Experiment 8_ Dihydroxylation with KMnO4 (1)

docx

School

University of Michigan *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

211

Subject

Chemistry

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

9

Uploaded by MagistratePigeon2614

Report
1 11/7/21 Experiment 8: Dihydroxylation with KMnO4 Using LLE to isolate the desired product and TLC to determine its purity. Reaction Scheme : Hypothesis : If potassium permanganate is added to cyclohexene, the product will be a mixture of cis and trans diols because the 1,2-cyclohexandiol has two similar stereocenters, meaning there are many possible orientations of the molecule.
2 Reagent Table : Compound Molecular Weight (g/mol) Density (g/mL) Used Safety Potassium permanganate (KMnO 4 ) 158.03 2.70 100 mg Oxidizer, irritant, health hazard, environmental hazard Cyclohexene (C H ) ₁₀ 82.14 0.81 50 μL Flammable, acute toxic, irritant, health hazard, environmental hazard T-butanol ( C₄H₁₀O) 74.12 0.78 2 mL Flammable, irritant Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) 0.1 M 39.997 2.13 4 mL Corrosive, causes severe skin burns and eye damage Hexane (C H ) ₁₄ 86.18 0.659 1 mL Irritant, flammable Ethyl Acetate ( C 4 H 8 O 2 ) 88.11 0.902 3 mL Irritant, flammable
3 Magnesium sulfate (MgSO ) 120.37 2.66 A few scoops Irritant Cis-cyclohexane-1,2-diol (C H O ) ₁₂ Trans-cyclohexane- 1,2-diol 116.16 1.2 TLC spotting Irritant P-anisaldehyde (C H O ) 136.15 1.12 TLC stain Irritant Diethyl ether (C H O) ₁₀ 74.12 0.71 20 mL Flammable, irritant
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help
4 Procedure : Potassium Permanganate reaction : 1. Dissolve 100 mg of KMnO4 in 4 mL of 0.1 M NaOH solution in a 25 mL Erlenmeyer flask with a stir bar. 2. Cool the KMnO4 solution in an ice bath. Wipe any excess KMnO4 off the outside of the flask before placing it in the ice bath. 3. Using a micropipette, add 50 μL of cyclohexene to 2 mL of t-butanol in a 4 mL vial. 4. Quickly add the cyclohexene solution into the potassium permanganate. 5. Stir the reaction mixture in the ice bath for 5 min. 6. Remove from the ice bath and stir for 10 min. 7. Spot a sample of the reaction on a TLC plate. On the same TLC plate, spot samples of commercially purchased cis-cyclohexane-1,2-diol and trans-cyclohexane-1,2-diol. 8. Run the TLC plate in 75/25 EtOAc/hexane. 9. Visualize the TLC plate by dipping it in p-anisaldehyde stain, dabbing on a paper towel to remove excess stain, and then heating on a hot plate provided in the fume hood. 10. Circle all spots in pencil on the TLC plate. Store all developed TLC plates in the hood. DS: 75/25 EtOAc/hexane Visualization: p-anisaldehyde 1: Reaction 2: cis-cyclohexane-1,2-diol 3: trans-cyclohexane-1,2-diol Rf (1) = 1.7/5.0 = 0.34 Rf (2) = 1.8/5.0 = 0.36 Rf (3) = 1.5/5.0 = 0.30 cis is present
5 Work-up : 1. Set up the vacuum filtration apparatus. 2. Wet the filter paper with a small amount of water. Then turn on the vacuum. 3. Pour the reaction mixture over the filter very slowly to pull off insoluble byproducts. 4. Wash the filter paper very slowly with 20 mL diethyl ether. 5. Transfer the filtrate (collected liquid; contains organic and aqueous solutions) to a separatory funnel, swirl and vent, then allow the layers to separate. 6. Drain the aqueous layer and transfer the organic layer to a separate Erlenmeyer flask. 7. Check to see if your LLE was successful by running a TLC of the aqueous and organic layers. On the same TLC plate, spot samples of commercially purchased cis- cyclohexane-1,2-diol or trans-cyclohexane-1,2- diol. Circle all spots on your stained TLC plate. Note: Was unable to extract two layers in LLE. The first spot is a mix of the organic layer and the aqueous layer (O/AQ) DS: 75/25 EtOAc/hexane Visualization: p-anisaldehyde 3: cis-cyclohexane-1,2-diol 4: trans-cyclohexane-1,2-diol Rf (O/AQ) = 2.0/5.1 = 0.39 Rf (3) = 2.0/5.1 = 0.39 Rf (4) = 1.5/5.1 = 0.29 cis is presen t
6 8. Pre-weigh a clean, dry 50 mL beaker. Record the weight in the table in the data section. 9. Pour the liquid only into the pre-weighed beaker and evaporate diethyl ether using forced air to obtain the solid product(s). Keep the beaker in a room-temperature water bath during evaporation. 10. Weigh the beaker with solid product. Record the weight in the table and calculate the theoretical yield. Data : Weight (g) Pre-weighed empty vial n/a (forgot to complete step) Vial + dried product n/a (forgot to complete step) Product weight n/a (forgot to complete step) Theoretical yield 0.0573
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help
7 Database NMR : Lab NMR (from another group) : O-H peak H H groups
8 Analysis : TLC plates : While I was not able to extract an organic and aqueous layer, if I was able to do so, the cyclohexanediol would appear in the organic layer because diethyl ether is less dense than the aqueous layer as it does not contain any halogens. This would be supported by the TLC LLE plate with the organic layer Rf matching with the Rf value of the cis-cyclohexanediol. Coincidently, I was able to achieve this correlation even without separating the two layers. The Rf value of the LLE product was 0.39 which is identical to the Rf value for cis-cyclohexanediol on that plate. If I was able to dry my product I would be able to determine the amount of product that was extracted and calculate a more precise percent yield. From the first TLC plate, it is clear that the reaction sample traveled a similar distance to the cis diol. The Rf of the reaction sample was 0.34 and the Rf for the cis diol was 0.36. Because these Rf values almost exactly matched the Rf of the cis diol, we can assume that this is the product of the reaction. Connecting to the last lab, this lab was conducted in basic conditions, resulting in the cis diol while the acidic conditions in the last lab created the trans diol. This is a large generalization as I am still unsure why this would occur; I would need more experimental data to determine stronger reasoning. H group H
9 Theoretical yield/percent yield : Because I was unable to extract my organic layer from my aqueous, I did not extract my product, resulting in a percent yield of 0%. Using the new technique of vacuum filtration, human error must have been a major factor in the inability to distinguish the layers. Some examples of human error during the vacuum filtration process include but are not limited to improperly setting up the apparatus, not turning the vacuum nob all the way, pouring the reaction mixture and the diethyl ether too fast, etc. If human error was minimized, the predicted amount of produced cyclohexane-1,2-diol would be around 0.0573 g (theoretical yield). The closer the extracted product is to 0.0573, the greater the percent yield. NMR : Two of the peaks of the cis diol from the database NMR match up the three peaks from the lab NMR. While the main OH peak is missing from the lab NMR, this could have been due to human error when taking the NMR and/or the extraction itself. Also, this lab NMR that I am basing off on was produced by a different group; them having different data that may or may not align with my TLC results. Conclusion : Based on this lab, my hypothesis was incorrect. From the TLC plates and the NMR, it is evident that cis-1,2-cyclohexanediol is the cyclohexene that was produced in this reaction. Examining Newman’s projections alone will not provide sufficient evidence to determine which one is produced more, rather extracting the reaction into organic and aqueous layers and conducting an NMR to determine purity demonstrates that the cis diol is synthesized the most.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help