## 4 Conclusions  
To summarize the results, the impact of extraction methods and parameters on the isolation of cannabinoids and terpenoids from the Futura 75 hemp variety was evaluated. It was demonstrated that the use of binary organic solvent systems enables the efficient isolation of both cannabinoids and terpene fractions from industrial hemp. Additionally,the cannabinoid profile of the extracts was analyzed using gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (GC-MS), while 59 terpenoid compounds were identified via solid-phase microextraction (SPME) combined with GC-MS.  
The effects of two selected extracts from the Futura 75 hemp variety--containing cannabinoids and terpene fractions with differing monoterpene-to-sesquiterpene ratios--were investigated for their potential to inhibit cancer cell growth and their safety concerning healthy breast cells. The results indicate that while the extracts are less active than the tested individual cannabinoids, they exhibit significantly higher selectivity toward cancer cells compared to non-tumorigenic cells. Furthermore, the extract with a higher monoterpene content (Futu 2) demonstrated slightly stronger antiproliferative activity.  
It was also observed that at lower concentrations, both the individual cannabinoids and the extracts (Futu 1 and Futu 2) stimulated the growth of two cancer cell lines--MV4-11 leukemia cells and the triple-negative breast cancer model MDA-MB-468--while, at higher concentrations, they exhibited an antiproliferative effect. These findings highlight the importance of the extract composition and concentration in correlation with the cancer cell type and line for determining therapeutic efficacy and safety.  
The following supporting information can be downloaded at [[https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/molecules30061325/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/molecules30061325/s1)]([https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/molecules30061325/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/molecules30061325/s1)), Table S1. Mass of extract before and after winterization (pressure extraction performed at 1 and 2 bar); Table S2. Mass of primary extracts and after winterization (dynamic extraction, time--10, 20, 40 min.; temp. 25 \({}^{\circ}\)C, \(-\)55 \({}^{\circ}\)C).  
Conceptualization, M.H. and A.G.; methodology, A.G., M.H., M.S. and J.L.; formal analysis, M.H., J.L. and J.W.; investigation, M.H., M.S. and M.P.; writing--original draft preparation, M.H. and A.G.; writing--review and editing, A.G.; visualization, M.H. and M.P.; supervision, A.G.; project administration, A.G.; funding acquisition, A.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This study was co-financed under the fifth edition of the Implementation Doctorate program of the Ministry of Education and Science (project number DWD/5/0065/2021). This article is part of a PhD dissertation titled Optimization of the process for extracting biologically active compounds from selected hemp cultivars aimed at obtaining a product with high stability and desired organoleptic and physicochemical parameters, prepared during Doctoral School at the Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences. The APC is financed by Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences.  
Not applicable.  
Data Availability StatementData are contained within the article and Supplementary Materials.  
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.