In April 2015, we received a sample that was sold as 6-MAPB, but the lab tentatively identified as most likely to be 6-APDB. This week, the lab took another look at the sample with some new standards and using more updated Mass Spectrum databases.
After spending quite a bit of time on it, their new identification (not 100% match to a standard DDL has, but a close library match) has changed to 5-APDB, rather than the previous 6-APDB. Here’s what the lab wrote describing that process:
I reanalyzed 40900034. The best match is now to 5-APDB. It’s complicated, so here’s a little background.
There are four APDB compounds, the 4-APDB, 5-APDB, 6-APDB, and 7-APDB. They all elute very early according to Cayman spectras, but in this order, 5, 6, 7, and then 4 at a later time. So, it was determined that based on the ion ratios, 40900034 was CLOSEST and now BEST match to 5-APDB. The GCMS output spectras of 5,6,7 in comparison to the sample have been attached, just for curiosity.
[ Erowid: these are now attached to the ecstasydata entry: ID : 3276. ]
Also, it was interesting that the 6-APDB standard received from Cayman produced an extra minor peak, whereas only one peak is shown in Cayman’s database. Not sure there. Possible contamination of the standard we were sent? Or 6-APDB produces two peaks. ( I ran the standard three different times to confirm). GCMS output have also been attached.
I will be developing a new method to help separate and better identified compounds with functional groups at a different carbons for APDB and the many other new drugs.