Organ distribution of 4-MEC, MDPV, methoxetamine and α-PVP: comparison of QuEChERS and SPE
An organ distribution investigation was carried out on two deceased (A and B) who consumed 4-methylethcathinone (4-MEC), methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV), methoxetamine (MXE) and α-pyrrolidinopentiophenone (α-PVP).
The detection of the aforementioned drugs in the specimens was performed on a liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry system. Two different extraction methods were compared with each other—a quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged and safe (QuEChERS) approach and an automated Instrument Top Sample Preparation-solid phase extraction (ITSP-SPE). Standard addition method was used to quantify the drugs.
4-MEC, MDPV and MXE were detected in all collected tissues and body fluids of the two deceased. α-PVP was also detectable in deceased A. Deceased A showed femoral blood concentrations of 97 µg/L 4-MEC, 396 µg/L MDPV, 295 µg/L MXE and 4 µg/L α-PVP measured after extraction by QuEChERS and 118 µg/L 4-MEC, 342 µg/L MDPV, 385 µg/L MXE and 4 µg/L α-PVP measured after ITSP-SPE. Deceased B revealed heart blood concentrations of 8 µg/L 4-MEC, 3 µg/L MDPV and 2 µg/L MXE after extraction by QuEChERS and 8 µg/L 4-MEC and 1 µg/L MXE after ITSP-SPE.
Both preparation techniques were suitable for quantifying NPS in organ tissues and body fluids. With respect to the autopsy findings, the cause of death of deceased A was determined to be an acute intoxication with NPS. No certain cause of death could be ascertained for deceased B.
KeywordsOrgan distribution New psychoactive substances 4-MEC QuEChERS ITSP-SPE LC–MS/MS
The authors wish to thank Scientific Instruments Manufacturer GmbH (Oberhausen, Germany) for generously providing the ITSP-SPE system for this research. We thank Dr. June Mercer-Chalmers-Bender for editorial support and prosecutor Jörg Schindler for his supporting in gathering and providing relevant case information. This work was partly funded by the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy on the basis of a decision by the German Bundestag, grant no. KF2429613MD3.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All experiments comply with the current laws of the Federal Republic of Germany. The Department of Public Prosecution of Cologne gave permission for the publication of this case. The article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors. Informed consent was obtained from a healthy subject who provided small volumes of blank blood for use in the validation experiments.
- 1.United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) (2016) New psychoactive substances: overview of trends, challenges and legal approaches. vol E/CN.7/2016/CRP.2Google Scholar
- 3.US Drug Enforcement Administration (2014) Schedules of controlled substances: temporary placement of 10 synthetic cathinones into schedule I. Fed Regist 79:12938–12943Google Scholar
- 8.US Drug Enforcement Administration (2011) Schedules of controlled substances: temporary placement of three synthetic cathinones in Schedule I. Fed Regist 76:65371–65375Google Scholar
- 9.World Health Organization (2014) 4-Methylethcathinone (4-MEC): critical review report. Expert Committee on Drug Dependence 36th ECDD Agenda item 4.3Google Scholar
- 15.Hasegawa K, Wurita A, Minakata K, Gonmori K, Nozawa H, Yamagishi I, Watanabe K, Suzuki O (2015) Postmortem distribution of AB-CHMINACA, 5-fluoro-AMB, and diphenidine in body fluids and solid tissues in a fatal poisoning case: usefulness of adipose tissue for detection of the drugs in unchanged forms. Forensic Toxicol 33:45–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Gaunitz F, Schürenkamp J, Rostamzadeh A, Konkol C, Thevis M, Rothschild MA, Mercer-Chalmers-Bender K (2017) Analysis of taxine B/isotaxine B in a plasma specimen by LC–MS/MS in a case of fatal poisoning: concealed suicide by ingestion of yew (Taxus L.) leaves of a patient with a long-term history of borderline personality disorder. Forensic Toxicol 35:421–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Paul L, Musshoff F, Aebi B, Auwärter V, Krämer T, Peters F, Skopp G, Aderjan R, Herbold M, Schmitt G (2009) Richtlinie der GTFCh zur Qualitätssicherung bei forensisch-toxikologischen Untersuchungen. Toxichem Krimtech 76:142–176Google Scholar
- 28.Peters F, Musshoff F, Kraemer T (2009) Anhang B. Richtlinie der GTFCh zur Qualitätssicherung bei forensisch-toxikologischen Untersuchungen Anforderungen an die Validierung von Analysenmethoden. Toxichem Krimtech 76:185–208Google Scholar
- 29.European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) (2014) Europol Joint Report on a new psychoactive substance: MDPV (3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https://doi.org/10.2810/24085
- 31.Araújo AM, Valente MJ, Carvalho M, Da Silva DD, Gaspar H, Carvalho F, de Lourdes Bastos M, De Pinho PG (2015) Raising awareness of new psychoactive substances: chemical analysis and in vitro toxicity screening of ‘legal high’ packages containing synthetic cathinones. Arch Toxicol 89:757–771CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 37.Hasegawa K, Suzuki O, Wurita A, Minakata K, Yamagishi I, Nozawa H, Gonmori K, Watanabe K (2014) Postmortem distribution of α-pyrrolidinovalerophenone and its metabolite in body fluids and solid tissues in a fatal poisoning case measured by LC–MS–MS with the standard addition method. Forensic Toxicol 32:225–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar