Talk:Γ-Butyrolactone

Untitled

I would question the research into whether it causes tooth decay. I did some searching on Google and found nothing about Tooth Decay and this substance. Perhaps ROS could source this information? Otherwise I will change it back.

Increased lactamase

"once someone has taken GBL a few times, the production of lactamase enzymes is increased" any reference? thanks ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.133.78 (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Upon investigation, it seems that humans do not possess any sort of lactamase enzyme, however, there are enzymes discussed that act as lactonases. It seems that the section about lactamases, while providing some helpful information - which could prevent overdose, as it encourages people not to up their doses right away if they are not feeling the desired effects - is incorrect. Anecdotal evidence that I have come across does indicate that lack of enzymes does result in doses initially feeling weaker, however if this is the case then lactamases are not responsible (as these break down cyclic amides, something which GBL is not) and one would expect that some sort of lactonase (which break down cyclic esters, something which GBL is) is responsible. After a quick google search it seems that a lot of misinformation has been spread around the internet, a lot of websites seem to have copied information from each other, probably stemming from an original typo. However, there are a few websites that seem to state that lactonases are responsible, which would make a lot more sense, GHB Precursor information. I think this section should be re-written and the article that I have just linked (or others) could be used as a reference. As of now I have just replaced the word lactamase with lactonase.

The metabolic pathway image also mentions the lactamase enzyme. It should be possible to change in mspaint or similar software. Anareon (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Perfect analysis :-) thank you! --87.198.133.78 (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You're correct it is indeed the lactonase enzyme found in the blood which metabolises GBL. I too have seen in two people using for the first time the effects of a deficiency, which, with low doses appears to actually cause a headache, and a strange semi-conscious state which is very distinct from a normal GHB coma. After these occasions the people were able to use normally. Anareon (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes to the chemistry section

I removed some material for which I could not find references and added more specific information concerning the synthesis of GBL via bromine oxidation of THF. There is still much unreferenced information in this article. I haven't the time to clean it up at the moment, but I will hopefully get back to it in the future. Dextux 02:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Solubility/Miscibility in/with water

Article states, that GBL is "moderatly soluble" in water; this is not true. It is, under wide range of temperature (at least 0 - 100°C) fully miscible with water, that is, it forms homogenous mixtures (solutions) with water in all possible ratios from 0.000000...1 to 99.99...9/100.--84.163.118.88 01:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed that. Still not very happy with the first sentence though, especially the "oily" liquid part. Actually the whole article kind of sucks, I might just rewrite it. :/ number29 02:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Innards

If ingested undiluted through the oral route, GBL can irritate innards.

Could we substitute a more precise definition for the unscientific "innards"? Presumably it irritates the esophagus and maybe the stomach. I don't want to change it myself though, as I'm not sure of the irritant mechanism.

Another minor issue: "ingested ... through the oral route" can be replaced by the simpler "swallowed" without any loss of meaning. Royhills 17:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

I'm moving this from the article to here:

" Question: Would the the faster onset, cause more GHB to be produced in the body than expected? The consequence being higher levels of GHB in the body than expected, upon a re-introduction of the process. Suggestion: GHB should be limited as a function of time, by taking smaller amounts of GBL through out the process. Maintaining the normal amount of GHB, naturally found in the body, which can not be detected by screens. "

Weird.Miserlou (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction regarding the duration of action

...GBL tends to be more potent and faster-acting than GHB, but has a shorter duration...GBL is longer acting and has a shorter onset than GHB.

Which one is it? --René van Buuren (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected it and also added the bioavailability/absorption (again). There's a redundancy but the section is more complete on its own. --Semilanceata 03:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Image wrong

The photo used to show jugs of GBL is incorrect. GBL must be stored in HDPE containers (usually an opaque white plastic) which these are obviously not and likely only contain dH2O for the purposes of the GBL>NaGHB synthesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.125.221 (talk) 08:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If you click on the image and follow the link to the DEA website that the image comes from, it says "Analysis of the liquid contents of the jugs ... indicated a mixture of GHB and GBL (not quantitated)". If pure GBL will dissolve this type of container, it is likely that they simply contain a solution of GHB/GBL in water, which will have significantly different chemical properties than pure GBL. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Milk jugs are made from HDPE, and non HDPE bottles can be used, they take several weeks to fully degrade, but show weakness and discolouration after about one to two weeks. Anareon (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

>>>it is interesting to read that the compound will damage and dissolve plastic containers, yet, this property is NOT mentioned in the article, why is that? The article really should focus less on recreational uses and more on the basic properties.

Dose

I just changed the equivalent dose of GBL to GHB in vivo to 1,4 (1,36g to be exact). The 1,6 figure is flawed because it assumes that GBL is base hydrolyzed in vivo (1,13g /ml 86,09 g/mol * 126,09 g/mol) Yet the enzymatic hydrolysis relies und aqueous hydrolysis thus the molweight is only 112,09 g/mol resulting in a factor of 1,36. It's already been explained in the pharmakodynamics section yet 1ml GBL is by far stronger than the equivalent dossage of NaGHB. Eremotherium (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Gamma butyrolactone has acted as a substitute for opiates

Below are two case studies reported by patients receiving a daily methadone maintenance prescription, supervised consumption. This means that they collect their methadone daily from the chemist, they consume it on the chemist's premises except from Sunday's dosage collected on Saturday (supervised consumption, and the purpose of the prescription is to maintain the patient on a consistent opiate dose, not to reduce and/or stop. They are also gamma-butyrolactone users, although the connection between methadone and GBL has not been made by medical staff, just reported to one of the doctors seeing the patients.

Case 1: Patient on 60 millilitres of methadone solution (60mg of methadone) reported reducing his dosage to 5 millilitres of methadone solution within three weeks, having used gbl daily and after the three weeks.

Case 2: Patient on 70 millilitres of methadone solution reported missing her chemist on Saturday thus spending Saturday and Sunday with neither methadone nor any opiates at all. She took Friday's methadone dosage at 2pm Friday, and the next methadone dosage on Monday, 10am, 68 hours between doses. Methadone lasts in the body for 36 hours, but, using GBL three to four times a day at equal intervals on Saturday, Sunday and Monday morning, she reported no opiate related withdrawals at all. She compared subsituting GBL for methadone with having in the past missed her methadone with nothing else available,and she reported having had to procur quantities of diamorphine to make up for the methadone.

It is not suggested that patients on methadone turn to GBL since to wholly substitute the latter for the former could mean a GBL dependency instead, and this is one dependency that cannot be treated by medical prescription. It is rather recommmended that some research is done, to find out how the mechanism works, if significant in large groups, since the results might be helpful for heroin dependency. Obviously GBL cannot be used in human subject research, but I am not going to take up this article with research recommendations. Akaemi73 (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gamma-Butyrolactone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100726165005/http://www.psychoactive.org.uk:80/GHB/addiction.htm to http://www.psychoactive.org.uk/GHB/addiction.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Sendmyer reaction gaba to gbl unproven please provide citation

The sandmyer reaction of gaba to gbl has been disproved not to actually occur and additonal evidence will be needed.

Rhodium is not a good refrence. And even the 2 citations it has. One is a deadlink to their own server on a gaba2gbl pdf file which has been removed and probably made by same author aka not a good refrence at all. The second citation is completly misleading as it refers to a DEA safety page that has zero information on it regarding the gaba to gbl process

The ammonia /nh3 group of Gaba is a secondary amine. The sendmyer reaction can only form diazonium complexes with primary amines. And thus this reaction is impossable

Gaba however can cyclize to a 2pyrolidine lactam type molecule however it still contains the amine. Their is absolutely zero acknowlege industrial and factually patented way to also cleave the NH from a lactam to a lactone if it was possable all industrial processes from thr last hundred years would not be going the butendiol or tetrahydrofuran route

This reaction does not work from other sites and groups were we have previously discussed this in depth although we are open to discussion

I just dont think the rhodium citation is good enough. And even rhodiuma citations are very poor. That tiny sentence in my opinion should be removed. Factual up to date citations used or a question mark after the citation that leads to this discussion if possable

I can be reached at josepherickson135@gmail.com or here. Love you wiki and thankyou Joey345777 (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

You are mistaken, GABA is very clearly a primary amine. Testem (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Solvent properties, flammability and toxicity as a solvent?

I would expect to find ANY data on its solvent properties as a paint stripper, what is the volatility and danger on skin contact on use... Seriously, for a substance marketed as a paint stripper and spray removal, the article doesn't even mention it? Why? Acrylate sprays can be removed by acetone, but the volatility is high. Oil-based sprays are worse. In the old days, toxic fluorinated and clorinated solvents were used, these are out for me, won't consider those. So, what is the toxicity and use of this paint stripper? What is the vapor pressure, how quickly does it evaporate? How fast does it absorb trough the skin, what is the safety for the workers? Inhalation hazards? I believe the tone of the article is misguided, omitting the basic properties and focusing on the special uses and abuses.