Identification and quantification of synthetic cannabinoids in “spice-like” herbal mixtures: update of the German situation for the spring of 2015

32Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

In February 2015, 13 “spice-like” products, available on the German market, were analyzed. In total, eight different synthetic cannabinoids were identified by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS), namely 5-fluoro-AB-PINACA, AB-CHMINACA, AB-FUBINACA, 5-fluoro-PB-22, 5-fluoro-AMB, MDMB-CHMICA, EAM-2201 and STS-135. In most of the products (11/13), only one synthetic cannabinoid was identified, while two products contained two or three synthetic cannabinoids. For some of the compounds (5-fluoro-AB-PINACA, AB-CHMINACA, 5-fluoro-AMB) only insufficient physicochemical data are available in literature. To our knowledge MDMB-CHMICA (sometimes mistakenly referred to as MBMD-CHMINACA) was not described earlier in scientific literature, and, hence, an in-depth characterization of these compounds by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, electron ionization–mass spectroscopy, electrospray ionization–tandem mass spectroscopy (ESI-MS/MS), infrared spectroscopy and ultraviolet spectroscopy was conducted for eight compounds. In addition, we developed an ESI-MS method for the direct quantification of synthetic cannabinoids in commercial smoking blends, without chromatographic separation. Quantification was achieved using methyl 3-(3-(1-naphthoyl)-1H-indol-1-yl)propionate as the internal standard with appropriate response factors. The total contents of synthetic cannabinoids in the investigated products ranged from 60 to 446 mg/g, while individual compounds ranged from 12 to 314 mg/g.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Langer, N., Lindigkeit, R., Schiebel, H. M., Papke, U., Ernst, L., & Beuerle, T. (2016). Identification and quantification of synthetic cannabinoids in “spice-like” herbal mixtures: update of the German situation for the spring of 2015. Forensic Toxicology, 34(1), 94–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11419-015-0292-7

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free