-
PDF
- Split View
-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
Boris Duffau, Cristian Camargo, Marcelo Kogan, Edwar Fuentes, Bruce Kennedy Cassels, Analysis of 25 C NBOMe in Seized Blotters by HPTLC and GC–MS, Journal of Chromatographic Science, Volume 54, Issue 7, 1 August 2016, Pages 1153–1158, https://doi.org/10.1093/chromsci/bmw095
Close - Share Icon Share
Use of unauthorized synthetic drugs is a serious, forensic, regulatory and public health issue. In this scenario, consumption of drug-impregnated blotters is very frequent. For decades, blotters have been generally impregnated with the potent hallucinogen known as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD); however, since 2013 blotter stamps with N-2 methoxybenzyl-substituted phenylethylamine hallucinogen designated as “NBOMes” have been seized in Chile. To address this issue with readily accessible laboratory equipment, we have developed and validated a new HPTLC method for the identification and quantitation of 25-C-NBOMe in seized blotters and its confirmation by GC–MS. The proposed method was validated according to SWGTOX recommendations and is suitable for routine analysis of seized blotters containing 25-C-NBOMe. With the validated method, we analyzed 15 real samples, in all cases finding 25-C-NBOMe in a wide dosage range (701.0–1943.5 µg per blotter). In this situation, we can assume that NBOMes are replacing LSD as the main hallucinogenic drug consumed in blotters in Chile.
Introduction
This substance is an extremely efficient selective 5-HT2 serotonin receptor (but subtype nonselective) agonist (4–6); this high affinity suggests a high potential of abuse as a hallucinogenic drug. Reports indicate that this compound is highly potent when it is inhaled or administered sublingually, but it has very low bioavailability when consumed orally. Its total duration of action varies from 3 to 8 h by inhalation and from 4 to 10 h sublingually (7). The route of administration most widely used is sublingual, using blotters applied under the tongue for a few minutes. The effects caused by sublingual application are a slight metallic taste followed by numbness of the tongue and mouth, which can last up to an hour after administering the substance; this is one of the main differences distinguishing the use of these blotters with the traditional LSD ones. Another effect of these derivatives, asides from hallucinations, seems to involve euphoric and stimulating effects that might be comparable to stimulation caused by the use of common amphetamines (2). Dozens of deaths and hospitalizations have occurred in the USA related to the consumption of these new synthetic compounds mainly resulting from traffic and other accidents, where overdosing may cause tachycardia, hypertension, hypokalemia, exacerbation of serotonin and exacerbation of serotonin sympathomimetic syndromes (8). There have been reports of hyperthermia and rhabdomyolysis with a marked increase in plasma levels of creatine kinase and transaminases, metabolic acidosis, liver and kidney failure and disseminated intravascular coagulation (9). In all cases, symptomatic treatment and maintenance of vital functions have been installed, and there is no antidote available for acute intoxication with these hallucinogens. Most cases of acute intoxication have resulted from the confusion of NBOMe blotters with blotters containing the relatively nontoxic LSD. In Chile, according to statistics from our laboratory, this substance has replaced LSD as the main hallucinogen consumed in blotters in our country (10), with thousands of units of 25-C-NBOMe seized by police (more than 2,500 in 2013). Until now, the concentration of active substance in each dose (blotter) has remained unknown. In this context, we have developed and implemented a new rapid quantitative method for testing 25-C-NBOMe in blotters by HPTLC with confirmation by GC–MS. This method was validated according recommendations of the SWGTOX (11), and its uncertainty was also evaluated (12). This robust, reliable and simple technique is suitable for blotters analysis, comparison, profiling and routine use in forensic laboratories.
Materials and methods
Reagents
Methanol, ammonia, toluene, diethylamine and cyclohexane, all of HPLC grade, were purchased from Merck (Darmstadt, Germany). Reference material of 25-C-NBOMe was generously provided by the Drug Enforcement Administration (Washington, DC).
Instrumentation
TIC and mass spectrum of standard of 25-C-NBOMe. This figure is available in black and white in print and in color at JCS online.
Sample preparation
Fifteen real samples of seized blotters were separately submerged in 25.0 mL of methanol (HPLC grade) and extracted for 15 min in an ultrasonic bath. An extract of each sample (2.0 mL) was added to a glass vial for chromatographic analyses, then one vial was analyzed by HPTLC and a second vial was examined by GC–MS with the aim of confirm results obtained with HPTLC.
Results and discussion
Method optimization
The extraction procedure involves a significant modification of the method previously published by Zuba et al. in 2013 (3) to obtain results in lower time and with a small use of solvents.
Method validation
Results of purity and spectrum comparison of real samples and reference material of 25-C-NBOMe. This figure is available in black and white in print and in color at JCS online.
Densitogram with 25-C-NBOMe, LSD and DMT as an example of selectivity and separation capability of the proposed method. This figure is available in black and white in print and in color at JCS online.
where CVrepeat is the RSD of repeatability, CVrecover is the RSD of accuracy assay and CVcal is the RSD from the calibration curve (18). In the case of robustness, different HPTLC plates from another manufacturer (Macherey-Nagel) did not modify the separation process.
A brief summary of validation parameters for the HPTLC method is shown in Table I. With the validated method, we analyzed 15 real samples. Quantitation was achieved by HPTLC using three points of calibration, and then the identity of all samples were confirmed by GC–MS, in all cases finding 25-C-NBOMe. Table II shows a brief summary of the results from each sample and the design or imprint of each blotter.
Summary of Validation Parameters for Analysis of 25-C-NBOMe by HPTLC
| Parameter . | Results . |
|---|---|
| Rf | 0.37 |
| Linearity and range | 19.72–118.28 µg per band; y = 16.76X − 16.23, R2: 0.99772, SD: 3.64 |
| LOD and LOQ | 7.1 µg per band, and 21.63 µg per band |
| Repeatability (50.2 µg) | CV% = 5,459 |
| Intermediate precision | CV% = 6,071 |
| Amount of 25-C-NBOMe (µg/mL) | Recovery (%) |
| 18,825 | 95,635 ± 0.389 |
| 31,375 | 97,098 ± 1,166 |
| 43,925 | 102,213 ± 2,507 |
| 56,475 | 105,111 ± 1,404 |
| 69,025 | 100,971 ± 1,295 |
| 81,575 | 94,541 ± 0.430 |
| Mean: 99.26%; SD: 4.14 | |
| Relative uncertainty | 3.63% |
| Parameter . | Results . |
|---|---|
| Rf | 0.37 |
| Linearity and range | 19.72–118.28 µg per band; y = 16.76X − 16.23, R2: 0.99772, SD: 3.64 |
| LOD and LOQ | 7.1 µg per band, and 21.63 µg per band |
| Repeatability (50.2 µg) | CV% = 5,459 |
| Intermediate precision | CV% = 6,071 |
| Amount of 25-C-NBOMe (µg/mL) | Recovery (%) |
| 18,825 | 95,635 ± 0.389 |
| 31,375 | 97,098 ± 1,166 |
| 43,925 | 102,213 ± 2,507 |
| 56,475 | 105,111 ± 1,404 |
| 69,025 | 100,971 ± 1,295 |
| 81,575 | 94,541 ± 0.430 |
| Mean: 99.26%; SD: 4.14 | |
| Relative uncertainty | 3.63% |
Summary of Validation Parameters for Analysis of 25-C-NBOMe by HPTLC
| Parameter . | Results . |
|---|---|
| Rf | 0.37 |
| Linearity and range | 19.72–118.28 µg per band; y = 16.76X − 16.23, R2: 0.99772, SD: 3.64 |
| LOD and LOQ | 7.1 µg per band, and 21.63 µg per band |
| Repeatability (50.2 µg) | CV% = 5,459 |
| Intermediate precision | CV% = 6,071 |
| Amount of 25-C-NBOMe (µg/mL) | Recovery (%) |
| 18,825 | 95,635 ± 0.389 |
| 31,375 | 97,098 ± 1,166 |
| 43,925 | 102,213 ± 2,507 |
| 56,475 | 105,111 ± 1,404 |
| 69,025 | 100,971 ± 1,295 |
| 81,575 | 94,541 ± 0.430 |
| Mean: 99.26%; SD: 4.14 | |
| Relative uncertainty | 3.63% |
| Parameter . | Results . |
|---|---|
| Rf | 0.37 |
| Linearity and range | 19.72–118.28 µg per band; y = 16.76X − 16.23, R2: 0.99772, SD: 3.64 |
| LOD and LOQ | 7.1 µg per band, and 21.63 µg per band |
| Repeatability (50.2 µg) | CV% = 5,459 |
| Intermediate precision | CV% = 6,071 |
| Amount of 25-C-NBOMe (µg/mL) | Recovery (%) |
| 18,825 | 95,635 ± 0.389 |
| 31,375 | 97,098 ± 1,166 |
| 43,925 | 102,213 ± 2,507 |
| 56,475 | 105,111 ± 1,404 |
| 69,025 | 100,971 ± 1,295 |
| 81,575 | 94,541 ± 0.430 |
| Mean: 99.26%; SD: 4.14 | |
| Relative uncertainty | 3.63% |
Analysis of 15 Real Samples of Blotters Seized in Chile
| Sample . | Results by HPTLC . | Confirmation by GC–MS . | Amount of 25 C NBOMe by HPTLC (µg/blotter) . | Design . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 1,943.50 | ![]() |
| 2 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 772.94 | ![]() |
| 3 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 977.63 | ![]() |
| 4 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 1,315.25 | ![]() |
| 5 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 1,908.45 | ![]() |
| 6 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 820.63 | ![]() |
| 7 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 843.44 | ![]() |
| 8 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 701.00 | ![]() |
| 9 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 1,458.35 | ![]() |
| 10 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 781.25 | ![]() |
| 11 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 1,943.14 | ![]() |
| 12 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 958.20 | ![]() |
| 13 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 1,396.80 | ![]() |
| 14 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 1,026.69 | ![]() |
| 15 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 1,987.75 | ![]() |
| Sample . | Results by HPTLC . | Confirmation by GC–MS . | Amount of 25 C NBOMe by HPTLC (µg/blotter) . | Design . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 1,943.50 | ![]() |
| 2 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 772.94 | ![]() |
| 3 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 977.63 | ![]() |
| 4 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 1,315.25 | ![]() |
| 5 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 1,908.45 | ![]() |
| 6 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 820.63 | ![]() |
| 7 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 843.44 | ![]() |
| 8 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 701.00 | ![]() |
| 9 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 1,458.35 | ![]() |
| 10 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 781.25 | ![]() |
| 11 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 1,943.14 | ![]() |
| 12 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 958.20 | ![]() |
| 13 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 1,396.80 | ![]() |
| 14 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 1,026.69 | ![]() |
| 15 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 1,987.75 | ![]() |
Analysis of 15 Real Samples of Blotters Seized in Chile
| Sample . | Results by HPTLC . | Confirmation by GC–MS . | Amount of 25 C NBOMe by HPTLC (µg/blotter) . | Design . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 1,943.50 | ![]() |
| 2 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 772.94 | ![]() |
| 3 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 977.63 | ![]() |
| 4 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 1,315.25 | ![]() |
| 5 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 1,908.45 | ![]() |
| 6 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 820.63 | ![]() |
| 7 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 843.44 | ![]() |
| 8 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 701.00 | ![]() |
| 9 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 1,458.35 | ![]() |
| 10 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 781.25 | ![]() |
| 11 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 1,943.14 | ![]() |
| 12 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 958.20 | ![]() |
| 13 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 1,396.80 | ![]() |
| 14 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 1,026.69 | ![]() |
| 15 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 1,987.75 | ![]() |
| Sample . | Results by HPTLC . | Confirmation by GC–MS . | Amount of 25 C NBOMe by HPTLC (µg/blotter) . | Design . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 1,943.50 | ![]() |
| 2 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 772.94 | ![]() |
| 3 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 977.63 | ![]() |
| 4 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 1,315.25 | ![]() |
| 5 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 1,908.45 | ![]() |
| 6 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 820.63 | ![]() |
| 7 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 843.44 | ![]() |
| 8 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 701.00 | ![]() |
| 9 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 1,458.35 | ![]() |
| 10 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 781.25 | ![]() |
| 11 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 1,943.14 | ![]() |
| 12 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 958.20 | ![]() |
| 13 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 1,396.80 | ![]() |
| 14 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 1,026.69 | ![]() |
| 15 | 25-C-NBOMe | 25-C-NBOMe | 1,987.75 | ![]() |
Sample analysis
This method is fast, with good specificity, linearity, accuracy, precision, detection and quantitation limits and low relative uncertainty. In this small number of blotters, we found from 701.0 to 1,943.5 µg per blotter. This high variability increases the potential risk of “bad trips” or acute intoxication because of high potency of this hallucinogenic drug. In all examined cases, we only found 25-C-NBOMe and no other compounds (i.e., LSD) were identified in the selected blotters.
Conclusion
An HPTLC method was developed and validated for a rapid qualitative and quantitative analysis of the content of 25-C-NBOMe in seized blotters. The main differences between this method and others previously implemented are the simple manipulation of the samples and the absence of internal standard, spraying reagents or the “scraping off” method of the plate; offering reliable results with small cost of development. In addition, a GC–MS method was used to identify 25-C-NBOMe in blotters seized in Chile in 2014. The results obtained concerning the concentration of 25-C-NBOMe are very disturbing, considering the broad variation in the amount of this compound in each blotter. In this context, we can assume that N-benzylated phenylethylamines are displacing LSD as the main hallucinogenic drug consumed in blotters in Chile. These results are alarming because the high potency and elevated toxicity of this substance, particularly, when the consumer may not be aware about what is consuming, and, in most cases, users may believe that the blotter contains LSD. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report describing the detection of “NBOMe” derivatives in blotters by HPTLC. The proposed method can be easily implemented in forensic laboratories to establish the concentration of 25-C-NBOME in blotters seized by police officers.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank to Public Health Institute (Chile) for providing materials and reagents for this study. Furthermore, they acknowledge the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA, USA) for the reference material for this work. The authors are also grateful to Pharmacist Lorena Delgado Rivera for her continuous support in our work. Finally, they dedicate this manuscript to the memory of Dr Q.F. Carlos Barrios Guerra, who dedicated his life to learning and teaching toxicology.



















