Opioids Experiment Thead - New Formulation Oxycodone Extraction

[DarrenRM]

This is entirely conjecture, but I have a random thought that might help with the logic behind this:

It would seem everyone is trying to find a method in which there will be NO gelling and yet still somehow release the oxy. This seems odd to me because there are only 3 possible states for the PEO/PEG to exist in: dissolved in a solution, gelling up in a solution, solid like it exists in a normal pill. In my mind, the oxy is trapped in this gelled matrix which means the only real way to do an extraction will first start with completely dissolving the PEO/PEG gel by chemical means. This seems like it should be step one.

Secondly, we need to consider how we define 'percent extracted'. That requires us to consider how Purdue tested their experiments. They used a method called Dissolution Testing (a flowchart of the whole process is here) which consists of a process I can't find a clear explanation of. If we find out how this process works (for example, when they test a solution of 100% ethanol after 60 minutes do they pour it through a filter so that any residual gel gets left behind, and then test the content with the ethanol? or do they complete the extraction all the way through the removal of the solvent until there is a dry product?) Learning a little more about this will help reveal how to approach the second goal, which should be probably be the removal of the solvent. How that works I'm not sure, but I'll keep studying...

Lastly I have 2 considerations:

1.Remember that the testing percentages we have involved "vigorous shaking" the whole time.
2. We need to find out what properties the PEG/PEO would have should we be able to dissolve it. I say this because we may need to avert a situation in which it will re solidify.

 

[Moriarty]

Ahhh... someone was going around saying alcohol PREVENTS gelling but I suspected it wasn't true. If Peg 400 is soluble in alcohol, it seems that even if I do that epsom salt trick to remove water from everclear 151, it will still cause gelling. So here some options:

1.) 190 Everclear (not sure if its the ethanol/water that is causing the gelling, or both, but purer ethanol will be better regardless. This can be found online)
2.) Find a non-denatured ethanol 100% online (this might be hard, but I think they are out there)

I think you missed the point of what I was saying. As a reply to the "epsom salt trick" you suggested that one buy 190 proof everclear or buy 100% ethanol. Using a drying agent, like magnesium sulfate, is an extraction (separation) technique. It extracts the water into the magnesium sulfate leaving close to 100% ethanol...well, close but at least better than 190 proof (95 percent). Other options are available. My personal favorite is calcium chloride (CaCl2). It is available at many stores in every state. One such product is DampRid. Once you add the drying agent and let it sit for an hour (I usually wait longer just to make sure), virtually all the water has migrated to the drying agent. You can now filter and have pretty close to completely dry ethanol. I think even wikipedia mentions that ethanol can only be purified in this manner (well, distilling away from metallic sodium works even better but that still fits under the same category). It's called chemical drying and it's an industry standard. In fact, if you purchased lab grade ethanol online you would be buying it from a company that performed a process pretty close to identical to the way I mentioned. You'd just be paying way more for it. As a side note, most chemical supply warehouses do not carry pure ethanol. Methanol, propanol, ether but not ethanol. Why? Because they have to get separate licensing and a state liquor license. It's a tax issue. Nothing more.

As for stating that ethanol might prevent gelling, I posted a journal article that stated a water soluble drug (like oxycodone hydrochloride) was extracted from hypromellose, despite it's water solubility, if the ethanol concentration was high enough. I never stated that this effect would be similar for the other constituents of the OP formulation. I only noted that the effect might be worth looking into or, at the very least, be valuable for removing hypromellose which would be a great step one in an overall process.

 

[Moriarty]

This is entirely conjecture, but I have a random thought that might help with the logic behind this:

It would seem everyone is trying to find a method in which there will be NO gelling and yet still somehow release the oxy. This seems odd to me because there are only 3 possible states for the PEO/PEG to exist in: dissolved in a solution, gelling up in a solution, solid like it exists in a normal pill. In my mind, the oxy is trapped in this gelled matrix which means the only real way to do an extraction will first start with completely dissolving the PEO/PEG gel by chemical means. This seems like it should be step one.

Secondly, we need to consider how we define 'percent extracted'. That requires us to consider how Purdue tested their experiments. They used a method called Dissolution Testing (a flowchart of the whole process is here) which consists of a process I can't find a clear explanation of. If we find out how this process works (for example, when they test a solution of 100% ethanol after 60 minutes do they pour it through a filter so that any residual gel gets left behind, and then test the content with the ethanol? or do they complete the extraction all the way through the removal of the solvent until there is a dry product?) Learning a little more about this will help reveal how to approach the second goal, which should be probably be the removal of the solvent. How that works I'm not sure, but I'll keep studying...

Lastly I have 2 considerations:

1.Remember that the testing percentages we have involved "vigorous shaking" the whole time.
2. We need to find out what properties the PEG/PEO would have should we be able to dissolve it. I say this because we may need to avert a situation in which it will re solidify.

Darren,

I appreciate your comments. They are insightful but not entirely accurate. Firstly, let me say that I, also, have often said that I thought the best way to do this was to remove some of the other constituents of the pill first. This is similar to what people making methamphetamine from pseudoephedrine have had to do as pseudoephedrine pills have had similar adulterants added to them to prevent people from extracting them. In the case of pseudoephedrine pills it varies from brand to brand but time released tablets are generally combined with hypromellose and polyethylene gylcols like PEG 400. The idea was that as soon as water was introduced it would become a gel and un-extractable. The solution: tablets were milled or ground in a coffee grinder and boiled in a non-polar solvent like toluene or xylene and then let cool. The polyethylene glycol and hypromellose were now in the non-polar solvent. It was cooled and filtered. Then an extraction was performed by acid/base extraction. This can get really involved but it doesn't have to be that complex. It's just a decent case study as this approach to making extraction difficult is not entirely new. However, the notion that one cannot extract the oxycodone hydrochloride from the tablet is not entirely correct. Products are extracted in nature all the time. One method for extracting chemicals from things like roots is to use a solvent but realize that you'd have to soak a root for a year to get all of the desired product from it. So roots are generally dried and ground into as fine a powder as possible. This increases surface area. In the same way, drugs in tablets can be extracted but the finer the powder the better job the solvent will do. Otherwise it is as you said, trapped in the binders of the tablet.

A problem arises when one uses a solvent to extract anything. As you said, removal of the solvent comes next. This is generally done in a few ways. One, a solvent that has a very low boiling point is selected so that mild heat can be applied and the solvent boiled off. Extraction is kind of like a game of "three card Monty". You are always trying to figure out where the product is. If a solvent is successful in dissolving a product and does not dissolve the other chemicals in the mixture then simple filtering gives one a new mixture. The new mixture is the chemical you extracted and the chemical (solvent) you used to extract that chemical. If a low boiling solvent was used then mild heat evaporates the extraction solvent and the desired product is all that is left. Second, if the extraction solvent has a high boiling point then one may not be able to apply enough heat to evaporate it without degrading the desired product. In these cases another solvent is chosen that has a low boiling point and that is miscible with the original solvent used. Often the product can be separated in some other fashion (there are too many to list here) like forming a salt from an existing acid or a salt from an existing base. Residual solvent, that is, the original solvent you used can then be washed out by the low boiling solvent with several washes and then dried. A good example of this is when a hydrochloride salt is formed in a non-polar solvent like if one were to convert a base in solution, like amphetamine, to it's hydrochloride salt in toluene. The salt is not soluble in toluene but residual toluene is present and is removed by washes with ethyl ether or acetone.

Sorry for rambling on. Extraction and purification techniques are numerous.

 

[DarrenRM]

More things to consider:

After looking at The Patent for the New OP 80 some more, I've got more information to share.

Number 1:
First, the examples in the patent show a wide variety of possible ways to use the patent, they don't guarantee they will make their final product one specific way. They even state this in the paragraph before Example 1. After reading through the Overview of claims that this patent makes you see what exactly they patented here. This patent covers the process of working with high molecular weight PEO to take advantage of it's resistance to Ethanol solubility for up to 6 hours, avoid being crushed, avoid being made into powder all in such a way that it breaks down in your body as close to the 'properly administered dose' as possible.

The only two chemicals mentioned in the overview of claims that are mentioned aside from the PEO that are worth looking into are: Eudragit® RS 30D and Triacetin®. At first glance they appear to be additional extend-release matrix ingredients. Although Eudragit is water insoluable, which is worth noting.


Number 2:
The ingredients of the pills they test for solubility in Example 27 are detailed in Example 14.5 and 7.2. Neither of them have any 'gelling-up' ingredients that Purdue outlines in their other patents about gel-related tamper resistance. And neither of the pill types they used for the solvent tests are of 80mg dosage. Do we know for sure that the PEO is the only ingredient that causes the gelation? Or is there a chance that there could be another ingredient? In the case that another chemical is the answer I looked to Examples 1, 2 to find an additional ingredient being used: hydroxypropylcellulose (HPC). This HPC additive also has a specific brand name attached to it Klucel type HXF. Upon investigating I found the following documents, which talk about it's time-release abilities and viscosity in the presence of water and ethanol, both of which make it a candidate for a gelling up ingredient.

Klucel HPC PDF with Drug Release, Solvent Lists and Solubility Stats
Klucel Viscosity In the Presence of Water and Ethanol

*Random note, Because of this Klucel stuff the 1% magnesium stearate is added to keep powders from sticking to each other in high-speed commercial tableting.

Number Three:
The official documentation lists the following ingredients in the OP 80s:

Active ingredient: oxycodone hydrochloride
Inactive ingredients in all strengths:butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), hypromellose, polyethylene glycol 400, polyethylene oxide, magnesium stearate, titanium dioxide, the 80 mg tablets also contain: hydroxypropyl cellulose. (Leaving out the obvious coating and coloring dyes) the only two pills to have any additional ingredients are the 80mg and 10mg.

Conclusion
So in conclusion, there must be a reason why the 10 and 80 have this extra ingredient. I think there is a very good chance that the reason is simple for the 80. It has an extra chemical to make it tamper resistant, perhaps the gelling agent, or a second one! Perhaps the 10 needed the additional 70mg of binder to make weight/size?


Edit for Viscosity Information:
Water Viscosity = .890 cp @ 25C
HPC (Klucel HXF) in Water = 1,500 - 3,000 @ 25C
HPC (Klucel HXF) in Ethanol = 1,000 - 4,000 @ 25C
PEO (Polyox) in Water = Someone find out what Polyox PEO type corresponds with the PEO listed as an ingredient and just use the link below.
Viscosity Data for the PEO "PolyOx" can be found on Dow's Website.

Edit 2: After reading Moriarty's post that came through while I typed this I've learned answers to some things above, but I'm not gonna go back and edit it. Thanks

 

[Moriarty]

Patents

It's awesome that you are investigating the patent so closely. I've read lots of patents over the years. When writing a patent the goal of the company is to give enough information to get the patent but no more. If they can leave certain elements out of the patent then they will. I believe I read something about Augustus Owsley Stanly in his attempts to recreate the Sandoz patent for d-LSD. Thety left out some key purification techniques (I believe the exact solvent mixture for and use of chromatography columns) of the drug. If memory serves it took him a year to figure it out. I could be wrong. I read that years ago and can't remember where.

Hydroxymethyl propylcellulose is hypromellose. It is very similar to hydroxy propylcellulose. The truth of the matter is that these terms do little to describe the actual product in the pill because the term describes an array of chemicals that vary in methylation (how many methoxy groups are present in the polymer hydroxy propylcellulose) and to what degree they are polymerized. Both factors determine some physical characteristics like density, boiling and melting points and degree of solubility.

Good information. Thanks for posting it. I feel like you're helping us move in the right direction.

 

[jaystyle]

Hey...

at one point in my experiments I ended up with a mixture of water, alcohol, and oxycodone. I applied some heat and I noticed "gel" scum would rise to the top and I could remove it. I wonder if you continue to add water and boil, would all the gel eventually rise to the top and you'd be left with oxycodone & water w/ no gel? Its something I might try soon.

The Poly glycol ingredients are the main gelling agent and is the chemical that makes the time release harder to break. I think these are the main chemicals we should focus on.

I understand what you mean about the chemical drying-- the question is how the efficacy of pure ethanol compares to 95%, or 80%, etc. Perhaps this chemical drying technique could be used in some other manner for our experiments however.

Darren - you mentioned three states for PEG to exist. I believe that PEG being gelled in water is synonymous with PEG being DISSOLVED in water. That is basically what is happeneing when the PEG becomes dissolved in water, it gels. There are some solvents like acetone that were completely insoluble to PEG. The PEG remained in the same state throughout the extraction, but the acetone was not extracting enough of the oxycodone either. MEK solvent seemed to extract a small amount of the PEG but not too much.

Acetone is still interesting to me for this experiment for its ability to prevent itself from gelling due to its insolubility to PEG. If it is even MILDLY soluble with oxycodone, wouldn't the solution be to use a higher volume of acetone? If it dissolves a small amount of mg/ml, than more ml is the answer to extract all of the oxycodone. What do you guys think? I think it is the most hopeful solvent for 3-5 hour extractions since it doesnt gel at all...

 

[Xanax007]

Ok, Last night after reading all the info in both this thread and the "Defeating the new OP", I thought that grinding up an 80Mg OP, placing the fine powder in a cup and then adding Alka Seltzer tablets along with water MIGHT be a reasonable solution to explore.

I did the aforementioned steps and was left with a GEL FREE liquid that was totally drinkable and one that provided me with a VERY VERY Intense OXY Buzz.

Whey you think about the basic ingredients, it makes some sense that it could be effective, but I am wondering if it could be improved by either using something other than water or perhaps another step. I ask this because one would think that it could be as simple as Alka Seltzer could it?

Any comments, questions or thoughts are not only welcome, but encouraged.

(I posted this information in both of the threads as I felt it fit in both areas)

 

[jaystyle]

interesting...

Someone else mentioned that citric acid had an interesting effect on these OPs. There is a lot of citric acid in alka seltzer. Thanks for contributing; will look into this.

Edit: I added some alka seltzer to my everclear 151. After I added the OP powder, it appeared that it wasnt gelling as much as it normally does. In a matter of minutes though the solution became gelled copletely like everything else. Maybe the citric acid will help wtih extraction though.

 

[Xanax007]

FEI: I used about 100ml or about 3.5 Oz of Distilled Water. Not sure what you would get if you used less water. I did place the finely ground OP in the bottom of the Juice glass first, then added in the Two Alka Seltzer Tablets (Whole). I then added about 30ml (1oz) of the water, waited 30 seconds, stirred the mixture a little then added about 70ml (about 2.5 oz) more of the water, stirred some more and then waited for all the effervescent activity to stop, stirred again, drank and in less than 5 min I was feeling it start to hit.

I will add that at the time I drank the solution, there was NO indication of GELLING at all, not sure what if anything would have happened had it set around longer. I will continue with some additional experiments in which I will still utilize alka seltzer as a step in the process, but substitute or add a couple variables based on prior recommendations and results such as the Epsom Salts and Heating (both oven and microwave).

I will report these findings as well.

 

[DarrenRM]

FEI: I used about 100ml or about 3.5 Oz of Distilled Water. Not sure what you would get if you used less water. I did place the finely ground OP in the bottom of the Juice glass first, then added in the Two Alka Seltzer Tablets (Whole). I then added about 30ml (1oz) of the water, waited 30 seconds, stirred the mixture a little then added about 70ml (about 2.5 oz) more of the water, stirred some more and then waited for all the effervescent activity to stop, stirred again, drank and in less than 5 min I was feeling it start to hit.

I will add that at the time I drank the solution, there was NO indication of GELLING at all, not sure what if anything would have happened had it set around longer. I will continue with some additional experiments in which I will still utilize alka seltzer as a step in the process, but substitute or add a couple variables based on prior recommendations and results such as the Epsom Salts and Heating (both oven and microwave).

I will report these findings as well.

Just for reference sake:

C6H8O7(aq) + 3NaHCO3(aq) → 3H2O(l) + 3CO2(g) + Na3C6H5O7(aq)
citric acid - baking soda → water + carbon dioxide + sodium citrate

Also, random question: Did you use the kind with aspirin in it?

 

[Xanax007]

DarrenRM,

Yes, it was the version that contains 325mg of Aspirin!

 

[washratt3]

done and done!!

In reading the posts it seems that everyone is trying to extract the oxy from the polymer matrix. One of the main objectives of the new formulation (per the patent) is to prevent an alcohol, water and/or similar extractions. Do you really think Perdue would release the new formulation if their objectives were not met?

Once I read the alka-seltzer post I just had to chime in and help you’s along a bit cause we seem to be heading in the direction of oxidation.

I’m no pro, but I do have a bio degree with 3 years of chem / organic chem lab so I know the terms. The applications may be a bit fuzzy as was the 5 years of college. I also work for a biotech company who serves the pharma industry.

Here is my proposition:
Pulverize/grind/mill op 80 (fine, but not too fine)
Set up on mesh screen so the partials do not fall through, but liquid DSMO can
Drip small amounts of store bought liquid DSMO through particles and screen or carefully dip in DSMO bath to dissolve BHT antioxidant. Heat until dry if necessary.

Place dry/semidry material in test tube or like container (be sure you choose one you can extract final product out of, but will conduct heat well.

Prepare store bought hydrogen peroxide bath and heat to 90C or just under boiling (or like liquid oxidizing agent. Although very strong oxidizers, pool and “CLR” like cleaners are toxic) Non water / alcohol oxidizer will be best, but I cant seem to find one that’s in liquid form…any suggestions?

Lay test tube or like in bath for 2 minutes or so
Add drops of hot HPO3 (or like liquid oxidizer) from bath to test tube until a wet paste is formed

Keep in bath for a few minutes adding drops (if needed) of hot HPO3 from the bath to get the proper paste consistency.

Stir while in bath
Pull test tube from bath and, if needed, add drop(s) of cold HPO3 (or like liquid oxidizer) if to pasty

Add to refrigerator and wait 12 hours for oxy to dissolve (not sure about this step. May want to skip if polymer hydration does NOT occur or lessen time if partially hydrated)

Spread paste with metal spatula or flexible buddy knife over glass surface. (or keep in original container)

Dry (UV raise to 70C if possible)
On hard smooth table, fold two sheets of paper and put dry material between and rotate the top sheet to promote granulation. Two sheets of 220 sand paper may work as well. Depends on what your dried product looks like.

BANG BANG BLAZED
Theory:
1) Up to 2.5mg’s of BHT butylated hydroxy toluene is used in the op formulation to prevent oxidation which will damage the polymer matrix

2) BHT is highly soluble in liquid DSMO 99.9% conc (up to 30mg’s/ml) You can buy DSMO pretty much any where

3) HPMC, PEG-400, PEO, and HPC may have specific “cloud temps” of around 90C which inhibit hydration 40%-100% depending on MW and such. (HPMC is 100% at 90C, PEG-400 is 40%)

4) An oxidation process will release a gas and may destroy polymers

5) UV heat raises may damage polymers. (if op contains titanium dioxide (sun block), which it may, UV heat may be a waste of time, but certainly can’t hurt)

Assumptions:
DSMO will not disrupt polymers or oxy since it contains no water or alcohol.
Oxidation reaction will not damage oxy molecule
Conclusion:
I will accept a negotiable onetime payment from “Big Brother” to keep my mouth shut from divulging experimental data that may or may not be conducted including the use of a stronger oxidizer.

Hahaha as if that’ll ever happen. Just thought I’d ask, knowing he’s watching/reading.

Anyway, this theoretical process and information is a direct result of 4 days of R&D and would love to see someone try this as I don’t use the substance and do not have access to quantitative analyzers.

Please let me know hows you make out!!

Oh, almost forgot. You may want to try this three step process first.

-Grind/file/mill…finer the better
-Add drops of bleach/water/vinegar mixture (do not mix with metal as this is a potent oxidizer)

-Dry and up she goes no one nose
LMK…good luck

 

[jaystyle]

Thanks washratt but we are already 5 steps ahead of you here.... Purdue spent millions making a pill that cant be crushed and snorted easily, a pill that when broken up still retains its time release. A pill that you cannot dissolve in water and IV. That is their MAIN goal. Their second goal is to make a pill that is RESISTANT to chemical extraction, and it IS. but it is not immune.

If you read previous posts, we have quotes and data from Purdue proving that chemical extraction is possible with a variety of easily obtained solvents. The only limitation of the new formulation is time--- some solvents take longer to extract the OC than other solvents, and almost all solvents need 3-5 hours for a successful extraction. After one hour, only 60-70% can be extracted assuming the solution is being shook.

The only issue left is to find a solvent that is oxycodone soluble, but PEG insoluble since its not fun to have oxycodone mixed with that nasty gel.

In reading the posts it seems that everyone is trying to extract the oxy from the polymer matrix. One of the main objectives of the new formulation (per the patent) is to prevent an alcohol, water and/or similar extractions. Do you really think Perdue would release the new formulation if their objectives were not met?

 

[washratt3]

Nice! Just figured is combine 3 ideas of polymer destruction; oxidation, cloud point, and UV heat. Keep in mind that PEG-400 loses 40-60% of its hydration at 90C. I will figure this out!

 

[washratt3]

You may be looking for something that does not exist. BTW. Not sure though. I couldnt find it after 4 days R&D

 

[Droppersneck]

Okay this is probably stupid but everyone is saying citric acid. When I think of this I think of passing drug tests with surgel/ fruit pectin. This shit about ruins your stomach I bet it would have some effect on the matrix, though I have no logic behind my reasoning. meh

 

[Aerindae]

clarification of a few misunderstood #'s in FDA presentation

I've done a lot of reading about the new OP formula, think some info I have may be useful so you guys understand the number's you're looking at in the extraction table.
First off, the %'s in the graph on the FDA presentation are not the % of oxy extracted from the pill. It's the % extracted from the new formula relative to the old formula. Say Simple solvent 1 original formula got 90%, and new formula in simple solvent 1 got 90%, the number they listed is 100%. That explains the solvents that returned over 100%. It's because the new formula released more than the old. (In the doc I read that solvent only extracted 13% for oc, 16% for OP, thus 103% )
Also Purdue has defined a simple solvent as an edible, safe to ingest solvent, where advanced are non-ingestible. But all solvents tested are common household products available to everyone. (So none of the advanced solvents are AAA or something we can't get)
I got this information from the transcript of Drug Advisory Committee meeting. Here's the link to the open forum meeting and vote for approval of the new formula. The meeting includes the FDA, Purdue Pharma, and other representatives discussing approving the new formula. They go over the presentation we've all seen, and discuss the extraction tables, how the data was collected, analyzed, and graphed. Unfortunately they don't mention what the solvent is, or the actual % of oxy extracted from original OC, so the comparison #'s don't mean much without the original OC data. One guy makes a stink about that, and says on record that advanced solvent 1 actually yields 88%, and explains in depth about how the oxy is released over time periods over 12 hours. This is really helpful information. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/AnestheticAndLifeSupportDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM187082.pdf

I hope this helps clear up some things for some of us, maybe get us a step closer to cracking this 100%!

 

[Aerindae]

failed attempts, need tips/insights on next experiment

This is the 1st thread we've posted in, generally just read them. We've had to do so much reading, research, and experiments for this new formula tho, that I felt the need to share. My last post explained what we learned from reading the data published online by the FDA, and transcripts of the new formulation approval meeting. We've also learned about a few techniques that do not work from trial & error. We tried the microwave method, as this was the 1st technique we came across, with limited success. It seems to kind of work for snorting the OC, but doesn't seem as strong to me. Insufflation is not our usual or preferred ROA. So far we have also tried soaking the finely grated OP in acetone, and the powder stayed powder in the test tube, but once we poured off the acetone, the powder gelled, and what was left after evaporating acetone dissolved in water but had no affect. We will not inject anything sticky, as we are legit pain patients with an Rx & have to be very careful not to leave any marks, or end up in the hospital with IV related problems so we don't lose our scripts. We also tried adding salts to the grated powder before heating the powder, which resulted in a powder with no gelly like properties that we then let soak in acidic water for 4 hours. This also yielded us a very disappointing shot. We tried using hydrochloric acid as well, which also gelled up immediately. So far swallowing whole, sublingual & dissolving in coke/vinegar mix are the only ways we've been able to even get any pain relief. We've picked up some DMSO, and want to try using it. Any ideas/insights anyone may have about Washratt3's method would be much appreciated. We'd like to be as well informed as possible before we try anything else. We're running low on OP's to experiment with. We have a fair amount of lab equipment/chemicals, including a hot plate w/magnetic stirrer, a centrifuge & test tubes, a sample dryer/scale with adjustable heating element, and various glassware & chemicals. If anyone can help us think of how we could best approach this experiment, we're ready to try it and report our results. Thanks in advance to anyone willing to bounce ideas off us!

 

[snowboardin522]

Jaystyle, Thanks for the info on OP extraction. I have a quick question though. I think I misread the directions. I mixed my milled OP with Acetone and let it sit for an hour then drained off the acetone and kept the white particles which is still a gooey mess that gels up when you out it in your mouth. Was I supposed to keep the acetone that was mixed in with the milled up OP? Then let that evaporate? Hope to hear back. Thanks again.

 

[jaystyle]

Aerindae--- we have already cracked this information. Read back to my last post where I psoted an image from the PUrdue patent that explains the solvents used. Prior to that another fellow posted a link to the patent where it gets into details about the solvents. Ethanol seemed to work great, as well as methanol (more toxic, but best extractino). The solvents that work the best are the ones that oxycodone is most soluble in for the most part. Acetic acid and chloroform should theoretically work great as well-- especially acetic acid because it is edible so no risks there.

OTHER DUDE WHO DID EXPERIMENT: YOu wanted to KEEP the acetone solution because it has oxycodone dissolved in it! If your too late, just blow dry the solids and eat them and thye should still have a ton of oxycodone released from the time matrix as well.

I've done a lot of reading about the new OP formula, think some info I have may be useful so you guys understand the number's you're looking at in the extraction table.
First off, the %'s in the graph on the FDA presentation are not the % of oxy extracted from the pill. It's the % extracted from the new formula relative to the old formula. Say Simple solvent 1 original formula got 90%, and new formula in simple solvent 1 got 90%, the number they listed is 100%. That explains the solvents that returned over 100%. It's because the new formula released more than the old. (In the doc I read that solvent only extracted 13% for oc, 16% for OP, thus 103% )
Also Purdue has defined a simple solvent as an edible, safe to ingest solvent, where advanced are non-ingestible. But all solvents tested are common household products available to everyone. (So none of the advanced solvents are AAA or something we can't get)
I got this information from the transcript of Drug Advisory Committee meeting. Here's the link to the open forum meeting and vote for approval of the new formula. The meeting includes the FDA, Purdue Pharma, and other representatives discussing approving the new formula. They go over the presentation we've all seen, and discuss the extraction tables, how the data was collected, analyzed, and graphed. Unfortunately they don't mention what the solvent is, or the actual % of oxy extracted from original OC, so the comparison #'s don't mean much without the original OC data. One guy makes a stink about that, and says on record that advanced solvent 1 actually yields 88%, and explains in depth about how the oxy is released over time periods over 12 hours. This is really helpful information. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/AnestheticAndLifeSupportDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM187082.pdf

I hope this helps clear up some things for some of us, maybe get us a step closer to cracking this 100%!