4.1 Article

Differentiation of regioisomeric fluoroamphetamine analogs by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry

期刊

FORENSIC TOXICOLOGY
卷 31, 期 2, 页码 241-250

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11419-013-0184-7

关键词

Fluoroamphetamine analogs; Regioisomer; Designer drug; GC-MS; LC-MS

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22590645] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In recent years, a large number of clandestinely produced controlled-substance analogs (designer drugs) of amphetamine with high structural variety have been detected in forensic samples. Analytical differentiation of regioisomers is a significant issue in forensic drug analysis because, in most cases, legal controls are placed only on one or two of the three isomers. In this study, we used gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) for the differentiation of regioisomers of fluoroamphetamine analogs (fluoroamphetamines and fluoromethamphetamines), which were synthesized in our laboratories. Free bases and their acylated and silylated derivatives were subjected to GC-MS analysis using DB-1ms, DB-5ms, and DB-17ms capillary columns. The separation of free bases was incomplete on all columns. Trifluoroacetyl derivatives of 3- and 4-positional isomers showed slight separation on DB-1ms and DB-5ms. On the other hand, trimethylsilyl derivatization enabled baseline separation of six fluoroamphetamine analogs on DB-1ms and DB-5ms columns, which was sufficient for unequivocal identification. For LC-MS/MS, a pentafluorophenyl column was able to separate six regioisomeric fluoroamphetamine analogs but a conventional C18 column could not achieve separation between 3- and 4-positional isomers. These results show that a suitable choice of derivatization and analytical columns allows the differentiation of regioisomeric fluoroamphetamine analogs.

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

4.1
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