ArticleMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Microwave- and Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction of Cannabinoids and Terpenes from Cannabis Using Response Surface Methodology.
Article in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interpol review of forensic drug chemistry, 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Review
- Optimized extraction, odor modulation, and antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of blue essential oil froFrontiers in plant science · 2026Article
- Linalool in cancer pharmacology: pharmacokinetic limitations and preclinical cytotoxic evidence for translational development.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Comparative evaluation of ultrasound-assisted extraction with other green extraction methods for sustainable recycling and processing of date palm bioresources and by-products: A review of recent research.Ultrasonics sonochemistry · 2025Review
- Article
- Understanding the Potential of CBD for Health Benefits: An Overview.Current drug discovery technologies · 2025Review
- Progresses and Prospects on Glucosinolate Detection in Cruciferous Plants.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Prospects in the Use ofBiotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2024Review
- Mineral nutrition forFrontiers in plant science · 2024Article
- The Development, Validation, and Application of a UHPLC-HESI-MS Method for the Determination of 17 Cannabinoids inMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- 2-Pyridinecarboxaldehyde-Modified Chitosan-Silver Complexes: Optimized Preparation, Characterization, and Antibacterial Activity.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Cold Ethanol Extraction of Cannabinoids and Terpenes from Cannabis Using Response Surface Methodology: Optimization and Comparative Study.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Pilot-Scale Preparation of Broad-Spectrum CBD: Extraction Optimization and Purification using Centrifugal Partition Chromatography.Medical cannabis and cannabinoidsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Limited studies have explored different extraction techniques that improve cannabis extraction with scale-up potential. Ultrasound-assisted and microwave-assisted extraction were evaluated to maximize the yield and concentration of cannabinoids and terpenes. A central composite rotatable design was used to optimize independent factors (sample-to-solvent ratio, extraction time, extraction temperature, and duty cycle). The optimal conditions for ultrasound- and microwave-assisted extraction were the sample-to-solvent ratios of 1:15 and 1:14.4, respectively, for 30 min at 60 °C. Ultrasound-assisted extraction yielded 14.4% and 14.2% more oil and terpenes, respectively, compared with microwave-assisted extracts. Ultrasound-assisted extraction increased cannabinoid concentration from 13.2−39.2%. Considering reference ground samples, tetrahydrocannabinolic acid increased from 17.9 (g 100 g dry matter−1) to 28.5 and 20 with extraction efficiencies of 159.2% and 111.4% for ultrasound-assisted and microwave-assisted extraction, respectively. Principal component analyses indicate that the first two principal components accounted for 96.6% of the total variance (PC1 = 93.2% and PC2 = 3.4%) for ultrasound-assisted extraction and 92.4% of the total variance (PC1 = 85.4% and PC2 = 7%) for microwave-assisted extraction. Sample-to-solvent ratios significantly (p < 0.05) influenced the secondary metabolite profiles and yields for ultrasound-assisted extracts, but not microwave-assisted extracts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.