October 31, 2024, 09:02:36 PM
Forum Rules: Read This Before Posting


Topic: Malapride reaction  (Read 7582 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rutherford

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1868
  • Mole Snacks: +60/-29
  • Gender: Male
Re: Malapride reaction
« Reply #15 on: February 23, 2013, 12:04:04 PM »
Of course.
xCHOH(CH2OH)2 :rarrow: 2xHCHO+xHCOOH
yCH2(OH)-CH(OH)-C2H5 :rarrow: yHCHO+ yC2H5CHO
Now it is said that, that only aldehyde groups reacted with KMnO4, so HCOOH won't react.
5C2H5CHO+2MnO4-+6H+ :rarrow: 5C2H5COOH+2Mn2++3H2O
5HCHO+4MnO4-+12H+ :rarrow: 5CO2+4Mn2++9H2O
From the 1st reaction, 0.4y of the permanganate reacted and from the 2nd one, 1.6x+0.8y reacted, so it is:
1.6x+1.2y=0.028
92x+90y=1.64
x=1.536·10-2
y=2.53·10-3
Molar share of glycerol is therefore is 85.86%. Did I do this correct?

Offline Dan

  • Retired Staff
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4716
  • Mole Snacks: +469/-72
  • Gender: Male
  • Organic Chemist
    • My research
Re: Malapride reaction
« Reply #16 on: February 23, 2013, 01:21:09 PM »
My answer of 67% is wrong - I misread the question and thought it was butane-2,3-diol - sorry about that.

When I do the calculations for butane-1,2-diol and assume that formic acid is oxidised to CO2 by permanganate, I get 44% glycerol (mole ratio). The method is the same as yours, but I use 2x + 1.2y= 0.028 because I think the formic acid formed in the periodate cleavage of glycerol will react with permanganate.

If it is true that you can ignore the formic acid from the oxidative cleavage of glycerol and that formaldehyde is oxidised to CO2, then your answer is correct. However, I do not think you can do that - my opinion is below if you are interested:

If you are assuming that formic acid does not react with permanganate, then you should work on the assumption that formaldehyde is oxidised to formic acid (not CO2), because formaldehyde is oxidised to CO2 in two steps via formic acid:

Formaldehyde + oxidant :rarrow: Formic acid        (eq 1)
Formic acid + oxidant :rarrow: CO2                     (eq 2)

If we can ignore the formic acid produced in the reaction of periodate with glycerol, then we are saying that eq 2 does not happen. Therefore any formaldehyde from the periodate step is oxidised only to the formic acid level based on the first assumption. If we do this, then the equation is 0.8x + 0.8y = 0.028. Solving the simultaneous equations gives a nonsense answer.

I admit that the question does say that the "aldehyde groups were titrated...", but I think this is unrealistic. If permanganate oxidises formaldehyde to CO2, then it follows that any formic acid in the system will also affect the titration.
My research: Google Scholar and Researchgate

Offline Rutherford

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1868
  • Mole Snacks: +60/-29
  • Gender: Male
Re: Malapride reaction
« Reply #17 on: February 23, 2013, 01:50:57 PM »
Yes, it is unrealistic, but as I see ambiguities are the main part of IChO problems. Your way seems much more appropriate. Thanks for the help.

Sponsored Links