obtained, a start-up time of 20 min was estimated before the
steady-state of the system would be achieved. It should be noted
that the standard deviation results from the fact that a biphasic
mixture results, which is difficult to quantitatively separate on
a relatively small scale. An averaged experimental flow rate of
-1
1
07 mL h was determined by measuring the volume output
every 20 min. It deviates from its theoretical flow rate due to
nonideal mixing behavior of the solutions. The average yield
obtained during this experiment is quantitative.
In summary, the transfer of the optimum amidation reaction
conditions into the continuous microreactor setup was ac-
complished without problems. Either acetonitrile or THF can
be used as solvents, with 2.5-3.0 M concentrations of 1, 2.7
mol equiv of methylamine, and 1 mol equiv of HCl relative to
2
Figure 4. Nitrosation of 2 to 3 with NaNO : Dependence of
the total yield on the reaction time for different protocols (3 M
2 in THF, 7 mol equiv of acetic acid or 2.6 mol equiv of HCl,
1. As in the discontinuous experiments, a biphasic system
2
and 3 mol equiv of NaNO relative to 2).
resulted, in which >90% yield (at 100% conversion) is isolated
with the organic phase (containing, beside the product, <5%
water and 3% chloride). Both mixer types gave comparable
results. Although the reaction is extremely fast and does not
require long residence times, the addition of a water-cooled
residence section S1 (90 cm) and S2 (75 cm) to allow for
efficient cooling and, hence, reduced fluent fluctuation is
With acetic acid, which is mainly used in literature,24,25 a 7-fold
excess is required to obtain best performance, whereas with
HCl, only a 2.6-fold excess is needed (1 M 2 in acetonitrile,
3
-fold excess NaNO
ations as well as the atom efficiency
CH CO Na-waste) favor HCl. Additionally, with acetic acid, a
2
relative to 2, 4 h). Economic consider-
28,29
(NaCl-waste vs
3
2
-1
advisible. With an optimum flow rate (1080 mL h ) and a
calculated residence time of 13 s, a maximum STY of up to 75
single liquid phase and frequent precipitations also restrict the
transfer into MRT. HCl instead is a driver for liquid-liquid
phase separation, especially in water-miscible solvents. Only
HCl as 25% aqueous solution (or lower) gives precipitation-
free reactions, because otherwise NaNO becomes insoluble.
2
An investigation of the dependency of the reaction time (3
M 2 in THF, 7 mol equiv of acetic acid or 2.6 mol equiv of
HCl, and 3 mol equiv of NaNO relative to 2) showed, that
2
with HCl the product is formed immediately (<1 min), whereas
with acetic acid, the product is formed quantitatively only within
-1
-1
kg L
h
is achieved. A 5-h continuously conducted experi-
ment showed that the system is sufficiently stable for small-
scale production.
Nitrosation. For the nitrosation of 2 to 3, a method was
19,24,25
adapted from literature
using aqueous acidic NaNO
2
.
Conventionally, the acidic environment for NaNO
by addition of acetic acid, and in only a few cases has HCl
been reported.
2
is provided
26
Discontinuous Nitrosation. In batch experiments, the nitro-
sation of 2 was optimized with respect to the type of acid, the
15 min, despite the higher acid concentration (Figure 4). Only
after very long reaction times (several days), does decomposition
of the product 3 occur, thus allowing for the production of the
diazomethane precursor somewhat in advance to its usage.
As in the amidation, the reaction mixture separates into a
biphasic liquid-liquid system in both solvent systems. The
slightly yellow organic phase contains the product 3 (about 90%
of the total yield).
In order to run the process at the highest possible substrate
concentrations of 2 in THF or acetonitrile, concentration studies
were carried out, which showed that up to 4 M of 2 can be
converted, but at >1 M, the solution becomes turbid, and 3
precipitates slowly at >3 M. Hence, the highly concentrated
product solution from the amidation can be used without having
to change solvents. This was tested in batch experiments (one-
pot synthesis); although nitrous gases developed and led to
foaming, consistent yields were obtained. The reaction outcome
reaction time, the type of solvent, the ratio of acid and NaNO
2
with respect to 2, and the concentration of the reactants in
solution.
27
According to literature, the nitrosation is carried out at 0
C. However, in order to obtain information about the heat
°
development during the reaction, experiments were carried out
autothermally while recording the solution temperature. In all
instances, the temperature rise was uncritical with <30 °C.
In the optimization experiments, acetonitrile and THF were
used as these were the most efficient solvents in the preceding
reaction step (Vide supra).
In general, an excess NaNO
nitrosation, due to partial decomposition to nitrous gases such
as NO and NO . Investigations in the range of 1.3 to 3.1 mol
equiv of NaNO relative to 2 (1 M 2 in acetonitrile, 7-fold
excess of acetic acid relative to 2, 4 h) showed that a 2.5-3.0-
fold excess NaNO to 2 gives quantitative conversions. Similar
considerations affect the ratio of acid to 2, because NaNO
2
is needed for complete
2
2
is independent of the sequence of adding acid and NaNO
. However, mixing NaNO with acid before addition of 2 is
disadvantageous, as NaNO decomposes unselectively prior to
2
to
2
2
2
2
+
2
requires acidic conditions to release the active species NO .
reacting with 2. This is evidenced by the formation of larger
amounts of gases (bubbles and brown fumes).
In conclusion, optimal batch conditions for the transfer into
MRT, considering economic and ecological aspects, were
(
(
24) White, E. H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1955, 77, 6008.
25) Garcia-Rio, L.; Leis, J. R.; Moreira, J. A.; Norberto, F. J. Chem. Soc.,
Perkin Trans. 2 1998, 1613.
(
26) Iley, J.; Norbert, F.; Rosa, E.; Cardoso, V.; Rocha, C. J. Chem. Soc.,
Perkin Trans. 2 1993, 591.
(28) Trost, B. M. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 1995, 34, 259.
(29) Sheldon, R. A. Pure Appl. Chem. 2000, 72, 1233.
(
27) Organikum, 21st ed.; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, 2001; p 392.
Vol. 13, No. 5, 2009 / Organic Process Research & Development
•
1019