ArticleJournal of AOAC International2026
Determination and Confirmation of Psychedelic and Psychoactive Compounds in Botanical Materials by UPLC-ESI-MS/MS: Single-Laboratory Validation.
Article in Journal of AOAC International, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA multi-analyte method was developed for determination and confirmation of 26 natural and synthetic psychedelic and psychoactive compounds from botanical sources using a simple extraction procedure and UPLC-ESI-MS/MS analysis.
objectiveThe objective of this work was to develop and validate the method for analysis of psychedelic and psychoactive compounds in botanicals (fungi, cactus, leaf), extract (brewed tea), and synthetic and simulated finished product (using maltodextrin).
methodsThe method uses an acidified methanol solution for extraction and diphenhydramine as an internal standard. Extracts are subjected to UPLC with tandem mass spectrometry using a phenyl-hexyl column and acidified mobile phase with acetonitrile gradient. Validation studies followed US Pharmacopeia <1225> and Official Methods of AnalysisSM Appendix K guidelines to assess specificity, accuracy (recovery), repeatability and intermediate precision, limits of detection and quantification, calibration curve linearity, system suitability, and robustness.
resultsAverage recovery of spiked replicates in matrix and surrogate matrixes varied between 88 and 124% for analytes in fungi, cactus, and leaf matrixes; 81-106% in brewed tea matrix; and 81-174% across all 26 analytes in maltodextrin. Norbaeocystin and harmaline were the only analytes outside the acceptance criterion (79-126%) in maltodextrin. The 90% upper confidence limit on repeatability was ≤33% for all analytes and matrixes except for norbaeocystin. Repeatability precision for analysis of matrixes with native analytes met the acceptance criterion of ≤33% in all cases and the 90% upper confidence limit on intermediate precision was ≤35% in all cases. LOQ values fell below the lowest calibration standard (0.016 µg/mL) for all 26 analytes.
conclusionThe method met the predetermined acceptance criteria for recovery and precision in nearly all cases. Calibration curve linearity and system suitability measures were established. HIGHLIGHTS: A method for 26 psychedelic/psychoactive compounds was validated for analysis of botanical (fungi, cactus, leaf), extract (brewed tea), and synthetic and simulated finished product (using maltodextrin) using native and surrogate botanicals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.