Skip to main content
. 2022 Jul 21;15(17):e202200362. doi: 10.1002/cssc.202200362

Table 7.

Comparative study between vibrating ball milling and solution synthesis of Z‐Ala‐Phg‐Ile‐OMe.[a,b] Adapted with permission from Ref. [115a]. Copyright 2021, American Chemical Society.

graphic file with name CSSC-15-0-g034.jpg

Entry

Reagents

T [°C]

t [min]

Yield [%]

Purity[b] [%]

LDL[b] [%]

1

EDC⋅HCl/ Oxyma

33 (33)

10 (30)

93 (88)

>99 (32)

<1 (9)

2

EDC⋅HCl/HOBt⋅H2O

34 (34)

10 (30)

90 (90)

70 (48)

25 (35)

3

EDC⋅HCl/HOAt

34 (34)

10 (30)

88 (90)

95 (59)

<1 (26)

4

DIC/HOAt

30 (31)

10 (40)

n.d. (n.d.)[c]

67 (39)

17 (33)

5

DIC/Oxyma

31 (31)

10 (40)

n.d. (n.d.)[c]

46 (<10)

<1 (n.d.)[c]

6

HATU/Et3N

34 (34)

10 (60)

85 (88)

88 (58)

1 (<1)

7

HBTU/Et3N

33 (33)

10 (20)

86 (82)

71 (55)

2 (9)

8

EDC⋅HCl/ Oxyma[d]

n.d.[c]

30

96

>99

<1

[a] Milling reactions were performed in a 5 mL polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) jar with three stainless‐steel balls (5 mm diameter) at 25 Hz. The total mass of reactants was 50 mg. The values in parentheses correspond to solution reactions. [b] LDL=undesired epimer; determined by HPLC. [c] n.d.=not determined. [d] Reaction was performed on a total mass of 250 mg of reactants in a 15 mL PTFE jar with one stainless‐steel ball (10 mm diameter) at 25 Hz for 30 min using 1.7 equiv. of EDC⋅HCl. EtOAc was used as a liquid additive instead of DMF.