Issues i have with this:
° i think you are attempting to form edda in situ from ethylene diamine and acetic acid? Probably works but its not worth the slightly lower yield for the minimal time saved.
° amino acid catalysts produce far better yields for henrys (1)
° WHAT EVEN IS THAT REDUCTION OF A NITROALKENE LMAOOOOO




makes no sense even in just grammatical terms


° nbs bromination is superior even bromination with bromine has always worked out better for me than hbr (anecdotal however check both the hive and the vesp)
° Wtf is Et3N? im assuming triethylamine? what the fuck is that doing there lmao yeah it just doesnt need that X3(2)
° 30mins to 3hrs? yeah 1.5hr is perfect(3)
° This seems to literally just be scaled up without testing (although i somehow doubt op has any chem experience so i dont blame them) but this is a rather simple synthesis easily available online as either ralf hiems stuff, or the journal of chilean chemical society.
° WAY WAY too fucking much ethylene diamine assuming a density of 0.9g per ml 200ml = 180g which = 2.995 moles assuming a 75% yield of EDDA in situ (hopeful thinking considering rhodium supposedly got that separately) we would achieve roughly 2.2 moles which is enough for 22moles subbed aldehyde
° Some of my favourite quotes from here include :
"Extraction and distilled"
"500 g yellow oil (propane)"
ā240 g base yellow oil."
You should also note that salicylaldehyde is acceptable for instead producing NBOHs an easier to find precursor being found naturally too (meadowsweet) (it can also be prepared through reimer tiemann like 2-methoxy but have you ever tried one? They fucking suck bad yield dirty reaction)p
bai bai yall ^w^ <3 :3
(1)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10562-022-04228-4
(2)
https://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0717-97072014000300022 and page 233 of ralf hiems experimental
(3) page 233 of ralph hiems experimental (ss attached)