The author(s) shown below used Federal funding provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice to prepare the following resource: 

Document Title: Monitoring Changes in the Novel 

Psychoactive Substance (NPS) Market 

through Enhanced Identification of 

Emerging Drugs and their Metabolites in 

Biological Samples

Author(s): Alex J. Krotulski, Amanda L.A. Mohr, 

Melissa Friscia, Barry K. Logan

Document Number: 251787 

Date Received: June 2018

Award Number: 2015-IJ-CX-K012

This resource has not been published by the U.S. Department of 

Justice. This resource is being made publically available through the 

Office of Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference 

Service.

Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and 

do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice.
Monitoring Changes in the Novel Psychoactive Substance 

(NPS) Market through Enhanced Identification of Emerging 

Drugs and their Metabolites in Biological Samples 

Award Number: 2015-IJ-CX-K012 

Alex J. Krotulski, Amanda L.A. Mohr, Melissa Friscia, Barry K. Logan 

The Center for Forensic Science Research and Education at the Fredric Rieders Family 

Foundation 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Page 1 of 10

Project Purpose 

Electronic dance music (EDM) festivals have become a popular venue for various types 

of recreational drug use, including the reported ingestion of “Ecstasy,” “Molly,” and/or 

“MDMA,” which has been documented by surveys with attendees and is reflected in online 

discussion groups associated within the EDM culture. These terms are used interchangeably, 

and users are often naïve as to what active substance(s) their pills, powders, or capsules contain. 

Within the last four years, several adverse events associated with novel psychoactive substance 

(NPS) use were reported at various EDM festivals in the United States. 

Both the dynamics of the synthetic drug market and diversity of NPS have resulted in 

analytical challenges within the forensic community in detecting and monitoring novel drug use. 

Currently, there is not a formalized approach to identify novel substances in toxicologicallytested populations. Novel substances often go undetected or their discovery is serendipitous. 

Metabolic studies for novel drugs remain limited and, generally, metabolite elucidation occurs 

sometime after establishing the identity of the parent compound, if at all. Using our established 

operational model of collecting paired specimens and self-reported drug use data from EDM 

festival attendees, we address some of the research needs focused on characterizing chemical 

compounds of forensic interest in biological systems, by providing confirmation of the parent 

drugs of abuse (established and emerging) and identifying metabolites in authentic specimens 

from a population of recreational drug users. 

Project Design 

Biological specimens and survey information were collected from participants at four 

EDM festivals in the United States over three locations during this two-year Institutional Review 

Board (IRB) approved study. Festival sites included Miami, FL (Spring 2016, Spring 2017), 

Tampa, FL (Summer 2017), and Atlanta, GA (Fall 2017). Participants were peer-recruited near 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Page 2 of 10

the entrance to the festival (Miami and Tampa) or within the campgrounds (Atlanta) of the 

festival. Participants were required to be at least 18 years old and not visibly intoxicated. Peerrecruiters began the process by explaining the purpose and significance of the study. The 

collection process began with the participants signing an informed consent document, which 

confirmed the aforementioned requirements. Blood specimens were collected into a grey-top 

tube. Urine specimens were self-collected in a private lavatory. Oral fluid specimens were selfcollected, under recruiter supervision, according to the manufacturer’s instructions using the 

Immunalysis Quantisal®. All samples were initially screened for abused, therapeutic, and 

emerging drugs, including hundreds of NPS, by liquid chromatography quadrupole time-of-flight 

mass spectrometry (LC-QTOF), liquid chromatography time-of-flight mass spectrometry (LCTOF), or gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS). All samples that screened positive 

for one or more drugs were sent for qualitative and/or quantitative confirmatory analysis, 

depending on the drug present and available confirmatory methods. 

Results and Discussion 

During this study, 912 biological samples (blood, urine, and oral fluid) were collected 

from participants at four music festivals over three geographical locations (Appendix A: Table 

1). Survey responses were obtained from 691 participants during sample collection at the four 

festivals in 2016 and 2017, from whom at least an oral fluid sample was collected. In total, 431 

males (62%) and 255 females (37%) provided survey information regarding gender, with five 

(1%) participants not indicating their gender. The average age of the participants in this study 

was 23.7 years old (±5.2 years). Across all four collection sites in 2016 and 2017, 63% of 

participants reported medicinal and/or recreational drug use within the past week. Marijuana was 

the most commonly encountered response for recent drug use, followed by Ecstasy, Molly, 

and/or MDMA (Appendix A: Figure 1). Figure 2 (Appendix A) shows a further breakdown of 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Page 3 of 10

Ecstasy, Molly, and MDMA responses. With respect to novel stimulants and MDMA, 26% 

(n=179) of participants reported using Ecstasy, Molly, and/or MDMA. 

Miami 2016 (Blood and Urine) 

Based on LC-QTOF screening results of the 13 blood samples, only two blood samples 

were sent for additional confirmation. No novel stimulants were detected in these blood samples. 

One blood sample was positive for MDMA (340 ng/mL), MDA (30 ng/mL), and amphetamine 

(7.7 ng/mL). The other blood sample was positive for MDMA (50 ng/mL), MDA (8.2 ng/mL), 

LSD (1.2 ng/mL), modafinil (0.75 ng/mL), THC (2.7 ng/mL), and THC-COOH (11 ng/mL). 

Survey responses paired with both blood samples indicated use of Molly. 

Based on GC-MS and LC-QTOF screening results of the 50 urine samples, 38 samples 

were sent for respective confirmations. Novel stimulants were detected in only one urine 

specimen: dibutylone and butylone. The paired survey response information indicated that the 

participant only used marijuana. MDMA and MDA were confirmed in three individual urine 

samples, and amphetamine was confirmed in four urine samples. The paired survey responses 

with MDMA positive urine samples indicated the use of Molly (n=2) and MDMA (n=1). 

Miami 2016 (Oral Fluid) 

Seventy-nine oral fluid samples were positive for THC, and 61 of those samples resulted 

in a quantitative value (mean 77.2 [±199.1] ng/mL; median 28.7 ng/mL). Sixty-one oral fluid 

samples were positive for 67 common drugs of abuse (excluding THC), including samples 

positive for more than one substance. Fifty-seven oral fluid samples were positive for a novel 

stimulant and/or MDMA/MDA and were quantitatively confirmed (Appendix A: Table 2). 

Fourteen additional oral fluid samples were qualitatively confirmed for any remaining drugs or 

NPS by LC-QTOF. Of note, these results include one positive sample for 4-fluoroamphetamine 

(4-FA), three positives for LSD, and two positives for ketamine. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Page 4 of 10

Miami 2017 (Oral Fluid) 

 A total of 93 oral fluid samples were positive for THC, with 83 being above the limit of 

quantitation (mean 104.3 [±236.1] ng/mL; median 23.3 ng/mL). Forty-six oral fluid samples 

were positive for 73 common drugs of abuse (excluding THC), including samples positive for 

more than one substance. Eighty-eight oral fluid samples were quantitatively confirmed for novel 

stimulants and/or MDMA/MDA by LC-MS/MS (Appendix A: Table 3), and an additional 23 

oral fluid samples which were qualitatively confirmed for any remaining drugs or NPS by LCQTOF. The NPS confirmed included 2,5-dimethoxy-4-bromophenethylamine (2C-B; n=2), 2,5-

dimethoxy-4-bromoamphetamine (DOB; n=2), trifluoromethylphenylpiperazine (TFMPP; n=1), 

benzylpiperazine (BZP; n=1), LSD (n=2), ketamine (n=3), and etizolam (n=1). 

Tampa 2017 (Oral Fluid) 

 THC was confirmed in 55 of the 131 oral fluid samples by LC-MS/MS with 48 samples 

being positive above the LOQ (mean 109.2 [±238.2] ng/mL; median 32.2 ng/mL). Nine oral 

fluid samples were positive for 28 common drugs of abuse (excluding THC), including samples 

positive for more than one substance. Thirty-three oral fluid samples were quantitatively

confirmed for novel stimulants and/or MDMA/MDA (Appendix A: Table 4). Twenty additional 

oral fluid samples were qualitatively confirmed for any remaining drugs or NPS by LC-QTOF, 

including three positive samples for LSD, two for ketamine, and one for psilocin. 

Atlanta 2017 (Oral Fluid) 

 One hundred and five oral fluid samples were confirmed for THC, with 86 samples being 

above the LOQ (mean 97.3(±159.1) ng/mL; median 29.3 ng/mL). Fifty-nine oral fluid samples 

were positive for 142 common drugs of abuse (excluding THC), including samples positive for 

more than one substance. Eighty-three oral fluid samples were quantitatively confirmed for novel 

stimulants and/or MDMA/MDA (Appendix A: Table 5). Twenty-seven additional oral fluid 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Page 5 of 10

samples were qualitatively confirmed for any remaining drugs or NPS by LC-QTOF, including 

positive samples for LSD (n=14), ketamine (n=8), and methylenedioxyethamphetamine (MDEA; 

n=2). 

Temporal Trends - Miami 

 Since oral fluid samples were collected in Miami from 2014 to 2017 (n=1,233), this 

allowed the comparison of novel stimulant positivity, as well as MDMA positivity, over time at 

this location. Figure 3 (Appendix A) shows the change in novel stimulant positivity with respect 

to year. The data is shown as percent positivity in terms of only novel stimulants, MDMA, and 

MDA. While many of the novel stimulants remain low in positivity, it is important to note the 

disappearance of alpha-PVP, the rapid rise and decline of ethylone, and the emergence of 

dibutylone and N-ethyl pentylone. 

Geographic Trends - 2017

 Since oral fluid samples were collected in three locations (Miami, Tampa, and Atlanta) in 

2017, this allowed for the comparison of novel stimulant positivity, as well as MDMA positivity, 

across these geographic locations. Figure 4 (Appendix A) shows the change in novel stimulant 

positivity with respect to location. The data is shown as percent positivity in terms of only novel 

stimulants, MDMA, and MDA. 4-FA, alpha-PVP, and pentylone were excluded due to no 

positivity or positivity only at one location. Based on this comparison, there does not seem to be 

an apparent distinction with relation to novel stimulant positivity and location (<5% difference), 

although N-ethylone percent positivity was highest in Tampa, and MDMA percent positivity was 

lowest in Tampa. 

Novel Stimulant vs. Survey Response – All Years 

 Following analytical confirmation of novel stimulants, MDMA, and MDA, the selfreported survey data responses of Ecstasy, Molly, or MDMA for drug ingested were compared to 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Page 6 of 10

the confirmatory findings. Figure 5 (Appendix A) shows the relationship between Ecstasy, 

Molly, and MDMA responses vs. analytical findings of novel stimulants and/or MDMA and 

MDA. These data show that MDMA was detected in the majority of samples (>50%), regardless 

of the terminology used by the participant. It is interesting to note that no response for Ecstasy 

was paired with a novel stimulant detection only, and all positive samples contained at least 

MDMA. This leads to the possible conclusion that users purchasing Ecstasy are more likely to 

obtain preparations containing MDMA; however, it is also possible that these preparations may 

contain additional novel stimulants. 

Metabolite Identification 

Analysis of data from LC-QTOF analysis of the human liver microsome (HLM) 

incubation mixtures resulted in the identification of five metabolites of dibutylone, all of which 

were identified in authentic specimens. Four metabolites of N-ethyl pentylone were identified 

via HLM incubations, all of which were also found in authentic specimens. Proposed metabolic 

pathways and further details related to the in vivo identifications can be found in the resulting 

publications (1,2). 

Conclusions 

This research study sought to use a cohort of EDM festival attendees as a sentinel 

population to monitor changing patterns and regional trends of NPS use in the United States. In 

order to accomplish this goal, the strategy was to: 1) collect biological specimens and 

accompanying survey information from festival attendees; 2) comprehensively analyze all 

specimens for the accurate detection of common drugs of abuse and emerging drugs; 3) generate 

and identify metabolites of emerging drugs in biological specimens collected; 4) tabulate and 

analyze all data from this study and previously collected data, creating a four year time period 

across three locations to monitor trends and identify any pertinent information that would be 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Page 7 of 10

beneficial to the forensic science communities; and 5) disseminate the results from this study 

within the forensic science communities for increased knowledge and awareness surrounding 

this population, the emergence and turnover of NPS, and the biomarkers useful in distinguishing 

recent use of these drugs. All of these objectives directly relate to the furthering of information 

relating to investigations of criminal activity, drug use and possession, impaired driving, drugfacilitated sexual assault, and other drug-related crimes. 

Through sample analysis, we were able to identify dibutylone and N-ethyl pentylone for 

the first time within this population based on our data, and identify their respective biomarkers 

following extensive metabolic studies. The variation of novel stimulants increased from year to 

year. Only four novel stimulants were detected in 2014 compared to six novel stimulants in 

2017. Drugs initially popular in 2014, like alpha-PVP, were not detected in any specimens 

collected during this two-year period, following scheduling of its precursors in China in October 

2015. Novel stimulants identified included methylone, dimethylone, ethylone, butylone, 

dibutylone, pentylone, eutylone, N-ethyl pentylone, and 4-FA, in addition to the common 

amphetamines MDMA and MDA. 

Of the 1,233 oral fluid specimens collected in our study, 352 (28.5%) confirmed positive 

for a novel stimulant, MDMA, and/or MDA. Compared to all oral fluid samples that were 

positive for at least one or more drug of abuse and/or NPS (n=684), the positivity rate for a novel 

stimulant, MDMA, and/or MDA was 51.5%. The majority of oral fluid samples collected 

contained more than one drug or NPS, suggesting high rates of poly-drug use within this 

population, possibly increasing the potential for adverse events. 

 The initial hypothesis regarding novel stimulant positivity among different geographical 

locations was that there would be a difference in the novel stimulants seen because of drug 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Page 8 of 10

trafficking patterns or regional variability. A limitation of the geographical comparison is that 

all locations are located in the southeastern part of the United States. There was not a distinct 

difference in positivity over locations from Miami to Tampa to Atlanta. While there are slight 

differences in positivity between Miami and Atlanta compared to Tampa, this could not be 

determined to be indicative of or related solely to the geographic location. N-ethyl pentylone 

positivity was decreased in Atlanta (September 2017) compared to Tampa (May 2017), which 

could either reflect regional differences or a shift back to MDMA. MDMA and MDA positivity 

were both relatively stable across all three locations. Interestingly, the results from Miami and 

Atlanta are more consistent, the two locations farthest from each other, rather than with Tampa, 

the location in the center. City and attendee demographics could play a role in this distinction, 

but again this information cannot be discerned from this study. 

 Following their initial identification in this population, the metabolic profiles of 

dibutylone and N-ethyl pentylone were studied. During this research period, we were able to 

confirm the metabolism of dibutylone to butylone for the first time, as well as identify a selective 

biomarker for toxicological testing: 1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-(dimethylamino)butan-1-ol

(hydrogenation of the ketone on dibutylone). The metabolic profiling of N-ethyl pentylone 

resulted in the identification of four metabolites. Consistent with dibutylone, the most prominent 

metabolite of N-ethyl pentylone was found to be 1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-(ethylamino)pentan1-ol (hydrogenation of the ketone on dibutylone). 

Implications for Policy and Practice 

 The goals of this project were to further develop techniques for and demonstrate the value 

of monitoring of an at-risk, high incidence NPS-using population as a sentinel group for tracking 

changes in the NPS market in the United States. There are several lessons learned from the 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Page 9 of 10

project, in both the public health and public safety domains, where the lessons learned from this 

study can influence policy. 

Drug use has significant public health implications, including immediate life-threatening, 

psychological, and physical effects ranging from effects on mood, cognition, appetite, 

wakefulness, hypertension, respiration, and cardiac effects including stroke and cardiac arrest. 

Drug use also may affect the individual’s academic, mental, social, and economic health. The 

consequences from these effects in turn impact social and health systems and impact public 

costs. Crossing many pharmacological categories including stimulants, hallucinogens, narcotics, 

depressants, and dissociatives with a wide range of physiological and psychological side effects, 

NPS drugs have the potential to negatively impact the economic health and social stability of 

many social classes in the United States. 

Implications for Further Research 

We have developed a novel, robust, efficient, and evidence-based model for monitoring 

drug use in at-risk populations. The lessons learned were in areas including logistics of 

deployment including field sample collection, specimen storage and shipping, successful 

recruiting strategies for encouraging participation by subjects, coordination with local law 

enforcement, interview instruments for collecting self-report drug use data, addressing human 

subjects concerns of IRBs, identification of the most efficient sample collection techniques, 

validation of analytical methods for comprehensive screening of traditional recreational, 

therapeutic, and NPS drugs, and dissemination channels for sharing the information. This model 

can be readily deployed to study other drugs or other drug-using populations. 

With respect to NPS use in the EDM population, additional follow-up testing of the 

population is strongly recommended, as the latest data shows that the use profile of available and 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Page 10 of 10

popular NPS drugs is still changing rapidly and MDMA positivity is increasing. Future studies 

could be conducted more efficiently with fewer peer recruiters using an oral fluid-only model. 

Opportunities for future research in this area include the following: continued updating 

and distribution of libraries of NPS drugs and their metabolites, continued monitoring of the 

EDM population, expanding the number of events tested to broader geographic locations and 

different music genres, performing more comprehensive surveys using smartphone technology, 

performing on-site testing of drug preparations and doses using mobile GC-MS technology, and 

performing testing of contents of amnesty bins. 

Acknowledgements 

The authors of this manuscript would like to acknowledge the following for their 

contributions to this project: Jill Yeakel (Lehigh Valley Toxicology), Donna Papsun (NMS 

Labs), Francis Diamond (NMS Labs), the Armed Forces Medical Examiner’s Office: Division of 

Forensic Toxicology, staff at the Fredric Rieders Family Foundation, and graduate students from 

Florida International University, Arcadia University, and the University of South Florida. 

References 

1. Alex J. Krotulski, Donna M. Papsun, Bruno S De Martinis, Amanda L.A. Mohr, and 

Barry K. Logan. (2017) N-Ethyl Pentylone (Ephylone) Intoxications: Quantitative 

Confirmation and Metabolite Identification in Authentic Human Blood Specimens. 

Journal of Analytical Toxicology. [In press]. 

2. Alex J. Krotulski, Amanda L.A. Mohr, Donna M. Papsun, and Barry K. Logan. (2017) 

Dibutylone (bk-DMBDB): Intoxications, Quantitative Confirmations, and Metabolism in 

Authentic Biological Specimens. Journal of Analytical Toxicology. [In press]. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Appendix A 

Page 1 of 6

Table 1: Biological samples collected at all festivals (2016-2017)

Festival Year Blood

Samples

Urine

Samples

Oral Fluid

Samples

Miami 2016 13 50 244*

Miami 2017 - - 308

Tampa 2017 - - 131

Atlanta 2017 - - 166

*Includes 158 oral fluid samples from the crowd 

(-): Sample type not collected 

Figure 1: Self-reported medicinal and/or recreational drug use over 

four sample collection sites (2016-2017). 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Appendix A 

Page 2 of 6

Figure 2: Self-reported Ecstasy, Molly, and MDMA use over 

four sample collection sites (2016-2017). 

Table 2: Confirmatory results for novel stimulants in oral fluid samples* (Miami 2016) 

Analyte Positive

Samples

Samples with

Quant. Conc.

Average Conc.

(±Std. Dev.) (ng/mL)

Median

(ng/mL)

Range

(ng/mL)

Methylone 3 0 - - -

Dimethylone 3 1 4.7 - -

Ethylone 18 4 27.9 (±25.3) 26.7 4.4 - 53.9

Butylone 12 4 568.7 (±803.0) 248.7 16.6 - 1761

Dibutylone 12 3 728.9 (±1036) 137.6 123.2 - 1926

Eutylone 0 - - - -

Pentylone 1 0 - - -

N-ethyl pentylone 0 - - - -

MDA 36 24 508.1 (±2028) 24.0 6.2 - >10000

MDMA 43 32 561.9 (±927.7) 236.1 4.1 - 4298

*Some oral fluid samples were positive for more than one drug 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Appendix A 

Page 3 of 6

Table 3: Confirmatory results for novel stimulants in oral fluid samples* (Miami 2017) 

Analyte Positive

Samples

Samples with

Quant. Conc.

Average Conc.

(±Std. Dev.) (ng/mL)

Median

(ng/mL)

Range

(ng/mL)

Methylone 4 0 - - -

Dimethylone 1 0 - - -

Ethylone 3 1 197.5* - -

Butylone 6 5 160.8 (±310.9) 9.9 4.6 - 715.0

Dibutylone 11 4 53.1 (±67.0) 26.3 7.3 - 152.7

Eutylone 0 - - - -

Pentylone 1 0 - - -

N-ethyl pentylone 3 1 8.7* - -

MDA 70 54 71.4 (±124.1) 29.0 4.1 - 657.5

MDMA 76 72 773.0 (±1797) 213.3 4.4 - >10000

*Some oral fluid samples were positive for more than one drug 

Table 4: Confirmatory results for novel stimulants in oral fluid samples* (Tampa 2017) 

Analyte Positive

Samples

Samples with

Quant. Conc.

Average Conc.

(±Std. Dev.) (ng/mL)

Median

(ng/mL)

Range

(ng/mL)

Methylone 2 0 - - -

Dimethylone 0 - - - -

Ethylone 2 0 - - -

Butylone 0 - - - -

Dibutylone 1 0 - - -

Eutylone 0 - - - -

Pentylone 0 - - - -

N-ethyl pentylone 11 5 317.8 (±593.9) 35.2 12.6 - 1377

MDA 24 19 48.4 (±93.2) 16.2 4.8 - 412.5

MDMA 26 24 1419 (±3017) 132.4 8.0 - >10000

*Some oral fluid samples were positive for more than one drug 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Appendix A 

Page 4 of 6

Table 5: Confirmatory results for novel stimulants in oral fluid samples* (Atlanta 2017) 

Analyte Positive

Samples

Samples with

Quant. Conc.

Average Conc.

(±Std. Dev.) (ng/mL)

Median

(ng/mL)

Range

(ng/mL)

Methylone 2 0 - - -

Dimethylone 1 0 - - -

Ethylone 2 1 72.8 - -

Butylone 3 3 270.4 (±242.1) 208.5 65.2 - 537.5

Dibutylone 3 3 773.9 (±676.0) 652.5 166.9 - 1502

Eutylone 1 0 - - -

Pentylone 0 - - - -

N-ethyl pentylone 8 3 60.3 (±84.9) 12.5 10.2 - 158.4

MDA 71 49 33.4 (±35.2) 23.8 4.1 - 171.1

MDMA 79 75 663.9 (±1772) 171.2 4.0 - >10000

*Some oral fluid samples were positive for more than one drug 

 

Figure 3: Novel stimulant percent positivity across four years (Miami only) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Appendix A 

Page 5 of 6

Figure 4: Novel stimulant percent positivity across three locations (2017 only) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Appendix A 

Page 6 of 6

Figure 5: Overall Ecstasy, Molly, and MDMA survey responses vs. novel stimulants positivity 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.