2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.02.057
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Artifacts in the GC–MS profiling of underivatized methamphetamine hydrochloride

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
(24 reference statements)
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, it has recently been reported that solvent and catalyst-specific side products were detected in significant amounts where an internet-based procedure was fingerprinted for the analysis of a tryptamine synthesis via tryptophan decarboxylation [11]. A number of other examples are known where artefact formation was observed when amphetamine or phenethylamine derivatives were exposed to GC-MS conditions, either with or without contact to methanolic solutions used for the preparation of liquid sample injection [20][21][22][23].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, it has recently been reported that solvent and catalyst-specific side products were detected in significant amounts where an internet-based procedure was fingerprinted for the analysis of a tryptamine synthesis via tryptophan decarboxylation [11]. A number of other examples are known where artefact formation was observed when amphetamine or phenethylamine derivatives were exposed to GC-MS conditions, either with or without contact to methanolic solutions used for the preparation of liquid sample injection [20][21][22][23].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The combination of ephedrine, formaldehyde contamination in methanol and increased injection temperature has also led to the false identification of phenmetrazine [26] and injections of methanolic solutions of MA hydrochloride have been observed to form both methylated and demethylated artefacts. It was furthermore found that artefacts were not detected when new inlet liners were used, even at elevated temperatures [27]. Other examples were reported during the analysis of several 2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine "designer" drugs (2C-T-7, 2C-T-2 and 2C-I) where injections of methanolic solutions resulted in the detection of methylene, N CH 2 , artefacts [28,29,30].…”
Section: Impact Of Dichloromethane Work-up On Product Purity and Detementioning
confidence: 96%
“…When analyzing amines by GC‐MS, it is preferable to convert them from the salt to the free base by liquid‐liquid extraction (LLE) under alkaline conditions to improve the peak shapes. For example, GC‐MS analysis of methamphetamine hydrochloride as methanol solution deteriorated the peak shape by giving thermal artefacts such as amphetamine and dimethylamphetamine . Nevertheless, it can be problematic to evaporate the extracted solutions because the free bases of low‐molecular‐weight amines such as amphetamine‐type stimulants (ATS) easily volatilize during solvent evaporation .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, GC-MS analysis of methamphetamine hydrochloride as methanol solution deteriorated the peak shape by giving thermal artefacts such as amphetamine and dimethylamphetamine. [14] Nevertheless, it can be problematic to evaporate the extracted solutions because the free bases of low-molecular-weight amines such as amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) easily volatilize during solvent evaporation. [15] However, there have been no reports on the volatility of MC analogues during solvent evaporation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%