Application of solvent microextraction to the analysis of amphetamines and phencyclidine in urine

A fast and simple method to detect some commonly abused illicit drugs, amphetamine, methamphetamine, 3,4-methylendioxy-amphetamine (MDA), 3,4-methylendioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA), 3,4-methylendioxy-N-ethylamphetamine (MDEA) and phencyclidine (PCP) in urine using solvent microextraction (SME) combined with gas chromatography (GC) analysis has been developed. The extraction is conducted by suspending a 2 microl drop of chloroform in a 2 ml urine sample. Following 8 min of extraction, the organic solvent is withdrawn into the syringe and injected into a GC with a pulsed discharge helium ionization detector (PDHID). The effects of different extraction solvents and times, pH and sample preparation were studied. The optimized method was capable of detecting drugs in urine at concentrations below Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) established cut-off values for preliminary testing. Good linearity and reproducibility of extraction were obtained. The limits of detection were 0.5 microg/ml for amphetamine, 0.1 microg/ml for methamphetamine and MDA, 0.05 microg/ml for MDMA, 0.025 microg/ml for MDEA and 0.015 microg/ml for PCP. Relative standard deviation (R.S.D.) values ranged between 5 and 20% for the studied drugs.     

Simultaneous analysis of six amphetamines and analogues in hair, blood and urine by LC-ESI-MS/MS: Application to the determination of MDMA after low Ecstasy intake

A rapid and sensitive method using LC-MS/MS triple stage quadrupole for the determination of traces of amphetamine (AP), methamphetamine (MA), 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, “ecstasy”), 3,4-methylenedioxyethamphetamine (MDEA), and N-methyl-1-(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)-2-butanamine (MBDB) in hair, blood and urine has been developed and validated. Chromatography was carried out on an Uptisphere ODB C₁₈ 5 μm, 2.1 mm × 150 mm column (Interchim, France) with a gradient of acetonitrile and formate 2 mM pH 3.0 buffer. Urine and blood were extracted with Toxitube A^® (Varian, France). Segmented scalp hair was treated by incubation 15 min at 80 °C in NaOH 1 M before liquid–liquid extraction with hexane/ethyl acetate (2/1, v/v). The limits of quantification (LOQ) in blood and urine were at 0.1 ng/mL for all analytes. In hair, LOQ was <5 pg/mg for MA, MDMA, MDEA and MBDB, at 14.7 pg/mg for AP and 15.7 pg/mg for MDA. Calibration curves were linear in the range 0.1–50 ng/mL in blood and urine; in the range 5–500 pg/mg for MA, MDMA, MDEA and MBDB, and 20–500 pg/mg for AP and MDA. Inter-day precisions were <13% for all analytes in all matrices. Accuracy was <20% in blood and urine at 1 and 50 ng/mL and <10% in hair at 20 and 250 pg/mg. This method was applied to the determination of MDMA in a forensic case of single administration of ecstasy to a 16-year-old female without her knowledge during a party. She suffered from hyperactivity, sweating and agitation. A first sample of urine was collected a few hours after (T + 12 h) and tested positive to amphetamines by immunoassay by a clinical laboratory. Blood and urine were sampled for forensic purposes at day 8 (D + 8) and scalp hair at day 60 (D + 60). No MDMA was detected in blood, but urine and hair were tested positive, respectively at 0.42 ng/mL and at 22 pg/mg in hair only in the segment corresponding to the period of the offence, while no MDA was detectable. This method allows the detection of MDMA up to 8 days in urine after single intake.     

Quantitative determination of amphetamines, cocaine, and opiates in human hair by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry

Hair of young subjects (N = 36) suspected for drug abuse was analysed for morphine, codeine, heroin, 6-acetylmorphine, cocaine, methadone, amphetamine, methamphetamine, 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), and 3,4-methylenedioxyethylamphetamine (MDEA). The analysis of morphine, codeine, heroin, 6-acetylmorphine, cocaine, and methadone in hair included incubation in methanol, solid-phase extraction, derivatisation by the mixture of propionic acid anhydride and pyridine, and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). For amphetamine, methamphetamine, MDA, MDMA, and MDEA analysis, hair samples were incubated in 1M sodium hydroxide, extracted with ethyl acetate, derivatised with heptafluorobutyric acid anhydride (HFBA), and assayed by GC/MS. The methods were reproducible (R.S.D. = 5.0-16.1%), accurate (85.1-100.6%), and sensitive (LoD = 0.05-0.30ng/mg). The applied methods confirmed consumption of heroin in 18 subjects based on positive 6-acetylmorphine. Among these 18 heroin consumers, methadone was found in four, MDMA in two, and cocaine in two subjects. Cocaine only was present in two, methadone only in two, methamphetamine only in two, and MDMA only in seven of the 36 subjects. In two out of nine coloured and bleached hair samples, no drug was found. Despite the small number of subjects, this study has been able to indicate the trend in drug abuse among young people in Croatia.     

The designer drug situation in Ibiza

A total of 137 urine samples and 46 serum samples, corresponding to 154 self-confessed designer drugs consumers in Ibiza island, were analyzed for the presence of designer drugs: amphetamine and amphetamine derivatives (methamphetamine, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), methylenedioxyethylamphetamine (MDEA), methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA), p-methoxymethylamphetamine (PMMA), p-methoxyamphetamine (PMA), etc.), ketamine and γ-hydroxybutyric acid. Among this population, coming both from the forensic clinic and from the emergency room of a hospital, a total of 99 cases were found positive for some designer drug. This study shows the prevalence of methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) among designer drug users, sole or in association with other drugs. Also, the mixture of MDMA with other designer drugs, ethanol and/or cocaine is shown to be more likely to produce toxic symptoms requiring clinical attendance in a hospital emergency room. These findings along with the consumption history, the concentrations of drugs and metabolites in urine and serum and the toxicological significance for the interpretation of some MDMA metabolites such as 4-hydroxy-3-methoxymethamphetamine (HMMA) are discussed in this study.     

尿中苯丙胺、甲基苯丙胺、MDA和MDMA的固相微萃取和GC/MS/SIM测定

目的研究固相微萃取(SPME)用于尿中苯丙胺(AMP)、甲基苯丙胺(MET)、3,4-亚甲二氧基苯丙胺(MDA)和3,4-亚甲二氧基甲基苯丙胺(MDMA)的提取。方法样品调节至碱性和用盐饱和后用顶空SPME,内标为MET-d5。萃取纤维为100μm聚二甲基硅氧烷(PDMS)。用气质联用选择离子检测(GC/MS/SIM)。结果0.2μg/ml加标尿样,AMP、MET、MDA和MDMA的富集倍数分别为22,60,13和47。检出限(S/N=3)为0.4～9.5ng/ml。线性范围为0.05～1μg/ml。0.2、0.5和1.0μg/ml加标尿样,相对回收率77.9%～112.4%,变异系数2.7%～18.0%(n=5)。用该方法分析5个案件样品,和常规液液萃取结果接近。结论顶空SPME法用于尿中AMP、MET、MDA和MDMA等化合物的分析,无需有机溶剂,富集效率高,提取-富集-进样一体化,简单方便实用。     

Simultaneous analysis of six amphetamines and analogues in hair, blood and urine by LC-ESI-MS/MS. Application to the determination of MDMA after low ecstasy intake

A rapid and sensitive method using LC-MS/MS triple stage quadrupole for the determination of traces of amphetamine (AP), methamphetamine (MA), 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, "ecstasy"), 3,4-methylenedioxyethamphetamine (MDEA), and N-methyl-1-(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)-2-butanamine (MBDB) in hair, blood and urine has been developed and validated. Chromatography was carried out on an Uptisphere ODB C(18) 5 microm, 2.1 mm x 150 mm column (Interchim, France) with a gradient of acetonitrile and formate 2 mM pH 3.0 buffer. Urine and blood were extracted with Toxitube A (Varian, France). Segmented scalp hair was treated by incubation 15 min at 80 degrees C in NaOH 1M before liquid-liquid extraction with hexane/ethyl acetate (2/1, v/v). The limits of quantification (LOQ) in blood and urine were at 0.1 ng/mL for all analytes. In hair, LOQ was <5 pg/mg for MA, MDMA, MDEA and MBDB, at 14.7 pg/mg for AP and 15.7 pg/mg for MDA. Calibration curves were linear in the range 0.1-50 ng/mL in blood and urine; in the range 5-500 pg/mg for MA, MDMA, MDEA and MBDB, and 20-500 pg/mg for AP and MDA. Inter-day precisions were <13% for all analytes in all matrices. Accuracy was <20% in blood and urine at 1 and 50 ng/mL and <10% in hair at 20 and 250 pg/mg. This method was applied to the determination of MDMA in a forensic case of single administration of ecstasy to a 16-year-old female without her knowledge during a party. She suffered from hyperactivity, sweating and agitation. A first sample of urine was collected a few hours after (T+12h) and tested positive to amphetamines by immunoassay by a clinical laboratory. Blood and urine were sampled for forensic purposes at day 8 (D+8) and scalp hair at day 60 (D+60). No MDMA was detected in blood, but urine and hair were tested positive, respectively at 0.42 ng/mL and at 22 pg/mg in hair only in the segment corresponding to the period of the offence, while no MDA was detectable. This method allows the detection of MDMA up to 8 days in urine after single intake.     

Fast LC-MS/MS method for the determination of amphetamine, methamphetamine, MDA, MDMA, MDEA, MBDB and PMA in urine

A fast method was designed for the simultaneous determination of amphetamine (A), methamphetamine (MA), PMA, MDA, MDMA, MDEA and MBDB in urine. The drugs were analysed by LC (ESI)-MS/MS, after a simple liquid-liquid extraction in the presence of the deuterated analogues. Reverse phase separation on an Atlantis dC18 Intelligent Speed column was achieved in less than 4 min under gradient conditions, and the total run time was 8 min. The method was fully validated, including linearity (1-1000 ng/mL for A, MDMA, MDEA and MBDB; 2-1000 ng/mL for MDA and PMA; 1-200 ng/mL for MA; r2>0.99 for all compounds), recovery (>80%), within-day and between-day precision and accuracy (CV and MRE<12.7% for intermediate level and ULOQ, and <17.2% for LLOQ), limit of detection (0.2 ng/mL for MDMA, MDEA and MBDB; 0.5 ng/mL for A, MA and PMA; 1 ng/mL for MDA) and quantitation (1 ng/mL for A, MA, MDMA, MDEA and MBDB; 2 ng/mL for MDA and PMA) and relative ion intensities. No matrix effect was observed. The procedure proved to be sensitive, specific and rapid, and was applied to real forensic cases.     

超高效液相色谱法（UPLC）同时筛选检测吗啡等7种常见毒品

目的建立快速筛选检测中毒者血液、尿液中吗啡、甲基苯丙胺、苯丙胺、麻黄碱、3，4-亚甲基双氧甲基苯丙胺（MDMA）、3，4-亚甲基双氧苯丙胺（MDA）、氯胺酮并定量分析的方法；方法采用超高效液相色谱（UP—LC）-二极管阵列检测器（PAD）；结果峰面积和质量浓度的线性关系良好，分离效果好、速度快、灵敏度提高；结论该方法与传统的HPLC相比能够更好满足实际办案中吗啡、甲基苯丙胺、苯丙胺、麻黄碱、MDMA、MDA、氯胺酮等中毒者血液、尿液的筛选检测并定量分析。     

Estimation of gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) co-consumption in serum samples of drivers positive for amphetamine or ecstasy

There is no toxicological analysis of gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) applied routinely in cases of driving under influence (DUI); therefore the extent of consumption of this drug might be underestimated. Its consumption is described as occurring often concurrently with amphetamine or ecstasy. This study examines 196 serum samples which were collected by police during road side testing for GHB. The samples subject to this study have already been found to be positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and/or 3,4-methylenedioxyethamphetamine (MDEA). Analysis has been performed by LC/MS/MS in the multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode. Due to its polarity, chromatographic separation of GHB was achieved by a HILIC column. To differentiate endogenous and exogenous levels of GHB, a cut-off concentration of 4μg/ml was applied. Of the 196 samples, two have been found to be positive for GHB. Of these samples, one sample was also positive for amphetamine and one for MDMA. Whilst other amphetamine derivates were not detected in these samples, both samples were found to be positive for cannabinoids. These results suggest that co-consumption of GHB with amphetamine or ecstasy is relatively low (1%) for the collective of this study.     

The designer drug situation in Ibiza

A total of 137 urine samples and 46 serum samples, corresponding to 154 self-confessed designer drugs consumers in Ibiza island, were analyzed for the presence of designer drugs: amphetamine and amphetamine derivatives (methamphetamine, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), methylenedioxyethylamphetamine (MDEA), methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA), p-methoxymethylamphetamine (PMMA), p-methoxyamphetamine (PMA), etc.), ketamine and gamma-hydroxybutyric acid. Among this population, coming both from the forensic clinic and from the emergency room of a hospital, a total of 99 cases were found positive for some designer drug. This study shows the prevalence of methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) among designer drug users, sole or in association with other drugs. Also, the mixture of MDMA with other designer drugs, ethanol and/or cocaine is shown to be more likely to produce toxic symptoms requiring clinical attendance in a hospital emergency room. These findings along with the consumption history, the concentrations of drugs and metabolites in urine and serum and the toxicological significance for the interpretation of some MDMA metabolites such as 4-hydroxy-3-methoxymethamphetamine (HMMA) are discussed in this study.     

分子印迹固相萃取法在血中苯丙胺类毒品分析中的应用

目的建立分子印迹固相萃取（MISPE）、GC/MS分析方法,用于血液中苯丙胺类毒品检测。方法 10mmol/L醋酸铵缓冲液（pH8.0）4倍稀释空白添加血液,1mL甲醇,1mL10mmol/L醋酸铵缓冲液（pH8.0）活化苯丙胺类分子印迹固相萃取柱;2×1mL去离子水、1mL60%的乙腈去离子水、1mL1%醋酸乙腈洗涤杂质;2×1mL1%甲酸/甲醇洗脱,洗脱液挥干定容,经GC/NPD、GC/MS分析检测。结果各种苯丙胺类毒品回收率均在90%以上,在20～5 000ng/mL浓度范围内线性关系良好,r2为0.995 7～0.998 9,LOQ在16～30ng/mL之间,LOD在8～15ng/mL之间。结论本方法回收率高,净化效果显著,稳定性好,杂质干扰少,可用于血液中低浓度苯丙胺类毒品的分析检测。     

Characteristics and trends of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) tablets found in Taiwan from 2002 to February 2005

One hundred and eighty-one 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) containing tablets were sampled from confiscated drugs received by the Taiwan National Bureau of Controlled Drugs for testing from 2002 to February 2005. Sample tablets demonstrated various colors and logos. The appearances, contents of MDMA and other components in these tablets were analyzed in order to understand the characteristics and trends of MDMA use. Samples were analyzed using GC-MS methodology. Deuterated internal standards were used for drug quantification. The MDMA contents varied from 16 to 193 mg/tablet. 66-71% of the tablets seized each year contained only MDMA, and the content of MDMA in MDMA only tablets varied from 89 to 133 mg/tablet. There was a decreasing trend in MDMA content in these tablets over time. Other components commonly found besides MDMA included caffeine (18%), methamphetamine (7%), 3,4-methylenedioxyethylamphetamine (MDEA) (7%) and amphetamine (4%). 3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA), ketamine, ephedrine, diazepam, chlorzoxazone and nicotinamide were also detected. During the study period, the number of other drugs found as well as the combinations of different drugs detected in these tablets increased.     

Confirmation by LC–MS of drugs in oral fluid obtained from roadside testing

The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of two current on-site oral fluid (OF) drug detection devices (OraLab and Dräger), as part of the Spanish participation in the Roadside Testing Assessment Project (ROSITA Project). The study was done in collaboration with the Spanish Traffic Police, in Galicia (NW Spain), during 2004 and 2005. A total of 468 drivers selected at the police controls agreed to participate through informed consent. In addition, saliva samples were collected and sent to the laboratory to confirm the on-site results. For this purpose, two different analytical liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC–MS) methods were used to detect 11 drugs or metabolites in a 300 μL sample. Simultaneous analysis of morphine, 6-acetylmorphine, amphetamine, methamphetamine, MDA, MDMA, MDEA, MBDB, cocaine and benzoylecgonine was carried out using 100 μL of oral fluid, after an automated solid phase extraction. A different LC–MS method was performed to detect Δ⁹-THC in 200 μL of oral fluid using liquid–liquid extraction with hexane at pH 6. Both methods were fully validated, including linearity (1–250 ng/mL, 2–250 ng/mL) recovery (>50%), within-day and between-day precision (CV < 15%), accuracy (mean relative error < 15%), limit of detection (0.5 and 1 ng/mL), quantitation (1 and 2 ng/mL) and matrix effect. All of the positive cases and a random selection of 30% of the negatives were analyzed for confirmation analysis. Good results (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value and negative predictive value > 90%) were obtained for cocaine and opiates by OraLab, and for cocaine by Dräger. However, the results for the other compounds could be improved for both detection devices. Differences in the ease of use and in the interpretation mode (visual or instrumental) were observed.     

Simultaneous analysis of amphetamine, methamphetamine, and 3, 4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) in urine samples by solid-phase extraction, derivatization, and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry

A rapid and effective solid-phase extraction procedure using Bond Elute Certify bonded silica sorbent cartridges was adopted to extract amphetamine, methamphetamine, and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA or Ecstasy) from urine samples. The extract was derivatized with trichloroacetic anhydride prior to gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) analysis with selected ion monitoring of the following ions: 190, 91, 188; 204, 91, 202; 162, 135, 202; 194, 123; and 211, 209 for the derivatized amphetamine, methamphetamine, MDMA, d5-amphetamine, and d9-methamphetamine, respectively. The first of the ions listed for each compound was used for quantitation. The compound d5-amphetamine was used as the internal standard for amphetamine, and d9-methamphetamine was used for methamphetamine and MDMA. Results showed a higher than 65% recovery and a reproducibility with less than a 5% coefficient of variation. When a sample size of 2 mL was used, the lowest detectable concentration was about 50 ng/mL, and a near-perfect fit can be obtained (within the 250 to 4000-ng/mL concentration range studied) using a second-order polynomial model.     

Evaluation of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine concentrations in human urine samples and a comparison of the specificity of DRI amphetamines and Abuscreen online (KIMS) amphetamines screening immunoassays

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of two amphetamine class screening reagents to exclude ephedrine (EPH), pseudoephedrine (PSEPH), and phenylpropanolamine (PPA) from falsely producing positive immunoassay screening results. The study also sought to characterize the prevalence and concentration distributions of EPH, PSEPH, and PPA in samples that produced positive amphetamine screening results. Approximately 27,400 randomly collected human urine samples from Navy and Marine Corps members were simultaneously screened for amphetamines using the DRI and Abuscreen online immunoassays at a cutoff concentration of 500 ng/mL. All samples that screened positive were confirmed for amphetamine (AMP), methamphetamine (MTH), 3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA), 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), EPH, PSEPH, and PPA by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). The DRI AMP immunoassay identified 1,104 presumptive amphetamine positive samples, of which only 1.99% confirmed positive for the presence of AMP, MTH, MDA, or MDMA. In contrast, the online AMP reagent identified 317 presumptive amphetamine positives with a confirmation rate for AMP, MTH, MDA, or MDMA of 7.94%. The presence of EPH, PSEPH, or PPA was confirmed in 833 of the 1,104 samples that failed to confirm positive for AMP, MTH, MDA, or MDMA; all of the 833 samples contained PSEPH. When compared to the entire screened sample set, PSEPH was present in approximately 3%, EPH in 0.9%, and PPA in 0.8% of the samples. The results indicate that cross reactivities for EPH, PSEPH, and PPA are greater than reported by the manufacturer of these reagents. The distribution of concentrations indicates that very large concentrations of EPH, PSEPH, and PPA are common.     

GC-MS determination of amphetamines in serum using on-line trifluoroacetylation

An extraction and determination method of most important amphetamine derivatives in serum has been developed. The procedure comprises liquid-liquid extraction with tert-butyl methyl ether of the sample under basic conditions, centrifugation, formation of hydrochloric salts after the separation of organic phase, vacuum evaporation of the organic solvent at 60 degrees C, and trifluoroacetylation by on-line flash injection with MBTFA. GC analysis was performed by electron impact GC-MS in SIM mode. In this way satisfactory identification of 12 amphetamine derivatives could be obtained. Amphetamine, methamphetamine, MDA, MDMA and MDEA could be analyzed by using pentadeuterated analogs as internal standards. Low limits of detection 2.5-6.9 ng/mL could be reached. The assay was linear within the 5-100 ng/mL range with a regression coefficient greater than 0.999 for each compound. Our derivatization method is of low cost since only 1 microL of MBTFA is used for each flash trifluoroacetylation.     

Morbidity Involving the Hallucinogenic Designer Amines MDA and 2C‐I*

Abstract: A case is presented of a 39‐year‐old woman who suffered severe debilitation because of a hemorrhagic stroke in the context of substance abuse. The patient presented to the emergency room with rapidly diminishing mental status, hypertension, and vasoconstriction; her friends provided a history of ingestion of cocaine, 3,4‐methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), and 2C‐I, a novel designer amine. A multi‐targeted LC‐MS/MS method for sympathomimetic amines and related drugs in urine detected and quantified 2C‐I and MDA, while ruling out MDMA. The cause of the stroke was determined to be an underlying cerebrovascular abnormality called Moyamoya, secondary to substance abuse. In clinical laboratories, gas chromatography–mass spectrometry or liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC‐MS/MS) confirmation of a positive amphetamine immunoassay is usually directed only towards amphetamine, methamphetamine, MDMA and MDA. This report demonstrates the utility of testing for a wider menu of compounds using LC‐MS/MS in order to better characterize the prevalence and toxicities of novel amines such as 2C‐I.     

Post-mortem cases involving amphetamine-based drugs in the Netherlands: Comparison with driving under the influence cases

In this study we reviewed the post-mortem cases in the years 1999–2004 that were presented at the Netherlands Forensic Institute. The concentrations of amphetamine-based drugs in femoral blood from cases of suspected unnatural death were compared with concentrations in whole blood from non-fatal cases of driving under the influence (DUI cases) and with literature. Furthermore, the combinations with other drugs and/or alcohol were investigated. Amphetamine-based drugs were present in 70 post-mortem cases and 467 DUI cases. The most detected amphetamine-based drug was MDMA, followed by amphetamine. The presence of MDA could usually be explained by metabolism of MDMA. Methamphetamine and MDEA were rarely present. Frequently, the amphetamine-based drugs were taken in combination with alcohol and/or other non-amphetamine-based drugs such as cocaine or cannabinoids. The 70 post-mortem cases were divided into 38 amphetamine-based drug caused (i.e. the amphetamine-based drug directly caused or contributed to the death) and 32 amphetamine-based drug related deaths (i.e. death was not directly caused by the amphetamine-based drug). In the latter category, other (poly)drug intoxications and death by violence or drowning were the most frequent causes of death.In 30 cases, MDMA caused death directly. The range in blood concentrations of MDMA in these cases was substantial, i.e. 0.41–84 mg/L with a median concentration of 3.7 mg/L (n = 30). MDMA blood concentrations in the MDMA related deaths (n = 20) and in the DUI cases (n = 360) varied up to 3.7 and 4.0 mg/L, respectively. Seven victims died from the direct effects of amphetamine; the blood concentration of amphetamine ranged from 0.24 to 11.3 mg/L, with a median concentration of 1.7 mg/L (n = 7). The median concentrations of amphetamine in the amphetamine related deaths (n = 13) and the DUI cases (n = 208) were much lower, i.e. 0.28 and 0.22 mg/L, respectively. Amphetamine blood concentrations up to 6.0 and 2.3 mg/L were seen in the drug related deaths and DUI cases, respectively. The most frequently encountered amphetamine-based drugs in the investigated deaths were MDMA and amphetamine. The majority of MDMA- and amphetamine-caused deaths, i.e. 90% of these deaths, occurred with blood concentrations above 1.5 and 0.80 mg/L, respectively. MDMA and amphetamine blood concentrations in drug related deaths and DUI cases, however, overlap the range of fatal concentrations. Therefore, MDMA or amphetamine concentrations should never be used alone to establish the cause of death.     

Plasma,oral fluid and sweat wipe ecstasy concentrations in controlled and real life conditions

In a double-blind placebo controlled study on psychomotor skills important for car driving (Study 1), a 75 mg dose of +/- 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) was administered orally to 12 healthy volunteers who were known to be recreational MDMA-users. Toxicokinetic data were gathered by analysis of blood, urine, oral fluid and sweat wipes collected during the first 5h after administration. Resultant plasma concentrations varied from 21 to 295 ng/ml, with an average peak concentration of 178 ng/ml observed between 2 and 4h after administration. MDA concentrations never exceeded 20 ng/ml. Corresponding MDMA concentrations in oral fluid, as measured with a specific LC-MS/MS method (which required only 50 microl of oral fluid), generally exceeded those in plasma and peaked at an average concentration of 1215 ng/ml. A substantial intra- and inter-subject variability was observed with this matrix, and values ranged from 50 to 6982 ng/ml MDMA. Somewhat surprisingly, even 4-5h after ingestion, the MDMA levels in sweat only averaged 25 ng/wipe. In addition to this controlled study, data were collected from 19 MDMA-users who participated in a driving simulator study (Study 2), comparing sober non-drug conditions with MDMA-only and multiple drug use conditions. In this particular study, urine samples were used for general drug screening and oral fluid was collected as an alternative to blood sampling. Analysis of oral fluid samples by LC-MS/MS revealed an average MDMA/MDEA concentration of 1121 ng/ml in the MDMA-only condition, with large inter-subject variability. This was also the case in the multiple drug condition, where generally, significantly higher concentrations of MDMA, MDEA and/or amphetamine were detected in the oral fluid samples. Urine screening revealed the presence of combinations such as MDMA, MDEA, amph, cannabis, cocaine, LSD and psilocine in the multiple-drug condition.     

The analysis of the methylenedioxy derivatives of amphetamine]

Methods for analysis of narcotics belonging to amphetamine methylene dioxy derivatives (MDD) are reviewed. The characteristics of these agents, their metabolism, and methods used for their detection and identification (TLC, GC, HPLC, GC/MS) are described. Methods for their extraction from biological objects (human urine and hair) are described. Efficacy of MDMA and MDEA from the urine by different extractants is assessed. The data demonstrate different potentialities for detection and identification of amphetamine MDD, including those in biological specimens (human urine and hairs), by numerous chromatographic methods.