance sensitivity and specificity through precise fluid control and on-chip separation mechanisms.²³ Recent research has demonstrated the feasibility of LOC-based assays for cannabinoid profiling in CBD oil, with detection limits comparable to conventional laboratory techniques and the added advantage of field deployability.⁷⁴ The integration of multiplexed detection modalities, such as electrochemical, optical, and mass spectrometric sensors, further expands the analytical scope of LOC systems, making them ideal for routine quality control, regulatory compliance, and point-of-use testing in diverse settings.⁵¹ Concurrently, CRISPR-based biosensors are emerging as a powerful tool for the genetic purity assessment of hemp strains, addressing a critical need for accurate strain identification and traceability in the face of increasing regulatory scrutiny and consumer demand for product transparency.⁵⁹ CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) technology, when coupled with reporter systems such as fluorescent or electrochemical signals, enables the rapid, sequence-specific detection of genetic markers associated with hemp cultivars, cannabinoid biosynthesis pathways, or potential adulteration with non-compliant cannabis varieties.⁶¹ These biosensors offer unprecedented specificity and sensitivity for genetic analysis, allowing for the discrimination of closely related strains and the detection of trace-level genetic contaminants in complex plant matrices.⁶² Early-stage applications have shown promise for on-site strain verification, batch authentication, and compliance monitoring, supporting the development of standardized, high-quality hemp raw materials for CBD production.⁶⁷  In parallel, AI-powered big-data platforms are revolutionizing market surveillance and counterfeit detection by aggregating and analyzing vast datasets from diverse sources, including analytical testing results, supply chain records, consumer feedback, and regulatory databases.⁷² Machine learning algorithms, trained on historical and real-time data, can identify patterns indicative of product adulteration, batch inconsistencies, or non-compliance with regulatory thresholds, enabling proactive risk assessment and targeted intervention.⁵³ These platforms also facilitate the rapid identification of counterfeit or mislabeled products through digital fingerprinting, blockchain-based traceability, and predictive analytics, empowering regulators, manufacturers, and consumers with actionable insights.⁵⁹ The integration of AI-driven analytics with portable detection technologies and genetic biosensors creates a robust ecosystem for quality assurance, market transparency, and consumer protection.⁴⁸ Together, these emerging trends—lab-on-a-chip systems for multi-analyte detection, CRISPR-based biosensors for genetic purity assessment, and AI-powered big-data platforms for market surveillance—represent a paradigm shift in the standardization and regulation of CBD oil, driving innovation, efficiency, and trust in a rapidly evolving global industry.⁶⁸

CONCLUSION

The detection and standardization of cannabidiol in CBD oil represent critical challenges at the intersection of analytical science, regulatory policy, and consumer safety. As the market grows, inconsistencies in cannabinoid content, presence of contaminants, and unverified product claims underscore the need for reliable, standardized testing methodologies. Conventional chromatographic methods such as HPLC and GC-MS offer robust solutions but are constrained by their complexity, cost, and laboratory dependency. Emerging technologies are closing these gaps by offering rapid, cost-effective, and field-deployable alternatives. Spectroscopic techniques like NIR and SERS allow for non-invasive analysis, while immunoassays and biosensors provide user-friendly solutions with potential for on-site testing. Additionally, molecularly imprinted polymers enhance selectivity in complex matrices, and AI/ML integration improves analytical precision and predictive quality control. In parallel, blockchain technology and in-line process monitoring are enhancing transparency and real-time quality assurance across the supply chain. However, challenges persist, including matrix interference, sensitivity limitations in portable devices, and regulatory fragmentation worldwide. To achieve comprehensive standardization, collaboration among scientists, regulators, and industry stakeholders is essential. Harmonizing analytical protocols, developing certified reference materials, and adopting sustainable practices are key to aligning the CBD industry with global safety and efficacy standards. Future innovations such as lab-on-a-chip systems and CRISPR-based genetic biosensors further promise to revolutionize detection and authentication in this domain. Ultimately, embracing these emerging technologies will facilitate the production of high-quality, trustworthy CBD products and support the industry's transition into a more regulated, science-driven, and consumer-centric marketplace.

 REFERENCES

1. Bhamra, S. K.; Slater, A.; Howard, C.; Johnson, M.; Heinrich, M. The Use of Traditional Herbal Medicines amongst South Asian Diasporic Communities in the UK. Phytother. Res. 2017, 31 (11), 1786–1794. https://doi.org/10.1002/ptr.5911.
2. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). WHO Recommends Rescheduling of Cannabis; 2019. https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/news/2019/who-recommends-rescheduling-of-ca....
3. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). Cannabis Policy: Status and Recent Developments; 2021. https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/topic-overviews/cannabis-polic....
4. Grand View Research. Cannabidiol Market Growth Analysis Report, 2021–2028; 2021. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/cannabidiol-cbd-market.
5. Grotenhermen, F.; Müller-Vahl, K. The Therapeutic Potential of Cannabis and Cannabinoids. Dtsch. Arztebl. Int. 2012, 109 (29–30), 495–501.
6. Hall, W.; Renstrom, M.; Poznyak, V., Eds. The Health and Social Effects of Nonmedical Cannabis Use; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.
7. Heinrich, M. Quality and Safety of Herbal Medical Products: Regulatory Opportunities and Metabolomics Approaches in Quality Assurance. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2015, 80 (1), 62–66.
8. Ipsos MORI. Public Perceptions of Herbal Medicines; 2008. http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/commspo/documents/news/con036073.pdf.
9. Kalant, H. Medicinal Use of Cannabis: History and Current Status. Pain Res. Manag. 2001, 6 (2), 80–91.
10. Masataka, N. Anxiolytic Effects of Repeated Cannabidiol Treatment in Teenagers with Social Anxiety Disorders. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 2466. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02466.
11. MS Society. Information Sheet: Cannabis; 2019. https://www.mssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/2020-08/Cannabis-factsh....
12. National Academies of Sciences. The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2017.
13. Nelson, K. M.; Bisson, J.; Singh, G.; Graham, J. G.; Chen, S.-N.; Friesen, J. B.; Pauli, G. F. The Essential Medicinal Chemistry of Cannabidiol (CBD). J. Med. Chem. 2020, 63, 12137–12155. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.0c00724.
14. Radwan, M. M.; ElSohly, M. A.; El-Alfy, A. T.; Ahmed, S. A.; Slade, D.; Husni, A. S.; Ross, S. A. Isolation and Pharmacological Evaluation of Minor Cannabinoids from High-Potency Cannabis sativa. J. Nat. Prod. 2015, 78 (6), 1271–1276. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jnatprod.5b00065.
15. Satterlund, T. D.; Lee, J. P.; Moore, R. S. Stigma among California's Marijuana Patients. J. Psychoactive Drugs 2015, 47 (1), 10–17.
16. Van Dolah, H. J.; Brent, B. A.; Mauck, K. F. Clinicians’ Guide to Cannabidiol and Hemp Oils. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2019, 94 (9), 1840–1851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.01.003.
17. White, C. M. A Review of Human Studies Assessing Cannabidiol’s (CBD) Therapeutic Actions and Potential. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2019, 59 (7), 923–934. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcph.1387.
18. Jang, E.; Kim, H.; Jang, S.; Lee, J.; Baeck, S.; In, S.; Kim, E.; Kim, Y.; Han, E. Concentrations of THC, CBD, and CBN in Commercial Hemp Seeds and Hempseed Oil Sold in Korea. Forensic Sci. Int. 2020, 306, 110064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.110064.
19. Dybowski, M. P.; Dawidowicz, A. L.; Typek, R.; Rombel, M. Conversion of Cannabidiol (CBD) to Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC) during Protein Precipitations Prior to Plasma Samples Analysis by Chromatography–Troubles with Reliable CBD Quantitation When Acidic Precipitation Agents Are Applied. Talanta 2020, 220, 121390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2020.121390.
20. Watanabe, K.; Itokawa, Y.; Yamaori, S.; Funahashi, T.; Kimura, T.; Kaji, T.; Usami, N.; Yamamoto, I. Conversion of Cannabidiol to ∆9-Tetrahydrocannabinol and Related Cannabinoids in Artificial Gastric Juice, and Their Pharmacological Effects in Mice. Forensic Toxicol. 2007, 25, 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11419-007-0021-y.
21. Czégény, Z.; Nagy, G.; Babinszki, B.; Bajtel, Á.; Csupor, D. CBD, a Precursor of THC in E-Cigarettes. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 8951. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-88389-z.
22. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Responds to Three GRAS Notices for Hemp Seed-Derived Ingredients for Use in Human Food. https://www.fda.gov/food/cfsan-constituent-updates/fda-responds-three-gras-notices-hemp-seed-derived-ingredients-use-human-food (accessed Jan 10, 2023).
23. Ambach, L.; Penitschka, F.; Broillet, A.; Konig, S.; Weinmann, W.; Bernhard, W. Simultaneous Quantification of Delta-9-THC, THC-Acid A, CBN and CBD in Seized Drugs Using HPLC-DAD. Forensic Sci. Int. 2014, 243, 107–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.06.008.
24. Galettis, P.; Williams, M.; Gordon, R.; Martin, J. H. A Simple Isocratic HPLC Method for the Quantitation of 17 Cannabinoids. Aust. J. Chem. 2021, 74, 453–462. https://doi.org/10.1071/CH20380.
25. Meng, Q.; Beth, B.; Jonathan, Z.; Mathieu-Marc, P.; Joseph, G.; Charles, B. D. A Reliable and Validated LC-MS/MS Method for the Simultaneous Quantification of 4 Cannabinoids in 40 Consumer Products. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0196396. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196396.
26. Lin, L.; Amaratunga, P.; Reed, J.; Huang, P.; Lemberg, B. L.; Lemberg, D. Quantitation of Δ8-THC, Δ9-THC, Cannabidiol, and Ten Other Cannabinoids and Metabolites in Oral Fluid by HPLC-MS/MS. J. Anal. Toxicol. 2022, 46, 76–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/jat/bkaa184.
27. Ibrahim, E. A.; Gul, W.; Gul, S. W.; Stamper, B. J.; Hadad, G. M.; Salam, R. A. A. Determination of Acid and Neutral Cannabinoids in Extracts of Different Strains of Cannabis sativa Using GC-FID. Planta Med. 2018, 84, 250–259. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-124088.
28. Cardenia, V.; Gallina, T. T.; Scappini, S.; Rubino, R. C.; Rodriguez-Estrada, M. T. Development and Validation of a Fast Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry Method for the Determination of Cannabinoids in Cannabis sativa L. J. Food Drug Anal. 2018, 26, 1283–1292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfda.2018.06.001.
29. Poklis, J. L.; Mulder, H. A.; Peace, M. R. The Unexpected Identification of the Cannabimimetic, 5F-ADB, and Dextromethorphan in Commercially Available Cannabidiol E-Liquids. Forensic Sci. Int. 2019, 294, e25–e27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.10.019. 
30. Marchetti, L.; Brighenti, V.; Rossi, M. C.; Sperlea, J.; Pellati, F.; Bertelli, D. Use of 13C-qNMR Spectroscopy for the Analysis of Non-Psychoactive Cannabinoids in Fibre-Type Cannabis sativa L. (Hemp). Molecules 2019, 24, 1138. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24061138.
31. Guo, L.; Xu, X.; Zhao, J.; Hu, S.; Xu, L.; Kuang, H.; Xu, C. Multiple Detection of 15 Triazine Herbicides by Gold Nanoparticle Based-Paper Sensor. Nano Res. 2022, 15, 5483–5491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12274-022-4164-2.
32. Lei, X.; Xu, X.; Liu, L.; Xu, L.; Wang, L.; Kuang, H.; Xu, C. Gold-Nanoparticle-Based Multiplex Immune-Strip Biosensor for Simultaneous Detection of 83 Antibiotics. Nano Res. 2022, 16, 1259–1268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12274-022-4762-z.
33. García-Fernández, J.; Trapiella-Alfonso, L.; Costa-Fernández, J. M.; Pereiro, R.; Sanz-Medel, A. A Quantum Dot-Based Immunoassay for Screening of Tetracyclines in Bovine Muscle. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014, 62, 1733–1740. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf500118x.
34. Chen, G.; Jin, M.; Ma, J.; Yan, M.; Cui, X.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Li, H.; Zheng, W.; Zhang, Y.; et al. Competitive Bio-Barcode Immunoassay for Highly Sensitive Detection of Parathion Based on Bimetallic Nanozyme Catalysis. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020, 68, 660–666. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.9b06125.
35. Quan, Q.; Liu, Z.; Li, Z.; Pan, K.; Koidis, A.; Lei, Y.; Yu, X.; Mo, Q.; Huang, X.; Lei, H. Authenticating Emergent Adulterant 6-Benzylaminopurine in Bean Sprouts: Virtual Hapten Similarity Enhanced Immunoassay. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2023, 71, 8203–8210. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.3c01696. 
36. Kwon, E. Y.; Ruan, X.; Yu, F.; Lin, Y.; Du, D.; Wie, B. J. V. Simultaneous Detection of Two Herbicides in Fruits and Vegetables with Nanoparticle-Linked Immunosorbent and Lateral Flow Immunoassays. Food Chem. 2023, 399, 133955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.133955.
37. Liu, T.; Lai, X.; Guo, P.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, G.; Wu, M. Sensitive Lateral Flow Immunoassay Strips Based on Fe³⁺-Chelated Polydopamine Nanospheres for the Detection of Kanamycin. Food Chem. 2023, 411, 135511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2023.135511.
38. Zhu, H.; Huang, X.; Deng, Y.; Chen, H.; Fan, M.; Gong, Z. Applications of Nanomaterial-Based Chemiluminescence Sensors in Environmental Analysis. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2023, 158, 116879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2022.116879.
39. Panferov, V. G.; Zherdev, A. V.; Dzantiev, B. B. Post-Assay Chemical Enhancement for Highly Sensitive Lateral Flow Immunoassays: A Critical Review. Biosensors 2023, 13, 866. https://doi.org/10.3390/bios13090866.
40. Malfait, A. M.; Gallily, R.; Sumariwalla, P. F.; Malik, A. S.; Andreakos, E.; Mechoulam, R.; Feldmann, M. The Nonpsychoactive Cannabis Constituent Cannabidiol Is an Oral Anti-Arthritic Therapeutic in Murine Collagen-Induced Arthritis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2000, 97 (17), 9561–9566. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.160105897.
41. Costa, B.; Colleoni, M.; Conti, S.; Parolaro, D.; Franke, C.; Trovato, A. E.; Giagnoni, G. Oral Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Cannabidiol, a Non-Psychoactive Constituent of Cannabis, in Acute Carrageenan-Induced Inflammation in the Rat Paw. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch. Pharmacol. 2004, 369 (3), 294–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00210-004-0871-3.
42. Vaney, C.; Heinzel-Gutenbrunner, M.; Jobin, P.; Tschopp, F.; Gattlen, B.; Hagen, U.; Schnelle, M.; Reif, M. Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of an Orally Administered Cannabis Extract in the Treatment of Spasticity in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Crossover Study. Mult. Scler. 2004, 10 (4), 417–424. https://doi.org/10.1191/1352458504ms1048oa.
43. Wade, D. T.; Makela, P.; Robson, P.; House, H.; Bateman, C. Do Cannabis-Based Medicinal Extracts Have General or Specific Effects on Symptoms in Multiple Sclerosis? A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study on 160 Patients. Mult. Scler. 2004, 10 (4), 434–441. https://doi.org/10.1191/1352458504ms1082oa.
44. Kaplan, B. L.; Rockwell, C. E.; Kaminski, N. E. Evidence for Cannabinoid Receptor-Dependent and -Independent Mechanisms of Action in Leukocytes. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2003, 306 (3), 1077–1085. https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.103.051961.
45. Begg, M.; Pacher, P.; Batkai, S.; Osei-Hyiaman, D.; Offertaler, L.; Mo, F. M.; Liu, J.; Kunos, G. Evidence for Novel Cannabinoid Receptors. Pharmacol. Ther. 2005, 106 (2), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pharmthera.2004.11.005.
46. Baker, D.; Pryce, G.; Davies, W. L.; Hiley, C. R. In Silico Patent Searching Reveals a New Cannabinoid Receptor. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2005, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tips.2005.11.003.
47. Rockwell, C. E.; Kaminski, N. E. A Cyclooxygenase Metabolite of Anandamide Causes Inhibition of Interleukin-2 Secretion in Murine Splenocytes. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2004, 311 (2), 683–690. https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.104.065524.
48. Rockwell, C. E.; Snider, N. T.; Thompson, J.; Vanden Heuvel, J.; Kaminski, N. E. Activation of PPAR-Gamma by 2-Arachidonylglycerol and 2-Arachidonylglycerol Ether Causes an Inhibition of Interleukin-2 in Activated T Cells. Submitted for Publication, 2005.
49. Jarai, Z.; Wagner, J. A.; Varga, K.; Lake, K. D.; Compton, D. R.; Martin, B. R.; Zimmer, A. M.; Bonner, T. I.; Buckley, N. E.; Mezey, E.; Razdan, R. K.; Zimmer, A.; Kunos, G. Cannabinoid-Induced Mesenteric Vasodilation through an Endothelial Site Distinct from CB1 or CB2 Receptors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1999, 96 (24), 14136–14141. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.24.14136.
50. Sacerdote, P.; Martucci, C.; Vaccani, A.; Bariselli, F.; Panerai, A. E.; Colombo, A.; Parolaro, D.; Massi, P. The Nonpsychoactive Component of Marijuana Cannabidiol Modulates Chemotaxis and IL-10 and IL-12 Production of Murine Macrophages Both In Vivo and In Vitro. J. Neuroimmunol. 2005, 159 (1–2), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroim.2004.10.003.
51. Kaminski, N. E.; Holsapple, M. P. Inhibition of Macrophage Accessory Cell Function in Casein-Treated B6C3F1 Mice. J. Immunol. 1987, 139 (6), 1804–1810.
52. Jerne, N. K.; Nordin, A. A. Plaque Formation in Agar by Single Antibody-Producing Cells. Science 1963, 140, 405.
53. Herring, A. C.; Koh, W. S.; Kaminski, N. E. Inhibition of the Cyclic AMP Signaling Cascade and Nuclear Factor Binding to CRE and κB Elements by Cannabinol, a Minimally CNS-Active Cannabinoid. Biochem. Pharmacol. 1998, 55 (7), 1013–1023. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-2952(97)00630-8.
54. Schatz, A. R.; Koh, W. S.; Kaminski, N. E. Δ⁹-Tetrahydrocannabinol Selectively Inhibits T-Cell Dependent Humoral Immune Responses through Direct Inhibition of Accessory T-Cell Function. Immunopharmacol. 1993, 26, 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3109(93)90005-B.
55. Sica, A.; Dorman, L.; Viggiano, V.; Cippitelli, M.; Ghosh, P.; Rice, N.; Young, H. A. Interaction of NF-κB and NFAT with the Interferon-γ Promoter. J. Biol. Chem. 1997, 272 (48), 30412–30420. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.272.48.30412.
56. Sweetser, M. T.; Hoey, T.; Sun, Y. L.; Weaver, W. M.; Price, G. A.; Wilson, C. B. The Roles of Nuclear Factor of Activated T Cells and Ying-Yang 1 in Activation-Induced Expression of the Interferon-γ Promoter in T Cells. J. Biol. Chem. 1998, 273 (52), 34775–34783. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.273.52.34775.
57. Shaw, J. P.; Utz, P. J.; Durand, D. B.; Toole, J. J.; Emmel, E. A.; Crabtree, G. R. Identification of a Putative Regulator of Early T Cell Activation Genes. Science 1988, 241 (4862), 202–205. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3260404.
58. Jain, J.; McCaffrey, P. G.; Miner, Z.; Kerppola, T. K.; Lambert, J. N.; Verdine, G. L.; Curran, T.; Rao, A. The T-cell transcription factor NFATp is a substrate for calcineurin and interacts with Fos and Jun. Nature 1993, 365 (6444), 352–355. https://doi.org/10.1038/365352a0.
59. Faubert, B. L.; Kaminski, N. E. AP-1 activity is negatively regulated by cannabinol through inhibition of its protein components, c-fos and c-jun. J. Leukoc. Biol. 2000, 67 (2), 259–266. https://doi.org/10.1002/jlb.67.2.259.
60. Ouyang, Y.; Hwang, S. G.; Han, S. H.; Kaminski, N. E. Suppression of interleukin-2 by the putative endogenous cannabinoid 2-arachidonyl-glycerol is mediated through down-regulation of the nuclear factor of activated T cells. Mol. Pharmacol. 1998, 53 (4), 676–683. https://doi.org/10.1124/mol.53.4.676.
61. Di Marzo, V. The endocannabinoidome as a substrate for noneuphoric phytocannabinoid action and gut microbiome dysfunction in neuropsychiatric disorders. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. 2020, 22, 259–269.
62. Fattore, L.; Fratta, W. Beyond THC: The new generation of cannabinoid designer drugs. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 2011, 5, 60.
63. Broers, B.; Patà, Z.; Mina, A.; Wampfler, J.; de Saussure, C.; Pautex, S. Prescription of a THC/CBD-Based medication to patients with dementia: A pilot study in Geneva. Med. Cannabis Cannabinoids 2019, 2, 56–59.
64. Withey, S. L.; Bergman, J.; Huestis, M. A.; George, S. R.; Madras, B. K. THC and CBD blood and brain concentrations following daily administration to adolescent primates. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020, 213, 108129.
65. Pertwee, R. G. Pharmacological and therapeutic targets for Δ9 tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol. Euphytica 2004, 140, 73–82.
66. Elkashef, A.; Vocci, F.; Huestis, M.; Haney, M.; Budney, A.; Gruber, A.; el-Guebaly, N. Marijuana neurobiology and treatment. Subst. Abus. 2008, 29, 17–29.
67. Alsherbiny, M. A.; Li, C. G. Medicinal Cannabis—Potential drug interactions. Medicines 2019, 6, 3.
68. De Petrocellis, L.; Di Marzo, V. Non-CB1, Non-CB2 receptors for endocannabinoids, plant cannabinoids, and synthetic cannabimimetics: Focus on G-protein-coupled receptors and transient receptor potential channels. J. Neuroimmune Pharmacol. 2010, 5, 103–121.
69. Sartore, D. M.; Vargas Medina, D. A.; Costa, J. L.; Lanças, F. M.; Santos-Neto, Á. J. Automated microextraction by packed sorbent of cannabinoids from human urine using a lab-made device packed with molecularly imprinted polymer. Talanta 2020, 219, 121185.
70. Pandopulos, A. J.; Bade, R.; O’Brien, J. W.; Tscharke, B. J.; Mueller, J. F.; Thomas, K.; White, J. M.; Gerber, C. Towards an efficient method for the extraction and analysis of cannabinoids in wastewater. Talanta 2020, 217, 121034.
71. Renaud-Young, M.; Mayall, R. M.; Salehi, V.; Goledzinowski, M.; Comeau, F. J. E.; MacCallum, J. L.; Birss, V. I. Development of an ultra-sensitive electrochemical sensor for Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and its metabolites using carbon paper electrodes. Electrochim. Acta 2019, 307, 351–359.
72. Comeau, Z. J.; Boileau, N. T.; Lee, T.; Melville, O. A.; Rice, N. A.; Troung, Y.; Harris, C. S.; Lessard, B. H.; Shuhendler, A. J. On-the-spot detection and speciation of cannabinoids using organic thin-film transistors. ACS Sens. 2019, 4, 2706–2715.
73. Ujváry, I.; Hanuš, L. Human metabolites of cannabidiol: A review on their formation, biological activity, and relevance in therapy. Cannabis Cannabinoid Res. 2016, 1, 90–101.
74. Niedbala, R. S.; Kardos, K. W.; Fritch, D. F.; Kardos, S.; Fries, T.; Waga, J.; Robb, J.; Cone, E. J. Detection of marijuana use by oral fluid and urine analysis following single-dose administration of smoked and oral marijuana. J. Anal. Toxicol. 2001, 25, 289–303.
75. Stevenson, H.; Bacon, A.; Joseph, K. M.; Gwandaru, W. R. W.; Bhide, A.; Sankhala, D.; Dhamu, V. N.; Prasad, S. A rapid response electrochemical biosensor for detecting THC in saliva. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 12701.