Forensic Toxicology

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 54–58 | Cite as

Identification of N-ethyl-α-ethylphenethylamine in crystalline powder seized for suspected drug trafficking: a research chemical or a new designer drug?

  • Jaesin Lee
  • Sanggil Choe
  • Hyeyoung Choi
  • Sewoong Heo
  • Eunmi Kim
  • Hyunju Kim
  • Eunjung Bang
  • Heesun Chung
Short Communication

Abstract

A crystalline powder was found in an unclaimed lost article shipped from Vietnam to South Korea, and it was seized by narcotics agents as an item of suspicious trade. The chemical was suspected to be methamphetamine crystals, and was sent to the National Forensic Service for forensic identification. Elucidation of the chemical structure was carried out using gas chromatography–electron impact ionization–mass spectrometry, liquid chromatography–time-of-flight–mass spectrometry, and 1D and 2D nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. The compound was identified as N-ethyl-α-ethylphenethylamine. Although the narcotic effect of this compound remains unverified, it may be classified as a phenethylamine-based designer drug on the basis of its structure. It appeared that the recipient of this article sought to abuse this chemical in the same way as amphetamines. There is a possibility that this chemical will be widely abused for recreational use in the near future.

Keywords

N-Ethyl-α-ethylphenethylamine Drug trafficking Structural elucidation GC–EI–MS LC–TOF–MS NMR 

References

  1. 1.
    Namera A, Nakamoto A, Saito T, Nagao M (2011) Colorimetric detection and chromatographic analyses of designer drugs in biological materials: a comprehensive review. Forensic Toxicol 29:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Auwärter V, Dresen S, Weinmann W, Müller M, Pütz M, Fereirós N (2009) ‘Spice’ and other herbal blends: harmless incense or cannabinoid designer drugs? J Mass Spectrom 44:832–837PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Uchiyama N, Kawamura M, Kikura-Hanajiri R, Goda Y (2011) Identification and quantitation of two cannabimimetic phenylacetylindoles JWH-251 and JWH-250, and four cannabimimetic naphthoylidoles JWH-081, JWH-015, JWH-200, and JWH-073 as designer drugs in illegal products. Forensic Toxicol 29:25–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    2011 Annual report of the state of the drugs problem in Europe. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), Lisbon, November 2011Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    World Drug Report (2011) United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC). June, Vienna 2011Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hillebrand J, Olszewski D, Sedefov R (2010) Legal highs on the Internet. Subst Use Misuse 45:330–340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zaitsu K, Katagi M, Tatsuno M, Sato T, Tsuchihasi H, Suzuki K (2011) Recently abused β-keto derivatives of 3,4-methylenedioxyphenylalkylamines: a review of their metabolisms and toxicological analysis. Forensic Toxicol 29:73–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zuba D (2012) Identification of cathinones and other active components of ‘legal highs’ by mass spectrometric methods. Trends Anal Chem 32:15–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coppola M, Mondola R (2012) 3,4-Methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV): chemistry, pharmacology and toxicology of a new designer drug of abuse marketed online. Toxicol Lett 208:12–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gibbons S, Zloh M (2010) An analysis of the ‘legal high’ mephedrone. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 20:4135–4139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maheux CR, Copeland CR, Pollard MM (2010) Characterization of three methcathinone analogs: 4-methylmethcathinone, methylone, and bk-MBDB. Microgram J 7:42–49Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Theobald DS, Maurer HH (2007) Identification of monoamine oxidase and cytochrome P450 isoenzymes involved in the deamination of phenethylamine-derived designer drugs (2C-series). Biochem Pharmacol 73:287–297PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rösner P, Quednow B, Girreser U, Junge T (2005) Isomeric fluoro-methoxy-phenylalkylamines: a new series of controlled-substance analogues (designer drugs). Forensic Sci Int 148:143–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gosav S, Dinica R, Praisler M (2008) Choosing between GC–FTIR and GC–MS spectra for an efficient intelligent identification of illicit amphetamines. J Mol Struct 887:269–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Junet R (1956) Ethylamphetamine in the treatment of obesity. Praxis 45:986–988 (article in French)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oberlender R, Nicholas DE (1991) Structural variation and (+)-amphetamine like discriminative stimulus properties. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 38:581–586PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nicholas DE (1986) Differences between the mechanism of action of MDMA, MBDB, and the classic hallucinogens. Identification of a new therapeutic class: entactogens. J Psychoactive Drugs 18:305–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Parliament of the United Kingdom, May 1971Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Association of Forensic Toxicology and Springer 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jaesin Lee
    • 1
  • Sanggil Choe
    • 1
  • Hyeyoung Choi
    • 1
  • Sewoong Heo
    • 1
  • Eunmi Kim
    • 1
  • Hyunju Kim
    • 2
  • Eunjung Bang
    • 2
  • Heesun Chung
    • 1
  1. 1.Narcotics Analysis DivisionNational Forensic ServiceSeoulKorea
  2. 2.Seoul CenterKorea Basic Science InstituteSeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations