Studies on the carbenium-iminium ions derived from N-methylmorpholine-N- oxide (NMMO)

Tetrahedron

Volumn 60, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 301-306

  Rosenau, Thomas ^a   Potthast, Antje ^a   Kosma, Paul ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND LIFE SCIENCES   (Austria)

Author keywords

Carbenium iminium ions; Cellulose solvents; Isotopic labeling; Mannich intermediates; N Methylmorpholine N oxide (NMMO); Trapping

Indexed keywords

4 METHYL 3,6 DIHYDRO 2H [1,4]OXAZINIUM CHLORIDE; 4 METHYLMORPHOLINE N OXIDE; MORPHOLINE DERIVATIVE; N METHYLENEMORPHOLINIUM CHLORIDE; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; WATER;

ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CARBON NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; CHEMICAL REACTION KINETICS; COLUMN CHROMATOGRAPHY; DEGRADATION; MOLECULAR BIOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTON NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; REACTION ANALYSIS; TANDEM MASS SPECTROMETRY; THIN LAYER CHROMATOGRAPHY;

EID: 0346887156     PISSN: 00404020     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tet.2003.11.015     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Albini A. Synthesis. 1993;263-277.
2. For a review see: Schröder M. Chem. Rev. 80:1980;187-213.
3. (a) Chanzy H.J. Polym. Sci., Polym. Phys. Ed. 18:1980;1137-1144
4. (b) Chanzy H., Nawrot S., Peguy A., Smith P. J. Polym. Sci. 20:1982;1909-1924.
5. (a) Black D.S.C., Deacon G.B., Thomas N.C. Inorg. Chim. Acta. 65:1983;L75-L76
6. (b) Ringel C. Z. Chem. 9:1969;188.
7. (a) Brandner, A.; Zengel, H. G. German Patent DE-OS 3,034,685, 1980.
8. (b) Brandner, A.; Zengel, G. H. Chem. Abstr. 1982, 97 7727d Chem. Abstr.
9. (c) Firgo H., Eibl M., Kalt W., Meister G. Lenz. Ber. 74:1994;80-90.
10. Rosenau T., Potthast A., Sixta H., Kosma P. Tetrahedron. 58:(15):2002;3073-3078.
11. Rosenau T., Potthast A., Kosma P., Chen C.L., Gratzl J.S. J. Org. Chem. 64:1999;2166-2167.
12. This applies for instance to reaction mixtures containing NMMO monohydrate, or NMMO-cellulose spinning dopes.
13. Rosenau T., Potthast A., Sixta H., Kosma P. Progr. Polym. Sci. 26:(9):2001;1763-1837.
14. It was checked that 6 was stable under the prevailing conditions, and did not transform into 5 . Thus, formation of 5 must be due to the conversion of 3 into 2 rather than a transformation of the trapping products.
15. The overall reaction order was determined using equivalent starting concentrations. Applying a large excess (80 equiv.) of water, the water concentration could be regarded constant over the reaction time, and the reaction became pseudo-first order with regard to the starting material 3 , i.e., d[2]/dt=k′[3], with k′=k[H2O].
16. -1.
17. Trapping after reacidification proved that indeed not only the trapping reaction, but also the rearrangement itself was prevented.
18. For procedure and for the calculated thermodynamic values see Section 3.
19. This comprised localization of transition states and geometry minima, supported by vibrational frequency analysis and intrinsic reaction coordinate analysis.
20. (a) Lee C., Yang W., Parr R.G. Phys. Rev. B37:1988;785
21. (b) Miehlich B., Savin A., Stoll H., Preuss H. Chem. Phys. Lett. 157:1989;200.
22. (a) Becke A. Phys. Rev. A38:1988;3098
23. (b) Becke A.J. Chem. Phys. 98:1993;5648.
24. (a) Hariharan P.C., Pople J.A. Theor. Chim. Acta. 28:1973;213
25. (b) Francl M.M., Pietro W.J., Hehre W.J., Binkley J.S., Gordon M.S., DeFrees D.J., Pople J.A. J. Chem. Phys. 77:1982;3654.