Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
Author: Subject: Workaround?
Enantiomer
Harmless
*




Posts: 13
Registered: 15-8-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: READY - TO - ROCK!!!

[*] posted on 15-8-2010 at 22:35
Workaround?


Please forgive me if I make mistakes in how or where to post/ use this discussion board or if I have overstepped my bounds regarding content (please offer any relevant feedback regarding use of the board – I would sincerely appreciate it). I have never actually used a discussion board and am unfamiliar with the protocol. I have, however, been reading this board for quite some time now (in the order of years) as well as other boards (when they used to exist). I guess I was always too worried about things, be they as they may, to actually participate. Now, there is a burning question which someone feels needs an answer. Perhaps I should have started out more lightly in hopes of actually getting some response – I don’t know. Going lightly has never been my thing, really. What follows may be of interest to someone, and I know there is at least one person in this world who would love to find out if there is a solution. Read on . . .

A very interesting article was recently come across (yes, some people look for information from all possible sources – as I’m sure some of you all do).

(http://www.justice.gov/dea/programs/forensicsci/microgram/jo...)

It talks of the reduction of phenylephrine (a replacement in cold medicine/ allergy formulations) and shows the result.

Below are molecular structures of the stating material compared to (one of) the original starting materials (if they will render on this board correctly).

Compare . . .


Phenylephrine (mw = 167.1)

to . . .


Ephedrine/Pseudoephedrine

The only difference is a single molecule (a hydroxide on the phenyl ring).

But wait . . .

Using the same rxn/ rxns that have traditionally been used to reduce the latter of the two molecules above, what is produced is . . .



3-Hydroxy-N-methylphenethylamine
“Reduced Phenylephrine” (mw = 151.1)

The only difference is a single molecule (a hydroxide on the phenyl ring).

Interestingly, the article claims that the rxn producing: 3-Hydroxy-N-methylphenethylamine “Reduced Phenylephrine” is “facile” which is to say easy (almost impossible to screw up) and that complete conversion was accomplished within only 30 minutes with “no byproduct”.

Now, what if there were a way to easily and inexpensively reduce the hydroxide molecule from the ring using (preferably) otc materials or other easily obtained materials? What would you end up with (a rhetorical question – since it’s so obvious).

Is there any advice or even starting points for information out there that may help to solve this problem? Perhaps, some protective group must be added to the side chain before attempting reduction of the hydroxide . . . Perhaps the hydroxide must be removed either before or after the reduction . . . I don’t know. It would be very interesting though to find a solution (as I’m sure you can imagine).


Attachment: Microgram Journal, Volume 3, July-December 2005.pdf (383kB)
This file has been downloaded 2777 times
View user's profile View All Posts By User
turd
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 800
Registered: 5-3-2006
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 15-8-2010 at 22:56


Uhhhh....
This is totally useless if you want to make methamphetamine (your post isn't clear on that).
1) Removing a phenol (hydroxyl on the "ring") is not easy.
2) You would obtain N-methyl-phenethylamine, NOT N-methyl-amphetamine, which you could much easier make by methylation of plain old phenethylamine (see other posts on that subject).

But good to see that after 20 years they finally start to grow some common sense and regulate ephedrine instead of Pred/I2.

PS: You're confused about the meaning of the word molecule.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Nicodem
Super Moderator
*******




Posts: 4230
Registered: 28-12-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 15-8-2010 at 23:13


Quote: Originally posted by Enantiomer  
Now, what if there were a way to easily and inexpensively reduce the hydroxide molecule from the ring using (preferably) otc materials or other easily obtained materials? What would you end up with (a rhetorical question – since it’s so obvious).

Yes, there are a couple of methods to deoxygenate phenols, but all would require more than one step starting from N-methyl-2-(3-hydroxylphenyl)ethylamine and all would require reagents that are several times more expensive than N-methyl-2-phenylethylamine. It would however be an excellent challenge as it would become known as the most idiotically irrational synthesis of such a cheap product. I doubt anybody could come up with a more complex and difficult route to such an easy target without explicitly trying. If you ever manage to make something like this you might actually become famous.

Quote:
Is there any advice or even starting points for information out there that may help to solve this problem? Perhaps, some protective group must be added to the side chain before attempting reduction of the hydroxide . . . Perhaps the hydroxide must be removed either before or after the reduction . . . I don’t know. It would be very interesting though to find a solution (as I’m sure you can imagine).

The easiest (or hardest, depends from person to person) is to UTFSE. Already on this forum there is referenced at least one or two methods for deoxygenation of phenols (not that there are any more than one or two existing anyway). In Org. Synth. there is at least one method thoroughly described.
Also, please learn how to use chemical terminology. Help yourself with some chemistry schoolbook - usually they explain terminology on the way. Hydroxide is an anion. What you mean is hydroxy group. Molecule is a discrete minimal unit making up a compound. A functional group can therefore not be called a molecule, being itself just a structural element of a molecule.






…there is a human touch of the cultist “believer” in every theorist that he must struggle against as being unworthy of the scientist. Some of the greatest men of science have publicly repudiated a theory which earlier they hotly defended. In this lies their scientific temper, not in the scientific defense of the theory. - Weston La Barre (Ghost Dance, 1972)

Read the The ScienceMadness Guidelines!
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Ozone
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1269
Registered: 28-7-2005
Location: Good Olde USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Integrated

[*] posted on 16-8-2010 at 07:36


“It would however be an excellent challenge as it would become known as the most idiotically irrational synthesis of such a cheap product. I doubt anybody could come up with a more complex and difficult route to such an easy target without explicitly trying. If you ever manage to make something like this you might actually become famous.”

Possibly the greatest...quote...ever.

:cool:,

O3




-Anyone who never made a mistake never tried anything new.
--Albert Einstein
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Enantiomer
Harmless
*




Posts: 13
Registered: 15-8-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: READY - TO - ROCK!!!

[*] posted on 16-8-2010 at 21:11
Thank you - your advice is apprciated.


Thank you all for your excellent criticism, I consider it very valuable. I will definitely take the advice to heart.

I know I need further education/ knowledge in basic chemistry to build a stronger foundation and I do intend to do some more studying.

So far my background is only one quarter of first year general chem (inorganic), chem 100 and physics 100 + maybe 10 or more years of self study (but this is a little different than foundation stuff since it's always been in specific areas of interest).

The question I asked about was pretty much a guess, you could say, I just happened across something, thought it was interesting, and wondered about it.

I'll definitely spend some time going back to basics and trying to build my knowledge a bit so I (hopefully) don't make as many mistakes with terminology and such and will be able to participate on a higher level in the future.

In the mean time I would still like to be active and participate on this board (to the best of my ability). Please be patient with me as I also learn my way around using a discussion board.

:D


[Edited on 17-8-2010 by Enantiomer]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
chemrox
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2953
Registered: 18-1-2007
Location: UTM
Member Is Offline

Mood: LaGrangian

[*] posted on 16-8-2010 at 23:27


@turd: what is pred/I2 ? you imply the regulation of ephedrine is a good thing. Similar rationale would make regulation of Na2CO3, dihydrogen oxide and acetone also good things. My solution to the (unstated) problem is to make ephedrine hcl, HI and ether available at the stop & robs for cheap prices. When the dust settles we can work with the ones left standing.



"When you let the dumbasses vote you end up with populism followed by autocracy and getting back is a bitch." Plato (sort of)
View user's profile View All Posts By User
turd
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 800
Registered: 5-3-2006
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 17-8-2010 at 00:04


Sorry, I was unclear. I meant red phosphorus (P(red)) and iodine (I2). Of course I don't think regulation of ephedrine is a good thing, but it seems much more sensible to control a precursor to your "problem" which is merely one atom(!) away than chemicals which can be used for a myriad of other things. Regulation of phosphorus and iodine has always struck me as one of the most idiotic decisions by the drug paranoiacs. More so given that most of the world lives pretty fine without OTC (pseudo-)ephedrine and doesn't miss it.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Lambda-Eyde
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 856
Registered: 20-11-2008
Location: Norway
Member Is Offline

Mood: Cleaved

[*] posted on 17-8-2010 at 02:28


This is not a meth forum. Please fuck off.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Nicodem
Super Moderator
*******




Posts: 4230
Registered: 28-12-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 18-8-2010 at 02:01


Quote: Originally posted by Lambda-Eyde  
This is not a meth forum. Please fuck off.

And what was that about? Next time, before going berserk, at least read the whole thread. The topic in not about meth, but about the synthesis of N-methyl-2-phenylethylamine, which is neither illegal or any kind of a drug. The only connection with meth is the use of red phosphorous and iodine for the reduction of the benzylic alcohol function. Contrary to popular belief this is a reaction that can be used for other than illegal purposes!
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Enantiomer
Harmless
*




Posts: 13
Registered: 15-8-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: READY - TO - ROCK!!!

[*] posted on 18-8-2010 at 12:53
In Over My Head?


Thanks Nicodem:


Quote:

And what was that about? Next time, before going berserk, at least read the whole thread. The topic in not about meth, but about the synthesis of N-methyl-2-phenylethylamine, which is neither illegal or any kind of a drug. The only connection with meth is the use of red phosphorous and iodine for the reduction of the benzylic alcohol function. Contrary to popular belief this is a reaction that can be used for other than illegal purposes!


I've been thinking . . . perhaps I'm in a little over my head here. I mean, I do appreciate 'constructive' criticism and will make use of it all. I'm a little concerned though about my ability to follow some of the discussions. I readily admit that my chemistry knowledge is limited but I do love chemistry and its not something I intend to give up on.

Like I mentioned before, I've been reading this board for years before joining the other day; and, from what I've seen, there seems to be a wide range of poeple participating here (people with varying levels of ability and knowlege). Many folks on this board seem to be very knowledgeable and skilled (which is something that gives me a great deal of respect for this site and the people on it). In the end though, maybe I better get some more studying in before I jump into using the board.

Another concern I have is not really being familiar with using a discussion board. I can forsee several mistakes I could make in regard to using a discussion board that may not be taken lighly by some (like posting in a wrong thread, starting a new thread that happens to already exist under a different title, not realizing that information I'm asking about is already addressed somewhere else, etc, etc.). Thanks again for all your imput guys. I'll be around; and, in the menatime, studying up.

;)


[Edited on 18-8-2010 by Enantiomer]

[Edited on 18-8-2010 by Enantiomer]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Globey
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 183
Registered: 9-2-2009
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 18-8-2010 at 15:49


To me, phenylephrine looks more like tapentadol than ephedrine does. Of course, they are all different. I wonder weather phenylephrine has weak and(or) ultra short lived mU activity. Extending the side chain by one carbon is preerquisite, just as is for phenylethylamine (for it to have any chance against our bodies' MAO).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tapentadol.svg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Phe...
View user's profile View All Posts By User
zed
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2273
Registered: 6-9-2008
Location: Great State of Jefferson, City of Portland
Member Is Offline

Mood: Semi-repentant Sith Lord

[*] posted on 18-8-2010 at 16:49


The Microgram journal is a good resource. Usually, they are very cautious about revealing compromising information. They tend to parse their words carefully.

Only occasionally, do they really let loose....and hint at some arcane synthetic route, or material..... that chemistry buffs are generally unaware of.

Catch Microgram while you can. During the "repressive" Bush years, the DEA began allowing access to a "public" version of the formerly "restricted access" publication.

Recently, under the current "more open" US administration, the Microgram format has been revised. On my most recent visits to their website, there has been nothing worth reading. Poof, gone! Those former, "public" Micrograms are still accessible, but they could disappear from the website at any moment.

I will try accessing with another computer. Maybe, my archaic
PC, is just too weak to navigate their site.

[Edited on 19-8-2010 by zed]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
zed
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2273
Registered: 6-9-2008
Location: Great State of Jefferson, City of Portland
Member Is Offline

Mood: Semi-repentant Sith Lord

[*] posted on 23-8-2010 at 17:42


Well, I tried accessing the Microgram site with better hardware. The informative Microgram Journal of the last few years, is indeed gone.

In Jan. 2010, the DEA's "Iron Curtain" of secrecy re-descended. Public access to drug enforcement information, is no more. The show is over! Once again, "real" Microgram access, is only available to Law Enforcement types.

Too bad. This revival of utter in-decipher-ability is a disturbing development.

If you want to peruse past issues. They are still posted....as of today. They could however, be liquidated at any moment.
View user's profile View All Posts By User

  Go To Top