Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39762637›Full record

ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2025

Challenges of cannabidiol determination in emulsified cosmetics and application of solid-phase extraction followed by HPLC-UV-MS/MS.

Magdaléna Vágnerová, David Sýkora, Alžběta Nemeškalová, Martin Kuchař

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Interpol review of forensic drug chemistry, 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Magdaléna VágnerováDepartment of Analytical Chemistry, University of Chemistry and Technology, Technická 5, 166 28, Prague 6, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3517-5217
David SýkoraDepartment of Analytical Chemistry, University of Chemistry and Technology, Technická 5, 166 28, Prague 6, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8098-3171
Alžběta NemeškalováDepartment of Analytical Chemistry, University of Chemistry and Technology, Technická 5, 166 28, Prague 6, Prague, Czech Republic. alzbeta.nemeskalova@vscht.cz.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4268-3586
Martin KuchařForensic Laboratory of Biologically Active Substances, Department of Chemistry of Natural Compounds, University of Chemistry and Technology, Technická 5, 166 28, Prague 6, Prague, Czech Republic. kuchara@vscht.cz.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7616-6352

Funding

Ministerstvo Vnitra České Republiky VB02000042
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The recent surge in popularity of cannabidiol-infused products extends beyond food and supplements to the cosmetic industry. Accurate labeling remains a significant concern, as many products fail to meet advertised cannabidiol content and/or contain psychoactive tetrahydrocannabinol above the permissible levels. In this work, we present the use of an HPLC-UV-MS/MS method for the quantification of five major cannabinoids (cannabidiol, cannabidiolic acid, tetrahydrocannabinol, tetrahydrocannabinolic acid, and cannabigerol) in oil-in-water cosmetic emulsions. The sample extraction is based on dispersing the sample in isopropanol, followed by solid-phase extraction using Bond Elut Plexa PAX cartridge. The viability of this method is demonstrated by comparing matrix effects in samples subjected to solid-phase extraction (0‒11% suppression of cannabidiol ionization) to samples extracted without additional purification steps (0‒84% ionization suppression of cannabidiol ionization). The limit of quantification is determined at 0.1 mg/g and the calibration is employed in the range of 0.1‒50 mg/g for cannabidiol and 0.1‒10 mg/g for all other analytes. Finally, 36 real cosmetic samples from the Czech market were analyzed. Of these, 14 indicated the amount of CBD on the label but only five (36%) were accurate, i.e., within 90‒110% of the labeled amount, and a considerable amount of THC (0.16 ± 0.01 mg/g) was found in one sample. These findings contribute to the cumulating evidence that cannabidiol-based consumer products are often mislabeled and highlight the importance of better regulatory compliance.

Indexed as

CannabidiolCosmeticsSolid Phase ExtractionTandem Mass SpectrometryChromatography, High Pressure LiquidEmulsionsLimit of DetectionCannabidiolCosmeticsEmulsionsCannabidiolCosmetic creamsLiquid chromatography-mass spectrometryOil-in-water emulsionsTetrahydrocannabinol

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.