50-50 Conversion Of Fluorene To Fluorenone
Conclusion:
¬¬The goal of the first part of this experiment was to achieve a 50-50 conversion of fluorene to Fluorenone. In order to achieve the goal of the experiment fluorene was oxidized to Fluorenone. The hydroxide ions from the sodium hydroxide in the presence of Stark’s catalyst would be able to de-protonate the acidic fluorene protons. This would result in the formation of a carbanion which attacks the oxygen from the air resulting in the formation of a hydroperoxide and eventually a ketone (after removal of water). Since the goal was to have a mixture of 50% fluorene conversion, Thin Layer Chromatography (TLC) was carried out several times to assess the rate of the reaction. In order to separate the aqueous composites from the solution …show more content…
The TLC plate remained blank showing proof of no compound other than the hexane itself. This error was expected since in the first part of the experiment, oxidation of fluoreneto Fluorenone was supposed to be done to a 50-50 level. As mentioned earlier, the oxidation had carried out longer than expected and hence the sample contained little or none of the fluorene. Thus, no value of Rf were obtained for the fluorenein the experiment. When the solvent was switched to MTBE, the Fluorenone was removed almost instantly. The Rf, for the last the slide that contained Fluorenone was 0.11 and 0.21 which falls within the range as earlier, indicating that the product obtained was indeed the ketone expected. To ensure the claim, melting point of the sample was taken. The melting point for the sample was 85°C which is very close to the theoretical melting point of Fluorenone which is about 83 °C. Since the melting point was off by about 1.5°C it is assumed that some sources of error was obtained in the experiment. Since there was very little of the alkene in the sample, and none of it eluded out, it may have been stuck in the stationary phase. Hence when the ketone passed through the stationary phase it may have gotten contaminated leading to the error. Also all of the MTBE may not have evaporated out leading to some scope of error in the melting point of the product. There may have been some human error in determining the exact temperature at which the product began
¬¬The goal of the first part of this experiment was to achieve a 50-50 conversion of fluorene to Fluorenone. In order to achieve the goal of the experiment fluorene was oxidized to Fluorenone. The hydroxide ions from the sodium hydroxide in the presence of Stark’s catalyst would be able to de-protonate the acidic fluorene protons. This would result in the formation of a carbanion which attacks the oxygen from the air resulting in the formation of a hydroperoxide and eventually a ketone (after removal of water). Since the goal was to have a mixture of 50% fluorene conversion, Thin Layer Chromatography (TLC) was carried out several times to assess the rate of the reaction. In order to separate the aqueous composites from the solution …show more content…
The TLC plate remained blank showing proof of no compound other than the hexane itself. This error was expected since in the first part of the experiment, oxidation of fluoreneto Fluorenone was supposed to be done to a 50-50 level. As mentioned earlier, the oxidation had carried out longer than expected and hence the sample contained little or none of the fluorene. Thus, no value of Rf were obtained for the fluorenein the experiment. When the solvent was switched to MTBE, the Fluorenone was removed almost instantly. The Rf, for the last the slide that contained Fluorenone was 0.11 and 0.21 which falls within the range as earlier, indicating that the product obtained was indeed the ketone expected. To ensure the claim, melting point of the sample was taken. The melting point for the sample was 85°C which is very close to the theoretical melting point of Fluorenone which is about 83 °C. Since the melting point was off by about 1.5°C it is assumed that some sources of error was obtained in the experiment. Since there was very little of the alkene in the sample, and none of it eluded out, it may have been stuck in the stationary phase. Hence when the ketone passed through the stationary phase it may have gotten contaminated leading to the error. Also all of the MTBE may not have evaporated out leading to some scope of error in the melting point of the product. There may have been some human error in determining the exact temperature at which the product began