• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ

Dirty Acid FAQ & Discussion

Do you believe qualitative differences between LSD products can matter / be felt?

  • Yes: the difference between dirty and clean LSD can be felt

    Votes: 8 32.0%
  • No: there is only LSD

    Votes: 17 68.0%

  • Total voters
    25
Here...FAQ contribution:

A compound that comes out of a LSD synthesis, regardless if it is active on neural activity, can it still cause a perceivable negative effect on the body?
Of those compounds that could cause negative reactions, what are the levels to allergically react to them?
If no data is available on the for mentioned compounds, what data is available for the closest resembling compounds for allergic or negative effects?

If a solution has absorbed a non-opaque, colorless-like crystal to it's fullest saturation point, does it change color?

I would answer these, to the best of my ability, but I feel like deino would be far more thorough and patient with it.:)
 
Seiko- This is right in that link you just posted " In the case of LSD, many ergot alkaloids are known to dimerize, I think at the two position. " What do you mean by citation ?

I'm curious is one dissolved this purple / black crystal could it make the liquid solution that color?

You should have posted that link at the beginning of this thread!! That clears up a shizzz load we have been back and fourth about

By citation, he is referring to giving the information with a link to – or information that allows one to track down in some other way – a scientific paper that verifies that information. Typically a citation will include the author's / authors' name / names, or at least the name of the lead researcher, the title, and the journal it was published in along with the volume number and page number and or date of publication.

Basically it's used to prove that what you're saying is backed up by evidence collected in a scientific manner. So in this case it would be a paper that contains an analysis of the process of dimerization of lysergamides, ideally including LSD itself. You see it a lot in places like ADD, because the purpose is not limited to just proving that evidence backs up your statement. It also is used to point other people to the paper so they can read more and in greater detail about the subject at hand.

Here...FAQ contribution:

A compound that comes out of a LSD synthesis, regardless if it is active on neural activity, can it still cause a perceivable negative effect on the body?
Of those compounds that could cause negative reactions, what are the levels to allergically react to them?
If no data is available on the for mentioned compounds, what data is available for the closest resembling compounds for allergic or negative effects?

If a solution has absorbed a non-opaque, colorless-like crystal to it's fullest saturation point, does it change color?

I would answer these, to the best of my ability, but I feel like deino would be far more thorough and patient with it.:)

Sure thing, I'll get on it. Need to keep going and not lag behind as far as pushing out pieces of the FAQ!
 
By citation, he is referring to giving the information with a link to – or information that allows one to track down in some other way – a scientific paper that verifies that information. Typically a citation will include the author's / authors' name / names, or at least the name of the lead researcher, the title, and the journal it was published in along with the volume number and page number and or date of publication.

Got it, I know what a citation is I just didnt know if he was using it in a different context.
 
I spoke more with my friend whose an O chem grad.. he was saying that the impurities (a la the 51mcg of impurities in champagne, hunab kus) could effect the way that you metabolize the LSD or other particles or other things throughout your day not reltaed to the dose.

Yeah, let me know when you find a CYP enzyme inhibitor that is some hundreds of times more effective than most known compounds.

Here's a ref for dimerization of lysergic acid ethers (not e.g. LSD). Note however it's at the 8 position. Probably a radical coupling reaction helped by high energy light and oxygen.
 
Yeah, I assumed it would have to be non-covalent to retain activity if it did indeed form dimers, and I was wondering where that hydrogen bonding might occur. I had identified the 8 carbon as one potential site because that would be favorable from a steric perspective. I guess I was wrong about the non-covalent thing for these esters at least. I didn't bother posting because I've not got my bachelors in O chem yet, granted degrees are not everything and are potentially nothing as far as whether or not you know chemistry well, but still, I figured let somebody else have a crack at it if they want. So it's interesting to see that's where it may happen in these lysergic acid esters.

I guess I may as well expand on my logic behind that choice. I was focusing on (+)-d-LSD, partially because its the active one after all but also because its conformational shape makes the dimerization more sensible to me. Look at the structure of this isomer:
LSD_Structure.svg

So the stereocenter at the 5 carbon is positioned so as so sort of thrust the ring that the amide sprouts from 'backwards', pointing away from the viewer. Then the chiral center at the 8 position does the opposite, pointing the amide back at the viewer.

My thinking then was that this sort of leaves that hydrogen coming off of the 8 carbon (not shown in this picture, would be a hashed wedge to compliment the black wedge of the amide carbon) is sort of the 'point' of the angle formed by pointing the ring back but the amide forward. Then, depending on whether the amide can rotate freely (I should imagine so but I'm not expert with rotamers), the amide could rotate so the ketone group also points away from the viewer. This would allow the 8 carbon's hydrogen and the ketone to hydrogen bond between two complimentary molecules of (+)-d-LSD.

Sekio: what do you think? I'm not claiming this actually happens, but you know organic chem better than I, is this a reasonable conjecture in steric and electrostatic terms for a non-covalent hydrogen bonding mechanism? I'm just not that well versed in hydrogen bonds and van der Walls and other really low strength interactions like this.
 
Pretty unlikely an alkyl proton would participate in hydrogen bonding. d-LSD is actually pretty planar, I seem to recall, so I would expect there to be more pi-stacking interactions than anything else.

Hydrogen bonded dimers, unless they are incredibly energetically favoured, wouldn't be present at physiological concentrations of LSD. Dilution is too high.
 
Fascinating! This is why I love chemistry so much, there's always more to learn about! I'll look into why alkyl groups disfavor this type of hydrogen bonding. I take it that heteroatoms with higher electronegativity may be more appropriate, like a hydroxyl and a ketone being a prototypical hydrogen bonding candidate?

Thanks for the heads up then!
 
I've had LSD trips that gave me the shits and headaches one week, then the following week took the next few blotters along on the same sheet and felt physically fantastic.

I've never encountered such a thing as "dirty acid" or "clean acid". Just acid.
 
As I've already said, I'm 100% confident I could spot some of these blotters in a blind test.

I once had two jars in the freezer with capsules containing dried truffles and the other jar containing capsules of dried cubensis. For months I was absolutely 100% convinced I could tell the difference between the two. The truffles wern't as "visual" and didn't feel the same on the body. Then one day I had the most visual, greatest bodyhigh of any trip I'd ever had. I looked the following day and realised, yep, I'd taken the truffles by mistake.

Ever since then I don't believe people who claim they can "tell the difference". You can't - there's simply too many other variables at play and once you know that you're taking "dirty acid blotters" the placebomine will work it's magic on you.
 
I've never encountered such a thing as "dirty acid" or "clean acid". Just acid.

Agreed it's either LSD or it's not (like it's fake and no drug at all, or another drug like a research chemical).

It's not that the LSD is "dirty" sometimes the person taking it is just experiencing something new, and the whole "Clean" vs "Dirty" LSD theory is based on the placebo effect and it's totally psychosomatic.

Yet of course fools here will flip out and talk about crystals and other BS from the shroomery that's total fiction and written by someone who is delusional and not a chemist at all.

It's funny that someone probably livingInTheAlps or EarthBound is trolling and imitating Chinacat72 or CC72 on bluelight now. 8) Of course they'll both deny it.
 
It's funny that someone probably livingInTheAlps or EarthBound is trolling and imitating Chinacat72 or CC72 on bluelight now. 8) Of course they'll both deny it.

Yea I have time in my day to play like a kid geeze... Same with living in the alps.

Considering CC72 has been PMing me it takes me out of the equation, Plus me and LiTa talk via PM I know its not him, thought we were done with this bullspit in this thread.

I'm beginning to enjoy this thread :) I am learning a a lot !


It's not that the LSD is "dirty" sometimes the person taking it is just experiencing something new, and the whole "Clean" vs "Dirty" LSD theory is based on the placebo effect and it's totally psychosomatic.

I will in fact agree with this, even with the slimy troll comment.
 
Okay, so to the heart of the matter. I have tried to make this as unambiguous but yet as unbiased as I can. I think it's a good summary of what a contaminant would require as far as activity levels etc, because the evidence does seem to me to point to the improbability of a contaminant, but at the same time I included speculation on sub-active doses at the end because I think it's a valid rebuttal to that argument, albeit one that is itself somewhat unlikely and would require more research as to whether there are any analogous situations in medicine.

What do you guys think? Especially folks on the pro-dirty acid side?

---

What properties would a potential contaminant require?

Whether one wishes to illuminate the subject of dirty acid to prove that it is a real phenomenon, or instead prefers to explain the symptom set of dirty acid syndrome as a natural result of LSD itself, the question of contamination must be raised. If dirty acid is real then a contaminant will be the culprit. If it is not real, supporting evidence would have to include the absence of a contaminant. However, as amateur drug enthusiasts instead of professional researchers, it is difficult to unambiguously prove the presence or absence of a contaminant for lack of proper equipment – such as gas chromatography / mass spectrometers and nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometers – that would be necessary to unambiguously prove the presence and then identity of any contaminants.

Due to the inability to easily settle this problem using advanced equipment, we will apply our curiosity about the veracity of any claims that dirty acid syndrome is a real phenomenon to examining what characteristics a contaminant would need to possess. These characteristics include an intrinsic activity at incredibly low dose levels and a symptom set that is unpleasant but not harmful or fatal.

The first such characteristic as mentioned is the required potency of any contaminant. A piece of blotter, frequently found to be the delivery method for 'dirty' acid, will be dosed with a given amount of drug. Depending on the chemical, the required dose will vary, from potentially several milligrams in the case of 2C-B blotter that is meant to be used several blotters at a time, to 0.5 to 1 mg for NBOMes, to 100 micrograms for a piece of acid blotter that is well-dosed.

Acid however possesses four different isomers, the (+)- and (-)- versions of LSD and iso-LSD respectively. These four stereoisomers are the result of LSD possessing two chiral centers: one at the 5-carbon and one at the 8-carbon. In practice however, a large amount of the acid on the market is derived ultimately from precursors such as ergotamine that are extracted from fungal or less-commonly plant matter, and (-)-LSD and (-)-iso-LSD are not actually found in nature. Therefor the product of a synthesis that begins with only (+)-ergotamine and (+)-iso-ergotamine will yield only (+)-LSD and (+)-iso-LSD, so only two of the isomers have to be taken into account when determining the amount of the racemate formed from both of those isomers that is applied to blotter.

Since LSD and iso-LSD interconvert – keeping their respective optical isomerism of (+) or (-) – we may assume that for each molecule of LSD that becomes iso-LSD, a molecule of iso-LSD makes the opposite transition. So ultimately the ratio of 1:1 between these two isomers will be preserved, and we can therefor assert that any blotter that contains 100 micrograms of *active* material will actually contain 200 micrograms – half of which will be the active isomer and half of which will be the inactive isomer. This is relevant because taking a hypothetical purity figure of 80% for example will result in very different values depending on whether the total amount of alkaloids is 100 or 200 micrograms total.

Taking that 80% figure as an example, and understanding that there is actually 200 micrograms of alkaloids present in a well-dosed blotter, we see that at most there could be 40 micrograms of contaminant. The rest of the alkaloid content would be 80 micrograms of each of the (+) isomers of LSD and iso-LSD. This quantity, 40 micrograms, is very small. In fact, this is barely even the lower bound for the dose of (+)-LSD necessary for a threshold experience, and LSD is one of the strongest known psychedelics that is known to exist.

This dose of 40 micrograms is the absolute highest possible dose of contaminant in this scenario, but the compound may have to be active at an even smaller dose. This is because it is reasonable to assume that if there is contamination, there is likely more than one contaminant. Additionally, there are other forms of LSD like the inactive lumi-LSD that may partially make up the 20% of our total alkaloid content that is neither (+)-LSD nor (+)-iso-LSD. However, for the purposes of this examination we will take 40 micrograms to be the quantity of contaminant and disregard these complicating factors, since this entire analysis is to one extent or another an abstraction.

Moving on to the next requirement for the hypothetical contaminant, it must produce a symptom set that is unpleasant but not truly harmful and certainly not fatal at this very low concentration. The number of known poisons and toxins that are active at concentrations this low is small, but very real. Unfortunately, identifying other substances that are indeed active at this level yet do not show terribly dangerous activity is much harder, as compounds that have an adverse effect on the human body such as neurotoxins like Sarin or VX often have their incredible potencies tied up with their immensely toxic properties. That is to say that the mechanisms that produce the incredibly dangerous effects are the same as the mechanisms that produce their high potencies; organophosphorous compounds such as the aforementioned sarin and VX are good examples of this, should the reader wish to learn further about the subject of their modes of action.

Another interesting angle to the possible effects of any contaminant reflects the symptom set that is common to lysergamides, and ergoloids in general. The effects that constitute dirty acid syndrome are often exactly those negative side effects that can be associated with having taken an ergoloids in the first place. So naturally our search for potential candidate contaminants is drawn towards ergoloids. This would have another benefit: the fourth criterion for a contaminant is not completely necessary, but the contaminant should be the result of an improper or partially incomplete acid synthesis, as it is difficult to imagine where else the contaminant would come from or how it could be introduced into the blotter. So searching amongst the ergoloids is a natural extension of both the side effects that are reported as being a result of dirty acid as well as the need for a plausible mechanism for the introduction of this contaminant into the dosing medium.

Alas, there are not any known ergoloids that for these four requirements. A list of ergoloids and their relative potencies follows, as assembled by Bluelighter Anon0631:

Ergine - Also known as LSA, this molecule is similar to LSD except that in lieu of two ethyl groups on the amide moiety, there are instead two hydrogens, creating a primary amine. The dosages for LSA are notoriously ambiguous, due mainly to the administration of this chemical in botanical form. However, Hoffman determined that an effective intramuscular dosage was 500 micrograms circa 1947. As such it is not a likely candidate since the potency is an order of magnitude too low, not even counting the difference in bioavailability between intramuscular and sublingual dosing.

Ergotamine - This is often used as raw material for the synthesis of LSD, so on that count it strongly fulfills the requirement. Additionally, it also produces strong cardiovascular effects and delirium, as in the condition of ergotism. Unfortunately, the doses required are much larger; it is used as an anti-migraine medication in the United States, at a dosage of 2 milligrams, and the dosage necessary to bring on unpleasant side effects is necessarily larger than the 2 milligram therapeutic dosage.

Lysergic acid - Lysergic acid is often one of the intermediate steps between ergotamine and LSD. It is apparently totally inactive, though what dosages it has been assayed at are unknown. It will suffice to say that it is unlikely that it is an even more potent or perhaps equally potent ergoloid than LSD, as someone somewhere would likely have discovered this effect. Even if it was a nearly poisonous compound, any activity would still be occasionally exploited by the risk-taking drug adventurer, as with datura, but we do not see this phenomenon.

Ergoline - Apparently without action, this compound is missing entirely the side chain that contains the diethylamide group in LSD. this side chain also exists in ergotamine and lysergic acid, though the amine has been replaced by an alcohol in lysergic acid, and thus it's presence would be very unlikely even as a product of poor synthesis.

Ergometrine - This compound is used medically to aid in the process of childbirth, apparently through its action upon the smooth muscles of the uterus. It is mentioned in TIHKaL that it may possess psychoactive properties between 2 and 10 milligrams, but it's use as such should be discouraged since it can exert such a powerful response within the autonomic nervous system. It is also unlikely to be produced by faulty synthetic method since the functional group that sprouts from the nitrogen of the amide side chain is dissimilar to an ethyl group, and there is only one such group instead of two, yielding a secondary amine instead of a tertiary amine such as LSD.

Taking these chemicals' properties into account, it is apparent that LSD is quite unique amongst the ergoloids. Recently there have been developed various potent lysergamides such as LSZ, where 2,4-dimethylazetidide replaces diethylamine within the structure of the overarching amide function. Additionally there have been some less recent developments where the side chain that chemists label R6 has been modified, such as ETH-LAD and AL-LAD. But out of all of the active analogues LSD appears to still reign as the most potent, possibly tied with LSZ, and in any case there is no mechanism for altering the group at R6 or inducing the formation of a dimethylazetidide without very specifically aiming for such compounds. Further, these compounds would fail as contaminant candidates on the basis of their lack of intrinsically negative physiological activity. It is possible, however unlikely, that there may be an ergoloid that is not known to science that can produce the necessary symptom set for dirty acid syndrome.

The presence of a non-ergoloid contaminant is even less tenable than that of a possibly unknown lysergamide or other ergoloid, because of both the necessity for a mechanism of introducing such an impurity as well as the paucity of potential choices. There simply aren't really candidates that have that level of activity. All things considered, the presence of a contaminant within blotter is doubtful, and experts in the field of organic chemistry categorically deny the presence of such a contaminant, preferring to ascribe the symptoms of dirty acid syndrome to the variable nature of the drug LSD itself.

However, recently several users that are proponents of dirty acid as a real phenomenon have suggested that it may not be necessary for a contaminant to have full activity at such a low concentration. They suggest that a sub-active dose may modulate the LSD experience in some way, much as the phenethylamine drug TOMSO is inactive until combined with another psychoactive, alcohol specifically. This mode of action may not be likely, but it is impossible to say at the moment, since it is possible that a contaminant could in fact be an as-yet unknown lysergamide, or another form of ergoloid, which would have unknown properties. It has additionally been suggested that the contaminant, should it exist, may in some way alter the metabolic fate of LSD, somehow creating the conditions for dirty acid syndrome to occur. This is much less likely than a sub-active dose of an unknown chemical, as there are no real analogous examples of an enzyme inhibitor shutting down or modifying an enzyme's activity at low double-digit microgram quantities. For readers interested in alterations of enzymatic metabolism, a google search on cytochrome P450 and its inhibitors should provide an easy entry into the topic.
 
Last edited:
Ignoring accusations of trolling, what do you guys think of that piece of FAQ? It's ultimately the heart of the matter and the heart of the FAQ, and I want feedback especially from pro-dirty acid folks.

I'm also writing up a bit on how a potential as-yet undiscovered ergoloid contaminant would do its thing, so can anybody (lookin at you Sekio) point me to a good resource for a description of how ergoloids work their cardiovascular magic? WikiP and google have been used, google producing some interesting pages but wikipedia being entirely useless for such fine-grained information, even looking into the citations in articles, cause partly I lack journal access at all and secondarily most of the journal citations aren't even a link, they're dumb text citations only, in the sense of not being 'smart' – meaning interconnected – in the way a hyperlink is, analogous to having a 'dumbphone' instead of a smartphone.

Humorously, this IMO is a dumb idea itself, because its a false dichotomy. 'Dumbphones' did their proscribed jobs – performing the task of making a call as well as housing a contacts list and history and text messaging – perfectly well. They didn't browse the net and play touchscreen games because they weren't supposed to do these things. I may be biased as a holdout for getting a smartphone until vending online necessutated it many months ago (hell i didn't even get a cell phone at all until I was 19), and I surely am digressing on a totally-unrelated topic to that of dirty acid, but oh well!

Anyway, feedback?
 
Last edited:
how ergoloids work their cardiovascular magic?

Through serotonergic mechanisms, I believe (broad spectrum agonism). I would imagine if you are a starving peasant eating ergot infested rye you could absorb some tens to hundreds of milligrams of alkaloid...

Gedankenexperiment: Assuming "dirty acid" is an at least passingly common thing, and the term has been in use for some time now, would it not be reasonable to assume then that the impurity is independent of synthesis route? (i.e. a product of breakdown of LSD?) There's more than one way to make an amide.
 
Oh, and of course, the one who has to enforce rules comes in with an idea to present a probability of resolution, yet it would be breaking those rules...:) Regardless, I'm glad you posted that sekio. Would it still be synthesis talk if you were just talking purifying?
 
^^ I have to say, I find many – not all by any means and PD is luckier in this regard – Bluelight mods to be almost uniformly overbearing, unfriendly, capricious, and egotistical in a detached way. This is the case now and has been the case since I joined in '03. I'm not going to try and bust out specific examples, because I don't have them, this is a decades worth of observation. But Sekio is not the type from everything I've seen to be like that, and doesn't use being a moderator to state things as objective fact when they are not nearly so clear cut, which is par for the course with everybody else.

I mean how many other people that frequent ADD do you see regularly engaging in constructive discussion in PD, and not as an act of slumming? Even Ebola?, who's opinions I respect a hell of a lot took a single look in this thread and essentially said 'there is no question, dirty acid isn't real' and left. So I'd be thankful we've for somebody to inject at least a modicum of dispassionate analysis. I guess it's different if you're in disagreement though, I do see the point.

Sekio: Anything more specific than that? I'm not looking to get spoonfed, and from my own research I understand that activity upon peripheral 5-HT1a and 2c receptors can cause a lot of the nastiness, though surely there are also inherent side effects from partial-agonism of 2b. Other than vasoconstriction and effects on smooth muscle, hyperthermia, sweating, I don't know if the negative effects continue in a long list or if those are the primary symptoms, just ramped up very strongly.

I suppose it's not important, I dunno maybe I've already given too much wiggle room to the pro-dirt position, I just feel a need to try and counterbalance whatever invisible bias I've inserted just by having been the one to write the stuff.
 
Tried to clean up this thread, some posts were very borderline and at times I edited out the rotten and off-topic parts. I really don't care if you think the moderating was fair, if you fail to make posts that are less than 10% of a contributing value it is your own responsibility and it may be effectively hidden/removed or edited.

If a discussion stalls it really doesn't help to reflect on that uselessly.

Fortunately the fundamental idea behind the thread is a perennial topic and it seems valuable to continue working on piecing together that FAQ. I will try to help with that.
For me the subject is not 100% finished even if I swung over to the side that thinks that subjectively experiencing the quality of LSD is for the most part an illusion. I am not willing to put to rest the possibility that impurities that are inactive by themselves may be of influence on the complex pharmacology of LSD itself. The term 'modulation' was used for this.
It would have been great if there was more comment on that but I guess it is not surprising since no decently scientific minded person would claim that it is 100% impossible, and there is no empirical data to help us. So many stay silent and prefer to echo for the millionth time a conclusion that others have established using their own reasoning.
What would be necessary is a double blind large scale study where LSD together with different synthesis impurities (each separately purified on their own) are administered. Which is pretty unrealistic to happen, especially if the only application is the main Q in our FAQ.

Even if the great variance in physical effects from LSD accounts for somewhere between 90 and 100 % of the subjective experience of dirty or clean effects, it remains IMO possible that the remaining influence comes from impurities.
It is a form of wishful thinking or a form of inability to let go of wanting a more tangible cause, but at the same time I would personally feel scientifically incorrect to not even consider that option possible given what we know and don't know.

If LSD has such a great range (or variance) it is still possible IMO that this range is skewed by different batches. But if there are many factors the purity definitely doesn't seem like a deciding factor to me.
 
Even if the great variance in physical effects from LSD accounts for somewhere between 90 and 100 % of the subjective experience of dirty or clean effects, it remains IMO possible that the remaining influence comes from impurities.

Maybe I'm too holistic here, but is the argument not that the impurities vastly change the subjective nature of the experience? Moreover, how do you measure "10% of the effects"? Is there some system for ranking based on points?

re: ergolines - they're active at 5ht1a/1b/1d, 2a/b/c, and 3... probably more. So, as you can imagine, there's a laundry list of effects.

Also, I'm not a PD mod and can't do moderator magic here, and AFAICT purification discussion is perfectly fine. (The way I'd clean up LSD is chromatography of the freebase - not recrystallisation).
 
:) Maybe your argument is about vast changes, I personally think that arguments have been made where there were vast differences in subjective physical effects from the same batch, even Sandoz product that is supposed to be pretty pure (although yes it could degrade to the lumi form) that strongly suggest that purity couldn't possibly be that consistent, regarding the side-effects the impurities - or lack thereof - cause or don't cause.

However even if it is shown that there must be other factors that strongly contribute to 'dirty' feelings in a trip, it would be a simplistic black and white deduction that this would mean that impurities have zero contribution. All I am saying is that maybe the contribution is not zero, but existing although rather limited. It just seems wrong to dismiss it, it could lead to a tendency of a certain batch to cause light or heavy physical effects without being the be-all factor. I realise that Occam's razor makes this stance unfavorable.
But still, if there is a truth to both sides of the story it may be the most elegant theory yet, IDK.

About the 10%, that was just a number for argument's sake. If you must attach a more concrete notion to it, it might be a hypothetical number yielded by a study that quantifies factors and side-effects, indeed using a ranking system like they often do (at least IME, I have been a participant in clinical trials with cannabinoids).
 
Acid however possesses four different isomers, the (+)- and (-)- versions of LSD and iso-LSD respectively. These four stereoisomers are the result of LSD possessing two chiral centers: one at the 5-carbon and one at the 8-carbon. In practice however, a large amount of the acid on the market is derived ultimately from precursors such as ergotamine that are extracted from fungal or less-commonly plant matter, and (-)-LSD and (-)-iso-LSD are not actually found in nature. Therefor the product of a synthesis that begins with only (+)-ergotamine and (+)-iso-ergotamine will yield only (+)-LSD and (+)-iso-LSD, so only two of the isomers have to be taken into account when determining the amount of the racemate formed from both of those isomers that is applied to blotter.

Since LSD and iso-LSD interconvert – keeping their respective optical isomerism of (+) or (-) – we may assume that for each molecule of LSD that becomes iso-LSD, a molecule of iso-LSD makes the opposite transition. So ultimately the ratio of 1:1 between these two isomers will be preserved, and we can therefor assert that any blotter that contains 100 micrograms of *active* material will actually contain 200 micrograms – half of which will be the active isomer and half of which will be the inactive isomer. This is relevant because taking a hypothetical purity figure of 80% for example will result in very different values depending on whether the total amount of alkaloids is 100 or 200 micrograms total.

Since LSD and iso-LSD are diastereomers, not enantiomers, the equilibrium concentration ratio does not have to be 1.
 
Top