Skip to main content
. 2023 May 23;415(17):3607–3617. doi: 10.1007/s00216-023-04751-2

Table 3.

Matrix effect calculated for a blank oral fluid sample spiked with 50 µg L−1 of the studied analytes analysed directly by LC–MS/MS, after a 1:1 dilution with methanol, and after MEPS developed procedure

Analyte ME (%)
Direct 1:1 dilution MEPS
2C-C 49.8 44.1 4.3
DOC 83.3 47.1 5.4
2C-E 75.7 67.4 17.7
LSD 39.1 34.6 17.3
Mescaline-NBOMe 70.9 40.2 22.3
3,4-DMA-NBOMe 34.9 40.9 16.9
DOI 58.5 15.4 18.3
2C-P 61.6 52.8 16.5
25H-NBOMe 59.6 17.3 17.2
25N-NBOMe 54.1 20.5 16.2
25C-NBOH 59.8 16.3 9.5
25-MMA-NBOMe 52.8 22.8 20.4
4-MA-NBOMe 54.5 16.8 5.1
25C-NBF 46.6 9.4 4.2
25B-NBOH 46.2 5.5 11.0
30C-NBOMe 60.0 22.0 20.8
25B-NBF 34.6 5.0 13.0
25D-NBOMe 51.9 15.2 18.7
25C-NBOMe 51.5 18.4 15.4
25 T-NBOMe 51.9 15.0 21.9
25I-NBOH 37.4 12.7 15.2
4EA-NBOMe 44.2 13.1 14.2
25B-NBOMe 49.0 15.4 17.8
25I-NBF 32.0 6.6 18.4
25E-NBOMe 41.7 9.9 16.2
25I-NBOMe 43.0 9.6 19.6
25P-NBOMe 45.8 -4.7 3.9
25T4-NBOMe 33.8 -6.7 10.1
Average 50.9 20.8 14.5
Standard deviation 12.6 17.4 5.7
Maximum 83.3 67.4 22.3
Minimum 32.0  − 6.7 3.9
Pre-concentration factor 1.0 0.5 2.0