1
Figure 3. Partial quantitative 500 MHz H NMR spectra for diastereoisomeric mixtures of 1 and 2, showing the region containing the
C(5)H resonances. The asterix denotes low level spectrometer receiver artifacts.
1
constant of the slowest relaxing parent 12C resonances; it is
this that would usually be measured when determining T1
values with, for example, the well-known inversion-recovery
method.8 Failure to avoid saturation effects will lead to a
relative enhancement of the 13C satellite resonance intensities
and will result in an overestimation of the diastereoisomeric
or product ratio. For many small organic molecules studied
in (nondegassed) low-viscosity solvents such as chloroform,
proton T1 values are below 5 s, dictating recycle delays of
up to 25 s. The use of conservative recycle delays should
avoid the need for direct T1 measurement on every sample
analyzed. While relaxation reagents can be used to reduce
these requirements, the addition of these to precious samples
is often undesirable, and may lead to unacceptable line-
broadening.
For H NMR spectra recorded under these experimental
conditions, it is apparent that when the height of the 13C-1H
satellite resonances associated with the major diastereoisomer
are greater than that of the 12C-1H resonance of the minor
diastereoisomer, the diastereoisomeric ratio is >180:1 (>98.9%
de), thus allowing an approximate, yet ready, quantitative
assessment of the diastereoisomeric ratio by direct inspection
1
of the H NMR spectrum.
As a model system to demonstrate the effectiveness and
ease with which this protocol may be applied, the known
oxazolidinones 1 and 2, derived from (1R,2S)-ephedrine and
(1S,2S)-pseudoephedrine, respectively, were prepared and
recrystallized twice from CH2Cl2/hexane.9 Stock solutions
of 1 (1.675 g in 25 mL of CDCl3) and 2 (685 mg in 10 mL
1
of CDCl3) were prepared. H NMR spectroscopic analysis
To fully resolve the 13C satellites from the parent
resonance, its line shape must be sufficiently narrow at the
baseline, a condition that is usually met on modern, well-
shimmed spectrometers. In this context gradient shimming
routines can be advantageous in the avoidance of low-level
broadening or asymmetrical humps that may arise from
inadequate shim optimization. It is also likely to be beneficial
to avoid sample rotation and eliminate the possible appear-
ance of undesirable “spinning sidebands” either side of the
parent resonances.6b Furthermore, it is advantageous to
consider measurements derived from the simplest and
narrowest available multiplet structures such that the satellite
resonances remain resolved: singlets are to be preferred.
Likewise, the use of only moderate sensitivity enhancement
window (apodization) functions when processing the FID is
recommended such that the base of the parent resonance is
not made so broad that it extends to the satellites. In situations
when the signal-to-noise ratio of the minor isomer resonance
is sufficient, such enhancement functions may be avoided
altogether. Spectra should also be baseline corrected, at least
in the region of the peaks of interest, prior to integration.
of a 1:1 mixture of diastereoisomers 1 and 2 (prepared from
the stock solutions) indicated excellent resonance dispersion
in CDCl3, with the resonances due to C(4)H (1H, dq), C(5)H
(1H, d), and C(4)Me (3H, d) being well resolved within each
diastereoisomer, and from each other (Figure 1).
The inversion-recovery sequence was used to determine
T1 values for the doublet resonances associated with C(5)H,
for both the parent 12C-1H resonances and their correspond-
1
ing 13C-1H satellites, within both 1 and 2. Fourteen H
aquisitions were collected, with inversion recovery delays
ranging from 0-20 s, and the individual recovery curves
(4) Maniara, G.; Rajamoorthu, K.; Rajan, S.; Stockton, G. W. Anal.
Chem. 1998, 70, 4921.
(5) Dewey, R. S.; Schoenewaldt, E. F.; Joshua, H.; Paleveda, W. J., Jr.;
Schwam, H.; Barkemeyer, H.; Arison, B. H.; Veber, D. F.; Denkewalter,
R. G.; Hirschmann, R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1968, 90, 3254. Boate, A. R.;
Eaton, D. R. Can. J. Chem. 1976, 54, 3895. Brown, S. L.; Davies, S. G.;
Foster, D. F.; Seeman, J. I.; Warner, P. Tetrahedron Lett. 1986, 27, 623.
Fux, P. Analyst 1990, 115, 179. Vedejs, E.; Wang, J.; Lin, S.; Klapars, A.
U. S. Patent 5,900,427, 1999. Al-Deen, T. S.; Hibbert, D. B.; Hook, J. M.;
Wells, R. J. Anal. Chim. Acta 2002, 474, 125. Wells, R. J.; Hook, J. M.;
Al-Deen, T. S.; Hibbert, D. B. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 3366.
Forshed, J.; Andersson, F. O.; Jacobsson, S. V. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal.
2005, 29, 495. For a review see ref 2.
Org. Lett., Vol. 10, No. 23, 2008
5435