Author: earth

In April 2015, we received a sample that was sold as 6-MAPB, but the lab tentatively identified as most likely to be 6-APDB. This week, the lab took another look at the sample with some new standards and using more updated Mass Spectrum databases.

After spending quite a bit of time on it, their new identification (not 100% match to a standard DDL has, but a close library match) has changed to 5-APDB, rather than the previous 6-APDB. Here’s what the lab wrote describing that process:

I reanalyzed 40900034. The best match is now to 5-APDB. It’s complicated, so here’s a little background.

There are four APDB compounds, the 4-APDB, 5-APDB, 6-APDB, and 7-APDB. They all elute very early according to Cayman spectras, but in this order, 5, 6, 7, and then 4 at a later time. So, it was determined that based on the ion ratios, 40900034 was CLOSEST and now BEST match to 5-APDB. The GCMS output spectras of 5,6,7 in comparison to the sample have been attached, just for curiosity.

[ Erowid: these are now attached to the ecstasydata entry: ID : 3276. ]

Also, it was interesting that the 6-APDB standard received from Cayman produced an extra minor peak, whereas only one peak is shown in Cayman’s database. Not sure there. Possible contamination of the standard we were sent? Or 6-APDB produces two peaks. ( I ran the standard three different times to confirm). GCMS output have also been attached.

I will be developing a new method to help separate and better identified compounds with functional groups at a different carbons for APDB and the many other new drugs.

We received a sample this month that was sold as 6-APB but the lab identified by library match to be 5-MAPDB. A “library match” is not 100% guaranteed to be a positive identification because it means that the mass spectrum was consistent with a published mass spectrum from an established library. What library matches are missing is exactly the gas chromotagraphic timing and the exact minor details around the edges of the spectrum that are unique to each type of analytic equipment.

To confirm the identification, we ordered analytical standards from Cayman for 5-MAPDB. The lab ran the standard and then compared them against the submitted sample (ID:3688) and found they matched exactly, confirming their library match that the sample is 5-MAPDB.

A visitor asked about result 3669. This result was determined by DDL via GC/MS to contain primarily MDMA but also a trace amount of Methylsulfonylmethane (MSM). MSM has some practical applications in the final crystallization of some recreational stimulants (notably methamphetamine) but could also be used as a bulking agent to boost retail profits.

The visitor wanted to know how sure we are that the MSM was only a trace and not a more major component of the sample. Here’s an answer from our lab trying to address the issue:

There are numerous complications when asking how certain the ‘trace’ finding is for MSM in the testing process.

First, DDL has never done a quantitative analysis of MSM using our testing process. So our methods for analyzing MSM have not been validated by our team.

It could be that it might take a little more MSM to show up compare to say meth or MDMA, since MSM is a much smaller compound. We don’t know this for certain and would need to spend time verifying it if this is important to the project.

Second, MSM is easily detected and seen. We know it shows up we have detected it in many samples over the years.

Third, although we do not know for certain how a known quantity of MSM mixed uniformly with a known quantity of MDMA would show up in our GC/MS, it is hard to imagine the trace we saw with this sample representing more than a tiny amount in the actual sample analyzed.

Fourth, process issues it is possible that the sample submitted contained more MSM proportionally than we reported due to process issues. It could be that the sample might not be homogenized. If a baggie or capsule is filled with MSM and Meth, but wasn’t thoroughly mixed when filled, and when we open the capsule a pour a good representative amount to use, maybe there’s more MSM powder at the end of the capsule. Or perhaps MSM is not homogenized on a sample tablet when a good portion is scraped off or a portion broken off and crushed for analysis.

If we were primarily concerned about homogenization, we would dissolve the entire sample in a solvent, but we don’t do this for several reasons. We don’t want to use up the whole sample on the first attempt because a sample may not dissolve perfectly in the first solvent we choose or we may need to re-evaluate the analytical process from scratch and we would not want to add a solvent to all of the powder if we can avoid it. There are more reasons to keep the original solid sample than there are to homogenize the whole thing.

Fifth, one thing is certain, we can’t be certain. The way each drug appears using each analytical technique different. Because of this, quantitative analysis of drugs in forensic toxicology typically involves very technical development of validated processes using the drugs in their deuterated forms as internal standards.

So, there are numerous variables that may explain it only being trace relative to other drugs. Most likely, the sample only contained a tiny amount of MSM, but without further analysis this point, there’s no way to be certain.