The compound, N-propionitrile chlorphine, also known as cychlorphine, has been identified in forensic laboratories in Tennessee and Ohio, detected in community drug-checking programs in Toronto and confirmed through advanced laboratory analysis in France and Germany. Authorities in the United Kingdom have linked it to fatal overdose investigations in London.
In Tennessee, the Knox County Regional Forensic Center has reported 19 overdose deaths under investigation involving cychlorphine, with 12 confirmed and seven pending laboratory confirmation. The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation crime laboratory reported 11 seized drug submissions testing positive for the compound in 2025 and nine additional submissions in the first 30 days of this year. And in Ohio, the Bureau of Criminal Investigation has identified cychlorphine in seized materials alongside other high-potency synthetic opioids.
Forensic officials in Tennessee have described cychlorphine as approximately 10 times more potent than fentanyl. In at least one confirmed fatal case, it was the only drug identified, measured at approximately 0.5 nanograms in femoral blood. A nanogram is one-billionth of a gram.
Yet the broader policy question is not limited to the drug’s potency. It is how states and local governments detect newly engineered compounds in the first place — or lack that capacity.
Most public overdose dashboards rely on death-certificate data coded using federal ICD-10 classifications. Those codes often group synthetic opioids into broad categories. While medical examiners may identify specific substances in narrative cause-of-death text, those details are not always reflected in public-facing classifications.
Identification of emerging synthetic opioids depends heavily on toxicology screening panel design and laboratory capability. Routine panels detect what they are designed to detect. If a newly engineered compound is not included in standard screening methods, it may not appear in official data unless expanded or targeted testing is performed.
Laboratory capacity varies by jurisdiction. In Tennessee, the regional forensic center serving Knox County routinely submits femoral blood samples for expanded commercial toxicology analysis and research-level confirmation. By contrast, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation crime laboratories do not routinely screen for cychlorphine in blood toxicology panels, though targeted testing can be requested.
In Arizona, the Department of Public Safety crime laboratory recently announced that it had purchased a testing standard for cychlorphine and will begin validation procedures to detect the drug in toxicology samples submitted primarily in support of DUI investigations. Overdose-death investigations in Arizona are conducted at the county level, and expanded testing depends on the toxicology panels ordered by individual medical examiners.
These differences do not necessarily reflect policy failure. They reflect the structure and limitations of decentralized public health and forensic systems.
Internationally, similar analytical challenges have been documented. French researchers reported that routine screening initially produced unidentified peaks because cychlorphine was not present in existing spectral libraries. Confirmation required high-resolution mass spectrometry and nuclear magnetic resonance analysis. Germany placed the compound under its New Psychoactive Substances Act in late 2025.
Synthetic opioid markets evolve rapidly. Chemically modified analogues can enter circulation faster than laboratory panels and surveillance coding systems are updated. As a result, the visibility of an emerging compound may depend as much on analytical capability and interagency data integration as on actual prevalence.
For policymakers, the distinction matters. Absence of confirmed cases does not necessarily establish absence of exposure. It may reflect the limits of what current toxicology panels are configured to detect.
State and local overdose surveillance systems were built primarily to classify causes of death and monitor broad trends. They were not designed to rapidly identify newly engineered substances. Keeping up with new threats requires expanded toxicology screening and high-resolution analytical methods encompassing specialized equipment, validated standards and trained personnel. The challenge for policymakers is whether existing forensic infrastructure is funded and configured to detect dangerous new opioids in real time.
Whether cychlorphine proves to be short-lived or sustained remains uncertain. What is clearer is that as synthetic opioid chemistry evolves, public health infrastructure must adapt just as quickly. Detection is not only a matter of laboratory science. It is a matter of administrative design.
Brandon Burley, a retired police detective, is a criminal justice educator and host of the podcast series The Redemption Project.
Governing's opinion columns reflect the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Governing's editors or management.
Related Articles
