Drug Testing and Analysis
Short communication Received: 16 November 2013
Revised: 2 February 2014
Accepted: 15 February 2014
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(www.drugtestinganalysis.com) DOI 10.1002/dta.1641
Detectability of new psychoactive substances, ‘legal highs’, in CEDIA, EMIT, and KIMS immunochemical screening assays for drugs of abuse Olof Beck,a* Linnea Rausberg,a Yasir Al-Saffar,a Tomas Villen,a Lennart Karlsson,b Therese Hanssonc and Anders Helandera The increasing number of new psychoactive substances made available for recreational drug use has created a challenge for clinical toxicology and drug testing laboratories. As a consequence, the routine immunoassay drug testing may become less effective due to an increased occurrence of false negative and false positive screening results. This work aimed to extend the knowledge about analytical cross-reactivity of new substances in selected CEDIA, EMIT, and KIMS immunoassays for drugs-ofabuse screening. Urine standards were prepared by spiking blank urine with 45 new substances. Authentic urine samples from intoxication cases identified by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) were also studied. Several new psychoactive substances were demonstrated to display cross-reactivity in the immunoassays. CEDIA Amphetamine/Ecstasy and EMIT d.a.u. Amphetamine Class tests showed the highest reactivity towards the new drugs, which was expected since many have amphetamine-like structure and activity. In the samples from authentic cases, five new substances displayed 100% detection rate in the CEDIA Amphetamine/Ecstasy test. In conclusion, cross-reactivity data in routine urine drug screening immunoassays for a number of new psychoactive substances not studied before were reported. In both spiked and authentic urine samples, some new substances showed significant cross-reactivity and are thus detectable in the routine screening methods. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Keywords: CEDIA; EMIT; KIMS; immunoassay; urine; drug testing; new psychoactive substances; drug screening
Introduction The increasing use and abuse of new psychoactive substances (NPS) has created an analytical challenge for clinical toxicology and drug testing laboratories aiming to keep a high detection rate and identify reasons for ‘false’ positive test results. According to information gathered by EMCDDA, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction,[1] 24 new recreational drugs were reported for the first time in 2009, 41 in 2010, 49 in 2011, and 73 in 2012. The NPS were originally known as ‘designer drugs’ but are currently called ‘legal highs’, ‘smart drugs’, or ‘Internet drugs’. Urine drug screening has traditionally been performed by immunoassays but chromatographic methods with mass spectrometric detection are today’s choice also for screening of NPS in forensic and clinical testing.[2–7] The NPS may, however, show cross-reactivity in the commercial reagents because they are often chemically related to the classic narcotics, and because of a lack of absolute selectivity of the antibodies used.[8] Ever since the abuse of ecstasy started to evolve, there has been an interest in documenting the cross-reactivity of NPS in established immunochemical screening methods.[9–13] Two recently published studies on the cross-reactivity of a large number of NPS in the CEDIA, AxSYM, and EMIT tests for amphetamine reported significant response for several new substances.[14,15] This work aimed to confirm and further extend the number of NPS and immunochemical tests evaluated for cross-reactivity. All
Drug Test. Analysis (2014)
available substances being considered as NPS were included. In addition to spiked urine, samples from authentic cases of intoxication were studied in order to verify that cross-reactivity to a given substance occurs also for the parent compound and metabolite pattern excreted in urine.
Materials and methods Chemicals Naphthylpyrovalerone (naphyrone), ethylphenidate, 4’-methyl-αpyrrolidinopropiophenone (MPPP) and N-ethyl-(4-bromo-2,5dimethoxyphenyl)ethylamine (N-ethyl-2C-B) were purchased from web shops and analyzed at the Swedish National Laboratory of Forensic Science (Linköping, Sweden). Chemical identities were
* Correspondence to: Olof Beck, Department of Laboratory Medicine, section of Clinical Pharmacology, Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, SE-14186 Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail: [email protected] a Department of Laboratory Medicine, section of Clinical Pharmacology, Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden b Department of Forensic Genetics and Forensic Toxicology, National Board of Forensic Medicine, Linköping, Sweden c Department of Laboratory Medicine, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Drug Testing and Analysis
O. Beck et al. confirmed with NMR. The structures of these four compounds are presented in Fig. 1. Other NPS reference materials were obtained from commercial sources as compiled in Table 1. Formic acid (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) was of ACS, Reag. PhEur grade. Methanol (JT Baker, Tamro, Finland) was of BakerAnalyzed reagent grade. Acetonitrile (VWR International, Radnor, USA) was of HPLC gradient grade. Ultra-pure water (>18 MΩ/cm) was prepared in-house using MILLI-Q water purification system (Millipore Corp., Bedford, MA, USA). Preparation of urine standards
Figure 1. Chemical structure of the four substances purchased on the Internet and characterized by NMR.
Stock solutions of reference substances were either obtained as ampoulled solutions in methanol/acetonitrile or were prepared in-house by weighing using a calibrated balance and preparing
Table 1. Reference materials obtained from commercial sources Substance
Abbreviation
Methylenedioxypyrovalerone 1-Benzylpiperazine 4-Fluorotropacocaine alpha-Pyrrolidinopropiophenone alpha-Pyrrolidinovalerophenone para-Methoxyamphetamine para-Methoxymethamphetamine β-keto-N-Methylbenzodioxolylbutanamine 3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-methylcathinone 4-Fluoroamphetamine 4-Methoxymethcathinone Desoxypipradol α-Methylamino-butyrophenone N,N-Diisopropyltryptamine Methoxetamine β-keto-Methylbenzodioxolylpentanamine 3-Fluoromethcathinone 4-Fluoromethcathinone 3,4-Dimethylmethcathinone 4-Methylethcathinone 5-(2-aminopropyl)Indole 5-(2-aminopropyl)Benzofuran 6-(2-aminopropyl)Benzofuran (3-diethylamino-2,2-dimethylpropyl)-4-Aminobenzoate 3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-ethylcathinone 1-(thiophen-2-yl)-2-Methylaminopropane, methiopropamine para-Fluorophenylpiperazine Etizolam Meta-chlorophenylpiperazine N,N-Dimethyltryptamine 2-Fluoroamphetamine 2-Fluorometamphetamine 3-Trifluoromethylphenylpiperazine 4-Methylamphetamine 3-Fluoromethamphetamine 4-Fluoromethamphetamine α-Methylaminovalerophenone 5,6-Methylenedioxy-2-aminoindane 4-Acetylpsilocin 4-Hydroxy-N-methyl-N-ethyltryptamine Mitragynine
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/dta
Source
MDPV 1-BZP pFBT α-PPP α-PVP PMA PMMA Butylone Methylone 4-FA Methedrone 2-DPMP Buphedrone DIPT MXE Pentylone 3-FMC 4-FMC 3,4-DMMC 4-MEC 5-IT 5-APB 6-APB Dimethocaine Ethylone MPA pFPP
Cerilliant Co., Round Rock, TX, USA
mCPP DMT 2-FA 2-FMA TFMPP 4-MA 3-FMA 4-FMA Pentedrone MDAI 4-AcO-DMT 4-OH-MET -
Australian Government National Measurement Institute, North Ryde, Australia
LGC Standards, Teddington, UK
Cayman Chemical Co, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Chiron AS, Trondheim, Norway THC Pharm GmbH, Frankfurt, Germany ChromaDex Inc., Irvine, CA, USA
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Drug Test. Analysis (2014)
Drug Test. Analysis (2014)
1-Benzylpiperazine 1-(Thiophen-2-yl)-2-methylaminopropane 2-Fluoroamphetamine 2-Fluoromethamphetamine (3-Diethylamino-2,2-dimethylpropyl)-4-aminobenzoate 3,4-Dimethylmethcathinone 3-Fluoromethamphetamine 3-Fluoromethcathinone 3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-ethylcathinone 3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-methylcathinone 4-Acetylpsilocin 4-Fluoroamphetamine 4-Fluorotropacocaine 4-Fluoromethamphetamine 4-Fluoromethcathinone 4-Methoxymethcathinone 4-Methylamphetamine 4-Methylethcathinone 4-Hydroxy-N-methyl-N-ethyltryptamine 5-(2-aminopropyl)benzofuran 5-(2-Aminopropyl)indole 5,6-Methylenedioxy-2-aminoindane 6-(2-Aminopropyl)benzofuran α-Methylamino-butyrophenone α-Methylaminovalerophenone α-Pyrrolidinopropiophenone α-Pyrrolidinovalerophenone β-Keto-methylbenzodioxolylpentanamine β-Keto-N-methylbenzodioxolylbutanamine
1 2
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
29
23 24 25 26 27 28
20 21 22
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
10
6 7 8 9
3 4 5
Substance
Nr
Butylone
6-APB Buphedrone Pentedrone α-PPP α-PVP Pentylone
5-APB 5-IT MDAI
4-AcO-DMT 4-FA pFBT 4-FMA 4-FMC Methedrone 4-MA 4-MEC 4-OH-MET
Methylone
3,4-DMMC 3-FMA 3-FMC Ethylone
2-FA 2-FMA Dimethocaine
1-BZP MPA
Alternative name
+
+ +
+ + -
+ + + -
-
+ -
+ + -
+
Amph./Ecstasy Cut-off 500 ng/mL
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Benzo. Hydr. Cut-off 200 ng/mL
CEDIA
-
+ -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cut-off 25 ng/mL
Cut-off 150 ng/mL -
PCP
Cocaine
-
++ + -
++ + ()
++ ++ + ++ () -
-
() ++ + -
++ ++ -
() ++
Amph. Class Cut-off 300 ng/mL
EMIT-d.a.u.*
Table 2. Summary of CEDIA, EMIT and KIMS immunoassay cross-reactivities towards new psychoactive substances at 10,000 ng/mL concentration KIMS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Benzo. Hydr. Cut-off 200 ng/mL
(Continues)
KIMS: THC (50) Cocaine (300) Methadone (300) Opiates (300) Propoxyphene (300)
EMIT-2 Plus: Cocaine (300) Opiates (300)
CEDIA: Barbiturates (200) Propoxyphene (300) THC (25) Buprenorphine (5) LSD (0.5) Opiates (300)
Assays showing negative result for all substances (applied cut-off, ng/mL)
Cross-reactivity of new psychoactive substances
Drug Testing and Analysis
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/dta
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/dta
Desoxypipradol Etizolam Ethylphenidate Meta-chlorophenylpiperazine 4’-Methyl-α-pyrrolidinopropiophenone Methylenedioxypyrovalerone Mitragynine Methoxetamine Naphthylpyrovalerone N,N-Diisopropyltryptamine N,N-Dimethyltryptamine N-Ethyl-(4-bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)ethylamine para-Fluorophenylpiperazine para-Methoxyamphetamine para-Methoxymethamphetamine 3-Trifluoromethylphenylpiperazine
30 31 32 33 34
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
•
p-FPP PMA PMMA TFMPP
MXE Naphyrone DiPT DMT N-Ethyl-2-CB
MDPV
mCPP MPPP
2-DPMP
Alternative name
+ + +
-
+ -
Amph./Ecstasy Cut-off 500 ng/mL
() indicates a response above the 25% control; ++ indicates a response above 29 mAU
42 43 44 45
35 36 37 38 39 40 41
Substance
Nr
Table 2. (Continued)
-
-
+ -
Benzo. Hydr. Cut-off 200 ng/mL
CEDIA
-
-
-
-
+ -
Cut-off 150 ng/mL -
PCP Cut-off 25 ng/mL
Cocaine
() () () -
-
() -
Amph. Class Cut-off 300 ng/mL
EMIT-d.a.u.*
-
-
+ -
Benzo. Hydr. Cut-off 200 ng/mL
KIMS
Drug Testing and Analysis O. Beck et al.
Drug Test. Analysis (2014)
Drug Testing and Analysis
Cross-reactivity of new psychoactive substances methanol solutions of 100–2000 μg/mL in a measuring glass. For some solutions, dilute formic acid was used for acidification and acetonitrile was used for pFBT. Solutions of 10 000 and 30 000 ng/mL of each substance were prepared by diluting the stock solution with human blank urine. Lower concentrations were prepared by serial 1:2 dilutions using the same blank urine. Blank urine The pooled blank urine was collected from laboratory personnel of both genders reporting to be drug-free, and was filtered (0.45 μm) and stored at -20°C. The blank urine had no response (0.6%) above detection limit but below cut-off when studied at concentration 30000 ng/mL: 3-FMC, 4-FMC, DMT, MDAI, 2-DPMP, MDPV, naphyrone, 3,4-DMMC, 4-MEC. All other substances gave blank readings. CEDIA® Benzodiazepine Assay, cut-off 200 ng/mL: Etizolam 237 All other substances gave blank readings (0.005%) above detection limit but below cut-off when studied at concentration 30000 ng/mL: 3,4-DMMC, 4-MA, 4-MEC, 4-OH-MET, dimethocaine, DMT, ethylon, MDAI, methedrone, mitragynin, naphyrone, pentylone. All other substances gave blank readings. CEDIA® Phencyclidine (PCP) Assay, cut-off 25 ng/mL: 2-DPMP 0.6 4500 26 The following substances showed cross reactivity (>0.03%) above detection limit but below cut-off when studied at concentration 30000 ng/mL: MXE All other substances gave blank readings. CEDIA® Cocaine Assay, cut-off 150 ng/mL: α-PPP 5.4 MPPP 1.2 All other substances gave blank readings (
Short communication Received: 16 November 2013
Revised: 2 February 2014
Accepted: 15 February 2014
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(www.drugtestinganalysis.com) DOI 10.1002/dta.1641
Detectability of new psychoactive substances, ‘legal highs’, in CEDIA, EMIT, and KIMS immunochemical screening assays for drugs of abuse Olof Beck,a* Linnea Rausberg,a Yasir Al-Saffar,a Tomas Villen,a Lennart Karlsson,b Therese Hanssonc and Anders Helandera The increasing number of new psychoactive substances made available for recreational drug use has created a challenge for clinical toxicology and drug testing laboratories. As a consequence, the routine immunoassay drug testing may become less effective due to an increased occurrence of false negative and false positive screening results. This work aimed to extend the knowledge about analytical cross-reactivity of new substances in selected CEDIA, EMIT, and KIMS immunoassays for drugs-ofabuse screening. Urine standards were prepared by spiking blank urine with 45 new substances. Authentic urine samples from intoxication cases identified by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) were also studied. Several new psychoactive substances were demonstrated to display cross-reactivity in the immunoassays. CEDIA Amphetamine/Ecstasy and EMIT d.a.u. Amphetamine Class tests showed the highest reactivity towards the new drugs, which was expected since many have amphetamine-like structure and activity. In the samples from authentic cases, five new substances displayed 100% detection rate in the CEDIA Amphetamine/Ecstasy test. In conclusion, cross-reactivity data in routine urine drug screening immunoassays for a number of new psychoactive substances not studied before were reported. In both spiked and authentic urine samples, some new substances showed significant cross-reactivity and are thus detectable in the routine screening methods. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Keywords: CEDIA; EMIT; KIMS; immunoassay; urine; drug testing; new psychoactive substances; drug screening
Introduction The increasing use and abuse of new psychoactive substances (NPS) has created an analytical challenge for clinical toxicology and drug testing laboratories aiming to keep a high detection rate and identify reasons for ‘false’ positive test results. According to information gathered by EMCDDA, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction,[1] 24 new recreational drugs were reported for the first time in 2009, 41 in 2010, 49 in 2011, and 73 in 2012. The NPS were originally known as ‘designer drugs’ but are currently called ‘legal highs’, ‘smart drugs’, or ‘Internet drugs’. Urine drug screening has traditionally been performed by immunoassays but chromatographic methods with mass spectrometric detection are today’s choice also for screening of NPS in forensic and clinical testing.[2–7] The NPS may, however, show cross-reactivity in the commercial reagents because they are often chemically related to the classic narcotics, and because of a lack of absolute selectivity of the antibodies used.[8] Ever since the abuse of ecstasy started to evolve, there has been an interest in documenting the cross-reactivity of NPS in established immunochemical screening methods.[9–13] Two recently published studies on the cross-reactivity of a large number of NPS in the CEDIA, AxSYM, and EMIT tests for amphetamine reported significant response for several new substances.[14,15] This work aimed to confirm and further extend the number of NPS and immunochemical tests evaluated for cross-reactivity. All
Drug Test. Analysis (2014)
available substances being considered as NPS were included. In addition to spiked urine, samples from authentic cases of intoxication were studied in order to verify that cross-reactivity to a given substance occurs also for the parent compound and metabolite pattern excreted in urine.
Materials and methods Chemicals Naphthylpyrovalerone (naphyrone), ethylphenidate, 4’-methyl-αpyrrolidinopropiophenone (MPPP) and N-ethyl-(4-bromo-2,5dimethoxyphenyl)ethylamine (N-ethyl-2C-B) were purchased from web shops and analyzed at the Swedish National Laboratory of Forensic Science (Linköping, Sweden). Chemical identities were
* Correspondence to: Olof Beck, Department of Laboratory Medicine, section of Clinical Pharmacology, Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, SE-14186 Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail: [email protected] a Department of Laboratory Medicine, section of Clinical Pharmacology, Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden b Department of Forensic Genetics and Forensic Toxicology, National Board of Forensic Medicine, Linköping, Sweden c Department of Laboratory Medicine, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Drug Testing and Analysis
O. Beck et al. confirmed with NMR. The structures of these four compounds are presented in Fig. 1. Other NPS reference materials were obtained from commercial sources as compiled in Table 1. Formic acid (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) was of ACS, Reag. PhEur grade. Methanol (JT Baker, Tamro, Finland) was of BakerAnalyzed reagent grade. Acetonitrile (VWR International, Radnor, USA) was of HPLC gradient grade. Ultra-pure water (>18 MΩ/cm) was prepared in-house using MILLI-Q water purification system (Millipore Corp., Bedford, MA, USA). Preparation of urine standards
Figure 1. Chemical structure of the four substances purchased on the Internet and characterized by NMR.
Stock solutions of reference substances were either obtained as ampoulled solutions in methanol/acetonitrile or were prepared in-house by weighing using a calibrated balance and preparing
Table 1. Reference materials obtained from commercial sources Substance
Abbreviation
Methylenedioxypyrovalerone 1-Benzylpiperazine 4-Fluorotropacocaine alpha-Pyrrolidinopropiophenone alpha-Pyrrolidinovalerophenone para-Methoxyamphetamine para-Methoxymethamphetamine β-keto-N-Methylbenzodioxolylbutanamine 3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-methylcathinone 4-Fluoroamphetamine 4-Methoxymethcathinone Desoxypipradol α-Methylamino-butyrophenone N,N-Diisopropyltryptamine Methoxetamine β-keto-Methylbenzodioxolylpentanamine 3-Fluoromethcathinone 4-Fluoromethcathinone 3,4-Dimethylmethcathinone 4-Methylethcathinone 5-(2-aminopropyl)Indole 5-(2-aminopropyl)Benzofuran 6-(2-aminopropyl)Benzofuran (3-diethylamino-2,2-dimethylpropyl)-4-Aminobenzoate 3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-ethylcathinone 1-(thiophen-2-yl)-2-Methylaminopropane, methiopropamine para-Fluorophenylpiperazine Etizolam Meta-chlorophenylpiperazine N,N-Dimethyltryptamine 2-Fluoroamphetamine 2-Fluorometamphetamine 3-Trifluoromethylphenylpiperazine 4-Methylamphetamine 3-Fluoromethamphetamine 4-Fluoromethamphetamine α-Methylaminovalerophenone 5,6-Methylenedioxy-2-aminoindane 4-Acetylpsilocin 4-Hydroxy-N-methyl-N-ethyltryptamine Mitragynine
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/dta
Source
MDPV 1-BZP pFBT α-PPP α-PVP PMA PMMA Butylone Methylone 4-FA Methedrone 2-DPMP Buphedrone DIPT MXE Pentylone 3-FMC 4-FMC 3,4-DMMC 4-MEC 5-IT 5-APB 6-APB Dimethocaine Ethylone MPA pFPP
Cerilliant Co., Round Rock, TX, USA
mCPP DMT 2-FA 2-FMA TFMPP 4-MA 3-FMA 4-FMA Pentedrone MDAI 4-AcO-DMT 4-OH-MET -
Australian Government National Measurement Institute, North Ryde, Australia
LGC Standards, Teddington, UK
Cayman Chemical Co, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Chiron AS, Trondheim, Norway THC Pharm GmbH, Frankfurt, Germany ChromaDex Inc., Irvine, CA, USA
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Drug Test. Analysis (2014)
Drug Test. Analysis (2014)
1-Benzylpiperazine 1-(Thiophen-2-yl)-2-methylaminopropane 2-Fluoroamphetamine 2-Fluoromethamphetamine (3-Diethylamino-2,2-dimethylpropyl)-4-aminobenzoate 3,4-Dimethylmethcathinone 3-Fluoromethamphetamine 3-Fluoromethcathinone 3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-ethylcathinone 3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-methylcathinone 4-Acetylpsilocin 4-Fluoroamphetamine 4-Fluorotropacocaine 4-Fluoromethamphetamine 4-Fluoromethcathinone 4-Methoxymethcathinone 4-Methylamphetamine 4-Methylethcathinone 4-Hydroxy-N-methyl-N-ethyltryptamine 5-(2-aminopropyl)benzofuran 5-(2-Aminopropyl)indole 5,6-Methylenedioxy-2-aminoindane 6-(2-Aminopropyl)benzofuran α-Methylamino-butyrophenone α-Methylaminovalerophenone α-Pyrrolidinopropiophenone α-Pyrrolidinovalerophenone β-Keto-methylbenzodioxolylpentanamine β-Keto-N-methylbenzodioxolylbutanamine
1 2
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
29
23 24 25 26 27 28
20 21 22
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
10
6 7 8 9
3 4 5
Substance
Nr
Butylone
6-APB Buphedrone Pentedrone α-PPP α-PVP Pentylone
5-APB 5-IT MDAI
4-AcO-DMT 4-FA pFBT 4-FMA 4-FMC Methedrone 4-MA 4-MEC 4-OH-MET
Methylone
3,4-DMMC 3-FMA 3-FMC Ethylone
2-FA 2-FMA Dimethocaine
1-BZP MPA
Alternative name
+
+ +
+ + -
+ + + -
-
+ -
+ + -
+
Amph./Ecstasy Cut-off 500 ng/mL
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Benzo. Hydr. Cut-off 200 ng/mL
CEDIA
-
+ -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cut-off 25 ng/mL
Cut-off 150 ng/mL -
PCP
Cocaine
-
++ + -
++ + ()
++ ++ + ++ () -
-
() ++ + -
++ ++ -
() ++
Amph. Class Cut-off 300 ng/mL
EMIT-d.a.u.*
Table 2. Summary of CEDIA, EMIT and KIMS immunoassay cross-reactivities towards new psychoactive substances at 10,000 ng/mL concentration KIMS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Benzo. Hydr. Cut-off 200 ng/mL
(Continues)
KIMS: THC (50) Cocaine (300) Methadone (300) Opiates (300) Propoxyphene (300)
EMIT-2 Plus: Cocaine (300) Opiates (300)
CEDIA: Barbiturates (200) Propoxyphene (300) THC (25) Buprenorphine (5) LSD (0.5) Opiates (300)
Assays showing negative result for all substances (applied cut-off, ng/mL)
Cross-reactivity of new psychoactive substances
Drug Testing and Analysis
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/dta
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/dta
Desoxypipradol Etizolam Ethylphenidate Meta-chlorophenylpiperazine 4’-Methyl-α-pyrrolidinopropiophenone Methylenedioxypyrovalerone Mitragynine Methoxetamine Naphthylpyrovalerone N,N-Diisopropyltryptamine N,N-Dimethyltryptamine N-Ethyl-(4-bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)ethylamine para-Fluorophenylpiperazine para-Methoxyamphetamine para-Methoxymethamphetamine 3-Trifluoromethylphenylpiperazine
30 31 32 33 34
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
•
p-FPP PMA PMMA TFMPP
MXE Naphyrone DiPT DMT N-Ethyl-2-CB
MDPV
mCPP MPPP
2-DPMP
Alternative name
+ + +
-
+ -
Amph./Ecstasy Cut-off 500 ng/mL
() indicates a response above the 25% control; ++ indicates a response above 29 mAU
42 43 44 45
35 36 37 38 39 40 41
Substance
Nr
Table 2. (Continued)
-
-
+ -
Benzo. Hydr. Cut-off 200 ng/mL
CEDIA
-
-
-
-
+ -
Cut-off 150 ng/mL -
PCP Cut-off 25 ng/mL
Cocaine
() () () -
-
() -
Amph. Class Cut-off 300 ng/mL
EMIT-d.a.u.*
-
-
+ -
Benzo. Hydr. Cut-off 200 ng/mL
KIMS
Drug Testing and Analysis O. Beck et al.
Drug Test. Analysis (2014)
Drug Testing and Analysis
Cross-reactivity of new psychoactive substances methanol solutions of 100–2000 μg/mL in a measuring glass. For some solutions, dilute formic acid was used for acidification and acetonitrile was used for pFBT. Solutions of 10 000 and 30 000 ng/mL of each substance were prepared by diluting the stock solution with human blank urine. Lower concentrations were prepared by serial 1:2 dilutions using the same blank urine. Blank urine The pooled blank urine was collected from laboratory personnel of both genders reporting to be drug-free, and was filtered (0.45 μm) and stored at -20°C. The blank urine had no response (0.6%) above detection limit but below cut-off when studied at concentration 30000 ng/mL: 3-FMC, 4-FMC, DMT, MDAI, 2-DPMP, MDPV, naphyrone, 3,4-DMMC, 4-MEC. All other substances gave blank readings. CEDIA® Benzodiazepine Assay, cut-off 200 ng/mL: Etizolam 237 All other substances gave blank readings (0.005%) above detection limit but below cut-off when studied at concentration 30000 ng/mL: 3,4-DMMC, 4-MA, 4-MEC, 4-OH-MET, dimethocaine, DMT, ethylon, MDAI, methedrone, mitragynin, naphyrone, pentylone. All other substances gave blank readings. CEDIA® Phencyclidine (PCP) Assay, cut-off 25 ng/mL: 2-DPMP 0.6 4500 26 The following substances showed cross reactivity (>0.03%) above detection limit but below cut-off when studied at concentration 30000 ng/mL: MXE All other substances gave blank readings. CEDIA® Cocaine Assay, cut-off 150 ng/mL: α-PPP 5.4 MPPP 1.2 All other substances gave blank readings (
