Organic Process Research & Development
Technical Note
1
4
to 68−72 °C and held for 4 h. In-process HPLC analysis of a
sample of the suspension indicated 0.9 A% of unreacted 4
(
(6) Kiesewetter, M. K.; Scholten, M. D.; Kirn, N.; Weber, R. L.;
Hedrick, J. L.; Waymouth, R. M. J. Org. Chem. 2009, 74, 9490.
(
7) Sabot, C.; Kumar, K. A.; Meunier, S.; Mioskowski, C. Tetrahedron
Lett. 2007, 48, 3863.
8) VanDeusen, C. L.; Weiberth, F. J.; Gill, H. S.; Lee, G.; Hillegass,
A. PCT Int. Appl. WO2011044307, 2011.
9) Price, K. E.; Larrivee-Aboussafy, C.; Lillie, B. M.; McLaughlin, R.
target: ≤3.0 A%). The batch was cooled to 20−26 °C, diluted
with abs. ethanol (11 kg), stirred for 30 min at 19−25 °C, and
then further diluted with toluene (37 kg). The suspension was
heated and held at 68−72 °C for 30 min, cooled to 25 °C over
a period of about 3 h, stirred at 17−23 °C for 16 h, and then
filtered. The cake was rinsed twice with solutions comprised of
toluene (24.0 kg) and absolute ethanol (3.2 kg), and then it was
rinsed with water (142 kg). After drying (<100 Torr, 55−60
(
(
́
W.; Mustakis, J.; Hettenbach, K. W.; Hawkins, J. M.; Vaidyanathan, R.
Org. Lett. 2009, 11, 2003.
(10) Recovery of TBD was not investigated.
(11) Attempts to substantially reduce toluene levels by modifying the
crystallization or drying steps were unsuccessful. Subsequent develop-
ment will evaluate employing an alternative solvent for the amidation.
°
C), 12.50 kg (82.1%) of 2 was obtained as a white, crystalline
solid, 99.2 A% pure by HPLC analysis and containing 3700
ppm toluene.
(12) The elimination of processing steps more than compensated for
the upfront cost of TBD (ca. 2,400 USD/kg in 10-kg lots, Aldrich).
The cost contribution of TBD was further mitigated because it was
employed in substoichiometric quantities. It is reasonable to anticipate
more competitive pricing should this reagent become more commonly
employed.
Recrystallization of 2. A suspension of 2 (22.0 kg) and 382
kg of abs. EtOH was heated and held at 67−73 °C for about 1
h. The resulting solution was cooled to 63−67 °C and then
passed through a 0.8-μm cartridge filter (to remove extraneous
matter) with a rinse using abs. EtOH (24 kg, ca. 65 °C). The
(13) Alternatively, 3 can be charged as a dry, isolated solid, and the
15
solution was partially concentrated (atmospherically, 78 °C)
partial concentration and azeotropic drying steps eliminated.
(14) A stepwise heating profile gave cleaner conversion to product
compared to directly heating to 70 °C.
16
to a volume of ∼286 L. The batch was cooled to 55 °C at a
rate of 0.5 °C/min and then was held at 53−57 °C for 2 h,
during which time the product crystallized. The batch was
cooled to −5 °C at a rate of 0.2 °C/min, was held at −3 to −7
(
15) High dilution was used for the initial dissolution to avoid the
potential of premature crystallization during the polish filtration.
16) A narrow ring of solid formed on the wall of the reactor at the
(
°
C overnight, and was then filtered. The filter cake was rinsed
with abs. EtOH (36 kg, −5 °C) and then dried (<100 Torr, 30
C for 3 h, then 58 °C for 20 h) to give 19.5 kg (88.6%
recovery) of 2 as a white, crystalline solid, 99.9 A% pure by
HPLC analysis. H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d , δ): 1.61 (s,
H), 4.65 (s, 2H), 6.10 (s, 1H), 7.53−7.63 (m, 3H), 7.91−8.04
m, 3H), 8.44 (d, 1H), 8.78 (d, 1H), 9.37 (s, 2H), 9.58 (s, 1H);
liquid line during the distillation. Periodic increases in the agitation
rate dislodged most of the solid off the wall. At the end of the partial
concentration, the batch was held at 75 °C, just under reflux
temperature, to allow the solvent vapor to condense and redissolve the
small amount of solid on the wall.
°
1
6
6
(
1
3
C NMR (DMSO-d , δ): 28.8, 42.8, 68.1, 124.3, 125.8, 126.0,
6
1
1
26.4, 126.6, 129.7, 131.0, 137.5, 140.4, 150.1, 154.0, 157.0,
63.3, 164.7, 167.6, 184.6.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
■
*
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
†
A member of Chemical Development, Sanofi U.S. R&D,
Bridgewater, NJ, at the time this work was conducted.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
■
We are grateful to the many colleagues within our organization
who provided pilot plant, analytical, process safety, technical,
and operations support.
REFERENCES
■
(
1) For a review of amide bond formation on industrial scale as
applied to preparing peptides, see: Marder, O.; Albericio, F. Chim. Oggi
2
003, 21 (6), 6.
2) For recent reviews of amide bond formation, see: (a) Montalbetti,
C. A. G. N.; Falque, V. Tetrahedron 2005, 61, 10827. (b) Allen, C. L.;
Williams, J. M. J. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2011, 40, 3405. (c) Joullie, M. M.;
(
́
Lassen, K. M. ARKIVOC 2010, 8, 189. (d) Valeur, E.; Bradley, M.
Chem. Soc. Rev. 2009, 38, 606. (e) Benz, G. In Comprehensive Organic
Synthesis; Trost, B. M., Fleming, I., Winterfeldt, E., Eds.; Pergamon
Press: New York, 1991; Vol. 6, 381−417.
(
(
3) See ref 2a, 2d, and 2e, and references cited therein.
4) Smith, M. B.; March, J. In Advanced Organic Chemistry, 5th ed.;
John Wiley & Sons: New York, 2001; pp 510−511.
5) Pratt, R. C.; Lohmeijer, B. G. G.; Long, D. A.; Waymouth, R. M.;
Hedrick, J. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 4556.
(
C
dx.doi.org/10.1021/op300210j | Org. Process Res. Dev. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX