C. Li et al. / Catalysis Communications 62 (2015) 6–9
7
Table 1
Optimization of the reaction conditions.a
Fig. 1. The synthesis of the carbon functionalized material with sulfonic acid groups.
Entry
Solvent
Catalyst (mg)
T (°C)
Time (h)
Yield (%)b
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
MeOH
EtOH
THF
C7H8
DMF
C–SO3H (10)
C–SO3H (10)
C–SO3H (10)
C–SO3H (10)
C–SO3H (10)
C–SO3H (10)
C–SO3H (10)
C–SO3H (10)
C–SO3H (10)
C–SO3H (10)
C–SO3H (10)
HOAc (10)
TFA (10)
p-TsOH (10)
H2SO4 (10)
Amberlyst-15 (10)
Zeolite (10)
C–SO3H (20)
C–SO3H (5)
C–SO3H (3)
50
50
50
50
50
50
30
40
60
70
80
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
6
6
6
6
6
85
75
79
67
56
89
42
73
89
85
84
37
21
45
35
50
13
90
71
33
determined by using the LCQ Fleet HPLC/MS instrument (Thermo
Finnigan). HRMS (ESI) was measured with a Bruker Daltonics APEXII
instrument.
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
6
2.1. Synthesis and property of the carbonaceous material
24
24
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
12
12
9
According to literature method [12], the mixture of the 10 g
furaldehyde, 5 g hydroxyethylsulfonic acid and 80 mL deionized water
was placed in 100 mL Teflon-lined stainless steel autoclaves, which
were heated in an oven at 200 °C for 5 h. The resulting products were
filtered, washed with water and methanol, and dried in a vacuum
oven at 110 °C for 5 h. The acidity of the carbonaceous material was
2.4 mmol/g, which was determined through the neutralization titration.
This carbonaceous material owned much higher acidity than that of the
sulfonated carbonaceous materials, which were obtained via the sulfo-
nation of the inactive carbon. The acid strength of the catalyst was de-
termined by thermodesorption of chemisorbed ammonia (NH3-TPD).
The result showed that the catalyst had great acid strength in which am-
monia was desorbed at 400 to 600 °C.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
a
Reaction conditions: 1a (0.50 mmol), 2a (0.50 mmol), 3a (0.50 mmol), catalyst (X mg),
and solvent (3.0 mL).
b
Isolated yields.
2.2. The preparation of tetrahydro-4H-indol-4-one derivatives 4
carbonaceous material. Next, the effect of catalyst loading on the reac-
tion was evaluated in water. Similar reactions were attempted in the
presence of 3, 5 and 20 mg of carbonaceous material. The results from
Table 1 (entries 18–20) showed that carbonaceous material (10 mg)
was sufficient to push the reaction forward in water. Higher loading of
the catalyst (20 mg) did not improve the reaction to a great extent.
In a 10-mL reaction vial, nitroolefin (0.5 mmol), cyclohexane-1,3-
dione (0.5 mmol), amine (0.5 mmol), carbonaceous material (10 mg)
and water (3.0 mL) were mixed and then capped. The mixture was
stirred for a given time (Table 2) at 50 °C. Upon completion as shown
by TLC monitoring, the reaction mixture was cooled at room tempera-
ture and exacted with ethyl acetate (5 mL × 3). The resulting residue
was purified by column chromatography on silica gel with the eluent
(ethyl acetate/petroleum ether = 1:20–1:5) to give the pure product.
3.2. Reaction scope of substrates
With the optimal reaction conditions established, we next investi-
gated the substrate scope of the reaction by employing a variety of
nitroolefins and amines. The results are summarized in Table 2. As re-
vealed in Table 2, a range of invaluable tetrahydro-4H-indol-4-one de-
rivatives can be synthesized in good to excellent yields. Firstly, the
different aromatic amines and aliphatic amines were employed to
react with 5,5-dimethylcyclohexane-1,3-dione (1a) and (E)-(2-
nitrovinyl)benzene (3a). To our delight, these reactions proceeded
smoothly to give tetrahydro-4H-indol-4-one derivatives in good
to excellent yields (Table 2, entries 1–9). Then, we employed
dimethylcyclohexane-1,3-dione (1a) and aniline (2a) as model sub-
strates and examined various different nitroolefins. The results indicate
that a wide range of substituted groups of nitroolefins all gave the de-
sired products in good to excellent yields, which include fluoro, chloro,
bromo, methyl, or methoxy groups (Table 2, entries 10–16). It is worth
noting that less reactive heterocyclic nitroolefin such as (E)-2-(2-
nitrovinyl)thiophene (Table 2, entry 17) still displayed high reactivity
and led to tetrahydro-4H-indol-4-one derivative with excellent yield
(90%). Finally, with a broad scope of nitroolefins and amines examined,
our attention turned to using other ketones, such as cyclohexane-1,3-
dione (1b). When cyclohexane-1,3-dione (1b) was used under the op-
timized conditions with different amines and nitroolefins, the reactions
also could be carried out smoothly to give the desired products with
high yields (Table 2, entries 18–21). In addition, the substrate scope of
this transformation was further investigated and a variety of (E)-(2-
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Optimization of the reaction conditions
In order to find an efficient and sustainable method to synthesize
tetrahydro-4H-indol-4-one derivatives, various reaction conditions
were investigated, including solvent, temperature and catalysts. To
choose the optimum solvent, the reaction of 5,5-dimethylcyclohexane-
1,3-dione (1a), 4-chloroaniline (2a) and (E)-(2-nitrovinyl)benzene
(3a) was examined in the presence of carbonaceous material (10 mg)
at 50 °C in different solvents, such as MeOH, EtOH, THF, toluene and
DMF. The results of the screening of solvents are presented in Table 1
(entries 1–6). As shown in Table 1, the reaction in water gave the best re-
sults (Table 1, entry 6). Moreover, to further optimize the reaction tem-
perature, the reaction was carried out in water at the temperature
ranging from 30 °C to 80 °C with an increment of 10 °C. As shown in
Table 1, when the temperature was increased from 30 °C to 50 °C, the
yield of product 4 improved from 42% to 89% (entries 6–11). However,
no significant increase in the yield of product 4 was observed as the reac-
tion temperature was raised from 60 °C to 80 °C. Therefore, the temper-
ature of 50 °C was chosen for all further reactions.
For further screening of the reaction conditions, several catalysts
were evaluated for their catalytic efficiency in the reaction (Table 1, en-
tries 12–17). However, none of the tested catalysts proved better than