Efficiency of extraction and conversion of pseudoephedrine to methamphetamine from tamper-resistant and non-tamper-resistant formulations
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Clandestine chemists have demonstrated an ability to convert commercially available pseudoephedrine formulations to methamphetamine. Some of these formulations have properties that manufacturers claim limit or block the extraction of pseudoephedrine and its direct conversion to methamphetamine. In this study, 3 commercially available pseudoephedrine formulations were evaluated for ease of extraction and conversion to methamphetamine using a common chemistry technique called the one-pot method that is frequently employed by clandestine chemists. Two marketed pseudoephedrine formulations with claimed tamper-resistant properties – Zephrex-D® and Nexafed® – were compared to Sunmark®, a comparator formulation of pseudoephedrine without tamper-resistant properties. Particle size reduction was conducted using 8 readily available tools; solubility was assessed using 2 common aqueous solutions and various reaction conditions (e.g., temperature, stirring); extractability was evaluated using 8 common organic solvents. The one-pot (single vessel) method commonly used in clandestine processes was employed; chemicals and equipment were purchased locally on the open market. Quantities and addition times of the chemicals used to carry out the procedure and the duration of the reaction were varied to determine the effect on methamphetamine yield. The procedure was appropriately scaled and conducted in a controlled environment to reduce risk and maximize yields. Pseudoephedrine and methamphetamine were quantified using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS). Standard quantitative procedures were used to determine the quantities of pseudoephedrine and methamphetamine recovered and produced, respectively. Particle size reduction resulted in some loss of material of each pseudoephedrine formulation; Zephrex-D tablets were broken down to a coarse material; Nexafed and Sunmark tablets were reduced to a fine powder. The solubility rates of intact and ground tablets varied by product; Zephrex-D was most resistant to solubilizing while Nexafed and Sunmark were comparable and dissolved completely, demonstrating no solubility-resistant properties. Conditions of the one-pot method were modified throughout the studies to increase methamphetamine yield. Using optimal parameters identified in these studies and allowing the reaction to proceed for 90 min, average percent conversions were similar for the 3 formulations: 43.3% for Zephrex-D, 46.4% for Nexafed, and 48.6% for Sunmark. The greatest conversion occurred with a 150 min reaction time and resulted in 44.8%–48.4% conversion of Zephrex-D, 54.1%–66.4% conversion of Nexafed, and 58.6%–71.8% conversion of Sunmark. This series of methodological evaluations demonstrated that clandestine chemists can readily produce similar yields of methamphetamine using pseudoephedrine products with and without claimed tamper-resistant technology.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».