| Title |
Analysis of a Commercial Marijuana e-Cigarette Formulation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Analytical Toxicology, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1093/jat/bkw021 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michelle R. Peace, Joseph W. Stone, Justin L. Poklis, Joseph B M. Turner, Alphonse Poklis |
| Abstract |
Personal battery-powered vaporizers or electronic cigarettes were developed to deliver a nicotine vapor such that smokers could simulate smoking tobacco without the inherent pathology of inhaled tobacco smoke. With four states within the USA having legalized the cultivation, distribution and recreational use of marijuana and an additional 23 states plus the District of Columbia with laws that legalize marijuana in some form, it was inevitable that suppliers of legal marijuana would develop marijuana products for use in these electronic cigarettes. Presented is the analysis of one such marijuana electronic cigarette formulation sold under the brand name Liberty Reach. The cannabinoid concentrations in Liberty Reach as determined by high-performance liquid chromatography-triple quadrapole mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS-MS) were Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol, 42.6% (w/v) and cannabidiol 0.5% (w/v). These concentrations were significantly lower than the labeled 69% Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol and 1% cannabidiol. Furthermore, 4 cannabinoids, 13 marijuana terpenes, and propylene glycol were identified by a combination of Direct Analysis in Real Time-AccuTOF™ mass spectrometry (DART-MS), HPLC-MS-MS and gas chromatography-MS. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 29% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| Spain | 1 | 14% |
| Canada | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Scientists | 2 | 29% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 75 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 15% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Researcher | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 10 | 13% |
| Unknown | 20 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 11 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 25% |
| Unknown | 23 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 June 2016.
All research outputs
#5,733,341
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Analytical Toxicology
#449
of 1,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,541
of 301,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Analytical Toxicology
#3
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,887 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 301,014 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.