• MDMA &
    Empathogenic
    Drugs

    Welcome Guest!
  • MDMA Moderators:

What is wrong with the MDMA available today?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry, just wanted to check I was understanding this right:

The file ending ...207.pdf is confirmed magic, and the file ending ...579.pdf is confirmed meh?

And looking at an NMR plot like this, differences along the ppm axis refer to different types of hydrogen groups, e.g. CH2, CH3, OH? And the integration value is the relative amount of that group in the sample? (apologies if group isn't the right term). So basically the position of the peaks says what's in it and the integration values gives the amounts? I note that comparing the two samples a lot of the peaks are close but slightly off - e.g. 1.2485 vs 1.0886. Is that just variation in testing and happy to ignore?

So the big differences in the <7ppm range are: magic - peak around 4.87 (missing integration value?) that is not present in the meh sample. meh - big peak around 3.70 that is missing from the magic sample.

Is the 5 - 160ppm plot significant? Its only in the magic report.
 
@ThreePointCircle May also be worthwhile to look at the original NMR sample (also meh) that was shared. I am wondering if that original sample is more similar to the magic NMR or the new meh NMR.
 
indigoaura said:
@ThreePointCircle May also be worthwhile to look at the original NMR sample (also meh) that was shared. I am wondering if that original sample is more similar to the magic NMR or the new meh NMR.
Click to expand...

Do you mean this one: https://www.bluelight.org/xf/thread...the-mdma-available-today.791073/post-14686540 ?

If so, it's definitely more like the meh plot (...579.pdf). They both have an extra peak at 3.5 - 3.7ppm and are both missing the peak around 4.9ppm that the magic sample had.

The magic sample looks just like the reference NMR plot from this paper: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1201&context=jj_pubs However, they mention something about 4.5 - 4.7ppm being a peak from the water used in the sample prep. So should that be ignored? How come it isn't in the other two plots?
 
Ok, so check out UN doc: Recommended methods for testing illicit ring-substituted amphetamine derivatives

On page 37 onwards there are reference 1H NMR plots.

The magic sample (...207.pdf) seems to match the reference MDMA HCL in D2O (page 45)
The meh sample ( ...579.pdf) appears be closest to MMDA base in CDCl3 (page 44). Not a super close match but I think its the best on my initial look
The other meh sample (...312.png) perhaps is also closest to MMDA but even less good a fit
 
Possibly a mixture of MDMA base plus one of the ones that produce the spike around 3.7 e.g. DMA base would fit the meh samples better. I'm not sure how mixtures affect NMR plots

Tbf, take everything I've said with a pinch of salt, and wait for someone like @vecktor to comment. I haven't got a clue lol
 
Last edited:
I also noticed the similarity to MMDA in the article I posted.

<edited to add: typo. MDDMA is what is noted in the article>
 
Last edited:
I have been finding MDDMA in more reports recently including the guy who contacted me about his sample. Remember that two labs also gave him different results, with the second lab unable to find the MDDMA and MDA that the first lab spotted.

So it’s possible MDDMA could be an issue impurity, from my research it lacks in high and would weigh the overall product down. One possible way it shows up is when the methylamine is synthesized in lab and not purified properly leaving ammonium chloride and/or dimethylamine. That said MDA would very likely bevthere too, and MDA would increase the overalleffecf.

Dude said his batch was pretty damn good but who knows...

-GC
 
But the MDDMA is missing the big peak around 3.7 of ...579.pdf and around 3.5 of ...312.png? From the UN doc, PMA, DMA, TMA, DOB, STP, DOET and MMDA had peaks somewhere around 3.7 - 3.8 but none had 3.5 (not as a big peak). MDMA base + DMA base seemed the closest fit for me but I'm guessing at this point.
 
NMR is a poor tool for identifying mixtures... would prefer a GCMS or LCMS
 
So maybe if vecktor can confirm anything odd about the samples using the NMR data, we can further investigate with GCMS somehow?
 
@Hilopsilo & @sekio Sample 579.pdf already had GCMS analysis through Drugs Data. They found MDMA and 1-(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)-2-propanol. I thought we were doing NMR because GCMS was not picking up all the contaminants clearly? @vash445 could comment more on that, but I recall that GCMS did not pick up anything wrong with his meh sample, and so they did NMR. I may not be remembering correctly.

I just read a research study showing NMR to be good for determining complex mixtures, and equal to GCMS. @sekio Is there a reason why GCMS would be preferable?
 
indigoaura said:
@Hilopsilo & @sekio Sample 579.pdf already had GCMS analysis through Drugs Data. They found MDMA and 1-(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)-2-propanol.
Click to expand...

An alternative name for that is 1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-propanone right? In this paper they've got NMR data for that, but it doesn't seem to line up that well with 579.pdf. Does NMR of mixtures throw things round a bit, or was Drug's Data analysis wrong, or was the NMR analysis wrong? Or am I wrong, haha?
 
ThreePointCircle said:
An alternative name for that is 1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-propanone right? In this paper they've got NMR data for that, but it doesn't seem to line up that well with 579.pdf. Does NMR of mixtures throw things round a bit, or was Drug's Data analysis wrong, or was the NMR analysis wrong? Or am I wrong, haha?
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know the answers to any of these questions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top