synthetikal.com Forum Index


2,5-dimethoxybenzaldehyde Rhodium synth review?
Goto page Previous1, 2
Post new topic   Reply to topic    synthetikal.com Forum Index -> Phenethylamines
Author Message
IndoleAmine
Dreamreader Deluxe
Joined: 09 Feb 2005
Posts: 681
Location: Bahamas
18717.10 Points

Sat Apr 09, 2005 9:58 pm
Reply with quote

Just for further clarification, maybe you should re-read my following sentence, which I stated in my above post...

Quote:
4-methoxy-phenol is similar to hydroquinone, but already partly methylated, so you have probably better yields and less tar formation during the formylation step (which can become very messy when done on hydroquinone..)

Now just for comparison reasons, here's your reply to it:
Quote:
What are you talking about? You can't formylate hydroquinone to 2,5-dihydroxybenzaldehyde in decent yield. As far as I can remember from The Hive the yield of the aldehyde never exceeded 30%, so you must first methylate one hydroxy group on hydroquinone. Then you can formylate thus obtained 4-methoxyphenol in good yield (~70%) to obtain 2-hydroxy-5-methoxybenzaldehyde, which is one methylation away from 2,5-DiMeO benzaldehyde. The reaction is somewhat messy and reqzuires some practice, but when you get used to it you should have no problems.



Aah - the beauty of saying things with just a few words...
...really sad that not everybody seems to understand it.
Crying or Very sad

Please ask yourself: was it really necessary to criticize my statement this way? (I think it would have sufficed if you had explained why reimer-tiemann formylation is better done on partly methylated phenols, without adding any personal allusions; don't you think so?)


i_a
Back to top
demorol

Joined: 17 Feb 2005
Posts: 14
344.82 Points

Sun Apr 10, 2005 4:55 pm
Reply with quote

Quote:
What are you talking about?


Sorry if I offended you with this sentence, it wasn't ment as harsh as it sounded. I was really puzzled by your suggestion that one should first formylate hydroquinone and then methylate thus obtained aldehyde. Even if hydroquinone is cheap I don't see why anyone wants 30% yield insted ot 70%. The latter is possible by just adding an extra step of methylation of hydroquinone prior to the formylation.

I know it is just another possibility and that you have already said that so I'll shut up now.
Back to top
Sandmeyer

Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 39
203.32 Points

Sun Apr 10, 2005 6:52 pm
Reply with quote

IndoleAmine wrote:
Thx for clarifying about the "Reimer-Tiemann formylation", Java!

Sandmeyer:
Quote:
"Stop spreading missinformation. Reimer-Tiemann formylation dosen't involve the use of formaldehyde."

I'm tempted to say f*** you - but I don't.

I didn't say anything about formaldehyde, just mentioned the term "formylation" - which is adding "-CHO" (= "formyl").....
So far, you are right - no HCHO is involved in this type of reaction....



i_a


You said and I quote: "make the 2,5-dihydroxybenzaldehyde via "Reimer-Tiemann"-formylation with HCHO"


Quote:
Aah - the beauty of saying things with just a few words...
...really sad that not everybody seems to understand it.


I understand exactly what he ment. R-T formylation of HQ was tried and it gives tar. It is much better to do this on p-methoxyphenol.
Back to top
IndoleAmine
Dreamreader Deluxe
Joined: 09 Feb 2005
Posts: 681
Location: Bahamas
18717.10 Points

Mon Apr 11, 2005 12:07 am
Reply with quote

You don't help nobody, don't add vany aluable information to this thread and create a hostile atmosphere..

Quote:
Why do you take a correction (chemical fact) as an insult to your ego?
..because you provide no useful chemical facts, but only destructive critique and personal accuses instead!?

Repeating the correction that reimer-tiemann formylation uses no formaldehyde, like I said erroneously (ok, ok, i made a MISTAKE, did you want to hear this maybe?) doesn't outweigh the disadvantage of mentioning it all the time again and again, if you know what I mean.

If not, I'll say it in easier words: you're cluttering the thread with redundant, useless info, stop it.


And you didn't even mention the correct substance, did you?? You just said "stop spreading misinformation", which is surely not of more help than my erroneous statement about the rt formylation.


The right point to stop talking about it would've been as soon as Java posted about the reimer-tiemann, since he answered almost every possible question on this topic with his single post.
Since you think it has to be discussed further: let me tell you it ain't - everyone now knows that HCHO is wrong and CHCl3 is right...

Further mentioning of this fact is simply a waste of space - please take it also as an example for useless, unnecessary posts in general (and please try to avoid such things in the future), thx.....


Also, it has already been discussed that formylation of hydroquinone is not favorable and that partial methylation can help to give much better yields in the subsequent formylation step, thanks to demorol....

Quote:
I understand exactly what he ment

Nice for you that you understand it too, but keep that info for yourself next time - we aren't interested in knowing about what you learn, and when you start understanding something - this is solely of interest to YOU maybe...
(btw "meant" is commonly written with "ea" - not "ment"....)

Hope we understand each other!? Twisted Evil


i_a
Back to top
tom-a-rom-rinbow

Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 15
628.86 Points

Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:45 pm
Reply with quote

questions on 4-methoxyphenol via
Dimethyl Sulphate

Appearance: colourless liquid
Melting point: -32 C
Boiling point: 188 C
Vapour density: 4.3
Vapour pressure: 0.7 mm Hg at 25 C

Toxicity: IHL-HMN LCLO 97 ppm/10m

So, 97 ppm for 10 minutes is the lowest amount known to kill a human by inhalation.

As far as I can tell from toxicity data, DMS is an order of magnitude more deadly than SO2, but an order of magnitude less poisonous than the highly volatile phosgene and HCN.

How easily does DMS volatize when poured? If it is kept very cold, can one pour several hunderd mililitres quickly and stopper it while outside without worring that the wind will blow the wrong way and cause serious harm? Or would only an idiot do this?

Is is medium capacity fume hood sufficient for indoor work? Could reactions on the scale of several liters result in enough fumes escaping from the condensor during a reaction to be a problem in a residential area?

Should the addition funnel be pressure equalized? Is the DMS always consumed completely given favorable reaction conditions? I believe this must be so as the reaction can procede further to dimethoxybenzene. Is there any possibility of the reaction halting and excess DMS accumulating? When finished the addition funnel and reflux column can then be washed in running water under the fume hood while wearing gloves, and swim will not die as a result?
Back to top
biobrew

Joined: 16 Apr 2005
Posts: 51
1123.46 Points

Sat Apr 23, 2005 7:58 pm
Reply with quote

ditto what tom said. Anyone had any experience with this, i am running DMS in a reaction in two weeks
Back to top
brain
Linguist Extraordinaire
Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 143
2405.16 Points

Sat Apr 23, 2005 10:30 pm
Reply with quote

can anyone tell me? Smile
-i can proceed this reaction:
Quote:
2-hydroxy-5-methoxy-benzaldehyde by Reimer-Tiemann formylation of 4-methoxyphenol


than i can produce 2,5-methoxy-benzaldehyde:
Quote:
Formylation of Aromatic Compounds with Hexamethylenetetramine and Trifluoroacetic Acid


??
Back to top
sg43

Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Posts: 14
650.06 Points

Sun May 15, 2005 2:31 am
Reply with quote

SWIM wonders how hard it would be to convert say... 2C-I or 2C-E into 2C-B, anyone have any idea?
Back to top
Dr.Bunsen

Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 14
280.86 Points

Sun May 15, 2005 3:23 am
Reply with quote

2C-E is 2,5-DIMETHOXY-4-ETHYLPHENETHYLAMINE

http://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/pihkal/images/pihkal24.gif

2C-I is 2,5-DIMETHOXY-4-IODOPHENETHYLAMINE

http://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/pihkal/images/pihkal33.gif

and 2C-B is 4-BROMO-2,5-DIMETHOXYPHENETHYLAMINE

http://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/pihkal/images/pihkal20.gif

You can convert 2C-I into 2C-B but it doesn't make sense (but if you want to waste iodine you can do it). You can't convert 2C-E into 2C-B easily.

sg43 wrote:
SWIM wonders how hard it would be to convert say... 2C-I or 2C-E into 2C-B, anyone have any idea?
Back to top
sg43

Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Posts: 14
650.06 Points

Sun May 15, 2005 9:38 am
Reply with quote

So how would one go about doing this, with 2C-I perfably since SWIM has easy access to it. I understand that BROMO must be added, but what reaction would do this easily?
Back to top
Dr.Bunsen

Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 14
280.86 Points

Mon May 16, 2005 4:08 am
Reply with quote

You might try to get 2C-H from 2C-I like this:

http://www.orgsyn.org/orgsyn/prep.asp?prep=cv5p0998

or go directly from 2C-I to 2C-B by adding bromine but I don't know if this would have an influence on the ethyl amine*HCl.

sg43 wrote:
So how would one go about doing this, with 2C-I perfably since SWIM has easy access to it. I understand that BROMO must be added, but what reaction would do this easily?
Back to top
IndoleAmine
Dreamreader Deluxe
Joined: 09 Feb 2005
Posts: 681
Location: Bahamas
18717.10 Points

Mon May 16, 2005 5:00 am
Reply with quote

Sandmeyer, were are you? C

Anyway: brain, you can make 2,5-dimethoxybenzaldehyde from p-methoxyphenol directly, with a reimer-tiemann formylation (formylation = adding CHO) in one step. The OH will me methylated too by the same rxn.

The hexamine/TFAA formylation does not methylate OHs, so you have to start with dimethoxybenzene to get dimethoxybenzaldehyde, or methylate afterwards (MeI?) when using methoxyphenol instead dimethoxybenzene..

Making 2C-B from 2C-I is ridiculous, the right compound to start with is 2C-H in both cases. It can be made by reduction of 2,5-dimethoxy-nitrostyrene, and this route is far cheaper than buying RC compounds for several hundred dollars/gram and trying to convert them into something else.

I doubt that the iodine can be replaced directly with Br, and as said the removal of halogen from bought 2C-I to yield 2C-H is not really cost-effective.

Better read this thread once more, and start considering to make some 2,5-dimethoxybenzaldehyde... Very Happy
Back to top
sg43

Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Posts: 14
650.06 Points

Mon May 16, 2005 11:11 am
Reply with quote

Yes, SWIM figured it would not be worth while, right now he is working on mdma via wacker/al/hg/nitro, maybe after he perfects that he will give 2C-B a shot. Twisted Evil
Back to top
Bluechip

Joined: 12 Feb 2005
Posts: 19
627.18 Points

Mon May 16, 2005 4:46 pm
Reply with quote

"Anyway: brain, you can make 2,5-dimethoxybenzaldehyde from p-methoxyphenol directly, with a reimer-tiemann formylation (formylation = adding CHO) in one step. The OH will me methylated too by the same rxn."

Indole,How can this be done?

Every scrap of info I have dug up on this route always produces 2,hydroxy 5,methoxy benzaldehyde via the reimer-tieman on p-methoxyphenol,and then methylates with either DMS or MeI.

IF this can be done as you sugest why does everyone go the other way?
Can you please ease my confusion.
Back to top
biobrew

Joined: 16 Apr 2005
Posts: 51
1123.46 Points

Tue May 17, 2005 5:05 am
Reply with quote

It's the mysterious pentavalent cabon mechanism....duh Laughing

I was wondering the same thing. Double ortho aldehyde?
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    synthetikal.com Forum Index -> Phenethylamines All times are GMT + 5.5 Hours
Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 



Powered by phpBB 2.0.11 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Igloo Theme Version 1.0 :: Created By: Andrew Charron