4.3 Article

Indirect chiral separation of 8 novel amphetamine derivatives as potential new psychoactive compounds by GC-MS and HPLC

期刊

SCIENCE & JUSTICE
卷 57, 期 1, 页码 6-12

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2016.08.007

关键词

Phenylethylamine derivatives; Enantioseparation; Indirect chiral separation; Position isomers; Legal Highs; Chiral derivatization agents

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Amphetamine and its derivatives gained high popularity on the illegal drug market. In the last few years, a lot of new psychoactive compounds structurally related to amphetamine, such as 4-fluoroamphetamine and 4-fluoromethamphetamine swamped the drug market. They were designed to circumvent prohibition of amphetamine and N-methylamphetamine and are distributed via the Internet Often, a halogen atom is introduced into the phenyl ring of amphetamine to turn the illegal amphetamine legal. Since amphetamines possess a chiral centre, two enantiomers are available, which might differ in activity. Since most of them are partially not commercially available to date, synthesis and characterisation of amphetamine derivatives might help authorities to identify these substances of abuse. The aim of this study was to investigate self-synthesized amphetamines concerning their identity and their enantiomeric status either by GC-MS or by HPLC. For GC-MS, derivatization with (R)-(+)-alpha-methoxy-alpha-trifluoromethylphenylacetic acid (MTPA) or (1R)-()-menthylchloroformate prior to analysis on a HP-5MS column was done. For chiral separation by HPLC a LiChrospher 100 RP-18e column and sulfated beta-cyclodextrin added to the mobile phase as chiral selector were used. Enantioseparation was accomplished successfully by both methods. Furthermore, simultaneous chiral separation of three positions isomers, namely 2-fluoroamphetamine, 3-fluoroamphetamine and 4-fluoroamphetamine, was shown successfully by HPLC. (C) 2016 The Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences. Published by Elsevier Ireland 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

4.3
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