Version 1.1 / Date of Issue: 2.09.16 / Issuing Authority: Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB)

OSAC RESEARCH NEEDS ASSESSMENT FORM

Title of research need: Cannabinoids

Keyword(s): Cannabis, Marijuana, Cannabinoids, Hemp

Submitting subcommittee(s): Toxicology Date Approved: 5/22/20

(If SAC review identifies additional subcommittees, add them to the box above.)

Background Information:

1. Description of research need:

There are many new issues that raise concern since states legalized/decriminalized cannabis and since the 2018 Farm 

Bill, which defines the standards for industrial hemp production. Cannabis has changed over the years with increasing 

concentrations of Δ9-THC, as well as Δ8-THC. There is growing anecdotal evidence that Δ8-THC is deliberately sought 

to increase the likelihood of beating drug tests and to achieve a different type of “high.” Further, there is evidence 

that Δ8-THC may be produced (converted) as a consequence of hemp processing and as edibles age. Additionally, 

there are few data to determine whether products that fall within the legal definition of hemp would also produce 

positive drug tests or whether repeated/long‐term exposure to hemp‐derived CBD products would increase one’s 

chances of testing positive for THC. Further, there are few data to suggest that products currently on the market 

comply with the Farm Bill standards. 

Research is needed in the development of analytical methods for the identification and quantification of emerging 

cannabinoids to enhance the scope of capability and knowledge of the forensic toxicology community. Evaluation of 

existing and novel sample preparation techniques for the recovery of these analytes is also warranted while 

chromatographic separation from Δ9 -THC and its metabolites remains problematic for cannabinoid isomers. 

Research should also include epidemiological studies, metabolite identification, matrices studies, and 

pharmacodynamics/pharmacokinetics studies. Reference materials are needed for emerging cannabinoids as well as 

their metabolites. 

2. Key bibliographic references relating to this research need:

Bonn-Miller, M.O., Loflin, M.J.E., Thomas, B.F., Marcu, J.P., Hyke, T. and Vandrey, R. (2017) Labeling 

Accuracy of Cannabidiol Extracts Sold Online. JAMA, 318, 1708–1709.

Morales, P., Reggio, P.H. and Jagerovic, N. (2017) An Overview on Medicinal Chemistry of Synthetic and 

Natural Derivatives of Cannabidiol. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 8, 422.

Citti, C., Linciano, P., Russo, F., Luongo, L., Iannotta, M., Maione, S., et al. (2019) A novel phytocannabinoid 

isolated from Cannabis sativa L. with an in vivo cannabimimetic activity higher than Δ9-

tetrahydrocannabinol: Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabiphorol. Scientific Reports, 9, 20335.

Spindle, T.R., Cone, E.J., Kuntz, D., Mitchell, J.M., Bigelow, G.E., Flegel, R., et al. (2019) Urinary 

Pharmacokinetic Profile of Cannabinoids Following Administration of Vaporized and Oral Cannabidiol 
Version 1.1 / Date of Issue: 2.09.16 / Issuing Authority: Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB)

and Vaporized CBD-Dominant Cannabis. Journal of Analytical Toxicology, November 4, 2019: 

10.1093/jat/bkz080.

Huestis, M.A., Solimini, R., Pichini, S., Pacifici, R., Carlier, J. and Busardò, F.P. (2019) Cannabidiol Adverse 

Effects and Toxicity. Current Neuropharmacology, 17, 974–989.

Hollister, L.E. and Gillespie, H.K. (1973) Delta-8- and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol comparison in man by 

oral and intravenous administration. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 14, 353–357.

Mead, A. (2019) Legal and Regulatory Issues Governing Cannabis and Cannabis-Derived Products in the 

United States. Frontiers in Plant Science, 10, 697.

3a. In what ways would the research results improve current laboratory capabilities?

Current analytical methodologies and instrumentation capabilities may not detect or chromatographically 

separate cannabinoids such as Δ8- and Δ9-THC isomers. Reporting of cannabinoids can be problematic when 

interferences or unresolved peaks are present. Additionally, in vitro conversion should be evaluated to 

support data interpretation. 

3b. In what ways would the research results improve understanding of the scientific basis for the 

subcommittee(s)?

Results of research studies will improve understanding of the cannabinoid scientific knowledge for the 

forensic toxicology community. The following are how each of the subcategories would impact the 

community: Identify cannabinoids that are not currently included in testing panels. Develop and optimize 

chromatographic techniques that could be used by the forensic toxicology community. Identify metabolites 

or biomarkers indicative of recent use or those that correlate with impairment. Analyze different matrices in 

the subcategories of forensic toxicological testing. Understand the importance of result variability and how 

their impact is interpreted. Pharmacodynamics/pharmacokinetic information is lacking for THC isomers and 

emerging cannabinoids and epidemiological studies should be conducted.

3c. In what ways would the research results improve services to the criminal justice system?

This research would have a direct impact on the criminal justice system involving cases of driving while 

impaired or under the influence, drug facilitated crimes, and probation/parole violations. 

4. Status assessment (I, II, III, or IV): I
Version 1.1 / Date of Issue: 2.09.16 / Issuing Authority: Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB)

Major gap in 

current 

knowledge

Minor gap in 

current 

knowledge

No or limited

current research 

is being conducted

I III

Existing current 

research is being 

conducted

II IV

This research need has been identified by one or more subcommittees of OSAC and is being provided as an 

informational resource to the community.

Approvals:

Subcommittee Approval date: 04/30/2020

(Approval is by majority vote of subcommittee. Once approved, forward to SAC.)

SAC

1. Does the SAC agree with the research need? Yes X No

2. Does the SAC agree with the status assessment? Yes X No

If no, what is the status assessment of the SAC:

Approval date: 5/22/20

(Approval is by majority vote of SAC. Once approved, forward to NIST for posting.)