4.5 Article

Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol concentrations in exhaled breath and physiological effects following cannabis intake - A pilot study using illicit cannabis

期刊

CLINICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 49, 期 13-14, 页码 1072-1077

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2016.06.003

关键词

Cannabis; Breath drug testing; Marijuana smoking; THC

资金

  1. Stockholm County Council [20140145]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Delta(9)-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) can be measured in exhaled breath by using an aerosol particle collection device. The sampling procedure is simple, non-invasive and takes only 2-3 min. In the present study we measured the amount of THC in exhaled breath of cannabis users at specific time intervals up to 3 h after smoking one cannabis cigarette. Design and methods: The breath concentration-effect relationship was studied by measuring the pulse rate and the pupil diameter to assess physiological changes. THC and the main metabolite 11-nor-9-carboxy-Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol were analyzed in exhaled breath by a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method. Thirteen subjects (9 males and 4 females, aged 23-24 years) participated. Five of those were using cannabis more frequently than monthly. Results: THC was detected in most subjects already at baseline, concentrations increased following smoking and remained detectable for over 3 h (mean THC concentration in breath at 3 h: 1479 pg/sample). Pulse rate (p = 0.015) and pupil diameter (p = 0.044) were significantly altered up to 30 min after smoking. The detection window of cannabis in breath after smoking one cannabis cigarette in occasional and chronic smokers was at least 3 h. Only THC was detected, and not the metabolite. The THC concentration in exhaled breath was related to the physiological changes that occur over time. Conclusions: Exhaled breath can be used to detect recent cannabis exposure. (C) 2016 The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据