<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Céline Duchateau</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cedric De Leersnijder</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sophia Barhdadi</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Michael Canfyn</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">De Braekeleer, Kris</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Eric Deconinck</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Discrepancies between validated GC‐FID and UHPLC‐DAD methods for the analysis of Δ‐9‐THC and CBD in dried hemp flowers</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Drug Testing and Analysis</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">agricultural hemp</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">GC-FID</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">herbal product for smoking</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">UHPLC-DAD</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2022</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10/2022</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">14</style></volume><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10</style></issue></record></records></xml>