Translate

Blog Keyword Search

Wednesday, 19 July 2023

Solvents and Additives that Qualitatively Modify the Comparative Reactivity of Hydride Reducing Agents

Sodium borohydride, lithium aluminum hydride, and sodium bis(methoxyethoxy)aluminum hydride (Vitride) are the most common hydride-reducing agents available for organic chemistry. These super hydrides can be used where high stereoselectivity is required.

What is comparatively less recognized is that both the reducing power and the selectivity of reducing agents can be dramatically switched depending on the solvent in which the reduction is performed. So much so that this may be an easier means to achieve a particular selectivity than changing the reagent itself.


S. Krishnamurthy published a note Solvent Effects on the Relative Reactivity of the Functional Groups Halide and Tosylate towards Lithium Aluminum Hydride in J. Org. Chem. 1980, 45, 2550-2551 teaching the dramatic effect of solvent choice on the competitive reduction of alkyl halides (chloride, bromide, and iodide followed a similar pattern) in competition with the tosylates of the same hydrocarbon substructure.


As one would predict, for any ethereal solvent the reduction with lithium aluminum hydride followed the rate Cl<Br<I, and the order of increasing rate with varying solvent was diglyme  >monoglyme >THF >ethyl ether.


What was startling to me was that for tosylate the rate of reduction was about the same as bromide but the selectivity of reaction velocity according to solvent was quite the opposite: ethyl ether >THF> monoglyme >diglyme


The practical significance of the difference turns out to be that in a competitive reaction between a tosylate and a halide in the same molecule, one can achieve selective reductive of one or the other group simply by changing the solvent.  In diethyl ether, the tosylate will be selectively reduced to hydrocarbon in the presence of the halide while in diglyme the halide will be selectively removed in the presence of the tosylate.


Dr. Krishnamurthy explains this using the theory of tight and solvent-separated ion pairs.  He proposes that in diethyl ether the lithium cation is poorly solvated and forms a tight ion pair with the hydride donor which is less nucleophilic towards the halides. But because the tosylate group has its own oxygens these preferentially complex the lithium ion and increase the reactivity of the tetrahydridoaluminate which attacks by a pseudo cyclic transition state with a reactivity more like a solvent-separated anion.


When the solvent becomes increasingly able to solvate the lithium-ion the result is a solvent-separated hydrido aluminate anion whose reactive order is iodide> bromide> tosylate >chloride.


The KiloMentor blog has discussed means to exchange such high boiling solvents as diglyme or monoglyme, making them more practically useful as solvents.  It would also be interesting to explore the relative reactivities of halides and tosylates when treated with lithium aluminum hydride in the presence of say bis-trimethylsilylated polyethylene glycol because this polymer can be removed from a reaction mixture by precipitation with either diethyl ether or hexane.


Effect of Lanthanides on the relative reactivity of Carbonyls (aldehydes versus ketones) to reduction


Aldehydes are more easily reduced than other carbonyls, right?

Well usually, but the selectivity can be reversed dramatically and inexpensively.  In a communication in 1979, Jean-Luis Luche and Andre Luis Gemal published a communication, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 101(19) 5848 1979, teaching that in reductions by sodium borohydride in ethanol/water of mixtures of carbonyls, or different carbonyls in the same molecule, the addition of one equivalent of a transition metal salt so effectively catalyzed the formation of geminal diol in the case of saturated aldehyde that a ketone would be reduced preferentially.  The preferred transition salt was cerium chloride. A 50% excess of sodium borohydride was needed because the metal accelerated the reaction of hydride with solvent as well.

This could be a very desirable outcome.  It would be useful to be able to mask a ketone by reduction and then use an aldehyde in the same molecule as a reactant in some other transformation where it is reactive but in the presence of the ketone would produce unwanted by-products.

Friday, 14 July 2023

Filtering and Washing Organic Crystalline Solids

 


The filtration rate for recovering organic solids from organic liquids in the laboratory is not normally a concern. However, in the plant, slow filtration can extend an operation by several shifts. Reduced throughput in the plant costs significant money. Increasing the throughput in the laboratory can be just a matter of putting more reactants in a larger reaction flask and a larger bulk of crystals into a larger filter. Throughput in the plant is more often increased only by reducing the cycle time; one's choice of reactors and filters is small or nonexistent. Still, slow filtrations increase cycle time.


In the laboratory, the norm is water pump-vacuum filtration with a paper filter medium. However, paper filters clog more readily than filter pads. In process development laboratories filtration testing should use the identical filter pad material that is planned for usage in the plant. The material needs to be cut to size to fit the laboratory filter funnel which is usually of the Buchner variety.


Most preferably the size of the Buchner filter funnel to do the laboratory testing should be chosen so that the final cake thickness at the plant and laboratory scales are similar. If the laboratory filter cake is thicker the prediction will be even more conservative and hence dependable.


Normally the rate at which the product slurry is poured onto the filter is slower in the plant than in the laboratory. 


Filtering duration in the plant is longer than in the lab because the filter cake is usually thicker.


In this discussion, I will need to make clear the boffin’s argot for this technical area. The liquid accumulating after passing through the filter is called the filtrate. The solid collected on the filer pad is called the filtrand. ’Washing’ means cleaning a filter cake. The predominant contaminants being removed are product impurities that have not precipitated out of the crystallizing solvent. This ‘washing’ is distinguished from ‘cleaning’ which refers to cleaning parts of the filter equipment itself,. Washing the equipment to remove adhering solid is instead called ‘rinsing’ (e.g., rinsing a filter screen or a filter cloth with jets of water). 

A distinction is made between washing and extraction or leaching. ‘Washing ’ means the elimination of a solution of both dissolved contaminants and residual dissolved target substance (the mother liquor) from the pores between the particles/crystals of a filter cake. ‘Extraction’ or ‘leaching’ is a subtype of ‘washing’ that additionally draws soluble matter out of the interstices of the solid particles themselves. 

The word ‘drying’ refers to thermal drying wherein volatile materials, predominantly solvent or a processing liquid, are removed by the application of heat and sometimes lower pressure. The reduction of liquid from the filter cake by mechanical means is called ‘deliquoring.’ In the laboratory with the standard Buchner filtration, deliquoring occurs during that brief moment between when the final portion of slurry liquid disappears into the surface of the filtrand and when, with a rushing sound, a flurry of bubbles exit the throat of the porcelain or glass filter assembly.

The operation called ‘expression’ is the separation of liquid from solid-liquid systems by increasing the pressure on the material. The liquid is pressed out from the solid.

Filtrations differ in where the filtrand particles are retained. If the particles are generally large compared to the pore sizes of the filter pad, the particles will predominate on the outer surface of the filter pad and will end up in the cake supported on the filter. This ‘cake filtration’ is most common for recovering organic crystals from recrystallizations. Filter pads very often outperform filter papers. Filter papers more frequently clog because too many small particles get trapped in the channels within the thin paper layer.

‘Depth filtration’ on the other hand, occurs when the solid is trapped inside part of the filter medium. This arises, for example, when the organic solid is filtered in admixture with a filter aid. The completely insoluble filter aid particles provide an additional surface beside the filter pad for the organic crystals to agglomerate on. This speeds the separation from mother liquors but adds a further necessary step separating the desired organic solid from the filter aid. Using a filter aid to speed up filtration can be helpful particularly if it does not significantly add time to later processing steps. The use of filter aids will be treated in a different blog article.

The pressure difference across a vacuum filter system is very limited, and the residual moisture in its filter cake is higher than with pressure filters. Pressure filters allow high-pressure differences from top to bottom of the separated cake. They are preferred when the product must be kept in a closed system for safety reasons, or if the residual moisture content is important. Access for the handling of the filter cake is obviously more difficult using a pressure filter. 

Filtration by centrifugal force, which is another possibility, has the shortcoming of needing more complex capital equipment, but as a general rule, it yields solids with lower residual moisture.

Because most filtrations of crystals in organic chemical synthesis are vacuum filtrations, the pressure drop is never more than 1 atmosphere. 'Expression' from the filter cake is limited and in fact, 'deliquoring' is normally no more than a very brief passage of air or inert gas through the cake. Washing normally quickly follows this draining with gas assistance. The passage of gas through the cake can quickly start some drying action, with concomitant deposition of impurities from any residual mother liquors still on the surface of the product crystals.

Washing can start immediately after the first gas passes through the cake signaling the end of deliquoring or it can start even before any gas enters the cake. The more volatile the solvent the more quickly washing should follow filtration. Washing is typically done using solvent as cold or even colder than the slurry that was filtered. The washing liquid is usually first used to clean the vessel from which the slurry came. A major concern during washing is losing, by dissolution, any of the desired product already trapped as solid and lying on the filter pad.

Wash liquid flows through the filter cake and displaces mother liquor, a mixture of both liquids leaves the cake as a wash filtrate. If the wash liquid is collected separately from the filtrate, analysis can give a good indication of its efficacy. 

The crystal bed of some substances shrinks horizontally and cracks if the solvent is completely sucked away. In such a case, it is particularly important to add the wash liquid to the crystal bed’s surface before this has a chance to happen. Whenever the crystal bed cracks, the washing will become very inefficient, and a large amount of mother liquors will likely be retained in the crystal mass and end up getting dried with the bulk of the solid product; trapping impurities. When cracking is characteristic of the filtrand, the wash should be started even before all the mother liquors have passed into the surface of the cake bed and before any deliquoring.

If shrinking during washing is a washing problem, slurrying the cake in wash liquid and filtering it again is indicated. 

An acceptably small amount of washing will not remove all the mother liquors. Plug flow of the wash liquid cannot be expected through a filter cake. A filter cake contains stagnant zones or dead-end pores, which are not reached by the flow. They deliver their contaminant content by diffusion to the effluent if they do it at all. Diffusion is an asymptotic process and depends on the time elapsed, not on the quantity of liquid. Wash liquid threads its way through the filter cake in what is called ‘fingering.’ In most washing processes the wash liquid has a lower viscosity than the mother liquor. It tends to flow through the cake in finger-like streams past islets of more viscous fluid. This is a random (stochastic) process,  and the local concentration in the cake and the momentary concentration in the effluent will vary randomly. Scale-up from a laboratory test filter even with only small-scale fingering can be misleading as can the results of a few small samples taken from a big cake. 

Sometimes relieving the vacuum while the wash liquid is still in the cake will provide more time for impurities to diffuse out of dead zones into the bulk wash liquid so that they are removed when vacuum pressure is reapplied. The downside of this modification is that it allows the wash liquid to warm somewhat, possibly increasing the loss of the desired product.

In the laboratory, when the washing is over, air or inert gas is typically drawn through the cake for some period. Also sometimes, in the laboratory, some additional wash liquid may be expressed either by pressing down on the cake’s surface with a flat, inert tool or more efficiently using a section of dental dam that completely blocks the entry of gas into the cake.

In the plant, the surface of the cake is rarely manipulated. The only exception is when cracks arise in the cake in which case they must be closed mechanically before continuing.

Drying at scale in large drying ovens adds appreciably to the processing time for many products. When a high boiling solvent is involved, it may be cost-effective to add an additional wash with a different solvent in which the desired product is very poorly soluble but which itself is much more volatile.

This can significantly shorten the overall drying time.

Tuesday, 9 May 2023

Common Organic Functional Group Derivatives that Facilitate Work-up, Separation, and Purification

 


The most common functional groups in organic molecules all have some reversible derivatives that exhibit acidic, basic, or heavy metal complexing properties.

  • The alcohol group can be converted into an O-sulfate that is acidic. 
  • The ketone group can be converted into an oxime that is acidic. 
  • The carboxylic acid ester can be converted into an acyl hydrazide which is mildly basic and forms stable isolable complexes with heavy metals.

When these common functionalities are present in a reaction starting material but the planned transformation is occurring elsewhere in the molecule replacing alcohol, ketone, or ester group respectively with O-sulfate, oxime or acylhydrazide often could make no difference at the reaction site but could facilitate the isolation of product from the subsequent reaction mixture. 

Perhaps the reason this is not done is because the potential interference of these derived functionalities is not so well understood while for the parent functions there are usually many precedents. Another reason could be that the ease of work-up, separation, and purification is simply not considered sufficiently important to warrant special facilitation.

Testing Catalysts and Inhibitors to Change the Ratio of a Desired Product and an Undesired Coproduct


Suppose you are working with a reaction step that is providing, rather cleanly, a mixture of two products-- the desired one and an undesired byproduct. Perhaps modifications of conditions are not beneficially changing this product ratio. Perhaps a change in the relative rates of the reactions that give rise to these two compounds can change the final product ratio. Below is a list of molecules that in more than one instance have been found to either speed up a desired reaction or slow down an undesirable one: HMPA, water, N, N-dimethylformamide, N, N, N’, N’-tetramethylurea, urea, dimethylsulfoxide, pyridine oxide, 2-pyridone, N-methyl-2- pyridone, polyethylene glycols, DDQ,  antioxidants, dimethylformamide acetals, 4-dimethylaminopyridine, DBN, DBU,  beta-glycine, EDTA, transition metal salts,  phase transfer catalysts.

For any particular reaction you are trying to improve, most of these additives will have no impact at all. When one of them does exert its effect it can be expected to be effective at low concentrations. For that reason, they can be tested at low concentrations and for this same reason, small groupings of them can likely be tested together.  Any small packet of these additives should be chosen so they do not belong to the same general types. If a group of additives shows some activity in changing the important products ratio only then do experiments need to be done to deconvolute the group to discover which cause the improvement.

For example, I have divided the potential catalysts into five groups, any group of which could be included at a low level in a trial reaction to look for any significant change in the product: byproduct ratio.

A: EDTA, N-methyl-s-pyridone, polyethylene glycol, pyridine oxide

B: DBU, N, N-dimethylformamide, 2-pyridone, transition metal salt

C: Antioxidant, 4-dimethylamino pyridine, dimethylformamide dimethyl acetal, urea

D: beta glycine, N, N, N', N'-tetramethylurea, tetrabutylammonium chloride, water

E: DDQ, DMSO, DBN, HMPA

Probably a better idea is for the experimentalist should consider possible modes of catalysis and choose a group made up of the most likely candidates.

When trying to improve a procedure, improving a method using an additive needs to be considered as much as completely replacing that reaction. 



Acid Traps & Acid Acceptors for Use in Organic Reactions to Remove any strongly Acidic Coproduct

 

If a chemical reaction produces as a co-product a small strongly acidic molecule, the equilibrium of that reaction can be disturbed towards a more complete reaction by trapping that coproduct. 

Acid acceptors and acid traps typically neutralize or otherwise deactivate acid that is already present or that has been created as a coproduct in a reaction. By ‘tying up’ any acid co-product any reversible reaction that involves it is driven to completion and prevented from reversing following Le Chatelier’s Principle.


The following agents have the potential to do this:


Pyridine

2,6-Lutidine

2,6-Di-t-butylpyridine

Poly4-vinylpyridines

Urea

Tetramethylurea

Acetamide forms HBr complex the is insoluble in many organic solvents

Magnesium oxide

Sodium acetate

Calcium carbonate

Mercuric oxide

Ammonium  acetate

Ammonium formate

1,2-epoxy-3-phenoxypropane

Ethylene oxide

Propylene oxide

Epichlorohydrin

Ethylenediamine

Pentamethylpiperidine

1,8-Bis-dimethylamino-naphthalene (proton sponge)

Hexamethyldisiloxane

Trimethylsilyltrifluoroacetamide

Trimethylsilylurethane

4A Molecular sieves

Pyridine ion-exchange resin

Amino Acid Hydrochlorides to Give Zwitterions

N-alkyl-2 halopyridines, formamide acetals, 4A Molecular sieves

Silver oxide

Lead Hydroxide from Acetate: neutralizes acid and gives insoluble salts


Typically acid traps are not bases themselves although all that is essential is that they be substantially less nucleophilic than the moiety that is required to be the nucleophile in the planned transformation. If the nucleophile which is the hoped-for participant in the chemical reaction is readily available and inexpensive the same species can serve in appropriate quantity both as nucleophile and acid trapping agent.


Sometimes the reaction that forms the acid co-product does not involve any nucleophile. Free-radical bromination comes to mind. In this instance, the acid trap must be not nucleophilic at all because it is going to be the strongest Lewis base in the mixture. A substance that forms an insoluble adduct, or which itself is insoluble, or which constitutes a separate phase, or which irreversibly reacts with the acid is desirable. Proton sponge, pentamethyl piperidine, urea, N,N,N',N’-tetramethylurea, and 2,6-di-t-butylpyridine are not nucleophilic.  Magnesium oxide and calcium carbonate are insoluble in organic solvents. Ammonium acetate and ammonium formate are inorganic neutralizing salts that are volatile and so can be pumped away under a vacuum. The four epoxide agents react with hydrogen halides by opening to halohydrins. 

Hexamethyldisiloxane, trimethylsilyltrifluoroacetamide, and trimethylsilylurethane convert free hydrogen halide into trimethylsilylhalide. For this reason, they must be used in sufficient quantity to persilylate any other reactive functional groups in the molecules. Molecular sieves and basic ion exchange resins work by taking free acid into a different phase.


I have used a slightly different idea to remove excess HBr in a process step developed during my industrial career. I added t-butanol to my reaction. It rapidly reacted with HBr as it was formed giving water and non-acidic t-butylbromide.


Glycerol: A Possibly General Method for Changing Solvents in Process Chemistry Reactors



In the laboratory completely changing the solvent that has dissolved within it any mixture of solutes to a different solvent (so long as the solute mixture is stable under the conditions of concentration ) is to completely remove the first solvent on a rotary evaporator, add the second solvent and stir to redissolve any solutes that have precipitated.


This is not even conceivable in industrial reactors because, in almost every case,  they have an appreciable non-stirrable volume. That is to say, when the solvent has not yet been completely removed further evaporation becomes impossible because the impeller blade no longer contacts the liquid. A further problem is that precipitating solutes would accumulate on the walls of the reactor making heat transfer impossible without solute degradation.

 

A possible rather general procedural solution for this difficulty may exist. 


1.    The first reaction solvent is completely distilled (chased) out of the reactor and away from the mixture of less volatile solutes by adding the minimal stirrable volume of glycerol. Glycerol (bp. 290 ℃ with decomposition).


2.    Since neither acetone nor methylene chloride are miscible with glycerol and they do not form any binary azeotrope


 (i) A mixture of some useful proportion of acetone and methylene chloride is added to the glycerol solution or slurry to deliver an upper phase that upon stirring extracts the required non-volatile substrates and the lower glycerol phase is cut away.


or (ii) the desired second solvent, if it is less dense and also immiscible with glycerin, is used to extract the non-volatile substrate, and the lower glycerol phase is cut away.


Then


If (i) above is used, distill the methylene chloride away from the acetone leaving an acetone solution.


If (ii ) above is used, then wash the desired second solvent solution with water or brine to remove traces of glycerin.


Then


If (i)  above has been followed, add the new second solvent and distill away the lower boiling acetone (almost all solvents have higher boiling points than acetone). If this second solvent is to be both protic and miscible with water, residual glycerol needs to have been removed at the stage of the acetone-methylene chloride extract by passing it through a plug of silica or alumina.


Note: For this to work, the mixture of less volatile solutes (usually the entire contents of a reaction mixture ) must be stable in glycerol under the conditions required to evaporate the first solvent and at least the desired components extractable back out of the glcerol.


Thursday, 4 May 2023

Improving Phase Separation for Extractions in the Presence of Insoluble Debris




Patent US 5,628,906 explains how to perform rapid liquid-liquid extractive separations in unfavorable situations where there is insoluble debris in the liquid mixture or where there are emulsifying substances present that under vigorous agitation could create emulsions that separate only slowly.

The creative idea of the patent is to mix two fairly miscible solvents to form a superior extractant medium and then subsequently add a third component that causes rapid separation of the total combined solvents into two immiscible phases that can be easily separated. In this way, any surface active agents do not have time to move to the interfacial area and reduce the rate of phase separation, the insoluble debris does not float at the interface and prevent separation and the rate of transfer of substrates between phases is much enhanced.

The method might apply to removing traces of product from a reactor containing insoluble resins by separating the substrates from the surface and interstices of the resin and it could avoid vigorous stirring of the resin slurry that could mechanically damage the resin.

Might it also work in an emulsifier-promoted reaction between a water/acetonitrile solution containing an emulsifier that is reacted with a poorly soluble reagent followed by a phase separation wherein a third solvent that causes phase separation is added? Imagine for example that you are trying to convert cis-cyclooctene into cis-1,2-cyclooctanediol with potassium permanganate reagent.  This would be advantageous because the classical reagent osmium tetroxide is both expensive and toxic.

The problem is that although the substrate is soluble in organic solvents the permanganate salt is not. A mixture of acetonitrile to assist in the solution of substrate and water to get some permanganate into solution could be emulsified with an unreactive emulsifier to bring them pair into intimate contact so they could react. Then addition of a third solvent miscible with acetonitrile but immiscible with water would break the emulsion and cause the separation of two phases despite the presence of the emulsifier. No shaking of the phases together would be required. The potential for a large interfacial layer would be greatly reduced. Because it might also enable the extraction of a water-rich phase with a water-poor phase without first requiring the separation of a precipitate insoluble in both phases, the coproduct, manganese dioxide would be less likely to interfere with phase separation.