nimgoldman
Hazard to Others
Posts: 303
Registered: 11-6-2018
Member Is Offline
|
|
Very low yield of nitroethane
I have recently ran the Victor Meyer reaction with bromoethane and silver nitrite in ether.
I have followed the procedure as presented by ChemPlayer, except I used bromoethane instead of iodoethane.
silver nitrite not being pure or dry enough (the powder has been dried in a vacuum desiccator over calcium chloride at 100
mbar for 3 days in darkness, however, the prowder still looked colored, not grayish like in ChemPlayer's video)
bromoethane not being pure (unlikely as fractional distillation showed stable vapour temperature)
bromoethane could evaporated during reaction (temperature never exceeded 10 °C though; I have not used reflux condenser)
reaction must run much longer for bromoethane than for iodoethane (I ran it for 5-6 hours total as it was just a test run)
evaporation of ether done at temperature too high (up to 60 °C to drive off all ether, but maybe this could volatilize nitroethane too?)
It seems there should have been much more nitroethane produced judging from the amount of silver bromide.
There should have been over 8 grams of nitroethane produced even at 50% yield.
I am trying to find where I made a mistake.
Unfortunately, my magnetic stirrer is too weak to stir a suspension of silver salt, so I had to use JJ-1 overhead stirrer with Teflon paddle. The
stirrer has a sealed guide, but when used, the paddle falls off after a short while. The stirrer is of typical chinese quality standard unfortunately.
So I could not use mag. stirring or stirrer guide, hence the flask had to be open and using reflux condenser would not make sense. Maybe this was the
issue, but the reaction temperature was cold.
I forgot to continue reaction for further hour in an ice bath so maybe this was the time where bromoethane evaporated. Still does not explain the
amount of silver bromide though... maybe bromoethane it turned preferentially into ethyl nitrite and evaporated?
|
|
|
Tsjerk
International Hazard
Posts: 3022
Registered: 20-4-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mood
|
|
Did your reaction heat up during addition of the ethyl bromide?
If not, start by running it for a couple of days. I don't see why this reaction should stay cold, you can let it come up to RT after addition. as long
as the reaction is sealed, RT sounds fine for this reaction. It has to be stirred though.
Edit: I just saw Chemplayers video, I would use acetone, not ethanol to dry the silver nitrite, acetone comes anhydrous from the hardware store. Also
aceton is not hygroscopic by itself, any salt will be dry in minutes if it was washed with acetone. As silver nitrite is not hygroscopic the
desiccator seems unnecessary.
[Edited on 16-11-2018 by Tsjerk]
|
|
|
Jackson
Hazard to Others
Posts: 189
Registered: 22-5-2018
Location: U S of A
Member Is Offline
Mood:  Happy about new glassware
|
|
If nitroethane forms an azeotrope with ether I could have partially gone with it
|
|
|
nimgoldman
Hazard to Others
Posts: 303
Registered: 11-6-2018
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Tsjerk  | | Start by running it for a couple of days. I don't see why this reaction should be cold, as long as the reaction is sealed, RT sounds fine for this
reaction. It has to be stirred though. |
I see. I will try the silver nitrate test for reaction completion (adding sample of reaction mixture into a dilute solution of silver nitrate -
clouding would indicate incomplete reaction).
Sealing would be a problem with the cheapo stirrer. I will maybe look for a stronger magnetic stirrer and report the results back in the thread.
|
|
|
Tsjerk
International Hazard
Posts: 3022
Registered: 20-4-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mood
|
|
Sorry, I heavily edited my post... It changed a bit, but essentially it is the same.
|
|
|
nimgoldman
Hazard to Others
Posts: 303
Registered: 11-6-2018
Member Is Offline
|
|
I found my ethanol is only 98%, it still should have drying capability but I am not sure if the little water could have been left in it and caused
problems.
Using dry acetone seem to be a better choice. It's more accessible to me than the abs. ethanol and it's safer as presence of residual silver fulminate
in the precipitate has been reported to cause explosion (Armarego, Wilfred LF. Purification of laboratory chemicals. Butterworth-Heinemann,
2017)
There are possible azeotropes of nitroethane (e.g. with water, ethanol), but neither below the temperature used for distillation (source:
Nitroethane, ANGUS Chemical Company Technical Data Sheet)
Slight heatup occured when adding bromoethane, but since I used saline bath, it never went above 5 °C. The whole addition took about 50 minutes. None
should have evaporated, but since the stirring was strong, it might evaporated through the necks of the flask.
ChemPlayer removed the ether with simple water bath and I used distillation with thermostat-controlled waterbath (going slowly from 35 °C to 60 °C).
The nitroethane residue made gluey bubbles and looked like evaporating - not sure if it will eventually evaporate even at 60 °C. Is nitroethane so
volatile?
Maybe adding fractionating column would be a good idea.
Plummer and Drake ("An Improved Procedure for Preparing Primary Nitroalkanes by the Victor Meyer Reaction." Journal of the American Chemical
Society 76.10 (1954): 2720-2722.) used petroleum ether as the solvent, which might be more convenient than diethyl ether due to higher boiling
point.
So the improvements:
- seal the necks
- use reflux condenser
- dry silver nitrite with anhydrous acetone
- try pet ether as solvent
- run the reaction for considerably longer time, test for completeness
- use fractionating column when distilling off ether, check for vapour temperature for possible mixed fractions
|
|
|
S.C. Wack
bibliomaster
Posts: 2419
Registered: 7-5-2004
Location: Cornworld, Central USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enhanced
|
|
IMHO the ideal solvent would be ethyl iodide. The 1954 JACS articles with OK yield of nitrobutane display a conspicuous absence of lower bromides.
Meyer tried and failed 80 years earlier.
|
|
|
nimgoldman
Hazard to Others
Posts: 303
Registered: 11-6-2018
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by S.C. Wack | | IMHO the ideal solvent would be ethyl iodide. The 1954 JACS articles with OK yield of nitrobutane display a conspicuous absence of lower bromides.
Meyer tried and failed 80 years earlier. |
The reason I have not followed this method is because it produces 50:50 nitroethane and ethyl nitrite. Unfortunately, I have absolutely no use for
ethyl nitrite.
Rhodium's nitroethane syntheses colllection mentions 80% yield (when using the DMF modification) and the only difference with iodoethane being shorter
reaction time. This made me think the yield of Victor Meyer will be similar or same with bromoethane and iodoethane, the reaction time being the only
difference.
ChemPlayer's yield with Victor Meyer and iodoethane is 57% (some can reach up to 80%) which is still at leat 7% better than 50% with using iodoethane
directly. That 7% can be a difference of 10 or 20 milliliters (after reasonably scaling up the reaction), which is a lot for such a precious solvent
(at least for me as an amateur).
Finally, iodine is much harder for me to get than bromide salts (and more expensive, too). The good thing is that it can be quite easily recycled.
It seems I will have to ditch the "bromine path" to nitroethane and switch to iodine.
I don't know why so many sources treat bromoethane and iodoethane equally and even mention one can be substitued for the other, since this is not
really true. Wikipedia in its "Nitroethane" article even mentions chloroethane:
| Quote: | | Alternatively, nitroethane can be produced by the Victor Meyer reaction with haloethanes like Chloroethane, bromoethane, or iodoethane with silver
nitrite in diethyl ether or THF. |
I guess this is theoretical stuff. Yes, chloroethane will probably work too, but unfortunately no one mentions reaction times will be unbearable and
yields will be next to nothing.
[Edited on 17-11-2018 by nimgoldman]
[Edited on 17-11-2018 by nimgoldman]
|
|
|
nux vomica
Hazard to Others
Posts: 267
Registered: 18-7-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Try the a-bromopropionic acid , Sodium Nitrite route to nitroethane.
Its not as much work as the victor meyer synth and yields are ok too.
|
|
|
morganbw
National Hazard
Posts: 561
Registered: 23-11-2014
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by nimgoldman | | Quote: Originally posted by S.C. Wack | | IMHO the ideal solvent would be ethyl iodide. The 1954 JACS articles with OK yield of nitrobutane display a conspicuous absence of lower bromides.
Meyer tried and failed 80 years earlier. |
The reason I have not followed this method is because it produces 50:50 nitroethane and ethyl nitrite. Unfortunately, I have absolutely no use for
ethyl nitrite.
[Edited on 17-11-2018 by nimgoldman]
[Edited on 17-11-2018 by nimgoldman] |
Why do you feel that ethyl nitrite would not be produced using bromoethane, assuming bromoethane would work with this synth?
Maybe I am just dull in the head but I would have thought the reaction path would have been the same from either the bromoethane or iodoethane.
|
|
|
happyfooddance
National Hazard
Posts: 530
Registered: 9-11-2017
Location: Los Angeles, Ca.
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Tsjerk | I just saw Chemplayers video, I would use acetone, not ethanol to dry the silver nitrite, acetone comes anhydrous from the hardware store. Also
aceton is not hygroscopic by itself, any salt will be dry in minutes if it was washed with acetone. As silver nitrite is not hygroscopic the
desiccator seems unnecessary.
|
Acetone does evaporate quickly, but its temperature drops fast when it does so. Cakes of acetone washed solids left in open air can get cold as ice,
condensing atmospheric moisture and drying slowly. Drying under vacuum is good but you will need active heating or a long amount of time at r.t. to
drive off the acetone.
At least this has been my experience.
|
|
|
Tsjerk
International Hazard
Posts: 3022
Registered: 20-4-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by happyfooddance |
Acetone does evaporate quickly, but its temperature drops fast when it does so. Cakes of acetone washed solids left in open air can get cold as ice,
condensing atmospheric moisture and drying slowly. Drying under vacuum is good but you will need active heating or a long amount of time at r.t. to
drive off the acetone.
At least this has been my experience. |
Yes, you are right, but when working with small batches, say less than 50 grams, this shouldn't be a problem. Especially when you take of most acetone
while vacuum filtering it won't get so cold it condenses water from air.
|
|
|
nimgoldman
Hazard to Others
Posts: 303
Registered: 11-6-2018
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by morganbw | Why do you feel that ethyl nitrite would not be produced using bromoethane, assuming bromoethane would work with this synth?
Maybe I am just dull in the head but I would have thought the reaction path would have been the same from either the bromoethane or iodoethane.
|
It will but not as much as the pure iodoethane approach, since the reported yields are over 50% (at least 57%) while using just iodoethane leads to
50% yield according to literature.
Bromoethane should work just fine too, only having longer reaction time (I hope).
---
nux vomica, capturing the ethyl nitrite to synthesize more nitroethane is a good idea, thanks.
|
|
|
WGTR
National Hazard
Posts: 971
Registered: 29-9-2013
Location: Online
Member Is Offline
Mood: Outline
|
|
Would the reaction conditions need to be acidic to form ethyl nitrite as the main product, or does it not matter? It seems that the prep that I
recall from the top of my head involves adding acid to an alcohol/metal nitrite solution in water to form alkyl nitrite. Was the bromoethane
neutralized, or left acidic? Just an idea.
I wonder what would happen if excess ethanol was added directly to chilled liquid N2O3...
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
