July 10, 2020, 08:40:18 AM
Forum Rules: Read This Before Posting


Topic: An interesting Reaction  (Read 43281 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Heory

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • Mole Snacks: +17/-2
Re: An interesting Reaction
« Reply #30 on: November 08, 2009, 02:56:38 AM »
Right!
Go on, Ulfsaar. I believe that you can solve this problem.

Offline Ulfsaar

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26
  • Mole Snacks: +2/-0
Re: An interesting Reaction
« Reply #31 on: November 08, 2009, 04:10:28 AM »
ammmm
i just think a [3,3] rearrangement ……

Offline Heory

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • Mole Snacks: +17/-2
Re: An interesting Reaction
« Reply #32 on: November 08, 2009, 02:15:41 PM »
ammmm
i just think a [3,3] rearrangement ……

imine is not stable under acidic condition.

Offline azmanam

  • Chemist
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1417
  • Mole Snacks: +160/-24
  • Mediocrity is a handrail -Charles Louis d'Secondat
Re: An interesting Reaction
« Reply #33 on: November 08, 2009, 02:56:54 PM »
Had to break out my new "Strategic Applications"[1] book for this one.  Darzens followed by Eshweiler-Clark Cyclization[2].

[1] http://www.chemistry-blog.com/2009/10/12/book-review-strategic-applications-of-named-reactions-in-organic-synthesis/
[2] http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jo01018a011
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jo01348a006
Knowing why you got a question wrong is better than knowing that you got a question right.

Offline Heory

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • Mole Snacks: +17/-2
Re: An interesting Reaction
« Reply #34 on: November 08, 2009, 09:06:29 PM »
Closer now. You meant that imine was destroyed after its formation. But when pH=3, imine cann't be formed, or its formation was overwhelmed by another named reaction. You had a right idea, but wrong way. Look for another way for the following process. Bonus: name it.(not Eshweiler-Clark)

Offline Heory

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • Mole Snacks: +17/-2
Re: An interesting Reaction
« Reply #35 on: November 09, 2009, 12:00:22 AM »
Come on! Just have a try. You needn't post your answer only when you are quite certain that you are right.

Offline blind

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 24
  • Mole Snacks: +2/-0
Re: An interesting Reaction
« Reply #36 on: November 09, 2009, 01:24:23 AM »
Something like this?

Offline Heory

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • Mole Snacks: +17/-2
Re: An interesting Reaction
« Reply #37 on: November 09, 2009, 02:17:32 AM »
Something like this?

No. actually imine was not the intermidate of the reaction. After Darzen reaction, there's another named reaction, which coundn't be seem from your picture.

Offline Heory

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • Mole Snacks: +17/-2
Re: An interesting Reaction
« Reply #38 on: November 09, 2009, 04:19:16 PM »
about azmanam’s latest answer:
The right idea was the nuleophilic attack on the aldehyde's carbonyl carbon, but the product was far from the right one. An important functional group was ignored in the reaction immediately after Darzen reaction.

we still have a long way to go to finish step 1 (pH=3), let alone come to the end of the whole reaction, and stereochemistry should be considerd. We have just completed about 1/5 of the whole work.

BTW, 48%HBr was just used to increase acidity of the reaction system. Br- didn't react.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2009, 04:31:57 PM by Heory »

Offline azmanam

  • Chemist
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1417
  • Mole Snacks: +160/-24
  • Mediocrity is a handrail -Charles Louis d'Secondat
Re: An interesting Reaction
« Reply #39 on: November 09, 2009, 08:39:19 PM »
so something happens with the hemiaminal?  some intervention of the p-methoxyaryl group?  Surely CO2 doesn't come back and react?
Knowing why you got a question wrong is better than knowing that you got a question right.

Offline Heory

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • Mole Snacks: +17/-2
Re: An interesting Reaction
« Reply #40 on: November 09, 2009, 09:39:39 PM »
after Darzen reaction, only 3 functional groups existed and you always chose the wrong 2 groups of them to react at first. Choose another 2 groups to react first(a named reaction).

Sorry for my poor Enlish. If I'm not descriptive enough, please let me know.

Offline azmanam

  • Chemist
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1417
  • Mole Snacks: +160/-24
  • Mediocrity is a handrail -Charles Louis d'Secondat
Re: An interesting Reaction
« Reply #41 on: November 10, 2009, 06:14:50 AM »
Ok.  Here we go:

At the point where we have the amine and the aldehyde (those should be the two dominant structures after the Darzens rxn)

Possible Nucleophiles (in what I feel are order of strength):
N atom of amine
O atom of water
benzyllic carbon of aldehyde due to enol character
the carbon atoms ortho and para to the OMe group on the benzene ring
distal carbon of alkene in amine (the monosubstitued side)
O atom of aldehyde

Possible Electrophiles (also in order of strength, imho):
H of H3O+
carbonyl carbon of aldehyde
internal carbon atom of alkene of amine (the disubstituted side)
the carbon bearing the OMe(H+) group for a possible ipso substitution

One of those from each list have to react, right?  Is it the alkene and the aldehyde?

Knowing why you got a question wrong is better than knowing that you got a question right.

Offline Heory

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • Mole Snacks: +17/-2
Re: An interesting Reaction
« Reply #42 on: November 10, 2009, 07:04:46 AM »
Yes! Name it and go on.

Offline azmanam

  • Chemist
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1417
  • Mole Snacks: +160/-24
  • Mediocrity is a handrail -Charles Louis d'Secondat
Re: An interesting Reaction
« Reply #43 on: November 10, 2009, 07:51:37 AM »
Prins followed by hydride shift followed by 5-exo cyclization
Knowing why you got a question wrong is better than knowing that you got a question right.

Offline Heory

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • Mole Snacks: +17/-2
Re: An interesting Reaction
« Reply #44 on: November 10, 2009, 08:03:11 AM »
yes, prins.
the hydride didn't shift in presence of WATER (large amount). BTW, why didn't you choose the methyl group to shift? In a former problem, when I treated the pinacol reaction with a hydide shift, you said only the alkyl group could meet the orbital overlap requirement.
after prins reaction, N was the right nuleophile but the epoxy group was a wrong electrophile.

Sponsored Links