Detection of pyrovalerone as a possible synthetic by-product of 4′-methyl-α-pyrrolidinohexanophenone and 4-methyl-α-ethylaminopentiophenone in illicit drug products
Impurity profiling is an important intelligence-gathering tool that can be used to link batches of drugs, and it provides valuable insights into manufacturing and supply trends in new psychoactive substances. In a routine analysis, we detected trace amounts of pyrovalerone in illicit drug products. In this study, we investigated the cause of pyrovalerone’s presence in the illicit drug products containing 4′-methyl-α-pyrrolidinohexanophenone (MPHP) or 4-methyl-α-ethylaminopentiophenone (4-methyl-α-EAPP).
We analyzed the compounds in illicit drug products and raw material using liquid chromatography–photodiode array detection, gas chromatography–mass spectrometry and liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry.
We detected trace amounts of pyrovalerone in four illicit drug products containing MPHP or 4-methyl-α-EAPP. In every case, the amount of pyrovalerone in the illicit drug products was much lower than that of MPHP or 4-methyl-α-EAPP. We assumed that pyrovalerone was produced unintentionally. Structurally, pyrovalerone differs from MPHP with respect to the length of the alkyl side chain, and for 4-methyl-α-EAPP, the amine at the α-position is different (it bears an ethylamine instead of pyrrolidine). Pyrovalerone is thought to be produced in two different ways, as a synthetic by-product of both MPHP and 4-methyl-α-EAPP.
We assumed that pyrovalerone was derived from an impurity in a raw material or arose from contamination during the amination process. Impurity analysis, such as that described in this study, will aid in impurity profiling of cathinones.
KeywordsMPHP 4-Methyl-α-ethylaminopentiophenone Pyrovalerone By-product New psychoactive substances (NPS)
This study was supported in part by JSPS KAKENHI Grant no. 15K08834.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
There are no financial or other relations that could lead to a conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 2.Uchiyama N, Matsuda S, Kawamura M, Kikura-Hanajiri R, Goda Y (2013) Two new-type cannabimimetic quinolinyl carboxylates, QUPIC and QUCHIC, two new cannabimimetic carboxamide derivatives, ADB-FUBINACA and ADBICA, and five synthetic cannabinoids detected with a thiophene derivative α-PVT and an opioid receptor agonist AH-7921 identified in illegal products. Forensic Toxicol 31:223–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Pütz M, Schneiders S, Auwärter V, Münster-Müller S, Scheid N (2015) The EU-project ‘SPICE-profiling’ (2015–2017)—objectives and results of a first study on spice products containing 5F-PB-22. Toxichem Krimtech 82:273–283Google Scholar
- 19.Uchiyama N, Matusda S, Kawamura M, Shimokawa Y, Kikura-Hanajiri R, Aritake K, Urade Y, Goda Y (2014) Characterization of four new designer drugs, 5-chloro-NNEI, NNEI indazole analog, α-PHPP and α-POP, with 11 newly distributed designer drugs in illegal products. Forensic Sci Int 243:1–13CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Uchiyama N, Shimokawa Y, Kawamura M, Kikura-Hanajiri R, Hakamatsuka T (2014) Chemical analysis of a benzofuran derivative, 2-(2-ethylaminopropyl) benzofuran (2-EAPB), eight synthetic cannabinoids, five cathinone derivatives, and five other designer drugs newly detected in illegal products. Forensic Toxicol 32:266–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar