Skip to main content
RSC Advances logoLink to RSC Advances
. 2021 Sep 1;11(47):29130–29155. doi: 10.1039/d1ra04887b

A review on convenient synthesis of substituted coumarins using reuseable solid acid catalysts

Susheel Gulati 1,, Rajvir Singh 1, Suman Sangwan 1
PMCID: PMC9040916  PMID: 35479580

Abstract

Due to growing concern about chemicals and their impact on the environment, cleaner reaction conditions are needed to be incorporated into chemical synthetic procedures. Recently, the use of heteropolyacid catalysts, mainly reuseable solid acid catalysts, has gained a leading role in organic synthesis due to their environmental and economic considerations and industrial utilization. The high catalytic activity, moisture sensitivity, reusability and inexpensive makes solid supported reagents attractive substituents to conventional Lewis acids. Nowadays synthesis of coumarins and their derivatives has attracted considerable attention from organic and medicinal chemists for many years as a large number of natural products contain this heterocyclic nucleus. In continuation with our investigations into the synthesis of substituted coumarins and due to several advantages of heterogeneous catalysts viz. cost-effective, no side products, high yield of desired products and no toxic waste material, here we report a new approach for the synthesis of substituted coumarins using solid acid catalysts.


Due to growing concern about chemicals and their impact on the environment, cleaner reaction conditions are needed to be incorporated into chemical synthetic procedures.graphic file with name d1ra04887b-ga.jpg

Introduction

Coumarins as a major class of natural and synthetic products exhibit a variety of pharmacological and biological activities.1–3 There is growing curiosity for coumarins and their derivatives due to their anti-HIV, anti-oxidant, anti-fungal, antihelmintic and antibacterial properties.4–8 They are used in food and cosmetic industries as additive and also found applications as insecticides, optical brighteners, fluorescent and laser dyes.9–13 Masesane et al.14 reported the synthesis of chromane derivatives through the reaction of salicylaldehyde and enolates and they found that reactions of salicylaldehyde and enolates give nearly optically pure chromane derivatives. Coumarins can also be prepared by various methods viz. Pechmann condensation, Perkin, Knoevenagel and Reformatsky reactions.15 Pechmann condensation has been most popularly method for coumarin synthesis, since it proceeds from simple substrate viz. phenol and β-ketoester and gives excellent yields of coumarins. Pechmann condensation utilizes various catalysts viz. sulphuric acid, trifluoroacetic acid, phosphorous pentaoxide, ZrCl4, TiCl4 and ionic liquids, which have many drawbacks such as long reaction time, use of hazardous solvents, creates side products and salt waste due to acid neutralization.16 There has been some effort to find alternative, eco-friendly synthetic methods. Nowadays, the use of heterogeneous solid acid catalysts has fascinated significant attention. These catalysts have some advantages such as ease of product work-up, recyclability, strong safety and tolerance for wide range of temperature and pressures.17–21 Naikwadi and his coworkers22 reported the catalytic reaction of active methylene compounds with cyclic enol ethers and aryl acetals through oxonium intermediate under solvent-free conditions using heterogeneous solid acid catalysts and they found that Amberlyst-15 gave excellent yields of alkylated products. Therefore, there is a propensity to replace the classic homogeneous catalysts by heterogeneous solid acid catalysts. Due to several benefits of heterogeneous catalysts, in this review we encapsulate synthesis of substituted coumarins using solid acid catalyst.

Synthesis of substituted coumarins using solid acid catalysts

An efficient and facile synthesis of novel class of coumarin-containing secondary benzamide derivatives (4) has been developed via one-pot condensation of 5,7-dihydroxy coumarins (1), substituted aldehydes (2) and benzamide (3) using tungstate sulphuric acid by Karami and his coworkers (Scheme 1).23 To standardize the reaction conditions, a reaction between 5,7-dihydroxy-4-methylcoumarin, benzaldehyde and benzamide were chosen as a model reaction. The model reaction was screened under various conditions. After conducting several experiments, they found that the desired reaction took place efficiently using 1 mol% of tungstate sulphuric acid (TSA) at 120 °C under solvent-free conditions. The proposed mechanism of the formation of desired products is shown in Fig. 1. According to proposed mechanism, first there is formation of adduct (I) by the condensation reaction of substituted aldehyde and benzamide in the presence of TSA as an efficient proton source. Then C-8 of coumarin attacks on adduct (I) and gives intermediate (II). Finally by tautomerization desired product obtained. They also found that tungstate sulphuric acid is reuseable heterogeneous catalyst, which make this procedure mild, convenient and eco-friendly. Simplicity of procedure, use of safe and recyclable catalysts, high yields and short reaction times are some beauties of present methodology.

Scheme 1. TSA-catalyzed synthesis of coumarin-containing secondary benzamides.

Scheme 1

Fig. 1. Possible mechanism for synthesis of coumarin-containing secondary benzamides.

Fig. 1

Khaligh et al. found that poly(4-vinylpyridinium) hydrogen sulfate solid acid was efficient catalyst for the synthesis of substituted coumarins (7)via Pechmann condensation reaction between substituted phenols (5) and β-ketoester (6) using ultrasound irradiation at ambient temperature. Simplicity in operation, avoid use of toxic catalysts and solvents, excellent yield of desired products, reuse of catalyst are some merits of present methodology. First they standardized the reaction conditions by exploring model reaction between resorcinol and ethylacetoacetate (Scheme 2)24 in presence of different solvents viz. toluene, methanol, ethanol and dichloromethane under reflux reaction conditions as well as solvent-free medium at variety of temperature with PVPHS as the catalyst. The results are presented in Table 1.

Scheme 2. The synthesis of substituted coumarins in presence PVPHS at room temperature under ultrasound irradiation and solvent-free conditions.

Scheme 2

Effect of temperature, solvent, amount of catalyst on the synthesis of substituted coumarins.

Entry Amount of catalyst (mg) Temperature (°C) Solvent Time (min) Yield (%)
1 60 Clean 360 Nil
2 10 Reflux C6H5CH3 60 72
3 10 Reflux CH3OH 60 66
4 10 Reflux C2H5OH 60 68
5 10 Reflux CH2Cl2 60 70
6 10 60 Clean 60 88
7 10 70 Clean 60 92
8 10 80 Clean 60 94
9 5 70 Clean 60 69

From Table 1 it was observed that resorcinol conversion increased with increase in temperature up to 80 °C. There was no significant difference in conversion between 70 and 80 °C (Table 1, entries 6–8). The yield of desired product decreased with decreasing of catalyst amount (Table 1, entry 9) and no reaction took place in the absence of catalyst after 6 h of reaction time (Table 1, entry 1).

Further, they also observed that PVPHS employed under ultrasonic irradiation showed a more effective catalytic activity in comparison with the stirring at room temperature in terms of yield and reaction time (Table 2, entries 2 and 3).

Reaction of resorcinol and ethylacetoacetate in the presence of different amount of PVPHS.

Entry Amount of catalyst (mg) Room temperature Ultrasonic irradiation
Time (h) Yield (%) Time (min) Yield (%)
1 6 Trace 60 44
2 5 2 32 15 86
3 10 2 48 5 96

The plausible mechanism for the synthesis of substituted coumarins in the presence of 7-hydroxy-4-methylcoumarin in the presence of PVPHS as a promoter under ultrasound irradiation is shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. Proposed mechanism for Pechmann reaction of resorcinol with ethyl acetoacetate at room temperature under ultrasonic irradiation.

Fig. 2

Akbari et al. reported the synthesis of bis-coumarin (9) in excellent yield via reaction between substituted aldehydes (2) and 4-hydroxycoumarin (8) in water under microwave irradiation in the presence of Fe3O4@sulfosalicylic acid magnetic nanoparticles as solid acid catalyst (Scheme 3).25 Less reaction time, excellent yields of desired products, avoid the use of hazardous or toxic reagent and solvents, thermal durability, easy separation and high reusability are main attractive characteristics of current methodology. First, they explored the model reaction between benzaldehyde and 4-hydroxycoumarin and studied the effect of different reaction conditions. The results are summarized in Table 3. The results show that the highest yield and lowest time of reaction were obtained when the reaction was performed in the presence of 0.05 g of sulfosalicylic acid magnetic nanoparticles under microwave irradiation at 180 W in water as green solvent (Table 3, entry 9).

Scheme 3. Synthesis of bis-coumarin derivatives in Fe3O4 @sulfosalicylic acid MNPs as catalyst under microwave irradiation in water.

Scheme 3

Optimization of the model reaction.

Entry Catalyst (g) Power Time (min) Yield (%)
1 Sulfosalicylic acid (0.01) 180 15 75
2 FeCl3·6H2O (0.05) 180 15 43
3 Bulk-Fe3O4 (0.05) 180 15 50
4 Nano-Fe3O4 (0.05) 180 15 68
5 Fe3O4@sulfosalicylic acid (0.03) 180 20 89
6 Fe3O4@sulfosalicylic acid (0.03) 300 10 92
7 Fe3O4@sulfosalicylic acid (0.05) 100 10 89
8 Fe3O4@sulfosalicylic acid (0.05) 180 10 96
9 Fe3O4@sulfosalicylic acid (0.08) 180 10 96
10 Fe3O4@sulfosalicylic acid (0.015) 180 10 80
11 180 20 30

The possible reaction mechanism for the synthesis of bis-coumarin via Knoevenagel condensation is depicted in Fig. 3. First there is activation of substituted aldehyde by the acid catalyst and after that activated aldehyde react with 4-hydroxycoumarin to give an α,β-unsaturated intermediate. Then, there is Michael addition of the 4-hydroxycoumarin with an α,β-unsaturated intermediate to give the final polyhydroquinoline product. Finally, a tautomeric proton shift produces the desired product. Table 4 presented the results from the synthesis of bis-coumarin by reaction of benzaldehyde and 4 hydroxycoumarin in the presence of Fe3O4@sulfosalicylic acid magnetic nanoparticles which has been compared with the other methods reported in literature. The results show that the present method is preferable because of its reaction times and efficiency.

Fig. 3. Proposed mechanism for the synthesis of biscoumarin derivatives in the presence of Fe3O4@sulfosalicylic acid magnetic nanoparticles.

Fig. 3

Comparison of efficiency of present catalyst with other catalysts reported in literature.

Entry Catalyst/condition Time (min) Yield References
1 Ionic liquids, reflux 260 84 26
2 Choline hydroxide, reflux 240 86 27
3 No catalyst/trifluoroethanol, reflux 360 80 28
4 Fe 3 O 4 @sulfosalicylic acid/H 2 O, M W 10 96 25

Samiei et al. reported the green synthesis coumarin derivatives (7)via Pechmann condensation reaction between substituted phenols (5) and β-ketoesters (6) in excellent yield under solvent-free conditions in presence of novel sulfonated carbon-coated magnetic nanoparticles (Scheme 4).29

Scheme 4. Synthesis of substituted coumarins.

Scheme 4

For optimization of reaction conditions, first the model reaction was explored between resorcinol and ethyl acetoacetate to produce 7-hydroxy-4-methylcoumarin. The reaction was also optimized with respect to various parameters viz. catalyst loading, different temperatures and various solvents as shown in Table 5. It was observed from Table 5 that lack of catalyst and also with a catalyst loading of Fe3O4 NPs, CCMNPs (Fe3O4@C) led to no product even after 6 h, while the use of SCCMNPs (Fe3O4@C@OSO3H) could produce related 4H-coumarin in a good yield during the short time. Hence, SCCMNP with the sulfonic acid moiety on the surface of MNP was introduced as an effective catalyst in the Pechmann condensation. They also found that 6.5 mol% catalyst loading was identified as an optimized concentration in the model reaction at 120 °C under solvent-free condition.

The effect of various solvents, temperature and catalyst loadings for the synthesis of substituted coumarins through Pechmann condensation.

Entry Catalyst loading Solvent T (°C) Time (min) Yield (%)
1 120 360 No reaction
2 Fe3O4 NPs (6.5 mol%) 120 360 No reaction
3 CCMNPs (Fe3O4@C) (6.5 mol%) 120 360 No reaction
4 SCCMNPs (Fe3O4@C@OSO3H) (3.25 mol%) 120 30 86
5 SCCMNPs (Fe 3 O 4 @C@OSO 3 H) (6.5 mol%) 120 20 98
6 SCCMNPs (Fe3O4@C@OSO3H) (13 mol%) 120 20 98
7 SCCMNPs (Fe3O4@C@OSO3H) (6.5 mol%) 100 30 87
8 SCCMNPs (Fe3O4@C@OSO3H) (6.5 mol%) 90 40 83
9 SCCMNPs (Fe3O4@C@OSO3H) (6.5 mol%) H2O Reflux 360 Trace
10 SCCMNPs (Fe3O4@C@OSO3H) (6.5 mol%) Toluene Reflux 360 No reaction
11 SCCMNPs (Fe3O4@C@OSO3H) (6.5 mol%) CH2Cl2 Reflux 360 No reaction
12 SCCMNPs (Fe3O4@C@OSO3H) (6.5 mol%) EtOH Reflux 360 No reaction
13 SCCMNPs (Fe3O4@C@OSO3H) (6.5 mol%) CH3CN Reflux 360 No reaction

The comparison of catalytic activity of present catalyst with other catalysts reported in literature was shown in Table 6.

Comparison of activity of some heterogeneous solid acid catalysts for the synthesis of substituted coumarins.

Entry Catalyst Catalyst (mol%) T (°C) Time (min) Yield (%) References
1 Fe3O4-DABCO 1 100 40 93 30
2 γ-Fe3O4@HAp–Ag 10 80 20 95 31
3 Fe3O4@SiO2@PrSO3H 2 130 25 96 32
4 CMK-15-SO3H 3 130 20 95 33
5 Random pore carbon-SO3H 7 130 60 90 34
6 Fe3O4@SiO2@EtSO3H 75 90 90 93 35
7 SnClx–SiO2 5 120 35 90 36
8 SBA-15-Ph-Pr–SO3H 7 130 60 90 36
9 ZrW2 20 12 120 94 37
10 SnW2 20 120 120 88 37
11 Nanosponge MFI zeolite 0.5 130 120 94 38
12 TiZnO 10 110 180 85 39
13 Fe3O4@Boehmite–NH2–CoII 6.6 90 30 95 40
14 SCCMNPs 6.5 120 20 98 29

Khan and his coworkers reported the synthesis of coumarins (7)via Pechmann condensation reaction between substituted phenols (5) and β-ketoesters (6) in presence of zirconia-based heterogeneous catalyst (Scheme 5).41 First of all model reaction was carried out between resorcinol and ethyl acetoacetate without a catalyst at 80 °C, but there will be no formation of product as shown in Table 7. They also observed that excellent yield of product was obtained when electron releasing group linked with substituted phenols, while poor yield of product was obtained when electron withdrawing group linked with substituted phenols. They also studied reaction between resorcinol and ethyl acetoacetate with 50 mg of the catalyst ZrO2–TiO2 in polar solvent viz. ethanol and non-polar solvent viz. toluene by varying the temperature condition as shown in Table 8. The plausible mechanism for the reaction is depicted in Fig. 4.

Scheme 5. Synthesis of substituted coumarins.

Scheme 5

The reaction for synthesis of substituted coumarins in solvent-free condition at room temperature.

Entry Reactant Catalyst Temperature (°C) Time (min) %Yield
1 Resorcinol + ethylacetoacetate ZrO2–TiO2 RT 180 97
2 Resorcinol + ethylacetoacetate ZrO2–ZnO RT 240 63
3 Resorcinol + ethylacetoacetate ZrO2/cellulose RT 180 Nil
4 Catechol + ethylacetoacetate ZrO2–TiO2 80 240 55
5 o-Nitrophenol + ethylacetoacetate ZrO2–TiO2 80 240 Nil
6 Resorcinol + ethylacetoacetate Without catalyst 80 240 Nil

Comparison of efficiency ZrO2–TiO2 with reported catalysts.

Entry Catalyst Time (min) Temperature (°C) Solvent Yield References
1 Zeolite BEA 240 130 PhNO2 63 42
2 PFPAT 180 110 Toluene 90 43
3 MFRH 50 80 Solvent-free 65 43
4 Nanoreactors 60 130 Solvent-free 30 43
5 CMK-5-SO3H 20 130 Solvent-free 95 44
6 CMK-5 60 130 Solvent-free 10 44
7 ZrO 2 –TiO 2 180 RT Solvent-free 97 41
8 ZrO 2 –TiO 2 110 60 Toluene 95 41
9 ZrO 2 –TiO 2 150 60 Ethanol 92 41

Fig. 4. Plausible mechanism for the synthesis of substituted coumarins in presence of zirconia-based heterogeneous catalyst.

Fig. 4

Kumbar and his coworkers developed efficient and facile methodology for synthesis of class of chromeno-3-substituted derivatives (10a–10l) in excellent yields in presence of solid-supported heterogeneous silica sulphuric acid as a reuseable catalyst (Scheme 6).45

Scheme 6. Synthesis of novel coumarin Schiff bases in presence of silica sulphuric acid as reuseable catalyst.

Scheme 6

They found that use of silica sulphuric acid as catalyst provide good to excellent yields of desired products as shown in Table 9. The reaction was also optimized with respect to polar protic and aprotic solvents viz. acetonitrile, ethanol, DMF, dioxane, THF and DMSO as summarized in Table 10. The plausible mechanism of reaction was presented in Fig. 5. First there is nucleophilic attack of aniline on the carbonyl carbon of coumarin. Then in next step protonation occurs from silica sulphuric acid, forming itself as a nucleophile in the reaction mixture. Then nucleophilic SSA abstracts protons from nitrogen and gains stability by the formation of double bond between C and N and subsequent dehydration give desired product.

Physical and analytical data of synthesized coumarin derivatives.

Products R Yield (%) Time (min) Melting point (°C)
10a H 78 180 165–167
10b p-Cl 62 210 193–195
10c p-Br 61 190 182–184
10d p-OH 67 195 198–200
10e p-OCH3 62 210 205–208
10f p-CH3 71 240 202–204
10g 2,6-Dimethyl 58 220 188–190
10h m-Cl 68 210 197–200
10i m-Br 69 190 178–181
10j m-OH 62 195 184–186
10k m-OCH3 59 200 208–210
10l m-CH3 73 225 212–214

Optimization of reaction conditions.

Entry Solvent SSA Time (h) Temperature (°C) Yield (%)
1 Acetonitrile 1.0 4 25 35
2 Ethanol 1.0 3 25 78
3 DMF 1.0 12 25 Nil
4 Dioxane 1.0 6 25 38
5 THF 1.0 12 25 Trace
6 DMSO 1.0 12 25 Nil
7 Acetone 1.0 12 25 Nil
8 Acetonitrile 2.0 12 40 42
9 Ethanol 0.0 12 25 Nil
10 Ethanol Silica 12 25 45

Fig. 5. Proposed reaction pathway for the synthesis of substituted coumarins.

Fig. 5

Moghaddam and Hoda designed magnetic graphene oxide coated with cysteic acid as an efficient and reuseable catalyst for the synthesis of 4H-chromene derivatives (13)via one-pot multicomponent reaction between enolizable compound (11), malononitrile (12), substituted aldehydes (2) or isatin and a mixture of water–ethanol as a green solvent (Scheme 7).46 Excellent yield of desired products, less reaction time, mild reaction conditions and eco-friendly approach are some merits of present methodology.

Scheme 7. One-pot three-component reaction of enolizable compound, active methylene nitriles, and aldehydes catalyzed by MNPs·GO–CysA in water : ethanol.

Scheme 7

An efficient and facile method for the one-pot synthesis of dihydropyrano[3,2-c]chromene derivatives (14) have been reported via reaction between substituted aldehydes (2), 4-hydroxycoumarin (8) and malononitrile (12) in presence of poly(4-vinyl-pyridine) as a cheap, efficient and recyclable catalyst (Scheme 8). They also reported the synthesis of biscoumarin derivatives (9)via one-pot reaction between substituted aldehydes (2) and 4-hydroxycoumarin (8) in presence of same catalyst (Scheme 9).47

Scheme 8. Synthesis of dihydropyrano[3,2-c] chromene derivatives.

Scheme 8

Scheme 9. Synthesis of biscoumarin derivatives.

Scheme 9

To optimize the reaction conditions, a model reaction was explored between 4-chlorobenzaldehyde, malononitrile and 4-hydroxycoumarin in presence of different concentration of P4VPy. The effect of different solvents viz. CH3CN, CH2Cl2, H2O and EtOH and temperature in the synthesis of dihydropyrano[3,2-c] chromene derivatives in the presence of P4VPy summarized in Table 11. They found that best result was obtained using 20 mg of P4VPy at 70 °C in a mixture of H2O and ethanol. They also observed that aldehydes containing electron-withdrawing as well as electron-donating groups such as Cl, Br, CH3, OCH3, NO2 and OH in the ortho, meta and para positions can be easily converted to the corresponding dihydropyrano[3,2-c] chromenes in less reaction times with excellent yield.

The effect of different reaction conditions for the synthesis of dihydropyrano[3,2-c] chromene derivatives in the presence of P4VPy.

Entry Catalyst (mg) Solvent Temperature (°C) Time (min) Yield (%)
1 No solvent RT 120 Nil
2 No solvent 100 120 Nil
3 20 CH3CN RT 120 Nil
4 20 CH3CN Reflux 120 Mixture of products
5 20 CH2Cl2 RT 120 Nil
6 20 CH2Cl2 Reflux 120 Mixture of products
7 20 H2O 90 180 50
8 24 H2O 90 120 50
9 24 EtOH RT 150 60
10 20 EtOH 50 120 60
11 20 EtOH 70 120 60
12 20 H2O/EtOH 70 5 95
13 24 H2O/EtOH 70 5 95

After most favourable results of P4VPy in the synthesis of dihydropyrano[3,2-c]chromene derivatives, they were interested to study the efficiency of this polymeric reagent in the synthesis of biscoumarins. For standardization of reaction conditions, first model reaction was carried out between 4-chlorobenzaldehyde and 4-hydroxycoumarin in the presence of P4VPy at different reaction conditions as shown in Table 12. They observed that best reaction conditions for the synthesis of the biscoumarin derivatives are use of 20 mg of the P4VPy in water at 90 °C. They also found that aldehydes containing electron-withdrawing or electron donating substituents converting to desired products in less time. The plausible mechanism for the synthesis of substituted pyrazoles given in Fig. 6. The comparison of catalytic activity and reaction conditions of present catalyst P4VPy for the synthesis of dihydropyrano[3,2-c]chromene derivatives and biscoumarin derivatives are summarized in Table 13 and Table 14. This comparison shows disadvantages of the other procedures such as long reaction times, toxic reagents, high temperature, organic solvents, excess reagents and low yields.

Optimization of the reaction conditions for the synthesis of biscoumarin derivatives catalyzed by P4VPy.

Entry Catalyst (mg) Solvent Temperature (°C) Time (min) Yield (%)
1 No solvent RT 120 Nil
2 No solvent 100 120 Nil
3 20 CH3CN RT 120 Nil
4 20 CH3CN Reflux 120 Mixture of products
5 20 CH2Cl2 RT 120 Nil
6 20 CH2Cl2 Reflux 120 Mixture of products
7 20 EtOH RT 120 30
8 20 EtOH Reflux 120 60
9 10 H2O RT 90 40
10 15 H2O RT 90 50
11 20 H2O RT 90 75
12 20 H2O 90 5 96
13 24 H2O/EtOH 90 5 96

Fig. 6. Proposed mechanism for the synthesis of dihydropyrano[3,2-c]chromene and biscoumarin derivatives in the presence of P4VPy as catalyst.

Fig. 6

Comparison of different catalysts for the synthesis of dihydropyrano[3,2-c]chromene derivatives.

Entry Catalyst (mol%) Reaction conditions Time (min) Yield (%) References
1 SDS Water/60 °C 150 88 48
2 Nano ZnO Ethanol reflux 90 49 49
3 Nano Al(OH)3 Ethanol reflux 120 48 49
4 DAHP Ethanol–H2O/25 °C 240 85 50
5 (S)-proline Ethanol–H2O/100 °C 180 78 50
6 Nano Al2O3 Ethanol reflux 120 71 51
7 P 4 VPy Ethanol–H 2 O/70 °C 5 95 47

Comparison of different catalysts used for the synthesis of biscoumarins.

Entry Catalyst (mol%) Reaction conditions Time (min) Yield (%) References
1 SDS Water/60 °C 150 93 48
2 [bmim]BF4 Solvent-free/60–70 °C 150 91 52
3 I2 H2O/100 °C 27 93 53
4 CHOH Solvent-free/50 °C 120 99 54
5 [P4VPy-BuSO3H]Cl–X(AlCl3) Toluene/90 °C 36 93 55
6 PSA Solvent-free/100 °C 240 96 56
7 Piperidine EtOH/r.t 240 96 57
8 P 4 VPy H 2 O/90 °C 5 96 47

An efficient, green and inexpensive synthesis of benzylpyrazolyl coumarin (16) by one-pot multicomponent condensation of hydrazine hydrate or phenyl hydrazine (15), β-ketoester (6), substituted aldehydes (2) and 4-hydroxycoumarin (8) in the presence of Amberlite IR-120 as a catalyst in an aqueous medium has been reported by Katariya and his coworkers (Scheme 10).58

Scheme 10. General scheme for the synthesis of benzlypyrazolyl coumarin.

Scheme 10

Kaur et al. reported the synthesis of 3,3′-(arylmethylene)bis(4-hydroxy-2H-chromen-2-ones) via one-pot reaction between substituted aldehydes (2) and 4-hydroxy coumarin (8) catalyzed by camphor sulfonic acid (Scheme 11).59 Mild reaction conditions, use of metal-free organocatalyst, excellent yields of desired products, high atom economy, eco-friendly, easy isolation of products and no need of column chromatography are some merits of present methodology. To standardize the reaction conditions they conducted a model reaction between 4-methylbenzaldehyde and 4-hydroxycoumarin. Firstly, they explored the reaction in the absence of catalyst as well as solvent at room temperature and they observed that trace amount of yield was obtained after 24 h. Then under catalyst-free conditions, the same reaction was give 22% yield of desired product in ethanol. After getting the poor yields of desired product, they were interested to check the catalytic activity of camphor sulfonic acid as catalyst for this reaction. They observed that 20 mol% of camphor sulfonic acid in aqueous ethanol (1 : 1 v/v) at room temperature came out as the best suitable conditions for the synthesis of desired product in terms of reaction time as well as product yield as summarized in Table 15.

Scheme 11. Reported protocols for the synthesis of biscoumarin.

Scheme 11

Standardization of reaction conditions for the synthesis of 3,3′-(arylmethylene)bis(4-hydroxy-2H-chromen-2-ones).

Entry Catalyst (mol%) Solvent Time (h) Yield (%)
1 No catalyst Solvent-free 24 Nil
2 No catalyst EtOH 6 22
3 Camphor sulfonic acid (20 mol%) EtOH 6 78
4 Camphor sulfonic acid (20 mol%) MeOH 6 72
5 Camphor sulfonic acid (20 mol%) H2O 6 61
6 Camphor sulfonic acid (20 mol%) EtOH:H2O (1:1 v/v) 2 94
7 Camphor sulfonic acid (15 mol%) EtOH : H2O (1 : 1 v/v) 2 86
8 Camphor sulfonic acid (20 mol%) EtOH : H2O (1 : 1 v/v) 2 94

The plausible mechanism for the synthesis of 3,3-(arylmethylene)-bis(4-hydroxy-2H-chromen-2-ones) is shown in Fig. 7. According to the mechanism, firstly camphor sulfonic acid activate the carbonyl group of aldehydes which enhance the attack from C-3 position of 4-hydroxycoumarin and generate the Knoevenagel intermediate. Then second molecule of 4-hydroxycoumarin attack on Knoevenagel intermediate followed by enolisation gives the desired product in excellent yield.

Fig. 7. Proposed mechanism for the synthesis of biscoumarin catalyzed by camphor sulfonic acid.

Fig. 7

A novel heterogeneous catalytic method was developed for the synthesis of coumarin (7)via reaction between β-ketoesters (6) and substituted phenols (5) in presence of Zn0.925Ti0.075O as catalyst by Jadhav and his coworkers (Scheme 12).60 They also observed that this shows recycle activity up to seven cycles with very good stability. Firstly, they standardized the reaction conditions in order to verify the role of catalyst by conducting a model reaction between phloroglucinol and ethylacetoacetate under solvent-free conditions and the results are summarized in Table 16. They observed that Zn0.925Ti0.075O is best catalyst for optimization studies in the synthesis of coumarin by Pechmann condensation. The various solvents effect viz. DCM, ethylacetate, acetonitrile, water, ethanol, toluene and DMF also studied for optimizing the reaction conditions during the synthesis of coumarin and the results are summarized in Table 17. They conclude that solvent-free conditions and temperature 110 °C was suitable for the synthesis of desired products under the optimized reaction conditions. The effect of catalyst concentration was studied on model reaction and the results are presented in Table 18. They found that 10 mol% Zn0.925Ti0.075O catalyst was the most optimal for Pechmann condensation of ethylacetoacetate and phloroglucinol.

Scheme 12. Coumarin synthesis by Pechmann condensation.

Scheme 12

Catalytic screening for synthesis of substituted coumarin by Pechmann condensation reaction.

Entry Catalyst Time (h) Yield (%)
1 No catalyst 24 Nil
2 ZnO 5 Nil
3 Zn0.975Ti0.025O 3 37
4 Zn0.950Ti0.050O 4 60
5 Zn 0.925 Ti 0.075 O 3 88
6 Zn0.900Ti0.100O 3 88

Solvent screening for synthesis of substituted coumarin by Pechmann condensation reaction.

Entry Solvent Temperature (°C) Time (h) Yield (%)
1 DCM 40 8 24
2 Ethyl acetate 78 8 16
3 Acetonitrile 80 8 37
4 Water 100 5 41
5 Ethanol 78 5 63
6 Toluene 110 10 Nil
7 DMF 150 10 Nil
8 Solvent-free 110 3 88
9 Solvent-free 90 5 61
10 Solvent-free 130 3 80

Effect of catalyst concentration for synthesis of substituted coumarin by Pechmann condensation reaction.

Entry Catalyst amount (mol%) Time (h) Yield (%)
1 5 5 67
2 10 3 88
3 15 3 88

The reaction pathway for the synthesis of coumarin through Pechmann condensation is represented in Fig. 8. Initially, reaction proceeds with the nucleophilic attack of the hydroxyl group of phloroglucinol on the activated ethylacetoacetate, resulting in the formation of intermediate. The formed intermediate rapidly undergoes cyclization through Lewis acid-catalyzed intramolecular condensation and followed by removal of water molecule give desired products.

Fig. 8. Plausible mechanism for Pechmann condensation using EAA and phloroglucinol promoted by Zn0.925Ti0.075O NPs.

Fig. 8

A magnetic nanocatalyst of Fe3O4@SiO2–ZnCl2 has been used for the synthesis of coumarin derivatives (7)via Pechmann condensation reaction of substituted phenols (5) and β-ketoesters (6) in excellent yield under solvent-free conditions by Rahimi and Soleimani (Scheme 13).61 The advantages of this method are straightforward, easy work-up, catalyst reuseability and leading to excellent yields.

Scheme 13. Direct synthesis of coumarin derivatives.

Scheme 13

Carrillo and his coworkers reported the synthesis of substituted coumarins (7)via one-pot reaction between substituted phenols (5) and β-ketoesters (6) in presence of propylsulfonic acid supported in FDU-5 (FDU-5-Pr–SO3H) as a catalyst (Scheme 14).62 The catalytic activity of FDU-5-Pr–SO3H for the synthesis of substituted coumarins under optimized conditions was compared with other organic and inorganic catalysts summarized in Table 19.

Scheme 14. Synthesis of coumarin derivatives via Pechmann condensation of phenols with β-keto-ester catalyzed by FDU-5-Pr–SO3H.

Scheme 14

Comparison of different catalysts used for the synthesis of substituted coumarins.

Catalyst Catalyst amount (mol%) Reaction time (min) Temperature (°C) Yield (%) References
FDU-5 1.65 120 130 NR 62
FDU-5-Pr–SO3H 1.65 60 130 97 62
MCM-41–10SO3H 3.6 120 120 99 63
SBA-15–10SO3H 2.0 120 120 88 63
C@TiO2–SO3–SbCl2 100.0 35 120 94 64
m-ZrP 2.0 240 160 76 65
SiO2–SnCl3 5.0 35 120 64 66
FeCl3 (ultrasound) 10.0 20 100 97 67
Fe3O4@SiO2@Et-PhSO3H 0.3 120 120 93 68
CMK-5-SO3H 3.0 130 130 95 69
SBA-15-Ph-Pr–SO3H 7.0 130 130 90 70
p-TsOH 7.0 130 130 65 70
Zr-TMS-BSA-10 10 wt% 150 150 81.4 71

Saffarian et al. reported the synthesis of coumarin containing 1,4-dihydropyridines (18)via condensation reaction between substituted aldehydes (2), 4-hydroxycoumarin (8) and ammonium acetate (17) under solvent-free conditions (Scheme 15).72 Simple protocol, simplicity of product isolation using water, decrease the temperature of reaction, reduce the use of hazardous solvents, excellent yield of products, eco-friendly conditions and less reaction times are some beauties of present methodology. Firstly, to optimize the reaction conditions they conducted a model reaction between 4-methyl benzaldehyde, 4-hydroxycoumarin and ammonium acetate. They observed that 10 mg of the Fe3O4@SiO2@(CH2)3–urea–quinoline sulfonic acid chloride at 80 °C under solvent free conditions supplied the best results as presented in Table 20. They performed the model reaction also in the presence of related intermediates of the Fe3O4@SiO2@(CH2)3–urea–quinoline sulfonic acid chloride at 80 °C under solvent free conditions for 20 min and results are summarized in Table 21.

Scheme 15. Catalytic synthesis of coumarin containing 1,4-DHPs.

Scheme 15

Optimization of reaction conditions.

Entry Solvent Temperature (°C) Catalyst (mg) Time (min) Yield (%)
1 90 90 30
2 90 5 30 80
3 90 10 20 86
4 90 15 20 85
5 100 10 20 81
6 80 10 20 85
7 60 10 30 70
8 H2O Reflux 10 30 85
9 EtOH Reflux 10 45 70
10 EtOAc Reflux 10 90 20
11 CH2Cl2 Reflux 10 90 Nil
12 n-Hexane Reflux 10 90 Nil

Screening the model reaction in the presence of desired catalyst.

Entry Catalyst Yield (%)
1 Fe3O4 40
2 Fe3O4@SiO2 40
3 Fe3O4@SiO2@(CH2)3–urea–quinoline 65
4 Fe 3 O 4 @SiO 2 @(CH 2 ) 3 ureaquinoline sulfonic acid chloride 85

A suitable protocol for synthesis of coumarins derivatives (7) was reported by Bouasla and his coworkers via one-pot reaction between substituted phenols (5) and β-ketoesters (6) in presence of heterogeneous solid acid catalyst viz. Amberlyst-15 in solvent-free medium under microwave irradiation (Scheme 16).73 Initially, they conducted a model reaction between resorcinol and ethylacetoacetate as model substrate. They observed that by changing the reaction time from 5 min to 20 min, a maximum yield of 97% was obtained and no reaction was observed in absence of catalyst as summarized in Table 22. The plausible mechanism for the reaction is shown in Fig. 9.

Scheme 16. Pechmann reaction of resorcinol with ethylacetoacetate to produce 7-hydroxy-4-methylcoumarin.

Scheme 16

Condensation reaction of resorcinol with ethyl acetoacetate using various heterogeneous solid acids catalysts.

Catalyst Acidity Yield (%)
Amberlyst-15 4.30 97
H-β 1.01 21
TS–OS–SO3H 1.24 44

Fig. 9. A plausible mechanism for the Pechmann condensation of phenol and ethylacetoacetate in presence of Amberlyst-15.

Fig. 9

An efficient method for the synthesis of 3-carboxycoumarins (20) was reported via Knoevenagel condensation reaction between substituted aldehydes (2) and Meldrum's acid (19) in presence of polymeric magnetic nanocatalyst by Maleki et al. (Scheme 17).74 This method has many advantages such as less reaction time, high yield and easy isolation of catalyst. The plausible mechanism for the reaction is shown in Fig. 10.

Scheme 17. Synthesis of substituted coumarins.

Scheme 17

Fig. 10. Proposed mechanism for the synthesis of 3-carboxy coumarins in presence of polymeric magnetic nanocatalyst.

Fig. 10

Suryawanshi and his coworkers reported the synthesis of coumarins (7)via Pechmann condensation reaction between substituted phenols (5) and β-ketoesters (6) in presence of reuseable polymeric SO3H-functionalized cation exchange resins viz. Amberlite IR-120, Dowex 50, X-8100 and Tulsion T-42 (Scheme 18).75 Excellent yield of products, short reaction time, easy work-up and use of safe catalyst are some advantages of present methodology.

Scheme 18. The Pechmann condensation between resorcinol and ethyl acetoacetate catalyzed by different cation exchange resins.

Scheme 18

Rostami and Zare reported the synthesis of substituted coumarins (7)via one-pot reaction between substituted phenols (5) and β-ketoesters (6) in presence of carbonized sugarcane bagasse (CSCB) as a new and efficient solid acid catalyst (Scheme 19).76 Simple preparation of catalyst, safe handling, inexpensive, excellent yield of products, catalyst reuseability, solvent-free and easy work-up are some benefits of present methodology. Initially, model reaction was considered between 3-hydroxyphenol and ethylacetoacetate and the effect of different solvents, temperature and amount of catalyst was investigated and results were summarized in Table 23. The plausible mechanism for the reaction is shown in Fig. 11.

Scheme 19. Synthesis of substituted coumarins.

Scheme 19

Optimization of reaction conditions for AHS@CSCB catalyzed Pechmann condensation between 1,3 dihydroxy phenol and ethyl acetoacetate.

Entry Concentration of catalyst (mg) Solvent Temperature (°C) Time (min) Yield (%)
1 None H2O Reflux 120 0
2 30 H2O Reflux 60 50
3 30 EtOH Reflux 40 80
4 30 Solvent-free 80 15 91
5 30 Solvent-free 70 30 89
6 30 Solvent-free 120 120 26
7 20 Solvent-free 15 15 92
8 10 Solvent-free 5 5 92

Fig. 11. Plausible mechanism for the synthesis of coumarins, biscoumarins and benzoxanthenes in the presence of AHS@CSCB.

Fig. 11

Sun and his coworkers reported the synthesis of substituted coumarins (7)via Pechmann condensation reaction between substituted phenols (5) and β-ketoesters (6) catalyzed from Wells–Dawson heteropolyacid (H6P2W18O62). This work provides a novel, cheaper and safer way to synthesize coumarins unsubstituted on the pyranic nucleus (Scheme 20).77 Initially, they optimized the reaction conditions by exploring a model reaction between 2-methyl-3-hydroxy-phenol and ethyl 3, 3-diethoxypropionate. The effect of the temperature and reaction time were investigated and results were summarized in Table 24. The comparison of efficiencies of various catalysts used in the synthesis of 7-hydroxy-8-methylcoumarin was summarized in Table 25. The plausible mechanism for the reaction is shown in Fig. 12.

Scheme 20. Synthesis of substituted coumarins.

Scheme 20

Optimization of Pechmann condensation reaction for the synthesis of 7-hydroxy-8-methylcoumarin.

Entry Catalyst concentration Temperature (°C) Time (h) Yield (%)
1 0.10 100 3 75
2 0.25 100 3 87
3 0.50 100 3 86
4 1.00 100 3 84
5 0.25 80 3 74
6 0.25 90 3 90
7 0.25 90 2 72
8 0.25 90 4 89
9 0.25 90 3 84
10 0.25 90 3 90
11 0.25 90 3 95
12 0.25 90 3 95

Synthesis of 7-hydroxy-8-methylcoumarin mediated by different catalysts.

Entry Catalyst Time (h) Yield (%)
1 MeSO3H 3 20
2 MeSO3H/basic Al2O3 3 30
3 MeSO3H/neutral Al2O3 3 34
4 MeSO3H/acidic Al2O3 3 80
5 Acidic Al2O3 3 30
6 Al2O3 2 10
7 AlCl3/MeSO3H 2 12
8 ZnCl3/MeSO3H 2 5
9 Cu(CH3CN)4PF6 2 10
10 H6P2W18O62 2 82
11 FeCl3 3 8
12 TiCl4 3 5

Fig. 12. Possible mechanism for the synthesis of coumarins catalyzed from Wells–Dawson heteropolyacid (H6P2W18O62).

Fig. 12

An efficient and facile synthesis of coumarins (7) was reported in excellent yields via Pechmann condensation reaction between substituted phenols (5) and β-ketoesters (6) under solvent-free medium using both conventional method and microwave irradiation in less reaction times in presence of cellulose sulfuric acid by Kuram et al. (Scheme 21).78 The efficiency of the cellulose sulfuric acid compared with other catalysts is summarized in Table 26. It was found that cellulose sulfuric acid is a more efficient and superior catalyst over other acidic catalysts with respect to reaction time and yield.

Scheme 21. Synthesis of coumarins by using cellulose sulfuric acid as a solid acid catalyst.

Scheme 21

Comparison of efficiency of cellulose sulfuric acid with reported catalysts.

Entry Catalyst Yield (%)
1 Cellulose sulfuric acid 97
2 Silica sulfuric acid 92
3 p-Toluene sulfonic acid 85
4 Sulfuric acid in acetic acid 55
5 No catalyst 15

Palaniappan and John et al. reported the synthesis of substituted coumarins (7)via one-pot reaction between substituted phenols (5) and β-ketoesters (6) in presence of novel polyaniline–fluoroboric acid–dodecylhydrogensulfate (PANI–HBF4–DHS) as reuseable catalyst (Scheme 22).79

Scheme 22. Synthesis of substituted coumarins.

Scheme 22

Kolvari and his coworkers reported the synthesis of substituted coumarins (7)via one-pot reaction between substituted phenols (5) and β-ketoesters (6) in presence of perlite sulfonic acid (perlite-SO3H (PeSA)) as heterogeneous reuseable solid acid catalysts (Scheme 23).80 Inexpensive, ease of preparation, more stability and reusability, low toxicity and easy of handling are some advantages of present catalytic systems. To show the advantages of current protocol in comparison with reported results in literature was summarized in Table 27. They found that PeSA showed greater activity than some other than some other heterogeneous catalysts.

Scheme 23. Synthesis of substituted coumarins catalyzed by PeSA.

Scheme 23

Comparison of activity of the PeSA catalyst with some other reported catalysts.

Entry Catalyst Condition Yield (%) Time (min) References
1 PeSA 110 °C/Solvent-free 97 15 80
2 ASA 110 °C/Solvent-free 85 30 81
3 CMK-5-SO3H 110 °C/Solvent-free 95 20 82

Reddy et al. reported the synthesis of substituted coumarins (7)via Pechmann condensation reaction between substituted phenols (5) and β-ketoesters (6) in presence of W/ZrO2 solid acid catalyst (Scheme 24).83

Scheme 24. W/ZrO2 solid acid catalyzed synthesis of substituted coumarins.

Scheme 24

Kim et al. reported the synthesis of substituted coumarins (22)via condensation reaction between substituted phenols (5) and allenes (21) in the presence of TfOH as Bronsted acid catalyst in excellent yield (Scheme 25).84 The plausible mechanism for the reaction is shown in Fig. 13.

Scheme 25. TfOH-mediated preparation of coumarins.

Scheme 25

Fig. 13. Plausible mechanism for the synthesis of coumarins in the presence of TfOH as Brønsted acid catalyst.

Fig. 13

Maheswara and his coworkers synthesized substituted coumarins (7)via Pechmann condensation reaction between substituted phenols (5) and β-ketoesters (6) in presence of heterogeneous recyclable catalyst (HClO4.SiO2) under solvent-free medium (Scheme 26).85 Cost-effective, less reaction time and operational simplicity are some benefits of present methodology.

Scheme 26. Synthesis of coumarins using HClO4.SiO2 under solvent-free conditions.

Scheme 26

Kuram et al. reported the synthesis of substituted coumarins (7)via Pechmann condensation reaction between substituted phenols (5) and β-ketoesters (6) in the presence of xanthan sulfuric acid as a solid acid catalyst under solvent-free conditions (Scheme 27).86 They found that this method is very simple, inexpensive, less reaction time and catalyst could be reused. The effect of catalyst on the yield of products was summarized in Table 28. They also investigated the efficiency of the XSA compared to various sulphur analog acidic catalysts and results are summarized in Table 29.

Scheme 27. Synthesis of coumarin by xanthan sulfuric acid as a solid acid catalyst.

Scheme 27

Effect of catalysts on yield of synthesis of substituted coumarins.

Entry Catalyst Quantity Yield (%)
1 Xanthan sulfuric acid 0.08 g 96
2 Silica sulfuric acid 0.08 g 92
3 Methane sulfonic acid 0.1 mmol 86
4 Sulfuric acid in acetic acid 0.1 mmol 56
5 No catalyst None 10

Influence of the catalytic amounts of xanthan sulfuric acid for synthesis of substituted coumarins.

Entry Catalyst (g) Time (min) Yield (%)
1 None 60 Nil
2 0.01 20 28
3 0.03 20 51
4 0.05 20 79
5 0.08 40 96
6 0.08 20 96

Singh and his coworkers reported the synthesis of substituted coumarins (7)via Pechmann condensation reaction between substituted phenols (6) and β-ketoesters (5) in presence of sulphamic acid (Scheme 28).87

Scheme 28. Pechmann condensation using sulphamic acid (SA) as catalyst.

Scheme 28

Bose et al. reported the synthesis of substituted coumarins (7)via Pechmann condensation reaction between substituted phenols (6) and β-ketoesters (5) in presence of indium(iii) chloride as an efficient catalyst (Scheme 29).88

Scheme 29. Synthesis of coumarins via von Pechmann condensation of phenols with β-ketoesters induced by In(iii)Cl3.

Scheme 29

An efficient and facile synthesis of substituted coumarins (7) was reported by one-pot reaction between substituted phenols (5) and β-ketoesters (6) in presence of new magnetic nanocomposites of ZrO2–Al2O3–Fe3O4 as green solid acid catalysts (Scheme 30).89

Scheme 30. Synthesis of 7-hydroxyl-4-methyl coumarin.

Scheme 30

Mesoporous zirconium phosphate (m-ZrP) is used as solid acid catalyst for the synthesis of substituted coumarins (7)via Pechmann condensation reaction between substituted phenols (5) and β-ketoesters (6) in both conventional heating as well as microwave assisted method by Sinhamahapatra and his coworkers (Scheme 31).90 The effect of solvent on reaction was summarized in Table 30.

Scheme 31. Synthesis of substituted coumarins.

Scheme 31

Effect of different solvents on Pechmann condensation reaction for synthesis of substituted coumarins.

Solvent Time (h) Temperature (°C) Yield (%)
Nitrobenzene 4 120 25
Toluene 15 120 34
Solvent-free 4 120 51
Solvent-free 4 150 76

Tahanpesar and Sarami reported the synthesis of substituted coumarins (7)via one-pot Pechmann condensation reaction between substituted phenols (5) and β-ketoesters (6) in presence of sulfonated sawdust (SD-SO3H) as solid acid catalyst under solvent-free conditions (Scheme 32).91 Further, they observed the catalytic efficiency of SD-SO3H on the yield of product and results were presented in Table 31. They also observed the effects of different solvents viz. CHCl3, CH3CN, CH2Cl2, THF, MeOH and H2O and temperature on the synthesis of desired products and results were presented in Table 32.

Scheme 32. Synthesis of coumarins catalyzed by SD-SO3H under solvent-free conditions.

Scheme 32

Effect of SD-SO3H catalyst concentration on the yield of product.

Entry Catalyst (g) Temperature (°C) Time (min) Yield (%)
1 90 120 0
2 0.025 90 120 40
3 0.05 90 75 72
4 0.075 90 120 70
5 0.10 90 120 60
6 0.15 90 120 60

Effect of solvents and temperature on the synthesis of substituted coumarins.

Entry Solvent Temperature (°C) Time (min) Yield (%)
1 90 75 72
2 CHCl3 Reflux 200 35
3 CH3CN Reflux 200 10
4 CH2Cl2 Reflux 200 20
5 THF Reflux 200 0
6 MeOH Reflux 200 0
7 H2O Reflux 200 0
8 70 120 70
9 110 25 91
10 130 25 92

The plausible mechanism for the synthesis of substituted coumarins was presented in Fig. 14. The comparison of catalytic activity of SD-SO3H with other catalyst found in literature was presented in Table 33.

Fig. 14. The plausible mechanism of formation of 7-hydroxy-4-methylcoumarin in presence of sulfonated sawdust (SD-SO3H) as solid acid catalyst.

Fig. 14

Comparison of catalytic activity of SD-SO3H with some other catalysts.

Entry Catalyst Temperature (°C) Time (min) Yield (%) References
1 SD-SO3H 110 9 98 91
2 m-ZrP 160 240 94 92
3 SCZ 120 143 87 93
4 ASA 100 30 98 94
5 CMK-5-SO3H 130 20 95 95
6 H6P2W18O62·24H2O 130 42 87 96
7 Zeolite-E4a 110 180 97 97
8 HClO4·SiO2 130 35 95 98

Conclusion and future prospects

This review article summarized the synthesis of substituted coumarins using solid acid catalysts. Benefits of these methods include clean reaction profiles, minimization of side products, efficient and facile experimental procedures and inexpensive. This review is endeavouring to find potential future directions in the development of more potent and specific analogs of nitrogen and oxygen containing heterocyclic compounds for the biological target by the use of heterogeneous catalysts. The information illustrated in this review also encourage organic chemist for the design of novel molecules to identify many more biologically active heterocycles for the benefit of humanity.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: Susheel Gulati, Rajvir Singh, Suman Sangwan, formal analysis: Susheel Gulati, Suman Sangwan, investigation: Susheel Gulati, Rajvir Singh, Suman Sangwan, supervision: Susheel Gulati, Rajvir Singh, validation: Susheel Gulati, Suman Sangwan, writing-original draft: Susheel Gulati, writing-review & editing: Susheel Gulati, Rajvir Singh, Suman Sangwan.

Conflicts of interest

Authors declared that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Abbreviations

TSA

Tungstate sulphuric acid

MW

Microwave irradiation

PVPHS

Poly(4-vinylpyridinium) hydrogen sulfate

SCCMNPs

Sulfonated carbon-coated magnetic nanoparticles

SSA

Silica sulphuric acid

XSA

Xanthan sulphuric acid

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to the Department of Chemistry, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar for providing the necessary facilities. Financial assistance from Department of Science and Technology (DST), New Delhi, India is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. He X. Shang Y. Zhou Y. Yu Z. Han G. Jin W. Chen J. Tetrahedron. 2015;71:863–868. [Google Scholar]
  2. Zhang N. Ayral-Kaloustian S. Nguyen T. Hernandez R. Lucas J. Discafani C. Beyer C. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2009;17:111–118. doi: 10.1016/j.bmc.2008.11.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. He X. Chen Y. Shi J. Tang W. Pan Z. Dong Z. Song B. Li J. Liu X. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2014;22:3732–3738. doi: 10.1016/j.bmc.2014.05.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Huang L. Yuan X. Yu D. Lee K. Chen C. Virology. 2005;332:623–628. doi: 10.1016/j.virol.2004.11.033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Borges F. Roleira F. Milhazes N. Santana L. Uriarte E. Curr. Med. Chem. 2005;12:887–916. doi: 10.2174/0929867053507315. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Abd El-Wahab H. Abd El-Fattah M. Abd El-Khalik N. Nassar H. Abdelall M. Prog. Org. Coat. 2014;77:1506–1511. [Google Scholar]
  7. Zhao G. Peng C. Du W. Wang S. Fitoterapia. 2013;89:250–256. doi: 10.1016/j.fitote.2013.06.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Smyth T. Ramachandran V. Smyth W. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents. 2009;33:421–426. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2008.10.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Razavi M. Nazemiyeh H. Delazar A. Hajiboland R. Rahman M. Gibbons S. Nahar L. Sarker S. Phytochem. Lett. 2008;1:159–162. [Google Scholar]
  10. Ballin N. Sørensen A. Food Control. 2014;38:198–203. [Google Scholar]
  11. Khaligh N. Catal. Sci. Technol. 2012;2:1633–1636. [Google Scholar]
  12. Fischer A. Cremer C. Stelzer E. H. K. Appl. Opt. 1995;34:1989–2003. doi: 10.1364/AO.34.001989. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cravotto G. Nano G. M. Palmisano G. Tagliapietra S. Tetrahedron: Asymmetry. 2001;12:707–709. [Google Scholar]
  14. Masesane I. B. Desta Z. Y. Beilstein J. Org. Chem. 2012;8:2166–2175. doi: 10.3762/bjoc.8.244. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Reddy B. M. Patil M. Lakshmanan P. J. Mol. Catal. A: Chem. 2006;256:290–294. [Google Scholar]
  16. Raju B. C. Babu T. H. Rao J. M. Indian J. Chem. B. 2009;48:120–123. [Google Scholar]
  17. Ahmed N. Siddiqui Z. J. Mol. Catal. A: Chem. 2014;387:45–56. [Google Scholar]
  18. Sharma S. Parikh P. Jasra R. Appl. Catal., A. 2010;386:34–42. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kolvari E. Koukabi N. Hosseini M. J. Mol. Catal. A: Chem. 2015;397:68–75. [Google Scholar]
  20. Ghodke S. Chudasama U. Appl. Catal., A. 2013;453:219–226. [Google Scholar]
  21. Movassagh B. Tahershamsi L. Mobaraki A. Tetrahedron Lett. 2015;56:1851–1854. [Google Scholar]
  22. Naikwadi D. R. Bankar B. D. Ravi K. Biradar A. V. Res. Chem. Intermed. 2021:1–13. doi: 10.1007/s11164-021-04499-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Karami B. Farahi M. Farmani N. Tanuraghaj H. M. New J. Chem. 2015:1–5. [Google Scholar]
  24. Khaligh N. G. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2013;20:1062–1068. doi: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2013.01.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Akbari Z. Z. Dastmalchi S. Edijlali L. Dinparast L. Es'haghi M. Appl. Organomet. Chem. 2019:1–14. [Google Scholar]
  26. Nadaf A. N. Shivashankar K. J. Heterocycl. Chem. 2018;55:1375–1381. [Google Scholar]
  27. Zhu A. Bai S. Li L. Wang M. Wang J. Catal. Lett. 2015;145:1089–1093. [Google Scholar]
  28. Zhu A. Wang M. Li L. Wang J. RSC Adv. 2015;5:73974–73979. [Google Scholar]
  29. Samiei Z. Amiri S. S. Azizi Z. Mol. Diversity. 2019:1–20. [Google Scholar]
  30. Nasseri M. A. Sadeghzadeh S. M. J. Iran. Chem. Soc. 2014;11:27–33. [Google Scholar]
  31. Abbasi Z. Rezayati S. Bagheri M. Hajinasiri R. Chin. Chem. Lett. 2017;28(1):75–82. [Google Scholar]
  32. Esfahani F. K. Zareyee D. Yousef R. ChemCatChem. 2014;6(12):3333–3337. [Google Scholar]
  33. Glendening E. D., NBO 6.0. Theoretical Chemistry Institute, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 2013 [Google Scholar]
  34. Zareyee D. Serehneh M. J. Mol. Catal. A: Chem. 2014;1:88–91. [Google Scholar]
  35. Samadizadeh M. Nouri S. Moghadam F. K. Res. Chem. Intermed. 2016;42(6):6089–6103. [Google Scholar]
  36. Sun R. Gao Y. Ma Y. Yang G. Li Y. J. Iran. Chem. Soc. 2017;14:737–742. [Google Scholar]
  37. Altass H. M. Khder A. E. R. S. React. Kinet., Mech. Catal. 2018;125(1):227–243. [Google Scholar]
  38. Mirosanloo A. Zareyee D. Khalilzadeh M. A. Appl. Organomet. Chem. 2018;32(12):e4546. [Google Scholar]
  39. Jadhav N. H. Sakate S. S. Rasal N. K. Pawar R. A. ACS Omega. 2019;4(5):8522–8527. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.9b00257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Pakdel S. Akhlaghinia B. Mohammadinezhad A. Chem. Afr. 2019;2(3):10. [Google Scholar]
  41. Khan S. A. Khan S. B. Asiri A. M. Ahmad I. Nanoscale Res. Lett. 2016;11:345. doi: 10.1186/s11671-016-1525-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Esfahani F. K. Zareyee D. Zareyee R. ChemCatChem. 2014;6(12):3333–3337. [Google Scholar]
  43. Vahabi V. Hatamjafari F. Molecules. 2014;19(9):13093–13103. doi: 10.3390/molecules190913093. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Zareyee D. Serehneh M. J. Mol. Catal. A: Chem. 2014;391:88–91. [Google Scholar]
  45. Kumbar S. S. Hosamani K. M. Gouripur G. C. Joshi S. D. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2018;5:172416. doi: 10.1098/rsos.172416. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Moghaddam F. M. Eslami M. Hoda G. Sci. Rep. 2020;10:20968. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-77872-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Nasirmahale L. N. Jolodar O. G. Shirini F. Tajik H. Polycyclic Aromat. Compd. 2021;41:199–210. [Google Scholar]
  48. Mehrabi H. Abusaidi H. J. Iran. Chem. Soc. 2010;7(4):890–894. [Google Scholar]
  49. Khurana J. M. Vij K. J. Chem. Sci. 2012;124(4):907–912. [Google Scholar]
  50. Abdolmohammadi S. Balalaie S. Tetrahedron Lett. 2007;48(18):3299–3303. [Google Scholar]
  51. Montaghami A. R. Montazeri N. Orient. J. Chem. 2014;30(3):1361–1364. [Google Scholar]
  52. Khurana J. M. Kumar S. Monatsh. Chem. 2010;141(5):561–564. [Google Scholar]
  53. Kidwai M. Bansal V. Mothsra P. Saxena S. Somvanshi R. K. Dey S. Singh T. P. J. Mol. Catal. 2007;268(1):76–81. [Google Scholar]
  54. Zhu A. Bai Sh. Li L. Wang M. Wang J. Catal. Lett. 2015;145:1089–1093. [Google Scholar]
  55. Boroujeni K. P. Ghasemi P. Catal. Commun. 2014;37:50–54. [Google Scholar]
  56. Kiasat A. Hemat-Alian L. Res. Chem. Intermed. 2015;41(2):873–880. [Google Scholar]
  57. Khan K. M. Iqbal S. Lodhi M. A. Maharvi G. M. Ullah Z. Choudhary M. I. ur Rahman A. Perveen S. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2004;12(8):1963–1968. doi: 10.1016/j.bmc.2004.01.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Katariya A. P. Deshmukh S. U. Tekale S. U. Katariya M. V. Pawar R. P. Lett. Appl. NanoBioSci. 2021;10(3):2525–2534. [Google Scholar]
  59. Kaur G. Singh D. Singh A. Banerjee B. Synth. Commun. 2020:1–14. doi: 10.1080/00397911.2020.1856877. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Jadhav N. H. Sakate S. S. Rasal N. K. Shinde D. R. Pawar R. A. ACS Omega. 2019;4:8522–8527. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.9b00257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Rahimi S. Soleimani E. Results Chem. 2020;2:1–7. [Google Scholar]
  62. Carrillo G. G. Gonzalez J. Legaspi M. J. E. Lopez G. J. L. Villarreal I. A. A. Magana S. G. C. Martinez F. J. M. Valencia R. M. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2020;307:1–10. [Google Scholar]
  63. Khder A. E. R. S. Ahmed S. A. Khairou K. S. Altass H. M. J. Porous Mater. 2018;25:1–13. [Google Scholar]
  64. Kour M. Paul S. Monatsh. Chem. 2017;148:327–337. [Google Scholar]
  65. Sinhamahapatra A. Sutradhar N. Pahari S. Bajaj H. C. Panda A. B. Appl. Catal., A. 2011;394:93–100. [Google Scholar]
  66. Sun R. Gao Y. Ma Y. Yang G. Li Y. J. Iran. Chem. Soc. 2017;14:737–742. [Google Scholar]
  67. Prousis K. C. Avlonitis N. Heropoulos G. A. Calogeropoulou T. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2014;21:937–942. doi: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2013.10.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Mobaraki A. Yasham S. Movassagh B. Synlett. 2015;26:1263–1268. [Google Scholar]
  69. Zareyee D. Serehneh M. J. Mol. Catal. A: Chem. 2014;391:88–91. [Google Scholar]
  70. Karimi B. Zareyee D. Org. Lett. 2008;10:3989–3992. doi: 10.1021/ol8013107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Selvakumar S. Chidambaram M. Singh A. P. Catal. Commun. 2007;8:777–783. [Google Scholar]
  72. Saffarian H. Karimi F. Yarie M. Zolfigol M. A. J. Mol. Struct. 2020;1224:1–12. [Google Scholar]
  73. Bouasla S. Gahete J. A. Esquivel D. Lopez M. I. Sanchidrian C. J. Teguiche M. Salguero F. J. R. Molecules. 2017;22:1–8. doi: 10.3390/molecules22122072. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Maleki A., Ravaghi P., Aghaie M. and Movahed H., http://sciforum.net/conference/ecsoc-20 [DOI] [PubMed]
  75. Suryawanshi V. D. Gore A. H. Anbhule P. V. Patil S. R. Kolekar G. B. J. Shivaji Univ. 2017;42(1):40–45. [Google Scholar]
  76. Rostami E. Zare S. H. ChemistrySelect. 2019;4:13295–13303. [Google Scholar]
  77. Sun Y. F. Liu J. M. Sun J. Haung Y. T. Lu J. Li M. M. Jin N. Dai X. F. Fan B. Molecules. 2018 doi: 10.20944/preprints201809.0349.v1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  78. Kuram B. S. Madhav J. V. Vijaya Laxmi S. Rajitha B. Thirupathi Reddy Y. Narsimha Reddy P. Crooks P. A. Synth. Commun. 2010:1770–1777. [Google Scholar]; , http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lsyc20
  79. Palaniappan S. John A. J. Mol. Catal. 2005;233:9–15. [Google Scholar]
  80. Kolvari E. Koukabi N. Hosseini M. M. J. Mol. Catal. doi: 10.1016/j.molcata.2014.10.026. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  81. Amoozadeh A. Ahmadzadeh M. Kolvari E. J. Chem. 2012;2013:1–7. [Google Scholar]
  82. Zareyee D. Serehneh M. J. Mol. Catal. A: Chem. 2014;391:88–91. [Google Scholar]
  83. Reddy B. M. Reddy V. R. Giridhar D. Synth. Commun. 2006;31(23):3603–3607. [Google Scholar]
  84. Kim S. Kang D. Lee C. H. Lee P. H. J. Org. Chem. 2012;77:6530–6537. doi: 10.1021/jo301086k. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Maheswara M. Siddaiah V. Lakishmi G. Damu V. Rao Y. K. Rao C. V. J. Mol. Catal. A: Chem. 2006;255:49–52. [Google Scholar]
  86. Kuram B. S. Madhav J. V. Rajitha B. Synth. Commun. 2011;42(12):1770–1777. [Google Scholar]
  87. Singh P. R. Singh D. U. Samant S. D. Synlett. 2004;11:909–1912. [Google Scholar]
  88. Bose D. S. Rudradas A. P. Babu M. H. Tetrahedron Lett. 2002;43:9195–9197. [Google Scholar]
  89. Wang A. Lu X. Su Z. Jing H. Catal. Sci. Technol. 2014;4:71–80. [Google Scholar]
  90. Sinhamahapatra A. Sutradhar N. Pahari S. Bajaj H. C. Panda A. B. Appl. Catal., A. 2011;394:93–100. [Google Scholar]
  91. Tahanpesar E. Sarami L. Russ. J. Gen. Chem. 2015;85(9):2135–2140. [Google Scholar]
  92. Sinhamahapatra A. Sutradhar N. Pahari S. Bajaj H. C. Panda A. B. Appl. Catal., A. 2011;394:93. [Google Scholar]
  93. Reddy B. M. Patil M. K. Lakshmanan P. J. J. Mol. Catal. A: Chem. 2006;256:290. [Google Scholar]
  94. Amoozadeh A. Ahmadzadeh M. Kolvari E. J. Chem. 2013;2013:6. [Google Scholar]
  95. Zareyee D. Serehneh M. J. J. Mol. Catal. A: Chem. 2014;391:88. [Google Scholar]
  96. Romanelli G. P. Bennardi D. Ruiz D. M. Baronetti G. Thomas H. J. Autino J. C. Tetrahedron Lett. 2004;45:8935. [Google Scholar]
  97. Hegedüs A. Hell Z. Catal. Lett. 2006;112:105. [Google Scholar]
  98. Maheswara M. Siddaiah V. Damu G. L. V. Rao Y. K. Rao C. V. J. Mol. Catal. A: Chem. 2006;255:49. [Google Scholar]

Articles from RSC Advances are provided here courtesy of Royal Society of Chemistry

RESOURCES