Log in

View Full Version : Weaponization of Chemical Agents


MrSamosa
October 24th, 2002, 04:15 PM
While we've discussed, very generally of course, the syntheses of different chemical agents and potential means of dispersal (aerosol, explosive, water guns, etc.), we have not given MUCH consideration to weaponization (although there has been some discussion). Let's face it- many Chemical Agents, when used pure, are not as effective as they could be. Similarly, many toxic or aggressive chemicals that we do not consider to be useful as Chemical Weapons can be made to be so.

Take Sarin for example; it is acutely toxic, very volatile, and not particularly persistent (although it persists to some degree). Imagine how much better it would be if it were dissolved in something less volatile, thus giving it increased persistence. Or, perhaps you combine it with Phosgene Oxime or Lewisite to allow better penetration through the epidermis. The combinations are endless, and it all depends on what you want the chemical to do. This flexibility allows you to "customize" Chemical Weapons to be most effective in very specific situations.

I'm interested in some of your ideas on weaponizing various chemical agents. Any Aggressive chemical, do not limit yourselves to the orthodox military chemical weapons. Some ideas that I have come up with are:

Carbon Monoxide/Hydrogen Cyanide- This would be ideal for indoor gassing. It would probably consist mostly of CO, since it is more easily obtained than HCN. The purpose of the HCN would be to cause the targets to lose consciousness while the CO does the actual killing. A way to deploy this would be by adding H2SO4 to Formic Acid (HCOOH) and Potassium Cyanide (KCN). The H2SO4 will react with the KCN, liberating HCN, as well as dehydrate the HCOOH, liberating CO. My question is - how readily does HCOOH react with KCN?

G-Agent/Phosgene Oxime- The violent action of Phosgene Oxime against the skin would allow for better absorbtion of the nerve agent. Also, on skin contact, Phosgene Oxime tends to cause vomiting...thus requiring you to take off your gas mask, thus causing you to get a bad whiff of the G-Agent. Also, Phosgene Oxime likes to attack rubber, as is used on gas masks and chemical-protective gloves :D .

Thickened G-Agents- Provides lower volatily/greater persistency at target area.

Fluoroacetates dissolved in Nitrogen Mustard- Terror weapon, plain and simple. The Fluoroacetates cause the immediate killing while the survivors are covered in Blisters and have the risk of Cancer.

CNS Stimulant/CNS Depressant- While it seems the two would simply counteract each other, here is the idea behind it: the stimulant causes the immediate and more severe poisoning. As the victim is treated with the antidotal Atropine Sulfate, it magnifies the effects of the CNS Depressant, ideally causing an overdose of Atropine and stopping the heart and diaphragm.

Carbon Monoxide- I don't know how to describe this...but the idea was mentioned in War Gases with Iron Pentacarbonyl. It reacts with the Activated Carbon in the gas masks and releases Carbon Monoxide. However, it is incredibly unstable, decomposing by mere changes in light. Do you know of anything more stable that could be used for such purposes?

<small>[ December 29, 2002, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: MrSamosa ]</small>

Boob Raider
October 25th, 2002, 01:40 AM
The problem with using CO is that it is easily detected by smoke alarms. I don't think that HCOOH reacts with KCN or NaCN but if you want to be safe .... use oxalic acid to prepare CO but also CO2 is formed I think. Actually is there something called cyano phosgene, meaning (CN)2CO. Is it possible to prepare it by passing COCl2 through alcoholic KCN.
CO can also be stored in Ni(CO)4 being a colorless liquid that decomposes at 60*C, Cr(CO)6 being a white crystaline powder that is quite stable. Thats what I know off.

nbk2000
October 25th, 2002, 05:04 AM
KCN would react with formic ACID to release HCN. KCN will do so even just with the CO2 (carbonic acid) in the atmosphere.

zeocrash
October 25th, 2002, 01:16 PM
how about a thickened g agent, dispersed through a dry riser system in a building, this would provide a large amount of evapouration, during and just after it had been sprayed, but being thicker it would then sit on the floor and linger for a long period.
also another idea is to make quick dispersing chemical agents, that would clear the area of life, then disperse and allow you to enter the recently gassed area. this would be useful for armed roberies rather than terrorist attacks, but still

MrSamosa
October 25th, 2002, 08:18 PM
Interesting idea, zeo. While the stealthy, more deadly mass-gassings are ideal for terrorist acts, the quick non-persistent gassings seem better suited for the quick bank robbery. Gas, run in, get out. It's so simple- you can buy the poison gas precursors more easily than a handgun. And, the targets won't have time to react- they'll be unconscious too soon <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> . If they run, they breathe faster and take in more of the agent.

Potential chemical agents for such operations would include Hydrogen Cyanide or Diisopropyl Fluorophosphate. However, in another thread, it suggested that Chloroform may also be suitable. What about Nitrous Oxide, would its knock-out action be fast enough?

The molecule CO(CN)2 may seem possible, simply combine HCN and CO, right? Unfortunately, it won't work that way :( . You end up with Acetone Cyanohydrin, which looks something like this: CH3C(OH)(CN)CH3. However, this compound is not entirely useless. In fact, it is quite acutely toxic and seems simple enough to synthesize. On contact with water, it quickly dissociates to Acetone and Hydrogen Cyanide...so it would seem likely that it is still HCN that does the killing. Not much data has been found on its toxicity, save for a few fish killings. However, it seems as if it is a more practical weapon than Hydrogen Cyanide. Its LC50 is 126 ppm...reasonable, I suppose. Also, it is a lachrymator, if you are interested in making victims suffer. I will have to look more into this, and Cyanohydrins in general.

EDIT: Look at this page for a better explanation of the nucleophilic addition of Hydrogen Cyanide to aldehydes and ketones: <a href="http://www.chemguide.co.uk/mechanisms/nucadd/hcntt.html" target="_blank">http://www.chemguide.co.uk/mechanisms/nucadd/hcntt.html</a>

<small>[ October 25, 2002, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: MrSamosa ]</small>

Machiavelli
October 25th, 2002, 08:42 PM
Before we start confusing terms, I'd like to define weaponization.
Weaponization is a process that turns a substance or a mixture of substances into an agent, the transgression from a molecular structure to a weapon, from the laboratory to the battlefield.

This involves for instance:

-Stabilizing the substance to allow secure storage without a significant loss of potency.
Example: The distillation of mustard to remove impurities which cause its degradation.

-Adjusting the physical properties of the agent.
Examples: The use of gelators to increase the persistency of your substance for area denial, absorbing it on powdered silica for use as an airborne agent, mixing it with a low boiling solvent to produce a thin substance layer upon dispersal as a liquid to aid in vaporisation, using additives or solvents to lower the freezing point

-Adjusting the chemical properties of the agent.
Examples: Mixing with DMSO to improve penetration through the skin, (micro)encapsulation to protect the agent from air, sunlight and decontamination chemicals

-Specific anti-protection measures
Examples: HCN or PFIB have a tendency to saturate mask filters very quickly, so it can be used as so-called "mask breakers" together with another agent to increase its lethality, combining a normal agent with sharp abrasive crystals or metal pieces to weaken and penetrate protective clothing, covering your agent carrier with a water soluable layer to prevent detctors finding it imediately.

Since I really need my beauty sleep now, I'd just like to add one more thing, remember that weaponization is the practical side of chemwar. So it would be nice if we could stay practical, meaning eg no posts about the perfect agent being a green jelly that can climb stairs but instead suggesting how you could turn your agent into this and try to use references for your ideas. While the web is not very informative in this respect, I suspect that the patent databases might hold some treasures. And if you want to know if something works, you could test it yourself, using eg an organophosphate pesticide of low toxicity to mimic nerve agents.

Anyway,
Good night

MrSamosa
October 25th, 2002, 09:39 PM
I was reading War Gasses again tonight (ahh, my favorite book...Thanks to whoever uploaded it to the FTP!). I take back my previous post, that there is no CO(CN)2...there is. Oops :p . It says that it is made from Dinitrosoacetone, but gives little more information than that. This would effectively combine CO and HCN, since those are its hydrolysis products.

Anyhow, another agent that interested me was Dichloroethyl Ether. It is basically Mustard with Oxygen in place of the Sulfur. However, it is "...destitute of vesicant power," which can be attributed to, "...the fact that dichloroethyl ether, unlike dichloroethyl sulphide, cannot penetrate the epidermis." Well then, a seemingly easy solution to this problem would be to combine it with DMSO! Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Sulfur compounds used as Mustard Precursors tend to be the hardest ot obtain, no? So by eliminating the Sulfur altogether, it seems it would be easier to synthesize...

Machiavelli
October 26th, 2002, 03:40 AM
Mr.Samosa, you think you could maybe open up another thread for novel agents? I'm quite happy that you brought up the important issue of weaponization, but if it gets mixed up with other topics such as novel/unusual agents or dispersal mechanisms we may get one more useless chaotic thread and this would be a shame.

nbk2000
October 26th, 2002, 04:58 AM
That would be me you'd be thanking for War Gases. :)

As Mach said, weaponization is the process of taking an agent (that's you've already developed) and turning it into a weapon you can use.

This topic is storage and deployment.

You're veering off topic into developing the agent in the first place. We already have a thread for that. Post there.

Patent literature is riff with all kinds of goodies that can be used for CW. Look in the Literature and Links section under the Patents topic by me for plenty of "inspirational" material. :D

Also, there's plenty of reference material on CW on the net, but you have to have pretty good searching skills to find it since the stuff with the details isn't going to say "How to make Sarin in 10 easy steps" (though look for that article here soon <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ).

Rather, it'll be buried amongst United Nations Iraqi weapons inspections reports and other esoterica that isn't going to have any "buzzwords" you'd know to search for unless you've already read some of these reports and know what to look for.

Also, I'd not be surprised if a lot of material was pulled from the net after the 9/11 hysteria. A lot of material about explosives (for instance) was pulled from LANL's website shortly after that. Like terrorists are going to be interested in thermodynamic modeling of waveform effects. :rolleyes:

megalomania
October 28th, 2002, 03:38 PM
I liked that bit about chemical weapons interfering with the operation of chemical protective equipment, it got me to a thinkin. If one was to disperse a chemical weapons, when evil communists have taken over your country and you are a freedom fighter, it is likely the evil communists will be using the latest in protective equipment. For example Duponts line of Tychem suits. Dupont is kind enough to provide a complete list of breakthrough times for chemicals tested on their gear. They have even listed some chemicals that “terrorists” are likely to use. In the interests of maintaining democracy it is important to know what chemical will destroy their protective gear the fastest.

The data can be found at <a href="http://personalprotection.dupont.com/protectiveapparel/technicalinfo/chemwar.htm" target="_blank">http://personalprotection.dupont.com/protectiveapparel/technicalinfo/chemwar.htm</a> for chemical warfare agents and <a href="http://personalprotection.dupont.com/protectiveapparel/technicalinfo/tychem.htm" target="_blank">http://personalprotection.dupont.com/protectiveapparel/technicalinfo/tychem.htm</a> for general chemicals.

I think it is Tychem BR that they recommend for military operations. The big winner is 3-picoline with a breakthrough time of only 11 minutes. The next closest is ethyl acrylate with a breakthrough time of 14 minutes. They may opt to go for a lesser protective suit than the better quality Tychem BR, so lets see what other chemicals can eat through that thin layer of safety. Tychem QC will be gone in 15 minutes with o-nitrochlorobenzene, and quite possibly immediately with many other chemicals (if the abbreviation imm. mean immediate, it does not say). Tychem SL won’t last but 12 minutes with dimethylamine, 1,1-dimethylhydrazine, or acetonitrile, 14 minutes with ethylacetate, and 18 minutes with VM&P Naphtha (you can buy that at any hardware store). Tychem 7500 lasts a mere 14 minutes with acetonitrile, and it has an imm. for dichloromethane. Tychem 10000 seems a bit stronger, but it won’t last much against chlorine trifluoride, 14 minutes, or 15 minutes with silane. I gather Tychem TK is the op of the line, but against bromine it is goo in 15 minutes.

Ahh I found the key at <a href="http://personalprotection.dupont.com/protectiveapparel/technicalinfo/chemicaldatabase.html" target="_blank">http://personalprotection.dupont.com/protectiveapparel/technicalinfo/chemicaldatabas e.html</a> which says imm is immediate. There are then many chemicals which can eat through Tychem QC and SL brands. Bromine seems to be the worst culprit, quickly rendering military BR suits useless.

The mere existance of chemicals that react with protective clothing should be taken as fact that the suit will be eaten through. Workers will more likely get the chemicals on their gloves and boots, unless they are wading in the stuff. Otherwise a little bit of chemical spread around or present as vapor will take much longer to break through.

Weaponizing chemical agents to be a cleanup nightmare requires no more than mixing in a few of these nasties. A mix of bromine with silane would seem to do the job quickest of all, as long as these are compatible with the desired warfare agent. Anyway, these is just a theoretical idea to make a warfare agent more warlike.

<small>[ November 01, 2002, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: megalomania ]</small>

zeocrash
November 1st, 2002, 08:13 AM
i read an article about chemical weapons in focus magazine,
(if you live in the UK its worth buying)
anyway aparently a method of weaponising lethal chemical agents is to mix them with a gas that causes nausea (i cant remember the one they mentioned) acording to the magazine the gas either was not stopped by or seeped in through the sides of the gas mask. this causes vomiting, and no one can stay in a mask full of vomit, or they will drown. this means that the mask must be removed, leaving the user exposed to the lethal gasses.
(if anyone has any info on nausea inducing agents, please let me know)

Bitter
November 1st, 2002, 10:42 AM
"i read an article about chemical weapons in focus magazine,
(if you live in the UK its worth buying)
anyway aparently a method of weaponising lethal chemical agents is to mix them with a gas that causes nausea (i cant remember the one they mentioned) acording to the magazine the gas either was not stopped by or seeped in through the sides of the gas mask. this causes vomiting, and no one can stay in a mask full of vomit, or they will drown. this means that the mask must be removed, leaving the user exposed to the lethal gasses."

They did that in WW1 with phosgene/chloropicrin mix. It's unlikely that modern military gas mask filters will be as easily penetrated, although some of the filters used by the police are proofed ONLY against tear gas- not against other chemical and biological agents.

MrSamosa
November 2nd, 2002, 10:20 AM
By MrSamosa :)
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">G-Agent/Phosgene Oxime- The violent action of Phosgene Oxime against the skin would allow for better absorbtion of the nerve agent. Also, on skin contact, Phosgene Oxime tends to cause vomiting...thus requiring you to take off your gas mask, thus causing you to get a bad whiff of the G-Agent. Also, Phosgene Oxime likes to attack rubber, as is used on gas masks and chemical-protective gloves .</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">I'm concerned about the difficulty in the handling and storing of something that is designed to be uncontrollable. When you mix in all the agents designed to penetrate protective clothing with the super-toxic Chemical Weapon, how are you to protect yourself while you synthesize it? And once you have it synthesized, how are you to disperse it without either killing yourself or alerting the targets of an attack?

My idea is to store the binary components of the agents. With the binary components, you should mix in Freon (NBK's excellent idea) and thickeners. The Freon can be detected at very low ppm by Freon detectors, should there be a leak. Also, if there is a leak, the thickeners will prevent the chemicals from rapidly volatilizing, posing a vapor hazard. Therefore, you will have early warning and easier clean up.

In the case of Fluorinated G-Agents and their precursors, here is something else to think about. The Fluorine is extremely reactive and will almost always form some amount of HF to corrode your equipment. Not only that, but they too (in this case) will be active Cholinesterase inhibitors. Here is my idea: According to the more orthodox synthesis of G-Agents, Dimethyl PhosphonylChloride is Fluorinated to DimethylPhosphonyl Fluoride (DF), which is then reacted with an alcohol to form the G-Agent. Suppose you leave out the Fluorination and the "Binary"/Final Step. Instead of storing nasty Fluorine compounds, you store more manageable Dimethyl Phosphonylchloride.

Here is where the generic "Binary" plan starts to get interesting. Instead of mixing the binary components at the site, you will mix them shortly before launch-time: First you will distill off the impurities (Freon, Thickeners, etc.) and then synthesize the agents. In the case of the speical example with the G-Agents that I gave, you will Fluorinate the Dimethyl PhosphonylChloride and then react it with the Alohol. Next, you will weaponize the agent, according to the desired mission (i.e.: custom agents for every mission). Finally, you would load it into the weapons.

In this way, you handle the actual weapon for the least amount of time. Also, it gives you more flexibility with the agent, allowing it to be customized for every mission. For each mission, there will be some guidelines that need to be met: Do you want it to be volatile, or persistent? Dusty, vapor, or aerosol? Anti-protective equipment? Irritating or not? etc. Instead of having to choose between prefabricated weapons, you simply build the weapon according to the guidelines of the mission.

What I don't see being addressed though is that many of these "extras" will give off some warning to the presence of an agent. Maybe they will cause unconsciousness, irritation, or have a recognizable odor. This is not something you want, unless the weapon has fast knock-out action; in which case odor doesn't matter.

<small>[ November 02, 2002, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: MrSamosa ]</small>

nbk2000
November 3rd, 2002, 03:40 AM
What you just described is what most people would do anyways, since an experimenter doesn't have to store an agent for 20 years, ship it to anywhere in the world during any kind of weather, and have it ready to use at a moments notice.

Anyways, ground fiberglass fibers very readily penetrate clothes and skin. Mixed in a slurry with an agent, it'll break the skin in thousands of places, leaving it vulnerable to penetration. It'll also work it's way through all but the toughest protective clothing.

Also, freons can be detected in the part per billionth range, much lower than most CWs are detectable, let alone dangerous.

Machiavelli
December 8th, 2002, 07:02 AM
While this article doesn't offer really new insights, it gives a nice overview of weaponization issues.
<a href="http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_20b.html" target="_blank">http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_20b.html</a>

MrSamosa
December 8th, 2002, 11:22 AM
I found an article a few weeks ago that deals with the weaponization of T2-Toxin. Here are some suggestions for this particular agent, even though it is not a true Chemical Weapon.

The Soviets dissolved T2 into Polypropylene Glycol, which proved to be an effective carrier for the weapon. However, I believe that they had some success with Ethylene or Propylene Glycol (I can't remember which one). To increase penetration via dermal exposure, they would mix in DMSO. To even further increase penetration through skin and to amplify the original effects, traces of Nerve Agents, usually Soman, were added.

That's all I can think of right now, especially since I lost the link :(

However, this does open up a new box of ideas in terms of weaponization: Suppose we were to combine Toxin weapons with existing Chemical weapons. The Chemicals would serve merely to increase the Toxin's effects and make them even more poisonous than they already are; needless to say, they tend to be more potent than chemical agents. Also, Toxin weapons are much easier to obtain than Chemical Precursors. Just think: How much red tape to you have to cut through to obtain a few Castorbeans for Ricin production? Now, how much do you have to cut through to obtain Phosphorus Oxychloride to make a Nerve Agent? Of course, you can follow some very indirect method which involves obtaining White Phosphorus from Chicken bones and Sodium Fluoride from Toothpaste...but this makes production extremely expensive. However, once you have a few Castorbeans, just plant a few of them and you ensure an almost unlimited, private supply of the beans. As such, Toxins tend to be much cheaper. For this reason, for use in said weaponization involving Toxins/Chemical Agents, the Toxin will serve as the workhorse while the Chemicals support it.

I think I am becoming redundant now. :)

<small>[ December 29, 2002, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: MrSamosa ]</small>

Machiavelli
December 9th, 2002, 03:59 PM
If you want to make 1 kg of VX you'd need aproximately 7 kg of chemicals. Then you have your VX, adsorb it on silica and you've got a finished chemical warfare agent.
To produce 1 kg of Ricin, you'd first need about 100 kg of castor beans, forget about growing these from your handful of seeds. Now with castor beans you're lucky, because they're produced in large scale, but if you want other plant toxins or mycotoxin like T2/Aflatoxin then I wish you good luck with getting the raw materials and/or hiding a huge fermenter at home. Unless you're playing around with genetic engineering, most poisons are a major pain in the ass for medium to large scale production.
And while Ricin is far more toxic than VX it's also far more sensitive to enviromental degradation and far more difficult to weaponize.

nbk2000
December 10th, 2002, 12:56 AM
"The European Union has temporarily banned pistachios from Iran. There's concern the nuts contain a mold, aflatoxin B-1, that can be a cancer hazard."

Right...concerned about ragheads getting nut cancer? Not bloody likely. More like they don't want them to import tons of aflatoxin mold for making weapons.

Charlie Workman
December 10th, 2002, 03:04 AM
If you've got a place where they won't be disturbed, castor beans will flourish to a remarkable degree if a relatively short period of time. I had an open field next to my apartment building in SoCal that had a few of the bushes growing in it. They plowed it up to clear the "weeds" and by the next year it was practically covered. I had plenty of beans to experiment with, and still have a 3 pound coffee can full of them stored away 15 years later. Wonder what the shelf life is? Find a fairly secluded spot, preferrably away from where kids go, and cast the seeds out broadcast. By the next season you should be up to your ass in them.

nbk2000
December 10th, 2002, 04:11 AM
There's a university library in california that has a 5 volume set printed by the war department right after WW2 that reviewed all the aspects of chem/bio war known up to that point in GREAT detail.

It was originally classified, but later it was de-c in the 80's or so.

These volumes are HUGE. Think of the giant dictionaries at the library that weigh like 20 pounds. That kind of huge.

(If I ever go back, and they're still there, I'll PAY someone to steal them...mine...all mine! BWAHAHAA!)

In one of them was details of the weaponization of ricin. The allies had experimented with 1% ricin in water, explosively dispersed from thin walled bombs.

Even after the heating, and the random particle size dispersion, it was still deemed at LEAST as lethal as sarin. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> Though without the immediate fatalities.

If a person could make a collodial slurry of ricin particles (2-5 micron range) in a highly volatile inert solvent (thinking Freon) to protect from heat labilization, then you could have some real fun with it. The enemy would be thinking conventional bomb with failed accelerant ignition when, in fact, the bomb was just a disperser for the REAL weapon. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

simply RED
December 13th, 2002, 06:43 AM
Burning fluorinated hydrocarbons in the air can release large ammounts of deadly HF!
example:
CH2F2 +O2 =CO2 + 2HF
The interesting thing about fluorinated hydrocarbons is that they are not poisonous (if not burned), So you can fill a big container with Fluorine containing hydrocarbons and gasoline , wrap a cylinder of TNT on it and create thermobaric, igniting and chemical weapon. Nobody will survive if it expolode in closed area.
Also everybody can aquire chloroacetic acid from the chem suplier and turn it to fluoroacetic.
ClCH2-COOH + AgF = FCH2-COOH + AgCl (AgF is soluble in water, AgCl, AgBr and AgI are not).
Fluoroacetic acid is used directly or turned to fluoroacetate.
Deadly dose 50% 5mg/kg.
Fluoroethanol is a very good example of deadly metabolism poison, in the body it is oxidized to mono fluoroacetic acid.(deadly dose 50% 10mg/kg).Almost impossible to detect(tastes like alcohol, smells allike...)

nbk2000
December 14th, 2002, 11:25 AM
I took a spider I had left in a cup and replaced the air in the cup with 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane, the filling from a canned air duster.

The spider didn't do much of anything for a couple of minutes, just stood there. Then it started jumping around like crazy, flipping over on it's back and twitching. I immediately opened the cup and blew fresh air into it.

The spider kind of just lingered before doing the death curl.

Oddly enough, the next time I looked at it a couple of hours later, it was alive again. Though, given how lethargic it is, I think I retarded it somehow, or the effects are long lasting.

First thing that came to mind was that the spider was holding its breath (immobile) then, when it finally had to breath, the gas freaked it out before anesthetizing it.

I've done this experiment before with CO2. The spiders just go dormant till the air is cleared, then come back to life.

Now, I've tried to get it to burn with a lighter flame (the gas, not the spider :p ), but it doesn't. I know that refrigerant gases can be decomposed in fires, and the breakdown products are toxic, but I believe they need an existing fire to do so since they don't burn themselves.

A ceramic tube furnace heated to the proper heat should be useable for decomposing freons into the toxic products.

simply RED
December 14th, 2002, 02:53 PM
Dichloroethane burns to HCl, CO2 and H2O when ignited in a mix with gasoline. The flame is slightly green and it burns fully(nothing left). So my prediction (100%) is that a mix of difluoro ethane (or more fluorinated ethane) iand gasoline will burn to HF, H2O, CO2...(maybe some more products)
Freons burn to phosgene :) .