SYNTHESIS: A solution of 83 g bourbonal (also called ethyl vanillin, or vanillal, or simply 3-ethoxy-4-hydroxybenzaldehyde) in 500 mL MeOH was treated with a solution of 31.5 g KOH pellets (85% material) dissolved in 250 mL H2O. There was then added 71 g methyl iodide, and the mixture was held under reflux conditions for 3 h. All was added to 3 volumes of H2O, and this was made basic with the addition of 25% NaOH. The aqueous phase was extracted with 5×200 mL CH2Cl2. The pooling of these extracts and removal of the solvent under vacuum gave a residue of 85.5 g of the product
A well stirred solution of 125.4 g 3-ethoxy-4-methoxybenzaldehyde in 445 mL acetic acid was treated with 158 g 40% peracetic acid (in acetic acid) at a rate at which, with ice cooling, the internal temperature did not exceed 27 °C. The addition required about 45 min. The reaction mixture was then quenched in some 3 L H2O. There was the generation of some crystals which were removed by filtration. The mother liquor was saved. The solid material weighed, while still wet, 70 g and was crude formate ester. A small quantity was recrystallized from cyclohexane twice, to provide a reference sample of 3-ethoxy-4-methoxyphenyl formate with a mp of 63–64 °C. The bulk of this crude formate ester was dissolved in 200 mL concentrated HCl which gave a deep purple solution. This was quenched with water which precipitated a fluffy tan solid, which was hydrated phenolic product that weighed about 35 g, and melted in the 80–90 °C. range. The mother liquors of the above filtration were neutralized with Na2CO3, then extracted with 3×100 mL Et2O. Removal of the solvent gave a residue of about 80 g that was impure formate (containing some unoxidized aldehyde). To this there was added 500 mL 10% NaOH, and the dark mixture heated on the steam bath for several h. After cooling, the strongly basic solution was washed with CH2Cl2, and then treated with 200 mL Et2O, which knocked out a heavy semi-solid mass that was substantially insoluble in either phase. This was, again, the crude hydrated phenol. The Et2O phase, on evaporation, gave a third crop of solids. These could actually be recrystallized from MeOH/H2O, but the mp always remained broad. When subjected to distillation conditions, the H2O was finally driven out of the hydrate, and the product 3-ethoxy-4-methoxyphenol distilled as a clear oil at 180–190 °C at 0.8 mm/Hg. This product, 45.1 g, gave a fine NMR spectrum, and in dilute CCl4 showed a single OH band at 3620 cm-1, supporting the freedom of the OH group on the aromatic ring from adjacent oxygen. Efforts to obtain an NMR spectrum in D2O immediately formed an insoluble hydrate. This phenol can serve as the starting material for either MEM (see below) or
To a solution of 12.3 g 3-ethoxy-4-methoxyphenol in 20 mL MeOH, there was added a solution of 4.8 g flaked KOH in 100 mL heated MeOH. To this clear solution there was then added 10.7 g methyl iodide, and the mixture held at reflux on the steam bath for 2 h. This was then quenched in 3 volumes H2O, made strongly basic with 10% NaOH, and extracted with 3×100 mL CH2Cl2. Removal of the solvent from the pooled extracts under vacuum gave 9.4 g of an amber oil which spontaneously crystallized. The mp of 1,4-dimethoxy-2-ethoxybenzene was 42–43.5 °C, and was used, with no further purification, in the following step.
A mixture of 17.3 g N-methylformanilide and 19.6 g POCl3 was allowed to stand for 0.5 h, producing a deep claret color. To this there was added 9.2 g 1,4-dimethoxy-2-ethoxybenzene, and the mixture was held on the steam bath for 2 h. It was then poured into chipped ice and, with mechanical stirring, the dark oily phase slowly became increasingly crystalline. This was finally removed by filtration, providing a brown solid mat which showed a mp of 103.5–106.5 °C. All was dissolved in 75 mL boiling MeOH which, on cooling, deposited fine crystals of
A solution of 7.3 g 2,5-dimethoxy-4-ethoxybenzaldehyde in 25 g glacial acetic acid was treated with 3.6 g nitroethane and 2.25 g anhydrous ammonium acetate, and heated on the steam bath. After two h, the clear solution was diluted with an equal volume of H2O, and cooled in an ice bucket. There was the formation of a heavy crop of orange crystals which were removed by filtration. The dry weight of 1-(2,5-dimethoxy-4-ethoxyphenyl)-2-nitropropene was 4.8 g and the mp was 120–124 °C. Recrystallization of an analytical sample from MeOH gave a mp of 128–129 °C. Anal. (C13H17NO5) C,H.
To a gently refluxing suspension of 3.3 g LAH in 400 mL anhydrous Et2O under a He atmosphere, there was added 4.3 g 1-(2,5-dimethoxy-4-ethoxy)-2-nitropropene by allowing the condensing Et2O to drip into a shunted Soxhlet thimble apparatus containing the nitrostyrene, thus effectively adding a warm saturated ether solution of it to the hydride mixture. The addition took 2 h. Refluxing was maintained for 5 h, and then the reaction mixture was cooled to 0 °C with an external ice bath. The excess hydride was destroyed by the cautious addition of 300 mL of 1.5 N H2SO4. When the aqueous and Et2O layers were finally clear, they were separated, and 100 g of potassium sodium tartrate was dissolved in the aqueous fraction. Aqueous NaOH was then added until the pH was >9, and this was then extracted with 3×100 mL CH2Cl2. Evaporation of the solvent from the pooled extracts produced an almost white oil that was dissolved in 100 mL anhydrous Et2O and saturated with anhydrous HCl gas. There was deposited a white crystalline solid of 2,5-dimethoxy-4-ethoxyamphetamine hydrochloride (MEM) which weighed 3.1 g and had a mp of 171–172.5 °C. Anal. (C13H22ClNO3) C,H,N.
DOSAGE: 20–50 mg.
DURATION: 10–14 h.
QUALITATIVE COMMENTS: (with 20 mg) “I experienced some physical discomfort, but doesn’t that tell us about the work to be done, rather than the property of the material? The breakthrough I had was the following day (and this seems to be the way MEM operates, i.e., first the energy and expansion, next day insight) was of the highest value and importance for me. I was given a methodology for dealing with my shadow parts. No small gift. And I did it all alone and the results were immediate. I am so grateful.”
(with 20 mg, at 1.5 h following 120 mg
(with 25 mg, at 2 h following 120 mg
(with 30 mg) “I was aware of this in thirty minutes and it slowly developed from there to an almost +++ in the following hour. There were visual phenomena, with some color enhancement and especially a considerable enhancement of brights and darks. The first signs of decline were at about six hours, but there was something still working there after another six hours had passed. A slow decline, certainly.”
(with 50 mg) “I came into the experience knowing that yesterday had been a very fatiguing and tense day. I felt this material within the first ten minutes which is the fastest that I have ever felt anything. The ascent was rapid and for the first hour I tended to an inward fantasying with a distinct sensual tinge. There was a persistent queasiness that never left me, and it contrasted oddly with a good feeling of outward articulation and lucidity which succeeded in coming to the fore after the introverted first hour. Sleep was difficult, but the next day was calm and clear.”
(with 50 mg) “Lots of energy, best directed into activity. Clear imaging, thinking. Intense yet serene. Good feeling of pleasantness and some euphoria. I felt the need to keep moving. Hard to stay still.”
(with 70 mg, in two parts) “The effects of the 40 milligrams were muted by another drug experiment yesterday morning, and I never got much over a plus 1. There is an erotic nature, tactile sensitivity perhaps not as delicate as with
EXTENSIONS AND COMMENTARY: MEM was both a valuable and dramatic compound, as well as a drug that played a watershed role. The completion of all the possible trimethoxyamphetamines (the TMA’s) showed that only two of them combined the values of dependability of positive psychedelic effects with a reasonably high potency. Both
Why put such emphasis on potency, I am frequently asked? Why should it matter how much of a compound you take, as long as the effective level is much lower than its toxic level? Well, in a sense, that is the very reason. There are no guides as to what the toxic levels of any of these many compounds might really be in man. There is simply no way of determining this. Only a few have been explored in animals in the pursuit of an LD50 level. Most of them are similar to one-another, in that they are, in mice, of relatively low toxicity and, in rat, of relatively high toxicity. But this toxicity appears not to be related to potency in man. So, if one might extrapolate that they are of more or less the same risk to man (from the toxic point of view) then the lower the dosage, the greater the safety. Maybe. In the absence of anything factual, it makes a reasonable operating hypothesis.
Many of the reports of MEM effects have been with experiments in which an effective dose of
1 November 2018 · · Isomer Design
About PiHKAL · info
This version of Book II of PiHKAL is based on the Erowid online version, originally transcribed by Simson Garfinkle and converted into HTML by Lamont Granquist. I drew also on “Tyrone Slothrop’s” (Unfinished) Review of PIHKAL to enumerate the many analogues mentioned in PiHKAL but not described at length. Many, many others have since been added.
I have tried here to expunge any artifacts introduced by the earlier transcriptions and restore the typographic niceties found in the printed edition. I’ve also made minor changes to some chemical names in line with current nomenclature practice. Typically the change is little more than expanding a prefix or setting it in italics. The history page has further details.
“At the present time, restrictive laws are in force in the United States and it is very difficult for researchers to abide by the regulations which govern efforts to obtain legal approval to do work with these compounds in human beings.“No one who is lacking legal authorization should attempt the synthesis of any of the compounds described in these files, with the intent to give them to man. To do so is to risk legal action which might lead to the tragic ruination of a life. It should also be noted that any person anywhere who experiments on himself, or on another human being, with any of the drugs described herein, without being familiar with that drug’s action and aware of the physical and/or mental disturbance or harm it might cause, is acting irresponsibly and immorally, whether or not he is doing so within the bounds of the law.”
The copyright for Book I of PiHKAL has been reserved in all forms and it may not be distributed. Book II of PiHKAL may be distributed for non-commercial reproduction provided that the introductory information, copyright notice, cautionary notice and ordering information remain attached.
PiHKAL is the extraordinary record of the authors’ years exploring the chemistry and transformational power of phenethylamines. This book belongs in the library of anyone seeking a rational, enlightened and candid perspective on psychedelic drugs.
Though Sasha and Ann have put Book II of PiHKAL in the public domain, available to anyone, I strongly encourage you to buy a copy. We owe them — and there’s still nothing quite like holding a real book in your hands.
PiHKAL (ISBN 0-9630096-0-5) is available for US$24.50 (plus $10 domestic first-class shipping) from Transform Press.Transform Press,
Berkeley, CA 94701
510 · 934 · 4930 (voice)
510 · 934 · 5999 (fax)