N.I. Kuznetsova et al.
Catalysis Communications 114 (2018) 84–88
2
. Experimental
appeared as the products of reduction of cyclohexane dihydroperoxide
and 2-cyclohexene dihydroperoxide. In most oxidation experiments,
2–
2.1. Oxidation experiments
iodometric titration gave slightly more O
2
groups than combined
amount of hydroxyls in 2-cyclohexen-1-ol and other hydroxyl com-
pounds determined by GC after the treatment of the reaction solutions
Oxidation of cyclohexene in acetonitrile solution of NHPI was per-
formed at 1 bar of O
2
in a glass reactor (V 20 mL, 2.5 mL of solution), or
with Ph
3
P. This small excess could be attributed to dimer and polymer
P to hardly detectable
at variable pressures of air in titanium reactor (V 300 mL, 50 mL of
solution). For convenience, all data were normalized to 2.5 mL of the
reaction solution.
peroxides [18] which were converted by Ph
3
high-boiling compounds. Thus, at the conversion of cyclohexene
around 30%, CHHP was obtained with selectivity of 89% (Run 2 in
Table 1). These conversion/selectivity parameters are comparable with
those achieved in synthesis of other hydroperoxides. For instance, the
NHPI catalyzed oxidation of hydrocarbons gave selectivity in the range
of 90–96% at a conversion of 22–35% for alkylbenzenes (sec-bu-
tylbenzene, cyclohexylbenzene, cumene) [14, 15], and 40% selectivity
at 16% conversion in case of isobutane [23].
2.2. Analysis of the reaction solution
Cyclohexene and oxidation products were analyzed by GC and
GCMS after treatment of the solution with triphenylphosphine (see
Supporting Information). O
2–
2
groups in the products were additionally
determined by iodometric titration. Quantitative analysis of NHPI was
made by HPLC. Transformation of NHPI in the reaction solution was
investigated by H, C and N NMR.
3
.2. Transformation of the NHPI catalyst
1
13
15
HPLC analysis of the reaction solutions showed that 15 to 60% of
The experimental technique is detailed in Supplementary material.
the initial amount of NHPI was lost for the reaction time (Table 1),
probably, due to transformation into inactive species during catalysis.
The gradual degradation of the catalyst caused slowing down in time of
the oxygen consumption, as shown by the curves in Fig.1. (The time-
varying concentration of cyclohexene and oxidation products in the
reaction solution could also contribute to the slowing of the reaction [6,
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Products of cyclohexene oxidation
Typical time dependencies of oxygen consumption during cyclo-
1
6].) The increase of initial NHPI resulted in an increase of cyclohexene
hexene oxidation in a glass reactor (curves 1 and 2) and in titanium
reactor (curve 3) are presented in Fig.1. The curves 1 and 2 showed an
induction period that was shorter in case of addition of a small amount
of CHHP initiator. When the oxidation was conducted in the titanium
reactor (curve 3), it was difficult to follow initial oxygen consumption
because the reactor was heated to the reaction temperature for ap-
proximately 10 min. Most likely, the induction period was short or
absent due to possible initiation of the radical Reaction (1) on metal
parts of the reactor.
conversion (from 12 to 31%) and yield of CHHP (from 10 to 26%, No 2
and 4–8 in Table 1). Amount of NHPI transformed during the reaction
was the greater, the larger was initial NHPI, and the transformation
decreased with a decrease in cyclohexene loading from 4.5 to 2.4 mmol
and oxygen partial pressure from 1 to 0.5 bar (Fig. 2).
To follow the catalytic reaction and transformation of the catalyst in
time, we performed the oxidation in more severe than usual conditions
using higher temperature and oxygen pressure (Runs 10, 11 in Table 1).
Intensive oxygen consumption began immediately as soon as the re-
actor was heated to 70 °C, whereas after 2.5 h a gradual deceleration of
the oxidation process became remarkable (Fig. 3, curves 10, 11). HPLC
analysis of NHPI showed that the rapid oxygen consumption for oxi-
dation of cyclohexene within the first two hours was accompanied by
intensive loss of NHPI (Fig.3, curve NHPI). During this period, 40% of
NHPI disappeared, and then the degradation continued slowly.
Table 1 shows the results of cyclohexene oxidation. In Runs 1, 2 and
3, conversion of cyclohexene for 7–8 h was in the range of 29–31%. The
reductive treatment of the reaction solution with Ph P converted the
3
main oxidation product CHHP to 2-cyclohexen-1-ol. After the treat-
ment, GC determined 2-cyclohexen-1-ol corresponded to CHHP yield of
1
1
8, 26 and 20% in Runs 1, 2, 3, respectively. In addition, 2-cyclohexen-
-one (2.4%), cyclohexene oxide (0.2%), 2-cyclohexene-1,4-diols
(
0.3%, cis- and trans-), 1,4- and 1,2 -cyclohexanediols (0.4%) were
3.3. NMR study of the NHPI transformation
detected by GC in the reaction solution treated with Ph P. Dialcohols
3
Deactivation of NHPI in homogeneous reactions is sometimes as-
sociated with hydrolysis to form phthalic acid. However, we did not
observe formation of a precipitate of poorly soluble in CH CN phthalic
3
acid. No phthalic acid was also detected in the reaction solution by
NMR. Another transformation responsible for deactivation of NHPI
could be recombination of the reactive PINO radicals to inactive dimers
and trimers [8], or irreversible binding of the PINO radicals by any
radical acceptor. The experimentally observed correlation of NHPI de-
gradation not only with initial NHPI, but also with oxygen and cyclo-
hexene concentrations (Fig. 2) indicated both oxygen and cyclohexene
to be involved in deactivation of NHPI. In attempt to understand a
nature of this phenomenon, we considered all possible interactions of
NHPI and olefins other than allylic oxidation. In the presence of strong
oxidants, NHPI formed PINO that reacted with olefins and cycloolefins
by abstraction of an allylic H-atom. In the absence of molecular oxygen,
the allyl radical attached another PINO radical to form monosubstituted
allylic products [24, 25]. Addition of two PINO moieties across double
bond of the olefins occurred under non-radical interaction assisted by
Pb(IV). Due to anaerobic conditions, allylic oxidation was excluded in
both cases.
Fig. 1. Gas consumption versus time. Numbers near the curves correspond to
runs in Table 1: O 1 bar (1, 2) or 4.6 bar (3), addition of CHHP 50 μmol for (2).
Another type of interaction represented by radical addition of tert-
RO• and ROO• to the double bond [26] was also realized by PINO
2
85