Interview with Nectar Spectra Labs

A deep-dive interview with Nectar Spectra Labs exploring drug checking technology, adulterants, harm reduction ethics, and the limits of laboratory-based substance verification.

As drug markets evolve and new synthetic substances emerge, harm reduction services have become an essential part of understanding real-world risk. In this interview, we speak with Nectar Spectra Labs about the realities of laboratory drug checking, the gap between perception and chemical reality, and what modern testing can and cannot tell us about safety.

Origin & Mission

What led to the creation of Nectar Spectra Labs, and what gap were you trying to fill in harm
reduction?

• Behind Nectar is a group of people with extensive experience in the field of harm reduction, and specifically in drug checking projects in Europe. Our mission is to, on one hand, offer an international drug testing service, so that people in countries where drug checking is not available can also access it. We strive to offer a high-quality and affordable service, always respecting the anonymity of those who send us their samples. On the other hand, we want to offer our services in interventions at festivals and local parties so that people can benefit from harm reduction locally for free.

  While there are other organizations that exist in Spain and elsewhere, their work covers only a small fraction of the population. We often encounter people that had never even heard of drug checking and harm reduction!

  Although NSL is a newly launched project, we have many ideas and projects to develop in th near future. For example, we are working on developing novel harm reduction material that can be useful for people, as well as developing new analytical methods and tools to help people around the world.

How does your approach differ from traditional drug checking services or grassroots reagent
testing groups?

• In terms of techniques, our use of high-field NMR is something that is very rarely, if ever, found in the harm reduction world. This is a significant improvement in the capability of identifying and quantifying compounds, which might not have been possible otherwise. We also offer an international mail-in testing service, which as far as we know is not available anywhere else except for maybe Energy Control also in Spain which are pioneers but unfortunately have been having some difficulties over the last few years.

The Science Behind Your Testing

You use techniques like FTIR, HPLC, and NMR can you explain in simple terms what each
method does and when you use them?

• FTIR – Fourier Transform InfraRed spectroscopy – A technique used to obtain an infrared
  spectrum of a sample to identify its molecular structure and chemical properties. It makes use of
  libraries to quickly identify the components, and the spectra can also be interpreted by a skilled
  technician who can obtain information on functional groups (parts of the molecule) present in
  the compound. We use this method for every sample as a first step, to quickly identify the main
  components, with the exception of LSD or pills with only a small amount of actives (for example
  under 5mg) because it will generally be below the limit of detection and we´ll only see excipients
  with FTIR.

• HPLC-DAD – High-Performance Liquid Chromatography-Diode Array Detection. An analytical
  technique that separates chemical mixtures and analyzes them using UV-Vis absorption. It
  allows for identification and quantification of compounds based on their retention time and
  UV-Vis spectra compared to reference standards. We use this technique with most samples,
  which helps us detect mixtures inside samples, and also it is the technique we use to quantify
  LSD, by comparing a sample with a calibration curve made with a reference standard. It is also
  through a specific methodology using HPLC-DAD that we differentiate enantiomers (for example
  S and R-ketamine).

• NMR: Nuclear Magnetic Resonance uses a strong magnetic field (400MHz) and radio waves to
  provide detailed information about the molecular structure of the sample. It allows us to identify
  and quantify substances and impurities. This is the technique we use for quantifying most
  compounds.

What are the biggest limitations people misunderstand about lab testing?

• Every analytical method has blind spots, as well as limits of detection.. There is no method that
  tests and detects absolutely everything. For example HPLC-DAD will not detect substances that
  don’t absorb UV light. 1H NMR won´t detect substances that don´t have hydrogens. FTIR won´t
  detect substances that don´t absorb infrared light. But if you take the 3 together, it is very
  unlikely to find a substance that fulfills those 3 criteria: don’t absorb UV light, don´t absorb
  infrared light, and don’t have hydrogens. So the more techniques you use, the less blind spots
  you have.

  And when you are talking about quantification, quantification methods will have their accuracy
  limited by several factors along the way. For example, what is the accuracy of the scale? Is the
  scale calibrated? What about the pipette, how accurate is it, is it calibrated? What about the
  method, is it using an internal standard, or just an external calibration curve?

  If it’s the first case, is the internal standard of assured purity? Has it been stored well (For example under argon), or has it been subjected to open air exposure and therefore maybe absorbed moisture affecting its purity or degraded in general?

  If it´s using an external standard, has the calibration curve been
  run the same day, have inter and intra-day variation tests been made to make sure the
  instrument’s sensitivity isn´t varying too much? So an analysis will have all of these steps of the
  way compounding their inaccuracy along the way.

There are ways to mitigate these issues and make the test more accurate, which is what we do
at Nectar Spectra. Here are some of the mitigating procedures:

1- Use calibrated instruments only
2- Keep reference standards under argon
3- Work with triplicates
4- Use internal standards
5- Whenever possible use 2 different quantification methods and/or doing inter-laboratory
validation (different labs quantifying the same sample to compare)

Is there such a thing as a “fully accurate” drug test result?

Reagent Kits vs Lab Testing

Many people still rely on reagent kits where do those fall short compared to lab analysis?

• Reagent kits are definitely better than nothing when done right, they can be useful, but they have many blind spots and limitations.

  The first limitation is regarding false negatives and false positives: For example, MDMA with marquis turns black, but so do a lot of other substances, like CBD, or MDA, or MDEA, or 5-APB, or 5-MAPB, or DIPT, or DXM. So just because you got black with Marquis in a supposed MDMA pill doesn´t mean you for sure have MDMA.

  Also it may contain MDMA plus something else which has no reaction to marquis or a reaction with a color that gets hidden by the black reaction of MDMA, for example PMMA. So getting the expected reaction could be a false positive, or it could be a false negative for an adulterant. But if you DON’T get a black reaction with marquis, then you can be quite confident your pill does NOT contain MDMA. So it can be very helpful if you get that information.Using multiple reagents will reduce the blind spots. So the more reagents you use, the better it is for you to avoid a false positive or false negative.

In what situations are reagent kits still useful?

• If you have no other methods at hand, then reagent kits are always useful to use before consumption. I highly recommend people check out this app made by our friends at protestkit.eu You can select the reagents you have and which color it turned into and it will filter the substances in their database. Or you can select an individual substance and see all the reactions for it, or even pin different substances so that you can compare the reaction for those.

Super useful! https://protestkit.eu/drugspro/reagents/analyze?smart=1&rank=1

What’s the most dangerous false sense of security you see from basic testing?

• We´ve described a bit above some of the possible false positives and false negatives, but one other thing to take into account is dosage. MDMA pills are getting more and more potent over the years, the average we see at our lab this year is around 200mg, twice a normal dosage.So a person may be happy their reagent reaction is right and then think they can consume the pill (or multiple pills) safely, and even if it is MDMA; they may be consuming an excessive dangerous amount of it.

Adulterants & Trends

What are the most concerning adulterants you’ve detected recently?

• Just a few examples, fentanyl in Heroin, PMMA in MDMA pills, methamphetamine sold as MDMA, nitazenes in supposed oxycodone pills, etc. We´ve also found some novel substances which have not yet been studied in terms of pharmacology, toxicity, so we are not sure how dangerous they are, for example a supposed bromazolam pill which contained AB-MDMSBA (a synthetic cannabinoid) instead.

**
Are there differences in substance purity or contamination between regions (e.g. Europe vs
elsewhere)?**

• The drug market is extremely dynamic, and what may be true one year, or month, may not be the same in the next year or month. It is hard to make generalizations but we do see some trends. For example, samples coming from the US tend to be more adulterated than substances coming from Europe. Samples coming from Spain and Portugal tend to be less adulterated than those coming from Eastern Europe. That being said, as mentioned above, this may change, and this information should not be used for example for someone in South Europe to think that just because of their location they are safe to consume their substances. Test your substances every time if possible.

Have you seen any emerging substances that users should be especially aware of?

• Powerful opiates such as nitazene and fentanyl analogues are always something to watch out for, as well as synthetic cannabinoids, and other sedatives such as xylazine, medetomidine and others.

Risk, Reality, and Misconceptions

A lot of people think “tested = safe.” Why is that assumption flawed?

• As mentioned earlier, each analysis method has its blind spots, and limit of detection. No analysis method detects absolutely every single substance in the world in any quantity. So it´s important to know about what test you are using, and what the limitations are. The more methods you use, the safer you are, but nothing is 100% safe. Also it’s important to consider the variables involving our own body, dosage, set and setting. Sometimes even if a substance is pure, this doesn´t eliminate the risk of psychological issues one may have, or underlying physical conditions such as undiagnosed heart problems or whatever else. Critical thinking is a very important skill.

What variables (dosage, combinations, user physiology) matter just as much as substance
identity?

• The famous “dose, set and setting” trinity is definitely essential in determining how an experience with a drug will be. It is not the same to consume 0.05g of fentanyl or 10mg of fentanyl. It is not the same to consume 3g of cubensis mushrooms in nature with close friends or in a nightclub in downtown of a city with a lot of people you don´t know. It is not the same to smoke weed during vacations after you´ve fulfilled all your responsibilities or smoke weed when you have a lot of pending work to do for the next day.

What’s one misconception about drug safety you wish more people understood?

• Drugs, like everything in life, carry risks. Even if you know exactly what substance it is and its concentration, using a drug is never 100% safe. Risk is the possibility of harm, and that’s why it’s important to know how to reduce or minimize that possibility. But zero risk is never possible because, as we’ve said, the experience with drugs is determined not only by the substance itself, but also by the interaction of the person, the substance, and the context. The same person using the same substance at different times/in different contexts can have very different experiences.

Festival & Nightlife Harm Reduction

What challenges do you face when providing drug checking at events?

• In Spain and Portugal, where we generally do our festival interventions, we are lucky that harm
  reduction work is not illegal and we can do our work, but we do know from many colleagues elsewhere that the first difficulty is the legality of their work and the threats they may have from the police.

  Secondly, the issue of budget is always a problem. Non-profit organizations like ours have very limited funding, and this means we can’ t hire as many people as we would like to reach more people at festivals. The festivals themselves, with a few exceptions, often pay very little, which means we have to work with the bare minimum or lose money with all the costs of our interventions.

  Money is not our main motivation, we chose this because we truly believe in the social/health benefits of the work we do, but at the very least we need to be sustainable financially in order for the project to last many many years.

How do people typically react when they learn their substance isn’t what they thought?

• Some colleagues of ours from another organization once did a little survey to answer this, and to sum up their findings, they found that most people that learn their substance isn’ t what they thought actually throw away their samples and don’ t consume it. It also depends on what is the adulterant or impurity found, if it’s not dangerous, people still often consume it (for example amphetamine mixed with caffeine), but in the cases where it’ s something unknown or dangerous, generally people throw it away.

Have you seen drug checking directly prevent dangerous situations?

• Yes of course we have seen many cases of pills that had very high doses, or dangerous adulterants, which made people avoid an unwanted intoxication or even something more serious and life-threatening. Sometimes the benefit of our work is also not about the specific result we give but about the awareness we spread. It is beautiful to see that little light bulb lighting up in people´s heads, when they realize how important it is to test substances, and from that moment on, they become the person in the group of friends who helps others and continues spreading awareness.

Ethics & Boundaries

How do you balance providing information without encouraging drug use?

• We never encourage drug use, we simply recognize it is a phenomenon that exists. We don’ t approach people, rather people come to us. In a similar way, as a society we recognize people will go out into the sun. Some people may say: But people should never go out into the sun, we can get vitamin D from pills, the sun is too risky, you can get cancer.

  But the fact is, people WILL go out into the sun, so might as well help them be safer, tell them to be hydrated, to stay in the shadow, to put sunscreen on. Nobody says that selling sunscreen is inciting people to dangerously be in the sun and possibly having heatstrokes, we understand it´s just a way to help protect people, and that education and critical thinking are also important components to help shape our behavior. So in the same way, we recognize people will use drugs, so for the people that have already decided so, we will offer them as much information as possible so that they can be safer in their actions.

Where do you draw the line in terms of what you will and won’t analyze or report?

• Our limitations in terms of what we will or won’t test are technical, and based on our safety. If we can test, we will test it. We don’ t test biohazardous substances, viruses, bacteria, explosives, things of the sort. Regarding the drugs which we do test, we don’t hold back information, we believe it is the person’s own responsibility to do the right thing with the information we provide. If we stop providing information, we won´t make people stop using drugs, but if we do provide information, we may stop people from consuming dangerous adulterants or impurities.

What ethical challenges come up in this line of work?

• We know of at least one organization that collaborates with the police, for example, providing spectra of substances either directly or indirectly through third-party instrument suppliers. This may bring financial benefits to them but it is ethically very questionable since the spectra provided may be used to further spread the war on drugs, which is why we have chosen to NOT collaborate with the police in any way which may lead to criminalization of drug use and punishment for people who use drugs.

Legal Landscape

What legal barriers exist for drug checking services in Europe right now?

• The lack of clear legal framework is the main barrier. In many cases, harm reduction work is something that exists in a grey area, and while it is generally accepted in some countries, harm reduction workers could face problems if there are changes in the political orientation of the parties in power. We would love if there were clear rules over the EU in general that would promote and protect harm reduction services.

Do current laws help or hinder harm reduction efforts?

• Depends on the countries. In Eastern Europe for example generally the laws hinder harm reduction efforts, while in South Europe they don´t hinder so much (but still a lot could improve even in those countries).

What changes would make the biggest difference?

• The biggest change would be reaching a point where services like ours are no longer needed because drugs are responsibly regulated. In an ideal scenario, psychoactive substances would come with the same quality control, labeling, and safety standards expected of any other product intended for human consumption.

  Under prohibition, people often do not know what they are taking, how potent it is, or whether it contains unexpected adulterants or contaminants. That said, we don’t believe in the idea that dealers are always the bad guys in the movie. While drug distribution is obviously profit-driven, most suppliers do not want to injure or kill their customers, doing so is also contrary to basic market incentives.

  In practice, distributors can play an important role in identifying dangerous products, responding to contamination events, and preventing harmful batches from circulating. A regulated market would make these safety mechanisms transparent, accountable, and systematic rather than informal, inconsistent, and dependent on underground networks.

Advice for Users

If someone can’t access a lab like yours, what are the most important harm reduction steps they
should follow?

• They can at least test substances at home with reagents, test strips and TLC kits. These tools are sold by people like Bunk Police in the US and Protestkit.eu in Europe. But harm reduction goes beyond chemical analysis. People should learn as much as possible about a substance beforehand from reliable sources: its expected effects, potential risks, ways to reduce those risks, potentially dangerous drug combinations, warning signs of adverse reactions, what to do if something goes wrong and so on.

  Years ago, trustworthy drug information was hard to find outside of communities such as Erowid or Bluelight. Fortunately, today there is a much broader range of objective, evidence-based, non-judgmental resources that provide accurate information and practical harm reduction advice.

What combinations or situations are consistently the most dangerous?

• Excessively dosed MDMA pills, opioids adulterated with nitazene, fentanyl or similar, and cocaine adulterated with levamisol and phenacetin are the most common dangerous adulterations we see.

  One of the major risks shared by all prohibited drugs is the combination of drugs and law enforcement. Beyond the chemical risks, people can face criminalization, arrest, imprisonment, or a criminal record. And here it’s the troubling paradox: people are punished for possessing drugs because ‘drugs are bad and might ruin their lives’ by exposing them to imprisonment and legal harms that actually really ruin their lives.

What does “safer use” realistically look like from your perspective?

• Getting informed before consumption, less impulsive and more planned drug use, group of friends regularly getting together to test drug batches so that everyone is safe, drug vendors checking their drugs before selling, and people trying to be more balanced and healthier with their lives in general.

Looking Forward

Where do you see drug checking and harm reduction heading in the next 5 – 10 years?

We hope that:

• There are positive legal changes in many countries around the world to protect harm reduction work including drug checking. There are scientific developments to help with drug checking, for example miniaturization and portability of mass spectrometry, or more developed and portable FTIR/NIR devices with extensive libraries. Increase in the collective consciousness regarding harm reduction and drug checking.

What role should technology play?

• Technology is essential in drug checking. The development of more portable chromatography and mass spectrometry devices, or of FTIR devices, are key to drug checking world wide. Benchtop NMR devices getting better and cheaper is also an amazing development that we hope continues in the right direction. Maybe at some point we will have small drug testing gadgets that individuals can use at home and not depend on drug checking services, who knows.

How can individuals support organizations like yours?

• Some organizations may need volunteers helping them, so be sure to contact your local organization. In our case, donations are always welcome of course, you can contact us at office@nectarspectralabs.com if you want to donate. Another thing that can be done is preading the word about our services and harm reduction in general.

Deeper Questions

Have you ever encountered a sample that genuinely surprised your team scientifically?

• Not exactly a scientific surprise, but sometimes we have samples that we cannot identify. This is not because it is impossible to do so, but because we are also limited on time and resources. If a sample is a powdered substance containing mainly one or two compounds, if this compound is unknown, generally with a mixture of mass spectrometry and NMR spectroscopy we can identify the compounds.

  But if a sample is for example a pill with several pill excipients, with a mixture of active compounds in different quantities, it is much harder to identify all these minor compounds. If we had all the resources and time in the world, we would extract several of these pills to have enough material, separate the individual components using flash chromatography or similar, and then test the individual components with high resolution mass spectrometry and NMR doing several 1D and 2D experiments which would help elucidate the structure. This can take many many hours of work and a lot of resources which makes it not viable financially so we cannot do it. So in those cases we unfortunately have to give the result as “unidentified substance”.

Related articles :

• Interview with Dominic Milton Trott

• Interview with Pentester Cyberjagu

• Interview with madamenull

Discover additional reports, market trends, crime analysis and Harm Reduction articles on DarkDotWeb to stay informed about the latest dark web operations.