Faster selective chemistry by microflow and continuous microwave synthesis

Chimica Oggi

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 56-61

  Schwalbe, Thomas ^a   Simons, Keith ^a  

^a MRSP Micro Reactor Systems Provider Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33748611603     PISSN: 0392839X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. K. Jaehnisch et al., Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 43, p. 407 (2004)
2. P. Fletcher et al., Tetrahedron, 58, p. 4735 (2002)
3. H. Pennemann, H et al., Org. Process Res. Dev., 8, p. 3, (2004)
4. S. Taghavi-Moghadam et al., Org. Process Res. Dev., 5, p. 652 (2002)
5. T. Schwalbe et al., Chimia, 56, p. 634 (2002)
6. C. Kappe, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 43, p. 6250 (2004) and literature referenced therein
7. S. Suga et al., Chem. Commun., p. 354 (2003)
8. W. Ehrfeld et al., Microreactors, Wiley VCH (2000)
9. Enhanced mixing times result from dedicated efforts in designing microflow devices as passive mixing elements. A simple neighboring location of fluid laminae in a channel leads to mixing only by secondary effects that are slower than the herein described mixing effect.
10. T. Schwalbe et al., Org. Process Res. Dev., 8, p. 440 (2004)
11. J. Kim et al., Proceedings of the 4th Asia-Pacific Chemical Engineering Symposium, APCRE05, June 12-15, 2005, Gyeongju, Korea, 441
12. In a batch process, addition times often drive the total duration of a synthetic step and would be considered reaction time. In a continuous process the average reaction time can be more easily determined. Scientific comparisons of reaction times from such dosage dependent batch processes and continuous processes hardly make sense. Economic comparisons of course do. The reaction time in a continuously operated device is dispersed around the average computable reaction time in a manner depending on the device's design. Suffice it to say, there is a huge difference between the classic continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR) and a well -designed microflow reactor system (K. Golbig et al., Chem. Eng. Com., 192(5), p. 620 (2005))
13. and there are plenty of solutions between these and beyond the latter as in B. Yen et al., Chem. Int. Ed., 44, p. 5447 (2005).
14. It was noted, that some experiments using meso-scale tubes gave considerably lower yields and higher amounts of by-products, see reference 11.
15. V. Hessel et al., Org. Process Res. Dev., 8, p. 511 (2004)
16. X. Zhang et al., Org. Process Res. Dev., 8, p. 455 (2004)
17. M. Newman, H. Karnes, J. Org. Chem., 31, p. 3980 (1966)
18. See reference 59 and 262 in reference 6,
19. R. Bierbaum et al., Chem. Eng. Tech., 28(4), p. 427 (2004)
20. E. Comer, M. Organ, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 127, p. 8160 (2005)
21. M. Nuechter et al., Green Chem., 6, p. 128 (2004)
22. Aqueous medium, _T = 75 K, flow rate = 8.8 l/h, reactor volume 880 ml, from reference 34
23. Overall isothermal reaction conduct in microwave has been accomplished: J. Jachuk et al., Green Chem., 8, p. 29 (2006)
24. The perspective of this short review parallels a perspective used in: V. Hessel et al., Cur. Org. Chem., 9(8), p. 765 (2005) and continues in this respect to reference 9
25. Significant pioneering achievements in investigating the breadth of microflow applicability were made in conjunction with electro osmotic flow propagation, (a means of actively controlling chemistry by itself), by Haswell, S., Watts, P., their collaboration partners and coworkers, see reference 2, 3 and literature cited therein.
26. S. Haswell et al., Lab on a chip, 1, p. 164 (2001)
27. J. Bonacorsi et al., J. Lab. Comp. Rad., 49, p. 1 (2006)
28. nd International Conference on Microreaction Technology, IMRET 2, Top. Conf. Proc., New Orleans, p. 124 (1998)
29. http://www.cpc-net.com/reactions/CPC01001.html
30. th International symposium Laboratory Automation and New Technologies in Process Research and Development, conference proceedings, Boston, Ma, 23-24 September 2004
31. N. Wilson et al., Org. Process Res. Dev, 8, p. 535 (2004)
32. M. Schmittel et al., Synthesis, p. 415 (2004)
33. T. Fukuyama et al., Organic Letters, 4(10), p. 1691 (2002)
34. D. Snyder et al., Helv. Chem. Acta, 88, p. 1 (2005)
35. S. Liu et al., Org. Process Dev. Res., 8, p. 477 (2004)
36. C. Mauger et al., J. Organomet. Chem, 690, p. 3627 (2005)
37. th Ed. (1983)
38. T. Schwalbe et al., US Patent US 09/617,068, 2000 and Eur. Patent EP 1 174 184, 2001
39. S. de Bellefon et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 39, p. 3342 (2000)
40. J.M. Köhler, T. Kirner, Sensors and Actuators, 119, p. 19 (2005)
41. M. Günther et al., Chem. Eng.Tech., 28(4), p. 520 (2005)
42. J. Köhler et al., Chem. Eng. J., 101(1-3), p. 201 (2004)
43. C. de Bellefon et al., Chimia, 56(11), p. 621 (2002)
44. S. Caravieilhes et al., Cat. Today, 66, p. 145 (2001)
45. H. Pennemann et al., AIChE J., 50(8), p. 1814 (2003)
46. G. Dummann et al., Cat. Today, Special edition - 4th International Symposium on Catalysis in Multiphase Reactors, CAMURE IV 78-79, 3, p. 433 (2002)
47. S. Suga et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc., 123, p. 7941 (2001)
48. T. Schwalbe et al., OSAR Comb. Chem., 24(6), p. 758 (2005)
49. S. Wong Hawkes et al., QSAR Comb. Chem., 24(6), p. 712 (2005)
50. D. Ratner et al., Chem. Commun., p. 578 (2005)
51. The authors are indebted to the unknown referee for his fundamental recommendations on the article.