Table 3.
Recovery and limit of detection (LOD) of cannabinoid and its metabolites in different matrices.
| Target analyte | Matrixa | Recovery (%)b | LOD (ng L−1) | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| THC-COOH | INF | 51 ± 1 | 0.5 | Castiglioni et al. (2006) |
| EFF | 61 ± 4 | 0.3 | ||
| THC | SW | 44 | 2.1 | Boleda et al. (2007) |
| INF | 42 | 2.5 | ||
| THC-COOH | SW | 86 | 3.0 | |
| INF | 96 | 3.8 | ||
| THC | INF | 9 | 3.4 | Postigo et al. (2008) |
| THC-OH | INF | 37 | 1.5 | |
| THC-COOH | INF | 13 | 1.1 | |
| THC-COOH | SW | 68 | 30 | Bijlsma et al. (2009) |
| INF | – | 2500 | ||
| EFF | – | 500 | ||
| THC | SW | – | 0.9 | González-Mariño et al. (2010) |
| INF | – | 3 | ||
| EFF | – | 3 | ||
| THC-COOH | SW | – | 1 | |
| INF | – | 1 | ||
| EFF | – | 1 | ||
| THC-COOH | INF | 81 | 20 | Terzic et al. (2010) |
| EFF | 123 | 53 | ||
| THC | SW | 60 ± 11 | 1.2 | Mackuľak et al., 2014, Mackuľak et al., 2015, Mackuľak et al., 2016 |
| THC-COOH | SW | 67 ± 13 | 1.5 | |
| THC | DW | 65 | 6 | Boleda et al. (2011b) |
| THC-OH | DW | 70 | 3 | |
| THC-COOH | DW | 73 | 15 | |
| THC | INF | – | 30 | Gerrity et al. (2011) |
| THC-COOH | INF | – | 30 | |
| THC-COOH | SW | 38 | 1 | Pedrouzo et al. (2011) |
| INF | 25 | 50 | ||
| EFF | 30 | 5 | ||
| THC | Ultrapure water | 90 ± 27 | 0.1 | González-Mariño et al. (2012) |
| INF | 105 ± 21 | 50 | ||
| EFF | 115 ± 8 | 20 | ||
| THC-COOH | Ultrapure water | 117 ± 1 | 0.1 | |
| INF | 107 ± 11 | 50 | ||
| EFF | 124 ± 8 | 20 | ||
| THC | SW INF EFF SW INF EFF | 94 104 98 96 112 92 | - | Racamonde et al. (2012) |
| INF | 104 | 1.0 | ||
| EFF | 98 | – | ||
| THC-COOH | SW | 96 | – | |
| INF | 112 | 2.5 | ||
| EFF | 92 | – | ||
| THC | INF | – | 108 | Mackuľak et al., 2014, Mackuľak et al., 2015, Mackuľak et al., 2016 |
| EFF | – | 54 | ||
| THC-OH | INF | – | 20 | |
| EFF | – | 11 | ||
| THC-COOH | INF | – | 10 | |
| EFF | – | 2 | ||
| THC THC-OH CBD CBN | Sludge | 130 | 3.1 ng g−1 | Mastroianni et al. (2013) |
| THC-OH | Sludge | 115 | 6.4 ng g−1 | |
| CBD | Sludge | 99 | 3.5 ng g−1 | |
| CBN | Sludge | 127 | 6.0 ng g−1 | |
| THC-COOH | INF | 61 | 5 | Nefau et al. (2013) |
| THC-OH | INF | 70 | 1.8 | Senta et al. (2013) |
| EFF | 63 | 1.2 | ||
| Sludge | 24 | 1.5 ng g1 | ||
| THC-COOH | INF | 31 | 2.5 | |
| EFF | 65 | 1.2 | ||
| Sludge | 30 | 0.5 ng g−1 | ||
| THC | DW | 63 | 0.03 | Carmona et al. (2014) |
| SW | 0.09 | |||
| EFF | 0.15 | |||
| Sediment | 0.24 ng g−1 | |||
| THC-COOH | DW | 0.03 | ||
| SW | 0.15 | |||
| EFF | 0.3 | |||
| Sediment | 0.4 ng g−1 | |||
| THC-COOH | INF | – | 2 | Mackuľak et al., 2014, Mackuľak et al., 2015, Mackuľak et al., 2016 |
| THC-COOH | Ultrapure water | – | 75 | Östman et al. (2014) |
| THC-COOH | INF | 66 ± 7 | 9.4 | Andrés-Costa et al. (2014) |
| THC | INF | 97 | 0.6 | Heuett et al. (2015) |
| THC-COOH | INF | 122 | 1.3 | |
| THC-COOH | INF | – | 6 | Gatidou et al. (2016) |
| THC | GW | 98 | 3.6 | Mastroianni et al. (2016) |
| THC-OH | GW | 99 | 1.6 | |
| THC-COOH | GW | 109 | 3.3 | |
| CBD | GW | 92 | 3.3 | |
| CBN | GW | 102 | 2.7 | |
| THC-COOH | SW | – | 2.5 | Yao et al. (2016) |
| INF | – | 5 | ||
| THC | SW | 72 ± 17 | 30 | Andrés-Costa et al. (2016) |
| INF | 61 ± 15 | 50 | ||
| EFF | 59 ± 15 | 35 | ||
| THC-COOH | SW | 78 ± 19 | 25 | |
| INF | 66 ± 17 | 45 | ||
| EFF | 67 ± 19 | 30 | ||
| THC | SW/INF | 25 | 11 | Jacox et al. (2017) |
| THC-COOH | SW/INF | 67 | 11 |
a
INF: wastewater influent; EFF: wastewater effluent; SW: surface water; GW: groundwater; DW: drinking water.
b
’-’ Not reported.