A novel poly(N-isopropyl-acrylamine-co-L-proline) catalyst for aldol reaction: synthesis, catalytic performance and recyclability

Yubing Liuab, Qing Tongab, Liya Gede, Yu Zhangb, Lin Hua*bc and Yining Fan*ab
aKey Laboratory of Mesoscopic Chemistry of MOE, School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, Jiangsu Province, China. E-mail: ynfan@nju.edu.cn; Fax: +86 25 83317761; Tel: +86 25 83594620
bNanjing University-Yangzhou Institute of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Yizheng 211400, Jiangsu Province, China
cLinovus Technology Pte Ltd, 8 Chang Charn Road, Link (THM) Building #02-11, Singapore 159637, Singapore. E-mail: hualin@linovus.com
dResidues and Resource Reclamation Centre, Nanyang Environment and Water Research Institute, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Cleantech Loop, Clean Tech One, Singapore 637141, Singapore
eNatural Sciences and Science Education Academic Group, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616, Singapore

Received 19th June 2014 , Accepted 24th September 2014

First published on 24th September 2014


Abstract

A novel homogeneous copolymer catalyst was synthesized via single step radical copolymerization and developed for the aldol reaction. It was demonstrated that the catalyst possessed excellent activity and stereoselectivity. The secondary structure of the copolymer catalyst was evaluated by circular dichroism. Furthermore, the catalyst was readily recovered without loss of conversion and stereoselectivity even after ten cycles.


L-Proline has been widely used as an organocatalyst for the construction of asymmetric carbon–carbon bonds, since 2000.1,2 Although L-proline and its derivatives are highly effective and metal-free, used in many reactions such as aldol reactions, Mannich reactions, Diels–Alder reactions and others,2–5 there are two main issues that must be considered. The first one is the relative low activity of catalysts, which need further improve by choosing the appropriate functional groups or adjusting the structure of catalysts. The second one is the difficulty associated with recycling and reusing of the organocatalysts. To counterbalance these points, recent research efforts have been dedicated to immobilizing and recycling of L-proline and its derivatives.6,7 Among those immobilization methods, heterogeneous materials supported L-proline has generally reduced the catalytic activity and stereoselectivities, whereas homogeneous polymer-supported L-proline has emerged as a promising strategy due to the high catalytic activity and low cost. In homogeneous polymer-supported L-proline, the polymer skeleton can act as a natural part of the catalytic system and the amphipathic polymer provides a favourable catalytic microenvironment, like a pseudo-enzyme system.8

Herein, a novel homogeneous polymer-supported L-proline copolymer catalyst, poly(N-isopropyl-acrylamine-co-L-proline), which combines the merit of homogeneous and heterogeneous processes, is synthesized by radical copolymerization. The catalytic reaction carries out homogeneously and the catalyst can be easily recovered by precipitation (Fig. 1). The secondary structure of copolymer catalyst is also evaluated to elucidate the relationship between secondary structure and selectivities in this study.


image file: c4ra05951d-f1.tif
Fig. 1 (A) The copolymer catalyst, (B) the catalytic reaction carried out homogeneously, (C) the catalyst precipitated out of solution after reaction.

The synthesis of polymer-supported L-proline follows the outline shown in Scheme 1. In contrast to traditional postmodification scheme, radical copolymerization has many advantages, including high and controllable catalyst loading, and less synthetic steps. With the presence of azodiisobutyronitrile (AIBN) as radical initiator, the copolymerization of N-isopropylacrylamide (NIPAM) with O-acryloyl-trans-4-hydroxy-L-proline hydrochloride is carried out in N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF) at 70 °C for 8 h with a single synthetic step (Scheme 1). The proline compositions in the copolymers possessed different loading amounts were determined by 1H NMR spectroscopy (Fig. S1). Although the catalyst loading was 8.6 mol% lower than 10 mol% feed ratio, it was interesting to find the good linear relationship of feed ratio from 5 mol% to 20 mol% against catalyst loading (Fig. S5). Therefore, it suggested that the catalyst loading could be adjusted by radical copolymerization.


image file: c4ra05951d-s1.tif
Scheme 1 Polymer-supported L-proline by copolymerization.

A model reaction, the asymmetric aldol addition of p-nitrobenzaldehyde to cyclohexanone, was chosen to evaluate the copolymer catalyst (Table 1).9–11 The aldol addition was typically carried out in polar aprotic solvents, dimethylformamide (DMF) or dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), which had proven to be the optimal media for the reaction.12,13 Thus, the reaction could be performed heterogeneously in H2O, tetrahydrofuran (THF), CHCl3, CH3CN and CH3COOCH2CH3, and homogeneously in CH3OH, DMF, DMSO, DMF/H2O and DMSO/H2O. Although the heterogeneous catalyst system gave low conversion, the moderate stereoselectivities were observed (Table 1, entry 1–5), which could probably due to that the hydrophobic part of the copolymer backbone played an important role in the stereocontrol.14,15 Compared with the heterogeneous catalyst system, the homogeneous catalyst system exhibited better catalytic performance with high conversion (98–99%) and moderate to high stereoselectivities (anti/syn = 37–99/63–1, 48–99% ee) (Table 1, entry 6–10). Notably, the best result with respect to conversion, diastereo- and enantioselectivities (98–99% conversion, anti/syn = 96–99/4–1, 97% ee) were achieved in DMF/H2O and DMSO/H2O (Table 1, entry 9 and 10). However, both conversion and stereoselectivities decreased obviously as the content of water was increased, and enantioselectivities decreased slightly as the amount of water was reduced (Table 1, entry 11 and 12). This result provides evidence that appropriate amount of water could accelerate reactions and improve stereoselectivities, but the excess water resulted in low yields.16–19

Table 1 The model aldol reaction catalyzed bycopolymer catalyst, monomer and PNIPAMa

image file: c4ra05951d-u1.tif

Entry Catalyst Solvent Conversionb [mol%] anti[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]synb eec [%]
a Reaction conditions: p-nitrobenzaldehyde (0.0756 g, 0.50 mmol), cyclohexanone (2.0 mL), 0.5 g, 8.6 mol% loading of copolymer catalyst, 24 h, rt.b Determined by 1H NMR.c Determined by chiral HPLC.
1 III H2O 63 86[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]14 79
2 III THF 19 99[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]1 94
3 III CHCl3 60 99[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]1 90
4 III CH3CN 48 83[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]17 70
5 III CH3COOCH2CH3 17 80[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]20 85
6 III CH3OH 95 99[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]1 97
7 III DMF 99 37[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]63 99
8 III DMSO 99 74[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]26 48
9 III DMSO/H2O (3[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]1 v/v) 99 99[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]1 97
10 III DMF/H2O (3[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]1 v/v) 98 96[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]4 97
11 III DMF/H2O (1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]3 v/v) 46 58[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]42 73
12 III DMF/H2O (10[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]1 v/v) 97 97[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]3 81
13 II H2O 74 83[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]17 65
14 II CH3OH 62 75[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]25 82
15 II DMF/H2O (3[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]1 v/v) 97 57[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]43 88
16 II DMSO/H2O (3[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]1 v/v) 99 40[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]60 73
17 PNIPAM DMF/H2O (3[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]1 v/v) 0


For comparison, the aldol addition was performed under the same conditions with monomer O-acryloyl-trans-4-hydroxy-L-proline hydrochloride and poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) (PNIPAM) (Table 1, entry 13–17). Obviously, PNIPAM had no activity in the aldol reaction and the monomer exhibited less stereoselectivities (anti/syn = 40–83/60–17, 73–88% ee) compared with the copolymer catalyst. Thus, the polymeric system is favorable to aldol reaction. The hydrophobic/hydrophilic balance of copolymer catalyst and the water are helpful to form hydrogen bonds, an ideal reaction microenvironment which often positively influences activity and stereoselectivities of the configurated catalyst.8,17,18,20

It is noteworthy that all the catalytic reaction data was obtained without treating with triethylamine (Et3N) to cause free amino acid polymer, which is different from the previous reports.21,22 Not only did it shorten the synthetic route, but also influenced the catalytic activity and stereoselectivities. It was also evident that the role of the HCl as acid additive was dual, orienting the substrate and facilitating the formation of enamine. The same phenomenon had been observed in aldol reaction with Brønsted acid as additive to improve the activity and stereoselectivity.11,23

A series of aldehydes and ketones were also employed to explore the scope of the copolymer catalyst under the optimized reaction conditions (Table 2). Reaction between aldehydes with an electron-withdrawing group and cyclohexanone gave the corresponding products in high conversion (>94%) and stereoselectivities (diastereoselectivity > 96%, ee > 91%) (entry 1–4). Electron-withdrawing groups (–NO2, –Cl, –Br) at the aromatic portion were well tolerated, however, the electron-donating substituted aldehydes (–CH3 or –OCH3 substituted) resulted in low conversions, moderate diastereo-selectivities and high enantioselectivities (entry 5 and 6). In fact, as previously reported, the aldehydes with electron-withdrawing groups showed much higher reactivity and enantioselectivity than those with electron-donating groups.11,20,21 Moreover, the expected products in excellent conversion (99%) and enantio-selectivity (97%) were observed when p-pyridinecarboxaldehyde, a heteroaromatic aldehyde, was used as the acceptor (entry 7). Finally, other aldol donors, such as acetone and cyclopentanone, reacted with p-nitrobenzaldehyde (entry 8 and 9). In the cases of cyclic ketones (cyclohexanone and cyclopentanone), the catalyst exhibited better catalytic performance than acetone.11,18,20 When cyclopentanone was used as donor, high conversion (99%) and moderate stereoselectivity (88% anti, 72% ee) were obtained. However, only 33% conversion and 84% ee were obtained when acetone was used as substrate.

Table 2 Asymmetric aldol reaction in DMF/H2O with copolymer catalyst

image file: c4ra05951d-u2.tif

Entry n R Conversiona [mol%] anti[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]syna eeb [%]
a Determined by 1H NMR.b Determined by chiral HPLC.c Selectivity to 4-hydroxy-4-(4-nitrophenyl)-butan-2-one.
1 3 o-NO2Ph 97 97[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]3 96
2 3 m-NO2Ph 94 99[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]1 91
3 3 p-ClPh 99 96[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]4 99
4 3 p-BrPh 99 99[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]1 94
5 3 p-MePh 58 56[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]44 95
6 3 p-MeOPh 7 53[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]47 94
7 3 p-Pyridyl 99 81[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]19 97
8 0 p-NO2Ph 33 99c 84
9 2 p-NO2Ph 99 88[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]12 72


The circular dichroism (CD) and UV-vis spectroscopy of the copolymer catalyst and monomer have been investigated (Fig. 2, S6 and S7). CD is a technique commonly used for probing the secondary structure and chiroptical properties of proteins, polymers and other compounds.24–26 The CD spectra of the copolymer catalyst are significantly different from the monomer both in H2O or MeOH. In H2O, the molecular ellipticities are as follows: [θ]λ(max) = −8.03 × 104 (212 nm), +2.21 × 104 (204 nm). Clearly, the copolymer catalyst exhibits CD signals with negative Cotton effects, which is similar to polyprolineIIhelix conformation,27 while the monomer possess CD signal with positive Cotton effects, suggesting the noticeable secondary structure differences between them. In CH3OH, the copolymer catalyst not only exhibits negative CD signal at 219 nm, but also has positive CD signal at 205 nm, while the CD signal monomer has no significant change compared with it in H2O (Fig. S6). These results suggest that secondary structure is related to the conformation of copolymer catalyst in solutions and there is a dramatic change of monomer and copolymer catalyst in secondary structure. Therefore, it is not difficult to explain that copolymer catalyst can increase the stereoselectivities and the solvents affect the stereoselectivities (Table 1, entry 1, 6, 9, 10 and 13–16).25 The change of structure induced the change of stereoselectivities. In other words, the secondary structure of copolymer catalyst provides an advantage in improving the stereoselectivities and the appropriate solvent is also favorable toward increasing the stereoselectivities.


image file: c4ra05951d-f2.tif
Fig. 2 CD spectra of copolymer catalyst (1.0 × 10−5 mol L−1) and monomer (1.0 × 10−5 mol L−1) in H2O.

In order to further investigate the activity of copolymer catalyst, we turned attention to the kinetics for aldol reaction in polymer catalytic system (Fig. 3). Gratifyingly, we found that the stereoselectivities was preserved at high level (diastereoselectivity > 95%, ee > 95%) after 5 h reaction. It was found that the stereoselectivities did not change over time. But importantly, at the initial stage, the conversion was very low (conversion < 10%); and after 5 h, with the subsequent increase in reaction time, the conversion increased from 56% to 99%. Obviously, there was a jump in conversion between 4 and 5 h. It was probably that the catalytic rate is associated with mass transfering the polymer catalytic system. After the polymer had dissolved, the viscosity of catalytic system increased distinctly, and thus, the reactants transfer rate decreased. It was universally accepted that the viscosity is inversely related to the mass transfer rate, which can well explain the low conversion at the beginning of reaction and abrupt change. This diffusion controlled process has been widely found in polymer catalytic system.28 The limiting factors arise from mass transfer have always been and will continue to be one of the challenges to overcome for polymer catalytic system.29


image file: c4ra05951d-f3.tif
Fig. 3 The catalytic activity of the copolymer catalyst against time.

As the catalyst is homogeneously mixed on a molecular scale within the reaction mixtures, recycling of the homogeneous catalysts is a problem that must be appropriately settled to date.21,30–32 In present work, we therefore investigated the recycling potential of copolymer catalyst using diethyl ether (Et2O) or saturated brine as the precipitants. The catalyst was readily precipitated out of reaction mixture by addition of Et2O. Then, the precipitated catalyst was isolated, washed, dried and reused in the following recycle experiments.

As Fig. 3 shown, the copolymer catalyst had excellent recyclability. Even in the tenth run, there was no loss in conversion (>96%) and stereoselectivities (anti/syn = 99/1, 99% ee).

In addition, we also successfully recovered the copolymer catalyst by precipitation using saturated brine, which is a green recycling method. At the end of aldol reaction, the mixture was added saturated brine to form three phases: aqueous phase, organic phase and solid phase. The polymer was successfully isolated by centrifugation. The separated organic phase was dried over MgSO4 and concentrated under vacuum. The aqueous phase was reused directly in the next recycling (Scheme S1). Under these conditions, the catalyst was used in 7 cycles without losing significant stereoselectivities (>95%), but the conversion was decreased from 99% to nearly 80% after 2 cycles (Fig. 4). Predicated on these data, the influence of salt on the conversion and stereoselectivity couldn't escape notice. Gallardo and co-workers suggested that the addition of salts promoted an appreciable increase of stereoselectivity at the expense of the conversion.15 On the other hand, the reduction in copolymer solubility was related to the adsorption of salt on copolymer. Thus, due to the adsorption and subsequent adsorption saturation, the conversion was decreased significantly and subsequently retained at around 80%.


image file: c4ra05951d-f4.tif
Fig. 4 Recyclability of the copolymer catalyst.

In summary, a novel homogeneous copolymer catalyst was synthesized by the simple radical copolymerization of the L-proline derivative with N-isopropylacrylamide. This copolymer catalyst offers several advantages, including single synthetic step, high catalytic activity and recyclability. It was demonstrated that the copolymer catalyst exhibited excellent catalytic properties, resulting in higher conversion (98–99%) and stereoselectivities (anti/syn = 96–99/4–1, 97% ee) in the model aldol reaction compared to unsupported L-proline derivative monomer. The CD spectra of the copolymer catalyst are apparently different from the corresponding monomer, which, from the point of secondary structure, suggested the supported catalyst by copolymerization benefited promoting the catalytic activity. Regarding to the affect of the solvent, two main issues have been raised: (1) the solubility of copolymer catalyst, and (2) the different secondary structure of copolymer catalyst in different solvents. The copolymer catalyst can be recovered and reused with the conversion keeping above 96% and high stereoselectivities (anti/syn = 99/1, 99% ee), even after ten cycles, allowing efficient recycle of the copolymer catalyst. Nevertheless, a more detailed study will be carried out on the relationship between secondary structure of copolymer catalyst and catalytic activity.

This work was financially supported by the Key Science & Technology Specific Projects of Yangzhou, Jiangsu Province of China (YZ20122029).

Notes and references

  1. B. List, R. A. Lerner and C. F. Barbas, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2000, 122, 2395–2396 CrossRef CAS.
  2. P. I. Dalko and L. Moisan, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2004, 43, 5138–5175 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  3. B. List, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2002, 124, 5656–5657 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  4. B. List, P. Pojarliev, W. T. Biller and H. J. Martin, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2002, 124, 827–833 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  5. P. Merino and T. Tejero, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2004, 43, 2995–2997 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  6. M. Gruttadauria, F. Giacalone and R. Noto, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2008, 37, 1666–1688 RSC.
  7. T. E. Kristensen and T. Hansen, Eur. J. Org. Chem., 2010, 3179–3204 CrossRef CAS.
  8. D. Font, S. Sayalero, A. Bastero, C. Jimeno and M. A. Pericas, Org. Lett., 2008, 10, 337–340 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  9. A. Cordova, W. Notz and C. F. Barbas, Chem. Commun., 2002, 3024–3025 CAS.
  10. B. H. Lipshutz and S. Ghorai, Org. Lett., 2012, 14, 422–425 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  11. N. Mase, Y. Nakai, N. Ohara, H. Yoda, K. Takabe, F. Tanaka and C. F. Barbas, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2006, 128, 734–735 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  12. A. Lu, T. P. Smart, T. H. Epps, D. A. Longbottom and R. K. O'Reilly, Macromolecules, 2011, 44, 7233–7241 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  13. E. G. Doyaguez, F. Parra, G. Corrales, A. Fernandez-Mayoralas and A. Gallardo, Polymer, 2009, 50, 4438–4446 CrossRef CAS.
  14. J. Li, G. Yang, Y. Qin, X. Yang and Y. Cui, Tetrahedron: Asymmetry, 2011, 22, 613–618 CrossRef CAS.
  15. E. G. Doyaguez, G. Corrales, L. Garrido, J. Rodriguez-Hernandez, A. Gallardo and A. Fernandez-Mayoralas, Macromolecules, 2011, 44, 6268–6276 CrossRef CAS.
  16. D. Font, C. Jimeno and M. A. Pericas, Org. Lett., 2006, 8, 4653–4655 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  17. Y. Hayashi, S. Aratake, T. Okano, J. Takahashi, T. Sumiya and M. Shoji, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2006, 45, 5527–5529 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  18. M. Gruttadauria, F. Giacalone, A. M. Marculescu, P. Lo Meo, S. Riela and R. Noto, Eur. J. Org. Chem., 2007, 4688–4698 CrossRef CAS.
  19. A. C. Evans, A. Lu, C. Ondeck, D. A. Longbottom and R. K. O'Reilly, Macromolecules, 2010, 43, 6374–6380 CrossRef CAS.
  20. M. Gruttadauria, F. Giacalone, A. M. Marculescu and R. Noto, Adv. Synth. Catal., 2008, 350, 1397–1405 CrossRef CAS.
  21. T. E. Kristensen, K. Vestli, M. G. Jakobsen, F. K. Hansen and T. Hansen, J. Org. Chem., 2010, 75, 1620–1629 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  22. T. E. Kristensen, K. Vestli, K. A. Fredriksen, F. K. Hansen and T. Hansen, Org. Lett., 2009, 11, 2968–2971 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  23. D. Gryko, M. Zimnicka and R. Lipinski, J. Org. Chem., 2007, 72, 964–970 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  24. F. Song, N. Fei, F. Li, S. Zhang, Y. Cheng and C. Zhu, Chem. Commun., 2013, 49, 2891–2893 RSC.
  25. D. Zhang, C. Ren, W. Yang and J. Deng, Macromol. Rapid Commun., 2012, 33, 652–657 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  26. E. Yashima, K. Maeda, H. Iida, Y. Furusho and K. Nagai, Chem. Rev., 2009, 109, 6102–6211 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  27. C. Mothes, C. Caumes, A. Guez, H. Boullet, T. Gendrineau, S. Darses, N. Delsuc, R. Moumné, B. Oswald, O. Lequin and P. Karoyan, Molecules, 2013, 18, 2307–2327 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
  28. A. Lu, P. Cotanda, J. P. Patterson, D. A. Longbottom and R. K. O'Reilly, Chem. Commun., 2012, 48, 9699–9701 RSC.
  29. J. Potier, S. Menuel, D. Fournier, S. Fourmentin, P. Woisel, E. Monflier and F. Hapiot, ACS Catal., 2012, 2, 1417–1420 CrossRef CAS.
  30. M. Benaglia, M. Cinquini, F. Cozzi, A. Puglisi and G. Celentano, Adv. Synth. Catal., 2002, 344, 533–542 CrossRef CAS.
  31. T. Kehat and M. Portnoy, Chem. Commun., 2007, 2823–2825 RSC.
  32. E. Huerta, P. J. M. Stals, E. W. Meijer and A. R. A. Palmans, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2013, 52, 2906–2910 CrossRef CAS PubMed.

Footnote

Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available. See DOI: 10.1039/c4ra05951d

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2014
Click here to see how this site uses Cookies. View our privacy policy here.