Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Iso-Butyl Nitrite

antdoyle88 - 22-2-2011 at 02:35

Hi everybody

I have extremely limited chemistry knowledge and I only understand the basics - most of what I knew years ago has dwindled away with age.

Anyway, I am trying to synthesize isobutyl nitrite by using the following preparation -

Prep. 1
95g Sodium Nitrite
375ml water

Prep. 2
34ml Sulphuric Acid
25ml Water
141ml Iso-Butyl Alcohol/IBA

Cool Sodium Nitrite/Water prep to 1 degrees celsius.

Slow mix of Sulphuric acid into water with cooling inbetween additions.

Add above mix to IBA slowly and cool.

Thorough mixing at 1 Deg C and wait for separation.

Use seperatory techniques to remove upper layer of mixture (Iso-Butyl Nitrite).

Now for my question -

In my locality, Sodium Nitrite in its purities is classed as a Level 7 poison and requires a poisons license to acquire.

Lower concentrations are available in the form of "Prague Powder" and the mixture is 12.5% Sodium Nitrite, 87.5% Sodium Nitrate.

If I use this mixture, and add enough powder in the beginning to make up for 95g, will the excess sodium nitrate affect the reactions in any way? Or will it carry through as a "dead entity" and remain in the lower layer at the seperatory stage?

Second question. Is there any relatively simple method of separating Sodium Nitrate from Sodium Nitrite? The methods which I have found on this site are the forming of an alkyl nitrite. This is good if Isobutyl Nitrite isn't your finished product, but if it is - Will the nitrate affect it in any way?

I hope I have made my post clear. Thanks for reading

bahamuth - 22-2-2011 at 13:09

Want to make some "poppers" I presume:)

If your knowledge is as limited as the post suggests, you should not try to synthesize a bioactive compound.

Anyways, with all that nitrate in your "Prague Powder" my guess is that you will get some very toxic byproducts, and doubt you will get any alkyl nitrite at all.

IIRC I have seen those exact amounts somewhere else

antdoyle88 - 23-2-2011 at 03:38

Thanks for your reply, however it wasn't very helpful to me. I wasn't asking whether anybody thought I should try it. I AM trying it. That's the reason for my post. After all, the title of this very website is "The art and science of amateur experimentalism".

What toxic byproducts are you suspecting? It would appear the combination of sulfuric acid and sodium nitrate would produce nitric acid. If anybody else is reading, could this be neutralised using Sodium Bicarbonate?

Also, still on the lookout for a simple seperation method for removing sodium nitrite from sodium nitrate.

Thanks.

bahamuth - 23-2-2011 at 09:49

Wish you the best of luck as you're going to need it, plus a touch of magic to get your desired compound in any reasonable yield and purity for huffing....


PS. While not trying to be condescending, please read more about what you're about to do, there are tons of info out there if you bother to look for it...


Magic Muzzlet - 23-2-2011 at 10:10

Just focus your efforts on purifying the NaNO2, it will be better for you in the end you get experience plus you can carry out the experiment how it is meant to be done. Also will be much safer.
If you are going to just try it, do it in a place where nox won't be a problem....there will be an abundance using the nitrate mixture...
I do not think it will work though

antdoyle88 - 24-2-2011 at 03:13

Quote: Originally posted by Magic Muzzlet  
Just focus your efforts on purifying the NaNO2, it will be better for you in the end you get experience plus you can carry out the experiment how it is meant to be done. Also will be much safer.
If you are going to just try it, do it in a place where nox won't be a problem....there will be an abundance using the nitrate mixture...
I do not think it will work though


Thanks, for the first worthwhile response to my post. Appreciate it.

Any suggestions or tips for purifying? I am at a loss. All of the stuff I find online about purifying mention practically identical methods to what I listed in my first post.

I know this works with the mentioned volumes because I know of somebody who did it and got a great yield.

I have gallons of sulphuric and iso so failure is not a problem.

itchyfruit - 24-2-2011 at 04:12

could you not reduce NANO3 TO NANO2 by heating untill molten then adding a small amount of sulphur, it works for KNO3. Then simply filter off any sulphur and recrystallize the remaining solution.
Double check this i don't want you poisoning yourself on account of my dumb arse. :D

woelen - 24-2-2011 at 04:48

I do not expect that the nitrate will interfere with the reaction, because nitrate is quite inert in aqueous solution, even at a pH equal to 0. The reaction can be carried out with just some excess of acid. Formation of nitrate esters works wonderfully even in aqueous solution, while formation of nitrate esters will not occur in the aqueous solution you are working in.

One thing which may become an issue is the loss of product due to the large amount of water needed to perform the reaction. Not only does the NaNO2 have to be dissolved, also the NaNO3. The nitrite ester is somewhat soluble in water, so if a lot of water is needed quite a lot may remain dissolved in the water and only a small fraction separates as an oily layer. But of course, you could try on a small scale to see how it works.

I would STRONGLY advice against using this home-made nitrite ester for inhaling-purposes! The experiment itself is worth doing, it is quite a fun reaction, but don't use your product for inhaling! The home-made material almost certainly will contain some dissolved NOx (yellow color of the oily layer). Organic nitrite esters are not very stable and easily give off NOx when not properly stabilized! NOx is very very bad for your lungs and is especially dangerous, because its effects are delayed. Inhaling too much of it does not lead to immediate discomfort, but many hours after the inhaling you may have serious build-up of liquid in your lungs. This can be life-threatening! So, be a wise man and don't poison yourself.

Regolith - 24-2-2011 at 20:08

I literally have sodium nitrite drying right now in a drying cabinet. It started as sodium nitrate 6 hours ago. There are many posts that have excellent information here in this thread http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=52#pid... preparation of ionic nitrites.

Separating one from the other is problematic as the solubilities are similar and cooking the nitrite too long converts it(but doable, again search on these boards). Contamination is less of an issue similar to NaOH always having a little carbonate in it from sucking CO2 from the air (I use so little from a large container it gets contaminated), nitrite gets oxygen from the air and makes nitrate.

I removed the bulk of the water under vacuum so as to avoid unwanted compounds. You should do the same to remove dissolved oxides of nitrogen.
02242011296.jpg - 52kB

Having been around for (more than one) people killing themselves accidentally though science. There really is nothing that can be said, you need some serious science knowledge to make a complex chemical like a popper (safe for human consumption) that WON'T kill you.

Know anyone whose taking water pills (diuretics)? Borrow a couple when you do this anyway and when it starts to get hard to breath (probably the next day) take the water pills and get to a hospital.

Magic Muzzlet - 25-2-2011 at 08:56

I do not see why you are making a big deal of the dissolved nox. Just distill and purify the product properly and then you can sniff it all you really want. Its not even worth it though to make this stuff to breathe.
Also how much nox do you think you would really breathe by sniffing maybe a few ml? I am not trying to tell people to do this, but I doubt someone is going to be able to put themselves through breathing manyl mls of this stuff to a point where any nox gets to be a problem.
So, distill the ester to obtain a water clear product and stabilize it with carbonate.
Then if you really want to have a sense of how it affects you it will be safe.

entropy51 - 25-2-2011 at 09:56

A couple of washes with water will remove any nitrogen oxides.

The stuff is however carcinogenic by inhalation in rats and mice.

ScienceSquirrel - 25-2-2011 at 10:00

Quote: Originally posted by entropy51  
A couple of washes with water will remove any nitrogen oxides.

The stuff is however carcinogenic by inhalation in rats and mice.


Only in truely insane amounts, anyone would have to sniff litres of the stuff to get those levels of exposure.

smuv - 25-2-2011 at 10:29

In terms of carcinogenic potency, it is on the order of benzene (by rodent model). Not extremely potent, but still, a reasonable carcinogen especially considering this is likely going to be made to be inhaled.

entropy51 - 25-2-2011 at 10:31

Quote: Originally posted by ScienceSquirrel  
Only in truely insane amounts, anyone would have to sniff litres of the stuff to get those levels of exposure.
I just pointed out the facts. Make your own risk assessments.

Regolith - 25-2-2011 at 12:27

What form of prague powder are you using ? It struck me as odd yesterday but sleep deprivation from a marathon chemistry session kept the brain from firing right. Neither Prague #1 or #2 is the concentrations you speak of in the starting post. I'm not going to teach a cook here (so no quantities listed, by looking up the amounts hopefully knowledge will seep in). The irony is I made what you want yesterday. I started with calcium nitrate combined with sodium carbonate, filtered. Crystallized and washed the product. Then did as the thread I posted to you via the CaCl2 and NaHSO3 method, yield was 76%. Doing a reduction like this on mixed nitrate/nitrite (properly) could only end in a higher concentration of what you want, indeed some techniques do several runs to increase purity.

Hence my ripping on just nox. I knew something else was wrong but no sleep = bad. I have a friend who works at a local high end grill that does all there own meat curing even he's not heard of those concentrations. Are you sure there isn't significant sodium chloride present ?

@magic mullet,
Quote:

I do not see why you are making a big deal of the dissolved nox. Just distill and purify the product properly and then you can sniff it all you really want. Its not even worth it though to make this stuff to breathe.

Yeah, no sleep first, second by his own admission he's using sepratory techniques, not a sepratory funnel. Again "most of what I knew years ago has dwindled away with age". That doesn't sound like a person with a fume hood or similar. If the reaction is done exactly as stated then there shouldn't be too much to worry about however if the reaction isnt cooled or does a runaway, that's more than enought molar mass of nitrate to form dangerous levels of nox.

My brain was working when I said diuretics however, good things to have around for such emergencies. It's (one of) what they would give at a hospital for pulmonary edema.

MagicMullet, you likely have the gear handy todo this the right way it doesn't sound like the author does. You figured out right away to distill it to purify, in a reduced atmosphere thats exactly the correct technique. Your correct though poppers aren't really that big of a recreational drug, better to make a pure product and have it handy for one of the several (cyanide among others) poisons that it is an antidote for.

ScienceSquirrel - 25-2-2011 at 15:06

Quote: Originally posted by entropy51  
Quote: Originally posted by ScienceSquirrel  
Only in truely insane amounts, anyone would have to sniff litres of the stuff to get those levels of exposure.
I just pointed out the facts. Make your own risk assessments.


I read the paper.
The rodents inhaled hundreds of ppm for six hours per day for weeks.
I doubt that fits the consumption pattern of a popper user.

entropy51 - 25-2-2011 at 15:56

Quote: Originally posted by ScienceSquirrel  
I read the paper.
The rodents inhaled hundreds of ppm for six hours per day for weeks.
I doubt that fits the consumption pattern of a popper user.
Carcinogenicity testing in animals requires higher doses than the human dose for several reasons. Rodents are less sensitive to carcinogens to humans, they have higher metabolic rates per unit body mass, they have shorter life spans. Typically drugs are dosed in animals on the basis of mg of drug per square meter of body surface area. For mice the equivalent dose works out to about twelve times the human dose on a mg per kg body weight basis.

The report I linked is a study conducted by the National Toxicology Program, conducted in the NIEHS, one of the National Institutes of Health. This is not some backwater research group that is buggering the data to generate more publications. Their work is peer reviewed by expert panels and is not generally considered to be substandard by any means.

[Edited on 26-2-2011 by entropy51]

ScienceSquirrel - 25-2-2011 at 17:10

Actually I have seen the desire to produce publications driven by the need to meet academic targets that results in me too papers in several journals with author loading and media orientated papers that get coverage in the press.
Universities are run by management these days and they dole out the money.
I worked in a school of pharmaceutical chemistry at one stage and one of the senior professors would say "A drug is a compound that when injected in to a rat produces a paper and further funding"
Animal studies have shown that benzene is an animal carcinogen but they were exposed to the compound at levels that no human or animal would voluntarily tolerate for months.
Petrol aka gasoline contains benzene in some countries, what do you think the probability of some one who fills there own car once a week and might catch a sniff of the vapour of developing cancer?

Sedit - 25-2-2011 at 17:17

I would look more towards the toxicologists doing everything in there power to ensure this compound of abuse appeared as toxic as possible. I can't say for sure since I haven't read the paper but it is semi common for chemicals that are on a "shit list" so to speak to get an unfair trial when put thru toxicology screenings. Im not saying there information is not valid but its always best for all references to attempt to double check them against someone elses experimental results instead of taking that one paper for face value. Cancer is to easy to force with over use of alot of chemicals since the mechanisms of it are not fully understood. As a simple example take into account Safrole whos consumption was common place for a very long time until it started to get abused in the synthesis of MDMA. Quickly large amounts where given to rats and the substance deemed a Carcinogen yet many independent research has since largely discredited that work. It was a study performed not so much to check its toxicity but one done to ensure it was removed as quickly as possible from the shelfs. It may not be the case here but its indeed something to keep in mind.

entropy51 - 25-2-2011 at 18:20

Quote: Originally posted by Sedit  
I would look more towards the toxicologists doing everything in there power to ensure this compound of abuse appeared as toxic as possible. I can't say for sure since I haven't read the paper but it is semi common for chemicals that are on a "shit list" so to speak to get an unfair trial when put thru toxicology screenings.
You have strong opinions about a lot of things. You seem to be short on evidence to support it. I don't believe alkyl nitrites rank high enough on anbody's list of drugs of abuse to warrant the attention you seem to think. Sassafras was determined to be carcinogenic, as a flavoring, long before MDMA was popular.

This forum sure attracts the conspiracy theorists. Sometimes the data is just the data.
Quote: Originally posted by ScienceSquirrel  
Actually I have seen the desire to produce publications driven by the need to meet academic targets that results in me too papers in several journals with author loading and media orientated papers that get coverage in the press.
Universities are run by management these days and they dole out the money.
Academic institutions operate by "publish or perish". The work I linked to was done by the National Toxicology Program, a well funded institute of the National Institutes of Health. NTP operates differently than the universities.



[Edited on 26-2-2011 by entropy51]

[Edited on 26-2-2011 by entropy51]

Sedit - 25-2-2011 at 20:34

Your kidding right? I sure do have strong opinions about alot of things. My evidence is common sense, sadly that seems lacking in the majority of the general population but that is in no way my problem. I plant seeds gathered from years and years of research, I don't google my head off to back up what I have already known so long I damn near forgotten.

You think sassafrass being banned because of it being carcinogenic is a coincidence? Why wasn't it banned as soon as this was found out then? Why wait till it became part of the drug culture did it suddenly find its way into the blacklist? I know your just as opinionated as me but I also have seen enough to know your not nieve enough to think that was all a coincidence.


""""Sometimes the data is just the data."""

I agree as can be seen in my post if read correctly, but as with all data there should always be some sort of checks and balance in place else it could be abused but people with motives that are not along the same lines as a scientist. All I suggested is that there is enough evidence out there to warrent this information should be double checked since the compound in question is psychoactive. Whenever a compound is psychoactive there is almost ALWAYS negativity reported about it and they attempt to hide the real nature of the data thru fear mongering. This appears a prime example on the surface because they are basing there claims from daily hours long exposure for weeks on end which in human situations would equate to much bigger problems then cancer more then likely. So why even publish this sort of dumb shit in the first place? I want to see a rat given an extremely large dose of burnt toast for months on end and if he does develop cancer, which I honestly believe he will from the poly aromatic hydrocarbons present should we start to consider the dangers of bread?

Regolith - 25-2-2011 at 20:37

Quote:

Entropy: "I don't believe alkyl nitrites rank high enough on anbody's list of drugs of abuse to warrant the attention you seem to think."

Wait.. then why did you dig up a document saying it was ? Moreover if it's not a big deal why is there documents like you posted ? It would appear to be you entropy whose short on info. Further looking at all deeper than you went and you find a fascinating (manufactured) connection between homosexuality AIDS and poppers.

http://www.duesberg.com/media/jlpoppers-3.html
Read on, the ban happened around the time aids/hiv broke out badly and it was seen as a gay disease. Poppers at the time were loosely tied to them as perhaps a reason for aids via dna damage or other(later totally discounted). Google poppers and AIDS the number of links are impressive. It was seen as a gay drug, perhaps contributed to the ban. Were talking about the 70s here when being gay was like being a pedophile.
Quote:

Saffafras was determined to be carcinogenic, as a flavoring

Thats a fascinating plant "Saffafras" what is it ? Is it related in any way to the Sassafras plant ? Or the much MORE rare spellcheck plant?(obviously doesn't grow in your area) Further SASSAFRAS, is still used as a flavouring in many beverages and is VERY tasty. Mice can't tolerate the compounds found in ginger neither can they chocolate. Yet us humans can consume them in large qualities without effect, whats bad for something that weighs 100 grams isn't necessarily bad for a 70kg human.

Entropy you point fingers and say things like "This forum sure attracts the conspiracy theorists" rather than defending your data. YOU posted it, if your just going to crawl away when questions come up why are you even here?

antdoyle88 - 25-2-2011 at 23:16

I agree with Sedit. Recreational drug prohibition worldwide is a disgraceful act intertwined by political and social motives. One only has to look at the persecution of CANNABIS to understand this. Another example is Prof. David Nutt, former government drug advisor in the UK, who was unfairly dismissed of his title and job position after creating a "danger list" which ranked Alcohol and Tobbaco higher than Ecstasy and Cocaine.

Poppers are not dangerous and if there is any danger in them, it is extremely miniscule. In the UK, US and Australasia, there is no prohibition on them. They are frequently sold under countless brand names and commonly used without peril. I personally have consumed many different brands and quantities and have come to no harm. That's not to say that homebrew isn't dangerous, i'm not debating this issue, but I hope you can see THATS WHY I AM HERE. Harm reduction. Risk minimisation. Key factors in recreational drug use that are unfortunately unheeded by our authorative figures.

Kudos to whoever mentioned the poppers/HIV/homosexual link. It was at one point considered that poppers were the cause of HIV! Disgracefully laughable, but there you have it, the common man is an idiot.

@Regolith -

My apologies, I posted under the assumption it was prague powder I was getting (I asked for a quote on "Prague powder"). After further examination of the quote I recieved, it is "Kuritkwik 2Kg", containing "Sodium Nitrite at 12.5% on a salt base".

[Edited on 26-2-2011 by antdoyle88]

madscientist - 25-2-2011 at 23:26

Back on topic, please!

bahamuth - 26-2-2011 at 17:53

If you succeed in getting the product, I would suggest washing it with saturated brine with some sodium bicarbonate, then distil it under vacuum to avoid serious decomposition and again have a NOx polluted product.
And it should be stored in a amber glass container with a Teflon liner over anhydrous potassium carbonate if you plan to avoid decomposition. Over potassium carbonate it may be stable for half a year in a fridge if the product was adequately purified beforehand.


As for the purifying of the nitrite, it should be easy enough considering sodium nitrites insane solubility and ability to stay in a water solution, basically just crystallize the nitrate out of solution.


Have to agree with woelen on the part that the experiment is worth doing, but also raise my concern if your only drive for this is to make a drug....

Regolith - 26-2-2011 at 19:32

Indeed many threads here tend to wander (this time I wasn't at the helm :D)

Bahamuth nailed down the purification. With the exception that you'd be getting the NaCl out of solution long before getting out the nitrite. 250 grams of nitrite could hide in under 200ml of water(at boiling). You will know your getting there when the solution is a deep yellow like my above. You will need to get it out of all that salt, 1.8kg (of salt) is going to kill your reaction simply by sucking up all the reagents, unless you do this with significant water, even then your losses will be extreme. http://www.generalchemical.com/assets/pdf/Sodium_Nitrite_Sol...

Keep in mind that whole 2kg has only 250 grams of nitrite... If your paying more than 30 bucks your getting ripped off. Actually more than 15$ for 250 grams is getting ripped off. As is sometimes the case with chemistry you can manufacture a cheaper product, however it IS already food grade. An important note as it's going to be at least lab grade more likely reagent or acs (Next 10 grand I have sitting around I'm getting a desktop GC/mass spec). So your body is worth as much as you make it. If I had nothing else I would use what you have found.

Why are you using IBA ? Is it available to you in high purity ? While I'm on the same page as the people above. Making something your going to consume yourself takes confidence in both your ability and confidence in your reagents. IPA makes a good substitution and is found at drug store in 99 percent purity(I would say food grade but, it's generally not eaten). It's less toxic than IBA and the remaining water content can be removed by salting out(hey! found a use for all your extra salt) and separating the layers.

Finally I add these guys to the thread when testing a "known of unknown purity" your intending you eat, inhale, or otherwise use on yourself you should really not be the primary life form you use it on. When doing a new reaction (for me) that will be used in a human. Or far more often biochemistry, I use these guys as my test subjects. I own their grandfather and have matched their genome to the known sequenced dna of gerbils. So I have a very good baseline to use thats not a valuable human.
02262011299.jpg - 111kB

antdoyle88 - 28-2-2011 at 02:13
Quote:

Over potassium carbonate it may be stable for half a year in a fridge if the product was adequately purified beforehand.


Would this be similar to the so-called "power balls" which retail brand poppers contain? A small, ball bearing sized white ball which apparently keeps the popper fresh for 6 months.

@Regolith -

The Sodium Nitrite 2kg salt base is $5 AUD per KG. At the moment I think AUD is equal to USD so it's within the prices you mentioned above.

My reason for using IBA instead of IPA are down to my experience with different quality brands of poppers. A high end retail bottle contains IB Nitrite and tends to be, recreationally, alot more potent, crisp/clean with no after effects. My experience with the crappy asian bulk-buy poppers is that they were all IP Nitrite. That's what I based my decision from.

I can understand everyones reluctancy to help me too much because of where this is going to be going.. But please be rest assured.. I am not stupid, I will not consume something which I do not trust and I will not be doing it until I feel I have all the relevant knowledge to do it safely. Even then, grand total consumption will be less than 5mls probably once a month.

bahamuth - 28-2-2011 at 12:10

I've heard of those "power balls", though not with that name, but that some producers of the poppers products had some "special" stabilizer supplied with their product. IIRC they mentioned some proprietary polymer, though I always suspected it was some mix of alkali carbonates. Guess that the potassium salt is "more" soluble than the sodium salt in organic solvents, as potassium salt tend to be in my experience.

If no stabilizer is added, I have experienced that it would decompose heavily in just a few days regardless of storage temperatures.



sonottawa - 26-8-2011 at 22:22

Quote: Originally posted by bahamuth  
Want to make some "poppers" I presume:)

If your knowledge is as limited as the post suggests, you should not try to synthesize a bioactive compound.

Anyways, with all that nitrate in your "Prague Powder" my guess is that you will get some very toxic byproducts, and doubt you will get any alkyl nitrite at all.

IIRC I have seen those exact amounts somewhere else



Me too, I jst tried to make the Iso-Butyl nitrites (poppers) @ my mini home lab and have posted few questions in this 4room regarding about my product. I was very appreciated to certain members in here who gave some real precious advices which, as I'm not Pro-chemist (but if yes, I don't think myself or most of sciencemadness's members will be here to ask questions) never educated from school.

Besides, certain 4room members had considerate us, the un-pro-chemist, as real dumb and should not touch or even think about trying anything. If every new-wannabe chemist has similar thinking, I assume that none of similar 4room will survive, 'cause no members visit. And the Pro-chemist don't need to come here anyways, right.


Keep trying, bro

"There’s a will, there’s a way"


Thanks



http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=5598&a...