Contact Us
Chengguan District, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
© 2025 Jeifer Pharmaceutical, All Right
Reserved.
Few molecules have drawn as much attention among medicinal chemists in the past two decades as the complex derivatives of cyclopropanamines. The journey toward synthesizing (1R,2S)-2-(3,4-Difluorophenyl)Cyclopropanamine(2R)-Hydroxy(Phenyl)Ethanoate traces back to the explosion of interest in conformationally restricted neurotransmitter analogs in the late 1990s. Researchers realized adding difluoro substitutions to phenyl rings and co-opting cyclopropane scaffolds often yielded valuable selectivity for CNS targets. Initially, fluorinated cyclopropane amines turned up as metabolic intermediates, not as finished drugs. Over time, better stereocontrol and new catalysts brought these structures into pharma’s mainstream toolkit, giving rise to the high-grade pharmaceutical intermediates in use today. Access to scalable preparations opened the door for regulatory agencies like USP and European Pharmacopoeia (EP) to set strict quality standards, which laid the groundwork for GMP-compliant, globally accepted pharma-grade material.
Working with (1R,2S)-2-(3,4-Difluorophenyl)Cyclopropanamine(2R)-Hydroxy(Phenyl)Ethanoate at BP, EP, and USP grade means committing to uncompromising quality and documentation. Each batch must comply with pharmacopoeial guidelines for identity, purity, and stability. Pharma grade speaks to more than chemical composition—it covers manufacturing environments, traceability, and absence of genotoxic impurities. Drug firms, generics labs, and biotech start-ups all rely on robust supply lines for these intermediates because the pathway from raw cyclopropane to a finished, FDA-approved therapy hinges on reproducible quality. Day-to-day, I have seen scientists lost in regulatory red tape simply because a single shipment failed to meet pharma grade specs.
This compound’s structure brings out remarkable stability and unique solubility characteristics. The cyclopropane group, married to a difluorophenyl substitution, confers rigidity and hinders metabolic breakdown, which increases shelf life and safety during formulation. Fluorine atoms, small but powerful, raise both hydrophobicity and lipophilicity. These tweaks allow efficient blood-brain barrier passage and slow clearance rates in vivo. A dense, white to off-white powder, this molecule displays a melting point calibrated for easy handling on the factory floor. Spectroscopically, a combination of 1H NMR, 13C NMR, and HPLC methods validate stereopurity and batch-to-batch consistency. Handling challenges often arise from the compound’s moderate moisture sensitivity—desiccators and inert-atmosphere storage become non-negotiable, avoiding the kind of degradation that can tank downstream syntheses.
No batch heads to market without comprehensive documentation. A legitimate pharma-grade sample labels every vial with batch number, production date, shelf life, and storage instructions. Specifications rigorously track assay content by HPLC (usually above 98.0%), enantiomeric excess, single and total impurities, residual solvents, pH, and microbiological status. I’ve seen audits grind to a halt over unlabeled vials or missing chain-of-custody records—details matter. GMP facilities equip themselves with validated methods for stability testing through the entire supply chain, ensuring that by the time the compound reaches an R&D department or clinical production line, it remains pure, active, and traceable.
Crafting this intermediate requires several tightly orchestrated steps. Stereoselective cyclopropanation starts the process, often using chiral auxiliaries or transition metal catalysts—rhodium, copper, or palladium—paired with precise temperature and solvent control. Introducing difluorophenyl groups at an early stage avoids late-game purification nightmares, since fewer side products complicate the synthesis. Protecting group strategies shield the primary amine while esterification joins the hydroxy(phenyl)ethanoate segment in a controlled fashion. Robotics and flow chemistry methods now automate much of this, minimizing human error and meeting growing demand. Failure to monitor temperature spikes during cyclopropanation can yield toxic byproducts or lower diastereoselectivity—on the frontline, chemists check every chromatogram personally.
Few intermediates are quite as versatile. Reductive amination, acylation, or carbonylation reactions can install further functional groups, modifying bioactivity profiles for bespoke drug leads. The difluorophenyl motif welcomes halogen exchange or Suzuki coupling for later-stage diversification. Hydrolysis or transesterification adjusts solubility and bioavailability, matching the needs of different dosage forms. For clinical candidates, stable isotope labeling provides a way to track in vivo distribution through radiolabeling, giving pharmacologists a readout on how formulation changes impact real-world metabolism.
On any given procurement list, this compound carries several alternative labels. Researchers might know it as (2R)-Hydroxy(phenyl)ethyl (1R,2S)-2-(3,4-difluorophenyl)cyclopropanamine or simply refer to it by its code name in proprietary projects. Global supply databases ease confusion by cross-referencing synonyms, but I’ve witnessed costly delays from naming mismatches, where a different vendor’s internal catalog threw off project planning. Establishing clear internal SOPs for synonym use limits mix-ups across international teams.
GMP producers invest heavily in safety protocols. Gowning procedures, HEPA-filtered labs, and closed-system reactors all prevent cross-contamination. I’ve been on shop floors where minor spills, left unattended, quickly became hazardous. Proper use of MSDS, routine PPE training, and daily fume hood checks prevent avoidable accidents. Since cyclopropanamine intermediates may irritate skin and mucosa, regular employee health monitoring stays as important as EPA-compliant waste disposal. A single breach in documentation can put an entire plant under FDA scrutiny, risking not just production but hard-won trust in the company’s name.
Drug development teams value this intermediate for its solid track record in CNS-targeted small molecules. The cyclopropane ring, tough for body enzymes to cleave, extends therapeutic half-life and offers unique receptor profiles—especially as biotechs explore drugs for resistant depression, schizophrenia, and rare neurodegenerative disorders. Academic labs also work with this compound when designing PET imaging agents or exploring fluorinated pharmacophores for metabolic stability. Some start-ups now use it as a chemical linchpin for PROTACs, which hijack cell machinery to degrade disease-related proteins. Demand draws from so many fronts that even minor production outages leave research organizations scrambling.
Much of modern CNS research rides on the coattails of these intermediates. New stereoselective synthetic tools unlock richer SAR (structure-activity relationship) profiles, answering decades-old questions about bioisosteric replacement and receptor subtype selectivity. As a consultant, I often meet project leaders frustrated by the slow churn of clinical trial approvals—they know that scalable, well-characterized intermediates clear regulatory hurdles quicker and save millions in development costs. Many CROs now specialize in rapid, custom syntheses of this compound’s derivatives, giving drug sponsors faster proof-of-concept data and tighter IP protection. The ability to scale without sacrificing purity or reproducibility sends a clear message to investors and regulators alike: this project is built to last.
Toxicological scrutiny runs deeper for fluoroaromatic drugs than for many other small molecules. Animal studies test for acute oral, dermal, and inhalational toxicity, along with genotoxicity and chromosomal aberration. Preliminary studies show low acute toxicity, but chronic exposure at high doses will always raise questions about organ-specific effects or rare allergic responses. Regulatory authorities now demand full impurity profiling, since fluorinated metabolites could, in theory, disrupt thyroid or hepatic function. Years of pharmacovigilance have given most stakeholders peace of mind, but new labeling requirements and periodic re-evaluation keep risk management on its toes. Poorly controlled manufacturing—such as solvent contamination—can turn a safe batch into a recall nightmare, leading R&D departments to double down on analytical QA.
This compound’s story is only just beginning. Custom modifications offer a gateway to new CNS drugs, ultra-selective PET tracers, and next-generation antibiotics. As regulatory expectations sharpen, only suppliers who demonstrate record-keeping, environmental compliance, and transparent sourcing will meet the bar for pharma grade. Synthetic biology advances hint at precision manufacturing that could bypass traditional routes, bringing down costs and environmental impact. In the next decade, API manufacturers, research innovators, and regulatory strategists will see these fluorinated cyclopropanamines play a starring role in safer, smarter drug launches. Those who understand both the science and the chain of custody behind each lot will be best placed to deliver not only a product, but a lasting platform for discovery and better patient outcomes.
Quality in pharmaceuticals stands or falls on the purity and grade of its raw materials. Take (1R,2S)-2-(3,4-Difluorophenyl)Cyclopropanamine(2R)-Hydroxy(Phenyl)Ethanoate as an example. Think of this compound like flour in baking: get the quality wrong, and the whole recipe is in trouble. Three major standards dominate here—BP (British Pharmacopoeia), EP (European Pharmacopoeia), and USP (United States Pharmacopeia). Each carries exacting expectations, and if a supplier claims pharma grade, there are specific numbers and techniques involved.
In pharmaceutical work, purity calls for more than just a high number. With this molecule, pharma grade means a purity level at or above 99.0%, often tested using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Anything less and impurity peaks might sneak in—risks that can’t be tolerated in actual drug manufacturing. Infrared spectroscopy and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) often back up the results, ruling out deceptive contaminants. Residual solvents, toxic heavy metals, and microbial contamination also get checked, usually at parts-per-million or even parts-per-billion levels.
Despite coming from different regulatory backgrounds, BP, EP, and USP requirements align closely for substances that serve as active pharmaceutical ingredients. Each demands specific identification tests, sets strict impurity limits and insists on stability data. For this cyclopropanamine derivative, the grade specification forces suppliers to report comprehensive analytical data. The product’s melting point, specific optical rotation, and water content (by Karl Fischer titration) all come under review. Deviations lead to batch rejection; there is no tolerance for “close enough.”
Trace impurities can have outsized effects. Some byproducts might act as allergens, while others could affect the stability of the drug or create legal and safety headaches for innovators and generics alike. Regulatory agencies like the FDA became increasingly assertive over the past decade, recalling blood pressure drugs like valsartan and losartan after unapproved nitrosamine impurities emerged. This taught a hard lesson: comprehensive impurity profiling isn’t optional, and standards aren’t suggestions.
Any company claiming BP, EP, or USP grade has a duty to document traceability and maintain clear batch records. Certificate of analysis documents need signatures and original data; a simple printout won’t do. Responsible producers engage certified third-party laboratories for confirmation, ensuring that results are unbiased and reproducible. Transparent supply chains matter just as much as the technical chemistry.
Regular audits, full traceability, and rigorous analytical methods form the backbone of safe pharmaceutical sourcing. Experienced buyers request not only certificates but also recent stability data and impurity profiles. Technology like ultra-high performance chromatography, mass spectrometry and even DNA fingerprinting move suspicion out and bring reliability in. Partnerships with suppliers who invest in these tools matter more than price tags.
Quality doesn’t tolerate shortcuts in pharmaceuticals. For (1R,2S)-2-(3,4-Difluorophenyl)Cyclopropanamine(2R)-Hydroxy(Phenyl)Ethanoate, following BP, EP, or USP requirements is not just about meeting a benchmark; it safeguards everyone from chemist to patient. Technical vigilance keeps disastrous surprises out of the manufacturing line and ensures the next medicine on your shelf started out as pure as possible.
Storing chemicals isn’t only about following printed guidelines. From my time in the lab, I’ve seen firsthand how temperature swings turn a usable sample into a worthless mess. Many organic compounds, especially those with a bit of reactivity or moisture sensitivity, hold up far better below room temperature. A regular fridge does okay for some, but more delicate substances demand -20°C or even cryogenic storage. Each degree above those limits shortens shelf life, so relying on a maxed-out refrigerator or unpredictable climate doesn’t cut it.
It’s easy to overlook humidity as a slow enemy. Anyone who’s come back to a bottle crusted with caked powder knows the pain. If a compound can soak up water from the air, even short exposure during weighing or sampling can spark a chain of breakdown or clumping. Airtight containers actually matter. Desiccators seem old-fashioned, but they pull their weight for moisture hounds. Silica gel packs don’t cost much and can save an expensive compound from the trash bin.
Some compounds go from stable to useless just by sitting in daylight for a few weeks. Ultraviolet rays cause slow reactions that usually aren’t obvious until you need to run a critical test. Amber bottles, foil wrapping, or storage in a dark drawer aren’t just for show. Light protection gets skipped far too often. I’ve ruined photolabile reagents before and watched an important experiment fizzle because the compound turned yellow.
Not every bottle is equal. Solvents can chew through regular plastic, and volatile substances escape even “tight-sealing” caps. I’ve seen glass bottles etched by stored acids, and rubber stoppers shrunk by organic vapors. The right closure and bottle type can make or break storage—even if the label claims suitability. Using the manufacturer’s original packaging is a good idea unless there’s a reason to switch. Repurposing empty coffee jars or juice bottles has created too many disaster stories for anyone working with lab-grade chemicals.
Anyone who’s shared a chemical storeroom knows chaos. One person stores a flammable right next to a strong acid; another stacks incompatible reagents side by side. I’ve navigated cluttered shelves and found more than one bottle leaking onto cardboard. Keeping clear labeling, dedicated fridge or freezer sections, and updating a logbook or electronic database goes a long way. Mishaps often begin with small lapses of attention—putting something back “just for now.” A tidy, mapped-out space prevents most of these headaches.
A little common sense helps stretch a research grant or a production budget. Investing in temperature alarms, affordable desiccators, UV-blocking bottles, and a clear tracking system wins out over buying replacement stocks every season. Training everyone who handles chemicals, from interns to senior staff, keeps everyone responsible and safe. The core aim: keep your substances in working order so experiments, formulations, and analyses aren’t a gamble. That way, the focus stays on discovery, not damage control.
Every time you grab a supplement bottle or a packet of protein powder, there’s a lot of trust involved. Most people look at the label, maybe consider the brand, but not many ask, “Where’s the proof?” That proof sits in a certificate of analysis, or CoA, for each batch. Without it, everything else just boils down to marketing claims and hope.
Far too often, businesses buy huge batches of ingredients based on price or promise, not on test results. A CoA isn’t just a nice-to-have. It’s a must for anyone serious about selling safe, reliable products. The document proves that each batch has been tested for things that really matter — not just the right active ingredient, but also no harmful contaminants, heavy metals, or biological risks.
There’s a world of difference between a CoA provided for the first batch and one for every single batch. I’ve talked to suppliers who wave around a two-year-old CoA like it’s gospel. That’s no assurance. Crops change, sources change, even machines and staff on the line switch up. One contaminated batch can wreck a company’s reputation overnight, and worse, it can endanger lives. The food recalls and supplement scandals making headlines every year all point back to skipped steps and missing documents.
The FDA, Health Canada, and counterparts in Europe expect current and complete batch testing, not just random spot checks. In my work experience with manufacturers, audit day sends people scrambling whenever their paperwork doesn’t line up. A missing CoA for a single batch means the product can’t be sold, or worse, earns a recall and public warning letter. Nobody in the supply chain benefits from shortcuts. Once the news hits, the finger-pointing begins, but the damage gets done.
The rise of educated consumers has changed the landscape. People want ingredient transparency, sure, but actual proof ranks higher. Online forums are filled with folks asking for CoAs before buying new supplements or even pet food. They’re not being fussy; they’re just tired of being misled. Some brands understand this and offer digital copies right at the point of sale. That’s peace of mind for everyone.
Every buyer — whether a small business owner or a pharmaceutical giant — should require batch-specific CoAs as routine, not exception. Suppliers who push back with excuses should raise alarms. Auditing suppliers, confirming lab credentials, and demanding real-time test results don’t make you a difficult client; they make you a responsible one. These steps raise standards for the whole industry and weed out companies that cut corners.
Standing in any lab, you notice how quickly things can slip with missing oversight. Automated systems help, but it all comes back to human responsibility. A true culture of quality means never shipping anything out without the backing of actual data. Investing in frequent, third-party analytical testing isn’t a burden — it’s insurance. One overlooked batch has lasting consequences; keeping CoAs available and current keeps everyone out of the headlines for all the wrong reasons.
Customers see expiry or manufacturing dates printed on bottles and boxes everywhere—from vitamins to canned soup to paints. Plenty tend to treat these as loose suggestions, but there’s a lot more at stake than just a calendar countdown. Shelf life isn’t some marketing ploy cooked up by manufacturers hoping you’ll buy more. It’s grounded in decades of food science, chemistry, pharmacy standards, and real-world consumer safety concerns.
Shelf life comes from lots of hands-on testing. Labs track changes in taste, potency, safety, and physical appearance under different temperatures, humidity levels, and light conditions. They’re not just guessing or copying competitors. A vitamin bottle, for example, can lose over half its strength after a year on a warm shelf. Crackers may go stale and pick up odd smells. Cough syrup might change color or split into layers. These changes show that even a sealed product faces real risks over time.
Expired products sometimes look, smell, or taste the same, giving people a false sense of security. In medicine, taking a pill past its prime can mean less relief for headaches, fevers, or infections. That makes shelf life a health issue, not just a matter of habit. In food, spoilage isn’t always easy to detect, and old preservative strategies don’t always keep up. Toxins or bacteria sometimes grow long before anyone notices.
Ignoring shelf life can also cost money. Most paints, adhesives, and cleaning products lose their punch over the years. I’ve seen folks stretch a half-used can of paint for years, only to find the color’s off or the finish streaks and cracks at the first sign of humidity.
Clear labeling helps. A trustworthy product lists clear manufacture and expiry dates, directions for storage, and warnings about common spoilage signs. Regulators look for this, and so should you. I always suggest people dig goods from the back of shelves—not the front; that’s where stores might stick older stock. At home, keep products away from direct heat, damp basements, or drafty garages.
Some medicines and foods come with tamper-evident seals or color-changing labels. These aren’t just gimmicks. Some newer labels warn you if the temperature’s gone out of the safe zone, something especially useful for insulin or dairy. In my own kitchen, moving older cans and boxes to the front of the pantry keeps me from losing track—and wasting money on food that sits too long.
More brands share batch information online, letting you track down precise expiry info with a code. This helps during recalls and ensures products don’t linger past their best. Smart packaging, with QR codes and freshness sensors, may keep us all more aware. Community efforts like food banks also check donations for expiry, so nothing unsafe slips through.
Respecting shelf life helps people stay healthy, save money, and reduce waste. Most homes have at least one forgotten jar or bottle in the back of a cupboard. Give those expiration dates another look, and see them for what they really are—a simple way to guarantee safety and quality.
In the pharmaceutical world, new ingredients show up on a regular basis. Every time a supplier offers a so-called innovative product, decision-makers must figure out if it holds up to the scrutiny required for drug development. It’s more than a checkbox exercise. Human health depends on what goes into that pill or vial. No one wants shortcuts where safety, quality, or purity are concerned.
Pharmaceuticals go into the bodies of people who expect relief, not harm. This means everything included—excipients, active compounds, and even minor trace materials—must comply with strict standards. Regulatory bodies like the FDA or the European Medicines Agency have long lists of demands for every substance. Beyond that, real-world manufacturing brings its own headaches. Does the product mix cleanly with others? Is it stable under heat and humidity? Every formulation scientist has run into a promising ingredient that destabilized during tableting or after storage.
Before anything else, safety data speaks volumes. No serious drug developer skips toxicology reports or allergen screenings. Some compounds seem harmless at first but cause unexpected effects at scale or over time. Proven track records matter. I’ve seen projects delayed for months when animal and human safety data didn’t stand up to deeper analysis. It’s easier—and safer—to stick to substances with well-known, published safety profiles.
Pharmaceutical manufacturers expect suppliers to deliver consistency. No surprises, no unexplained impurities. Each batch must match the last. Impurities don’t just threaten safety—regulators treat them as potential red flags during approval. If a product’s test certificate shows variations batch-to-batch, expect headaches down the line. Analytical chemists spend weeks devising methods to hunt down these traces. In my own lab time, hunting elusive contaminants led to long nights and lots of coffee.
Making sure an ingredient stays available when needed means tracing its source. Natural disasters, trade spats, and even pandemics have shown how quickly supply lines can break. Early in the COVID era, drug production stopped for weeks because ingredients from across the globe couldn’t make it through customs. Supply chain transparency is now a non-negotiable. Responsible companies trace every raw material back to its source and keep multiple suppliers in the loop. Without this step, finished products might never reach patients.
Pharmaceutical teams lean on history when something new turns up. Ingredients with a record of success in approved drugs give everyone from regulators to manufacturers peace of mind. Pharmacopeias—like those published by the USP or the European Pharmacopoeia—serve as bibles of safe and tested components. Without pharmacopoeial recognition, uncertainty lingers. I’ve watched teams run through cycle after cycle of stability tests, only to stop short when regulators asked for proof that an untested compound worked safely in humans.
Problems with suitability often come down to gaps in evidence. Filling those gaps means building a complete portfolio: toxicology, analytic methods, and stability data. Transparency shines brightest here. I’ve seen promising ingredients make the jump to mainstream use by sharing every scrap of research with regulators and customers. Laboratories and companies that value open data help move the whole industry forward, setting better examples for everyone who follows.
As industries look ahead, only products that tick off these boxes on safety, supply, history, and trustworthiness will make it past the drawing board. This isn’t just bureaucracy—it’s how medicines turn from lab ideas into real help for people who need them most.
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std enthalpy of formation (ΔfH⦵298) | -461.2 kJ/mol |
Chengguan District, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
