Author Topic: Australian Help!  (Read 8298 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

kris_1108

  • Guest
Huh?
« Reply #40 on: May 26, 2004, 03:35:00 PM »
Any technique using alcohol or acetone as the basing medium is IMHO dirty from the outset, and has little potential for a very clean extract.

Several bees have used the The Tetra Trap and other waterless a/b's to pull clean pseudoephedrine, where alcohol is used as the basing medium.

Shane_Warne

  • Guest
the truth hurts, and doesn't go down well.
« Reply #41 on: May 26, 2004, 06:08:00 PM »
The Tetra Trap isn't waterless. But it works better with DCM, and much better with nothing at all except H2O, and a mild hydrocarbon.

Use about 3.5-4 tablespoons of carbonate too. I mistakenly typed 1.5-2 tblspns, the same as prescribed, the other day. But I've since been told that about 4 has been used. (it's not big batch friendly)

The yields are HIGH if time is taken, and rapid skewer plowing of the pill mass and base is done for at least 20% of the 3hrs during the first pull.

The spraying is also important, and is done throughout the warming time, at about 10min intervals. 5 sprays, or whenever you get the itch.

You need to test how much your sprayer releases, smaller output is nice, but any sprayer beats chucking a spoon in. The sprayer swim uses puts out a deceivingly small amount, it's a hair spray bottle, and not a trigger-finger cone-shaped sprayer designed for the purpose.

It depends what you call clean, and whether it requires much more cleaning following. With a weaker NP you maximise your chances of it being minimal.

don't believe me, I don't care.

kris_1108

  • Guest
TT
« Reply #42 on: May 27, 2004, 12:53:00 AM »
The Tetra Trap isn't waterless.
The basing medium can bee activated with dH2O OR an OH like EtOH or MeOH.

But it works better with DCM, and much better with nothing at all except H2O, and a mild hydrocarbon.
What do you mean it works much better with nothing at all except water and a mild hydrocarbon? No Tetra at all? The Tetra is employed to 'deactivate' the gaaks while the FB pseudoephedrine moves up into the NP.

don't believe me, I don't care.
Wow.

Also, what's the hair squirter and the plough for?

Shane_Warne

  • Guest
dunno then.
« Reply #43 on: May 27, 2004, 06:12:00 PM »
What do you mean it works much better with nothing at all except water and a mild hydrocarbon? Yes

No Tetra at all? Yes

The Tetra is employed to 'deactivate' the gaaks while the FB pseudoephedrine moves up into the NP.

Well, you say that, but I don't know that, and I've never seen anything, results or visuals to show that.

I don't think gaks fulfill the foiling purpose they are designed for as well as some people make out. It's just a conversation point.
Swim has used the modified tetra trap on both the most famous white 60s (pfed.hcl) and also the most famous blue 60s with anti-histamine.
Followed by evaporation to get the freebase.

The result is very similar, swim can't tell the difference.

It might work on 120s, although it's a mute point because it's not like the cleaning Olympics, you take what's easiest and what you know works.

It took me years to accept simplicity and the necessary loss.
If you can't appreciate the concept of the necessary loss then it directly effects quality. Choosing easy pills is a part of that.

The spookies never go though, at least for me, I've never been able to bee proud of this...lot of guilt and fear etc.

out.

wareami

  • Guest
Tetra...
« Reply #44 on: May 28, 2004, 05:44:00 AM »
Remember the reasons tetra was employed in extraction at all.
To attract and remove certain polymers that are soluble in tetra.
Other bees have modified this tetra use in extraction methods and have been quite successful at targeting the isolation and separation of pfed from these gaaks employed to either manufacture pills more efficiently or to foil extraction.It doesn't matter why they are there, bees focus on their removal.
Today there is a myriad of other complex polymers, ER delivery systems, and formulations in use.
Tetra will always be effective at removing the polymers that have an affinity for the solvent.
In this day and age however, multi-solvent combo's are needed as well as multiple steps aimed at removing the gaak.
For quite a while, the opposition that don't want the average consumer extracting pfed, have fed off the information provided here and other boards in order to develop ways of circumventing extractions.
Considering there are only a handful of bees over the years that have effectively developed methods for the collective, I won't hesitate to say we're outnumbered.
Always have been and as a result, we're now outgaaked
GO with what works!


Shane_Warne

  • Guest
Of course ware. What's your opinion on how the
« Reply #45 on: May 28, 2004, 10:25:00 AM »
Of course ware.

What's your opinion on how the polymers respond in the dry basing medium though?
I think they get caught up in there and lose effectiveness.

If they swell, they can't form big yield cutting bodies of glue and plastic.

geezmeister

  • Guest
don't dismiss the tetra
« Reply #46 on: May 28, 2004, 10:55:00 AM »
Don't dismiss the use of tetra in the tetra trap quite so quickly, SW. I have long been a proponent of extracting pseudo by an a/b, and have worked with a good many variations on the theme, some posted, many not posted.

Be careful of generalizing to all pills from the ones you are most familiar with. Its very hard to make a valid generalization about extraction methods now without discussing which pills you are extracting the pseudo from. There are pills that can still be a/b'ed without a tetra trap. Sure. They are declining in number, probably as I write. There are some other pills which in my experience yield better, and give up cleaner pseudo, with tetra in the mix when the a/b is performed. Some will give you pseudo with one or two foilants remaining. A couple still give good quality clean pseudo. Or they did the last time I extracted from them.

There are sets of OTC pills that extract much better with tetra during the a/b than they do without, and these are generally the pills heavy with water activated foilants. Dry matrix formula pills can be included with these. Tetra Trap methods held hold these at bay during the extraction. Its not just a matter of what polymers are present, it involves the pill formulation and the foilants selected.

Simple answers are frequently suspect. Simple answers about extracting pseudo from OTC meds are, IMHO, suspect.


wareami

  • Guest
Swelling agents...
« Reply #47 on: May 28, 2004, 01:50:00 PM »
Shane: The swelling agents we are seeing these daze are finely engineered components.
This oily gaak that is riding along is a tough cookie to crack.
This is why I say multiple solvent....multiple steps.
To this day, Ibee has never ever employed a front side A/B because all his experimentation was geared toward near maximum yield of clean Pfed.
There have been many times in the past that after a new formulation hit the shelves, the solventwash/alky extracts that Ibee's accustomed to, would produce the yield but the pfed would be gaaked. These gaaks were narrowed down to encapsulating agents that hitched a ride. Some solvent washes always seemed to rid them.
This brings us to the swelling agents they employ in some pills.
Geez is absolutely right when he says you'll by one particular OTC brand at one store and it will produce nice yield and clean feedstock by employing a known effective extraction method.
You go to another store and buy what's in stock...different brand....different formulation and you're screwed before you get past the middle mark of the process and end up with pfed that's iffy.
When the pfeds iffy, it's nowares good enough and in the process of cleaning it up, you lose a large part of the expected to mechanical loses and stuck on glass demons!

It wasn't long ago that a newly contributed method would work in kentucky and the same method would work in washington state.
Today we are lucky to have a method work for two bees in the same state in the same month.
If you want Ibee's assessment of what's causing this, They have shifted what's included in the individual packages.
Forget trying to run redhots and white 60's in the same extraction batch. Forget trying to run 120's and 60's in the same extraction batch. You'll bee doomed from the start.
This was difficult to do with bulk extraction since the first Orange Gaak hitthe shelves. But it could be done if the orange gaak was isolated and precipitated out before moving on.

It helps to read excerps from patents to understand some of what's taking place concernng encapsulating agents or swelling agents and other prefered inactive ingredients.
If you can get an understanding of what they do and how they act in the formulation, you're that much closer to understanding what may be employed as a viable approach toward effecting their removal.

The encapsulated product may generally be used at the desired level, the amount being dependent upon the amount of active agent to be incorporated, the desired hardness of the tablet, and the oxidative resistance desired. In general, the encapsulated product will be used in an amount of from about 1 to about 95% by weight of the tablet allowing for the active agent to be incorporated in an amount of from about 1 to about 60, particularly from about 10 to about 50%, by weight of the tablet.

The encapsulated product is particularly useful in a compressed tablet. The compressed tablet may be made using any method known in the art, particularly by direct compression of the tablet components. In the alternative, the tablet may be prepared by dry blending the encapsulated product with the other components of the formulation, granulating the mixture such as by fluid bed technology, roller compactor, extrusion, or high shear granulator, and dry compacting to a tablet.

Pharmaceutical excipients known in the art may be added to the pharmaceutical dosage form to impart satisfactory processing, compression, and disintegration characteristics to the formulation. Such excipients include, but are not limited to, diluents, flow enhancer, binders, lubricants and glidants, disintegrants, colors, flavors and sweetening agents. These excipients are well known in the art and are limited only by compatibility and characteristics desired.

Binders for the present invention include gelatin, microcrystalline cellulose, sugars, carboxymethyl cellulose, methyl cellulose, polyvinyl pyrrolidone, acacia, alginic acid, guar gum, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, polyethylene oxide and ethyl cellulose.

Lubricants and glidants include talc, magnesium stearate, calcium stearate, stearic acid, glyceryl behenate, mineral oil, polyethylene glycol, sodium stearyl fumarate, stearic acid, vegetable oil, zinc stearate, and silicon dioxide.

Disintegrants suitable for the present invention include starches, algins, gums, croscarmelose, crospovidone, sodium starch glycolate, sodium laurel sulfate, microcrystalline cellulose, polacrilin potassium, and methylcellulose.

Diluents suitable for the present invention include dicalcium phosphate, calcium sulfate, lactose, cellulose, Kaolin, mannitol, sodium chloride, starch, sugars, calcium carbonate, calcium phosphate, dextrates, dextrin, dextrose, fructose, sorbitol, sucrose, and microcrystalline cellulose.

In particular, a binder is added to the tablet formulation to provide a tablet with the desired hardness. In general the hardness of the resultant tablet is at least about 3, more particularly at least about 4, most particularly at least about 6 kilopascals (kP).

If the final desired product is other than a pharmaceutical dosage form, alternative additives known to those arts may be present. For example, flavors and fragrances in a bath oil tablet or surfactants in a detergent tablet.

Upon contact with water, the moisture triggers the release mechanism, allowing the active agent to be released from the encapsulating starch. For example, upon digestion of the pharmaceutical dosage forms, the active agent is released to the body.




Geez: You touched on some points I was trying to make in the above post.
And I agree that a bee should have an arsenal of extraction methods today to choose from because what works on one pill is not gauranteed to work on the next pill.
The same holds true for "What works today, May Not work Tomorrow"




Shane_Warne

  • Guest
Cheers & cHeErz
« Reply #48 on: May 28, 2004, 03:56:00 PM »
Shane: The swelling agents we are seeing these daze are finely engineered components.

They aren't very good.
An alky extract at the outset of the fine ground pill mass of 240s (OK, this particular group of 240s recently) yielded a turbid solution upon evaporation, of concentrated pfed.hcl.
This was based with NaOH and extracted with turpentine. Crystallised to form a mildy discoloured crystalline product that was recrystallised using four solvents: DCM, acetone, water, alkie (extra tiny amount).

pristine product. It's also the crystallisation method he uses when he's really disappointed at what he sees after the initial evaporation.

2 methods is all swim uses, one is the modified tetra trap for 60s, and the second, is for pills he guesses to be the most difficult. He won't touch Clary-times.

All the second method comprises is an alcohol extract, reduce volume and then A/b. Followed by any post extraction work necessary.

They always require atleast a rinse after either method, in acetone after the first crystallization.

One year ago a pristine product was extracted with toluene, that won't happen today with the same pills.

I used to read all about formulations, but now I couldn't even name the several components that constitute a dry matrix formulation.
what is it, microcryst cellulose, methocellulose.

It isn't important. The eudragit sounds pretty scary, but swim hasn't come across anything like this, or atleast there hasn't been any oilly substance.

'Simple answers are frequently suspect. Simple answers about extracting pseudo from OTC meds are, IMHO, suspect.'

Geez it isn't a simple answer, as IMHO, and I could be wrong, dry basing blind-sided them.

The foilers are aimed at specific cleans, not two and 3 cleans in to the future.

The reason swim stopped solvent boils at the beginning is incase the manufacturers included solubilizers or even bi-carb, in the particular pills he was working on.

I'm not saying I have it all worked out here boys, I've had a plethora of disappointments. SWIM probably hasn't seen half the variety you have.

Another problem is, pills are just too dangerous to buy, so variety isn't his strong point, and is, I'm sure a source of his synicism.

As far as the modified Tetra Trap, just give it a go if you feel like it, if including the perc isn't working too well.

Thanks for the correction, it's just another option, better?  ;)