4.7 Article

Identification of cathinones and other active components of 'legal highs' by mass spectrometric methods

期刊

TRAC-TRENDS IN ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 32, 期 -, 页码 15-30

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.trac.2011.09.009

关键词

alpha-cleavage; Active component; Cathinone; Characteristic fragmentation; Identification; Legal high; Mass spectrometry; Parent ion; Protonated molecular ion; Recreational drug

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The supply of psychoactive substances has changed and users increasingly buy legal highs over the Internet or in specialized shops. Vast arrays of preparations are marketed as legal substitutes to controlled substances. Their analysis has revealed that the majority of active components belong to one of four chemical classes: phenethylamines, tryptamines, piperazines and cathinones, the last being novel. This article gives special attention to cathinone derivatives and certain characteristic fragmentations based on the GC-El/MS and LC-ESI/QTOF-MS spectra. The parent ions of these substances are hard to obtain by El/MS, whereas the protonated molecular ions can be observed clearly by ESI/QTOF-MS. Furthermore, two major characteristic a-cleavages are produced when the El mode is used, leading to formation of iminium and acylium ions, respectively. These ions can process secondary and tertiary fragmentations, which are very useful in identification. In the case of ESI/QTOF-MS, characteristic fragments are produced via loss of water in cathinones, being secondary amines. The targeted MS/MS mode allows us to identify structures of many unknown substances with certainty. Nevertheless, in order to determine the location of a substituent in a molecule, it is sometimes necessary to use NMR or FTIR. Problems found in identifying novel recreational drugs sold as legal highs indicate the need for international collaboration and sharing knowledge and analytical data amongst experts from forensic and clinical laboratories. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据