Author Topic: Reduced boro yields 94.6%--Awesome!  (Read 8326 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Argox

  • Guest
Reduced boro yields 94.6%--Awesome!
« on: March 11, 2002, 10:13:00 AM »
Awesome!

A few days ago I asked the eminent chemists if they knew the practical lower limit for borohydride additions when doing LaBTop's reduction amination.  There was no consensus.  But Rhodium said to "go for it," and bless his heart, he was right.

The theoretical lower limit is 0.25 mol NaBH4 per 1 mole of PMK (MDP2P or "ketone") .  LaBTop's write-up calls for 0.47 mol NaBH4 per 1 mole PMK.

I can report that reducing NaBH4 to 0.39 mol per 1 mole PMK will not affect yield, in fact a small experiment was conducted and yield of destilled mdma base was an awesome 94.6% mol/mol.  This represents the actual mdma base recovered in receiver, no fudging the numbers.  This mol ratio works out to about 82 grams NaBH4 per 1000 grams PMK.

In addition, MeNH2 was reduced to only 1.19 mol per 1 mol of PMK, down from the amount recommended in L/T's write-up of 1.79 mol.  This translates to 215 grams of methylamine per 1000 grams PMK, down from 300 grams per L/T.

Summation:
1 mol PMK
0.39 mol NaBH4
1.19 mol CH3NH2
Methanol was 3 times weight PMK

 MeOH/MeNH2 solution was added to small RB via an overhead long column charged with MgSO4 in upper half and silicagel beads in lower half supported by cotton.  This resulted in dry solution. The MeOH/MeNH2 solution was followed with clean MeOH. [The use of a column charged with dessicant was a HUGE improvement over just adding the MGSO4 and/or silicagel to stinking MeOH/MeNH2 solution and then having to decant or filter and then wash the dessicant.  The solution came out of the column crystal clear, no need for filtration.  The dessicant was washed by following the initial MeOH/MeNH2 with clean MeOH.  Huge reduction in labor, time, hassle, stench, wear and tear, etc.  Column had a return connection just below the top, so that it would be impossible for it to overflow.]  The small RB and contents cooled with ice/water bath.

-5ºC PMK was dripped into 5ºC MeOH/MeNH2 solution.   Stirring 100 rpm. The solution turned a deep burgundy color.  Tubing leading directly to exhaust was attached to reactor.

NaBH4 was manually added over 5 hours.  Temperature of solution was never allowed to exceed 15ºC.  Boro was added every time temperature reached 8ºC.  The solution turned a pumpkin orange color.

Stirrer set at 200 rpm and small reactor allowed to slowly reach 20ºC, while the operator got some sleep.  Stirring maintained for 25 hours after final boro addition. Solution was a greenish lemonade yellow at end of 25 hours.

The RB was set up for atmospheric distillation.  MeOH was distilled off initially at 65º and up until temperature at stillhead reached 100ºC, then reduced pressure was applied (aspirator) thereby stripping off water and cooling the RB contents.  The RB was allowed to cool to room temperature and tap water was added to the contents (water was about 3 times volume of contents).  A white oil precipitate formed.  NaOH solution was added per operator judgement, exact quantity not recorded, but not very much.  White oil and water were stirred and allowed to settle.  Water was decanted.  More water was added and decanted.  All water washes (about 5 times volume of contents) were pooled and washed twice with DCM.  (The second DCM wash resulted in clear DCM, so no further washes were deemed needed.)  DCM was pooled and added into RB.  The contents of the RB were heated with stirring and atmospheric distillation.  DCM was recovered for re-use.  Water distillate was discarded.  RB subjected to reduced pressure to strip off remaining water.  Once all water deemed to have been removed, the aspirator was replaced with mechanical vacuum pump.  MDMA base came over at 145ºC and about 29.8" at the gauge.  Base was clear with slight tinge of yellow.  94.6% yield (mol/mol) of pure mdma.

Check the numbers to make sure I calculated correctly:

1.000 n grams PMK yielded 1.026 n grams mdma.

Regards
Argox 






LaBTop

  • Guest
Re: Reduced boro yields 94.6%--Awesome!
« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2002, 12:35:00 PM »
It's getting better and simpler every day! Good factual lab report!
I really am jealous on that license you obtained lately, where I live it is impossible to get, so I have to stay away from any glassware, what a pitty.

When using such a drying column, I would pack it purely with dry MgSO4, and just 10 cm of silicagel at the bottom, but then the indicator type, to see if it's color changes when the MeOH has passed all of the MgSO4. Silicagel is quite slow in trapping any soluted water while MgSO4 works much faster. Good idea btw!

I'm not in the mood for calculations, I just nearly escaped a total system crash, kept me busy all day, so laters. LT/

WISDOMwillWIN

Argox

  • Guest
Re: Reduced boro yields 94.6%--Awesome!
« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2002, 01:09:00 PM »
Yes, I recently moved to a small country that does not have all the regulations that one would find in the US for example.  Conducting small-scale experiments at the gram level does not concern the authorities.  There are certainly bigger fish in the pond than me. ;)

Anyway, the glassware is all washed up and put away, and the few milliliters of product safely stored for subsecuent crystallization, and everybody is going to get a good night's sleep.

BTW the indicating silicagel L/T mentions is no good with non-polar solvents--I know for a fact that it doesn't work with acetone.  The cobolt chloride that makes the silicagel go from blue to pink is soluble in non-polars and will enter the product, so I believe that suggestion is not workable.   L/T is right about packing the column mainly with MgSO4: the MgSO4 removes most of the water, the silicagel is just for extra drying and because it was handy.  Mol sieve would be better.

Now, if we can just work on a magic solvent for the tar in the bottom of the distilling flask, what a pain in the ass!


baalchemist

  • Guest
Re: Reduced boro yields 94.6%--Awesome!
« Reply #3 on: March 12, 2002, 01:25:00 AM »
Now I know what I'm going to do with that container of NaBH4 Ive been looking to use up. I got this NaBh4 last year for a possible DMT synth that I cant seem to put together, so waste not want not, get it out of the house....MDMA it is... Thanks Argox!!!, great write-up. Dont you just love tweaking one of LabTops finest...not that he leaves one with much to tweak, but the little things like the column drier gives it that personal touch. 


GODISNOWHERE 710-57734

LaBTop

  • Guest
Re: Reduced boro yields 94.6%--Awesome!
« Reply #4 on: March 12, 2002, 07:02:00 AM »
Yeah, I love scientific TWEAKERS!
Didn't realize that cobalt would solute from the silicagel, there are ofcourse other H2O  indicators? LT/

PS: isn't the maximum attainable yield from ketone to MDMA.HCl a wopping 1n gram : 1.21n gram ?

WISDOMwillWIN

Argox

  • Guest
Re: Reduced boro yields 94.6%--Awesome!
« Reply #5 on: March 12, 2002, 09:36:00 AM »
isn't the maximum attainable yield from ketone to MDMA.HCl a wopping 1n gram : 1.21n gram ?

Am I doing this wrong?  I calculate 1 n gram of ketone would give maximum yield of even more whopping 1.28n gram mdma•hcl.

m.w. ketone = 178
m.w. mdma = 193
m.w. mdma•hcl = 229

Max theoretical yield from 1 mol ketone =

1.084 mol mdma
1.286 mol mdma•hcl

therefore an actual yield of 1.026 (as per experiment) = 1.026/1.084 = 94.6% conversion ketone to mdma.

If there's any mistake here, terbium will probably point it out to me 5 seconds after I post this.

LaBTop

  • Guest
Re: Reduced boro yields 94.6%--Awesome!
« Reply #6 on: March 12, 2002, 10:34:00 AM »
Missed that last "?" there? Am just recalling from memory, am busy fighting a system wanna to break down on me. LT/ ;)  Mixed it up with density of ketone, prolly. Just keeping you busy :P .

WISDOMwillWIN

Sunlight

  • Guest
Re: Reduced boro yields 94.6%--Awesome!
« Reply #7 on: March 12, 2002, 02:23:00 PM »
I think that your distillate can contain some impurities, probably a bit of the alcohol, but it will be not significant, but anyway enough to assure that exact yield. My oppinion is that yields must be considered after crystallization.
Other thing, when you say maxium yield from 1 mol of ketone, yield of amine will be 1 mol. You are talking about grams.

Argox

  • Guest
Re: Reduced boro yields 94.6%--Awesome!
« Reply #8 on: March 12, 2002, 04:13:00 PM »
You're right, Sunlight.  Too early in morning for me and LT, both.  Sure, we are talking ratios in grams.  That's why originally, the n went before the word gram to signify a ratio.  Of course, max yield of 1 mol ketone would be 1 mol mdma.  Sorry for confusion, but we can always count on somebody to correct us quick.  Jeez, terbium must have taken the day off.

Hey LT, when you've had enough aggravation with your Wintel PC POS, throw it in the recycle bin and buy a Mac.  They are blazingly fast, almost trouble-fee, and the quality of components is unmatched.  They truly are the "cadillac" of computers.  And the new OS is a lot of fun.  A little ibook should be considered an essential part of the lab setup.  You can grab it and run for the back door, when the MeAM generator blows and the immediate neighborhood becomes unihabitable, and from a distance comes that wafting shrill sound of sirens...

flipper

  • Guest
Re: Reduced boro yields 94.6%--Awesome!
« Reply #9 on: March 12, 2002, 07:47:00 PM »
MeOH/MeNH2 solution was added to small RB via an overhead long column charged with MgSO4 in upper half and silicagel beads in lower half supported by cotton.  This resulted in dry solution. The MeOH/MeNH2 solution was followed with clean MeOH. [The use of a column charged with dessicant was a HUGE improvement over just adding the MGSO4 and/or silicagel to stinking MeOH/MeNH2 solution and then having to decant or filter and then wash the dessicant.  The solution came out of the column crystal clear, no need for filtration.  The dessicant was washed by following the initial MeOH/MeNH2 with clean MeOH.  Huge reduction in labor, time, hassle, stench, wear and tear, etc.  Column had a return connection just below the top, so that it would be impossible for it to overflow.]  The small RB and contents cooled with ice/water bath.


So when is the imine formation? When you're MeNH2/MeOH is dry after that column is wil get wet again during the imine formation. Isn't it. Water is formed during the imine formation so it's a waste of energy that column i think. The silica gel was added so it directly takes up the water formed and drying the MeOH/MeNH2 isn't gonna change it I think. So could somebody explain why too use a column.

You've gotta love me.

terbium

  • Guest
Re: Reduced boro yields 94.6%--Awesome!
« Reply #10 on: March 12, 2002, 07:58:00 PM »
So when is the imine formation? When you're MeNH2/MeOH is dry after that column is wil get wet again during the imine formation. Isn't it. Water is formed during the imine formation so it's a waste of energy that column i think. The silica gel was added so it directly takes up the water formed and drying the MeOH/MeNH2 isn't gonna change it I think. So could somebody explain why too use a column.
Excellent point!

And here is something even stranger.
-5ºC PMK was dripped into 5ºC MeOH/MeNH2 solution.   Stirring 100 rpm. The solution turned a deep burgundy color.  Tubing leading directly to exhaust was attached to reactor.
The solution turns a deep burgundy color during imine formation? I think not!

Argox

  • Guest
Re: Reduced boro yields 94.6%--Awesome!
« Reply #11 on: March 13, 2002, 03:36:00 AM »
Hello friend terbium.  You know I value your opinion, but just what is "strange" about the color?  You better not be implying that even one fucking word of my post is incorrect. (Oh yeah--there is one little word that is not true, and I didn't mention all of the equipment involved, but I had put things in such a way as to protect the guilty.  Like Nicholson said--"you can't handle the truth!") 

Instead of burgundy, call it reddish orange. Or orangish red, or--hey! who the fuck cares what color it was?  The crystals are white.  That's what matters.  Send a drop box address terbium, and SWIA will send you a sample.  Do a bio-assay.  Then give your esteemed opinion.  

About using column:  there was a concern that if too much water was in the solution, that upon reduction with borohydride, too much borohydride would be reacting with water and not enough would be available for reduction.  This was pointed out by LaBTop himself--and it weighed heavily on SWIA's mind.  What also weighed heavily on SWIA's mind was a note from a bee terbium knows well that someone who wasn't him had always used much MORE boro than LaBTop's write-up, or at least that's what SWIA understood.  Since SWIA was significantly reducing the amount of boro, he was concerned about reduced yield.  Now that it's over and results being stellar, fears were groundless.

 The main reason for the column was that SWIA was planning on adding silicagel to the soution during imine formation so to take up the water of formation, but then decided to say fuck it, he was too tired and he would just cross his fingers.  Believe me, before the mdma distilled over at usual temp and usual appearance, SWIA was sweating bullets that something had fucked up, because of water affecting a portion of the boro and not enough being available for reduction, and that he would have two products--imine and amine.

Another thought about the color.  It was completely different from a previous reduction, where the color stayed lemonade green the entire time.  The immediate change in color to a deep reddish orange worried SWIA too.  Possible reason is that SWIA was using MeOH that had been sitting for almost 9 months and that had MeNH3 in it.  The MeOH was cloudy.  But in defense of the column--SWIA had to pump the MeOH into the reactor anyway, so why not let it flow through a column and remove water.  Plus he noticed with a little relief that the MeOH flowing into the reactor was clear, not cloudy like the MeOH flowing into the column.  So he reasoned that the column was a success.  And besides, I am not telling anybody what to do or how to do it,  I'm just reporting what SWIA did. 

Truth is, SWIA was one big fucking ball of nerves the whole time, proof of which was that he made me post about two dozen times in 48 hours, something I have never done before or since, plus PM several eminent chemist bee ahead of time asking what they thought about the reduced boro, plus PM another eminent bee with a stream-of-conscious letter that must have rambled on for several pages.  (My apologies, sir.) Indeed, SWIA was one twitchy motherfucker last 72 hours.

But now SWIA is sitting back and relaxing, 'cause he's seen those little white crystals.

So flame away, dudes-- SWIA cares not.  And neither do I.  'Cause we are relaxed and content.  (Oh yeah, content about that miniscule amount of product.  Think there will be enough for anybody else?)

PrimoPyro

  • Guest
Re: Reduced boro yields 94.6%--Awesome!
« Reply #12 on: March 13, 2002, 03:38:00 AM »
Whoa, Argox! Chill out buddy, no need for hostility. I seriously doubt terbium was calling any bullshit on your post. Wait for him to reply before you get angry, please?

Im very happy for you, with your results Argox.  :)

                                                  PrimoPyro

Vivent Longtemps La Ruche!

wacko_reaco

  • Guest
Re: Reduced boro yields 94.6%--Awesome!
« Reply #13 on: March 13, 2002, 08:28:00 AM »
Just a suspiscion but i think your total stirring time is too long, not that it would adversely affect yeilds, hell stir it for six weeks if you want, but my experience with boro is that is simply doesn't hang around that long (30 hours is your total suggested reaction time0, someone disagree with me please if this is not the case

wacka wacka wacka

UKBEE

  • Guest
Re: Reduced boro yields 94.6%--Awesome!
« Reply #14 on: March 13, 2002, 06:44:00 PM »
oh boy this looks like fun SWIM found 100g's of NaBH4 for like 15GBP or $10 :-)

thats enuff for like nearly 800g of honey(if i read the above posts's correclty)....wowee.


I love the smell of Ketone in the morning.

Sunlight

  • Guest
Re: Reduced boro yields 94.6%--Awesome!
« Reply #15 on: March 14, 2002, 12:49:00 AM »
I think as well the rxn is finished in much less time, may be a few hours, 6-8 or so. UKBEE, if you have pure ketone you won't get 800 gr, you'll get more than 1 kilo.

wacko_reaco

  • Guest
Re: Reduced boro yields 94.6%--Awesome!
« Reply #16 on: March 14, 2002, 07:41:00 AM »
why are you re-distiling the free-base? if the purity is that high it seems pointless, just re-dissolve in non-polar and gas? or am I missing something here, it seems like a lot of pain for no reason. The yeild calculation from the HCl salt would be equally valid. i am going to try to repeat your feat my friend in the next few days, will post the results.
anyone have any ideas on how to make Naborohydride, is the potassium version effectively the same.
If someone post a synth i promise i will give it a go, providing it is within the realms of possibilty

wacka wacka wacka

terbium

  • Guest
Re: Reduced boro yields 94.6%--Awesome!
« Reply #17 on: March 14, 2002, 08:38:00 PM »
anyone have any ideas on how to make Naborohydride, is the potassium version effectively the same.
The standard industrial procedure for NaBH4 has been to react NaH with trimethylborate. This would be a large effort for a laboratory scale prep. I believe that there has been some information here about electrochemical methods to prepare it from borate solutions though it would seem that this would leave you with an aqueous solution.

KBH4 is very much less soluble in methanol than NaBH4.

Argox

  • Guest
Hold your horses--too little boro
« Reply #18 on: March 20, 2002, 01:41:00 PM »
Final product tally not in, but in case any bee is considering using less than about 0.50 moles of NaBH4, I would recommend against it.  In other words, I believe SWIA used too little boro this time.  A portion of what initially seemed to be mdma freebase may have been something else, who knows what?  But 10% of "freebase" will not form hydrochloride.  Even after several re-basings, re-distillations, and re-gassings in which a little more product was obtained each time.

Since all previous reductive aminations using 0.47 moles of boro per mole of ketone were stellar successes, (the 93.7% yield of freebase in previous post, resulted in almost stochiometric recovery of hydrochloride), I would recommend sticking with L/T's tried and true formula, and use 100 grams boro for every 1000 grams ketone.

Just thought I'd update everybody. I would rather have to eat crow than have one of my posts turn out to be bullshit.   

In the port of Amsterdam, there's a sailor who sings
Of the dreams that he brings...

Rhodium

  • Guest
troubleshooting
« Reply #19 on: March 20, 2002, 10:06:00 PM »
As you distilled the freebase (unlike many other tinkerers here) I would say that it is your crystallization that's the weakest link, not the reductive amination. In your case I would try again using the lower amount of borohydride - with only one trial it cannot be said whether or not it works as posted.