versatility of cyanide chemistry. The most exciting feature
ofthiscommunicationisits mechanism, that we postulated
here involving the dual nature of CN moiety.
Scheme 2. Proposed Mechanism
Mechanistically, it is conceivable that the aromatic
ketones first undergo a Knoevenagel condensation reac-
tion with malononitrile which is a very characteristic reac-
8
tion of carbonyl compounds in the presence of a base.
This is evident from the NMR spectrum of the major
0
product [(5), (R = 4 -Cl-C H -)] isolated after 30min. This
6
4
intermediate (5) underwent nucleophilic attack by thiols
on ꢀCN functionality to give the in situ intermediate 6
(
Scheme 2). Intermediate 6 undergoes cheletropic addition
with a cyanide ion to give an amidine species (7) that
tautomerizes to yield an amino-3H-pyrrole (4). A highly
reactive cyanide species was presumed to be formed by the
nucleophilic attackof thiols onmalononitrile by a mechan-
ism drawn in Scheme 2. This proposition was further sup-
ported by the isolation of the byproduct, 2-(phenylthio)-
acetonitrile (8), formed by the nucleophilic attack of PhSH
on malononitrile which furnishes cyanide ions for the
reaction. Thus, malononitrile acts as a nontoxic cyanide
source in this reaction.
Here, despite Knoevenagel condensation being a net
dehydration of the water molecule, the reaction is favored
in an aqueous medium. A plausible explanation is that
Table 1. Optimization of Reaction Conditions for the
Multicomponent Coupling Reactions
a
water aids in better contact between the catalyst (Et N)
3
and the active methylene compounds through hydrogen
8
b,9
bonding.
Thus, realizing environmental concerns, as
well as the vast utility and scope of reactions carried out in
water, we established water to be the preferred solvent.
The reaction between acetophenone (1a), malononitrile
(
2), and thiophenol (3a) was selected for the survey of
amount
of
yield
of
reactions. The yield decreased substantially with stronger
base catalysts instead; significant tarring was ob-
served (Table 1, entries 1 and 2) probably due to the self-
condensation of the carbonyl compounds at high tempera-
catalyst
(mol %)
temp (°C)/
time (h)
4aa
b
(%)
entry
catalyst
NaOH
solvent
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10
ꢀ
2
H O
2
H O
2
H O
2
H O
100, 2
22
47
ꢀ
ture with stronger bases. Importantly, no product was
K
2
CO
3
100, 2
observed when a background reaction was carried out
without any catalyst (Table 1, entry 3). Interestingly, the
basicity of the common organic bases did not assert any
obvious effect on the product yield. However, pyridine and
ꢀ
100, 20
100, 3
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
guanidine
DBU
86
88
89
62
94
91
84
74
79
64
65
41
21
2
H O
100, 3
piperidine
2
H O
2
H O
2
H O
2
H O
100, 3
Et
Et
3
N
N
60, 10
Et N afforded a slightly better yield than DBU, guanidine,
3
3
100, 3
or piperidine presumably due to the lesser extent of poly-
merization of the ketones with weaker bases such as
pyridine and Et N. However pyridine is potentially harm-
pyridine
100, 3
10
Et
Et
3
N
N
toluene
DMSO
DMF
100ꢀ110, 3
120ꢀ130, 3
120ꢀ130, 3
70ꢀ80, 3
70ꢀ80, 3
50ꢀ60, 3
30ꢀ35, 3
3
11
3
8
a
ful to the experimentalist. Therefore, Et N was our
3
12
13
14
3
Et N
obvious choise of catalyst. Again, temperature played a
significant role since there was only a 62% yield at 60 °C
compared to the 94% yield at 100 °C (Table 1, entries 7
and 8). Albeit the reaction was successful in common high
boiling point organic solvents such as toluene, DMSO,
DMF, etc., the isolated yields were comparatively low
3
Et N
ACN
Et
3
Et
3
Et
3
N
N
N
EtOH
MeOH
DCM
1
1
5
6
a
Reaction conditions: Acetophenone (1 mmol), malononitrile (2 mmol),
thiophenol (2 mmol), different catalysts, different solvents, different
b
temperatures, different times. Isolated yields.
(
Table 1, entries 10ꢀ12). The reaction in low boiling point
solvents (DCM, MeOH) afforded poor yields of 4aa
Table 1, entries 15, 16). However comparatively better
(
yields were obtained in EtOH and acetonitrile (Table 1,
entries 13, 14).
(
8) (a) Mukhopadhyay, C.; Ray, S. Tetrahedron 2011, 67, 7936. (b)
Mukhopadhyay, C.; Das, P.; Butcher, R. J. Org. Lett. 2011, 13, 4664.
9) (a) Bigi, F.; Chesini, L.; Maggi, R.; Sartori, G. J. Org. Chem. 1999,
033. (b) Mukhopadhyay, C.; Ray, S. Catal. Commun. 2011, 12, 1496.
With the optimized conditions in hand, to delineate this
approach, the scope and generality of this protocol was
next assessed by employing various ketones, thiols, and
(
1
Org. Lett., Vol. 15, No. 22, 2013
5623