• N&PD Moderators: Skorpio | someguyontheinternet

How harmful is Fluorine in RC's?

Rantanplan

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 13, 2017
Messages
53
Hello there,

I avoid RC's, which contains Fluorine as a chemical compound - because Fluorine is harmful to the human body.

Is this believing in general correct?
What is your opinion about this?
 
It's not possible to predict safety based on the presence or absence of fluorine in the drug. Certain fluorinated analogues might be more dangerous, others might be safer. It just depends
 
I gotta ask, what is RC? In all my years I"ve never heard that term. Maybe I'm just missing something???
 
It's not possible to predict safety based on the presence or absence of fluorine in the drug. Certain fluorinated analogues might be more dangerous, others might be safer. It just depends
But can you say as a basic rule, that they are mostly harmful than not?

I gotta ask, what is RC? In all my years I"ve never heard that term. Maybe I'm just missing something???
Research Chemical
 
Do you mean a flourine atom as part of the molecule or fluorine ion as a contaminant?


if you are referring to drugs such as 4FA, which have a flourine atom as part of the molecule, nothing about having fluorine makes it unsafe, there are tons of prescription pharmaceuticals which have fluorine atoms incorporated into the molecule
 
Someone want to link to the old thread someone posted specifically on this topic.... Better yet UTFSE
 
It's rare that fluorine in the molecule is metabolized into free F- Ions. I'd rather be concerned about other possibly toxic mechanisms. There not called RC's for fun
 
Well this is an interesting question that I will try to answer thoroughly. Fluorine, the diatomic molecule F2, is probably harmful and toxic for the body in sufficient quantities. However the context of this question is to do with fluorine attached to a molecule. All in all, a fluorine in a molecule is unlikely to be toxic in general. I will discuss specific cases, namely where the fluorine alters the pharmacodynamics of the molecule which then renders it toxic in some way.

Point to consider:

C-F Bond Strength: The C-F bond is very strong, in fact the strongest by quite a bit of all the C-Halogen bonds. There are 3 reasons why this is so:

-C and F are in the same row of the periodic table, meaning their orbitals are of similar energy, thus overlap well to create a strong bond.
-F is the most electronegative element of the periodic table, and the difference in electronegativity between C and F is large, and the largest of all C-Halogen bonds, increasing the strength of the ionic component of the bond.
-F-, the fluoride ion, is a terrible leaving group; the small ionic radius of the fluoride ion means it is not able to delocalise the negative charge it gains very well.

As a result, F in an alkyl chain will rarely be displaced in a substitution reaction (with other halogens though, this is a possibility and needs to be discussed later), and F on an aromatic ring will rarely be displaced as well (aromatic rings do not in general undergo substitution reactions, but I will consider the exception below as well).

Thus F is sometimes thought of as similar to hydrogen, being small in size and relatively inert. The only difference is F can act as a hydrogen bond acceptor (HBA), allowing the molecule to form slightly different interactions with the protein it is interacting with. This sometimes is enough to completely change the molecule's binding profile, and we are going to look at amphetamine and 4-fluoroamphetamine as a case study.

What happens when you put a fluorine on amphetamine (in the para position on the ring)?

Amphetamine normally interacts with the dopamine transporter to release dopamine. When the molecule binds to DAT, its phenyl ring interacts with hydrophobic residues V120 annd F325 [1]. Once you put a fluorine in the para position of amphetamine, this not only reduces the binding interactions with DAT, but also greatly increases interaction with SERT (by accepting a hydrogen bond from Y176). Thus 4-FA now releases serotonin, is neurotoxic and has MDMA like effects.


When should I not take a fluorine compound?

We now know that in general fluorine compounds, whether on aromatic rings or alkyl chains, are unlikely to be metabolically toxic, we have discovered that fluorine can often change the pharmacodynamics of the drug, which could in turn render it more or less toxic. I will now quickly look at halogen compounds that ARE toxic.

First we consider the mustard gasses (eg sulfur mustard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_mustard). Here we have 2 chlorines rather than fluorines, much better leaving groups, and also we have the critical nitrogen atom, which can displace the chlorines to form a reactive aziridinium ion intermediate, which can be opened up by nucleophiles. If the nucleophile is DNA, this can eventually lead to cancer. Note that the nitrogen makes this compound way more toxic than it would be without it, by the process I have just described: anchimeric assistance.

Next, we consider aromatic rings where fluorine could be dangerous. Specifically, aromatic rings with electron withdrawing substituents ortho and para to the fluorine. This will promote a reaction called nucleophilic aromatic substitution, and if you are interested in this then you can read more about it in any organic chemistry text.




[1] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v521/n7552/abs/nature14431.html
 
Once you put a fluorine in the para position of amphetamine, this not only reduces the binding interactions with DAT, but also greatly increases interaction with SERT (by accepting a hydrogen bond from Y176). Thus 4-FA now releases serotonin, is neurotoxic and has MDMA like effects.
Can you please elaborate more on the topic of neurotoxicity? Does this mean the unsubstituted amphetamine is less neurotoxic, or even not neurotoxic at all?
 
AFAIK the level of neurotoxicity of 4-FA is not really considered all that significant? Unsubstituted amphetamine is supposed to be neurotoxic at certain levels or chronically but not just by definition.
Yes: the serotonergic activity and neurotoxicity of haloamphetamines seem to be connected yet you should be careful about the idea that this is necessarily so. Other serotonergic compounds don't get neurotoxic like that: this is an exception apparently. Compounds like 4-MA which seem less studied but have alarming effects show that you don't necessarily even need the electronegative halogens at that position to get nasty toxic serotonergic compounds.

Also I don't think that fluoride is a good enough leaving group for sulfur-mustard-like intramolecular reactions.

There are indeed exceptions involving fluoro but not simply because of it's isolated properties (considering toxicity or SAR by attempting to isolate a part of mechanisms tends to be a classic fallacy to begin with), for example if a molecule metabolizes into fluoroacetic acid, the F doesn't need to come off but indirectly still causes problems for being part of that fluoroacetic acid metabolite to be specific. It participates in the citric acid cycle that is supposed to provide you with energy but unlike the normal acetic acid that is a part of that, fluoroacetic acid blocks your enzymes in the process and messes it all up.

You cannot really generalize or demonize an element like that if it is actually not separate like say ionic aluminum, but part of organic molecules. It's good to want to stay away from possible or probable metabolites like fluoroacetic acid but pointless to avoid fluoroorganic compounds in general IMO. It's too bad you can't simplify the matter but that's the way it is.

FWIW a lot of aromatically bound fluoroorganic compounds seem fine, haloamphetamines can be more or less neurotoxic because of the specific (though as I said not exclusive) combination of the halogens and amphetamine structure and not because of any intrinsic properties of those parts (again: don't try to isolate, because pharmacological and toxicological properties are often a result of especially the combinations which by definition cannot be separated). I guess the idea behind me saying that aromatic fluoros tend to be fine is that those will often simply not metabolize into things that happen to be toxic like fluoroacetic acid.
But there will be exceptions.

The scare about halocathinones was IMO a matter of 'better safe than sorry' to avoid analogues of haloamphetamines. It might be true that those cathinones no longer follow the same pattern of neurotoxicity but it just never seemed worth it to tempt fate when you can go with other avenues.
 
Pure serotonin releasers in general are not neurotoxic, whereas compounds which release both serotonin and dopamine are neurotoxic (suggesting that dopamine entering serotonergic neurons and then causing oxidative damage is the culprit). Nichols showed that a pure 5HT releaser (MDAI I think, or maybe 5-IAI) can become neurotoxic combined with a dopamine releaser.
 
Elemental fluorine (difluorine) is bad for the human body, covalently bonded fluorines not so. Fluoride salts aren't even that bad either.

Also 4-FA is way less toxic than, say, 4-chloroamphetamine or the higher halogens. Fluorine is so much smaller and acts more like a hydrogen atom than a halogen usually...
 
And yes AFAIK there weren't any fluorine based mustard gasses for the reason you mention.
 
Elemental fluorine (difluorine) is bad for the human body, covalently bonded fluorines not so. Fluoride salts aren't even that bad either.

Also 4-FA is way less toxic than, say, 4-chloroamphetamine or the higher halogens. Fluorine is so much smaller and acts more like a hydrogen atom than a halogen usually...

True, but to be fair: 4-FA is markedly different from plain amphetamine so it's not *that* hydrogen-like as the pharmacology clearly suggests. Still, the main point is that it doesn't really behave like the other halogens but indeed like an exception. It may provide some positives without some negatives.

Similarly, I think terminal chloro's are a no no but I don't think terminal aliphatic fluoro's are... right? Because of potential for epoxide formation and consequent mutagenic toxicity from that metabolite?
 
Top