You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Understanding dabs: contamination concerns of cannabis concentrates and cannabinoid transfer during the act of dabbing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Toxicological Sciences, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2131/jts.40.797 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jeffrey C. Raber, Sytze Elzinga, Charles Kaplan |
| Abstract |
Cannabis concentrates are gaining rapid popularity in the California medical cannabis market. These extracts are increasingly being consumed via a new inhalation method called 'dabbing'. The act of consuming one dose is colloquially referred to as "doing a dab". This paper investigates cannabinoid transfer efficiency, chemical composition and contamination of concentrated cannabis extracts used for dabbing. The studied concentrates represent material available in the California medical cannabis market. Fifty seven (57) concentrate samples were screened for cannabinoid content and the presence of residual solvents or pesticides. Considerable residual solvent and pesticide contamination were found in these concentrates. Over 80% of the concentrate samples were contaminated in some form. THC max concentrations ranged from 23.7% to 75.9% with the exception of one outlier containing 2.7% THC and 47.7% CBD. Up to 40% of the theoretically available THC could be captured in the vapor stream of a dab during inhalation experiments. Dabbing offers immediate physiological relief to patients in need but may also be more prone to abuse by recreational users seeking a more rapid and intense physiological effect. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 3 | 30% |
| Spain | 2 | 20% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 10% |
| United States | 1 | 10% |
| Czechia | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 2 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 90% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 165 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 162 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 25 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 23 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 8% |
| Other | 27 | 16% |
| Unknown | 37 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 10% |
| Psychology | 16 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 14 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 6% |
| Chemistry | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 46 | 28% |
| Unknown | 52 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 55. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 April 2023.
All research outputs
#773,638
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Toxicological Sciences
#8
of 575 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,774
of 359,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Toxicological Sciences
#2
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 575 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 359,538 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.