
==== Front
RSC Adv
RSC Adv
RA
RSCACL
RSC Advances
2046-2069
The Royal Society of Chemistry

d4ra04146a
10.1039/d4ra04146a
Chemistry
Efficient synthesis of amides from secondary alcohols and CH3CN promoted by Fe(NO3)3·9H2O†
† Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available. See DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/d4ra04146a

Li Han a‡
Wang Xiaodan ac‡
Li Wenhao a‡
Wang Xinmei a
Cheng Ruijing a
He Danfeng a
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2704-5108
Xu Huanjun a
Li Yiying b
Wang Jinhui ac
a School of Science, Qiongtai Normal University Haikou 571127 China hedanfeng@mail.qtnu.edu.cn
15798946232@163.com

b College of Basic Medicine and Life Sciences, Hainan Medical University Haikou China liyiying_hy@163.com

c Department of Medicinal Chemistry and Natural Medicine Chemistry, College of Pharmacy, Harbin Medical University Harbin China
‡ These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship.

18 9 2024
12 9 2024
18 9 2024
14 40 2958829594
6 6 2024
26 8 2024
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry
2024
The Royal Society of Chemistry
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 3.0 Unported Licence. You can use material from this article in other publications without requesting further permissions from the RSC, provided that the correct acknowledgement is given and it is not used for commercial purposes.
The Ritter reaction is the most attractive method for synthesizing amides, and various acids have been used to promote this reaction. Compared to these acids, Fe(NO3)3·9H2O is less toxic and costly, and it shows relatively high Lewis acidity and great catalytic activity. In this study, a simple and efficient protocol involving Fe(NO3)3·9H2O as an additive for the synthesis of amides was developed. Various secondary alcohols could be reacted with CH3CN to obtain their corresponding products, with CH3CN being used as a reactant and solvent. This protocol was found to be applicable to a wide range of alcohols and nitrile substrates. In general, it was found that substrates containing electron-donating-groups offered the corresponding amides in good to excellent yields, while those with electron-withdrawing groups offered low to moderate yields. Meanwhile, this approach was scalable to the gram level, offering an attractive opportunity for further application in organic synthesis.

An efficient, green and convenient protocol for synthesizing amides from secondary alcohols using Fe(NO3)3·9H2O as the mediator, with CH3CN as the N-source and solvent. This approach was scalable to the gram level.

National Natural Science Foundation of China 10.13039/501100001809 22165009 Natural Science Foundation of Hainan Province 10.13039/501100004761 821QN260 521MS0786 Hainan Association for Science and Technology 10.13039/501100008773 QCXM202023 National Science and Technology Major Project 10.13039/501100018537 2018ZX09735005 pubstatusPaginated Article
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

The amide group is an important functional group in medicinal and synthetic chemistry. It is used as a functional molecule in bioactive natural products, clinical drugs, organic catalysts, DNA damage probes, and macromolecules.1 The conventional protocol to form amide bonds involves acylation of amines by various species such as carboxylic acids, acid chlorides, and anhydrides.2 There are alternative protocols to prepare amides, such as the Schmidt reaction,3 Schotten–Baumann reaction,4 Ugi reaction5 and Ritter reaction.6 Among these, the Ritter reaction is the most attractive method and involves the reaction of a nitrile with an alcohol or olefin promoted by a strong acid, like sulfuric acid.7 The major drawback of the traditional Ritter reaction is that it is promoted under harsh conditions with a strong Brønsted acid or a Lewis acid, which results in a narrow substrate scope and side reactions. To avoid the need of using a strong mineral acid, various homogeneous and heterogeneous catalysts have been developed.8 A variety of acidic reagents have been developed for the Ritter reaction from secondary alcohols, such as FeCl3/AgSbF6,8a Ca(OTf)2/Bu4NPF6,8b BiBr3,8c zirconium perfluorooctanesulfonate,8d FeClO4/SiO2,8e γ-Fe2O3@SiO2–HClO4,8f 2,4-dinitrobenzenesulfonic acid,8g tropylium,8h MWCNT-CSP,8i AmberlystⓇ-15(H),8j TfOH,8k I2,8l and PMA-SiO2 (ref. 8m) (Table 1). However, many of these catalysts suffer from at least one of the following or other issues: being corrosive, moisture-sensitive, flammable, expensive, complex to use, and difficult to prepare; requiring extended reaction times; and yielding competing side reactions.

Reaction conditions in previous reports on 1-phenylpropanol with CH3CN

Entry	Additive	Reaction conditions	Yield/%	Reference	
1	FeCl3 (25 mol%), AgSbF6 (75 mol%)	DCE, 100 °C	87	8a	
2	Ca(OTf)2 (5 mol%), Bu4NPF6 (5 mol%)	5 min, MW, 120 °C	94	8b	
3	BiBr3 (10 mol%)	H2O (30 μL mmol−1), 48 h, 120 °C	86	8c	
4	Bis(pentamethylcyclopentadienyl) zirconium-perfluorooctanesulfonate (5 mol%)	Solvent-free or DCE, 6 h, 80 °C	88	8d	
5	γ-Fe2O3@SiO2–HClO4 (12.5 mmol%), and 2.5 mol% of HClO4	4 h, RT	96	8e	
6	SiO2-supported FeClO4 (100 mol%)	5 min, 100 °C	95	8f	
7	2,4-Dinitrobenzenesulfonic acid (10 mol%)	14 h, 80 °C	82	8g	
8	Tropylium (10 mol%)	Water, 150 °C, MW	92	8h	
9	MWCNT-CSP (50 mg)	24 h, 100 °C	75	8i	
10	AmberlystⓇ-15(H) (5 g)	4.5 h, 80 °C	88	8j	
11	TfOH (20 mol%), SDS (10 mol%)	Water, 200 °C, 5 h	82	8k	
12	I2 (20%)	H2O (2 eq.), 110 °C, 4 h	85	8l	
13	Phosphomolybdic acid-SiO2 (0.5 mol%)	70 °C, 5.5 h	86	8m	
14	Fe(NO 3 ) 3 ·9H 2 O (100 mol%)	3 h, 80 °C	98.8	This work	

Recently, iron catalysis has been considered as an alternative not only because of its lower toxicity and cost compared to other metals but also because its useful properties that have been utilized in many transformations.9 Iron-catalyzed C–C,10 C–N11 and C–O12 bond-forming reactions have recently been developed. In 2009, Sébastien Reymond reported that FeCl3·6H2O (10 mmol%) could catalyze the reaction of alcohol with nitrile to form amide in a sealed tube at 150 °C with H2O (2 equiv.).13 In 2012, Basavaprabhu and Sureshbabu described the reaction of cyanamide with alcohol catalyzed by FeCl3 (30 mol%) in dichloromethane.14 Further, an efficient and mild methodology was reported for the synthesis of amides through the reaction of nitriles with esters catalyzed by Fe(ClO4)3·H2O.15

Fe(NO3)3·9H2O, in particular, displays several advantageous features. It shows relatively high Lewis acidity and great catalytic activity, and it is an inexpensive, non-toxic and readily available inorganic oxidant; it has been used as an efficient oxidant,16 nitro source17 and catalyst in cross-coupling reactions.18 Meanwhile, in 2009, Jonathan M. J. Williams reported that Fe(NO3)3·9H2O could catalyze the formation of amides via the addition of amines to nitriles.19 Thus, we proposed that Fe(NO3)3·9H2O might have the potential to induce the Ritter reaction for alcohols and nitriles. Compared with the previous reports of reactions with other additives, this study shows that the synthesis of amides from secondary alcohols and CH3CN proceeded at a relatively low temperature (80 °C) and short time (3 h) with Fe(NO3)3·9H2O as the additive, giving the corresponding products in high to excellent yields for substrates containing electron-donating groups and low to moderate yields for substrates containing electron-withdrawing groups. In addition, this protocol was readily scaled up to 0.5 grams without loss in its efficiency.

Results and discussion

In our initial studies, we chose to compare the performances of various loadings of Fe(NO3)3·9H2O for the reaction of 1-phenylethanol (0.5 mmol) in 3 mL CH3CN. Amide was formed in 89.4%, 98.8%, and 94.6% GC yield for catalyst loading of, respectively, 0.375 mmol, 0.5 mmol and 0.625 mmol at 80 °C with a reaction time of 3 h (Table 2, entries 1–3). That is, loading too much or too little catalyst resulted in a lower yield of product (Tables 2 and S1†). Then we modified the reaction temperature; compared to that at 80 °C, a sharply lower yield occurred at 65 °C. We also tested other ferric salts; FeBr3 offered a low yield and FeCl3 offered a similar level of catalytic activity as did Fe(NO3)3·9H2O (Table 2, entries 7–8). Other types of metallic nitrates were also tested. Some other nitrates could convert 1-phenylethanol to amide. For example, when using Cr(NO3)3·9H2O as the additive, amide was produced but with a yield of 69.2%, which is lower than the yield obtained when Fe(NO3)3·9H2O is used as the additive (Table 2, entry 9). Similarly, Ce(NO3)3·6H2O and Cu((NO3)3·2.5H2O successfully converted the 1-phenylethanol to amide but their catalytic performance was significantly decreased (Table 2, entries 10, 12). Co(NO3)3·6H2O and Cd(NO)3·9H2O showed no catalytic activity (Table 2, entries 11, 13). The order of activity of the different tested nitrates was Fe(NO3)3·9H2O > Cr(NO3)3·9H2O > Ce(NO3)3·6H2O > Cu((NO3)3·2.5H2O > Co(NO3)3·6H2O ≈ Cd(NO)3·9H2O. We tested the reaction under either an O2 or N2 atmosphere; it proceeded smoothly in each case (Table 2, entries 14–15). Overall, Fe(NO3)3·9H2O was found to be the best additive, and the best reaction conditions involved carrying out the reaction at 80 °C for 3 h with 100 mol% Fe(NO3)3·9H2O in open air.

Optimization of reaction conditionsa

	
Entry	Catalyst (mmol)	T/oC	Time (h)	Yield (%)	
1	Fe(NO3)3·9H2O(0.375)	80	3 h	89.4	
2	Fe(NO 3 ) 3 ·9H 2 O (0.5)	80	3 h	98.8/96.2b	
3	Fe(NO3)3·9H2O (0.625)	80	3 h	94.6	
4	Fe(NO3)3·9H2O (0.5)	65	3 h	71.9	
5	Fe(NO3)3·9H2O (0.5)	80	2h	81.7	
6	Fe(NO3)3·9H2O(0.5)	80	4 h	95.3	
7	FeBr3 (0.5)	80	3 h	74.7	
8	FeCl3 (0.5)	80	3 h	98.3	
9	Cr(NO3)3·9H2O (0.5)	80	3 h	69.2	
10	Ce(NO3)3·6H2O (0.5)	80	3 h	39.7	
11	Co(NO3)3·6H2O (0.5)	80	3 h	NR	
12	Cu((NO3)3.2.5H2O (0.5)	80	3 h	19.1	
13	Cd(NO)3·9H2O (0.5)	80	3 h	NR	
14	Fe(NO3)3·9H2O(0.5)	80	3h	93.5c	
15	Fe(NO3)3·9H2O (0.5)	80	3 h	94.3d	
a Conditions: substrate (0.5 mmol), CH3CN (3 mL), GC yield.

b Isolated yield.

c Under O2.

d Under N2.

With the standard conditions in hand, we then turned our attention to expanding the scope of this protocol, initially investigating the reaction of various types of secondary alcohols with CH3CN. In general, it was found 1-phenylethanol, having an electron-donating group, offered the corresponding amides in good to excellent yields, while having an electron-withdrawing group offered low to moderate yields.

Analogues with different lengths of the alkyl group at the β-position of the methyl group were successfully transformed to the corresponding products with good to excellent yields (Table 3, entries 1–3). The results also showed that the length of alkyl group did not show any obvious effect on the reaction: that is, when increasing the alkyl-group length, the yield of corresponding product did not show an apparent decrease (Table 3, entries 1–3). 1,2,3,4-Tetrahydronaphthalen-1-ol, i.e., the substrate with a cyclic substituent, offered an 85.7% yield of the desired product (Table 3, entry 4).

Ritter reaction of various secondary alcohols with CH3CN using Fe(NO3)3·9H2O as an additivea

	
Entry	Substrate	Product/yield	
1			
2			
3			
4			
5			
6			
7			
8			
9			
10			
11			
12			
13			
14			
15			
16			
17			
18			
19			
20			
21			
22			
23			
24			
a Conditions: substrate (0.5 mmol), Fe(NO3)3·9H2O (0.5 mmol), CH3CN (3 mL), 80 °C, 3 h, isolated yield.

b 65 °C, GC yield.

c Substrate (4.1 mmol), Fe(NO3)3·9H2O (4.1 mol), CH3CN (15 mL), 80 °C, 3 h, isolated yield.

Meanwhile, steric hindrance did apparently affect the reaction: 2-methyl-1-phenylpropanol, with a sterically hindering group, was transformed into the desired product in a relatively low yield (87.5%, Table 3, entry 5); the yield when using 2-phenyl-2-propanol was even lower (77.1%, Table 3, entry 6) due to an even stronger steric hindrance effect. For the analogue with another type of substituent at the position β to the methyl group, the Fe(NO3)3·9H2O-catalyzed Ritter reaction led to the expected amide in low yield (Table 3, entry 7).

Our results show that reactions with secondary alcohols having strongly electron-donating groups should be carried out at a lower temperature. We observed relatively low product yields when reacting 1-(4-methoxyphenyl) ethanol, 1-(3-methoxyphenyl) ethanol, and 1-(2-methoxyphenyl) ethanol as substrates under the standard conditions (Table 3, entries 8–10), with some unwanted side reactions having occurred. When this transformation was carried out at 65 °C, the desired product was obtained in a satisfactory yield (Table S2†). This result was similar to that for one-pot synthesis of amides catalyzed by Zn(ClO4)2·6H2O.20 For the substrates substituted with aromatic groups, the yields of the desired amides were more than 90%. The substrates 1-(2-naphthyl) ethanol, 1-(1-naphthyl) ethanol and 1-(4-biphenylyl) ethanol were converted to their corresponding products with high yields of 97.3%, 90.2% and 95.6%, respectively (Table 3, entries 11–13). The improved reactivities for these substrates may be attributed to the electron-donating effect of the phenyl group linked to the aryl ring.

Reactions of the substrates each with a weakly electron-donating group on the phenyl ring also gave the corresponding products in excellent yields (Table 3, entries 14–16). The results of –OCH3– and –CH3– substituted substrates (Table 3, entries 9 and 15) show that the substituted group in the adjacent position might have decreased the reactivity to some extent, owing to the steric hindrance effect.

For the two tested electron-withdrawing-group-containing substrates, markedly decreased yields of the desired products were observed; a lower yield was noted for the more strongly electron-withdrawing group (Table 3, entries 17–18), which is attributed to the reduction of electron density on the reactive site of the substrate.

We further tested this protocol with diaryl secondary alcohols, and a similar trend as above was observed: the substrates each with an electron-donating group offered the corresponding amides in good to excellent yields, while the electron-withdrawing group offered low to moderate yields. As shown in Table 3, the diaryl secondary alcohol 1,1-diphenylmethanol could be transformed to the amide in a high yield (90.1%). The product yield for the diaryl secondary alcohol with a methoxyl group on one side of the substrate was also high when using a lower reaction temperature (Table 3, entry 19). Meanwhile, moderate product yields were found when using a substrate with a weakly electron-withdrawing group (–Cl) on one side and when with this group was on both sides (Table 3, entries 21–22). However, for the strongly electron-withdrawing group (–CF3), the according product was offered in a low yield (Table 3, entry 23, 17.4%). Furthermore, we checked whether this approach could be scaled up to a gram scale: a 94.6% isolated yield of corresponding amide was easily prepared in one batch from 0.5 g of 1-phenylethanol when using Fe(NO3)3·9H2O as an additive under standard conditions.

Encouraged by the developed protocol for synthesizing amides from various secondary alcohols with CH3CN, the scope of the reaction was extended to other types of liquid nitriles. The results, summarized in Table 4, showed that this protocol is suitable to other types of liquid nitriles. Specifically, we initiated this aspect of our study by performing the catalytic acetylation of the representative substrate, 1-phenylethanol, using five liquid nitriles as the solvent and reactant. A good range of functional groups was tolerated in this reaction protocol, including a double bond between carbons (Table 4, entry 1), halide (Table 4, entry 4) and ether bond (Table 4, entry 5). Meanwhile, a nitrile substrate containing an N-heterocyclic system, namely pyridine, did not survive our reaction conditions, giving the hydrolysis product to some extent (picolinamide).

Ritter reaction of 1-phenylethanol with various nitriles using Fe(NO3)3·9H2O as an additive a

	
Entry	Nitrile	Product/yield	
1			
2			
3			
4			
5			
a Conditions: substrate (0.5 mmol), Fe(NO3)3·9H2O (0.5 mmol.), nitrile (3 mL), 80 °C, 3 h, isolated yield.

Based on our results, a possible albeit speculative mechanism for the formation of the amides was derived and is shown in Scheme 1. According to this mechanism, 1-phenylethanol can be polarized by Fe(NO3)3 to generate the benzylic carbocation B. Then, B would be trapped by MeCN to produce intermediate C, which would further hydrolyse to the amide with H2O.

Scheme 1 Possible mechanism for the formation of the amides.

Conclusions

We developed an efficient, green and convenient protocol for synthesizing amides from secondary alcohols using Fe(NO3)3·9H2O as the mediator, with CH3CN as the N-source and solvent. In this process, various alcohols were successfully reacted with CH3CN to form the corresponding products. Here, substrates with electron-donating group offered the corresponding amides in good to excellent yields, while those with electron-withdrawing groups offered low to moderate yields. Additionally, the reaction proceeded smoothly when other types of liquid nitriles were used as the solvent and reactant. More importantly, this protocol is also applicable to gram-scale synthesis. We are hopeful that this methodology will be very useful in works involving organic synthesis in general and the Ritter reaction specifically.

Data availability

The author confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article [and/or] its ESI.†

Author contributions

Conceptualization, Huanjun Xu and Yiying Li; methodology, Han Li, Xiaodan Wang, and Wenhao Li; formal analysis, Xinmei Wang and Danfeng He; investigation, Han Li, Xiaodan Wang, and Wenhao Li; resources, Yiying Li, Huanjun Xu and Jinhui Wang; writing – original draft preparation, Xiaodan Wang and Ruijing Cheng; writing – review and editing, Huanjun Xu and Jinhui Wang; supervision, Yiying Li and Huanjun Xu; project administration, Huanjun Xu; funding acquisition, Yiying Li, Huanjun Xu, Jinhui Wang and Ruijing Cheng. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts to declare.

Supplementary Material

RA-014-D4RA04146A-s001

This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (22165009), the Hainan Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (821QN260, 521MS0786), the Project of Hainan Association for Science and Technology of Youth Science and Talents (QCXM202023), National Science and Technology Major Project of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (2018ZX09735005), and the Scientific Research Project of Qiongtai Normal University (qtnb202101, qtnb202104).
==== Refs
Notes and references

(a) Petchey M. R. Grogan G. Adv. Synth. Catal. 2019 361 389
(b) Feng C. L. Yin G.-B. Yan B. Chen J. Q. Ji M. Chem. Pap. 2019 73 345
(c) Santos A. S. Silva A. M. S. Marques M. M. B. Eur. J. Org Chem. 2020 17 2501
Valeur E. Bradley M. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2009 38 606 19169468
(a) Ribelin T. Katz C. E. English D. G. Smith S. Manukyan A. K. Day V. W. Neuenswander B. Poutsma J. L. Aube J. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2008 47 6233
(b) Lang S. Murphy J. A. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2006 35 146 16444296
(a) Saxo E. Bertozzi C. Z. Science 2000 287 2007 10720325
(b) Gololobov Y. G. Kasukhin L. F. Tetrahedron 1992 48 1353
(a) Wamser R. Zhang X. Kuropka B. Arkona C. Rademann J. Chem. Eur. J. 2024 30 e202303940 38246870
(b) Feng Q. Zhu J. Wang M. Tong S. Org. Lett. 2020 22 483 31880461
(c) Zeng L. Sajiki H. Cui S. Org. Lett. 2019 21 5269 31247803
Jiang D. He T. Ma L. Wang Z. Y. RSC Adv. 2014 4 64936
(a) Emelen K. V. De Wit T. Hoornaert G. J. Compernolle F. Org. Lett. 2000 2 3083 11009351
(b) Ma ertens F. Van den Bogaert A. Compernolle F. Hoornaert G. J. Eur. J. Org Chem. 2004 22 4648
(a) Jefferies L. R. Cook S. P. Tetrahedron 2014 70 4204
(b) Yaragorla S. Singh G. Saini P. L. Reddy M. K. Tetrahedron Lett. 2014 55 4657
(c) Ueno M. Kusaka R. Ohmura S. D. Miyoshi N. Eur. J. Org Chem. 2019 8 1796
(d) Khaksar S. Fattahi E. Fattahi E. Tetrahedron Lett. 2011 52 5943
(e) Salehi P. Motlagh A. R. Synth. Commun. 2000 30 671
(f) Mamani L. Heydari A. Sheykhan M. Appl. Catal., A 2010 384 122
(g) Sanz R. Martínez A. Guilarte V. Álvarez-Gutiérrez J. M. Rodríguez F. Eur. J. Org Chem. 2007 28 4642
(h) Doan S. H. Hussein M. A. Nguyen T. V. Chem. Commun. 2021 57 8901
(i) Pereira J. R. Corvo M. C. Peixoto A. F. Aguiar-Ricardo A. Marques M. M. B. ChemCatChem 2023 15 e202201318
(j) Nandy S. Das A. K. Bhar S. Synth. Commun. 2020 50 3326
(k) Jiang S. Wang Z. Jiang Z. Li J. Zhou S. Pu L. Lett. Org. Chem. 2012 9 24
(l) Theerthagiri P. Lalitha A. Arunachalam P. N. Tetrahedron Lett. 2010 51 2813
(m) Yadav J. S. Subba Reddy B. V. Pandurangam T. Jayasudan Reddy Y. Gupta M. K. Catal. Commun. 2008 9 1297
Rana S. Biswas J. Paul S. a Paik A. Maiti D. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2021 50 243 33399140
Xiang S. Zhang L. Jiao N. Chem. Commun. 2009 45 6487
Singh R. Sathish E. Gupta A. K. Goyal S. Tetrahedron 2021 100 132474
Niharika P. Ramulu B. V. Satyanarayana G. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2014 12 4347 24840306
Anxionnat B. Guérinot A. Reymond S. Cossy J. Tetrahedron Lett. 2011 52 5943
Basavaprabhu H. Sureshbabu V. V. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2012 10 2528 22362268
Ji M. Feng C. Yan B. Yin G. Chen J. Synlett 2018 29 2257
(a) Monir K. Bagdi A. K. Ghosh M. Hajra A. Org. Lett. 2014 16 4630 25140881
(b) Xu S. Wu J. Huang P. Lao C. Front. Chem. 2020 8 151 32266207
(a) Matt C. Kölblin F. Streuff J. Org. Lett. 2019 21 6909 31433655
(b) Zheng Y. Hu Q. Huang Q. Xie Y. Org. Lett. 2024 26 3316 38598253
(c) Gao Y. Mao Y. Zhang B. Zhan Y. Huo Y. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2018 16 3881 29745962
(a) Qin S. Luo Y. Sun Y. Tian L. Jiang S. Yan J. Yang G. Tetrahedron Lett. 2019 43 152267
(b) Zhang Z. Ma Y. Dai S. Li L. Zhang Y. Li H. Tetrahedron Lett. 2020 21 151885
Allen C. L. Lapkin A. A. Williams J. M. J. Tetrahedron Lett. 2009 50 4262
Feng C. Yan B. Yao W. Chen J. Ji M. ChemistrySelect 2018 3 11775
