Hello folks. I was fascinated to read in older threads the discussion (sometimes heated) re: the extraction of psilocybin from mushroom mass. The feeling I get, from reading thru all of the posts chronologically, is that the crystals that form in ethanol after extracting from plant matter, are in fact NOT crystallized psilocybin (or psilocin), as even Shulgin himself had suggested. But, in defense of Sasha, he was only postulating an answer to a question written to him in a letter, so one can forgive him!

But to the point, I located a paper from the Feb, 1985 Jour. of Forensic Sciences. The point of this extraction was for LEO's to have solid material that would they could then more easily ID, and then ruin someone's day, and possibly life, once they got a positive result for psilocin presence (ugly, yes, but so many great papers are published by folks working with LEO's, against whom, btw, I have nothing collectively, if they are respectable human beings.) Sasha after all had many friends among LEO's, who have a job to do, too. Here is the entire paper:

https://www.researchgate...Hallucinogenic_Mushrooms

It was free to download so I assume I am not violating any copyright laws. If so, Nexus folks, I truly apologize and hope you pull this ASAP. My respect for your project runs deep, and I would HATE to jeopardize what you do. It is truly amazing and thanks!

I was hoping to hear from some of you chemistry genii your thoughts on this tek. I'm especially curious about a substitute for chloroform, (or not 'substitute,' but another solvent with similar properties), for one thing; and I'm curious about the ratio in which it is used with heptane. Is this exact ratio that important?--especially as we are talking about the re-crys step. BUT, it could be integral to getting a solid, free flowing powder as a result, hence my inquiry. I simply do not know! I have always been given to understand that a solid, free-flowing powder result to a mushroom extraction is quite rare if not impossible (in any kitchen-chemist, simple-sort-of-way, which is the level that interests me, sociologically), so this really caught my attention, just for curiosity's sake.

Another thing that is over my head, at least as worded, is the direction to dry the ether 'over sodium sulfate.' Is this necessary chemically, does anyone know, in order to obtain the results that this tek postulates? There's more afterward about 'evaporat[ing] under nitrogen with no applied heat.' I have no idea what this means. I was thinking, since this step occurs, conceivably, after a crude extract has already been formed, that these were steps perhaps more aesthetic and perfection-oriented, than strictly necessary. And BTW, I will not be trying this. My curiosity is simply for its own sake, and to increase (and test) my understanding of all this amazing stuff. So any help in the form of answers is respectfully and gratefully appreciated.

I was pretty psyched to find this paper, and surprised, not having seen it hashed out on the Nexus before. BUT... that doesn't mean it hasn't been covered exhaustively (as so many things here have been over the years, much to the credit of this forum), and that I just didn't look hard enough. If so, Nexians, deepest apologies.

Hope all of you folks out there are as well as can be, and keeping a positive mental attitude in the face of, well, everything haha!! Thanks again, folks...

It was probably chosen to optimize the solubility for the crystallization process. If the solute (dissolved stuff) were too easily soluble in the solvent it would make crystallization difficult. Likewise, were the solute not soluble enough it would entail the use of impracticably large volumes of solvent in order to obtain a meaningful yield.

As for an alternative to chloroform [and heptane] - well, someone wrote this paper:
Alternative solvents for improving the greenness of normal phase liquid chromatography of lipid classes
but it doesn't cover the same use case and the accessibility of the alternatives is fairly poor. You could use DCM instead of chloroform but the toxicity is not that much less.

- this largely means the drying agent they had available was sodium sulfate. It also means the ether did not need to be perfectly dry, nor did they particularly care (or have to care) about the presence of peroxides.

- this phrase refers to the removal of the solvent in sealed apparatus where the atmosphere has been replaced by nitrogen, probably under reduced pressure and very likely using a wonderful device called a rotary evaporator, a.k.a. rotavapor/rotavape. This was done because sticking the solution in an open beaker over a bunsen burner would produce catastrophe rather than crystals. Aesthetics would be the least of their worries, considering this is forensic chemistry. They want an assured, repeatable, quantifiable product for court purposes.

The home extractor might find this superfluous, not to mention difficult without the requisite equipment but as a hobbyist the aesthetics have a rightful place amongst the various motivations. "Cleanliness is next to god(head)liness", after all...

Thank you very much! All good to know. I can't believe how amazing-and simultaneously frightening-the Information Age can be. This site is pure Harm Reduction, and that much more important because of the uglier side of the Info Age, namely bad info, co-opted by profit! What a tool we have here, for free. Anyway I especially appreciate the link; also the suggestion re: DCM, which I had been considering. Your advice is Harm Reduction, and respectfully received. Thank you