I did try DOB-Fly in the past. How does that one compare to DOB?
Do you mean DOB-Fly or DOB-dragonfly aka bromo-dragonfly? It's not the same. I'm not sure DOB-Fly has ever been openly available.
I haven't tried any of them, even though I actually do have a bit of DOB in my stash.
I think you will find it a bit like DOC, but probably more stimulating and maybe a bit longer (But I obviously don't know for sure, also people react differently to drugs, remember that)
Read the DOB PIHKAL entry to get a better idea:
https://erowid.org/library/books_online/pihkal/pihkal062.shtml
Then compare that to the DOC entry, which you have tried:
https://erowid.org/library/books_online/pihkal/pihkal064.shtml
I think you will find a quarter of your blotter, just vaguely stimulating and uplifting, sleep that night difficult or maybe very light. Just guessing of cause, there's no way I could know.
HPLC is for separating substances if there is more than one in there, GC for separating and actual analysis. I guess HPLC followed by MS was meant or alternatively GC/MS.
What confuses me, is that both HPLC and GC just gives you the relative retention times. That's why I don't get why some one would do both. With either LC/MS og GC/MS, the MS data would be used for identification of the analyte, and the chromatographic data would be used for quantification, but as I see it, some kind of reference is needed for that last bit, no matter how you slice it.
Afaik not that many drugs would decompose very significantly just by vaporization, and doesn't GC require only very little sample anyway? Not sure if that is one of the advantages or if just MS (I guess after HPLC if necessary) is usually better.
I think you must be right, because I see GC (often with MS) being used for drug testing. It's just because I've been told that LC is what you use for larger organic molecules, while GC is what you'd use for more volatile analytes, that is things that have low boiling points all ready. It is true that GC requires a really tiny amount of sample, but with HPLC it's usually also just like 10-20 microliters per injection, which is nothing. And it can detect really small concentrations, as long as it's inside the area of linearity. Also, there's a limit to how small sample amounts you can work with anyway.
Without reference sample I don't see what you would do besides NMRing, but perhaps there are other ways to piece together the puzzle - couldn't you MS by figuring out mass of ion fragments? Especially if you narrowed it down a lot before that point.
Exactly, but both NMR and MS are still just qualitative methods. You'll know what you have, but not the concentration. I'm still wondering if all those testing sites really have an endless flow of reference samples from sigma-aldrich, lol, or maybe there's something I'm totally missing.
Okay, looking at it a bit more, they all seem to use either LC/MS or/and GC/MS, but actually only check it! in Austria seem to be doing exact quantification, as well as energy control in Spain, who use UV-spectrometry to quantify, but they only have a limited list of compounds they can do this with, which is MDMA, MDA, amphetamine, methamphetamine, cocaine, ketamine, 2C-B, 2C-I and DMT. So I guess the laboratory they use have references of all the compounds.
https://www.ecstasydata.org/about_data_sources.php