CBN Served as the Internal Standard in a Postmortem THC Assay

The postmortem GC–MS method used cannabinol as an internal standard. CBN was a reference signal in this procedure, rather than a second reported measure of parent THC or a stable-isotope-labeled copy of it.

Identify the reference compound

Paknahad and colleagues described adding CBN internal standard during preparation of urine for THC-COOH analysis and an internal-standard solution during blood preparation. Their reagents section identified CBN as the internal standard. The method measured THC in postmortem blood and THC-COOH in hydrolyzed urine, with different preparation and calibration conditions.

A different cannabinoid is not chemically identical

Using a related compound as a reference does not make its extraction, derivatization and detector response identical to those of each target analyte. Conversely, the choice alone does not prove that quantification failed. The appropriate evidence is the validation showing how the target and reference behaved together under the actual method conditions.

What the study does not resolve automatically

The presence of CBN in the reagent list should not be described as independent confirmation of cannabis exposure in each case. Nor should its use be silently relabeled isotope dilution. Review calibration, selectivity and internal-standard behavior before drawing an analytical conclusion. This selected postmortem application did not establish a concentration that proves impairment before death or cannabis causation of death.

Related analysis: the postmortem assay’s reporting limits.

Research cited

Paknahad and colleagues (2024). Enhancement and validation of a quantitative GC–MS method for the detection of THC and THC–COOH in postmortem blood and urine samples. DOI: 10.1016/j.mex.2024.102962.

Spread the love


The National Black Lawyers

top 40 lawyers

civil trial law

Lawyers of Distinction

Loading...

Recent Blog Articles

The HGN Comparison Did Not Validate a Standalone Cannabis Impairment Test

The HGN analysis compared small groups defined by self-reported duration. It did not establish a standalone diagnostic accuracy for identifying cannabis-impaired drivers. What the statistical comparison involved Forty-four participants underwent horizontal gaze nystagmus assessment, with forty-three examined at three hours after smoking. The paper compared HGN incidence at that time…

Spread the love

Read Article: The HGN Comparison Did Not Validate a Standalone Cannabis Impairment Test

Stratified Cannabis Duration Patterns Coexisted With a Null Overall Correlation

The paper described an inverse pattern after grouping participants by self-reported duration, while its unstratified correlation between baseline blood THC and duration was nonsignificant. Both findings belong in an accurate account. The two analyses asked related questions differently Baseline blood measurements were available for sixty-four participants. The authors divided participants…

Spread the love

Read Article: Stratified Cannabis Duration Patterns Coexisted With a Null Overall Correlation

Percent-of-Maximum Cannabis Ratings Did Not Compare Absolute Severity

The paper’s average percent-of-maximum curve normalized each participant to that person’s own highest self-rating. Equal percentages on that graph did not necessarily mean equal absolute symptom severity across participants. The denominator was personal Wurz and DeGregorio summarized self-assessments from seventy-four participants after cannabis smoking. Each person’s ratings were expressed relative…

Spread the love

Read Article: Percent-of-Maximum Cannabis Ratings Did Not Compare Absolute Severity

Speak with an expert today!

Contact the offices of Okorie Okorocha for professional and reliable advice which you can trust.

Call (424) 363-3347 Contact Us