The 2C, 2C-T, and DO series of designer drugs pose a number of challenges to forensic toxicology laboratories. Although these drugs are seized by law enforcement agencies throughout the United States, they are not readily detected in forensic toxicology laboratories. A systematic evaluation of the cross-reactivity of 9 commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) was conducted using 11 designer drugs. Cross-reactivity was measured towards 2,5-dimethoxy-4-bromophenethylamine (2C-B), 2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine (2C-H), 2,5-dimethoxy4-iodophenethylamine (2C-I), 2,5-dimethoxy-4ethylthiophenethylamine (2C-T-2), 2,5-dimethoxy-4isopropylthiophenethylamine (2C-T-4), 2,5-dimethoxy-4propylthiophenethylamine (2C-T-7), 2,5-dimethoxy-4bromoamphetamine (DOB), 2,5-dimethoxy-4-ethylamphetamine (DOET), 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine (DOI), 2,5-dimethoxy-4-methylamphetamine (DOM), and 4methylthioamphetamine (4-MTA). Cross-reactivity towards the 2C, 2C-T, and DO series of psychedelic amphetamines was < 0.4%. Concentrations as high as 50,000 ng/mL in urine, which greatly exceed those expected in forensic case samples, were not sufficient to produce a positive result. The only substance to produce any measurable cross-reactivity was 4-MTA. Cross-reactivities of 5 and 7% were obtained using four methamphetamine/MDMA directed assays, 25 and 200% using two amphetamine-directed assays. The absence of any measurable cross-reactivity towards the 10 2C, 2C-T, and DO psychedelic phenethylamines makes it harder to detect these drugs using routine screening. As a consequence, laboratories that rely upon immunoassay rather than more broad spectrum chromatographic screening techniques, may fail to detect these powerful psychedelic substances.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kerrigan et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: