Estudio Botánico y Químico de THC en muestras de Cannabis Sativa L. Una experiencia en Venezuela.
nº23 [2da octubre 2009 ] Retel22/10/2009
María Luisa Di Bernardo1, Yasmin Coromoto Morales2, Néstor Uzcateguí1, Yoselyn Rojas1, Edgar Leonida Arellano2, Karibay Rivas3.
1GITAEF Grupo de Investigación en Toxicología Analítica y Estudios Farmacológicos. Facultad de Farmacia y Bioanálisis. Universidad de Los Andes. Mérida- República Bolivariana de Venezuela. girard@ula.ve
2CICPC. Cuerpo de Investigaciones Científicas, Penales y Criminalística. Laboratorio de Toxicología. Delegación Mérida- República Bolivariana de Venezuela. dancar2men@gmail.com
3CICPC. Cuerpo de Investigaciones Científicas, Penales y Criminalística. Dirección Nacional de Ciencias Forenses-Bello Monte-Distrito Capital. República Bolivariana de Venezuela.
Correspondencia de autor. Dra. María Luisa Di Bernardo. e-mail girard@ula.ve y/o Experto Profesional Toxicólogo Farm. Yasmin Coromoto Morales. e-mail: dancar2men@gmail.com
2CICPC. Cuerpo de Investigaciones Científicas, Penales y Criminalística. Laboratorio de Toxicología. Delegación Mérida- República Bolivariana de Venezuela. dancar2men@gmail.com
3CICPC. Cuerpo de Investigaciones Científicas, Penales y Criminalística. Dirección Nacional de Ciencias Forenses-Bello Monte-Distrito Capital. República Bolivariana de Venezuela.
Correspondencia de autor. Dra. María Luisa Di Bernardo. e-mail girard@ula.ve y/o Experto Profesional Toxicólogo Farm. Yasmin Coromoto Morales. e-mail: dancar2men@gmail.com
Resumen
En el presente trabajo se estudiaron botánicamente y químicamente 12 especies vegetales frescas y secas, denominadas coloquialmente por sus consumidores “supermarihuana” o crispy, debido a los marcados efectos que la misma produce en ellos. Para diferenciar terminológicamente la marihuana clásica y esta, adoptaremos esa denominación para las muestras bajo estudio. Ocho (08) de las muestras analizadas fueron producto de incautaciones del CICPC específicamente Delegación Mérida-Venezuela y comparadas con cuatro (04) muestras enviadas por la Dirección Nacional de Ciencias Forenses al grupo GITAEF y Laboratorio de Toxicología del CICPC-Mérida para su respectiva identificación y análisis interlaboratorios.
Se identifico botánicamente la especie, corroborando que se trataba de Cannabis sativa, probablemente genéticamente modificada (GM), tal vez con fines de otorgarle alguna característica específica a su principio psicoactivo, constituyendo entonces un producto de la ingeniería genética moderna.
Posteriormente se sometió análisis químicos tales como: ensayos colorimétricos, CCF, EUV, CG acoplada a masas, comparativos con la especie común o marihuana clásica, no evidenciando diferencias en su composición química, mas si, en el contenido porcentual de tetrahidrocannabinol (THC), en relación promedio de 1/4 por gramo de planta. La concentración de THC en fresco de la “supermarihuana” está en el orden de 20-30%, en seco en el orden de 10-15%. La marihuana clásica en seco analizada en 4,8 %. Reportando la literatura concentraciones por el orden de 2-6%.
Importante destacar que la planta comúnmente cultivada no responde a análisis químico en fresco, sin embargo, “supermarihuana” si, este comportamiento puede explicarse por el crecimiento y envejecimiento acelerado de la planta sin someterla a polinización con su planta macho o bien por su alta concentración en cannabinoles y resinas. Elucidar este comportamiento actualmente es objeto de estudio por parte de nuestro grupo de investigaciones.
Palabras claves: Organismo genéticamente modificado, ingeniería genética, Cannabis sativa, marihuana, THC, supermarihuana, crispy
Descargar Archivo PDF (456 KB)
Abstract
Botanical and Chemical Study of THC in samples of Cannabis sativa L. An
experience in Venezuela.
In the present work 12 fresh and dry vegetal species studied botanical and chemically, denominated colloquially by their consumers “supermarijuana” or crispy, due to the noticeable effects that the same produces in them. In order very terminologically to differentiate one from another one of now, that is to say the classic marijuana and this, in future we will adopt that denomination for the samples under study. Eight (08) of the analyzed samples were product of seizures of the CICPC specifically Merida-Venezuelan Delegation it and compared with four (04) samples sent by the National Direction of Forensic Sciences group GITAEF and Laboratory of Toxicology of the CICPC-Merida for its respective identification and analysis interlaboratories. I botanical identify the species, corroborating that was Cannabis sativa, probably genetically modified (GM), perhaps with aims to grant some specific characteristic to him to its psychoactive principle, constituting a product of the modern genetic engeneering. Later chemical analyses were put under such as: colorimetric tests, CCF, EUV, CG coupled to masses, comparative with the common species or classic marijuana, not demonstrating differences in its chemical composition, chemistry, but if, in the percentage content of tetrahidrocannabinol (THC), in relation average of 1/4 by gram of plant. The fresh concentration of THC in of “supermarijuana” is in the order of 20-30% with respect to the classic one. In dry by the order of 10-15%.
Important to emphasize that the plant commonly worked does not respond to chemical analysis in fresh, nevertheless, “supermarijuana” if, this behavior can explain by the growth and accelerated aging of the plant without putting under it pollination with its male plant or by its high concentration in cannabinols and resins.
To elucidate this behavior at the moment is object of study on the part of our group of investigations.
Key Word: Organism genetically modified, genetic engeneering, Cannabis sativa, marijuana, THC, supermarijuana, crispy
Download PDF (456 KB)
In the present work 12 fresh and dry vegetal species studied botanical and chemically, denominated colloquially by their consumers “supermarijuana” or crispy, due to the noticeable effects that the same produces in them. In order very terminologically to differentiate one from another one of now, that is to say the classic marijuana and this, in future we will adopt that denomination for the samples under study. Eight (08) of the analyzed samples were product of seizures of the CICPC specifically Merida-Venezuelan Delegation it and compared with four (04) samples sent by the National Direction of Forensic Sciences group GITAEF and Laboratory of Toxicology of the CICPC-Merida for its respective identification and analysis interlaboratories. I botanical identify the species, corroborating that was Cannabis sativa, probably genetically modified (GM), perhaps with aims to grant some specific characteristic to him to its psychoactive principle, constituting a product of the modern genetic engeneering. Later chemical analyses were put under such as: colorimetric tests, CCF, EUV, CG coupled to masses, comparative with the common species or classic marijuana, not demonstrating differences in its chemical composition, chemistry, but if, in the percentage content of tetrahidrocannabinol (THC), in relation average of 1/4 by gram of plant. The fresh concentration of THC in of “supermarijuana” is in the order of 20-30% with respect to the classic one. In dry by the order of 10-15%.
Important to emphasize that the plant commonly worked does not respond to chemical analysis in fresh, nevertheless, “supermarijuana” if, this behavior can explain by the growth and accelerated aging of the plant without putting under it pollination with its male plant or by its high concentration in cannabinols and resins.
To elucidate this behavior at the moment is object of study on the part of our group of investigations.
Key Word: Organism genetically modified, genetic engeneering, Cannabis sativa, marijuana, THC, supermarijuana, crispy
Download PDF (456 KB)