Evaluating Leaves and Flowers for Medicinal Applications

Overview

This source page is a mechanical bulk-ingest record for a PDF in the research-pulls corpus. It preserves source-level identity, routeable product/analyte scope, and exact extracted numeric lines for later human or fresh-context audit. It does not derive HMTc thresholds, percentiles, or brand-by-brand comparisons.

Key numbers

The worker extracted the full PDF text with layout preservation twice and compared extraction hashes before commit. The following lines are copied from numeric/table-bearing regions of the PDF and retain the source units and wording where legible:

analysis and quality control samples showed loss on drying (5.12 ± 0.13%), total ash (14.41 ± 0.43%), acid-
prarameters of Cannabis insoluble ash (1.21 ± 0.08%), ethanol-soluble extractives (3.24 ± 0.06%), and
sativa L. subsp. sativa: water-soluble extractives (21.75 ± 0.38%), while flower samples yielded values
Evaluation leaves and flowers of 5.25±0.01%, 12.61 ± 0.14%, 1.08 ± 0.08%, 4.06 ± 0.02%, and 19.51 ± 0.27%,
contamination levels within acceptable limits, with total aerobic counts (8.4 ×
20, 2025 (0.05-0.11 ppm), cadmium (≤0.01 ppm), lead (0.17-0.84 ppm), and mercury
macerated with 100 mL of water or 95% ethanol in stoppered flasks for 24 hours with frequent agitation. The
of 95% ethanol for 24 hours, filtering, and concentrating. The extracts (3 μL) were spotted on silica gel 60 GF254
features that facilitate its authentication and quality assessment (Table 1, Fig. 1). The leaves exhibited a
Table 1. Macroscopic Characteristics of Cannabis sativa L. subsp. sativa Leaves and Flowers
histological characteristics essential for authentication and quality assessment (Table 2, Figure 2). The leaf
Table 2. Microscopic Characteristics of Cannabis sativa L. subsp. sativa Leaf and Flower Powders
systematically evaluated to establish quality specifications and ensure consistency (Table 3, Figure 3). These
(5.12±0.13%) and flower (5.25±0.01%) samples were comparable and significantly below the pharmacopoeial
limit of 10.0%. These findings suggest that proper drying and storage conditions minimize the risk of microbial
below 10% is essential for preserving the stability of cannabinoids, particularly THC, which can degrade to
after complete incineration, was determined to be 14.41±0.43% and 12.61±0.14% for leaves and flowers,
respectively. These values fall within the acceptable limit of 15.0% established by the WHO (13) for herbal
ash values (1.21±0.08% for leaves, 1.08±0.08% for flowers) were well below the 2.0% limit, indicating minimal
material. Water-soluble extractives were notably high for both leaves (21.75±0.38%) and flowers (19.51±0.27%),
exceeding the minimum requirement of 18.0% specified in the Indian Pharmacopoeia (18) for medicinal plants.
compounds such as cannabinoids, terpenes, and resins, were measured at 3.24±0.06% for leaves and
4.06±0.02% for flowers. Both values exceed the minimum requirement of 3.0% established for medicinal
parameters across replicate samples (n = 3) further attests to the uniformity of the plant material. As Kunle et al. (7)
Table 3. Physicochemical Parameters of Cannabis sativa L. subsp. sativa Compared to Pharmacopoeial Standards
NLT = Not Less Than. Values expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n=3)
flowers relative to pharmacopoeial standards. Values represent mean ± SD (n=3). LOD = loss on drying;
and flower extracts (Table 5, Fig. 5). Both plant parts demonstrated similar qualitative profiles with notable
Table 5. Phytochemical Screening Results of Cannabis sativa L. subsp. sativa Extracts
Tannins 3% gelatin solution - -
within acceptable pharmacopoeial limits (Table 6, Fig. 6). The total aerobic microbial count (TAMC) for both
Table 6. Microbial Contamination Analysis of Cannabis sativa L. subsp. Sativa
pharmacopoeial limits. Bars represent mean values (n=3). No pathogenic bacteria were detected in
were determined to be 0.05 ppm in leaves and 0.11 ppm in flowers, substantially below the WHO (6)
permissible limit of 4.0 ppm. This finding aligns with Zerihun et al. (63), who reported similarly low arsenic
were minimal in both plant parts (0.01 ppm in leaves, <0.01 ppm in flowers), representing less than 4% of the
permissible limit of 0.3 ppm. These values are comparable to those reported by Linger et al. (65), who found
cadmium concentrations below 0.05 ppm in cannabis grown in uncontaminated agricultural soil. The low
demonstrated in phytoremediation studies by Citterio et al. (66). Lead content was measured at 0.84 ppm in
representing less than 10% of the safety threshold established by international regulatory bodies (29).
Mercury concentrations were determined to be 0.09 ppm in leaves and 0.23 ppm in flowers. The leaf
content falls comfortably below the WHO (6) permissible limit of 0.2 ppm, whereas the flower content

Methods (brief)

analysis and quality control samples showed loss on drying (5.12 ± 0.13%), total ash (14.41 ± 0.43%), acid-
sativa L. subsp. sativa: water-soluble extractives (21.75 ± 0.38%), while flower samples yielded values
Dried samples of Cannabis sativa L. subsp. Sativa plants were harvested from Tak province, Thailand, under
(Pharm.RSU.30) and deposited at the Department of Pharmacognosy, Rangsit University. Samples were
Microscopic examination was performed on powdered samples using the techniques described by
Evans (15). Samples were prepared by treating them with a chloral hydrate solution and then mounted in
Pharmacopeia (17). Triplicate samples (3 g) of powdered material were accurately weighed in pre-dried, tarred
triplicate samples (3 g) were incinerated in silica crucibles at 500°C for 5 hours until carbon-free ash was
method described in the Indian Pharmacopoeia of 2018 (18). Accurately weighed powdered samples (5 g) were
(19) with modifications. Ethanolic extracts were prepared by macerating 1 g of powdered sample with 20 mL
guidelines (6). Samples were tested for total aerobic microbial count (TAMC) using plate count agar, yeast,
absorption spectrophotometry (AAS). Powdered samples (1 g) were digested with 20 mL of concentrated nitric
acid using a microwave digestion system (MARS 6, CEM Corporation). The digested solutions were filtered,
(Hg) using a Perkin Elmer PinAAcle 900T atomic absorption spectrometer. Calibration curves were prepared
structures. The floral material exhibited significantly higher trichome density than leaf samples, appearing as
revealed that the flower samples possessed a more intense, pungent aroma than the leaf material, consistent
samples, supporting Mahlberg and Kim (24) observations regarding differential trichome distribution across
measuring 25-35 μm in diameter with a smooth exine, were occasionally observed in male flower samples,

Implications

This page makes the source discoverable for category-level evidence routing. Values remain source-native and should be used only with the stated matrix, species, basis, geography, and censoring context from the paper. The page does not convert total mercury to methylmercury or use total arsenic as inorganic arsenic.

Wiki pages this source may touch

Verification notes

Identity check: DOI, raw handle, candidate cite-key, and SHA-256 were compared against existing wiki/sources/ pages before creation.
Full-PDF read: pdftotext -layout was run on the full PDF twice; extracted text hashes matched before the page was written.
Numeric verification: numeric/table-bearing lines were selected mechanically from the verified extraction and preserved without unit conversion or rounding.
Brand firewall: the worker skips PDFs when extracted numeric lines appear brand/manufacturer-sensitive; this page contains category-level or species-level evidence only.
HMTc firewall: no threshold, percentile, pass/fail, clean/dirty, or certification math is stated.

Update history

The five most recent substantive edits to this page, classified major (evidence or structure moved), correction (a published value or statement was wrong and has been fixed), or minor (narrative rewritten without changing the underlying evidence). Each description is derived from what the edit did to this page; the linked commit is the authoritative record, routine regeneration passes are excluded, and the full version history lives in git. When DOI minting comes online (see schema docs), each entry below will also link to a version-pinned DataCite DOI.

Commit	Date	Change	Description
b01ec52c	2026-08-04	major	2 sections added
d49e450f	2026-08-03	major	5 sections added; narrative text revised