University of Groningen Chiral separation by ... · Chiral Separation by Enantioselective...

University of Groningen

Chiral separation by enantioselective liquid-liquid extractionVerkuijl, Bastiaan Jeroen Victor

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.

Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date:2009

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):Verkuijl, B. J. V. (2009). Chiral separation by enantioselective liquid-liquid extraction: from novel systems tocontinuous multistage processes. Groningen: s.n.

CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

Download date: 17-05-2020

https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/en/publications/chiral-separation-by-enantioselective-liquidliquid-extraction(a0133fac-6e6f-4bc9-adc6-9be6a990630f).html



Chapter 1 Chiral Separation by Enantioselective Liquid-Liquid Extraction

Chapter 1

2

Abstract

The literature, including that from a Nobel laureate, on enantioselective liquid-liquid extraction (ELLE) spans more than half a century of research. Nonetheless, a comprehensive overview has not appeared during the pastt few decades. This introductory chapter serves as a critical review and complements the existing (review) literature on resolution technology by discussing the principles and advances of resolution through enantioselective liquid-liquid extraction. Enantioselective liquid-liquid extraction is a technology of interest for a wide range of chemists and chemical engineers in the fields of fine chemicals, pharmaceuticals, agrochemicals, fragrances and foods. First, the principles of enantioselective liquid-liquid extraction including host-guest chemistry, extraction and phase transfer mechanisms, and multistage liquid-liquid extraction processing are introduced. Then the literature on enantioselective liquid-liquid extraction systems is reviewed, structured on extractant classes. The following extractant classes are considered: crown ether based extractants, metal complexes and metalloids, extractants based on tartrates, and a final section with all other types of chiral extractants. The chapter ends with a summary and some concluding remarks.

Chiral Separation by Enantioselective Liquid-Liquid Extraction

3

1.1 Introduction

The availability of enantiopure compounds is of prime importance for the pharmaceutical1 and also to some extent for the agrochemical, flavour and fragrances industries.2 They may be obtained either via a synthetic

approach,3 or via the separation of racemates (Figure 1.1).4,5 The synthetic routes can be based on natural compounds, fermentation or asymmetric synthesis.

Figure 1.1 Available methods for acquiring enantiopure compounds. The chiral pool strategy uses chiral compounds from nature or products derived thereof (e.g. from fermentation processes). Examples of industrial fermentations are the production of various acids (e.g. lactic acid, citric acid),6 penicillin,7 and α-amino acids.8 Usually the production using this strategy is relatively cheap. Unfortunately, not all enantiopure precursors can be obtained from natural sources. When the chiral pool is not an option, conversion of prochiral compounds into chiral compounds by asymmetric synthesis9 is an attractive alternative. Although asymmetric catalysis is intrinsically very powerful, its use in practice is limited because of high

Chapter 1

4

catalyst costs and limited development time caused by time-to-market

pressure.10,11 Enantiopure compounds may also be obtained by racemic synthesis followed by enantiomer separation. The time-to-market for this strategy is potentially shorter than in asymmetric catalysis, provided the separation of enantiomers can be done with a technique that is broadly applicable to structurally diverse substrates. A facile synthesis of racemic compounds followed by a racemate separation using a broadly applicable technology that is easily developed is possibly very beneficial. Separation of racemates

on industrial scale is usually done using resolution by crystallization.12-16 Although resolution by crystallization is the most frequently used route to enantiopure compounds, the main drawbacks are the low versatility and excessive solids handling and a maximum yield of 50%,17 unless racemization of the undesired enantiomer can be applied.18 Numerous laboratory techniques are available for enantioseparation.19-23 Typically, for scaling up of successful and very broadly applicable laboratory techniques such as chromatography24 and capillary electrophoresis,25 high capital investments are required.26 Nevertheless, it has been argued that for small volumes of single enantiomers needed in early development stages, the high separation costs by chromatographic techniques are still small compared to the total drug development costs.27 Some impressive preparative chiral separations have been demonstrated using centrifugal partition chromatography,28 and simulated moving bed

chromatography.29,30 Another strategy for chiral separations is based on the

use of membrane-based approaches.11,31-34 When applying immobilized selectors in (liquid) membranes, the amount of selector needed can be reduced greatly. Limitations of this technology are the relatively low transport rates through the membranes and the risk of fouling.


5

In liquid-liquid extraction, diffusion and convection are the transport mechanisms, and high transport rates should be achievable.35 Liquid-liquid extraction is a mature technology that can easily be operated in a continuous countercurrent mode to fractionate the racemate into its enantiomers,36 which is advantageous when scaling-up. This possibility to operate at all scales, from laboratory separations to bulk processes in the chemical industry, makes the use of liquid-liquid extraction for enantioseparation especially interesting. The use of liquid-liquid extraction for enantioseparation has been known since 1959,37 although the first articles in

the English literature appeared in the late 1960’s.38-41 Enantioselective liquid-liquid extraction (ELLE) is an attractive alternative for chromatography and resolution by crystallization, although judged from the scientific literature, commercialization of ELLE has not been achieved to date. Studies cited in the literature deal mainly with the introduction of novel extraction systems. Only a few engineering studies have been reported.35,42-

46 In the past 15 years, two reviews on aspects of chiral resolution by extraction have appeared, the first one (1994) with a strong emphasis on extraction chemistry,47 and the second one (2001) on extraction technology.36 In the current overview, the reader is first introduced to the principles of ELLE and the development strategy for successful application of ELLE in (continuous) industrial processes. Ample literature is available on liquid-liquid extraction equipment.48 However, the equipment that has typically been used by researchers in the lab is different from industrially applied equipment. Therefore, a concise overview of extraction equipment is provided. Next, an overview of ELLE chemistry categorized according to chiral extractant classes is presented. The chapter closes with a summary and concluding remarks.

Chapter 1

6

1.2 Principles and application of enantioselective liquid-liquid extraction ELLE is closely affiliated to the large field of host-guest chemistry49 and chiral recognition can be regarded as a mere practical application of the developments in this wide field. Other closely related applications are the

optical resolution of racemic compounds by inclusion complexation.50-53 and resolution by distillation with inclusion compounds.54 ELLE combines the

concepts of enantiomeric recognition55 and solvent extraction56-58 in a single technique. In this section, the principles underlying ELLE and the approaches for application of ELLE in multistage extraction processes will be introduced.

1.2.1 Host-guest chemistry and chiral recognition

The principle of enantiomeric recognition is essential for enantioselective complexation and thus for ELLE. Without enantiomeric recognition, enantioselective processes are not possible. Encounter complexes of the extractant with the enantiomers are formed as a result of intermolecular interactions.59 These intermolecular interactions may include ion pairing, hydrogen bonding, π-π interactions, dipole and Van der Waals interactions.55 The complexation of a chiral host with a chiral guest bearing one stereocenter can be considered as the guest binding with groups B, C and D to the groups B’, C’ and D’ of the host (Figure 1.2a). The opposite enantiomer will bind to two out of three sites (Figure 1.2b). The three point attachment (TPA) model states that the complex in Figure 1.2a is the preferred one.60 If the interactions, which are presented as dotted lines, represent not just attracting interactions, but also repulsive interactions, the TPA model is modified to the three point interaction (TPI) model.61,62


7

a) b)

Figure 1.2 The three point model for the complexation of both substrate enantiomers (a & b) to a chiral host. The field of enantiomeric recognition was boosted in the 1970’s by Lehn

and Cram49,63 and has led to a broad spectrum of host-guest chemistry. A wide variety of discriminative interactions has been reported. The field has been extensively reviewed and various approaches have been discussed:

host-guest chemistry in general,64 anion recognition,65-67 peptide and protein recognition,68 carbohydrate recognition69 and recognition of carboxylic acids,70 neutral molecules71 and amino compounds.72

1.2.2 Extraction and phase transfer mechanisms

In addition to the chiral recognition principle, it is also essential for ELLE that there should be two (at least partially) immiscible phases, normally an aqueous and an organic phase. A typical ELLE system initially has the substrate predominantly confined in the aqueous phase (Figure 1.3). After adding a lipophilic host or extractant, which prefers to be confined in the organic phase, a host-mediated phase transfer of the substrate occurs. In the example illustrated in Figure 1.3, interaction of the host with the (S)-enantiomer is favored over interaction with the (R)-enantiomer. As a result, the organic phase will be enriched with the (S)-enantiomer and the aqueous phase enriched with the (R)-enantiomer.

Chapter 1

8

Figure 1.3 Extraction and enantiomeric recognition in a biphasic system. Symbols: : (S)-enantiomer, : (R)-enantiomer, : host. Without going into mechanistic detail, the two main mechanisms given in the extraction literature26 are introduced here briefly. The two different types of extraction mechanism that have been proposed for ELLE are the homogeneous ligand addition mechanism, involving a homogeneous reaction in either one of the liquid phases between host and guest, and the

interfacial ligand exchange mechanism.46,73 The two mechanisms are depicted in Figure 1.4.


9

a) b)

CL3

CL2A

A-

L-

AC

A + CA

Ligand exchange extraction at interface Homogeneous ligand addition extraction

aqueous phase aqueous phaseorganic phase organic phase

Figure 1.4 Interfacial ligand exchange mechanism (a) of solute A with extractant C and homogeneous organic phase ligand addition mechanism (b). The main difference between the two models is the locus of the complexation reaction. The interfacial reaction model obviously applies when the reaction takes place at the interface. This situation is likely to be valid when the guest is insoluble in the organic phase and the host is insoluble in the water phase. This type of mechanism is frequently observed in the field of metal-ion extractions,74,75 and is characteristic for ligand exchange extraction systems. Ligand exchange systems may also be appropriate for ELLE of ionic guests. When either the host or guest is soluble in the other phase, homogeneous reactions are also possible. The homogeneous reaction model is appropriate for ELLE systems with a substrate addition mechanism, and the solutes are at least slightly soluble in the extract phase (which is usually the case, as the solutes are typically organic building blocks). This type of mechanism has been reported, for instance, for extractions of organic acids from aqueous fermentation

broths.76,77 Understanding of the complexation mechanism is important when aiming at a process optimization. Typically, the substrates (α-amino acids, amino alcohols, and carboxylic acids) can prevail in a neutral form, and in a

Chapter 1

10

(de)protonated form, depending on the actual pH in the aqueous phase. When the extraction proceeds through an interfacial anion exchange mechanism, the highest distributions are found at a pH where the guests prevail in the deprotonated form. When instead a homogeneous organic phase ligand addition mechanism is operative, the highest distributions may be found at a pH where the neutral form of the guest prevails.

1.2.3 Approaches for ELLE application in multistage processes

A key element in developing the technology of ELLE from the principles discussed above into a satisfactory separation process is the multistage countercurrent process approach. With this approach, it is not necessary to achieve a complete separation of enantiomers in a single stage and therefore also the selectivity requirements are not as extreme as in, for example, asymmetric catalysis. As a result, it is more likely that a single extractant can be applied to separate a broader range of racemates, which is

desired.26,78 With versatile extractants for racemate separations, the development times for new synthetic routes of chiral compounds can be shortened. Thus, with the multistage approach, highly enantiopure compounds are obtainable using selectors that display only moderate selectivity. Several configurations may be applied, such as cocurrent multistage extraction,79 countercurrent multistage extraction,80 or countercurrent multistage fractional extraction,45 which may be considered as the most efficient configuration. Figure 1.5 displays a scheme of a fractional extraction setup with a back-extraction section to recover the host to enable recycling. In fractional extraction, the feed enters the cascade of extractors or the extraction column at an intermediate stage. The stages from the feed stage F to stage N are called the strip section, the stages 1 to F form the wash section. This configuration allows efficient extraction of the desired enantiomer in the strip section, whereas the co-extracted enantiomer that is not desired is washed out of the extract stream in the wash section. The


11

extract stream with the desired enantiomer leaves the wash section from stage 1, and enters the back-extraction section where the host is recovered to re-enter the strip section in stage N. The recovered enantiomer leaves the process in the back-extraction stream. If the enantiopurity in this stream is very high, part of the stream may be refluxed to join the wash stream and re-enter in stage 1 of the wash section. As a consequence, the increased concentration of the preferred enantiomer in the aqueous stream at the start of the cascade, prevents the preferred enantiomer already complexed to the host in the organic phase from back-extracting into the aqueous phase. In this way the enantiomeric excess increases, so that a reduction of the number of extraction stages, and of the required amount of solvent is possible.

F+1

Feed Stream

Wash Stream

NN-12 F-1 F1

Extractant Recycle

Raffinate

Recovered Extract

j+1 MM-12 j-1 j1

Back-Extraction Stream

ExtractReflux

Figure 1.5 Multistage fractional extraction scheme with back-extraction section to recover the host. Several stages may be identified in the development of a multistage fractional extraction process. The first and probably the most essential step is the selection of a good host. Host selection is not easy and although over the years numerous hosts have been identified for the extraction of several substrate classes such as α-amino acids, amino alcohols and carboxylic

Chapter 1

12

acids, most hosts show only reasonable selectivity for a limited number of racemates. Besides being selective, the host-substrate complexation needs to be reversible and the host needs to be confined in a single phase as much as possible. These properties are vital for the application in a fractional extraction cascade. The hosts that have been reported thusfar are discussed further on. After a suitable host has been selected, single stage batch experiments are performed with the aim of the elucidation of the extraction mechanism and single stage extraction modeling. With an appropriate single stage model, the distribution of the enantiomers may be determined as function of the process conditions. Also, the single stage model parameters may be used in modeling multistage processes in order to determine the minimum wash, extract, and back-extraction flows to separate the enantiomers in the feed stream, and to determine the minimum number of stages for this separation. Heeres et al. demonstrated that ELLE is possible in continuous centrifugal contactor separator equipment.81 These continuous centrifugal contactor separators (CCS) seem highly suitable for ELLE, because the liquid hold-up is limited, and only a small amount of the precious host needs to be available in order to separate larger amounts of enantiomers in a continuous flow mode. Batch experimentation techniques were applied to develop an equilibrium stage model for the ELLE of racemic 3,5-dinitrobenzoyl-leucine using a cinchona alkaloid type of host.73 The applicability of equilibrium stage modeling in this continuous process was also demonstrated. A single extraction stage corresponded to an equilibrium stage. The relationship between the minimal number of required fractional extraction steps (Nmin) for full separation of both enantiomers of the substrate and the desired ee (or fraction equivalents, defined by xR and xS)

of the substrate and the operational selectivity (op) of a single extraction, is

given by the Fenske equation (Equation 1.1).46


13

op

SS

RR

xx

xx

Nln

)1/(

)1/(ln

min

Equation 1.1

The relationship between Nmin and op is depicted in Figure 1.6a. At an op

of 1.5, Nmin is still 25. Nmin drops exponentially as op increases. This graph

illustrates that full separation is already possible at moderate levels of op by

using a fractional extraction CCS cascade with a reasonable number of

fractional steps. Furthermore, it is evident that increasing op beyond 7

provides only a slight decrease in Nmin. This illustrates the strength of the technology, as it is evident that with a limited number of stages a racemate can be separated, provided that there is a modest selectivity. In Figure 1.6b,

the relationship between the desired ee and Nmin is depicted for an op = 7.0.

It is clear that only 4 stages are required to obtain 95% ee, and with 7 stages an ee as high as 99.8% ee is obtained.

a) b)

Figure 1.6 The minimal number of fractional extraction stages (Nmin) required for ee = 99% as a function of op (a) and the minimal number of stages required for a system with op = 7.0 as a function of ee (b). The above mentioned examples of continuous extraction modeling with equilibrium stage models both involve discrete stages (like those displayed

Chapter 1

14

in Figure 1.5). In more traditional extraction columns, no discrete stages can be identified, but a certain height corresponds with one theoretical equilibrium stage. For extraction columns, the number of stages calculated with an equilibrium model can thus be translated in the required height of the column using the height equivalent of a theoretical stage (HETS)48 approach. The HETS should be determined experimentally.

1.2.4 Single stage equilibrium definitions and modeling approach

Various means to describe the performance of ELLE processes have been

utilized in the literature. This subsection lists the definitions,26,82 and also provides an approach for modeling of single and multistage equilibrium processes. Probably the most used expression in stereochemistry is the enantiomeric excess, which defines the excess of one enantiomer over its mirror image (Equation 1.2), for the absolute configurations (R) and (S):

%100*][][

][][

SR

SRee

Equation 1.2 The ee is a typical example of an operational definition, and not an intrinsic one. Operational definitions describe experimental observations. Another example of an operational definition is the operational selectivity of an ELLE system. The operational selectivity is defined as the ratio of the distributions of the enantiomers, when the (R) enantiomer is preferentially extracted:

Rop

S

D

D

Equation 1.3


15

Here, the distributions are defined as:

[ ]; ( , )

[ ]org

iaq

iD i R S

i

Equation 1.4 The distribution of the racemate is defined as:

aqallforms

orgallforms

A

AaqorgD

,

,

][

][)/( , with A as the racemic substrate.

Equation 1.5 The operational definitions are important to determine the actual performance of the extractive system and to establish the product purity. In the case of process modeling intrinsic definitions are required. The intrinsic selectivity of an ELLE system is defined as the ratio of the equilibrium constants, again for preferential complexation of the host with the (R) enantiomer:

intR

S

K

K

Equation 1.6 Here, the exact definitions of the complexation equilibria Ki depend on the mechanism of extraction (Figure 1.4) and may be defined either for a heterogeneous system when the interfacial ligand exchange mechanism applies, or for a homogeneous system when the homogeneous ligand addition mechanism applies. Usually, the guests are Brønsted acids and/or bases, that are present in the aqueous phase in more than one form. For example, the N-protected dinitrobenzoyl α-amino acids behave as weak acids, and depending on the pH either the neutral form or the deprotonated

Chapter 1

16

form is the predominant species.73 In the distributions defined in Equation 1.4, for species that are prone to deprotonation, the total concentration of both the neutral form and the deprotonated form are summed. Similarly, the total concentration of the enantiomers in the organic phase is the sum of the host-guest complex concentrations and the concentrations of the free enantiomers in the organic phase. When the interfacial ligand exchange mechanism applies, only host-guest complexes are observed in the organic phase, and no free substrate in the organic phase is observed. A property of the interfacial ligand exchange mechanism is the low distribution of the substrate in absence of the host. This host-absent distribution is defined as the physical partition (P).

aq

org

A

AaqorgP

][

][)/( , with [host] = 0.0 mM

Equation 1.7 In case the homogeneous ligand addition mechanism applies, the concentration of the free guest in the organic phase is correlated to the concentration of the neutral form of the species in the aqueous phase, for the (R) enantiomer:

[ ] [ ]org aqR m R

Equation 1.8 The parameter m is the partitioning constant, which is dependent on temperature, and sometimes also on the concentration. Figure 1.7 displays an example of a model in which a single equilibrium stage was fully described by intrinsic relations.73 In this equilibrium, 10 different species are present. In order to predict the operational entities ee and αop, the unknown concentrations of all different species must be determined, which was achieved by simultaneous determination of the equilibrium relations


17

(the 6 equilibria displayed in Figure 1.7) and the 3 mass balances of both enantiomers and the host, respectively. The last unknown was [H+], which could be derived when the pH was set using a buffer. Application of this intrinsic equilibria modeling to multistage processes is easily accomplished by coupling the mass balances of the individual stages to each other. For example, applying the equilibrium model to the multistage scheme in Figure 1.5, the mass balance over equilibrium stage j is solved by setting the total molar outflow from this stage in the organic phase to stage j+1 and in the aqueous phase to stage j-1 equal to the total molar inflow from stage j-1 (organic phase inflow) and from stage j+1 (aqueous phase inflow). Next, to find all the concentrations at all stages of the countercurrent multistage process, the equilibria of all stages are solved simultaneously using the constraint that the overall mass balance over the entire process should also be obeyed. From the concentrations in the streams exiting the process, the operational entities such as ee can be determined. Process optimizations to determine, for example, the minimum number of stages, or the minimum solvent flow rate may be run using a minimum desired ee as constraint.

Figure 1.7 Homogeneous ligand addition mechanism as described by Heeres et al.83

Chapter 1

18

1.2.5 Equipment for enantioselective liquid-liquid extraction

Types of equipment

Traditional equipment for liquid-liquid extraction used in the chemical industry covers a wide range, both in types and in sizes.48 Selection of the most suitable type is dependent on the process conditions and constraints and may be supported by selection charts.84 There are two basic types of extractors, the mixer-settlers that form discrete stages and are used for the bulkiest of all separation processes, and the extraction columns that are most broadly applied in all kinds of extraction processes. Extraction columns are considered as differential equipment, as no discrete stages can be distinguished. Therefore, the number of stages in a column is determined by expressing the height equivalent of a theoretical stage (HETS). Many types of columns are available with a broad range of internals used to enhance the mass transport facilitating the separation.85 For special needs, such as short contact times to avoid product degradation, numerous types of centrifugal extractors have been developed,86 some resembling the discrete stages in traditional mixer-settlers (e.g. the centrifugal contactor separators) and others resembling the differential contacting equipment (e.g. the Podbielniak centrifugal extractor).87

Bulk membrane transport systems

These types of equipment typically used in industry are less suitable for fundamental research on extraction mechanisms. Therefore, researchers have come up with innovative types of equipment that allow for demonstration of enantioselectivity or elucidation of intrinsic kinetic parameters. The first novel device that was especially designed for ELLE purposes was the chiral resolution machine developed by Cram and coworkers88 (Figure 1.8).


19

Figure 1.8 Cram’s catalytic resolving device. This simple resolution device is fed with aqueous racemate in the middle compartment, and the two U-tubes filled with heavier chlorinated organic liquids that contain each one of the enantiomers of the host. The individual enantiomers from the racemate travel preferentially through one of the chiral host phases, depending on the enantiomer of the host applied and end up in the outer aqueous receiving compartments. The groups of De Mendoza89 and De Vries90 have applied single U-tubes with only one enantiomer of the hosts to examine the resolving process. With the U-tube type of resolvers, having exactly determined interfacial areas, mass transfer characteristics could be studied, however, they are mostly applied without a stirrer in the feed and receive phase. The use of a device as in Figure 1.8 could ensure well mixed aqueous phases in order to determine mass transfer characteristics properly.

Supported liquid membranes

Abe et al. reported the continuous separation of mandelic acid enantiomers with their liquid particle extractor, which may be considered as a continuous chromatographic device.91 Although the step from batch to continuous separation is worth mentioning, the device has never matured to preparative

Chapter 1

20

scale, most likely due to the large solvent flows required. More recently, supported liquid membrane technology (see Figure 1.9) was reported as another type of continuous enantioseparation process.92 With this technology very high purities may be obtained with only limited amounts of precious hosts, however the practical use is limited by the risk of fouling and the slow transport rates.

Figure 1.9 Supported liquid membrane flow.

Centrifugal contactor separators

Until recently, the state of the art in ELLE was limited to a demonstration of the proof of principle for ELLE using the above discussed types of equipment for batch-wise operation, or applying chromatographic or membrane approaches. The research on continuous ELLE processes in liquid-liquid biphasic systems to design multistage countercurrent fractional extraction processes for separation of racemates into single enantiomers with only moderate extractant selectivity had not been reported. This is possibly due to the large volumes required in the traditional types of continuous extraction equipment. Making use of centrifugal contactor separators (CCS), only small amounts of the precious chiral extractants are required for multistage continuous separation of enantiomers by extraction, as demonstrated by Heeres et al.93 In this CCS (Figure 1.10), the organic and aqueous liquids enter the device separately in the annular mixing zone,


21

where they move down by means of gravity and become intensely mixed due to the high shear stress between the fast rotating centrifuge and the static wall of the device, allowing interfacial mass transfer and enantioselective partitioning when a chiral, enantioselective extractant is used. Next, the dispersed liquids are moved to the centrifuge through a hole in the bottom. The liquids are efficiently separated by the large centrifugal forces. The device is thus a centrifugal version of a mixer-settler with the advantage that through use of centrifugal force only small amounts of liquids are needed.

Figure 1.10 Schematic representation of the Centrifugal Contactor Separator, as used by De Vries et al.90 and Heeres et al.93

Chapter 1

22

1.3 Extractant classes

1.3.1 Crown ether based reactive extractants

The crown ether based systems are among the most selective reactive extractants known. The discovery, synthesis and application of crown ethers was pioneered by Pedersen.94,95 The crown ethers were provided with chiral moieties and applied as chiral hosts by the groups of Lehn96 and Cram.97 The three of them shared the Nobel prize in 1987 for their development and the use of molecules with structure-specific interactions of high selectivity. The versatility of crown ether based extractants in ELLE may be limited to ammonium salts, but their operational selectivities up to 31 make it the most important extractants in the field.

Cram’s BINOL crown ether system

Cram’s dilocular host contains a macrocyclic uncharged crown ether carrier sided by two BINOL moieties of which one BINOL has two methyl directing side-groups at the 3,3’-positions (Figure 1.11).97 It gives selectivities up to 12 for amine salts,88 and up to 31 for α-amino acid ester salts.98

Figure 1.11 Cram’s dilocular crown ether host. The enantioselective recognition is restricted to primary amine salts, since the ammonium cation complexes in a tripodal configuration to the crown ether. Steric hindrance by side groups connected to the 3,3’-positions of one BINOL backbone direct the bulky groups into a favorable position. When the D-enantiomer of an α-amino acid ester complexes with a (R,R)-host, the R substituents in the α-amino acid ester occupies the most spacious cavity,


23

and the NCH hydrogen rests against the chiral barrier of the host formed by the directing methyl group of the host (Figure 1.12).

Figure 1.12 The complexation of an α-amino ester salt with the dilocular crown ether host. Schematic bars represent binaphthyl moieties. In subsequent years, Cram et al. managed to design a chiral host with only one chiral element (Figure 1.13).99 The directing side-groups (A) turned out to be vital for chiral recognition, giving low selectivity for A = H. The highest selectivity was observed for A = Ph, ranging from 3.9 up to 19.5 for the ammonium salts of α-amino acids and α-amino acid methyl esters as substrates. The selectivity towards phenylglycine was increased to 23.4 using a mixture of acetonitrile and chloroform as the organic phase.

Figure 1.13 Chiral crown ether based host with only one chiral element, A = directing side group.

Guanidinium-crown ether tethered systems

The guanidinium-crown ether tethered system published by de Mendoza et al.100 is a beautiful example of the use of multiple functionalities to achieve chiral recognition of α-amino acids (Figure 1.14a). The molecule was designed with four possible interaction sites, of which one proved not to be essential. One important issue was that the functional groups interacting

Chapter 1

24

with the ammonium and carboxylate, respectively, need to be non-self-complementary. Therefore, a crown ether and a guanidinium function were used to prevent the host from internal collapse. The naphthalene ring was

introduced for extra interaction with the side chains of aromatic α-

amino acids. Finally, the structure was made homochiral to achieve enantioselective recognition.

a) b)

Figure 1.14 De Mendoza’s guanidinium-crown ether tethered host (a), and molecular dynamics study of the host complexed with L-tryptophan (b). The structure proposed in 1992 shows a 1:1 complex between the (S,S) structure of the host (depicted in Figure 1.14a) and L-Trp. However, structural and molecular dynamics studies on the same complex showed that in the L-tryptophan case, the indole moiety is folded over the aza-crown ether (Figure 1.14b), thereby excluding some additional polar surface from interactions with the apolar solvent (chloroform).101 In the case of D-tryptophan the indolyl ring dangles into the solvent.


25

Lipophilic crown ethers

The ELLE of amine picrates using lipophilic crown ethers (Figure 1.15, upper panel) has been reported by Costero et al.102 and Nazarenko et al.103 with selectivities up to 3. Picrates (Figure 1.15, lower panel) are salts or esters of picric acid and known to be soluble in both the aqueous and organic phase.104

Figure 1.15 Crown ethers (upper panel) for extraction of picrates (lower panel).

Azophenolic crown ethers

An important example in the class of chiral crown ether hosts is the azophenolic crown ether shown in Figure 1.16a. Azophenolic crown ethers were synthesized by Naemura et al.105 to study complexation in homogeneous solutions of chiral amines and amino alcohols.106 The crown ether is able to form a tri-pod like complex with a neutral amine (Figure 1.16b). The acidic proton of the phenol forms a hydrogen bond with the amine. The acidity of the phenol is increased by the electron withdrawing nitro groups. This increased acidity is presumed to enhance the complexation of the azophenolic crown ether with a primary amine.

Chapter 1

26

a) b)

Figure 1.16 Azophenolic crown ether host (a) and the proposed complexation structure of an azophenolic crown ether with a neutral primary amine (b). This system has been extensively studied by De Haan et al.26 With phenylglycinol, an intrinsic selectivity of up to 12 was achieved, although other amines show lower selectivity (1.5-3.2).

1.3.2 Metal complexes and metalloids as reactive extractants

Cu(II)proline derivative complexes

In 1979, the resolution of α-amino acids using ligand exchange chromatography with a chiral mobile phase was reported by Hare and Gil-Av.107 Racemic α-amino acids were separated with the addition of a copper(II) proline complex to the eluent using a cation-exchange column. Gübitz et al. described the synthesis of a chiral stationary phase (Figure 1.17a) with the copper(II)proline complex.108 α-Amino acids can complex to the copper(II) cation in a bidentate fashion. Separation of α-amino acid racemates was achieved by the virtue of different complex stabilities


27

between the mixed complexes with the D- (Figure 1.17b) and L-form respectively.109 The hydroxyl function in the side chain proved to be important for separation, as absence of the hydroxyl function significantly lowered the selectivity. A range of α-amino acids could be separated with this method.110

a) b)

Figure 1.17 Proposed complex of the chiral stationary phase (a) and the diastereomeric complex between copper(II)(L-proline) as the stationary phase and D-phenylalanine (b). Takeuchi et al.111 were the first to use this system for enantioselective solvent extraction of neutral α-amino acids. N-alkylated-L-proline derivatives were used as ligands for copper, to keep the host confined into the organic phase. The use of L-4-hydroxyproline gave an increase in operational selectivity (Figure 1.18). The complexing constants of the α-amino acid enantiomers were determined by variation of the cupric-ion concentration with respect to the pure enantiomers. The resulting intrinsic selectivies ranged from 1.8 to 4.5 for non-aromatic α-amino acids.

Chapter 1

28

Figure 1.18 Copper(II)(N-alkyl-4-hydroxyproline)2. Pickering and Chaudhuri43,112 demonstrated the use of two different extractants Cu(II)(N-dodecyl-(l)-hydroxyproline)2, Cu(II)(C-12Hyp)2 and (S)-bis(phenylnaphtho)-20-crown-6) for the ELLE of phenylalanine. The selectivity using the Cu(II)(C-12Hyp)2 complex was in the range reported earlier by Takeuchi et al,111 establishing the versatility of the system. De Haan et al. studied the Cu(II)(N-(2-hydroxydodecyl)-L-hydroxyproline) complex as an extractant for a series of primary amines.26 They found relations between distribution and operational selectivity as well as the pH. This was also shown by Pickering113 and Ding.114 The Cu(II)(N-(2-hydroxydodecyl)-L-hydroxyproline) complex has a selectivity of 1.8 for

norephedrine while for other amines an op below 1.2 was obtained.

Lanthanide(III)tris(β-diketonate) complexes

Tsukube et al. reported the use of chiral lanthanide(III) tris(-diketonates) in

the ELLE of unprotected amino acids.115 Some chiral lanthanide(III) tris(-

diketonates) are known to act as effective receptors for anionic substrates in solutions and are frequently used as chiral shift reagents in NMR spectroscopy.116 The negatively charged and highly coordinated complexes can interact and bind the ammonium part of the α-amino acid in an intramolecular via electrostatic interaction (Figure 1.19).117


29

Figure 1.19 The proposed complexation of a zwitterionic amino acid with a lanthanide

tris(β-diketonate) ( represents β-diketonate ligand). Upon variation of the lanthanide cation, opposing trends were observed for distribution and enantioselectivity.118 The correlation between the ion size of the central metal cation (Pr(III) > Eu(III), Eu(II) > Yb(III)) and the extractability was negative, whereas the enantioselectivity increased. This may be due to the smaller cation providing closer contact with the α-amino

acid to enhance the op up to 2.2 in the case of the ytterbium complex 2e

(Figure 1.20) with a (+)-camphor-derived ligand for the extraction of tryptophan.119

Figure 1.20 Lanthanide complexes with (+)-camphor derived ligand.

Metalloporphyrins

Inoue et al. designed a host based on a metalloporphyrin,120 i.e. a zinc complex of a strapped N-alkylporphyrin (Figure 1.21). The ELLE of 15 α-amino acids was demonstrated, and it is noteworthy that the extraction of N-Cbz-phenylglycinate was performed with a ratio of the host-guest diastereomers of 96:4 in the organic phase.

Chapter 1

30

Figure 1.21 Strapped N-alkylporphyrin zinc host. The unstrapped zinc-porphyrin host face is blocked by the N-substituent (R2 in Figure 1.21). In the strapped cavity, the complexation of N-Cbz protected amino acids is presumed to take place. The proposed structure of the N-Cbz α-amino acid with the zinc porphyrin involves the complexation of the carboxylate to the zinc ion, which is considered to be the primary interaction. Hydrogen bonding of the benzoyl functionality of the substrate with the amide groups on the strap was confirmed by NMR and IR studies.

Cobalt(III)salen complexes

Excellent results have been reported with a chiral salen-cobalt(III) complex

for the enantioselective reactive extraction of N-benzyl -amino acids.121

The chiral salen ligands are well-known for their selectivity in asymmetric catalytic processes such as epoxidation, epoxide opening and kinetic resolution.122 A Co(III)(salen)(OAc) complex is used for reactive extraction of N-benzyl protected α-amino acids (Figure 1.22). Enantioselective binding is attributed to a bidentate complexation of the protected α-amino acid with the cobalt(III)-cation and steric repulsion of the α-amino acid side group with respect to the salen ligand. The best results imply the extraction of 0.99 equivalents of N-Bn-alanine with an enantiomeric excess of 93%. Other amino acids gave ee values in the range of 90-96%.


31

Figure 1.22 Enantioselective complexation of the chiral cobalt(III)salen host with N-benzyl -amino acids. In the back-extraction procedure, the free substrate was obtained via reductive cleavage using 10 eq. sodium dithionite. The formed Co(II) complex can be air-oxidized and re-used without loss of activity. Further studies were performed on the dependence of the protecting group123 and the extraction of β3-amino acids.124 The reductive back-extraction using sodium dithionite is a major drawback with respect to future application.

1.3.3 Tartrate assisted extractants

Dialkyl tartrates and boric acid

Abe et al. reported the enantioselective extraction of interesting amino alcohols such as pindolol, propranolol, alprenolol and bucumolol (all β-blockers) using dialkyl L-tartrates in chloroform with boric acid in the aqueous phase125 and the use of countercurrent extraction to improve the performance for propanolol.126 The optimized operational selectivity of the system was 2.71. Titration of boric acid to a biphasic system with only the tartaric acid present did not show any formation of the dialkyl tartrate boric acid complex. The addition of the amino alcohol substrates resulted in the extraction of the boric acid with the dialkyl tartrate and the amino alcohol substrate. Apparently, in the organic phase the complexes are formed from

Chapter 1

32

the dialkyl tartrate boric acid complex and the amino alcohols as bidentate ligands (Figure 1.23).

Figure 1.23 Proposed structure of the complex formed by boric acid, dialkyl tartrate and amino alcohol substrate. Viegas et al.35 modeled this system based on propanolol/boric acid and di-n-dodecyltartrates in chloroform. The mathematical approach developed involves the use of a hybrid model, with an experimentally determined component, describing the material balance equations of the reactions involved, and a neural network, which allows accounting for the variable non-selective partitioning of propranolol. The modeled intrinsic selectivity was 2.77, indicating that the operational selectivity achieved experimentally by Abe et al. (2.71)126 was close to the intrinsic optimum of the system.

Di(2-ethylhexyl)phosphoric acid and a tartaric acid derivative

Di(2-ethylhexyl)phosphoric acid (D2EHPA) (Figure 1.24) as extractant has been known for over 50 years and has been studied extensively as a racemic mixture of diastereomers in the achiral liquid-liquid extraction of metal cations127 and α-amino acids.128 A mechanistic study has been reported by Dai et al. for the extraction of L-tryptophan,129 which led to the proposal of a proton-transfer reaction occurring in the extraction of the tryptophan.


33

Figure 1.24 Structure of di(2-ethylhexyl)phosphoric acid (D2EHPA). Luo et al. developed a synergetic system comparable to the dialkyl tartrate boric acid system as described above,130 although this system is different, as the tartaric acid component is the free acid, instead of an ester. The D2EHPA is able to extract the tryptophan, albeit without any enantioselectivity. On addition of the tartaric acid, the extraction becomes enantioselective, which makes the system synergetic. The authors propose that the extracting species is a complex formed between D2EHPA and the tartaric acid derivative (O,O’-dibenzoyl-(2R,3R)-tartaric acid, (-)-DBTA). The complex was employed in the extraction of Trp and the operational selectivity achieved a maximum of 5.3.131 Ee’s up to 57% in the aqueous phase were measured. However, this includes partial diastereomeric salt formation, in other words classic resolution. Luo et al. also published the synergistic extraction using tartrates with Aliquat 336 (trioctyl methyl ammonium chloride) with comparable results.132

Diphosphonium salt bearing binaphthyl hosts

A study was reported by Ohki et al.133 on diphosphonium salts that form a complex with (-)-O-dibenzoyltartrate. The structure of this complex is shown in Figure 1.25. A reasonable operational selectivity of 1.36 was obtained. Experiments with a monophosphonium salt (one phosphonium salt at the 2- position of the binaphthyl backbone was replaced by a phosphate) showed almost no selectivity, demonstrating the necessity of the bifunctionality of the host.

Chapter 1

34

Figure 1.25 Structure of the diphosphonium salt complex with (-)-O-dibenzoyltartrate.

Alkyl tartrate with β-cyclodextrin

An ELLE system for the separation of mandelic acid (Figure 1.27a) was presented by Huang et al., which involves the use of two extractants, with each extractant present in a different phase of the biphasic system.134 L-Dipentyl tartrate was used as the extractant confined in the organic phase, β-cyclodextrin (Figure 1.26) was used as the extractant confined in the aqueous phase. The β-cyclodextrin bears an oppositely preferential recognition towards the substrate. This biphasic recognition increases the selectivity of the ELLE of the substrate mandelic acid up to 2.1. A similar approach was reported for α-cyclohexyl-mandelic acid (Figure 1.27b), and naproxen (Figure 1.27c).135 Selectivities up to 2.49 were reported for these systems with the biphasic extractaction system mentioned above. Much lower but still reasonable selectivities of 1.46-1.85 were observed for the same substrates with a single extractant Cu(II)(C12Pro)2 in the organic phase.136


35

a) b)

Figure 1.26 β-Cyclodextrin (a) and L-dipentyl tartrate (b), applied as chiral hosts in biphasic recognition.

a) b) c)

Figure 1.27 Mandelic acid (a), α-cyclohexyl mandelic acid (b) and naproxen (c).

1.3.4 Other chiral extractants

Carbamoylated quinine derivatives

Chiral carbamoylated quinine derivatives have been successfully applied as a chiral stationary phase. Covalently bound to silica gel these compounds have been used in direct enantioseparation by HPLC of chiral acidic compounds employing aqueous mobile phases involving an anion-exchange mechanism.137

Chapter 1

36

The selectivity of the enantioselective extraction of racemic cinchona alkaloids using camphorsulfonic acid as a host is rather low (maximum 1.21). The extractant in its neutral form is soluble in both liquid phases. As a result, the reaction between host and guest may take place in both phases,138 and this is expected to result in a reduction of the selectivity. Lindner et al. derivatized chiral cinchona alkaloids to hydrophobic extractants for application in ELLE.139 The reactive extraction capabilities of a quinine derivative as a function of the substrate, organic solvent, pH of the water phase and host/guest ratio were examined. Under optimum conditions, an ee > 95% and 70% yield of N-(3,5-dinitrobenzoyl) protected leucine with a single extraction followed by a back-extraction was possible. The system is highly dependent on the 3,5-dinitrobenzoyl (DNB) protecting group on the leucine. On variation of the protecting group, The ee goes to 20% or less.

The interaction between the DNB protecting group and the quinine of

the host seems to be vital for enantioselectivity. The ensemble of interactions proposed to be responsible for the chiral discrimination is shown in Figure 1.28. The ion-pair formation results in the strongest interaction in the complex. The other interactions shown in Figure 1.28 were confirmed by NMR, NOE. and X-ray studies.140 The high selectivities and versatility towards DNB-substituted α-amino acids make the modified cinchona alkaloids attractive for further research. Various studies regarding the preferred conformation141-143 and enantioselective pathways59,144 for (derivatized) cinchona alkaloids have been reported.


37

Figure 1.28 The interactions thought to be responsible for the chiral discrimination in extraction of DNB-leucine by a modified cinchona alkaloid extractant. De Vries et al. studied a number of cinchona alkaloids using two continuous centrifugal separators (CCS).145 The use of continuous equipment was thus demonstrated in a configuration resembling the classical resolving machine of Cram.88 Heeres et al. have applied a continuous single stage extraction approach using the same type of equipment,81 and also showed that the ligand addition mechanism with homogeneous organic phase complexation applies to extractions of DNB substituted α-amino acids using cinchona alkaloid extractants.73 It was demonstrated that equilibrium modeling is applicable to describe ELLE in a continuous operation mode.81

Chapter 1

38

Figure 1.29 The setup used by De Vries et al.145 incorporating continuous centrifugal extractors (CCS) to facilitate phase transfer. Schuur has also developed a multistage countercurrent cascade process for the separation of DNB-leucine enantiomers.82 This was the first time that ELLE was applied in a continuous countercurrent mode, enabling the complete separation of racemates into single enantiomers. A scheme of the setup that was applied is displayed in Figure 1.30. A single back-extraction stage was proven sufficient for complete recovery of the extracted DNB-S-Leu, and the recycling of the host to the extraction section. The host was recycled up to 50 times without loss of enantiomeric excess in the process. With the thus validated multistage equilibrium modeling approach, it was determined that up to 17.7 kg racemate may be separated completely into its enantiomers using 12 units of the bench scale CCS type of equipment. In this process, one of the enantiomers is obtained with an ee exceeding 99%.82


39

BE

F 64321

feed 1.5 mM DNB-R,S-leu

pH 5.7

organic stream, host recycle Fout,2

98% ee DNB-S-leu

Fout,1

DNB-R-leu

BE wash

pH 9

TT

TT

wash, pH 7.2

organic stream, host + DNB-S-leu

Figure 1.30 Fractional six stage countercurrent ELLE process setup with host recycle in back-extraction stage (BE) and feed (F) at stage five as used by Schuur.82

Steroidal guanidinium hosts

The guanidinium functional group has been used in various systems, including the aforementioned De Mendoza host.100 Davis and co-workers functionalized cholic acid with a guanidium group at the 3 position and modified the secondary alcohols at the 7 and 12 position to carbamates to obtain a range of chiral hosts (Figure 1.31). The phenyl-substituted carbamates (R1 and R2, Figure 1.31) gave high enantioselectivities in extraction. These hosts were capable of extracting N-acyl protected α-amino acids into the organic phase.146,147

Figure 1.31 Steroidal guanidinium host.

Chapter 1

40

The extraction is thought to take place via a mechanism involving exchange of the chloride for the carboxylate. The diastereomeric ratio was determined with 1H-NMR spectroscopy. The ratio of the extracted substrate enantiomers was up to 10:1 (L:D). The most sterically hindered substrate (N-Ac-tert-leucine) gave the lowest selectivity. Enantioselective transport was performed with these type of hosts, using a U-tube and a hollow-fiber set-up.148 The host showed multiple turnovers during the transport and the transported substrate present in the receiving phase had an ee of around 60%.

Deoxyguanosine derivatives

The deoxyguanosine derivatives shown in Figure 1.32a form G-quartet aggregates by self-assembly (Figure 1.32b).149 In the example published by Spada et al, the R groups are long alkyl chains. Subsequently, the outside of the assembly is lipophilic, whereas the inside with the hydrogen bonds is hydrophilic. The intermolecular complexation of these aggregates with chiral guests is most likely to be highly reversible and selectivities up to 3 were reported for the potassium salts of 2,4-DNB-α-amino acids.150

a) b)

Figure 1.32 Deoxyguanosine derivative (a) and quartet structure formed by self-assembly (b). R = p-(n-C12H25O)C6H4.


41

Sapphyrin-lasalocid host

Another host designed for α-amino acid recognition and membrane transport is the Sapphyrin-Lasalocid system shown in Figure 1.33. Sessler et al. designed this host on the premises of non-self-complementary binding sites, which would prevent the host from internal collapse, but could specifically bind the α-amino acid substrates. The protonated sapphyrin can bind to the carboxylate of the α-amino acid, while the lasalocid subunit, known for its transport capabilities of cations through bulk liquid membranes,151 can complex to the protonated amino group.152,153 In U-tube experiments focussing on non-enantioselective transport, a large difference in transport of amino acids was observed.154 Phenylalanine was transported about 5 times faster compared to tryptophan. In enantioselective transport experiments, the selectivity was low, but the L-α-amino acids were transported faster than the D-α-amino acids. The largest difference observed was for phenylalanine with a 1.4:1 (L-Phe:D-Phe) ratio.

Figure 1.33 Sapphyrin-lasalocid host.

Chapter 1

42

TRISPHAT salts

Chiral tris(diimine)ruthenium(II) complexes (Figure 1.34b) are interesting structures because of their special photochemical155 and biological properties.156 The complexes can be used for the photo-activated cleavage of specific DNA fragments156 and in photochemical molecular devices.157 The enantiopure complexes are ususally obtained via classic resolution158 or ion-pair chromatography.159 Lacour et al.160 studied the use of chiral TRISPHAT anions (Figure 1.34a) as hosts in ELLE for the separation of the racemic ruthenium complexes161 and employed them as chiral shift reagents.162 The chiral lipophilic TRISPHAT anions showed a high enantioselectivity for tris(diimine)ruthenium(II) complexes and values up to 49 were reported.160 Data on the reversibility of the complexation reaction and substrate versatility were not provided.

a) b)

Figure 1.34 TRISPHAT anion (a) and Tris(diimine)ruthenium(II) complexes (b).

Hydrogen-bond assisted BINOL-aldehyde hosts

Recently, Tang et al.163 presented two promising hosts containing binaphthyl moieties (Figure 1.35) for the ELLE of amino alcohols. The extraction relies on a reversible imine formation of the primary amine of the substrate with the aldehyde of the host, combined with the hydrogen bonding of the alcohol of the substrate with either the urea or the guanidinium of the host. Moderate intrinsic selectivities (3-5) in the complexation with amino-alcohols were obtained with the urea


43

functionalized host (Figure 1.35a).164 With the guanidinium functionalized host (Figure 1.35b), high intrinsic selectivities for a range of amino alcohols in aqueous/organic biphasic systems with chloroform and benzene as organic phase were achieved. The best results were obtained for 2-amino-1-propanol (αint = 11) and 2-amino-1-butanol (αint = 15). Back-extraction of the host was achieved by performing a pH-shift.

a) b)

Figure 1.35 BINOL-aldehyde hosts with an urea (a) and a guanidinium (b) functionality. The preferred conformations of both diastereomers of the host-guest complexes shown in Figure 1.36 provide an explanation for the large difference in selectivity. The steric repulsion between hydrogen and alkyl/aryl around the imine bond of the host and the (S)-amino-alcohol (Figure 1.36a) is larger than that in the case of the (R)-amino-alcohol where the interaction is only between the hydrogen atoms (Figure 1.36b).

a) b)

Figure 1.36 Proposed complexes of the guanidinium BINOL-aldehyde host with (S)-amino-alcohols (a) and (R)-amino-alcohols (b).

Chapter 1

44

1.4 Summary for hosts Extractant Substrate Scope (αop) (-) or

[ee](%) Cram dilocular host α-Amino acid and α-amino

acid ester salts 5 examples (1.5-12), 18 examples (1.0-31)

BINOL-crown ether α-Amino acids and ester salts 6 examples (1.1-19.5) Guanidium-crown ether α-Amino acids 1 example [up to

30 %] Lipophilic crown ethers Picrate ammonium salts 2 examples (2.2-3.0) Azophenolic crown ethers

Primary amines 6 examples (1-5.0)

Proline derivative Cu(II) complexes

α-Amino acids 5 examples (1.0-4.5)

Lanthanide(III) Tris(-diketonate) complexes

α-Amino acids and amino alcohols

6 examples (up to 2.2)

Metalloporphyrins N-Cbz α-amino acids 15 examples [50:50-96:4]

Salen-Cobalt(III) complexes

N-Acyl α- and β-amino acids

9 examples [90-96 %]

Dialkyl tartrates and boric acid

-Amino alcohols 4 examples (2.20-2.54)

D2EHPA and tartaric acid derivative

Amino acids 4 examples (1.36-5.3)

Diphosphonium salt Tartaric acid derivative 1 example (1.36) Alkyl tartrate with β-cyclodextrin

Carboxylic acids 3 examples (2.10 - 2.49)

Carbamoylated Quinine Derivatives

N-protected α-amino acids Various examples (3-5)

Steroidal guanidium N-acyl amino acids 8 examples [1:1-10:1] Deoxyguanosine derivatives

DNB-N-protected α-amino acids

6 examples (1.15-3.03)

Sapphyrin-Lasalocid α-Amino acids Low selectivity TRISPHAT Tris(diimine)ruthenium(II)

complexes 2 examples [12:1-49:1]

3-aldehyde substitued BINOL extractants

Amino alcohols 7 examples (1.0-15a)

aIntrinsic selectivity.


45

1.5 Concluding remarks The field of enantioselective extraction is undergoing a revival. For decades, satisfying operational selectivities could only be achieved with chiral hosts containing crown ether like structures. The drawback of these systems is the limited scope restricted to primary amines or their ammonium salts. Furthermore, the multi-step synthesis restricts access to sufficient amounts

of host. With the lanthanide(III) tris(-diketonate) complexes and the

carbamoylated quinine derivatives introduced about ten years ago and the salen-cobalt(III) complexes reported in 2006, it has been shown that reactive extraction does not need to be limited to crown ether systems to achieve good operational selectivities. Furthermore, the experimental verification of the separation of a racemate in a multistage countercurrent cascade demonstrated the proof of principle of the separation of a racemate using a host with intermediate selectivity. The scalability, recyclability and easy handling of the process makes ELLE in combination with multistage countercurrent cascade technology a fierce rival in the field of new chiral separation technologies. However, there are still major challenges left in the field. Most systems show moderate operational selectivities and a limited substrate scope. For industrial applications, a synthetically easily accessible host with a high selectivity towards a wide substrate scope is important to reduce the development time for the separation processes. The search for new and better host systems is challenging. De Haan et al. made an excellent survey on various chiral separator systems used in chromatography and electrophoresis.26 It turns out to be difficult to transfer the existing systems used in these separation technologies to application in ELLE, mainly because most intrinsic selectivities in these technologies are below 1.2, whereas for ELLE a minimum selectivity of 1.5 is desired to limit the number of extraction stages. Moreover, chromatography usually

Chapter 1

46

relies on the solid-liquid interface. The solid support has a large influence on the mechanism of complexation, which causes the selectivity to be different from the selectivity in a liquid-liquid environment. New opportunities may come from the field of enantioselective catalysis. Homogeneous asymmetrically catalyzed reactions take place in a fully liquid environment by definition and show unprecedented high enantioselectivities using a wide range of chiral catalysts. These catalysts can be the inspiration for the design of new chiral hosts applied in ELLE. Also, little attention has been paid to systematic variation of functional groups of a specific host. The variation mainly is focussed on the solubility in the organic phase of the host, but seldom to enhance enantiospecific interactions. It is this synthetic approach that deserves more attention. Another point to stress is the clarification of the mechanism of various systems and the relationship between intrinsic and operational selectivity. Most systems seem to be clear examples of fully reversible systems. Operational selectivity shows dependence on for instance pH, initial concentrations of both substrates and hosts, type of buffer, organic solvents and temperature. It is rarely clear if this dependency between operation selectivity and the various parameters can be adequately explained with either the ligand exchange mechanism or the homogeneous ligand addition mechanism. Both models would imply a strong relation between the intrinsic selectivity and the operational selectivity. This relation is frequently seen in various extraction systems and can open doors towards large scale substrate scanning by examining the intrinsic selectivity with spectroscopic methods and the subsequent optimization of extraction conditions. Little effort has been made towards this goal. In conclusion, chiral separation by reactive liquid-liquid extraction is an exciting research field, which already has shown proof of principle. Major challenges remain, especially the development of new hosts, which are easily accessible and show a high selectivity for a wide substrate scope, the


47

study of the extraction mechanisms, the examination of the intrinsic selectivities which would enable easy substrate scanning and the application of new systems in a fractional countercurrent multistage cascade to achieve full separation of the substrate enantiomers in a continuous fashion.

Chapter 1

48

1.6 References 1. Ager, D. J. Handbook of Chiral Chemicals; 2nd ed.; Marcel Dekker: New York,

2005. 2. Ramos Tombo, G. M.; Bellus, D. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 1991, 30 (10), 1193-

1215. 3. Noyori, R. Asymmetric Catalysis in Organic Synthesis; Wiley: New York, 1994. 4. Sheldon, R. A. Chirotechnology; Marcel Dekker: New York, 1993. 5. Collins, A. N.; Sheldrake, G. N.; Crosby, J. Chirality in Industry II; New

York:Wiley and Sons: 1997. 6. Waites, M. J. Industrial Microbiology; Blackwell Science: Oxford: 2001. 7. Reschke, M.; Schugerl, K. Chemie Ingenieur Technik 1984, 56 (2), 141. 8. Cascaval, D.; Oniscu, C.; Galaction, A. I. Biochem. Eng. J. 2001, 7 (3), 171-176. 9. Jacobsen, E. N.; Pfalz, A.; Yamamoto, H. Comprehensive Asymmetric Catalysis;

Springer: Berlin: 1999; Vol. 1. 10. de Vries, J. G.; de Vries, A. H. M. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2003, (5), 799-811. 11. Maier, N. M.; Franco, P.; Lindner, W. J. Chrom. A 2001, 906 (1-2), 3-33. 12. Bruggink, A. Rational Design in Resolutions. In Chirality in Industry II, Collins,

A. N., Ed.; Wiley: Chichester, 1997; pp 81-98. 13. Faigl, F.; Fogassy, E.; Nogradi, M.; Palovics, E.; Schindler, J. Tetrahedron Asym.

2008, 19 (5), 519-536. 14. Kozma, D. CRC Handbook of Optical Resolutions via Diastereomeric Salt

Formation; CRC Press LLC: Boca Raton: 2002. 15. Fogassy, E.; Nogradi, M.; Kozma, D.; Egri, G.; Palovics, E.; Kiss, V. Org.

Biomol. Chem. 2006, 4 (16), 3011-3030. 16. Leeman, M.; Brasile, G.; Gelens, E.; Vries, T.; Kaptein, B.; Kellogg, R. Angew.

Chem. Int. Ed. 2008, 47 (7), 1287-1290. 17. Houlton, S. Manuf. Chem. 2001, 72 (1), 16-17. 18. Fujima, Y.; Ikunaka, M.; Inoue, T.; Matsumoto, J. Org. Proc. Res. Dev. 2006, 10

(5), 905-913. 19. Ahuja, S. Chiral Separations: Application and Technology; ACS: Washington,

1997. 20. Subramanian, G. Chiral Separation Techniques: A Practical Approach; Wiley-

VCH: Weinheim, 2001. 21. Toda, F. Enantiomer Separation: Fundamentals and Practical Methods; Kluwer

Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, 2004. 22. Guebitz, G.; Schmid, M. G. Chiral Separations; Humana Press: Totowa (NJ),

2004. 23. Busch, K. W.; Busch, M. A. Chiral Analysis; Elsevier: Amsterdam, 2004. 24. Davankov, V. A. J. Chrom. A 1994, 666 (1-2), 55-76. 25. Jira, T.; Bunke, A.; Schmid, M. G.; Gubitz, G. J. Chrom. A 1997, 761 (1-2), 269-

275. 26. Steensma, M.; Kuipers, N. J. M.; De Haan, A. B.; Kwant, G. Chirality 2006, 18

(5), 314-328.


49

27. Cox, G. B. Preparative Enantioselective Chromatography; Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, 2005.

28. Gavioli, E.; Maier, N. M.; Minguillon, C.; Lindner, W. Anal. Chem. 2004, 76 (19), 5837-5848.

29. Francotte, E.; Leutert, T.; La Vecchia, L.; Ossola, F.; Richert, P.; Schmidt, A. Chirality 2002, 14 (4), 313-317.

30. Zenoni, G.; Quattrini, F.; Mazzotti, M.; Fuganti, C.; Morbidelli, M. Flavour and Fragrance Journal 2002, 17 (3), 195-202.

31. Afonso, C. A. M.; Crespo, J. G. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2004, 43 (40), 5293-5295. 32. Keurentjes, J. T. F.; Nabuurs, L. J. W. M.; Vegter, E. A. J. Membr. Sci. 1996, 113

(2), 351-360. 33. Maximini, A.; Chmiel, H.; Holdik, H.; Maier, N. W. J. Membr. Sci. 2006, 276 (1-

2), 221-231. 34. Xie, R.; Chu, L. Y.; Deng, J. G. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2008, 37, 1243-1263. 35. Viegas, R. M. C.; Afonso, C. A. M.; Crespo, J. G.; Coelhoso, I. M. Sep. Pur.

Tech. 2007, 53 (3), 224-234. 36. De Haan, A. B.; Simandi, B. Extraction Technology for the Separation of Optical

Isomers. In Ion Exchange and Solvent Extraction, Marcus, Y., Sharma, M. M., Marinsky, J. A., Eds.; Marcel Dekker, Inc: New York, 2001; pp 255-294.

37. Dashkevic, L. B. Tr. Leningr. Khim. -Farm. Inst. 1959, 6, 29. 38. Bauer, K.; Falk, H.; Schlogl, K. Monatshefte fur Chemie 1968, 99 (6), 2186-2194. 39. Bowman, N. S.; Mccloud, G. T.; Schweitz, G. K. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1968, 90

(14), 3848-3852. 40. Romano, S. J.; Wells, K. H.; Rothbart, H. L.; Rieman, W. Talanta 1969, 16 (5),

581-585. 41. Schweitz, G. K.; Supernaw, I. R.; Bowman, N. S. J. Inorg. Nucl. Chem. 1968, 30

(7), 1885-1887. 42. Koska, J.; Haynes, C. A. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2001, 56 (20), 5853-5864. 43. Pickering, P. J.; Chaudhuri, J. B. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1997, 52 (3), 377-386. 44. Steensma, M.; Kuipers, N. J.; De Haan, A. B.; Kwant, G. J. Chem. Technol.

Biotechnol. 2006, 81 (4), 588-597. 45. Steensma, M.; Kuipers, N. J. M.; De Haan, A. B.; Kwant, G. Chem. Eng. Proc.

2007, 46 (10), 996-1005. 46. Steensma, M.; Kuipers, N. J. M.; De Haan, A. B.; Kwant, G. Chem. Eng. Sci.

2007, 62 (5), 1395-1407. 47. Eliel, E.; Wilen, S.; Mander, L. Miscellaneous Separation Methods. In

Stereochemistry of organic compounds, Wiley: New York, N.Y., [etc.], 1994; pp 416-424.

48. Godfrey, J. C.; Slater, M. J. Liquid-Liquid Extraction Equipment; John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1994.

49. Cram, D. J.; Cram, J. M. Container Molecules and Their Guests; Cambridge : Royal Society of Chemistry: 1994.

50. Toda, F.; Tanaka, K.; Leung, C. W.; Meetsma, A.; Feringa, B. L. J. Chem. Soc. Chem. Comm. 1994, (20), 2371-2372.

51. Yoshizawa, K.; Toyota, S.; Toda, F. Tetrahedron 2004, 60 (35), 7767-7774. 52. Toda, F.; Yoshizawa, K.; Hyoda, S.; Toyota, S.; Chatziefthimiou, S.; Mavridis, I.

M. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2004, 2 (4), 449-451.

Chapter 1

50

53. Liao, J.; Sun, X. X.; Cui, X.; Yu, K. B.; Zhu, J.; Deng, J. G. Chem. Eur. J. 2003, 9 (11), 2611-2615.

54. Kaupp, G. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 1994, 33 (7), 728-729. 55. Pirkle, W. H.; Pochapsky, T. C. Chem. Rev. 1989, 89 (2), 347-362. 56. Lo, T. C.; Baird, M. H. I.; Hanson, C. Handbook of Solvent Extraction; Reprint

ed.; Kreiger Publishing Company: Malabar, USA, 1991. 57. Treybal, R. E. Liquid Extraction; 2 ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, 1963. 58. Thornton, J. D. Science and Practice of Liquid-Liquid Extraction; Clarendon:

Oxford, 1992; Vol. 1 and 2. 59. Maier, N. M.; Schefzick, S.; Lombardo, G. M.; Feliz, M.; Rissanen, K.; Lindner,

W.; Lipkowitz, K. B. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124 (29), 8611-8629. 60. Davankov, V. A. Chirality 1997, 9 (2), 99-102. 61. Sundaresan, V.; Abrol, R. Chirality 2005, 17, S30-S39. 62. Eliel, E. L.; Wilen, S. H. Stereochemistry of Organic Compounds; Wiley-

Interscience: New York, 1994. 63. Lehn, J. M. Supramolecular Chemistry: Concepts and Perspectives; Weinheim :

VCH: 1995. 64. Hartley, J. H.; James, T. D.; Ward, C. J. J. Chem. Soc. , Perkin Trans. 1 2000,

(19), 3155-3184. 65. Beer, P. D.; Gale, P. A. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2001, 40 (3), 486-516. 66. Stibor, I.; Zlatuskova, P. Anion Sensing 2005, 255, 31-63. 67. Seel, C.; Galan, A.; deMendoza, J. Supramolecular Chemistry II - Host Design

and Molecular Recognition 1995, 175, 101-132. 68. Peczuh, M. W.; Hamilton, A. D. Chem. Rev. 2000, 100 (7), 2479-2493. 69. Davis, A. P.; Wareham, R. S. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 1999, 38 (20), 2978-2996. 70. Fitzmaurice, R. J.; Kyne, G. M.; Douheret, D.; Kilburn, J. D. J. Chem. Soc. ,

Perkin Trans. 1 2002, (7), 841-864. 71. Webb, T. H.; Wilcox, C. S. Chem. Soc. Rev. 1993, 22 (6), 383-395. 72. Zhang, X. X.; Bradshaw, J. S.; Izatt, R. M. Chem. Rev. 1997, 97 (8), 3313-3361. 73. Schuur, B.; Winkelman, J. G. M.; Heeres, H. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2008, 47,

10027-10033. 74. Bart, H. J. Reactive Extraction; 18 ed.; Spinger Verlag: Berlin, 2001. 75. Cox, M. Liquid-Liquid Extraction in Hydrometallurgy. Thornton, J. D., Ed.;

Oxford: Clarendon, 1992; pp 1-101. 76. King, C. J. Chemtech 1992, 22 (5), 285-291. 77. Wasewar, K. L.; Yawalkar, A. A.; Moulijn, J. A.; Pangarkar, V. G. Industrial &

Engineering Chemistry Research 2004, 43 (19), 5969-5982. 78. Steensma, M.; Kuipers, N. J. M.; De Haan, A. B.; Kwant, G. Chirality 2006, 18

(5), 314-328. 79. Cegla, G. F.; Meinke, W. W.; Mattil, K. F. J. Food Sci. 1977, 42 (3), 816-820. 80. Tanaka, M.; Koyama, K.; Shibata, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res . 1997, 36 (10), 4353-

4357. 81. Schuur, B.; Floure, J.; Hallett, A. J.; Winkelman, J. G. M.; de Vries, J. G.; Heeres,

H. J. Org. Process Res. Dev. 2008, 12 (5), 950-955. 82. Schuur, B. Enantioselective Liquid-Liquid Extraction in Centrifugal Contactor

Separators; Ph.D. thesis: University of Groningen, 2008.


51

83. Schuur, B.; Winkelman, J. G. M.; Heeres, H. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2008, 47, 10027-10033.

84. Laddha, G. S.; Degaleesan, T. E. Transport Phenomena in Liquid Extraction; Tata McGraw-Hill: New Delhi, 1978.

85. Lo, T. C.; Baird, M. H. I.; Hanson, C. Handbook of Solvent Extraction; Reprint ed.; Krieger Publishing Company: Malabar, USA, 1991.

86. Hafez, M. Centrifugal Extractors. In Handbook of Solvent Extraction, Lo, T. C., Baird, M. H. C., Hanson, C., Eds.; Krieger Publishing Company: Malabar, 1991; pp 459-474.

87. Ettre, L. S. J. Chromatogr. Sci. 1999, 37 (9), 2A-8A. 88. Newcomb, M.; Toner, J. L.; Helgeson, R. C.; Cram, D. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1979,

101 (17), 4941-4947. 89. Breccia, P.; Van Gool, M.; Perez-Fernandez, R.; Martin-Santamaria, S.; Gago, F.;

Prados, P.; de Mendoza, J. C. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125 (27), 8270-8284. 90. Hallett, A. J.; Kwant, G. J.; de Vries, J. G. Chem. Eur. J. 2008, 2111-2120. 91. Nishizawa, H.; Tahara, K.; Hayashida, A.; Abe, Y. Analytical Sciences 1993, 9

(5), 611-615. 92. Maximini, A.; Chmiel, H.; Holdik, H.; Maier, N. W. J. Membr. Sci. 2006, 276 (1-

2), 221-231. 93. Schuur, B.; Floure, J.; Hallett, A. J.; Winkelman, J. G. M.; de Vries, J. G.; Heeres,

H. J. Org. Proc. Res. Dev. 2008, 12 (5), 950-955. 94. Pedersen, C. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1967, 89 (26), 7017-7019. 95. Pedersen, C. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1967, 89 (10), 2495-2497. 96. Lehn, J. M.; Moradpour, A. Helv. Chim. Acta 1978, 61 (7), 2407-2418. 97. Kyba, E. P.; Timko, J. M.; Kaplan, L. J.; Dejong, F.; Gokel, G. W.; Cram, D. J. J.

Am. Chem. Soc. 1978, 100 (14), 4555-4568. 98. Peacock, S. C.; Domeier, L. A.; Gaeta, F. C. A.; Helgeson, R. C.; Timko, J. M.;

Cram, D. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1978, 100 (26), 8190-8202. 99. Lingenfelter, D. S.; Helgeson, R. C.; Cram, D. J. J. Org. Chem. 1981, 46 (2), 393-

406. 100. Galan, A.; Andreu, D.; Echavarren, A.; Prados, P.; De Mendoza, J. J. Am. Chem.

Soc. 1992, 114 (4), 1511-1512. 101. Breccia, P.; VanGool, M.; Perez-Fernandez, R.; Martin-Santamaria, S.; Gago, F.;

Prados, P.; deMendoza, J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125 (27), 8270-8284. 102. Colera, M.; Costero, A. M.; Gavina, P.; Gil, S. Tetrahedron Asym. 2005, 16 (15),

2673-2679. 103. Nazarenko, A. Y.; Huszthy, P.; Bradshaw, J. S.; Lamb, J. D.; Izatt, R. M. J.

Inclusion Phenom. 1994, 20 (1), 13-22. 104. Moore, S. S.; Tarnowski, T. L.; Newcomb, M.; Cram, D. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc.

1977, 99 (19), 6398-6405. 105. Naemura, K.; Nishioka, K.; Ogasahara, K.; Nishikawa, Y.; Hirose, K.; Tobe, Y.

Tetrahedron Asym. 1998, 9 (4), 563-574. 106. Naemura, K.; Matsunaga, K.; Fuji, J.; Ogasahara, K.; Nishikawa, Y.; Hirose, K.;

Tobe, Y. Anal. Sci. 1998, 14 (1), 175-182. 107. Hare, P. E.; Gil-Av, E. Science 1979, 204 (4398), 1226-1228. 108. Gubitz, G.; Jellenz, W.; Santi, W. J. Liq. Chromatogr. 1981, 4 (4), 701-712. 109. Davankov, V. A.; Rogozhin, S. V. J. Chromatogr. 1971, 60 (2), 280-&.

Chapter 1

52

110. Gubitz, G.; Jellenz, W.; Santi, W. J. Chromatogr. 1981, 203 (JAN), 377-384. 111. Takeuchi, T.; Horikawa, R.; Tanimura, T. Anal. Chem. 1984, 56 (7), 1152-1155. 112. Pickering, P. J.; Chaudhuri, J. B. Chirality 1999, 11 (3), 241-248. 113. Pickering, P. J.; Chaudhuri, J. B. J. Membr. Sci. 1997, 127 (2), 115-130. 114. Ding, H. B.; Carr, P. W.; Cussler, E. L. AIChE J. 1992, 38 (10), 1493-1498. 115. Tsukube, H.; Uenishi, J.; Kanatani, T.; Itoh, H.; Yonemitsu, O. Chem. Comm.

1996, (4), 477-478. 116. Sullivan, G. R.; Ciavarel, D.; Mosher, H. S. J. Org. Chem. 1974, 39 (16), 2411-

2412. 117. Kremer, C.; Torres, J.; Dominguez, S.; Mederos, A. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2005, 249

(5-6), 567-590. 118. Tsukube, H.; Shinoda, S.; Uenishi, J.; Kanatani, T.; Itoh, H.; Shiode, M.;

Iwachido, T.; Yonemitsu, O. Inorg. Chem. 1998, 37 (7), 1585-1591. 119. Rinaldi, R. Prog. Nucl. Magn. Reson. Spectrosc. 1982, 15, 291-352. 120. Konishi, K.; Yahara, K.; Toshishige, H.; Aida, T.; Inoue, S. J. Am. Chem. Soc.

1994, 116 (4), 1337-1344. 121. Reeve, T. B.; Cros, J. P.; Gennari, C.; Piarulli, U.; de Vries, J. G. Angew. Chem.

Int. Ed. 2006, 45 (15), 2449-2453. 122. Larrow, J. R.; Jacobsen, E. N. Top. Organomet. Chem. 2004, 7, 123-152. 123. Dzygiel, P.; Reeve, T. B.; Piarulli, U.; Krupicka, M.; Tvaroska, I.; Gennari, C.

Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2008, (7), 1253-1264. 124. Dzygiel, P.; Monti, C.; Piarulli, U.; Gennari, C. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2007, 5 (21),

3464-3471. 125. Abe, Y.; Shoji, T.; Kobayashi, M.; Qing, W.; Asai, N.; Nishizawa, H. Chem.

Pharm. Bull. 1995, 43 (2), 262-265. 126. Abe, Y.; Shoji, T.; Fukui, S.; Sasamoto, M.; Nishizawa, H. Chem. Pharm. Bull.

1996, 44 (8), 1521-1524. 127. Van de Voorde, I.; Pinoy, L.; Courtijn, E.; Verpoort, F. Solvent Extr. Ion Exch.

2006, 24 (6), 893-914. 128. Teramoto, M.; Yamashiro, T.; Inoue, A.; Yamamoto, A.; Matsuyama, H.; Miyake,

Y. J. Membr. Sci. 1991, 58 (1), 11-32. 129. Liu, Y. S.; Dai, Y. Y.; Wang, J. D. Sep. Sci. Technol. 2000, 35 (9), 1439-1454. 130. Tan, B.; Luo, G. S.; Qi, X.; Wang, J. D. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2006, 49 (2), 186-

191. 131. Tan, B.; Luo, G. S.; Wang, H. D. Tetrahedron Asym. 2006, 17 (6), 883-891. 132. Tan, B.; Luo, G. S.; Wang, J. D. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2007, 53 (3), 330-336. 133. Ohki, A.; Miyashita, R.; Naka, K.; Maeda, S. Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn. 1991, 64 (9),

2714-2719. 134. Jiao, F. P.; Chen, X. Q.; Hu, W. G.; Ning, F. R.; Huang, K. L. Chem. Pap. 2007,

61 (4), 326-328. 135. Tang, K.; Chen, Y.; Huang, K.; Liu, J. Tetrahedron Asym. 2007, 18 (20), 2399-

2408. 136. Nishizawa, H.; Tahara, K.; Hayashida, A.; Abe, Y. Anal. Sci. 1993, 9 (5), 611-

615. 137. Lammerhofer, M.; Lindner, W. J. Chrom. A 1996, 741 (1), 33-48. 138. Mhaskar, R. D.; Sharma, M. M. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1975, 30 (8), 811-818.


53

139. Kellner, K. H.; Blasch, A.; Chmiel, H.; Lammerhofer, M.; Lindner, W. Chirality 1997, 9 (3), 268-273.

140. Czerwenka, C.; Zhang, M. M.; Kahlig, H.; Maier, N. M.; Lipkowitz, K. B.; Lindner, W. J. Org. Chem. 2003, 68 (22), 8315-8327.

141. Caner, H.; Biedermann, P. U.; Agranat, I. Chirality 2003, 15 (7), 637-645. 142. Dijkstra, G. D. H.; Kellogg, R. M.; Wynberg, H. J. Org. Chem. 1990, 55 (25),

6121-6131. 143. Dijkstra, G. D. H.; Kellogg, R. M.; Wynberg, H.; Svendsen, J. S.; Marko, I.;

Sharpless, K. B. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1989, 111 (21), 8069-8076. 144. Uccello-Barretta, G.; Balzano, F.; Quintavalli, C.; Salvadori, P. J. Org. Chem.

2000, 65 (12), 3596-3602. 145. Hallett, A. J.; Kwant, G. J.; de Vries, J. G. Chem. Eur. J. 2009, 15 (9), 2111-2120. 146. Lawless, L. J.; Blackburn, A. G.; Ayling, A. J.; Perez-Payan, M. N.; Davis, A. P.

J. Chem. Soc. , Perkin Trans. 1 2001, (11), 1329-1341. 147. Davis, A. P.; Lawless, L. J. Chem. Comm. 1999, (1), 9-10. 148. Baragana, B.; Blackburn, A. G.; Breccia, P.; Davis, A. P.; De Mendoza, J.;

Padron-Carrillo, J. M.; Prados, P.; Riedner, J.; de Vries, J. G. Chem. Eur. J. 2002, 8 (13), 2931-2936.

149. Davis, J. T. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2004, 43 (6), 668-698. 150. Andrisano, V.; Gottarelli, G.; Masiero, S.; Heijne, E. H.; Pieraccini, S.; Spada, G.

P. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 1999, 38 (16), 2386-2388. 151. Spasojevic, I.; Crumbliss, A. L. J. Chem. Soc. , Dalton Trans. 1998, (23), 4021-

4027. 152. Sessler, J. L.; Andrievsky, A. Chem. Comm. 1996, (10), 1119-1120. 153. Andrievsky, A.; Sessler, J. L. Abstr. Pap. ACS 1996, 211, 76-78. 154. Sessler, J. L.; Andrievsky, A. Chem. Eur. J. 1998, 4 (1), 159-167. 155. Vonzelewsky, A.; Belser, P.; Hayoz, P.; Dux, R.; Hua, X.; Suckling, A.;

Stoecklievans, H. Coord. Chem. Rev. 1994, 132, 75-85. 156. Barton, J. K. Science 1986, 233 (4765), 727-734. 157. Balzani, V.; Credi, A.; Venturi, M. Molecular Devices and Machines: Concepts

and Perspectives for the Nanoworld; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, 2008. 158. Gillard, R. D.; Hill, R. E. E. J. Chem. Soc. , Dalton Trans. 1974, (11), 1217-1236. 159. Lacour, J.; Torche-Haldimann, S.; Jodry, J. J.; Ginglinger, C.; Favarger, F. Chem.

Comm 1998, (16), 1733-1734. 160. Lacour, J.; Goujon-Ginglinger, C.; Torche-Haldimann, S.; Jodry, J. J. Angew.

Chem. Int. Ed. 2000, 39 (20), 3695-3697. 161. Jodry, J. J.; Lacour, J. Chem. Eur. J. 2000, 6 (23), 4297-4304. 162. Ratni, H.; Jodry, J. J.; Lacour, J.; Kundig, E. P. Organometallics 2000, 19 (19),

3997-3999. 163. Tang, L.; Choi, S.; Nandhakumar, R.; Park, H.; Chung, H.; Chin, J.; Kim, K. M.

J. Org. Chem. 2008, 73 (15), 5996-5999. 164. Kim, K. M.; Park, H.; Kim, H. J.; Chin, J.; Nam, W. Org. Lett. 2005, 7 (16),

3525-3527.

Chapter 1

54

University of Groningen Chiral separation by ... · Chiral Separation by Enantioselective...

Documents

Transcript of University of Groningen Chiral separation by ... · Chiral Separation by Enantioselective...