Menu
s
0 Comments

Enantiomorphs are isomers that are non-superimposable mirror images of each other and incorporate an asymmetric C atom and hence are chiral compounds. They have indistinguishable physical and chemical belongingss such as boiling and runing point, solubilities, and responsiveness with symmetric reagents. They merely differ in the way of rotary motion of plane of polarized visible radiation, which is called optical activity.1 The way and grade of rotary motion of the plane depends on the nature of the substance. Though, the magnitude of way of rotary motion by the enantiomorphs is the same, but the way is opposite of each other. Clockwise rotary motion is referred to as dextrorotatory ( + ) and antagonistic clockwise rotary motion is referred to as levorotatory ( – ) .2 A polariscope is a normally used instrument that is used to mensurate the optical activity of a sample. A sample ‘s pureness is determined by the comparing of ascertained rotary motion to recognized rotary motion of the sample.3

The intent of this experiment was to decide ( ± ) -?-phenylethylamine, which is dissymmetric, by responding it with ( + ) -tartaric acerb to divide the compound ‘s diasteriomeric derived functions. ( ± ) -?-phenylethylamine is a racemic mixture and contains both enantiomorphs in equal measures. The diastereomers that are produced due to the declaration are salts that are either ( + ) ( + ) or ( + ) ( – ) as the acid is ( + ) and the enantiomorphs are either ( + ) or ( – ) . These vary in their physical traits and hence can easy be separated via fractional crystallisation. The H tartrate in ( + ) ( – ) signifier is less soluble in methyl alcohol than ( + ) ( + ) salt and hence, it crystallizes in pure stereoisomeric signifier. In the terminal, the ( – ) -?-phenylethylamine enantiomorph was separated in the solution after intervention with strong base.1

2NaOH

+ 2H2O

( + ) -tartaric acid

( – ) -amine

( + ) -amine

Figure 11: The reaction of the racemic mixture of ( ± ) -?-phenylethylamine with ( + ) -tartaric acid produced two salts. After the solution was treated with extra NaOH, merely the ( – ) enantiomorph remained.

Experimental:

The experimental process carried out for this lab followed the stairss listed in the lab manual. Mention to Organic Chemistry Lab Manual Fall 2010 – Winter 2011 pages 11-17.

The lone change to the process was that, alternatively of pull outing the aqueous stage twice more with 5mL of CH2Cl2 after the initial extraction, the aqueous stage was extracted one time more with 10mL of CH2Cl2.

Consequences:

Table1: Shows the mass of each compound in reaction and the corresponding figure of moles. Since ( ± ) -?-Phenylethylamine has lower sum of moles than tartaric acid, it was the restricting reactant of this reaction. Mention to the appendix for computation of the figure of moles.

Merchandise

Amount ( g )

Molar mass ( g/mol )

Number of Moles

Tartaric Acid

12.0

150.09

0.0799

( ± ) -?-Phenylethylamine

9.4

121.18

0.0776

( – ) -?-phenylethylamine- ( + ) -hydrogen tartrate

10.5

271.27

0.0388

Table2: Shows the obtained merchandises from the experiment and their ascertained multitudes against the theoretical multitudes. Percent output is calculated to demo how good the experimental procedure was carried out. Mention to the appendix for computations.

Merchandise

Observed Mass ( g )

Theoretical Mass ( g )

% Output

( – ) -?-phenylethylamine- ( + ) -hydrogen tartrate

6.13

10.50

58.4 %

( – ) -?-phenylethylamine

Beaker: 29.68

Merchandise:

2.82

4.70

60.0 %

Beaker + merchandise: 32.50

Table3: Shows the ascertained rotary motion of ( – ) -?-phenylethylamine measured via PerkinElmer instrument at optical rotary motion at 589nm. Mention to the appendix for computations.

Observed rotary motion

Calculated specific rotary motion of ( – ) -?-phenylethylamine

Reported specific rotary motion of ( – ) -?-phenylethylamine

Optical pureness

-31.90

-33.94

-40.40

84 %

Qualitative observations:

( – ) -amine- ( + ) -hydrogen tartrate looked white in colour and was hard in nature ( crystals )

The solution in the seperatory funnel had two distinguishable beds. The top bed was white and opaque while the bottom bed was comparatively clear.

Discussion:

In the experiment, the add-on of ( + ) -tartaric acid to ( ± ) -?-phenylethylamine formed ( + ) -amine- ( + ) -hydrogen tartrate, and ( – ) -amine- ( + ) -hydrogen tartrate salts. These salts were separated as they had changing solubilities in methyl alcohol. The ( – ) -amine- ( + ) -hydrogen tartrate was able to be crystallized as it was less soluble. 1 The separation of salt was reasonably successful as the per centum output of ( – ) -amine- ( + ) -hydrogen tartrate, a ( – ) ( + ) salt, was 65.2 % . There could hold been many experimental mistakes that led to merely a satisfactory per centum output of the salt. A major factor of mistake could hold been the fact that non all of the ( – ) ( + ) salt was crystallized. Besides, even though seed crystals were added to the mixture so that merely clear prisms are formed, some all right white acerate leafs might hold besides formed, interrupting the pure nature of aminoalkane. Additionally, despite all possible efforts to grate off every spot of the crystallised salt, there was a minute sum that remained stuck to the Buchner funnel and Erlenmeyer flask. All of which straight correlated to a lower per centum output of the ( – ) ( + ) salt.

In the 2nd portion of the experiment, Addition of 2M NaOH strong base to the ( – ) ( + ) salt lead to abstraction of a proton from ( – ) -amine to bring forth H2O, Na tartrate, and ( – ) -?-phenylethylamine. The separatory funnel showed formation of two distinguishable beds. The top bed was white and opaque, while the bottom bed was comparatively really clear. In order to find which bed was organic and which was inorganic, a spot of H2O was run through the funnel. The H2O did non go further than the top bed and as a consequence, it was determined that the top bed was inorganic whereas the bottom bed was organic. That was a consequence of changing densenesss of the beds, the top being less dense. 4 The Na tartrate dissolved in H2O but ( – ) -?-phenylethylamine is indissoluble in H2O and needed add-on of methylene chloride, CH2Cl2, to fade out it. Methylene chloride was the pick of organic dissolver as it has a low boiling point of 40 & A ; deg ; C and ( – ) -?-phenylethylamine has a much higher boiling point of about 188 & A ; deg ; C.5,6 Thus, methylene chloride could be easy removed from the solution through boiling without holding any of the ( – ) -?-phenylethylamine evaporate. Before boiling, one gm of anhydrous K2CO3 was added to take the H2O and the Na tartrate dissolved in the H2O.

After the pull outing twosome times, and taking the K2CO3 through filtration, the per centum output of the ( – ) -?-phenylethylamine was determined once more. Though, this clip the output was of 60.0 % . The lessening in output indicated that there was a loss of ( – ) -?-phenylethylamine in the portion B of the experiment as ab initio there was a 65.2 % output. One of the beginnings of mistakes for this could hold been extra disposal of the bottom aminoalkane bed from the funnel as it could hold contained some of the ( – ) -?-phenylethylamine. That could non hold been controlled since it was difficult to separate a clear boundary between the two beds as there was a little gradient alternatively. Additionally, when the funnel was shaken, a little sum of solution poured out of the glass stopper. This could hold critically lowered the per centum output. Furthermore, some of the ( – ) -?-phenylethylamine might non hold made it through the filtration caused by the cotton.

The ascertained rotary motion was -31.90 & A ; deg ; ( the negative mark bespeaking a counterclockwise rotary motion ) which calculated to a specific rotary motion of -33.94 & A ; deg ; . Since the theoretical specific rotary motion is -40.4±0.2o, the optical pureness of the sample was determined to be 84.0 % .2 This is a reasonably high output. This means that the experiment was carried out reasonably decently. Besides, the negative ( levorotory rotary motion ) showed that it was the ( – ) -?-phenylethylamine enantiomorph that was isolated. Some mistakes could hold still been associated with the experiment. The little divergence in the optical pureness might hold been a consequence of presence of drosss, such as assorted compounds from the two beds in the funnel. Besides, when the solution was boiled in order to take methylene chloride, some of it might non hold evaporated even if the perceiver did non see any major seeable boiling. Hence, some of the methylene chloride might hold been left in the solution, and so the optical pureness could hold been a consequence of aminoalkane and methylene chloride alternatively of merely aminoalkane. Furthermore, there could hold been fingerprints or air bubbles in the sample cell while obtaining the optical rotary motion reading.

Questions:

Merely dissymmetrical acids, which are chiral constructions and have enantiomorphs, can be used for the declaration of an aminoalkane as the declaration is expected to bring forth enantiomorphs of that specific amine.7 Since glutaric, glyoxylic, and gluataconic acids are non chiral constructions, they are non utile in the declaration of aminoalkane. The dissymmetrical acids include glutamic, glucaric, and gluconic acids and these can be used to resolute an aminoalkane. The meso-tartaric acid is optically inactive as it is non chiral even though it contains chiral centres. Hence, meso-tartaric acid would non incorporate enantiomorphs and as a consequence, it would non be able to resolute an aminoalkane.

Glyoxylic Acid8 Glutamic Acid9

( achiral construction ) ( Dissymmetrical )

Glucaric Acid10 Glutaric Acid11

( Dissymmetrical ) ( Symmetrical ; achiral construction )

Gluconic Acid12 Glutaconic Acid13

( Dissymmetrical ) ( achiral construction )

The value presented by the pupil is wrong. The values the pupil must show should be precisely 1s that he obtained and non changed about. In this instance, since the pupil changed the value to being positive, it falsely gives an indicant that the rotary motion of visible radiation was drextrorotatory alternatively of the existent levorotatory rotation.2 The pupil should hold reported the value as -239.7 & A ; deg ; ±1.3 & A ; deg ; . The true uncertainness is obtained through the standard divergence of a information set.

Mean = / 3 = -239.7 & A ; deg ;

Standard Deviation: = ( ( ( -238.5 & A ; deg ; -239.7 & A ; deg ; ) 2 ) + ( ( -241.0 & A ; deg ; -239.7 & A ; deg ; ) 2 ) + ( ( -239.7 & A ; deg ; -239.7 & A ; deg ; ) 2 ) ) / 2 = 1.3

a ) If the aminoalkane had been already partially resolved to 75 % optical pureness so:

vitamin D + cubic decimeter = 100 %

d – cubic decimeter = 75 %

2d = 175 % & A ; agrave ; d = 87.5 % ; l = 12.5 %

87.5 % – 12.5 % = 75 %

It can be inferred that the maximal output of optically pure aminoalkane in this experiment would so be 75 % .

B ) If the tartaric acid used with 75 % optically pure aminoalkane was itself merely 95 % pure than the maximal optical pureness of the amine sample would be 86.6 % .

vitamin D + cubic decimeter = 100 %

d – cubic decimeter = 95 %

2d = 195 % & A ; agrave ; d = 97.5 % ; l = 2.5 %

Since the 97.5 % refers merely to when 95 % pure tartaric acid is concerned, it has to be multiplied by 75 % in order to besides take into history the optically pure aminoalkane.

vitamin D + cubic decimeter = 100 %

d – cubic decimeter = 73.1 %

2d = 173.1 % & A ; agrave ; d = 86.6 % ; l = 13.45 %

It can be inferred that the maximal output of optically pure aminoalkane in this experiment would so be 86.6 % .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *