Skip to main content
. 2023 Nov 20;13(48):33566–33587. doi: 10.1039/d3ra06560j

Comparison of mesalamine/GPTMS@SiO2@Fe3O4 with selected processes reported in the literature for the tandem Knoevenagel–Michael cyclocondensation.

Entry Catalyst Reaction conditions Time (min or h)/yield (%)
1 CeCl3·7H2O (10 mol%) EtOH : H2O (4 : 2)/reflux 1–2.5 h/70–93%45
2 Fe3O4@GA@IG (20 mg) EtOH/reflux 15–110 min/78–92%46
3 EDA/(CH2)3@SiO2@Fe3O4 (0.05 g) Grinding/r.t. 10–25 min/89–97%47
4 NH4H2PO4/Al2O3 (0.03 g) EtOH/reflux 5–60 min/45–92%48
5 NiFe2O4@SiO2@H14[NaP5W30O110] (0.02 g) EtOH/ultrasonic/r.t. 5–15 min/81–94%49
6 NiFe2O4@SiO2@H14[NaP5W30O110] (0.02 g) EtOH/reflux 15–35 min/57–80%49
7 Ag/Fe3O4@starch (15 mg) EtOH/50 °C 8–17 min/84–95%50
8 Per-6-NH2–β-CD (0.09 mmol) Solvent-free/r.t. 1–7 min/67–97%51
9 Fe3O4@NH2@TCT@HOProCu (0.01 g) EtOH/reflux 24 h/75–97%52
10 Molecular iodine (10 mol%) DMSO, reflux, Δ 3.2–4 h/80–92%53
11 Mesalamine/GPTMS@SiO2@Fe3O4 Grinding/r.t. 7–35 min/88–96%