Harm Reduction Commercial gbl: is the purest always the safest? making the most out of limited testing resources

[betterThanBeer]

Hello and thank you for your time!

I have read through many threads and now would like to ask for further assistance.

My friend is trying to choose between two commercial and legal sources of GBL from the NL to then convert it into GHB.

A) Source A is a 1% cellulose and 99% GBL cleaning product with a red label and cap on it. The product has been reported to be "good" by man users online. My friend had good 4 year long experience with the shop in the past when they still offered "pharma" grade GBL to private customers. The GBL contained in their new cleaner is called "super grade" and the test sheet of the manufacturer reads as follows:

Super - grade

Appearance: Colourless or light-yellow liquid
Assay: (w/%) Specification Min. 99.7% Result = 99.78%
Water: (w/%) Specification Max. 0.05% Result = 0.019%
Colour: Specification Max. 15 Results = 5

Their "pharma" grade product in comparison reads:

Appearance: Clear, colourless liquid
Purity (by G.C): Specification Min. 99.5% Result = 99.85%
1,4 Butanediol(G.C.): Specification Max. 0.1% Result = ND
Other impurities: Specification Max. 0.5% Result 0.141%
Acid as Butyric Acid: Specification Max. 0.03% Result = 0.009%
M.C % (by K.F.): Specification Max. 0.1% Result = 0.035%
Colour APHA: Specification Max. 20 APHA Result = 10 APHA

B) Source B still offers pure, liquid GBL to private customers (I wonder why shop A has decided against this - legal risks?) with a promised purity of 99.78% matching the "super" grade.
My friend has no former experience with the shop but it appears to be legit. I have found someone in a forum saying they got their order but didn't use it themselves. There is unfortunately no official test sheet.

MAIN QUESTIONS:

1) Can commercially produced GBL with a purity of about 99.5% or higher generally be assumed to be pretty safe in terms of toxic byproducts? Or are there very different commercial production methods which could each yield around 99.5% however due to the different methods used the .5% of impurities might greatly differ in their composition and toxicity?

2) Can the detection of 1,4 BDO in a sample indicate a certain way of synthesis was used and could a sample containing 1,4 BDO therefore be considered safer or less safe than a sample of the same overall purity but without traces of 1,4 BDO?

3) To what extend could the use of activated charcoal or other relatively simple measures help to reduce the presence of impurities?

The reason my friend asks this is because they have the ability to have the products tested in a lab. However they only offer a "qualitative" analysis which they said meant they can only detect the % of GBL or other pharmacologically active substances such as 1,4 BDO.
This means that the sample from source A) would have unreliable test results since the 1% of cellulose can not be differentiated from other impurities. One could take this 1% into the calculation but there is no guarantee the sample contains precisely 1% of cellulose and so the remaining impurities can not be accurately quantified.

As someone who hardly understands chemistry and the production process of GBL as well as the potential hazards posed by impurities he has a hard time judging their dangers at all.
Based on these testing abilities, some deduction and simple purification steps of commercial, clear looking GBL, how safe can he assume these products to be?

He is aware that GBL itself even if it was 100% pure can pose very great risks on it's own when abused and handled not very carefully.

Any inputs and suggestions are greatly appreciated. I will continue reading through DF, Bluelight, Rhodium and other sources to try and get a better understanding myself.

 

[LucidSDreamr]

Hello and thank you for your time!

I have read through many threads and now would like to ask for further assistance.

My friend is trying to choose between two commercial and legal sources of GBL from the NL to then convert it into GHB.

A) Source A is a 1% cellulose and 99% GBL cleaning product with a red label and cap on it. The product has been reported to be "good" by man users online. My friend had good 4 year long experience with the shop in the past when they still offered "pharma" grade GBL to private customers. The GBL contained in their new cleaner is called "super grade" and the test sheet of the manufacturer reads as follows:

Super - grade

Appearance: Colourless or light-yellow liquid
Assay: (w/%) Specification Min. 99.7% Result = 99.78%
Water: (w/%) Specification Max. 0.05% Result = 0.019%
Colour: Specification Max. 15 Results = 5

Their "pharma" grade product in comparison reads:

Appearance: Clear, colourless liquid
Purity (by G.C): Specification Min. 99.5% Result = 99.85%
1,4 Butanediol(G.C.): Specification Max. 0.1% Result = ND
Other impurities: Specification Max. 0.5% Result 0.141%
Acid as Butyric Acid: Specification Max. 0.03% Result = 0.009%
M.C % (by K.F.): Specification Max. 0.1% Result = 0.035%
Colour APHA: Specification Max. 20 APHA Result = 10 APHA

B) Source B still offers pure, liquid GBL to private customers (I wonder why shop A has decided against this - legal risks?) with a promised purity of 99.78% matching the "super" grade.
My friend has no former experience with the shop but it appears to be legit. I have found someone in a forum saying they got their order but didn't use it themselves. There is unfortunately no official test sheet.

MAIN QUESTIONS:

1) Can commercially produced GBL with a purity of about 99.5% or higher generally be assumed to be pretty safe in terms of toxic byproducts? Or are there very different commercial production methods which could each yield around 99.5% however due to the different methods used the .5% of impurities might greatly differ in their composition and toxicity?

2) Can the detection of 1,4 BDO in a sample indicate a certain way of synthesis was used and could a sample containing 1,4 BDO therefore be considered safer or less safe than a sample of the same overall purity but without traces of 1,4 BDO?

3) To what extend could the use of activated charcoal or other relatively simple measures help to reduce the presence of impurities?

The reason my friend asks this is because they have the ability to have the products tested in a lab. However they only offer a "qualitative" analysis which they said meant they can only detect the % of GBL or other pharmacologically active substances such as 1,4 BDO.
This means that the sample from source A) would have unreliable test results since the 1% of cellulose can not be differentiated from other impurities. One could take this 1% into the calculation but there is no guarantee the sample contains precisely 1% of cellulose and so the remaining impurities can not be accurately quantified.

As someone who hardly understands chemistry and the production process of GBL as well as the potential hazards posed by impurities he has a hard time judging their dangers at all.
Based on these testing abilities, some deduction and simple purification steps of commercial, clear looking GBL, how safe can he assume these products to be?

He is aware that GBL itself even if it was 100% pure can pose very great risks on it's own when abused and handled not very carefully.

Any inputs and suggestions are greatly appreciated. I will continue reading through DF, Bluelight, Rhodium and other sources to try and get a better understanding myself.

1) yes its safe except I would be worried about possible toxic metal content is the only thing. ICP MS is a different analysis specific to test for leeched metals into the product which would not show up on other more common gcms or lcms tests. ICP MS is rarely done and I would want to know it was and there was not metal content. Organic hyrdroxylated hydrocarbons common impurities are pretty nontoxic especially in trace amounts. Aldehyde synthetic or decomposition impurities could be toxic and many different tests can detect their presence though.

2) no because there are decomposition pathways that also produce the 1 4 BDO.

3) fractional distillation would be the easiest and best way to further purify it.

 

[betterThanBeer]

1) @LucidSDreamr thank you! I always assumed metals were only contained in GHB made from impure Naoh, good to know it is a concern in GBL too. It looks like the lab doesn't do ICP MS unfortunately. I will ask them about it.
3) I will look up fractional distillation some more. So would this be able to get rid of toxic metals? Just from a quick look it seems this process takes quiet a bit of lab equipment which I'm not too keen to have in my house in case of a "visit" but I'll definitely consider it.

 

[LucidSDreamr]

1) @LucidSDreamr thank you! I always assumed metals were only contained in GHB made from impure Naoh, good to know it is a concern in GBL too. It looks like the lab doesn't do ICP MS unfortunately. I will ask them about it.
3) I will look up fractional distillation some more. So would this be able to get rid of toxic metals? Just from a quick look it seems this process takes quiet a bit of lab equipment which I'm not too keen to have in my house in case of a "visit" but I'll definitely consider it.

The metals don't have to come from anything to do with the gbl synth. Dirty lab gear used for other reactions can contain the metals and they then contaminate the equipment when used for gbl.

not all metals are a problem. Sodium is a metal but not toxic as Na+. I'd be most worried about heavy metals like mercury, lead, catalytic metalist like Ru etc.


Fractional distillation without vacuum which would suffice for gbl is pretty easy even if you don't have modern equipment.

Ancient Egyptians had distillation apparatuses and moonshiners also employ the techniques. Of course egynptoms and moonshiners use more primitive equipment but the effect is the same although maybe less efficient or not as good has heaving a real glass fractional distillation colum.

 

[betterThanBeer]

@LucidSDreamr thanks for sharing your knowledge

May I ask: What would be the names of all the components my friend would need to build a setup for fractional distillation in order to make this drugs a bit less harmful to his body?
Side note: His grandma sometimes comes for a surprise visit, starts cooking and is generally nosey + she hates drugs. For that reason he would prefer the most inconspicuous looking setup possible.
Something that when disassembled doesn't immediately scream ,,meth lab"
If the process itself becomes more time consuming and tedious as a consequence it's a compromise he'd be willing to make.

All the "gear" he has is an electric stove as a heat source, an infrared and cooking thermometer as well as stainless steel pots. He assumes all cooking gear will have to be from borosilicate glass.

 

[Nurse Ratched]

While we would like to help you succeed in making drugs BL simply has a policy of not helping people do this.

Google is your friend and will probably get you set up.

Synthesizing drugs, sourcing and a couple other things are the only things that are taboo on BL where we have to draw the line.

Gonna have to close this thread.