Factors That Make Each MDMA Batch and Experience Unique

G_Chem

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
744
Factors That Make Each MDMA Batch and Experience Unique​
In the following thread I’ll detail what I believe to be the main variables that come into play when determining how/why a certain MDMA batch or experience felt the way it did. This is a topic I’ve been researching for about a decade now for some reason empathogens fascinate me, I guess..

The 3 Main Factors:

1. Set and Setting

2. Impurities

3. Polymorphs


The 3 Minor Factors:


1. Isomers

2. Salts

3. Binders


Unfortunately we as humans are always trying to narrow down anyone one problem into a single solution. It’s just easier for us to wrap our heads around. We try to distill anything we can down to one single thing whatever that may be. But as for most things, MDMA batch and experience variability is more complicated than that. It’s not just salts, it’s not just isomers, or set/setting, it’s a combination of these above that shape what you get out of it.

Set and setting is number 1 for a reason. I believe hands down it is the biggest factor of them all no matter what people want to say. Yes in the beginning of your MDMA using career it may be that every experience is mind blowing but over time, from it’s effects to your serotonin system to nostalgia, this can become harder to achieve. This can be negated by proper diet, hydration, and supplementation when you do imbibe to keep the tolerance low for next time. As well as changing up the setting, and trying new things. (Sitting at home popping MDMA eventually becomes boring no matter who you are, and even raves can become monotonous.) I’ve had some of my best and some of my worst experiences on the same batch of MDMA, simply from a change in set and setting.

Set and setting also includes things like current diet (effecting various enzyme levels), drug intake (effecting neurotransmitters one way or another), social relationships, what side of the bed you woke up on, the list is really endless with this. One little variable that you couldn’t even imagine would effect the experience, could…

With that out of the way the rest will strictly relate to the batch of MDMA itself. Impurities are next on the list. When looking at impurities it is obvious that each synthetic route has unique impurities separate from other routes. Hence the police use this to help track synthesis trends and possibly as indicators to how much a certain producer has pushed. It has been shown in one study that certain impurities found (out of only 12 tested mind you, there’s hundreds if not thousands) were indeed relatively active when comparing to MDMA itself. (The most active ones found were from the Leuckart reaction, more about that in a second.)

Some of these impurities are most definitely active and even if they may not be as active as MDMA itself, we know from past experimentation from greats like Shulgin that certain substances can indeed potentiate even if they aren’t extremely active themselves. Some can also blunt or negate certain effects by competing with MDMA at certain receptor sites. Think of buprenorphine, doesn’t really feel that great even at high doses but will outcompete other opiates/oids for receptors. Mix 1mg of buprenorphine into 100mg of morphine and while only being about 1% of the overall mixture it will greatly effect the overall experience, same if I added a tiny bit of naloxone.

The list of active impurities is endless and depending on the chemist there could be quite a lot in there. Just a few fairly active ones off hand are; MDA, MDEA, DMMDA, N-formyl MDMA, MDDMA, PMA, PMMA. All of which can come from improper purification of certain precursors. In a perfect world MDMA would be just MDMA, but in the world of illegally synthesized drugs people take shortcuts and sometimes lots of them. If we take a look at more recent analysis of ecstasy tablets (EData) we still see pills come in fairly regularly that show large amounts of various precursors.

On another thread a user talked about how each batch of MDMA is kind of like a snowflake and got shot down for it.. He is in a way very right about that. A small change can effect the end product. Using impure homemade methylamine can cause MDA and MDDMA to be produced. Not fractional distilling the safrole oil can possibly wind you up with trace amounts of PMA/PMMA. Certain sources for nitromethane contain small amounts of nitroethane which could produce small amounts of MDEA. GC/MS is far far far from a perfect science and when analyzing MDMA they aren’t likely to catch many of the impurities which could be present.

Some of these impurities can alter the overall effect profile even at minute dosages, but there are also impurities which can increase the overall toxicity. Dihydrosafrole being one which is produced when safrole isn’t cleaned out during the synthesis, its pretty neurotoxic by the sounds of it. Another which is thought to possibly be toxic is 6-chloro-MDMA.

Now above I speak of the leuckart reaction, one which produces quite a few active impurities and was known by chemists as a “dirty route” that could at times be unpredictable. The reason it was used back then was due to ease of precursor availability, scalability (to produce large batches), and the fact that MDMA chemistry was in ways still in it’s infancy in comparison to today. It just so happens that back in the 90's this route was commonly used much more than in comparison to today. The supposed golden era of MDMA talked about by many. There is only one reference I could find to an analysis of ecstasy from that era, and they only tested one pill, that one pill was produced via the leuckart. I understand that is pretty weak evidence but when we look at the amounts of certain pills back then, they were produced by only a few large operations. People back then talk about a few main pills whereas today there’s too many to name, back then there were nowhere near as many different presses about. It’s my belief that likely if 1 pill was synthesized that way many others at that time would be too because of this. The next available analysis I could find came from China in early 2000’s and it seems while Leuckart was still in use it was becoming less used in place of other routes like reductive amination with sodium cyanoborohydride from MDP2P from piperonal via the nitrostyrene intermediate. (Of the 416 cases analyzed by GC-MS, 341 were found to likely be synthesized via reductive amination of MDP2P which was synthesized from Piperonal.) By the late 00’s the leuckart had largely become a synthetic route of the past as newer higher yielding, and better purity routes took it’s place.

This correlates well with the supposed change of MDMA people speak of from the early 90’s to the late 90’s/mid 00’s, but still leaves us wondering if this was the case what impurities would be effecting the MDMA in such a way to make a 60-75mg dose last 4 solid hours of dancing your heart out as so many users from that time claim. The evidence to show the route changed is kind of there but besides that we don’t have much else.

While we are on the 90’s MDMA topic I’d also like to say below when talking about isomers I will make an argument for that as well effecting the ecstasy experience back then. The only “evidence” to back up the claim is from a chemist I trust who took MDMA back in the 80’s/early 90’s, but the claim correlates well with the effects and dosage required back then. More on that in a bit…

The final main factor I’d like to discuss is polymorphism. Something I brought up in another thread here. Polymorphism is the ability of a drug substance to exist as two or more crystalline phases that have different arrangements and/or conformations of the molecules in the crystal lattice. It appears polymorphism and how to predict its effect on a psychoactive substance is still in its infancy regarding research. There’ve been numerous issues regarding polymorphism for pharmaceutical companies in the past, and lawsuits over it even when certain generic producers couldn’t replicate the same polymorph as a certain patent claimed.

Polymorphism can effect stability of the drug, bioavailability, and overall drug efficiency. While most simply talk about it in terms of bioavailability and efficiency I believe this can also change the overall effect profile of certain drugs, especially ones deemed recreational in some way.

Shulgin noted that there were many polymorphs (hydrates) found and even the melting points for anhydrous MDMA varied by a decent amount from researcher to researcher quoted by Shulgin. (Possibly indicating unknown polymorphs.) Each of these hydrates could affect the experience in some way, better or worse.

From one study I gathered that they produced “plate crystals” from anhydrous MDMA. These are typically hexagonal and flat. I have seen MDMA like this. Many other sources quote MDMA being “orthorhombic.” I have seen many MDMA crystals like this, typically they are very good. (Kinda look like little pieces of quartz.)

One of the best pieces of evidence I could find for possible variations due to polymorphism is this.. Strikes comments in TSII. She talks in the crystallization section about how DCM is the best for producing clean crystals even from impure freebase MDMA. Then the next paragraph goes as follows..

“The other amazing thing about DCM is that the crystals produced in it are weird. Crystals produced by ether are little and powder puffy. Nothing wrong with that per se. But the crystals produced in DCM are large, crystalline and sparkly. And there shouldn’t be difference, but SWINS swears the effects are more powerful.”

If anybody knows a thing or two about variation between batches of MDMA I’m assuming it would be strike. The above can really only mean one thing, a different polymorph has been formed when the crystallization solvent is changed.

Polymorphs are so finicky there is even reports of “disappearing polymorphs” where a lab synthesizes one polymorph and eventually it converts to another more stable form. Once this occurs small particles of the new polymorph make it into the air and can be used as nucleotides for the crystallization of further batches in that same lab. So in theory each lab could produce a different polymorph based on the previous polymorphs they’ve made and what particles they have floating in the air in their lab. (While this liking isn’t the case for MDMA it’s a good point in how easy it is for this change in crystalline structure to occur.)

I believe more research into this field will in the, hopefully near, future show us just how and why very pure MDMA can vary from one batch to the next. It seems most of the MDMA causing these problems over in Europe right now is of decently high purity so my thoughts can only go to polymorphism or possibly the “old” MDMA was impure and it was those impurities that caused a better effect compared to the highly pure MDMA available today. Somehow I doubt the latter, as there is highly pure batches out there which cause all the typical effects we seek so…


On to the minor factors..


And we’ll start with the one people have been harping on for years now, even myself at certain points. That is ISOMERS! We’ve heard this same argument time and time again, and while I do believe it is possible isomers have played a role in the variation of effects over the decades I don’t see it as very likely. At least for our current “Dutch Mega Crap Pills” situation… Maybe for the reason the early 90’s pills were different but I’ll get to that in a second.

Isomers just don’t fit the profile people. I’m sorry but R-MDMA will not provide the experience these dutch mega beans give. As others have said before, R-MDMA is the longer lasting of the two not shorter. It is more a chill psychedelic-esque MDMA vibe that probably lasts about 6-8 hours. It is the isomer that gives you that chill sorta rolling feel once the S-isomer wears off around 3-5 hours after dosing. When I was younger I used to think certain batches contained more R or S isomer as a few batches I’d come across in my early days would lack the intense stimulation and euphoria, and were more psychedelic (not MDA psychedelic mind you) and longer lasting with less up and down. I’ve since concluded though that it may have been due to impurities as these types of experiences always were off of browner more rock like MDMA (indicative of impurities compared to actual crystal) with obvious impurities. While how I can understand my past assumptions I can’t understand how we can fit the profile of this new MDMA with that of the R-isomer.

Short acting effects, stimulation, shitty next day comedown don’t match.. And I doubt even a partially skewed enatiometric excess would give such effects, unless perhaps it was skewed towards the S-isomer. But even THEN we’d be seeing positive not negative effects. If either isomer gave all these negative effects you’d feel it even in a racemic mixture and it would drive us to produce enatiometrically pure product to remove the negative isomer. This has never been the case and likely isn’t now either. I’m sorry to those that have worked so hard on that theory but it’s time to move on.

While isomers is likely not the reason for our variation in todays MDMA, it is possible that it did have some effect on the product of the 90’s. Before I go into this I have no actual research to back up this claim, just a word from a reputable source and all the connections that can be made beyond this. After being told this however, I am leaning more towards this being the culprit for early 90’s bliss instead of different synthetic route like I outline above.

I’ve been told that during the late 80’s and early 90’s much of the MDMA being used had been produced as the pure S-isomer from labs in India and China while it was still legal, and in VERY LARGE amounts. This would make sense as at the time it was legal and likely MUCH cheaper to produce so discarding half of the end product wasn’t the biggest deal in the world. These large batches were then used until they dried up in the early to mid 90’s.

Now this actually starts to make sense when you think about it all. It is a fact that people claimed back then 75mg or so of MDMA would have you rolling for a solid 4-5 hours. As we know today this just doesn’t make sense with our typical racemic MDMA which produces an experience like that only in the 100-120mg range. Well looking at a graph that outlines the relationship between dosage and effect for R-MDMA, S-MDMA, and racemic MDMA, it seems a dosage in the 60-80mg range is equal to a racemic dosage of 100-130mg. This matches perfectly with the variation in dosage between then and now. 75mg of S-MDMA will have you floored out like you took 130mg+ pure racemic MDMA. (And to those that think 130mg of pure racemic isn’t going to "floor you".. I’d argue you just haven’t done PURE MDMA before.)

Next it seems the MDMA from back then is always referenced as being “speedier” and more “dancey” than the stuff these days. Well again this fits perfectly with the S-isomer which is definitely the speedier of the two when looking at both MDMA and MDA. It was this S-isomer that gave people that drive to dance, and the chill somewhat trippy aspect of the R-isomer wasn’t there to balance the effects.

Many reading this are probably thinking of the study in which participants ultimately found the racemic to be better than either isomer alone. I’d argue in ways that study can’t be completely relied on to make our assessments about exactly how these drugs should feel. It is likely the participants for that study were more familiar, fond and comfortable with psychedelic drugs that stimulants. So they likely found the balanced nature and slight psychedelia of the racemic to be superior to the highly stimulating S-isomer.

But for dancing your heart out all night and chatting up the randoms next to you, the R-isomer isn’t really “needed.” And so when all of the people who essentially birthed the rave scene went from consuming a more stimulating more potent product to the chiller less potent racemic, they couldn’t help but feel something was amiss. Of course racemic MDMA can do all of the things I just listed, like falling in love with the stranger next to you but it likely is missing that overwhelming urge to DANCE, DANCE, DANCE! When we compare to the two I’m sure..

Up next on the minor factors list I’ve got Salts. This was discussed as a possible explanation for the differences between MDMA batches back in the 00’s on BL here, but ultimately seemed to get thrown to the side for good reason. While salts do vary in MDMA batches, they likely don’t enough to give the huge differences we see in various locations. Above I talked about a Chinese paper that did analysis of many ecstasy tablets. They found one manufacturer in particular who they seized quite a few pills from, that produced the phosphate salt of MDMA (the dihydrogen phosphate salt in particular). This salt was found in 31 cases containing 292 tablets so it’s obvious this tablet wasn’t some small local boutique press. The MDMA freebase content is 66.3% for the dihydrogen phosphate salt, quite a bit less potent than MDMA HCl.

While many would argue that changing the salt will only effect bioavailability and dosage, it’s obvious from underground research by MDMA chemists that the salts can change more than that. It appears online there has been a decent amount of talk about MDMA citrate. It seems the effect of MDMA citrate varies from the HCl even when an equal dosage (accounting for variations in salt molecular weight) is taken, and it has less of the in-your-face intensity but also less crash too. Based on my experience with other drugs and varying salt forms, I’d also say that it can change more than dosage.

Sadly there isn’t a ton of research in this field but my guess is that salts likely are only a minor factor when looking at the picture as a whole. Not enough manufacturers change the salt up to make a huge difference that is seen worldwide.

And last but not least, binders… So many people think this has little effect but that isn’t not true in the slightest, and with a drug like MDMA the binders can greatly change the pharmacokinetics. Many of these Dutch Super Beans are very professionally pressed these days, with enteric coating and the whole 9 yards. Some people report not feeling effects for up to or over two hours!! With that being the case it’s in essence causing a slower timed release compared to MDMA in a capsule or a crumbly local press. MDMA is a fickle one when it comes to dosing, as soon as you take an initial dosage your enzymes begin to change in response.

Taking MDMA all at once is ideal because there is more MDMA to make it to the brain, but when taken in smaller redoses the enzymes begin to change and it is shown there is more MDMA to MDA metabolism along with more neurotoxicity overall. Taking a pill that causes a slow release will do both of these things as well, so expect perhaps a slightly more MDA-esque experience as well as a shittier comedown in the days following compared to dosing the whole thing quickly via crushed tablet or powder in a capsule.

This should be taken as note to people who take lots of small redoses throughout a night. You’re causing yourself more damage for less effect, despite the rationale that taking smaller more frequent doses would do the opposite and be less damaging.

Well that’s it for now folks, I’ll add more in later I just am so busy these days it’s hard but this topic is so complex this is just scraping the surface in my opinion. But there you have it, my theories backed with evidence as to why I believe MDMA batches and experiences vary.


-GC
 
Last edited:

Glubrahnum

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Messages
230
As far as the crystalline polymorphism goes, if it is true then recrystallization from a different solvent should convert the "bad MDMA" into the "good MDMA". Does it?

I think that comparing the spectrograms of the good old MDMA with the bad "Mongy" MDMA produced nowadays would generate more information needed to solve this mystery.
I have some Raman spectra archived from the 80s, and I would like to post them as soon as I learn how to post attachments here.

On the other subject - How do you explain the lack of Mydriasis in virgin users of the contemporary "bad MDMA" in doses as large as 150mg ?
...see this thread for details.

 
Last edited:

LucidSDreamr

Bluelighter
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
4,834
Location
Silicodone Valley
Thanks for the informative post.

One other thing, do you have any opinion/knowledge about the possibility of mercury leeched into the final product? From wiki:

Mercury irreversibly inhibits selenium-dependent enzymes (see below) and may also inactivate S-adenosyl-methionine, which is necessary for catecholamine catabolism by catechol-O-methyl transferase. Due to the body's inability to degrade catecholamines (e.g. epinephrine), a person suffering from mercury poisoning may experience profuse sweating, tachycardia (persistently faster-than-normal heart beat), increased salivation, and hypertension (high blood pressure).

the increased tweaky/negative effects reported by people are sort of in line with these increased catacolamines.

I would be interested to know how long these effects take to manifest after the ingestion of various mercury compounds.

Also the amount of time it takes some people to recover from these long-term comedowns riddled with neurological symptoms might be suggestive of some sort of mercury poisoning.


I said this in the other thread but I believe that the most likely reason for this issue is polymorphs which can vary wildly in PK profiles upon administration. Have you ever come across XRPD analysis of mdma samples from various sources and peroids of time?...I still worry about Hg though


I used to do mdma about 1x a month, but the past several years i only do it once a year or so, it scares me how badly it fucks some people up re the long term comedowns
 
Last edited:

Glubrahnum

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Messages
230
Thanks for the informative post.
One other thing, do you have any opinion/knowledge about the possibility of mercury leeched into the final product? From wiki:
This is a real possibility with MDMA synthesized with the "Aluminum Amalgam Method".
Also, if the Mercury gets methylated then it becomes extremely neurotoxic (look up Minamata Disease) and if it gets doubly methylated then you are dead with as little as 0.1mg (look up Karen Wetterhahn).
BTW: MDMA and Amphetamine synths routinely use methylating agents.

I'd avoid any drugs with Mercury in them (including vaccines). The presence of any Mercury compound can be easily detected by XRF, XPS and AES.

On the other hand, the lack of Mydriais (...and lack of "magic") cannot be explained by trace Mercury poisoning.
Mercury is a slow poison and Mydriasis is mediated by fast norepinephrine action.
The releases of Serotonin and Dopamine which are responible for the "magic" are also fast processes.

So yes, trace Mercury can make you very sick in the long term or kill you in the long run, but it cannot inhibit pupil dilation or destroy the "magic" in the short term.
 
Last edited:

G_Chem

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
744
Thank you :)

@Glubra- Yes in theory a simple recrystallization with a different solvent could be all it takes to change the nature of the product.. It's crazy to think something so simple could fix this but looking at generic medicines we see this problem all the time of varied efficiency between brands and polymorphism is to blame for that as well.

In regards to mydriasis I guess my money would be on polymorphism for that as well.. At this moment though until we research more we just don't know. While I've never personally taken shitty mongy MDMA (I've seen it but not felt it) I have experienced similar problems with pharmaceuticals. I take suboxone daily and have for about 10yrs, in the past I've tried using generic which is regulated to be a similar dosage. With suboxone 1mg has me fine all day, whereas 4mg of generic won't touch me and I get thrown into withdrawals. While there are other factors at play, the biggest I can likely see is a polymorphic variance.

So with that I could see how a polymorph of MDMA could theoretically not cause mydriasis just like a polymorph of buprenorphine couldn't keep me out of withdrawal.

Btw great idea on the Raman spec, let's try n do some comparisons to see :)

@LucidSD- That very well could be a real possibility as those symptoms do seem to match well. I have seen MDMA crystal that looked as if it hadn't been cleaned properly after an AL/HG amalgamation, with a greyish blue tinge and also had undesirable effects. With that said this new phenomenon of LTC which I see BL has quite the community of, is so widespread I feel it may be something different. I'd hope chemists haven't become so sloppy as to let trace mercuric compounds into the final product but it's possible.

Also want to say thank you for your contributions over the years Lucid, I've definitely read your stuff in the past during my research of various substances, your over on shroomery too right?

I'd agree that this problem with effects from the new "mongy MDMA" isn't likely related to mercury though so if mercury is causing those negative long term symptoms then we have two separate issues here.

It'd be interesting to see someone recrystallize some MDMA from one of these shit batches via the route strike describes in TSII with DCM. That would help us determine if polymorphism is the issue or not. Although it could also leave behind some impurities which are the potential culprits... And... Polymorphism is fickle and recystallization may not change the molecular conformation due to some other factor at play. Chemistry is fun ain't it :)


Edit- So I know nothing of reading Raman specs, but after comparing the one above with one from much more recently (2014) I do see variations in the peaks and troughs that are too much to be slight deviations. Whatvdoes this tell us Glubra?

Edit2- So a spec from 2000 matches well but not from 2014... Hmmm..

-GC
 
Last edited:

G_Chem

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
744
My bad.. Someone must have a similar name over there or I'm just mixing shit up, either way I know I've seen your name plenty in the past.

Also back on topic, it seems a Raman spec could be used to determine polymorphic differences based on my reading.. Is that correct?

Edit- Ahh there's a guy by the name LSDreamer, my bad :)

-GC
 
Last edited:

Steady Scootin

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jul 28, 2017
Messages
617
Location
Bamaland
Sorry, wrong on all counts. I have the proof right here in front on of me. The exact same, fluffy, bleach white powder I've been getting since the late 80's. You begin to come up in 10-15 minutes, full of love and ok I'll stop lol
 

LucidSDreamr

Bluelighter
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
4,834
Location
Silicodone Valley
My bad.. Someone must have a similar name over there or I'm just mixing shit up, either way I know I've seen your name plenty in the past.

Also back on topic, it seems a Raman spec could be used to determine polymorphic differences based on my reading.. Is that correct?

Edit- Ahh there's a guy by the name LSDreamer, my bad :)

-GC
I wanted the name LSDreamer : (

I don't know anything about Raman....but x ray powder diffraction analysis is the way that different polymorphs of the same substance are characterized and patented in pharma.
 

Glubrahnum

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Messages
230
So I know nothing of reading Raman specs, but after comparing the one above with one from much more recently (2014) I do see variations in the peaks and troughs that are too much to be slight deviations. What does this tell us Glubra?
If it was done with a plain Raman spectroscope and not SERS, then it would mean that the tested substance was a little different.
Raman specs can also distinguish between different enantiomers if the sample is illuminated with a polarized light. Unfortunately, my spectroscope cannot do that :(

...it seems a Raman spec could be used to determine polymorphic differences based on my reading.. Is that correct?
I haven't checked but I'd think so, since the Stokes scattering is sensitive to proximities of unbonded atoms and all kinds of chemical bonds, including crystalline bonds between identical molecules.

So a spec from 2000 matches well but not from 2014... Hmmm..
Apparently something changed around 2007.
Plain underivatized GC/MS analyses made by most testing centers cannot distinguish between the 23 substances listed below (...and their enantiomers, without expensive chiral columns), not to mention the crystalline polymorphs, so it could have gone unnoticed.

Forensic analysts must have noticed the change, though... but they are not publishing their findings, which is evil because the bad "Mongy Molly" provokes higher doses and increases the death statistics !!!
This just shows you where their priorities lay.





 
Last edited:

Glubrahnum

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Messages
230
Sorry, wrong on all counts.
I have the proof right here in front on of me. The exact same, fluffy, bleach white powder I've been getting since the late 80's. You begin to come up in 10-15 minutes, full of love and ok I'll stop lol
Who is wrong and about what?
If you mean the existence of the bad "Mongy" MDMA, that does not cause Mydriasis at 100mg, then your example does not prove anything, because the lack of proof of existence is not a proof of non-existence.
 

G_Chem

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
744
Found a study which talks about Raman spec as being used for differentiating polymorphs of MDMA, and even has the graphs for what I'm assuming is anhydrous MDMA and a hydrated polymorph. They also compare these to ecstasy tablets seized. The title of the study is..

""Rapid analysis of ecstasy and related phenethylamines in seized tablets by Raman spectroscopy.""

What I find interesting of this particular publication is that the specs do vary between the anhydrous VS hydrated MDMA, and not only that but among the two ecstasy tablets analyzed it almost appears that we see anhydrous MDMA in one and hydrated MDMA in the other... (Hard to tell though as I'm sure binders throw it off too.)

So this study seems to indicate there are indeed polymorphic differences between batches if my eyes aren't fooling me.

It'd be interesting if we could find any information on substances other than MDMA that vary pharmacologically from anhydrous to hydrated polymorphs. My goal (and I'm sure the goal of many pharm companies currently) is to see if there is any rhyme or reason to crystalline structure/polymorphs and effect given. If we find something on another substance maybe we can extrapolate.. Just spitballing ideas here. I'll look around.

Haha and I think dude was just making fun of LeJunk and the "magic 80's" MDMA from the other thread. While I can understand why LeJunk made that thread and glad he did, I think people got a little carried away trying to describe just how perfect the MDMA THEY get is so much better than everyone else's, all in the effort to prove a point..

This thread I want to be different if possible. While I'm cool seeing people get nostalgic and comparing the past to present, I'd also like to see some actual progression to solving this problem which the last thread didn't achieve.. I'd say just with the posts we have already we are on the right track.

-GC
 

LucidSDreamr

Bluelighter
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
4,834
Location
Silicodone Valley
If it was done with a plain Raman spectroscope and not SERS, then it would mean that the tested substance was a little different.
Raman specs can also distinguish between different enantiomers if the sample is illuminated with a polarized light. Unfortunately, my spectroscope cannot do that :(


I haven't checked but I'd think so, since the Stokes scattering is sensitive to proximities of unbonded atoms and all kinds of chemical bonds, including crystalline bonds between identical molecules.


Apparently something changed around 2007.
Plain underivatized GC/MS analyses made by most testing centers cannot distinguish between the 23 substances listed below (...and their enantiomers, without expensive chiral columns), not to mention the crystalline polymorphs, so it could have gone unnoticed.

Forensic analysts must have noticed the change, though... but they are not publishing their findings, which is evil because the bad "Mongy Molly" provokes higher doses and increases the death statistics !!!
This just shows you where their priorities lay.





To be fair...many of those could be distinguished if the chromatography was designed JUST for MDMA isobar resolution
....despite the fact that they are isobars. There are a lot of really exotic stationary phases these days in the LC world that could resolve many of these isobars

Some may posses unique fragmentation peaks that could be carefully selected in MRM mode (used by most anaylitcal labs these days) to distinguish. Or even if the mrm transitions we're all the same...the mrm ratios for each respective isobar may differ. The problem is that analytical labs tend to select the strongest intensity fragment (the piece containing the phenyl) which end up being the same mass for all the different isobars. Youd have to do a full daughter ion scan of each compund alone and look for unique fragments

These are things that analytical labs analyzing for a suite of RCs including and unrelated to MDMA would never go to such lengths...therefore they would all just be mistaken for MDMA. So someone would have to design anspecific lcms method(s) to address this
 
Last edited:

Steady Scootin

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jul 28, 2017
Messages
617
Location
Bamaland
Who is wrong and about what?
If you mean the existence of the bad "Mongy" MDMA, that does not cause Mydriasis at 100mg, then your example does not prove anything, because the lack of proof of existence is not a proof of non-existence.
Dude, it's a joke. Did you even read the OP of Le Junk's thread claiming current MDMA sucks?
 

Cotcha Yankinov

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
2,917
May be a novice question as I'm not one for chemistry - is MDMA most commonly approximately 50/50 racemic, or are there batches where L or R tends to dominate?

Sorry if it was answered above,
CY
 

G_Chem

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
744
The only thing about many of those substances too is that they are likely harder to synth than MDMA itself so I personally find it hard to believe it's another deliberately synthed substance that isn't as good but fools analysis. I could be wrong but based on the evidence from lab busts and seizures I feel we are looking at actual 3,4-methylenedioxymethylamphetamine here.

Cotcha- No worries your knowledge in other topics more than makes up for it ;) This is actually the argument many have been debating for years as to why supposedly nearly pure MDMA can vary from batch to batch. To summarize above. While I believe it's possible and may account for batch variations (some being more intense, euphoric, shorter acting with sharp drop off batches which may be S-isomer heavy; or less euphoria, longer smoother duration, slight trippiness, no drop off batches which may be more R-isomer heavy) I don't think it accounts for the issues we are seeing with the supposed "mongy" Dutch MDMA. Neither isomer fits the profile.

Also since I've never tried a Dutch press before (I've tried imported crystal though which looks different than the stuff around here, less clean actually) but I've got one on the way at an insane price that I'd normally never pay. But I'll be trying it out for science!! Im curious to see if I get "monged" out.

-GC
 

Glubrahnum

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Messages
230
is MDMA most commonly approximately 50/50 racemic, or are there batches where L or R tends to dominate?
The short answer is: We do not know what's really out there because very few scientists test the enantiomer ratio.

If you look at my posts above, you will see, that I doubt that the testing centers are even able to differentiate between the different Regioisomers and Isobaries, not to mention enantiomers and crystalline polymorphs.
I can get a Raman spectrum of an unknown drug but I cannot differentiate between its enantiomers because I do not have the correct polarizers and lasers to do that. Do you know of anyone who would like to invest into the upgrade of my spectrometer?

Anyway, the chemical reactions that synthesize MDMA tend to output a 50/50 racemic product.
A clandestine lab would have to work extra hard to unbalance the 50/50 ratio. More steps, more reagents, more cost, more time, ...less profit.

However it is possible, that there is an inadvertent stereoselctive reaction being used out in the wild, which we do not know about.
Some people suggest an inadvertent stereoselective catalyst or a hypothetical one-pot synthesis, that directly converts a chiral 3,4-MDP2P Glycidate precursor into a non-racemic 3,4-MDMA in one step, without going through the non-chiral 3,4-MDP2P intermediate.
This way if the Chinese vendor supplies them the S-enantiomer of the 3,4-MDP2P Glycidate precursor, then the end result will be the S-enantiomer of 3,4-MDMA.

The only way to resolve this is with more precise analysis of the bad "Mongy" Molly.
And such "Mongy" Molly does really exist because, I have witnessed it 1st hand as not even causing Mydriasis in 4 Virgin users at 100mg -150mg. See this thread.
 
Last edited:

LucidSDreamr

Bluelighter
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
4,834
Location
Silicodone Valley
without going through the non-chiral 3,4-MDP2P intermediate.

This way if the Chinese vendor supplies them the S-enantiomer of the 3,4-MDP2P Glycidate precursor, then the end result will be the S-enantiomer of 3,4-MDMA.
the achiral MDP2P intermediate could still be used to produce a product with an unbalanced R/S ratio via an assymetric reductive amination, where the hydrogenation catalyst has some chiral material in the mixture (left over from chiral glycidate starting material) which coordinates to the hydrogenation catalyst and forms an insitu chiral catalyt.

i posted a similar example in the other thread, but imagine in this catalytic cycle showing catalytic asymmetric reductive amination, that species B is your hydrogenation catalyst and the L coordinated to it some chiral byproduct/contaminant left over in the mixture from the chiral glycidate starting material. This L material is chiral so it will control the facial selectivity which the imine gets hydrogenated, favoring one side of the imine.




I also don't believe its possible to determine that S glycidate precursor would favor S-MDMA. Its not as simple as R makes R and S makes S, you'd have to know what the supposed transition state looks like, ie the orientation of the glycidate ligand "L in the picture" with respect to the imine substrate during the hydrogenation step

May be a novice question as I'm not one for chemistry - is MDMA most commonly approximately 50/50 racemic, or are there batches where L or R tends to dominate?

Sorry if it was answered above,
CY
as answered above 50/50 is most common or likely. You can't have a non-50/50 ratio produced unless there is some other chiral material present in the reaction or in the work up.

actually just answering your question made me think about the work up issue which i hadn't considered yet.

The real word example of this work up issue is tartrate salts....you can use them to solubilize only a specific enantiomer of a racemic product, therefore effecting the extraction during work up and therefore you would extract a non-50/50 enantiomeric ratio. This can work so well that you basically only extract one enantiomer.

In the mdma case maybe some glycidate byproduct helps solubilize only R or S mdma and you end up with a non 5050 worked up product.


I know others don't seem to think the non-50/50 R/S ratio is possible or likely. Do we know though how the appearance of this "bad" mdma corresponds in our historic mdma timeline with the introduction of PMK-glycidate being used as a starting material?
 
Last edited:

Glubrahnum

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Messages
230
the achiral MDP2P intermediate could still be used to produce a product with an unbalanced R/S ratio via an assymetric reductive amination, where the hydrogenation catalyst has some chiral material in the mixture (left over from chiral glycidate starting material) which coordinates to the hydrogenation catalyst and forms an insitu chiral catalyt.
I know that is why I wrote:
Some people suggest an inadvertent stereoselective catalyst ...

The real word example of this work up issue is tartrate salts....you can use them to solubilize only a specific enantiomer of a racemic product, therefore effecting the extraction during work up and therefore you would extract a non-50/50 enantiomeric ratio.
This is possible but such partial stereoselective extraction would constitute a loss of the final product.

Do you think these clandestine labs would tolerate such loss if they were aware of it ?
 
Last edited:

LucidSDreamr

Bluelighter
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
4,834
Location
Silicodone Valley
Sorry didn't catch that you believed that the achiral md2p could also produce non racemic product.

I don't know what they would tolerate in terms of final yield....the would tolerate such a loss if dealing with the problem costs more money time or chemicals that could he tracked maybe.
 
Top