P88 vs. P93 - Rough synthesis vs. “perfect” (or what chemists call “standard” synthesis)
I think we’ve blind tested the two long enough to reveal this.
While the bulk of the chemicals in our P line are absolutely unique structures, sometimes we do have two different synthesis paths of what should technically be “the same” molecule.
In this case, P93 and P88 have a very unique relationship. P93 is the absolute laboratory standard, meticulously synthesized in small batches with TLC at every synthesis step, and then further purified. P88 is more of a commercial style luck-of-the-draw (hard or impossible to repeat) rapid style synthesis.
The numbers may seem a bit backward (you might think the more pure version would appear before the less), but P93/P88 was a structure we wanted to try for a long time. It was a pure oddball of timing that the more pure version became available soon after the less pure.
What you can clearly see is that the two different synthesis processes lead to two different results. P88 displays some effects P88 that P93 doesn’t (and vice versa) and probably are to at least one of two reasons:
First, the “actives” in the impurities, byproducts and intermediates are found in a rough synthesis, are “purified out of” a highly purified, standard version.
Useful actives in “impurities” have been observed in areas other than pheromone chemicals. For example, studies have found some chemicals used in insect sprays aren’t as active as the impurities. In fact, the impurities were more active and more useful in many ways than the “supposed” active. That is to say, one of the more useful actives in that industry was “hidden” like a stow-away in the impurities generated by a commercial process that created one of the popular insect related chemicals. I can’t remember the exact figure, but I believe it took decades to notice and figure out.
Second, some effects might be attributed to the larger amount of desired active in P93 vs. P88, as well as less unknown impurities that could theoretically counteract some of the primary actives effect.
This again, is seen in other areas. For example, “dirty” “vitamin C” made in some of the worse Chinese labs actually contains impurities that have much the opposite effect of clean synthesis of vitamin C. That’s why a few of the more cognizant nutrient makers like life-enhancement.com and lef.org use highly pure vitamin C from one of the most competent vitamin synthesis labs, Hoffman-LaRoche. Hoffmann?La Roche - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It’s even present in the perfume industry. Sometimes “the same” chemical with reportedly similar levels of impurities is available from Givaudan, IFF and Symrise, yet they all SMELL different. All versions may have the same core structure, but details matter. Different processes make for different results.
The active:impurity ratios may explain why, as one example, some of Steve’s mixes that that use P93 contain so little. He and many others see markedly different effects at ultra low quantities of P93 (3mcg) vs. what most of us would consider “normal” (10mcg +) or high (50mcg +).
I don’t think most information about chemicals impurities and how they affect outcomes ever reaches the public. Many industries don’t even stop to think about them at all, although they are discussed to a degree in the pharmaceutical realm where they use concepts such as API.
Sometimes these concepts and the realities they describe seem to change usefulness of certain pheromone compounds as much as they change the effectiveness of vitamin formulas, OTC and prescription drugs, to colorants used in pants (which BASF experienced problems with).
After years of observing the differences in my own industry, I’d say it matters more where the pheromonal relationship is “fragile”, as it is with many of the more social compounds.
While you can say that higher purity is always necessary for research, where repeatability is king, I don’t think you can say that about truly commercial style synthesis. Where the effects of the molecule are supposed to be rough, for example, a slightly dirtier (but not too dirty like a kitchen sink synthesis) synthesis can sometimes be viewed as positive for some applications.
Old internal split tests we did with highly pure vs. “commercial batch” style androstenone, for example, we sometimes preferred the less pure anone to help deliver what people viewed as “the anone effect”.
Not so w/ something like anol, where higher purity often meant more of a valuable result. Impurities in cases like that are like “static” on your radio. You might want static and harshness with anone (which is like hard rock or “industrial”), but usually you don’t with something like anol (a symphony).
It’s just the matter of using the right chemical for the job. Of course, since we’re more focused on recipes and repeatability here, the purest chemicals are really the most appropriate.
I am preparing a public split test where you can try a standard anol vs. a rougher synthesis. Maybe I can do this with anone, too. I just need to source the rougher chemicals.
In the meantime, feel free to compare and contrast P88 vs. P93 here.
Jas
PS – Another major difference you should remember, of course, is that we can always make more P93 reliably (since it’s “the standard”) whereas a new batch of P88 will almost definitely be different. Even when a commercial process does something useful, it’s never as reliable as a more academic process. In the long term, it’s best to figure out what the useful impurities in a commercial synthesis are.
Extensive lab analysis is lengthy, and expensive (often more than our current budget allows, which is another reason we like to stick to standards whenever possible), but it’s ultimately more reliable than exclusively depending on “luck of the draw” when it comes to commercial bulk style synthesis.