This paper reports on the identification and full chemical characterization of the substance colloquially called “etonitazepyne” or “N‐pyrrolidino etonitazene” (2‐(4‐ethoxybenzyl)‐5‐nitro‐1‐(2‐(pyrrolidin‐1‐yl)ethyl)‐1H‐benzo[d]imidazole), a potent NPS opioid of the 5‐nitrobenzimidazole class. Identification of etonitazepyne was performed, on a sample purchased during routine monitoring of the drug market, using GC‐MS, HRAM LC‐MS/MS, 1H NMR, and FTIR. The chromatographic data, together with the FTIR data, indicated the presence of a highly pure compound and already indicated a benzimidazole structure. The specific benzimidazole regio‐isomer was confirmed using 1H NMR spectroscopy, resulting in the unambiguous identification of etonitazepyne.

Spectroscopic techniques such as infrared spectroscopy and Raman spectroscopy are used for a long time in the context of the analysis of illicit drugs, and their use is increasing due to the development of more performant portable devices and easy application in the context of harm reduction through drug checking or onsite forensic analysis. Although these instruments are routinely used with a spectral library, the importance of chemometric techniques to extract relevant information and give a full characterisation of samples, especially in the context of adulteration, is increasing. This review gives an overview of the applications described in the context of the analysis of illicit drug products exploiting the advantages of the combination of spectroscopy with chemometrics. Next to an overview of the literature, the review also tries to emphasize the shortcomings of the presented research papers and to give an incentive to what is needed to include chemometrics as a part of the daily routine of drug checking services and mobile forensic applications.

Background: Drug checking is a proven harm reduction strategy and provides real-time information on the market of new psychoactive substances (NPS). It combines chemical analysis of samples with direct engagement with people who use drugs (PWUD), giving the ability to increase preparedness and responsiveness towards NPS. Next to that, it supports rapid identification of potential unwitting consumption. However, NPS cause a toxicological battle for the researchers, as factors such as the unpredictability and quick shift of the market complicate the detection. Methods: To evaluate challenges posed towards drug checking services, proficiency testing was set up to evaluate existing analytical techniques and investigate the capability to correctly identify circulating NPS. Twenty blind substances, covering the most common categories of substances, were analyzed according to the existing protocols of the existing drug checking services, including several analytical methods such as gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and liquid chromatography with diode array detector (LC-DAD). Results: The proficiency test scores range from 80 to 97.5% accuracy. The most common issues and errors are mainly unidentified compounds, presumably due to no up-to-date libraries, and/ or confusion between structural isomers, such as 3- and 4-chloroethcathinone, or structural analogs, such as MIPLA (N-methyl-N-isopropyl lysergamide) and LSD (D-lysergic acid diethylamide). Conclusions: The participating drug checking services have access to adequate analytical tools to provide feedback to drug users and provide up-to-date information on NPS.