Org Prep Daily

April 4, 2008

Anhydrous Cerium(III) chloride + LiBr solution in THF

Filed under: procedures — milkshake @ 1:27 pm

cerium.gif 

LiBr 24.5g (282 mmol) was dried in a 0.5L RB flask on highvac (0.2 Torr) at 150C for 12h (overnight), then cooled under Ar to RT and anh THF 0.4L was added via cannula. The the mixture was stirred under Ar until complete dissolution (20 min).

Meanwhile, powdered CeCl3.7H2O 47.5g (Aldrich; 127.5 mmol) was combined with re-distilled thionyl chloride 175mL (2.4 mol) in a 0.5L flask equipped with an efficient reflux condenser topped with a gas outlet tube (vented into a large Erlenmeyer flask filled with soda lime pellets). The mixture was placed on a 70C bath and stirred vigorously for 2 hours; at the end  of this period the gas evolution and SOCl2 reflux nearly ceased. The bath temperature was then raised to 110C and the slurry was refluxed for 12 hours (overnight). The condenser was replaced with a short-path distillation head and the unreacted thionyl chloride was recovered by distillation from a 110C bath. The solid residue remaining in the distillation flask was  briefly dried by using a teflon pump at 10 Torr at 110C/15 min and then flushed with Ar. The bath temperature was raised to 200C and a stream of dry Ar was passed into the flask through the septa for 1 hour at 200C. The solid was further dried on highvac (0.2Torr) at 200C for 12 hours. The obtained anhydrous CeCl3 (a fine white heavy powder) was cooled to 0C under Ar, the anh LiBr THF solution was added via cannula with stirring, the cooling bath was removed and the mixture volume in the flask was adjusted with additional anh THF to about 0.5L total volume. The mixture was then stirred at RT to a complete dissolution (6-12 hours), then used as such.

This procedure yields 0.5L of aprox 0.25M CeCl3.2LiBr in THF as a yellow cloudy solution. The trace amount of a very fine insoluble material present in the mixture can be removed by sedimentation but for most applications this seems unnecessary.

Note 1: The used SOCl2 was re-distilled before use because a new bottle of Aldrich’s “Low Fe 99.5% SOCl2″ came brightly colored. (Don’t listen to Aldrich tech support folks telling you that pure SOCl2 is canary-yellow according to ther specification). The used THF was a common Aldrich BHT-stabilised anhydrous Sure-Seal grade.

Note 2: LiBr and CeCl3.7H2O are hygroscopic and must be stored in a tight bottle. (CeCl3.7H2O powders up very nicely with a mortar and pestle but a soggy material is difficult to use in this procedure). Care was taken to avoid contaminating the flask joints when loading up the solids as this could cause the joints to seize or leak.

86 Comments »

  1. Why would anhydrous Sure-seal THF need BHT in it? And what is the yellow crap in SOCl2? (We used to call low-Fe SOCl2 hyperspecial grade for no reason)

    Comment by excimer — April 4, 2008 @ 10:28 pm

  2. I dont trust Aldrich non-stabilised anh THF – I found peroxides even in a unopened bottle of inhibitor-free anh Sure-Seal stuff. I suppose they package some of their Sure-seal products rigorously under N2 but THF does not seem to be the case – and you never know how old the bottle is. Few migs of BHT will hardly upset medicinal chemistry but peroxides would ruin our fancy phosphine ligands for Pd catalyzed arylations.

    As for the identity of yellow crap in this batch of SOCl2, I noticed that Aldrich recently swiched to a different kind of white-clear SOCl2 bottle with a new cap which seems to have a nasty leak problem so maybe some dissolved plastic from the resin cap makes things colorful there.

    By the way, I bought two 0.5L bottles of this material, one came partially spilled into the can and the content was brown (I gased my boss and couple colleagues sitting in their offices when I opened the can in the hallway yesterday). The other bottle was intact and full of a bright yellow liquid. Since this super-grade now costs $100 per 0.5L bottle, it totalled $250 with the truck charges (1 week delivery time here in southern Florida). As a result of a lively debate with Aldrich technical support I got the money back for this purchase and to calm myself down I spent the next two hours distilling the stuff.

    But even with a less crappy SOCl2 – in a previous run I used nearly colorless SOCl2 99% straight from the bottle and the obtained anhydrous CeCl3 was gray. Originally I thought FeCl3 could be the cause (bright yellow in solution, black as anhydrous solid – whereas the S2Cl2 impurity should not make the residue go dark) and thus I ordered the more expensive grade to save myself from hassle of the distillation… Whatever the dark impurity is, it is fortunately non-volatile.

    Comment by milkshake — April 5, 2008 @ 12:08 am

  3. 1. I wonder why LiBr is combined with CeCl3. Why not take LiCl ?
    It is probably a literature procedure (Knochel, last year or so?).

    2. Else, why not directly mix LiCl/Br, CeCl3-7H2O and SOCl2 in one pot, should give the same stuff, but only one vessel needed?

    3. SOCl2: Interestingly, we have this material in regular old 1 L bottles (>10 years; Merck), no special caps whatsoever (PE or PP ?).

    4. Quality of chemicals packages used to be better a few years ago, when solids were still stored in glass bottles (as opposed to cheap plastic). Someone saving money…?

    Comment by pretty casual — April 5, 2008 @ 8:52 am

  4. This procedure is actually intended to be a simplified alternative to Knochel soluble CeCl3.2LiCl (ACIE 2006, 45, 497-500)

    The performance of Knochel system CeCl3.2LiCl is very impressive but making the reagent is a chore – in a big way: First you dissolve the combination of the two salts in water and you concentrate this salty solution carefully to the solidification point and then you take the mixed hydrate solid (which is quite sticky and hard to stirr) and dry-stirr it at high speed on highvac while raising the temperature incrementally as to avoid decomposition (hydrolysis of CeCl3), this whole process takes about 2 days and drying has to be checked upon and the bath temperature adjusted every 4 hours or so. And since the material obtained after the final vacuum drying is still not quite completely dry, you suspend it in anh THF and add plenty of activated powdered sieves and then you stirr it for yet another day, then you filter it in Schlenkware under inert atmosphere – which is not that much fun either because the comercial powdered sieves are very fine and tend to plug up the Schlenkware sintered glass frit or pass through (so you better crush your own 4A sieve pelets the next time, to get a more coarse “powdered” sieves and carefully activate them by yourself – and you are supposed to use and then filter away about 50g of these sieves for 0.1 mol of the Ce reagent). Now try to do this in a medchem lab on a routine basis – and you understand why one would want to have a faster + less labor-intensive alternative.

    It turns out that LiBr solubilizes anh CeCl3 in THF much better than LiCl, to the point that there is no need to actually fuse the two: you can dry them separately and then combine them and everything dissolves, no Schlenkware filtration please. LiBr also happens to be very soluble in THF by itself so you can make a solution of it and add it by cannula (rather than transferring a fluffy and super-hygroscopic solid). And LiBr is easily dried by baking it on highvac, too.

    But with CeCl3.xH2O one has to be rather careful as not to accidentaly hydrolyse it during the drying. And if one is careful, there is always the uncertainity about the residual water because the last water equivalent from CeCl3.xH2O leaves very reluctantly and you are dry-stirring solids so things are not perfectly reproducible and you cant push the temperature too hard either.

    This problem reminded me the same kind of situation we had with drying CdCl2 about 15 years ago when we were making dimethylcadmium (for PhePClMe preparation from PhePCl2) and we were using SOCl2 for drying the hydrate back then. So I tried this trick with CeCl3 and it worked beautifully – producing super-dry and fluffy CeCl3 after the overnight reflux.

    I did not want to combine LiBr with SOCl2 because I was worried about halogen exchange – this could produce a poorly-defined product depending on how it is refluxed, and SOBr2 is rather high-boiling etc. LiBr dries so nicely on highvac on oil bath anyway – and cutting down on volume of the SOCl2-salt mix slurry is a good thing. 175mL is still quite a lot of SOCl2 for a 125 mmol scale as it is but you recover about half of it back.

    Also, I did try to fuse LiCl and CeCl3 hydrate by evaporating the solution and vacuum-drying the residue. Then I gave it a final dry in SOCl2 and I disliked the result – at reflux the mix actually melted into a semi-solid bottom layer goo that reluctantly solidified into a hard mass soaked with SOCl2 – and the resulting solids were hard to dig out and crush into manageable chunks and then pump dry from SOCl2. Ant the end-product was not fully soluble in THF (even though it was perfectly water soluble without cloudiness) so I suppose the drying was incomplete – I threw the stuff away in disgust. The separate drying and using LiBr instead of LiCl seems incomparably nicer.

    By the way, the anhydrous Ce(III) complex with Br(-) is noticebly yellow and the color goes away once you add the keto compound to it.

    Comment by milkshake — April 5, 2008 @ 10:10 am

  5. Trace FeCl_3 is volatile during inorganic distillation (e.g., TiCl_4). Add a little CuCl then reflux to get CuCl_2 and FeCl_2, neither of which readily vapor transports.

    Reflux in SOCl_2 is a superb way to obtain anhydrous oxophile chlorides. “Drying” inner transition metal halides gets you mu-oxo bridging, ditto transition metals in high oxidation states.

    Don’t get clever with anhydrous nitrates or perchlorates. Either yo’ve got it or you don’t. Trying to clean them up ruins glassware – and every thing else within the shrapnel’s trajectory.

    Comment by Unce Al — April 5, 2008 @ 12:49 pm

  6. dammit, this blog seems to eat comments.

    Anyway, check out http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja0628405 – ZnCl2 catalysed grignard addition to ketones. Might save you the messing around with stoichiometric quantities of anhydrous lanthanides.

    Comment by dtb — April 5, 2008 @ 2:01 pm

  7. dtb: this reference is very helpful and I will definitely give it a try.

    The reason Akismet filter ate your post was that I got tired of cleaning up the bot-generated comments by hand (its a deluge – 20:1 spam/real comment average) and I ramped up the settings of the spam filter and now anything that has 2 links or more gets eaten – and sometimes an innocent comment becomes a casualty in the war of bots. Sorry for the glitch.

    Uncle: I have not thought about the FeCl3 volatility and I should give this a try because it is so simple. But I dont need super grade below 1 ppm of Fe or so – I suppose a simple distillation could do as well. Who knows what was the yellow Aldrich goodness – they probably did something stupid during the packaging – like dissolving a piece of a rubber seal in it.

    Comment by milkshake — April 5, 2008 @ 8:17 pm

  8. Why do you need dissolved CeCl3? Aren’t cerium Gringards supposed to react just as a suspension?

    What about commercial anhydrous stuff – too hygroscopic, no point?

    Comment by liquidcarbon — April 8, 2008 @ 12:18 pm

  9. CeCl3 anh is somewhat expensive and the Aldrich anhydrous product looks like birdshot pellets in the ampule. I used it, stirred it with my ketone for awhile – and it didn’t work too well. Knochel points out that his soluble version of CeCl3 gives much better yields and I trust the man. Please see the ACIE article in the previous comment..

    Comment by milkshake — April 8, 2008 @ 5:15 pm

  10. The Knochel paper mentions that they can store the CeCl3•2LiCl solution and use whenever. Is this true using the LiBr complex?

    Comment by grayskull — April 8, 2008 @ 8:42 pm

  11. I think they would prepare their reagent only occasionaly because it takes about four days to make. I used up my CeCl3+2LiBr solution on the same day, for one large-scale experiment. I don’t see a reason why it should not store well at room temp, I think it is not Lewis-acidic enough to promote THF ring openning by Br(-) but I have never tested the long-term storability.

    But I should also add that in my case the CeCl3 solution unfortunately brought about the aldol dimerisation of Cbz-protected 4-piperidone which I did not notice until I isolated the CO addition product of the dimer…

    Cbz-piperidone is a special ketone case though, very reactive and quite enolisable at the same time.

    Comment by milkshake — April 8, 2008 @ 9:04 pm

  12. JOC 2006, 6697 has a prep of 1,4-diazidobutane. No mention of any nasty behavior there, or elsewhere in the literature. Should I still be hyper-cautious making ~5 g?

    Comment by Jose — April 16, 2008 @ 12:22 pm

  13. I think you should be very cautious.
    Too many high energy bonds in a very small molecule. If you don’t have access to DSC or ARC data, avoid heating if possible, avoid closed reaction vessels and try to use the product in solution rather than rotavap to dryness.

    Comment by vasili — April 16, 2008 @ 1:38 pm

  14. 1. BTW – LaBr3 and CeBr3 – are even better soluble
    2. The publication of “Highly Efficient Alkylation to Ketones and Aldimines with Grignard Reagents
    Catalyzed by Zinc(II) Chloride” is not general at all – no ArMet, no really enolizable ketones, no functions – the simplest examples possible.
    3. Published procedure was obviously industry oriented – paid by industry and patented. Just imagine to use >7 equiv. of SOCl2 in a 10 ton scale.
    4. I cannot agree with Milkshake that his procedure is simpler. 12 h for LiBr, two flasks and finally re-distilled SOCl2 a lot of SO2 and HCl – definitely more pain then to mix everything add water and just change temperature each four hours. I wonder whether Milkshake titrated obtained solution on the presence of acidic H.
    5. BTW – addition of glass beats really before drying helps a lot.
    6. there is no need to filtrate mol sieves – the settle down easily together with the “The trace amount of a very fine insoluble material”
    7. Lastly no Schlenk filtration is needed for original procedure (although it is written in Supporting – but we are reasonable, are we??) at all everything is settle down easily exactly in a way as Milkshake wrote.
    8. Original Imamoto procedure does not for functionalized RMet
    Well, any questions or comments about LnCl3 – welcome

    Comment by krest17 — April 16, 2008 @ 5:38 pm

  15. Lastly, yields are better for exceptionally enolizible ketones (like Milkshake one) if one mix RMet with CeCl3 and add it to ketone, but no mix ketone with CeCl3 and add RMet.
    And solutions of LnCl3*2LiCl are storable for long time even at elevated temperatures. Although LaCl3 looks the best from esthetic point of view – absolutely colorless and transparent like THF

    Comment by krest17 — April 16, 2008 @ 5:45 pm

  16. for grayskull:

    with LiBr is storable as well

    Comment by krest17 — April 16, 2008 @ 5:46 pm

  17. No comments, well, Milkshake don’t take it personally – that was just about chemistry and orgprepdaily and facts – I guess it is the reason to have this blog. I did solutions of both LaCl3 and CeCl3 many times and never had any problems and they are absolutely clear solutions about 0.3-0.35 M (while your one was 0.25). I did it on 1L scale also several times – no problem as well. If your stirring bar is not strong enough to make powder out of the sticky slime which formed at about 80C – just open the flask take spatula and crash it – takes 5 min – and you was right – the reason why it did not dissolve in your hands –you just did not dry it good enough.
    Look also – Trost, Barry M.; Waser, Jerome; Meyer, Arndt. Total Synthesis of (-)-Pseudolaric Acid B. Journal of the American Chemical Society (2007), 129(47), 14556-14557. – not only Knochel can do it :-)

    Comment by krest17 — April 17, 2008 @ 2:36 pm

  18. Well I have not criticised Knochel – his paper is a major methodology advance – but I thought his procedure for making the reagent was rather cumbersome.

    It is great that industry wants to do this on ton scale eventualy, but for a medicinal chemist right now,
    until you can buy a ready-made solution from a decent company, a four-day-long procedure (which assumes someone will turn the knob every few hours, day and night) and calls for Schlenkware filtration to make the reagent is not the most attractive one; you would use it only when you absolutely had to.

    But if you can dry CeCl3 easily (not by the problematic Orgsyn procedure) on 125 mmol scale and then just combine it with anh LiBr in dry THF, and everything dissolves, you have a workable procedure that someone might actually want to use. Easier still, you can just buy beads of anhydrous CeCl3 and LiBr if you dont mind paying premium (and stirring the beads little longer). Also, unlike the Knochel procedure, this LiBr/CeCl3 alternative is not patented.

    I have not titrated for residual HCl. But the CeCl3 I got from SOCl2 was a very dry fluffy solid, and thee was no residual SOCl2 or HCl smell to it after drying it on highvac. The distillation of SOCl2 is not really such a chore and I re-distilled 0.5 liter bottle of SOCl2 within 2 hours just to be sure because Aldrich sold us a visibly crappy material – you may be luckier with another vendor. As for the final concentration, I used a 0.5L flask and to get an approximate number for final concentration, I filled it with THF to the top. The final volume was compeletely arbitrary – but it takes few hours for CeCl3 to dissolve in the LiBr solution completely so I figured having little extra THF or LiBr around can hardly hurt.

    As for which procedure is better, there is only one good way to decide, to try them both with your hands.

    Comment by milkshake — April 17, 2008 @ 6:48 pm

  19. Thanks for reply – the LiBr/CeCl3 is patented as well (as well as drying with SOCl2 you did and making LnCl3 in situ from Ln and C2Cl6 – very nice procedure by the way). I know patent pretty good.
    BTW – I like you

    Comment by krest17 — April 17, 2008 @ 7:03 pm

  20. blog, thanks for a nice job

    Comment by krest17 — April 17, 2008 @ 7:03 pm

  21. are you in Roush group??

    Comment by krest17 — April 17, 2008 @ 7:20 pm

  22. No I am not: Bill is the boss of the whole chemistry here also but our medchem group is run separate from the more academic research groups here and our projects are more directed by the biology PIs. We used to share the lab with the Roush group for awhile, before their temporary building was ready. (When the new campus is completed in few months, we will be neighbours again.) They are good colleagues, and they have separate projects and budget.

    Comment by milkshake — April 17, 2008 @ 7:48 pm

  23. Also, I should add, another good alternative to deal with enolisable ketones is MnCl2.2LiCl in THF

    Comment by milkshake — April 17, 2008 @ 7:51 pm

  24. about time:
    4 days – practically no efforts from chemist (as I wrote before – no Schlenk filtration is needed – just wait and use upstanding solution or take it out with syringe). Obviously there is no need to change time every 4 hours day and night – if you want you can let it dry overnight at the last temperature or you can switch of pump and heat and keep it overnight at rt and next day start from last temperature. Also moneywise – only you need more then CeCl3 and LiCl (which is cheaper then LiBr) is only H2O. Additionally I would never suck in my pump rest of SOCl2 and/or HCl – very bad for the pump and Schlenk line. Your procedure can save two days overall, but much more efforts and time from chemist is needed. I do this solution always without stopping anyhow my other experiments and you need only one flask for everything from the very beginning till the end (I do not use Schlenk flask – normal one with one neck is completely OK). No skills required, no distillation, no SOCl2/SO2/HCl.

    Comment by krest17 — April 17, 2008 @ 7:57 pm

  25. MnCl2 is not so general I tried it and reactivity is worse
    (I think I know you, not personaly, but your name :-) )

    Comment by krest17 — April 17, 2008 @ 7:59 pm

  26. The same here. I also liked your recent tryptamine methodology paper.

    Comment by milkshake — April 17, 2008 @ 8:52 pm

  27. Well, thank you – I’ll try my best to be more often on your blog and to comment, comment and comment :-) – have a nice day

    Comment by krest17 — April 17, 2008 @ 9:00 pm

  28. I have a question, and Milkshake, you have done so much Med Chem that you must have dealt with Cbz-Cl more than once. Here, I’m using it in a total synthesis project, part of my postdoc, and I only used Cbz-Cl once during an internship in Big Pharma, in 2000, so I don’t recall this reagent being this unstable…

    Have you ever had a bottle of Cbz-Cl develop significant pressure, to the extent that it’s almost better to open it at -25C, when it’s just out of the freezer, and then, as soon as you put a needle in there, it bubble like crazy – of course, the liquid you syringe out bubbles away in your needle…

    To me it sounds like our bottle is crap. To a co-worker, it’s just because “the quality is higher and the reagent is not stabilized”, but to me this just sounds like bull.

    What’s your opinion? Should I distill my Cbz-Cl, or will I just create an implosion or something bad like this?… Thanks!

    Comment by HPCC — April 21, 2008 @ 11:08 pm

  29. I hate Cbz-Cl reagent: it smells horribly acrid (worse than benzoyl chloride) and it always contains few % of benzyl chloride impurity unless freshly fractionally vacuum-redistilled at low temperature. Bottles of Cbz-Cl spontanously overpressurise because of the disproportionation to CO2 and BnCl(iPrOCOCl has the same kind of problem) and this is unpredictable because HCL greatly accelerates it. I had several times a bottle of Cbz-Cl bubbling like a soda in my hands even when storing the stuff in the freezer. A recent mishap in our lab involved a colleague that kept his bottle at room temp under his hood for few months, another colleague borrowed it from him, opened it without fear and Cbz-Cl fountain erupted into his face…He got burned but his face healed eventually and he (and our lab) reeked for few days.

    Please if you can use Cbz-OSu instead. The hydroxysuccinimide ester is an odorless non-iritant white crystalline solid that does not have any of these nasty habits, it is moisture-stable, non-hygroscopic and stores nicely at room temp. Aldrich sells it at affordable price in 25g bottle size. The protection of amino group is done conveniently with K2CO3 in THF-water 1:1 (10C to RT) with 1.05 equivs of the OSu ester reagent and the hydroxysuccinimide extracts away nicely with aqueous bicarbonate or any other base.

    Comment by milkshake — April 22, 2008 @ 3:35 am

  30. Nice! Bubble like a soda… reminds me I feel like a Pepsi, it’s 5PM around here in Asia! I need fuel to get me going till 7PM :D

    I guess I could make Cbz-OSu myself if I could get a bottle of disuccinimidyl carbonate… but the cost of that stuff makes making the reagent itself unattractive, if you say “affordable”. Thanks a lot for the prompt response!

    Comment by HPCC — April 22, 2008 @ 5:04 am

  31. You don’t make it from SuOCO2Su, you make it from CbzCl and HOSu and a base. But why would anyone want to do that when CbzOSu costs about 1 USD per gram is completely beyond me. Check your prices with Aldrich and TCI

    Comment by milkshake — April 22, 2008 @ 5:27 am

  32. The only reason why I’d do that is that I’m not in North America, and chemicals take 3 weeks to arrive to my island… so if we have Cbz-Cl and HOSu, maybe I’ll make some for now, then place the order, and then receive the bottle once I forgot about the order I once placed! :D

    Comment by HPCC — April 22, 2008 @ 11:04 pm

  33. Hey: can anyone get to The Chem Blog today? Is the site down or is it experiencing a DNS because of the TS-Big Pharma brouhaha?

    Comment by Klug — April 23, 2008 @ 4:37 pm

  34. Apparently it is just you; I believe your masters do not wish you to know what Kyle wrote. There is no reason to panic – but just to be sure you should delete your cache, then re-format your hard drive and shred all CDs. (It wont help much though because they certainly know who you are and what you think of them). And now that you are screwed, you can relax, box up your stuff and look forward to the exit interview.

    Comment by milkshake — April 23, 2008 @ 5:08 pm

  35. Yes, it must be that the TS powers that be cannot stand this heresy ;)

    Comment by Klug — April 24, 2008 @ 11:03 am

  36. Hey, synth experts.
    We want to radical brominate a benzylic position. We obtain either not complete conversion (1.5 eq) or dibromination to some extend (with more than 2 eq NBS) . Have tried NBS in Cl-Ph, or in MeCN. We will scale-up this process to kgs of SM (so no CCl4). We tried also AIBN or DBP as radical initiators and NBS recryst wich same results. Any advise?

    Comment by Vasili — May 8, 2008 @ 9:49 am

  37. I am not expert but incomplete conversion of SM or over-reaction is what you got to expect in this case. You may decide which impurity is more troublesome to remove in this or next step, and whether you can recover and recycle the SM by recrystalization – and what what ratio of SM/NBS gives the best purity of crude. You can perhaps try it at sligtly lower react temperatures with visible light as initiator (halogen floodlights all around the glass-top reactor) but I dont think this will help you much.

    You can do also ring bromomethylation (paraformaldehyde + anh HBr in AcOH) though this is not the nicest reaction to deal with – the ring regioisomer problem, corrosivity etc.

    The dibromo impurity: is it dibromo in benzylic position – or is it ring-brominated?

    Comment by milkshake — May 8, 2008 @ 3:46 pm

  38. About the di-Br impurity, I don’t know the structure (it was detected by LC-MS) but as the next reaction is the conversion of the C-Br into C=O, and the impurity is unchanged I guess it is the di-Br benzylic moiety.

    Bromomethylation is not applicable, benzylic position is part of a fused ciclohexane.

    Curiously with a more polar solvent like MeCN reaction is much more dirty, with SM, mono-Br, di-Br, tri-Br etc

    I will try the bulb activation but I have little hope.

    Thank you for your answer.

    Comment by vasili — May 8, 2008 @ 4:43 pm

  39. MeCN dirty reaction: polar solvents could encourage Br(+) and the ring bromination.
    Another good solvent for radical brominations with NBS is 1,2-dichloroethane, it is quite poisonous but not on scale of CCl4
    The light source halogen lamp can be bought cheapo from Home Depot, see the Tenderbutton archive from Dylan Styles (username: tender password: button)

    Comment by milkshake — May 8, 2008 @ 5:12 pm

  40. I am not in the US, Milkshake, but I already got a 60w bulb lamp from our maintenance dept. Irradiating for several hours may rise T to 50-60°C I think, not much higher than that. Let’s see.

    Comment by Vasili — May 9, 2008 @ 6:05 am

  41. Yeahhh!
    0.5 g scale, 1.5 eq. NBS, solvent=Cl-Ph, 60w lamp —> 35min, 35 C 100% mono-Br, no SM, no di-Br

    Let’s see on larger scale. I guess I could use more than one lamp at the same time. Next time, 10g and then 160 g.

    Thanks

    Comment by vasili — May 9, 2008 @ 10:51 am

  42. Hey krest17,

    You seem to be “familiar” with the Knochel procedure. What’s the trick with this prep? I’ve tried to reproduce the thing on ~12g CeCl3*7H2O. The LiCl is dried in a vacuum oven (~100 Torr, 140 deg.) After pumping off water (necessary?) and scraping the resulting goober to manageable chunks, this was heated under vacuum (measured at ca. 40-50 mTorr) to 55-60 deg. overnight (12 h), then 80 deg. for 5h, then 100-105 overnight (12 h), then 115 for 4h, then 130 for 4h and 155 for 5h. Not exactly the prep, I know, but seems a reasonably close approximation. Much to my dismay, the resulting fine white powder is not soluble in Na-ketyl-distilled THF. I add flame-activated 4A MS (necessary?) against N2 pressure and stir overnight. Still not soluble, though now the mix looks more like chocolate milk than the standard 2% variety. Heartbreaking.

    Any thoughts? My best guess is that my vacuum is not sufficient; I’m pretty sure that my thermometer is accurate (it had better be). The only other possible issue is stirring. The CeCl3*2LiCl seems to pack down and the stirbar spins in a futile manner on top of the pad. I therefore physically agitated the vessel every so often to break it up, but nonetheless…

    Thanks for any suggestions/tips/tricks. I’m about done with lanthanides though.

    Comment by CeCl3BrokeMyHeart — May 9, 2008 @ 1:07 pm

  43. Krest should know because he is on the paper. I liked the SOCl2 drying method better – but I have to agree with Krest that getting the last traces of acidity from CeCl3 dried by SOCl2 takes some work because it looks like SOCl2 and HCl sticks to anh CeCl3. So I ended up drying the SOCl2-dehydrated material at 200C/highvac.

    Also I should add that the exact temperature profile may be very important when dehydrating CeCl3 in vacuum because there is a fine line between making anhydrous CeCl3 and hydrolyzing it to (CeOCl)n in the absence of acid. The industrial drying process does it by spray-drying in a stream of anhydrous HCl gas, something that is pretty hard to recreate in the lab. Now CeCl3 anh is being produced on ton scale for pharma process and one company sells anh CeCl3 very cheap although I dont know about their purity and moisture content: City Chemical, http://www.citychemical.com, “cerous chloride anhydrous” 250g/$121, catalogue #C374. I think they are located in New Jersey

    Comment by milkshake — May 9, 2008 @ 2:15 pm

  44. Vasili, I am suprised and glad that strong illumination actually worked. I bet the plant workers will groan if you ask them to build special 5000L+, illuminated glass-top reactor but it has been be done in pharma industry before. Especially since chlorobenzene has relatively low volatility and you dont need to heat it much.

    There are peroxide initiators that work at lower temperature than BzOOBz, the are (ROCO)2 but they stopped to be available commercially because of their explosion hazzard. I needed one so I made BocOOBoc (September 7, 2006 procedure) and it generated tBu radicals that generate CCl3 radical from CCl4 very nicely and it is crystalline, too – but the material is probably shock and heat-sensitive so I would not recommend it on scale.

    Comment by milkshake — May 9, 2008 @ 2:32 pm

  45. I was really suprised when I saw the LC-MS (I was about to go home), I just told my mate that I really was happy to go weekend with the result. It seems to be a temperature issue. Heat comes only from bulb, no heat was applied!!

    I think I will go away to that so reactive peroxides.

    At the scale we are doing the chemistry (max 200 g) it seems OK for me, take a pair of lamps and go, but if this works and the scaffold goes further in the flowscheme we may need larger quantities that we will outsource from somewhere, and transfer there the procedure. We have to be sure that our procedure is safe and that peroxides really scare us.

    I have heard of this large photochemical reactor you are talking about (I’ll have to look for it).

    Anyway, I have to see the result with 10 g to really begin to feel satisfied.

    Comment by vasili — May 9, 2008 @ 3:03 pm

  46. For vasili- be very cautious in moving up in scale in this type of reaction as these can easily take off in uncontrolled exothermic reaction. I have heard stories of pilot plants going up attempting radical halogenations at kg scales, although think was Cl2 involved. Using NBS should in theory not allow Br2 build up and ClBz good solvent choice but once things start going bad there could be cascade effect.

    There are some larger scale photochemical reactors out there being used occasionally in pharma although polymer people may use widely.

    Comment by CMC guy — May 12, 2008 @ 7:33 pm

  47. Thank you CMC.
    We try to have safety always in mind. I ran the reaction at 16g scale adding the whole 1.5 eq. NBS at once at the beginning and internal T went only to 36 C.
    From a process safety perspective it is not recommended to have such accumulation of reagents to prevent runaways so I’m running the reaction with 0.7 eq. NBS at the beginning, irradiation, check convesion and adjust with more NBS.

    Let’s see how this will affect yield.

    Cl-Ph has a bp of 130 °C and it is non-flammable so I hope to have no problem.

    Comment by Vasili — May 13, 2008 @ 4:05 am

  48. Brominations with Br2 can have the induction period problem – especilally brominations of ketones because brominations of carbonyl compounds are catalysed by acid (the enol of ketone gets brominated fast by Br+) so when you mix up bromine with acetophenone not much is happenning until some HBr forms and the reaction takes off – producing a lot more HBr – and the whole thing suddenly erupts. (I heard of a chemist who lost his eyes in such mishap). I dont think there should be induction period with NBS/light benzylic bromination but either way it will have to be determined in exotherm studies if it is scaled up, like with any other reaction.

    Comment by milkshake — May 13, 2008 @ 9:24 am

  49. Well, comment to CeCl3BrokeMyHeart (although I have a feeling I answered this question yesterday to A.G. already, so he probably will tell you, or you are A.G. yourself???) anyway – there are two important points, not just important but very important 
    1. Stirring – if you stirring bar cannot do it – you should help – just take a spatula, open flask (should be cooled down before ) and take stuff out of walls and crash it. If everything is correct at the very end you should end up with very nice, fine, light powder.
    2. Of course pressure is of great importance too – should be at least 0.1 mmHg, really 40-50 torr will not work – no way!!! I normally do it on 0.01-0.005 mmHg with continuous checking of pressure by electronic manometer. Once I did it on 0.1 mmHg – just take longer, but still worked.
    3. Practically everybody who tried this procedure failed for the first time(but finally everybody succeeded – in Knochel lab it is routine operation now) – people are lazy by their nature and normally do not follow procedures (thinking they know better than person who developed the stuff and tried it before coming to final procedure more than 100 times) – this is normal I do like this as well and only when it does not work I am reading prep and really trying to follow – sometimes details are very important 

    If anybody will have more questions about LnCl3 stuff, its preparation and/or usage (there are some tricks as well) please write me on krest17@gmail.com – will be happy to answer

    Comment by krest17 — May 16, 2008 @ 5:15 pm

  50. To make it clear – If vacuum is not good enough H2O simply react with LnCl3 with the formation of polymeric oxychlorides and god knows what else – of course they are no soluble in THF and have no activity
    Additionally I personally recommend using La over Ce (price is the same) – easier to dry, colorless and solution looks nicer.

    Comment by krest17 — May 16, 2008 @ 5:40 pm

  51. Hi guys.
    Going back to NBS bromination.

    Reaction with 140 g SM was done. 1.1 eq. NBS. 2 bulb lamps irradiation. Internal T 25-40 C. Reacton got stuck at 94% conversion. No di-Br. More NBS added-no gain. Filtration and more NBS- no gain. Any explanation different from chemistry is like that…?
    Result was fine anyway, much better than with AIBN or peroxide.

    Last step in the route, unfortunately, is the conversion of a ketone in a di-F. Original route at small scale described Deoxofluor neat at 65C to achieve total conversion. At scale I got some de-BOC product and filthy yields so I am trying to dilute with a solvent.
    Question 1: solvents to use with this reagent: CH2Cl2 I know is OK, what about THF, Cl-Ph, dichloroethane, any other? difference in behaviour?. I guess I’ll have to heat above 50C.
    Question 2: we used to perform neat Deoxofluor reactions at 65C in a PFA plastic flask. Do you think I should need to use it also even diluted with a solvent?.

    Comment by Vasili — May 27, 2008 @ 2:10 am

  52. One possibility for the reaction stopping at incomplete conversion could be dark reaction mix – at 140g scale with 2 bulbs the initiation was weaker than with small-scale reaction and a discoloration of the react mix could have stopped the reaction. I would use stronger light or higher dilution.

    I dont have much experience with turning CO to CF2. I have done it only twice, once with a furane aldehyde and it worked, once with a keto ester and it did not. Dichloroethane is also a suitable solvet for Deoxyfluor. I have not tried anything else. Boc is a liability, I would maybe try to add a substoechiometric amount of some hindered base like iPr2NEt or lutidine, to keep your Boc. If everything else fails, there is a 2-step altenative with turning keto to bis thioacetal and then fluorinating it oxidatively in presence of F(-) source.

    You are brave to use DAST-like reagent on such a scale/

    Comment by milkshake — May 27, 2008 @ 6:01 am

  53. Deoxofluor is reported to be more stable and safer than DAST.

    What we have now is around 60% yield in the fluorination, but as it is our final synthetic step (penultimal considering de-BOC) we want to improve that result.

    How are dithioketal formation/fluorination tandem in terms of yield?. I guess not much better than 1 reaction 60%.

    Well, lets hope ketone products are suffiently active to avoid fluorinations at scale.

    Comment by vasili — May 27, 2008 @ 12:01 pm

  54. About your comment on the possibility of the stopped reaction because of darkness, I filtered the reaction to strip succinimide and then add more NBS and irradiated but nothing happened. Darkness was essentialy the same before and after reaction.

    Comment by vasili — May 27, 2008 @ 12:04 pm

  55. I have been working with Deoxyfluor, it is supposed to be less prone to decomposition on heating – but the quench is still pretty dramatic even on a small scale, I definitely recommend diluting the reaction mixture down before pouring it on ice.

    As what is stopping your radical bromination towards the end of reaction, there must be some reason why the radical chain no longer forms or why it does not propagate. Obviously what you get with increasing scale is less efficient irradiation, so I thought this could be the explanation – but there could be easily any other factor. I would try again with more light and with higher dilution, maybe try to wrap some aluminum foil around or add couple of mirrors as a reflector etc

    Comment by milkshake — May 28, 2008 @ 7:29 am

  56. Yes, we usually dilute with CH2Cl2 and pour over NaHCO3 sat. aq. sol./ice.

    Right now, I’m preforming the fluorination with Deoxofluor in THF (very concentrated) at 70°C PFA flask.
    Dilute reactions take ages to complete. Neat Deoxofluor completes in 15 h but it was hard to reproduce on scale, apart from safety issues. I am using 15g SM and scale will not increase much.

    Comment by Vasili — May 28, 2008 @ 10:51 am

  57. concerning bromination: I’m agree with milkshake, I also think that the problem can be not efficient irradiation. May be next time when it stopps, I would take a small sample and irradiate itunder conditions which you used for small scale before. If the guess about irradiation is true, then on this small scale it should go to completion.

    If something else inhibits radical chain, then what do you think if to increase concentration of radical chain by adding 1-2 mol% Br2? As I understand, for initiation of radical bromination, NBS should contain traces of Br2 or water (water can be in the solvent. honestly, I’m not sure about water, but in here
    http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/eros/articles/rb318/frame.html
    it’s written that NBS is moisture sencitive, so, I guess it can give succinimide and HOBr which after disproportionation followed by reaction with NBS may give Br2). So, the concentration of radicals is proportional to trace amount of Br2. If at 94% conversion rxn contains a few mol% of the inhibitor, it can stop reaction, and addition of fresh NBS may be not enough (as it contains << 1mol% of Br2 and the water from the solvent was already consumed).
    Actually, even if irradiation is the reason, increasing of % of Br2 should help as next to walls you will have more of Br2 “waiting for fotones”.

    NB. For me it’s not clear why this “inhibior” is not formed at small scale, but this is another question.

    Comment by Alexey — May 28, 2008 @ 4:18 pm

  58. Thank your for the comments.

    We had also thought about NBS purity, so we recrystalized it from water. This NBS was also used with AIBN in the old times.

    Result we have is OK. If larger excess of NBS is used from the beginning (1.5 eq) you have 97% conversion but with a bit (around 3% di-bromo). Using 1.1 eq. you have 95% conversion but no di-br.

    I don’t know the possible effect of adding a bit Br2, could it be more prone to over-bromination?.

    Comment by vasili — May 29, 2008 @ 12:27 pm

  59. Need help in setting up an organic synthesis lab. It is a lab for 3 students. we have 3 fume hoods. Any suggestions about the type of instruments and price that would be required for modern lab? I would appreciate the suggestions.

    Comment by JW — June 1, 2008 @ 10:57 pm

  60. It depends on the money and the type of the synthetic work you will be doing. For 3 chemists at minimum you will need 2 rotovaps (preferably Buchi, the most basic type with the dry ice cold finger condenser) with a good teflon piston pumps (KNF or Welsh is fine but avoid Buchi pumps), some fine balances that go up to 220g and have 0.1mg precision (I am fond of Sartorius), at least one continually running oil pump with a big cold trap hooked to vacuum manifold used for drying the products (buy a pump with very high pumping speed, like >200L/min displacement rate, Leybold is very good, Welsh-build Fisher M12C is OK but the smaller M8C is unreliable), you will need glassware (I like Chemglass) and a reliable suplier of solvents (try to get a quote from couple of different ones, the prices could be a problem these days so try to have them competing, Fisher, VWR, Mallinckrodt, Baker, B&J etc). Supplier of argon (or nitrogen) tanks, tank regulators, chemicals, etc. Dry ice reliable delivery service – very important. Eventually you should buy an analytical HPLC when you have the money – I am quite fond of Agilent analytical HPLC (but I dislike their prep HPLC and would rather recommend Shimadzu prep HPLC). If you will be using prep HPLC you will also need to have a lyophilizer – in which case I would recommend some low-temp model that goes to -80C (Labconco seems more reliable than Virtis in my limited experience). If you really have money then I would suggest buying one ISCO Combiflash Companion chromatography station for running normal silica columns but its not cheap and the prepacked disposable columns can add up (but they are very convenient). Maybe one microwave Biotage reactor, maybe a Parr shaker hydrogenator. I dont know if you should invest into anhydrous solvent purification station, here in medchem we have been buying anh solvents from Aldrich and it was adequate for us most of time. Glassware drying racks, electrical oven for drying glassware, a fire-proof refrigerator with a freezer (it shouldn’t be a household fridge), some glass desicators for storing the anhydrous stuff, solvent storage cabinets, some sturdy tables for the instruments, sonicator bath, stirplates, a vacuum meter. Maybe one propane gas burner (the can-based torch is quite adequate and cheap). Some heating mantles and oil baths. Good grade silica, UV lamps, TLC plates.
    And of course you will need to have access to LCMS and NMR. I dont know if you plan on buying those (because of the expense and you would also need to hire someone qualified to take care of them), a short-time nonideal option would be to buy access at a university nearby but eventually you will need to have these instruments in house. There is probably lots of essential items that I forgot to mention, like a source of purified water or ice machine (if you have one in the building or if you can store bags of ice in food freezer you skip the purchase for now). In the beginning, it helps to go to hardware stores like Home Depot and Sears to get a drill and screwdrivers and necessary materials and do most of the necessary lab adaptations by yourself rather than waiting for the facility dudes to show up. If you are short on money you may even buy cheapo kitchen cabinets and kitchen counter instead of lab benches, they will stain easily but are fantastically inexpensive compared to the the black resin top laboratory-rated furniture. I would rather buy a better-quality balances and spend 4k on it instead of a cheaper model available for 3k (while paying extra 1k for a fancy table underneath).

    I would say with the bare essential stuff list to do any chemistry you should expect to start at about 100k for the whole lab which should buy you the rotovaps and pumps, sonobath, balances, stirplates and gas regulators and glassware, fireproof fridge, drying oven and solvent cabinets and lots of little stuff – thats a very raw estimate before buying analytical HPLC (50k), prep HPLC (50k), lyo (18k), microwave reactor (20k), ISCO Combflash (20k), LCMS (200k), 400MHz NMR (350k).

    The best thing really would be to hire someone who has been setting up a lab before. If it helps, I should be able to dig out and e-mail you the 3 year-old list of stuff with catalogue numbers, that we were ordering when we started the lab here at the institue, for 3-4 people initially. Maybe you should also ask prof Chris Douglas at U of Minnesota, he is very approachable and he has started up his synthetic group there just recently.

    Comment by milkshake — June 1, 2008 @ 11:45 pm

  61. That is a comprehensive list of things, and recommedations. Thanks a lot. I would appreciate if you could send me the list that you mentioned. The only difference would be in the price, I guess. I also wanted to ask you if it would be a good idea to get from those who sell the used ones (hopefully sparingly) or to go for the newer ones. Trying to get the lab up with the small amount i.e 150K so probably the big items will have to wait for a while.

    Comment by J — June 3, 2008 @ 10:44 am

  62. I will send you the list. Used equipment: you can get great discounts (less than half or even one third of the orig price) on used equipment but you have to have an idea what is the worth of the stuff that you are buying and if you have someone experienced to put things into working order because you won’t have company engineer installing it for you. Its like with used cars – if you buy a lemon, or worn-out one that badly needs maintenance work and part replacement you will be stuck without warranty. The best for you would be if there was some functioning medchem group in a company in your area which is going out of business and you could have an early bid, with help of someone who has been using these instruments before.
    The companies going out of business are often in hurry and have only hazy idea what of their used equipment is actually valuable and what is not. (We got one used Combiflash for around 8k – the new price is about 22k – but we had an inside scoop with the company going bust)

    I would suggest to start with buying new some of the the less expensive essential equipment – balances, rotovaps, pumps, glassware etc, and see if you can get a major discount off the list price from a company like Fisher or Chemglass on this if you buy more things from them, see if you can buy them tax-free as a non-profit organisation, etc. That way you can get at least some essential equipment in your lab and start doing some chemistry as soon as possible while you are looking out for the best deals on the more expensive equipment. The beginnings are always very slow and frustrating so it is important to start doing the actual chemistry soon – that way your people will get incentive to put things into working order fast, to improvise and doing some work in makeshift conditions actually helps to sharpen the priorities what to buy on your limited budget.

    Comment by milkshake — June 3, 2008 @ 12:49 pm

  63. Again, Thanks a lot for sharing your wisdom; You are absolutely right about the delays in setting up the lab.

    Do you mind giving me your email ID?

    Comment by JW — June 4, 2008 @ 12:10 pm

  64. It is tomasv at scripps (dot edu) – Sorry I did not send you our old shopping lists yet – I have to dig it out from the archived e-mail files, it must be somewhere

    Comment by milkshake — June 4, 2008 @ 2:03 pm

  65. I have some experience with 2-methylnaphthaline. 2-bromomethylnaphthaline is quite expensive, and it’s a damn nasty shit, – a strong irritant. Carbon tet (reflux for 25 hrs) from J. Chem. Soc. 1952 5044 was replaced with cyclohexane.

    I only tried cyclohexane and NBS (no initiator), reflux for 20-40 h. In all cases (0.95-1.1 eq NBS) there’s incomplete conversion, formation of dibromide and smth else. On 50 g scale the reaction seems to start at around 60 C, as evidenced by white tint of succinimide on the walls. Never isolated the pure compound. The Aldrich says it’s 90% for technical and >95% for ‘purum’, I guess I know why. Maybe I should’ve taken NMR of commercial stuff. For alkylations, though, contamination with highly unpolar SM should not be an issue, but it has issues as a protecting group anyway.

    Non-recrystallized (yellowish) NBS = total crap, ring bromination occurs.

    Comment by LiqC — June 6, 2008 @ 3:30 am

  66. I definitely would try fotochemical radical bromination. It is very mild, T not higher than 40 C.
    If at ciclohexane reflux T very little ring bromination is observed it is very unlikely that it occurs irradiating at so low T.

    Comment by vasili — June 6, 2008 @ 2:05 pm

  67. The list of things given above for Organic synthesis is pretty comprehensive, and useful.
    If one needs to setup a biology hood for screening the compounds (for cytotoxicity,
    antiviral, anti bacterial, and other bioactivities) what are the basic things required?
    Could you share your thoughts? How do you go about setting it up for Bio-organic type research?
    Thanks in advance.

    Sang

    Comment by Sang — June 16, 2008 @ 1:19 pm

  68. I don’t know, Sang – its not my field. You will need to ask a biologist

    Comment by milkshake — June 16, 2008 @ 6:49 pm

  69. Hey i tried everything everybody said still my end product of cecl3 is very grayish though completely soluble in water . I think my cecl3 solution itself has a high level of Ferric. Any ideas how i could purify the solution to remove the ferric from the Cecl3 solution . As it is i have around 2 ltrs of the solution to work from . I tried adding H2O2 to it and found a brownish residue which i filtered away but then when i again add H2O2 the colour again goes Reddish and i keep finding more residue coming out ? I am baffled . i tried the H2O2 route six times already and keep finding more residue . BTW the SOCL i used i had redistilled it so the gray product must be ferric from my original solution of CeCL3 . HELP OUT Please

    Comment by Maxim — April 3, 2009 @ 11:47 pm

  70. Unfortunately I don’t know how to remove iron impurity from CeCl3. Please have you tried to look for a different source of CeCl3 hydrate?

    Comment by milkshake — April 4, 2009 @ 6:01 pm

  71. An addendum to my previous post: Ok, ok, so the Knochel prep works just fine.

    After giving GM, I had very little to do with my time, so I decided to try the prep again with CeCl3 and LiCl. I ran this puppy on ~25 mmol CeCl3. Owing to my slightly crummier high vacuum than those that they must use in Germany (we have the common Welch pumps; mine pulls 50 mTorr through a basic double manifold setup), I elected to extend the drying times. I wound up using the following:

    14h @ 40 deg C
    8 h @ 60 deg C
    13 h @ 80 deg C
    8h @ 100 deg C
    12 h @ 120 deg C
    7 h @ 140-145 deg C (temperature control gets a bit wobbly up here)
    14 h @ 160-170 deg C

    As per krest17’s recommendation, I scraped the stuff off the walls of my flask when needed. Thankfully, this wasn’t too often, though I did more or less continuously physically agitate (i.e. smack) the vessel to avoid the solids “packing” on the inside of the flask.

    After the drying was complete, THF was added (70 mL). There was no obvious dissolution of the powdery salt. Flame-dried (under high vac) spherical (~0.5 mm) 4A sieves (15g) were then added against positive N2 pressure; the resulting mixture was stirred vigorously. The mixture looked like crap and there was no evidence of dissolution of CeCl3*2LiCl. It was a bit sudsy though. After 30h of stirring, the mix looked a lot like chocolate milk and it was unclear if the salts has dissolved (everything ground up so fine). Nonetheless, I filtered this bad boy under N2 (canulating atop a pad of powdered activated sieves over sand) through a fritted filter into a Schlenk flask, affording a copper-colored clear solution.

    Evaporation of an aliquot of this solution gave a white solid (after 20h on high vac) whose mass was about what I would expect for the ~0.33 M concentration. The mass of this residue decreased only very slowly on vacuum, presumably owing to slow THF decoordination. The CeCl3*2LiCl solution effectively mediated the addition of iPrMgCl into a-tetralone, as per the report. When the CeCl3*2LiCl is added to tetralone, the color changes to pale yellow.

    The moral of this story is that, when you run this prep, you’ll probably think it didn’t work, get all worked up into a huff cause you’ve wasted 3 days on it, and prematurely throw the thing out. So don’t be discouraged when the CeCl3*2LiCl does not show any initial sign of dissolution; stir with sieves and filter it anyway. I guess the other moral of the story is that I’m an idiot; you’d think that after all these years of grad school, I would’ve at least learned how to follow a prep by now.

    In any case, this seems to be a pretty sweet reagent. On my system, it is (or looks to be after an overnight stir) far superior to the garden variety “anhydrous” CeCl3 (140 deg C, high vac, 4 h). Add to that no more drying CeCl3 every time and you’ve got yourself a winner. Krest17: I owe you a steak dinner or something.

    Comment by CeCl3BrokeMyHeart — April 13, 2009 @ 4:10 pm

  72. also the rich people can buy anhydrous CeCl3 pearl-like pellets in ampule. I have seen a lit procedure where they just combined the commercial anh CeCl3 with 2.1 equivs of dried LiCl, stirred that mix overnight at high speed in anh. THF, then added activated sieves powder to the obtained cloudy soln, stirred for another day, allowed to sediment and then canula-transferred off the supernatants

    Comment by milkshake — April 13, 2009 @ 4:26 pm

  73. Hey Milkshake … I finally removed the ferric from the CeCL3 solution using solvent extraction in TBP & washing with Nitric . well i still got a gray solour to the CeCl3 . That basically means the impurity is from the SOCL2 . what was more amazing is that when i tried dissolving the anhydrous CeCl3 i obtained in water after drying ( Off Grey Colour solid powder ) it dissolved rapidly but there was formation of traces of black unsoluble mass in the water. What do u think that would be ? I agree that distilation would help but do you think that the black mass ( it floats on top ) is Ferric.

    Also when i used the SOCL2 which i had distilled off before drying the CeCL3 again to make a fresh batch of CeCL3 anhydrous i found that the CeCL3 anhydrous obtained was white … so the problem is basically my thionyl chloride i agree .

    Another problem i have faced is that after refluxing overnight i dried the pure white CeCl3 at .1mm pressure for 15 min at 110 degrees bath temp. Then i raised the vacuum and brought the pressure down to .05 mm and increased the temperature to 140 degrees of the oil bath for 2 hours . after cooling under vacuum to room temperature the CeCL3 i obtained was white and completly soluble in water …….but the purity i achieved upon analysis by titration was only 96 .5 % . Any idea how to bring up the purity . Do yu feel there is still a water content in the CeCL3 . If so what do i need to do . Increase drying time or temperature . Please suggest milkshake

    Comment by Maxim — June 12, 2009 @ 10:35 am

  74. I think there could be still residual water left after drying on vacuum. The commercial anhydrous CeCl3 is also made by drying in vacuo and it supposedly still needs drying with sieves to work.

    I have seen also a procedure where they dried the commercial anhydrous CeCl3 with TMS-Cl (but this would be too uneconomical thing to do for heptahydrate).

    Comment by milkshake — June 12, 2009 @ 1:26 pm

  75. Do you mean to say that after refluxing overnight for 12 hours .. The CeCL3 only reaches a monohydrate stage and that it is the drying that converts it to the anhydrous stage .
    Well i am trying to run a 100 gms Batch . Below is the exact process i followed

    1) I took 100 gms of 99.99 % purity CeCL3 Crystals
    2) I put them along with SoCL2 500 ml in a 1 L 3 necked flask
    3) I took the oil bath till 70 Degrees and heated for 3 hours with a reflux condensor attached
    4) Then i incresed the Oil bath temp to 110 degrees and refluxed overnight
    5) In the moring i distilled out the Excess SoCl2 till my CeCL3 looked like a slightly wet paste
    6) I then attached a high vacuum pump ( .05 mm vacuum )having a scrubber online and heated for around 15 minutes.
    7) I then increased the temperature to 140 degrees of the Oil bath and heated under vacuum for 2 hours
    8) I removed the oil bath and let the Flask cool down to room temperature ( 30 Degrees ) under vacuum
    9) I removed the material which was a White and heavy Powder ( CeCL 3 )

    What have i missed ? And if you feel the problem is residual water what should i do ?
    Option 1 : Increase the Time that i am heating at 140 degrees
    Option 2 : Raise the temperature as well as raise the heating period.

    Sorry i know i am bothering you a lot but i am at my wits end as to what to do

    Comment by Maxim — June 13, 2009 @ 10:29 pm

  76. I think there is no residual water with the SOCl2 drying method but maybe there is some residual SOCl2 in there – so I would recommend to dry it on highvac/oil bath longer

    Comment by milkshake — June 14, 2009 @ 2:27 am

  77. Dear Milkshake …. One last question … Do you mean to say that once i have refluxed with SOCL2 for twelve hours there is no residual water left in the Cerium Chloride . What i thought was that the SOCL2 helps bring it to a monohydrate stage and that the drying at 140 degrees is what actually removes the last molecule of water remaining …. Would that be right or wrong .

    Comment by Maxim — June 18, 2009 @ 4:52 am

  78. No I think SOCl2 makes it perfectly anhydrous rather quickly. The main problem seems to be that SOCl2 coordinates to the anhydrous CeCl3 quite strongly so it takes effort to remove the last traces of SOCl2 from the product.

    Comment by milkshake — June 18, 2009 @ 2:17 pm

  79. Dear Milkshake .. And it seems odd calling u that .. Could i have ur name please ….
    This is what i am going to do . I am going to have it analysed for traces of SOCL2 . Any suggestions how … I am most probably going to get an independent lab to do this for me as i have no idea unless you could help me out …

    By the way this blog of urs is like manna from heaven to me and with all your suggestions up till now i already owe you more than a crate of beer that way u could quit the milkshakes .. lol .. where should i have it sent

    Comment by Maxim — June 20, 2009 @ 11:18 pm

  80. Another thing i needed to ask was this TMS- CL process. I know that it reacts with water to form HCL but the boiling point of the same id hardly near 55 degrees with evaporation near it . How do you use it to dry the commercial CeCL3 . Reflux it or what

    Comment by Maxim — June 20, 2009 @ 11:30 pm

  81. The drying with TMSCl is done at reflux. I have not used it myself but I saw it mentioned somewhere in the literature. The drawback is that you need 2 equivalents of TMSCl for each water removed (the product is HCl and TMS-O-TMS, bp=101C), so for the starting heptahydrate you would consume quite a large volume of TMSCl and it would get rather uneconomic. But I suppose one can first vacuum-dry CeCl3 from heptahydrate to monohydrate, and then finish it off with TMS-Cl reflux overnight.

    Test for SOCl2 residue is easy: dissolve your product in water an do a volumetric titration in a small beaker on a pH meter, with 0.1M NaOH standard solution. SOCl2 produces 3 equivalents of strong acid, the equivalency point (the steepest pH change) should be in the mildly acidic range (pH 2-5)

    Comment by milkshake — June 21, 2009 @ 2:11 am

  82. Thanks for the procedure . By the way how hygroscopic is cerium chloride when it is anhydrous . Will 5 minutes exposure to air cause a significant pick up of water by the CeCL3.

    Comment by Maxim — June 21, 2009 @ 12:30 pm

  83. You cannot have it open to normal air, not even for few minutes. If you need to bottle it and don’t have a humidity-controlled environment (such as glovebox) you must work very fast; the best technique is to place the storage wide-mouth bottle into glassware drying oven, dump the still-warm CeCl3 powder from the flask into the hot bottle and let it cool in a desiccator, then cap and parafilm all over and store it in the desiccator.

    People usually don’t store anhydrous CeCl3, they use it right after the drying, in the same flask, to make the solution.

    Aldrich sells anhydrous CeCl3 “pearls” in ampule – its the only good way to store it. But a THF solution prepared from Aldrich CeCl3 and LiCl still needs drying with the activated sieves.

    Comment by milkshake — June 21, 2009 @ 11:42 pm

  84. if it is so hygroscopic then how do these commercial people manage to make large batches .
    Also by the way if while packing i package with a dry Nitrogen gas will it work ( I dont have argon availiable ) . I have compressed Nitrogen gas availiable and i intend to run than through Sulhuric acid to get dry nitrogen gas which i then intend to fill into the packaging of the material . Do you think that will work .

    Also what is a glove box …. And how does it work

    Comment by Maxim — June 22, 2009 @ 12:38 am

  85. Maxim, sorry but glove box is a box with gloves and vacuum antechamber -(its kept dry and oxygen free inside) – why don’t you google it. Companies that make large batches of anhydrous CeCl3 by drying do not make really CeCl3 that is suitably dry to be used without further drying in this organometallic chemistry. If you make it by the published procedure by Knochel and Krasovky, you use it directly for preparing the solution of CeCl3.2LiCl in THF in the same flask.

    Nitrogen from Dewar with liquid nitrogen is sufficiently dry, for nitrogen from compressed tank I recommend a drying column filled with Drierite granules and activated mol sieves.

    Comment by milkshake — June 22, 2009 @ 1:52 am

  86. Thanks .. By the way my email id is maxim@rcmpa.com . We are a rare earths company and if you ever need any samples of cerium compounds even in kilos i shall have them couriered to you free of cost . You could check my website under rcmpa.com . You have been very helpful

    thanks

    Comment by Maxim — June 28, 2009 @ 2:10 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.