turd
National Hazard
Posts: 800
Registered: 5-3-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
[Article] Don't feel bad if you fail to get the published 95% yield
On the Practical Limits of Determining Isolated Product Yields and Ratios of Stereoisomers: Reflections, Analysis, and Redemption
Martina Wernerova and Tomas Hudlicky, SynLett 18, 2701–2707 (2010)
Online: http://www.brocku.ca/mathematics-science/departments-and-cen...
| Quote: | | [P]rofessionals within the synthetic community readily reject the reality of isolated yields as high as 95%. Such reports at best may be attributed to
the inability of the authors and research personnel to determine accurately the true content of the sample under scrutiny, at worst to deliberate
manipulation of research data. |
In an amateur setting without tools such as a rotary evaporator, the 95% yield may then become a 50% yield. I wish people would post such yields even
though they might be disappointed at first.
[Edited on 24-9-2011 by turd]
|
|
|
SmashGlass
Hazard to Self
Posts: 52
Registered: 25-1-2011
Location: Scandinavia
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
A bit harsh turd. Since this paper focused on the concept of stereoisomers and enantiomeric excess.
The paper itself was a nice read and rather informative, but far from the dramatic sensationalism you are portraying.
One knows that it is unreliable to think one can take a procedure from literature and obtain the
precise yield reported on the first attempt. Small handling techniques need to be perfected and the like... as
you are probably aware if you are in the field. Yields should be seen as a guide to the successfulness
of the reaction not the final verdict. And if you are bulking you yields with water or salt you are just fooling yourself.
Don't need luck in the lab. -SmashGlass-
If it ain't broke don't fix it....
Now where are my screwdrivers?  |
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
