EU Drug Market: MDMA — Production. How and where MDMA is produced in Europe

This resource is part of EU Drug Market: MDMA — In-depth analysis by the EUDA and Europol.

Table of contents/Search

Table of contents/Search

Search within the book

Operator

Any match

Exact term match only

Select any filter and click on Search to see results

Close

Last update: March 2025

Overview of MDMA production in Europe

MDMA production capacity in Europe far exceeds what is needed to supply the domestic market. Large-scale production is concentrated mainly in the Netherlands and Belgium, where the whole process appears to take place, including the preparation of precursors from designer precursors, and the synthesis and conversion of MDMA oil to MDMA hydrochloride. While this conversion could feasibly take place in other countries, this appears to be limited to a few documented examples and is not a widespread phenomenon (see Section Trafficking and distribution — trafficking of European MDMA base oil: an emerging trend?).

As is often the case with other synthetic drugs, large-scale conversion and production laboratories in the Netherlands and Belgium are typically found in rural areas, whereas smaller operations tend to be found in residential areas or industrial parks (National Police of the Netherlands [NPNL], 2022). Crystallisation sites, for example, are common in residential apartments. This carries considerable risks of fire and explosions in populated areas.

MDMA can be produced using several methods. In Europe, PMK methods are typically used. These involve the reductive amination of an intermediate formed between the precursor PMK (¹) and methylamine. The most commonly found method is the high-pressure method, a technique that emerged in the Netherlands in 2017, which is also used for the large-scale production of methamphetamine from BMK (see EU Drug Market: Methamphetamine – In-depth analysis). As such, this method enables drug producers to easily switch between the two drugs, according to demand (NPNL, 2022).

In general, the process involves four main steps, with an additional (optional) first step being the conversion of PMK from designer precursors (see Figure 4.1. MDMA production steps):

1. the synthesis or ‘cooking’ step, where PMK is combined with other chemicals and the chemical reaction takes place, producing crude MDMA oil;
2. the crude MDMA oil is purified via steam distillation;
3. purified MDMA base oil is crystallised into solid MDMA hydrochloride, which is separated by filtration (typically using cloth filters);
4. the finishing step where the product is dried and packaged for sale as crystal MDMA, or pressed into ecstasy tablets.

Show a text version of the above graphic

The production of MDMA In general involves four main steps: Synthetis/cooking, purification, crystallisation and filtration and finishing, with an additional (optional) first step of being the conversion of PMK from designer precursors. The synthesis or ‘cooking’ step, where PMK is combined with other chemicals and the chemical reaction takes place, produces crude MDMA base oil. The crude MDMA base oil is purified via steam distillation during the purification step. The purified MDMA base oil is crystallised into solid MDMA hydrochloride, which is separated by filtration (typically using cloth filters) during the crystallisation and filtration step. In the finishing step, the product is dried and packaged for sale as crystal MDMA or pressed into ecstasy tablets.

Illicit MDMA production sites in the European Union: diversification of locations?

MDMA is produced on demand, and one useful indicator of the levels of production occurring in Europe is the number of illicit sites associated with its production, storage and chemical waste dumping dismantled by law enforcement. It should be noted however, that this figure does not reflect the size and production capacity of these sites, meaning that fewer sites do not necessarily mean less production, and therefore triangulation of information is essential to interpret these data.

Between 2019 and 2021, 92 illicit MDMA sites were found in Europe. This number includes 42 MDMA laboratories, at least 33 sites where tabletting occurred, 14 waste dump sites and three chemical or equipment storage facilities. In the previous reporting period (2015-2017) a higher number of MDMA sites were found (158 sites) (EMCDDA and Europol, 2019). In part, the drop in the number of sites may be due to a drop in demand for MDMA during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, this seems to have been short-lived. Data for 2022 suggest that at least 50 MDMA sites were dismantled in the European Union (a 50 % increase compared to 2021). In addition, according to the Dutch Police, the number of MDMA sites dismantled in the Netherlands in 2023 appears to have surpassed pre-pandemic levels, with 32 sites being dismantled (NPNL, 2024).

Of the 92 illicit MDMA sites dismantled between 2019 and 2021, the 89 that were associated with production were located in seven different Member States. Over two thirds were located in the Netherlands (57 sites), followed by Belgium (19), Bulgaria (4), Poland and Spain (3 each), Germany (2) and France (1) (see Figure 4.2. Location of sites related to MDMA production in the European Union, 2019-2022).

For 2022, data suggest that Belgium accounts for most of the production facilities reported by EU Member States (27 of the 48). This is a higher number of production sites in that country than the previous three years combined. An additional 13 production facilities were dismantled in the Netherlands, five in Spain and one in France, Poland and Sweden (each). Although preliminary, these data suggest that a potential diversification in production locations may be occurring. Consistent with this, in January 2024, a large MDMA production site operated by Spanish and Dutch nationals was dismantled in Spain (see Box 4.1. Spain’s largest MDMA laboratory dismantled). In any case, production of MDMA in the Netherlands continues to be significant, with 32 production sites dismantled in 2023 (NPNL, 2024).

Although the large majority of the production sites are located in the Netherlands and Belgium, it is worth noting that from 2018 to 2022 between five and six Member States reported dismantled MDMA sites (whereas from 2013 to 2017 not more than three countries reported such findings each year). This may be a signal, albeit modest, of a diversification of MDMA production locations. It is notable that Dutch criminals are likely to control most of these.

Several of the sites dismantled in Europe were combination laboratories, where MDMA was produced alongside another drug. In the Netherlands, MDMA is increasingly being produced in the same facilities as methamphetamine since they share the same equipment and method, whereas in the past amphetamine/MDMA combination sites were more common (NPNL, 2022).

Main MDMA production methods

Some of the earliest published methods of synthesising MDMA start from safrole or piperonal, both of which can be extracted from natural plant sources (Biniecki and Krajewski, 1960; Merck, 1914). Synthetic pathways starting from safrole, its derivative isosafrole or piperonal proceed through the formation of PMK, which is then converted into MDMA (see Figure 4.3. Chemicals and chemical processes used in the synthesis of MDMA). PMK can also be directly acquired as an oil (illegally) and, as such, it is the most important precursor to MDMA. Most illicit MDMA production in the European Union depends on this chemical.

Show a text version of the above graphic

Some of the earliest published methods of synthesising MDMA start from safrole or piperonal, both of which can be extracted from natural plant sources. Synthetic pathways starting from safrole, its derivative isosafrole or piperonal proceed through the formation of PMK, which is then converted into MDMA. The first wave of designer precursors for PMK to emerge in the European Union were glycidic derivatives of PMK. Other alternative chemicals included MAMDPA and IMDPAM. All of these can be used to form PMK, which is then converted into MDMA.

Designer precursors substitute scheduled MDMA starting materials

Some MDMA precursors (e.g. safrole, isosafrole, piperonal and PMK) have been under international control since the early 1990s. In the early to mid-2000s, international shortages of these chemicals led to reduced availability of MDMA in Europe and, subsequently, to the appearance of alternative unscheduled precursors, also called designer precursors (EMCDDA, 2019a; Mounteney et al., 2018). Clandestine chemists explored synthetic routes that begin with readily available chemicals such as vanillin, catechol, eugenol and piperine (Chambers et al., 2018; Cormick et al., 2021; Nair et al., 2021). However, another adaptation emerged that involved the use of non-scheduled chemicals that could be converted into PMK by relatively simple procedures, effectively adding a precursor conversion step to the synthesis of MDMA, rather than significantly altering the method.

The first wave of designer precursors for PMK to emerge in the European Union were glycidic derivatives of PMK (²). The sodium salt of PMK glycidic acid was detected as early as 2013. Soon after, a number of variations followed, including PMK glycidate and numerous other salts, esters and ethers of PMK. Other alternative chemicals included 3,4-methylenedioxyphenylacetonitrile (³) (first detected in Europe in 2014), methylenedioxyphenyl-2 nitropropene (⁴) (detected in 2015), MAMDPA (⁵) (detected in 2021) and, more recently, IMDPAM (⁶) (detected in 2023). It is important to note that, while none of these substances were under international or EU-level control at the time of their appearance, they were automatically included in the INCB’s limited international special surveillance list of non-scheduled substances (ISSL), under the extended definitions as specific derivatives of already controlled precursors.

Between 2019 and 2021, combined seizures of traditional MDMA precursors (safrole, isosafrole, piperonal and PMK) reached almost 2.7 tonnes in the European Union. An additional 13 tonnes was intercepted before reaching its destination (stopped shipments). In contrast, in that same period, seizures of designer precursor alternatives to PMK (glycidic derivatives of PMK and MAMDPA) amounted to 12.1 tonnes (see Figure 4.4. Quantity of traditional and designer precursors used in the synthesis of MDMA seized in Europe, 2012-2023). This suggests a continued trend of using designer precursors for MDMA production rather than the more traditional precursors, as noted in the past (EMCDDA, 2019a; Mounteney et al., 2018).

Data for 2022 and 2023 indicate that seizures of traditional MDMA precursors in the European Union reached 5.7 tonnes, while seizures of designer precursors reached 78.4 tonnes (almost exclusively glycidic derivatives of PMK). Two additional stopped shipments of glycidic derivatives of PMK amounting to 1.1 tonnes were also reported in 2022 – one of which was a large shipment of 1.1 tonnes stopped in Luxembourg.

Together, these data show that in 2023 alone, both the seizures of traditional MDMA precursors and designer precursor alternatives to PMK are larger than those reported in the 5-year period that preceded it (2018 to 2022). While precursor seizure data reflects a number of complex dynamics (including their legal status and and law enforcement priorities) this indicates that MDMA production is reverting or maybe surpassing pre-pandemic levels.

The Netherlands accounted for the large majority (86 %) of the quantity of MDMA precursors reported seized in the European Union between 2019 and 2021, followed by Germany, Spain and Belgium (see Figure 4.5. Proportion of the total quantity of MDMA precursors seized in Europe, by seizing country, 2019-2021 and 2022-2023). In 2022 and 2023, the Netherlands accounted for 44 % of the quantity of MDMA precursors reported in the European Union, with the remainder reported by Hungary (22%), Germany and Italy.

Known shipments of PMK or its designer precursor alternatives originate in Asia, mostly China. They are often mislabelled as other chemical products (e.g. ‘polyvinyl chloride’, ‘pigment’) or electronics (e.g. ‘flashlight’, ‘USB cable’, ‘keyboard pc’). Mislabelling of shipments is carried out at the source by the suppliers, who also provide all the necessary paperwork for customs export and import. The packages containing the chemicals may sometimes be included in much larger shipments with legitimate goods to mislead authorities. For example, the large shipment of 1.1 tonnes of PMK ethyl glycidate stopped in Luxembourg in 2022 originated in China and was misdeclared as ‘mobile phone accessories; earphone and lithium-ion batteries’. In 2022, three controlled deliveries of shipments from China were made in Italy, amounting to 4.2 tonnes of PMK, all of which were declared as polyester powder coating. At least one of the shipments was destined to the Netherlands.

Small differences in labelling or box size among the large shipments can sometimes assist in detecting illicit consignments. The chemicals are shipped to various EU countries and imported by companies specifically established to provide these goods to drug manufacturers (National Police of the Netherlands [NPNL], 2022). They are then transported by road across Europe to MDMA producers, often using legitimate courier companies without their knowledge.

The high-pressure method: the most common MDMA production method in Europe

Once the PMK is obtained – either by direct import of the oil or by conversion from any of its designer precursor alternatives – the synthesis of MDMA can proceed. When PMK is added to methylamine, an imine intermediate is formed. The methods to produce MDMA from this imine vary according to the reducing agent that is chosen. Three main methods are encountered.

• The high-pressure method uses hydrogen in the presence of a metal catalyst (such as platinum oxide) as the reducing agent. This is the same technique used for large-scale production of methamphetamine in Europe, the only difference being the starting material (BMK for methamphetamine and PMK for MDMA).
• The cold method uses a hydride (such as sodium borohydride) as the reducing agent. The reaction occurs at low temperatures and can be performed in simple plastic containers placed inside large freezers. The main disadvantage of this method is that it is labour intensive and carries high risks, including fire and explosion.
• The aluminium amalgam method uses aluminium foil treated with mercury chloride as the reducing agent. Although this process has been reported in European MDMA laboratories, it is mostly used for the production of methamphetamine in specific countries or regions (e.g. Mexico). The process is extremely dangerous due to the risk of fire or explosion and the risk of exposure to toxic fumes and hazardous waste.

In Europe, the high-pressure method is the one most commonly encountered. The reaction is initiated by adding methylamine to PMK, and occurs in the presence of platinum oxide (as the catalyst) and hydrogen gas. As the imine derivative is formed, there are changes to the temperature and pressure of the reaction vessel, which requires external control. The resulting MDMA base oil is then separated from the reaction mixture by vacuum distillation, and is converted into its salt (typically the hydrochloride salt) by treatment with the corresponding acid (see Box 4.2. Theft of hydrogen gas in Europe). A racemic mixture of R- and S- is produced, but the enantiomers are rarely, if ever, separated, despite pharmacological differences between the two (see Box 1.1. Forms of MDMA present on the European market in the Introduction section).

The reaction takes between 4 and 6 hours and can be engineered so that it proceeds in a single reaction vessel (‘one-pot’ reaction). However, it carries significant risks, requires the use of chemicals that can be expensive and hard to obtain (hydrogen gas and platinum oxide) and requires investment in robust high-pressure reaction vessels (NPNL, 2022). While the individual steps can be easily taught, this method requires experienced cooks or at least the supervision of someone who is highly experienced (Soudijn and Vijlbrief, 2011).

Depending on the quantities sought, MDMA can be synthesised in small benchtop set-ups or large industrial reactors. Laboratories located in the Netherlands and Belgium commonly have industrial dimensions, and use customised or custom-made high-pressure reaction vessels, which may hold up to 200 litres, producing up to 25-35 litres of MDMA oil per batch (Europol, 2019), or in some cases up to 750 litres (Mounteney et al., 2018). Each of these custom-made vessels can cost up to EUR 65 000. The whole cooking process can occur inside these vessels, including the mixing, heating, pressure control and distillation. To a large extent, improvements in MDMA production efficiency are a result of increasingly sophisticated production equipment and the application of chemical engineering techniques, a trend that had previously been noted (EMCDDA and Europol, 2019) and appears to be continuing. Innovations include the optimisation of temperature, mixing and pressure controls, inlets for the addition and removal of gas, and importantly, the use of combination vessels of larger capacity (i.e. vessels which combine equipment for several steps).

According to Dutch investigators, a relatively small number of specialised engineers and welders make or customise these reactors. The few individuals involved in this activity are in high demand and may be responsible for setting up several production units, sometimes via a facilitator. As a result of investigations targeting these individuals in the Netherlands (NOS, 2021), there are signals that high-pressure reaction vessels may be in short supply at present. It has been suggested that Dutch drug producers may be turning to other methods which do not require these vessels to overcome this shortage, or sourcing equipment elsewhere – namely in China. Poorly constructed reaction vessels can lead to serious accidents, given the high pressures involved in this process. These developments require careful monitoring.

Other methods

Both the cold and the aluminium amalgam methods are only sporadically encountered in MDMA production sites in the European Union. Neither method requires expensive catalysts, equipment or hydrogen gas, but they both have other drawbacks. A shortage of high-pressure reaction vessels may motivate drug producers to use these methods rather than the more common high-pressure method.

In the cold method, PMK is mixed with methylamine in a container, typically a jerrycan. Sodium borohydride is used to reduce the imine intermediate, which generates hydrogen and heat. This leads to significant safety risks, as hydrogen gas can be easily ignited. To control the temperature, the reaction is normally carried out in a freezer and may take close to 30 hours. From 2019 to 2021, a total of 407 kilograms of sodium borohydride, likely intended for MDMA production using the cold method, was seized in Europe, all in the Netherlands. In 2022 and 2023, 210 kilograms were reported, which may mean an increase in interest in the use of the cold method in laboratories based in the EU. Where known, the chemicals originated in Poland and, to a lesser extent, Spain (NPNL, 2022).

To date, MDMA laboratories using the aluminium amalgam method have been rarely encountered in Europe. The method can be easily identified by the large amounts of toxic grey mercury sludge generated from the addition of mercury (II) chloride to aluminium foil. Just under 1.3 tonnes of mercury (II) chloride was seized in the European Union from 2019 to 2021 and a further 170 kilograms in 2022 and 2023. Some or all of the mercury (II) chloride seized may have been intended for use in the synthesis of amphetamine via the nitrostyrene method (see EU Drug Market: Amphetamine – In-depth analysis).

Finally, in rare cases, some precursor-free methods have also been reported. No such cases were reported in the period between 2019 and 2021. These methods use masked MDMA, a derivative of MDMA which can be easily converted back to the drug (EMCDDA, 2019b). These substances comprise the complete MDMA molecule with an additional chemical protecting group attached, which is easily removed. The protecting group changes the drug molecule enough to take it outside the scope of international drug control conventions. Seizures of masked MDMA in the form of N-t-BOC-MDMA were made in the Netherlands in 2016 and 2017. Since then, no further reports of such seizures have been documented, suggesting that the method may not have gained much traction in EU drug production. Nevertheless, future developments in both well-known and innovative synthetic chemistry techniques may lead to the emergence of novel precursor-free methods for MDMA production in future.

Auxiliary chemicals

Some criminal networks specialise in the supply of chemicals for illicit drug production. While PMK and designer precursors are mainly sourced from Asia, other chemicals (such as catalysts and solvents) are often sourced from EU Member States such as Germany and Poland. Chemical companies in the European Union are either established, procured or infiltrated by specialised criminal networks in order to obtain the chemicals for MDMA production from legitimate EU and non-EU-based suppliers. Some Polish companies, for example, have been known to source chemicals for MDMA production from major legitimate companies based in Europe or internationally. Criminal networks also attempt to procure chemicals directly from legitimate companies using fraudulent documents (NPNL, 2022). The chemicals are typically obtained in large quantities and stored in warehouses before being supplied to illicit synthetic drug production units.

Tabletting

Producing ecstasy tablets for the consumer market is a specialised skill. It first involves carefully mixing the ingredients in the correct proportions. Besides MDMA, ecstasy tablets may contain other ingredients such as:

• adulterants;
• binding agents, to ensure the integrity of the tablets;
• lubricants, to ensure the tablet is released from the mould;
• disintegrants to ensure that the tablet can be digested in the stomach;
• sweeteners/flavours, to mask the bitter taste of the MDMA;
• pigments/colouring, to make the tablets more appealing to consumers (these may also be added only as a coating).

The available data suggest that over the last decade, on average, European producers have adhered to a somewhat standard recipe to make ecstasy tablets, whereby a similar ratio of MDMA to other ingredients is used to make the tablet mixtures. The increase in MDMA content of ecstasy tablets during this time is mostly due to larger tablets being produced, rather than recipes using larger amounts of MDMA (Vrolijk et al., 2022). Signals from 2020 and 2021 suggest that a change in the ecstasy tablet recipe may have occured, with the proportion of MDMA reaching its lowest value in a decade (see section Retail markets — price and purity).

After being prepared, the mixtures containing MDMA and other ingredients are placed in a tabletting machine and manually or automatically pressed with the shape and logo desired using punches or stamps. Break lines or scoring may be introduced to facilitate breaking the tablet in two or more pieces so the consumer can use less than the whole tablet. This is important, as some individual tablets can contain dangerously high amounts of MDMA.

Tabletting has to be done in a dry location, typically separated from the MDMA production unit given that these tend to be wet environments. Tabletting machines can be bought new or sourced from the second-hand market.

China is a supplier of tabletting machines. These can be purchased online, without any restrictions. However, only a limited number of legitimate businesses will require their use. Research into the use of tabletting equipment in the Netherlands found that only a very small number of legitimate companies (pharmaceutical, candy or vitamin producing companies) use Chinese tabletting machines, suggesting to authorities that ecstasy production may be the final use for many imported machines. A total of 83 tabletting machines originating from China were seized in the Netherlands between 2017 and 2020, some of which were capable of producing thousands of tablets per minute (NPNL, 2022). Better quality European-made tabletting machines are available on the second-hand market.

Stamps or punches can be purchased online or made to order. Ecstasy tablets are known for featuring an endless variety of logos, including iconic fashion or vehicle brands, cartoon characters or personalities from popular culture. They are available in many colours, including glow-in-the-dark colours (Figure Dyes used in the making of ecstasy tablets and tablets produced with the dyes). Some stamps may also be produced for specific events, such as electronic dance music festivals. Logos and colours are a way of marketing these products but they are easy to copy and so specific logos cannot typically be attributed to particular manufacturers.

Environmental impact of MDMA production

Knowledge on the mechanisms and extent of environmental damage related to synthetic drug production is fragmented and further research is needed in this area. From the research available, three prominent (direct) damage pathways in synthetic drug production (including laboratories that produce the chemical starting materials) are described: water and soil pollution (through discharges of chemical waste) and air pollution through chemical reactions and fumes (ter Laak and Mehlbaum, 2022; UNODC, 2022). While stand-alone studies on some aspects of these impacts have been conducted, a more comprehensive assessment of the environmental impact of synthetic drug production has not been carried out, including for MDMA specifically.

The type of production waste generated in each step of the synthetic drug production chain has been described before (ter Laak and Mehlbaum, 2022; UNODC, 2022) (see Figure 4.7. Synthetic drug production and the possible waste products.

The first step is associated with the production of the chemical starting materials. Many of these are legally produced in China, primarily precursors and their designer precursor alternatives. China is one of the world’s largest chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturers (Jia, 2007) and its industry appears to operate in a low-regulated environment, under licences that are reportedly often not enforced or inspected (US-CHINA Economic Security Review Commission [USCC], 2017, 2018). In 2017, it was estimated that more than 160 000 non-pharmaceutical chemical companies were operating ‘legally and illegally in China, with some facilities manufacturing tonnes of chemicals every week’ (USCC, 2017). Because of the complex nature of this industry, the data are insufficient to make a thorough estimate of the environmental impacts of this step of the production process.

More is known about the environmental impact of the subsequent steps of synthetic drug production in Europe. This involves the generation of chemical waste products, typically dumped away from the production sites and often in neighbouring countries, resulting in health risks, environmental damage and high clean-up costs for contaminated sites (see Box 4.3. Complications in cleaning up illicit drug waste dumping).

No dump sites specifically related to MDMA production were identified in the European Union in 2022, but at least seven were reported in 2021: six in Belgium and one in the Netherlands. This represents only a fraction of the total 234 dumping sites reported in the European Union that year. It is likely that many more of these sites were directly or indirectly related to MDMA production. This cannot be confirmed, however, as samples are not always taken for analysis to determine whether they are connected to a particular synthetic drug or chemical process.

A variety of methods may be used to dispose of large quantities of chemical waste associated with drug production. One method is to simply pour the waste down the sink or toilet. This is unlikely to be a common practice, however, as the waste can be corrosive or so viscous that it would damage the pipes or block the drains. However, if chemical waste is disposed of in this way, it may affect the quality of drinking water or adversely affect municipal wastewater treatment plants.

A more common occurrence is the dumping of waste in the countryside. In some cases, waste has been found buried underground or discharged directly on the soil, with possible long-lasting impacts on the environment, including the human food chain (Groenen et al., 2023). Waste may also be left in abandoned properties or loaded onto stolen vans or lorry trailers, which may then be set on fire to conceal forensic evidence. More elaborate methods have also been identified, including the use of modified vans that pump waste onto road surfaces (EMCDDA and Europol, 2019).

Overall, the dumping of synthetic drug production waste directly into surface waters, or indirectly via the sewers and wastewater treatment plants, can affect surface water quality. Scenario studies that use hydrological modelling illustrate that a large emission of drug production waste from an illicit laboratory into a sewer (or directly into surface water) can temporarily affect surface water quality over large distances. Waste discharged into surface water can be cleaned up when the water is stagnant, such as in lakes or ditches, and the response time is short. However, this is not possible in large rivers and fast-flowing streams (ter Laak and Mehlbaum, 2022). A study commissioned by the EUDA on the impact of synthetic drug production on the environment through the analysis of contaminants in groundwater samples sheds some light on this issue (see EU Drug Market: Amphetamine – In-depth analysis).

(1) PMK is piperonyl methyl ketone. Synonyms include: methylenedioxyphenyl-2-propanone; MDP2P and 3,4-MDP-2-P. IUPAC names include: 1-(2H-1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl) propan-2-one and 3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl-2-propanone.

(2) In the context of this report, ‘glycidic derivatives of PMK’ includes PMK glycidate, PMK glycidic acid, PMK ethyl glycidate, and PMK methyl glycidate.

(3) IUPAC name: 1,3-benzodioxole-5-acetonitrile.

(4) IUPAC name: 4-(2-nitroprop-1-en-1-yl)benzo[d][1,3]dioxole (also known as MDP2NP). The chemical is commercially available, but it may have been seized in an operating laboratory as part of the production process (as an intermediate).

(5) IUPAC name: methyl 3-oxo-2-(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)butanoate.

(6) IUPAC name: 5-[2-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)acetyl]-2,2-dimethyl-1,3-dioxane-4,6-dione.

References

Consult the list of references used in this module.

Source data

The data used to generate the infographics and charts on this page may be found below (CSV format). Additional information, metadata and methodological notes may be found in the EU Drug Market: MDMA source data entry in our data catalogue.