Solvent-free Michael addition of 2-cyclohexenone under ultrasonic irradiation in the presence of long chain dicationic ammonium salts

Article abstract of DOI:10.3906/kim-1104-63

Long chain dicationic ammonium salts (1a-1c), easily prepared from tert-amines and dihaloalkanes, were successfully used as efficient phase-transfer catalysts in the Michael addition reaction of various active methylene compounds to 2-cyclohexenone withou

Full text of DOI:10.3906/kim-1104-63

Turk J Chem
36 (2012) , 137 – 146.
¨
˙
c
ꢀ TUBITAK
doi:10.3906/kim-1104-63
Solvent-free Michael addition of 2-cyclohexenone under
ultrasonic irradiation in the presence of long chain
dicationic ammonium salts
∗
¨
˙
˘
Aytek OGE, Murat Emrah MAVIS¸, C¸ ig˘dem YOLAC¸ AN , Feray AYDOGAN
Department of Chemistry, Yıldız Technical University, Davutpa¸sa Campus,
˙
34010 Esenler, Istanbul-TURKEY
e-mail: cigdemyolacan@hotmail.com
Received: 27.04.2011
Long chain dicationic ammonium salts (1a-1c), easily prepared from tert-amines and dihaloalkanes,
were successfully used as efficient phase-transfer catalysts in the Michael addition reaction of various active
methylene compounds to 2-cyclohexenone without solvent under ultrasonic irradiation. The investigated
dicationic salts were more effective than monocationic tetrabutylammonium bromide, with short reaction
times and high yields. This methodology was established under phase-transfer catalytic conditions and
ultrasonic effects with many advantages, including the easy and cost-effective synthesis of the catalyst,
mild reaction conditions, short reaction times, good yields, simple work-up procedures, and environmental
friendliness.
Key Words: Michael addition, phase-transfer catalyst, ultrasound-assisted synthesis, solvent-free reaction,
2-cyclohexenone
Introduction
Phase-transfer catalysis (PTC) is one of the most important and useful methods in synthetic organic reactions
because of its simple reaction procedure, mild conditions, high reaction rates, high selectivities, inexpensive
and environmentally friendly reagents, and ease in the scaling-up of reactions.1 A number of catalysts are
being developed, and multisite phase-transfer catalysts have recently become more attractive among chemists
because of their superior features, such as facile preparation, low energy requirements, and high reactivity in a
particular synthetic transformation under mild reaction conditions, when compared with single-site catalysts.2
∗Corresponding author
137

¨
Solvent-free Michael addition of 2-cyclohexenone under ultrasonic..., A. OGE, et al.
Dicationic ammonium salts, which have long aliphatic chains, have excellent surfactant properties because they
are more efficient in lowering surface tension than single chains, and they are very attractive for adsorption
applications, analytical separations, and solubilization processes.3 Although these compounds are widely used
as effective emulsifiers and dispersing and antifoaming agents, they have not been investigated widely for their
phase-transfer properties. Synthetic chemists have also focused on the use of PTC under solvent-free conditions
for environmental reasons.4
Solvent-free organic reactions have drawn great interest, particularly from the viewpoint of green chem-
istry, and environmentally friendly solvent-free reactions have been investigated widely. Solvent-free reactions
have some unique advantages, such as the elimination of harmful organic solvents, which account for a great
proportion of the waste material generated in syntheses and impose health and environmental risks. Solvent-free
reactions also reduce pollution, reduce handling costs due to the simplification of the experimental procedure
and work-up technique, and have high selectivity in some cases.5
The Michael addition reaction is among the most important organic reactions leading to the formation
of carbon-carbon bonds. It is widely used in organic synthesis because it is catalyzed by a large number of
catalysts, it is completely atom economical, most of the functionalities of the starting materials are preserved in
the products, and the starting materials are readily available or are easily prepared.6 Effective and high-yielding
processes are still being developed.7
In general, conjugated addition reactions require basic conditions or acidic catalysts. In order to overcome
some of these limitations, a number of alternative procedures have been reported over the past few years, using
a variety of reagents such as Pd compounds, InCl3 , CeCl3 .7H2 O-NaI, Yb(OTf)3 , Bi(NO3)3 , Bi(OTf)3 , Cu
salts, LiClO4 , clay, silica gel, boric acid, and SmI2 .8
Ultrasound irradiation has been considered as a useful protocol in organic synthesis in recent years. A
large number of organic reactions can be carried out in higher yields, with shorter reaction times or milder
conditions, under ultrasonic irradiation. Combined ultrasonic techniques and various catalysts for organic
reactions have been reported.9 Some catalysts such as KF/basic alumina, KHSO4 , PTSA, and metal salts have
been reported as effective for Michael reactions under ultrasonic irradiation, and good results were obtained.10
However, there were some disadvantages, such as long reaction times or the use of anhydrous solvents or toxic
and corrosive catalysts. Besides classic acid and base catalysts, several phase-transfer catalysts have also been
successfully used to catalyze the Michael reaction.11 However, most of these reactions were carried out in 2-
phase systems including water and toxic toluene or dichloromethane. As far as we know, solvent-free PTC has
not been widely investigated under ultrasonic effects for the Michael reaction.12
Recently, we successfully used long chain aliphatic dicationic ammonium salts as phase-transfer catalysts
in the condensation reactions of aromatic aldehydes in water under ultrasonic effects.13 In this paper, we
investigate the effect of dicationic ammonium salts 1a-1c in combination with ultrasonic effects and solvent-
free conditions on the Michael addition of 2-cyclohexenone. This type of dicationic ammonium salt was used
for PTC under these conditions for the first time for this reaction.
138

¨
Solvent-free Michael addition of 2-cyclohexenone under ultrasonic..., A. OGE, et al.
Experimental
All reagents were of commercial quality, and reagent-quality solvents were used without further purification.
Melting points were determined on a Gallenkamp digital melting point apparatus and are uncorrected. IR
spectra were determined on a PerkinElmer Spectrum One FT-IR spectrometer. NMR spectra were recorded on
Mercury VX-400 MHz and Varian Unity Inova 500 MHz spectrometers. Chemical shifts, δ, are reported in ppm
relative to CHCl3 (1 H: δ = 7.27) and TMS as the internal standard. Column chromatography was conducted
on silica gel 60 (70-230 mesh). Thin-layer chromatography (TLC) was carried out on aluminum sheets precoated
with silica gel 60 F254 (Merck). Mass spectra were recorded on an Agilent 6890N GC System-5973 IMSD (EI,
70 eV) spectrometer. Ultrasound irradiation was performed in a BANDELIN SONOREX ultrasonic cleaner,
with a frequency of 35 kHz and output power of 350 W. The reaction flasks were located in the maximum energy
area of the cleaner, and the temperature of the water bath was controlled by the circulation of cold water by a
pump.
General procedure for the synthesis of catalysts 1a-1c
A mixture of N ,N -dimethyldodecylamine (2.0 mmol) and dihaloalkane (1.0 mmol) in absolute ethanol (10 mL)
was refluxed for 24 h. After the evaporation of the solvent, the crude product was washed with acetone and
recrystallized from ethanol and diethyl ether (1:2).
◦
1,4-Bis(dodecyldimethylamino)butane dibromide (1a): White powder (mp 220-223 C). IR (atr):
ν 2915, 2849, 1470 cm−1 1 H-NMR (500 MHz, CDCl3): δ 0.82 (t, J = 6.8 Hz, 6H, CH3), 1.21 (m, 28H,
;
CH2), 1.30 (brs, 8H, CH2), 1.71 (brs, 4H, CH2), 2.05 (brs, 4H, CH2), 3.28 (s, 12H, N-CH3), 3.41 (m, 4H,
N-CH2), 3.87 (brs, 4H, N-CH2).
1,6-Bis(dodecyldimethylamino)hexane dibromide (1b): White powder (mp 225-226 ◦ C). IR (atr):
ν 2949, 2916, 2850, 1484, 1464, 1401, 1376 cm−1 1 H-NMR (400 MHz, CDCl3): δ 0.82 (t, J = 6.8 Hz, 6H,
;
CH3), 1.22 (m, 28H, CH2), 1.29 (brs, 8H, CH2), 1.51 (brs, 4H, CH2), 1.66 (brs, 4H, CH2), 1.93 (brs, 4H,
CH2), 3.33 (s, 12H, N-CH3), 3.44 (m, 4H, CH2), 3.64 (m, 4H, CH2).
1,12-Bis(dodecyldimethylamino)dodecane dibromide (1c): White powder (mp 135-136 ◦ C). IR
(atr): ν 2955, 2916, 2851, 1488, 1469, 1421, 1400, 1378 cm−1 1 H-NMR (400 MHz, CDCl3): δ 0.82 (t, J =
;
6.8 Hz, 6H, CH3), 1.21 (m, 40H, CH2), 1.32 (brs, 8H, CH2), 1.66 (brs, 8H, CH2), 2.43 (brs, 4H, CH2), 3.29
(s, 12H, N-CH3), 3.42 (m, 4H, CH2), 3.50 (m, 4H, CH2).
General procedure for the condensation reactions
To a mixture of 2-cyclohexenone (1 mmol) and Michael donor (2 mmol), sodium hydroxide (0.05 mmol) and a
phase-transfer catalyst (0.05 mmol) were added. The reaction mixture was sonicated at 25 ◦ C for a period of
time long enough to complete the reaction (TLC), and then underwent extraction with CHCl3 (2 × 25 mL).
The combined organic extract was dried (MgSO4) and the solvent was removed under reduced pressure. The
residue was purified by column chromatography on silica gel (EtOAc and n-hexane).
Diethyl (3-oxocyclohexyl)propandioate (2): Colorless oil. Rf : 0.50 (EtOAc and n-hexane, 1:3).
IR (atr): ν 2977, 2941, 1744, 1726, 1713, 1447, 1423, 1368, 1254, 1227, 1151 cm−1
;
1 H-NMR (400 MHz,
139

¨
Solvent-free Michael addition of 2-cyclohexenone under ultrasonic..., A. OGE, et al.
CDCl3): δ 1.23 (t, J = 7.2 Hz, 3H, CH3), 1.24 (t, J = 7.2 Hz, 3H, CH3), 1.42-1.52 (m, 1H, CH2), 1.59-1.71
(m, 1H, CH2), 1.89-1.95 (m, 1H, CH2), 2.00-2.08 (m, 1H, CH2), 2.18-2.27 (m, 2H, CH2), 2.34-2.44 (m, 2H,
CH2), 2.45-2.55 (m, 1H, CH and CH2), 3.26 (d, J = 8.0 Hz, 1H, CH(CO2 C2 H5)2), 4.14-4.19 (q, J = 7.2 Hz,
2H, CH2 CH3), 4.15-4.20 (q, J = 7.2 Hz, 2H, CH2 CH3); GC-MS: tR 23.33 min, MS (m/z) (rel. abund.): 256
[M+ ] (3), 228 (2), 211 (49), 183 (25), 160 (100), 136 (66), 110 (23), 97 (87).
3-Oxocyclohexylphenylacetonitrile (3): Yellow oil. Rf : 0.28 (EtOAc and n-hexane, 1:3). Diastere-
;
omeric ratio = 50:50. IR (atr): ν 3032, 2944, 2240, 1708, 1494, 1453, 1422, 1368, 760, 699 cm−1 1 H-NMR (400
MHz, CDCl3): δ 1.48-1.63 (m, 4H, CH2), 1.90-1.93 (m, 2H, CH2), 1.96-2.14 (m, 2H, CH2), 2.15-2.24 (m, 7H,
CH2), 2.30-2.35 (m, 3H, CH and CH2), 3.69 (d, J = 4.4 Hz, 1H, CH-CN), 3.83 (d, J = 4.4 Hz, 1H, CH-CN),
7.19-7.25 (m, 4H, ArH), 7.28-7.34 (m, 6H, ArH); GC-MS: tR 25.73/26.20 min, MS (m/z) (rel. abund.): 213
[M+ ] (24), 117 (33), 97 (100), 69 (100).
Ethyl 3-oxo-2-(3-oxocyclohexyl)butanoate (4): Colorless oil. Rf : 0.40 (EtOAc and n-hexane, 1:3).
Diastereomeric ratio = 50:50. IR (atr): ν 2941, 2865, 1737, 1707, 1447, 1422, 1359, 1250, 1225, 1152 cm−1
;
1 H-NMR (400 MHz, CDCl3): δ 1.25 (t, J = 7.2 Hz, 3H, CH2 CH3), 1.26 (t, J = 7.2 Hz, 3H, CH2 CH3),
1.33-1.40 (m, 1H, CH2), 1.42-1.49 (m, 1H, CH2), 1.60-1.70 (m, 2H, CH2), 1.80-1.91 (m, 2H, CH2), 1.99-2.06
(m, 2H, CH2), 2.11-2.14 (m, 2H, CH2), 2.19 (s, 3H, CH3), 2.21 (s, 3H, CH3), 2.22-2.27 (m, 2H, CH2), 2.30-
2.40 (m, 4H, CH2), 2.51-2.60 (m, 2H, CH-CH2), 3.35 (d, J = 8.4 Hz, 1H, CH-CO), 3.37 (d, J = 8.4 Hz, 1H,
CH-CO), 4.14-4.21 (2q, J = 7.2 Hz, 4H, CH2 CH3); GC-MS: tR 20.96/21.04 min, MS (m/z) (rel. abund.):
226 (M+) (2), 183 (25), 153 (23), 137 (44), 97 (62), 43 (100).
3-(3-Oxocyclohexyl)pentan-2,4-dione (5): Yellow solid (mp 53-55 ˚C). Rf : 0.44 (EtOAc and n-
;
hexane, 1:1). IR (atr): ν 2939, 2865, 1711, 1695, 1448, 1421, 1358, 1152 cm−1 1 H-NMR (400 MHz, CDCl3):
δ 1.30-1.40 (m, 1H, CH2), 1.62-1.74 (m, 1H, CH2), 1.75-1.82 (m, 1H, CH2), 1.98-2.06 (m, 2H, CH2), 2.14 (s,
3H, CH3), 2.16 (s, 3H, CH3), 2.20-2.31 (m, 2H, CH2), 2.35-2.41 (m, 1H, CH2), 2.61-2.71 (m, 1H, CHCH2),
3.61 (d,J = 10.4 Hz, 1H, CH(COCH3)2); GC-MS: tR 18.08 min, MS (m/z) (rel. abund.): 196 (M+) (1), 153
(43), 111 (23), 97 (57), 43 (100).
2-(3-Oxocyclohexyl)-1,3-diphenylpropan-1,3-dione (6): Colorless oil. Rf : 0.24 (EtOAc and n-
;
hexane, 1:3). IR (atr): ν 3063, 2940, 1711, 1693, 1666, 1595, 1579, 1447, 1372, 758, 686 cm−1 1 H-NMR (400
MHz, CDCl3): δ 1.44-1.54 (m, 1H, CH2), 1.56-1.67 (m, 1H, CH2), 1.83-1.89 (m, 1H, CH2), 1.93-2.00 (m, 1H,
CH2), 2.16-2.23 (m, 2H, CH2), 2.30-2.39 (m, 2H, CH2), 2.91-3.01 (m, 1H, CHCH2), 5.16 (d, J = 8.8 Hz, 1H,
CH(COPh)2), 7.34-7.42 (m, 4H, ArH), 7.46-7.51 (m, 2H, ArH), 7.87-7.93 (m, 4H, ArH); GC-MS: tR 27.91 min,
MS (m/z) (rel. abund.): 320 (M+) (2), 224 (22), 105 (100), 77 (36).
2-(3-Oxocyclohexyl)-2H -indene-1,3-dione (7): Brown solid (mp 87-89 ◦ C). Rf : 0.80 (EtOAc and
n-hexane, 1:1). IR (atr): ν 3073, 3032, 2933, 2868, 1741, 1703, 1682, 1593, 1450, 1425, 1387 cm−1 1 H-NMR
;
(400 MHz, CDCl3): δ 1.18-2.90 (m, 10H, CH and CH2), 7.80 (brs, 2H, ArH), 7.92 (brs, 2H, ArH); GC-MS:
tR 31.31 min, MS (m/z) (rel. abund.): 242 (M+) (68), 199 (51), 186 (19), 172 (18), 148 (95), 115 (100), 97
(61), 76 (51), 42 (33).
3-(1-Nitromethyl)cyclohexanone (8): Colorless oil. Rf : 0.30 (EtOAc and n-hexane, 1:2). IR (atr):
;
ν 2942, 2865, 1708, 1541, 1448, 1431, 1381, 1347 cm−1 1 H-NMR (400 MHz, CDCl3): δ 1.43-1.56 (m, 1H,
CH2), 1.67-1.87 (m, 1H, CH2), 1.94-2.03 (m, 1H, CH2), 2.07-2.17 (m, 2H, CH2), 2.24-2.33 (m, 1H, CH2),
2.40-2.53 (m, 2H, CH2), 2.58-2.71 (m, 1H, CH), 4.26 (d, J = 7.0 Hz, 1H, CH2 NO2), 4.35 (d, J = 6.2 Hz,
140

¨
Solvent-free Michael addition of 2-cyclohexenone under ultrasonic..., A. OGE, et al.
1H, CH2 NO2); GC-MS: tR 14.40 min, MS (m/z) (rel. abund.): 157 (M+) (4), 110 (27), 82 (30), 55 (100), 41
(73).
3-(1-Nitroethyl)cyclohexanone (9): Colorless oil. Rf : 0.46 (EtOAc and n-hexane, 1:2). Diastere-
;
omeric ratio = 50:50. IR (atr): ν 2947, 2870, 1710, 1542, 1450, 1421, 1391, 1357 cm−1 1 H-NMR (400 MHz,
CDCl3): δ 1.40-1.48 (m, 2H, CH2), 1.57 (d, J = 9.6 Hz, 6H, CH3), 1.85-1.90 (m, 2H, CH2), 1.91-1.97 (m,
2H, CH2), 2.08-2.20 (m, 4H, CH2), 2.25-2.32 (m, 2H, CH2), 2.39-2.44 (m, 4H, CH2), 2.46-2.48 (m, 2H, CH),
4.44-4.53 (m, 2H, CHNO2); GC-MS: tR 15.30/16.10 min, MS (m/z) (rel. abund.): 171 (M+) (2), 156 (2), 124
(50), 97 (20), 56 (100).
Results and discussion
Ammonium salts 1a-1c, having different spacer lengths, were synthesized by the reaction of dibromoalkanes
with N , N -dimethyldodecylamine according to the previously reported procedure (Scheme 1). The structures
of the compounds were determined by their spectroscopic data and were in accordance with the literature.13
+
dry EtOH
+
( )n
2 Br
+
( )10
N
2
N
( )10
( )n
Br
Br
N
( )11
reflux, 24 h
-
1a, n=2
1b, n=4
1c, n=10
Scheme 1.
We first carried out a set of reactions between 2-cyclohexenone and diethyl malonate or benzyl cyanide
under solvent-free conditions and ultrasonic effects in the presence of tetrabutylammonium bromide (TBAB).
Several bases, such as sodium hydroxide, triethylamine, and potassium carbonate, were used, and different
catalyst amounts, such as 2.5, 5, and 10 mol%, were used to determine the optimum conditions. It was decided
that sodium hydroxide was a good base at 5 mol%, and the best catalyst amount was 5 mol%, according to
the yields. These reactions were also done without ultrasonic effects, and it was then found that the reactions
took place at lower yields and with longer reaction times. All experiments were done with tetrabutylammonium
bromide (TBAB) and dicationic salts 1a-1c to make comparisons. As seen in Table 1, the dicationic ammonium
salts were more effective than TBAB under the conditions investigated.
It is obvious that the reaction takes place at the solid-liquid interphase (Scheme 2). Thus, the dicationic
salts with long alkyl groups are more easily dispersed into the organic phase than monocationic short chain salt
TBAB, and they also have dual cationic effects.
There was a slight difference among the yields from catalysts 1a-1c. However, catalyst 1b was effective
with a shorter reaction time than 1a and a higher yield than 1c. This salt was therefore chosen as the catalyst
for the Michael additions of other active methylene compounds (Table 2). All of the compounds were known in
the literature and all spectroscopic data were in full agreement with their structures.7d,14
141

¨
Solvent-free Michael addition of 2-cyclohexenone under ultrasonic..., A. OGE, et al.
Table 1. Comparison of the activity of catalysts.
Compound 2
Catalyst Reaction time (min)
Yielda (%)
)))) Stirring ))))
Compound 3
Reaction time (min)
Yielda (%)
))))
10
5
Stirring
Stirring
)))) Stirring
TBAB
1a
15
10
8
85
98
98
87
80
87
90
80
10
4
15
8
83
94
97
92
76
86
90
85
1b
2
1
7
1c
2
9
1
8
aIsolated yields
O
O
Q+
_
X
Y
X
Y
Organic phase
Q+
_
X
X
Y
+ Q+Br-
- NaBr
Na+
_
+
NaOH
X
Y
Y
Interphase
Solid phase
NaOH
Scheme 2.
142

¨
Solvent-free Michael addition of 2-cyclohexenone under ultrasonic..., A. OGE, et al.
Table 2. Synthesis of Michael adducts.
143

¨
Solvent-free Michael addition of 2-cyclohexenone under ultrasonic..., A. OGE, et al.
Table 2. Continued.
Reaction time
Product
Yielda (%)
X
Y
(min)
O
O
O
25
75
O
O
77d
O
NO2
NO2
NO2
2
5
55
75
814e
O
NO2
914e
a Isolated yields
Conclusion
We used long chain dicationic ammonium salts as phase-transfer catalysts in combination with ultrasound
irradiation for the Michael addition of active methylene compounds to 2-cyclohexenone under solvent-free
conditions at room temperature. It was found that these salts were more effective than the monocationic one
in these reactions. In contrast to the existing methods, this solvent-free technique is a very efficient, general,
simple, high-yielding, air- and moisture-stable, environmentally benign, and less expensive process, which will
contribute to the progress of green chemistry.
Acknowledgments
We thank the Yıldız Technical University Scientific Research Foundation (BAPK Project Number 28-01-02-02)
for financial support.
144

¨
Solvent-free Michael addition of 2-cyclohexenone under ultrasonic..., A. OGE, et al.
References
1. (a) Starks, C. M.; Liotta, E. L.; Halpern, M. Phase Transfer Catalysis: Fundamentals, Applications and Industrial
Perspectives, Chapman and Hall, New York, 1994. (b) Makosza, M. Pure Appl. Chem. 2000, 72, 1399-1403. (c)
Jones, R. A. Quaternary Ammonium Salts: Their Use in Phase-Transfer Catalysis, Academic Press, London,
2001. (d) Ahmed, B.; Khan, R. A.; Keshari, M. Tetrahedron Lett. 2009, 50, 2889-2892. (e) Han, Z. F.; Yamaguchi,
Y.; Kitamura, M.; Maruoka, K. Tetrahedron Lett. 2005, 46, 8555-8558. (f) O’Reilly, E.; Lestini, E.; Balducci,
D.; Paradisi, F. Tetrahedron Lett. 2009, 50, 1748-1750. (g) Shibuguchi, T.; Fukuta, Y.; Akachi, Y.; Sekine, A.;
Ohshima, T.; Shibasaki, M. Tetrahedron Lett. 2002, 43, 9539-9543. (h) Nelson, A. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 1999,
38, 1583-1585.
2. (a) Vivekanand, P. A.; Balakrishnan, T. Catal. Commun. 2009, 10, 687-692. (b) Ali, H. E. Catal. Commun. 2007,
8, 855-860. (c) Murugan, E.; Gopinath, P. J. Mol. Catal. A Chem. 2009, 309, 12-20. (d) Park, H.; Jeong, B.; Yoo,
M.; Park, M.; Huh, H.; Jew, S. Tetrahedron Lett. 2001, 42, 4645-4648. (e) Murugan, E.; Siva, A. J. Mol. Catal. A
Chem. 2005, 235, 220-229.
3. (a) Sekhon, B. S. Resonance 2004, 42-49. (b) Bagha, A. R. T.; Bahrami, H.; Movassagh, B.; Arami, M.; Menger,
F. M. Dyes Pigm. 2007, 72, 331-338. (c) Li, F.; Rosen, M. J. J. Colloid. Interface Sci. 2000, 224, 265-271. (d)
Shukla, D.; Tyagi, V. K. J. Oleo. Sci. 2006, 55, 381-390. (e) Buwalda, R. T.; Engberts, B. F. N. Langmuir 2001,
17, 1054-1059.
4. (a) Ceylan, M.; Gezegen, H. Turk. J. Chem. 2008, 32, 55-61. (b) Rissafi, B.; Louzi, A.; Loupy, A.; Petit, A.;
Soufianoui, M. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2002, 2518-2523.
5. (a) Nagendrappa, G. Resonance 2002, 7, 64-77. (b) Diez-Barra, E.; de la Hoz, A.; Merino, S.; Sanchez-Verdu, P.
Tetrahedron Lett. 1997, 38, 2359-2362.
6. (a) Lopes, R. C. V.; Oliveira, M. C. F.; Lemos, T. L. G.; Mattos, M. C. J. Braz. Chem. Soc. 2005, 16, 1048-1053.
(b) Matsuo, J.; Kawai, H.; Ishibashi, H. Tetrahedron Lett. 2007, 48, 3155-3158.
7. (a) Rao, H. S. P.; Jothiligam, S. J. Chem. Sci. 2005, 117, 323-328. (b) Liu, W.; Xu, Q.; Liang, Y.; Chen, B.;
Liu, W.; Ma, Y. J. Organomet. Chem. 2001, 637-639, 719-722. (c) Yadav, J. S.; Anuradha, K.; Reddy, B. V. S.;
Eeshwaraiah, B. Tetrahedron Lett. 2003, 44, 8959-8962. (d) Hassan, M. A.; Mohamed, M. M.; Shiba, S. A.; Khalil,
A. Phosphorus, Sulfur, Silicon 2000, 157, 97-105. (e) Mistryukov, E. A. Mendeleev Commun. 2007, 17, 230-231.
(f) Wang, W.; Wang, X.; Kodama, K.; Hirose, T.; Zhang, G. Tetrahedron 2010, 66, 4970-4976. (g) Chuan, Y.;
Chen, G.; Peng, Y. Tetrahedron Lett. 2009, 50, 3054-3058. (h) De Rosa, M.; Soriente, A. Tetrahedron 2010, 66,
2981-2986. (i) Truong, T. K. T.; Vo-Thanh, G. Tetrahedron 2010, 66, 5277-5282. (j) Habib, P. M.; Kavala, V.;
Kuo, C. W.; Raihan, M.; Yao, C. F. Tetrahedron 2010, 66, 7050-7056.
8. Duan, Z.; Xuan, X.; Li, T.; Yeng, C.; Wu, Y. Tetrahedron Lett. 2006, 47, 5433-5436.
9. Ahluwalia, V. K.; Aggarval, R. Organic Synthesis: Special Techniques, Narosa Publishing House, New Delhi, 2001.
10. (a) Li, J. T.; Chen, G. F.; Xu, W. Z.; Li, T. S. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2003, 10, 115-118. (b) Zeng, X. F.; Ji, S.
J.; Shen, S. S. Chinese J. Chem. 2007, 25, 1777-1780. (c) Ji, S. J.; Weng, S. Y. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2005, 12,
339-343. (d) Patel, A. L.; Talele, H. R.; Rama, H. S.; Bedekar, A. V. Synthetic Commun. 2009, 39, 3016-3023.
11. (a) Ma, T.; Fu, X.; Kee, C. W.; Zong, L.; Pan, Y.; Huang, K. W.; Tan, C. H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133,
2828-2831. (b) He, R.; Ding, C.; Maruoka, K. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2009, 48, 4559-4561. (c) Lygo, B.; Beynon,
C.; McLeod, M. C.; Roy, C. E.; Wade, C. E. Tetrahedron 2010, 66, 8832-8836. (d) Su, C.; Xie, Y. M.; Zhang, Q.
T. Catal. Lett. 2011, 141, 1004-1008. (e) Mahe, O.; Dez, I.; Levacher, V.; Briere, J. F. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.
2010, 49, 7072-7075.
145

¨
Solvent-free Michael addition of 2-cyclohexenone under ultrasonic..., A. OGE, et al.
12. (a) Cravatto, G.; Cintas, P. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2006, 35, 180-196. (b) Li, J. T.; Zhai, X. L.; Lin, Z. P.; Zhang, X.
H. Lett. Org. Chem. 2008, 5, 579-582.
13. Esen, I.; Yolacan, C.; Aydogan, F. Bull. Korean Chem. Soc. 2010, 31, 2289-2292.
14. (a) Ozaki, Y.; Kubo, A.; Okamura, K.; Kim, S. W. Chem. Pharm. Bull. 1995, 43, 734-737. (b) Shimizu, S.;
Shirakawa, S.; Suzuki, T.; Sasaki, Y. Tetrahedron 2001, 57, 6169-6173. (c) Aplander, K.; Ding, R.; Krasavin, M.;
Lindstr¨om, U. M.; Wennerberg, J. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2009, 810-821. (d) Kotrusz, P.; Toma, S. Arkivoc 2006,
v, 100-109. (e) Mitchell, C. E. T.; Brenner, S. E.; Garcia-Fortanet, J.; Ley, S. V. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2006, 4,
2039-2049.
146

Copyright of Turkish Journal of Chemistry is the property of Scientific and Technical Research Council of
Turkey and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.