F. Faigl et al. / Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 20 (2009) 98–103
103
(3 ꢂ 20 ml). The collected organic solutions were dried over so-
dium sulfate and concentrated in vacuo. Product distributions
were determined from the 1H NMR spectra of the crude acidic
products. In order to obtain the pure dicarboxylic acid 3, the crude
product was recrystallised from chloroform. The yield given below
in parentheses refers to the efficiency of the recrystallisation.
The products (after diastereoisomeric salt decomposition) were
(R)-(ꢀ)-3, mp 144–146 °C, [ D = ꢀ85.5 (c 1, ethanol) ee > 99%, CD
a
]
(ethanol, k [nm],
D
e
[Mꢀ1 cmꢀ1]): 271, +2.85; 233, ꢀ3.86 and (S)-
(+)-3 mp 144–146 °C, [a]D = +85.5 (c 1, ethanol), ee > 99%, CD (eth-
anol, k [nm],
D
e
[Mꢀ1 cmꢀ1]), respectively, 271, ꢀ2.64; 233, +3.09.
Other spectroscopic data of the optically active products were
identical with those of the racemic compound.
4.4.1. 1-(6-Carboxymethyl-2-ethylphenyl)pyrrole-2-carboxylic
acid 313
4.6. Enantiomeric enrichment of (ꢀ > +)-3 via recrystallisation
Colourless crystals (50% from chloroform) mp: 212–213 °C; IR
(KBr) m
max: 3448 (OH), 1667, 1716 (CO); 1H NMR (DMSO- d6) dH:
A sample of (+ > ꢀ)-3 (2.28 g, [
was recrystallised from ethanol (6.8 ml). The solid racemic was fil-
tered off (0.49 g, [ D = +0.9 (c 1, ethanol), ee 1%) then the filtrate
a]D = +56.4 (c 1, ethanol), ee 66%)
0.97 (3H, t, J 7.6, Et), 2.10 (2H, q, J 7.6, Et), 2.98 (1H, d, J 16.2
CH2), 3.28 (1H, d, J 16.2, CH2), 6.28–6.34 (1H, t like m, J 2.7, Hb),
6.77–6.82 (1H, t like m, J 1.7, H), 6.95–7.01 (1H q like m, J 1.5, H)
7.18–7.40 (3H, m, Ph); 13C NMR (DMSO-d6) dC: 172.1, 160.8,
141.1, 138.7, 132.9, 129.8, 128.2, 128.1, 127.2, 124.2, 117.5,
a]
was concentrated in vacuo to yield (+)-3 (1.45 g, [a]D = +70.9 (c 1,
ethanol), ee 83%).
109.2, 36.4, 23.5, 14.9. UV–vis (EtOH, k [nm],
e
[Mꢀ1 cmꢀ1]): 262,
5. Calculations
25300; 215 (sh), 28700.
Pure sample of the monocarboxylic acid 5 could be obtained by
monometallation of 2 in the presence of N,N,N0,N00,N00-pentamethy-
lethylenetriamine as it is described in the literature.13
The conformational analysis was carried out applying MMFF94
force field19 and Monte-Carlo algorithm. The quantum chemical
calculations were performed using the 5.9 version of TURBOMOLE pro-
gram package.20 The DFT and TD-DFT calculations were carried out
applying Becke-Perdew 86 (BP-86) functional21,22 in combination
with triple zeta valence polarised (TZVP) basis set23 (in DFT calcu-
lations) or with triple zeta valence double polarised (TZVPP) basis
set (in TD-DFT calculations), and using resolution of identity (RI)
approximation.24
4.4.2. 1-(6-Carboxymethyl-2-ethylphenyl)pyrrole 513
Colourless crystals (55% from hexane) mp: 132–133 °C; IR (KBr)
m
max: 3462 (OH), 1704 (CO); 1H NMR (DMSO- d6) dH: 7.12–7.48
(3H, m, Ph), 6.58–6.72 (2H, t like m, J 1.8, H ), 6.18–28 (2H, t like
a
m, J 1.8, Hb), 3.18 (2H, s, CH2), 2.21 (2H, q, J 7.6, Et), 1.00 (3H, t, J
7.6, Et); 13C NMR (DMSO-d6) dC: 172.5, 141.7, 139.0, 133.3, 128.6,
128.4, 127.7, 122.4, 108.7, 36.2, 23.7, 15.7.
The minor component 5 of the monocarboxylic acids crystal-
lised together with 4 from the filtrate of the recrystallised dicar-
boxylic acid 3, therefore its spectral data were partially
determined from that mixture.
Acknowledgements
Financial support from the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund
(OTKA) is gratefully acknowledged for Grants T 048362 and NF
72194. The authors thank Dr. M. Winter and Dr. N. Brooks at Oxford
Diffraction for the X-ray data collection of the (R)-(ꢀ)-3ꢁ(R)-6 salt.
The authors are grateful to Dr. Mihály Kállay for the fruitful discus-
sions. MC also acknowledges the National Science and Technology
Office for an X-ray diffractometer purchase Grant (MU-00338/2003).
4.4.3. 1-(2-ethyl-6-meylphenyl)pyrrole-2-carboxylic acid 413
Inamixturewith5, 1H NMR(DMSO-d6)dH: 7.10–7.40 (3H, m), 6.97
0
(1H, dd, J 2.2, 3.4, Hb), 6.92 (1H, t like m, J 2.0, H ), 6.32 (1H, t like m, J
a
0
3.1, Hb ), 2.13 (2H, q, J 7.5, Et), 1.83 (3H, s Me), 0.93 (3H, t, J 7.5, Me).
References
4.5. Resolution of 3
1. Hajós, Z. G.; Parris, D. R. J. Org. Chem. 1974, 39, 1615–1621.
2. Cao, Ch.-L.; Ye, M.-Ch.; Sun, X.-L.; Tang, Y. Org. Lett. 2006, 8, 2901–2904.
3. Kondo, K.; Kazuta, K.; Fujita, H.; Sakamoto, Y.; Murakami, Y. Tetrahedron 2002,
58, 5209–5214.
4. Mino, T.; Tanaka, Y.; Sato, Y.; Saito, A.; Sakamoto, M.; Fujita, T. Tetrahedron Lett.
2003, 44, 4677–4679.
5. Hatano, M.; Yamanaka, M.; Mikami, K. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2003, 14, 2552–2555.
6. Chen, Y.; Smith, M. D.; Shimizu, K. D. Tetrahedron Lett. 2001, 42, 7185–7187.
7. Ishitani, H.; Kamiyama, S.; Kobayashi, S. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 762–766.
8. Yamagishi, T.; Yokomatsu, T.; Suemune, K.; Shibuya, S. Tetrahedron 1999, 55,
12125–12136.
Racemic dicarboxylic acid ( )-3 (21.5 mmol, 5.89 g) was dis-
solved in a hot mixture of ethyl acetate (235, 6 ml) and ethanol
(0.6 ml) and (R)-6 (10.79 mmol, 1.31 g) was added into it. The reac-
tion mixture was seeded with the (ꢀ)-3. (R)-6 diastereoisomeric
salt and it was allowed to crystallise during cooling to 20 °C. The
diastereoisomeric salt was filtered off, washed with ethyl acetate
(2 ꢂ 20 ml) and dried to yield white solid product (4.28 g, mp
184–186 °C, decomp.). This salt was dissolved in a mixture of ethyl
acetate (65 ml) and aqueous hydrochloric acid solution (5%, 30 ml).
The phases were separeted and the organic phase was washed with
5% aqueous hydrochloric acid solution (2 ꢂ 20 ml) and brine
(1 ꢂ 20 ml). Then, the organic solution was dried over sodium sul-
fate and concentrated in vacuo to yield (ꢀ)-3 (2.45 g, 83% of the
9. Seebach, D.; Pichota, A.; Beck, A. K.; Pinkerton, A. B.; Litz, T.; Karjalainen, J.;
Gramlich, V. Org. Lett. 1999, 1, 55–58.
}
10. Fogassy, K.; Harmat, V.; Böcskei, Zs.; Tárkányi, G.; Toke, L.; Faigl, F. Tetrahedron:
Asymmetry 2000, 11, 4771–4780.
11. Faigl, F.; Thurner, A.; Kovári, J.; Tárkányi, G.; Toke, L.; Mordini, A. Tetrahedron:
}
Asymmmetry 2002, 13, 59–68.
12. Faigl, F.; Thurner, A.; Vas, B.; Toke, L. J. Chem. Res. (S) 2003, 132–133.
}
13. Faigl, F.; Vas-Feldhoffer, B.; Thurner, A. Synth. Commun. 2006, 36, 2841–2849.
14. Gross, H. Chem. Ber. 1962, 95, 2270–2275.
(ꢀ)-enantiomer content of the racemate 3), [ D = ꢀ80.0 (c 1, eth-
a]
15. Autschbach, J.; Ziegler, T. J. Chem. Phys. 2002, 116, 891–896.
16. McCann, D. M.; Stephens, P. J. J. Org. Chem. 2006, 71, 6074–6098.
anol), ee 94%. The filtrate of the diastereoisomeric salt formation
was concentrated in vacuo and the (+ > ꢀ)-3 fraction (3.27 g,
111% of the (+)-enantiomer content of the racemate 3),
}
17. Fogassy, E.; Lopata, A.; Faigl, F.; Darvas, F.; Ács, M.; Toke, L. Tetrahedron Lett.
1980, 21, 647–648.
18. Schlosser, M. In Organometallics in Synthesis; Schlosser, M., Ed.; John Wiley:
Chichester, 2002; pp 295–297.
19. Halgren, A. J. Comput. Chem. 1996, 17, 490–519.
20. Ahlichs, R.; Bär, M.; Häser, M.; Horn, H.; Kölmel, C. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1989, 162,
165–169.
21. Becke, A. D. Phys. Rev. A 1988, 38, 3098–3100.
22. Perdew, J. P. Phys. Rev. B 1986, 33, 8822–8824.
23. Schäfer, A.; Huber, C.; Ahlrichs, R. J. Chem. Phys. 1994, 100, 5829–5835.
24. Weigend, F.; Häser, M. Theor. Chem. Acc. 1997, 97, 331–340.
[a]D = +58.3 (c 1, ethanol), ee 68%) was isolated from the residue
in an analogous way to the workup of the diastereomeric salt. Re-
peated resolution of the non-racemic enantiomeric mixtures was
carried out analogously but the amount of the applied resolving
agent was equivalent with the corresponding enantiomer content
of the starting optically active 3. The (ꢀ > +)-3 acid was resolved
with (R)-6 and (+ > ꢀ)-3 was treated with (S)-6 as resolving agent.