A Slug Flow Platform with Multiple Process Analytics Facilitates Flexible Reaction Optimization
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Flow processing offers many opportunities to optimize reactions in a rapid and automated manner, yet often requires relatively large quantities of input materials. To combat this, the use of a flexible slug flow reactor, equipped with two analytical instruments, for low‐volume optimization experiments are reported. A Buchwald–Hartwig amination toward the drug olanzapine, with 6 independent optimizable variables, is optimized using three different automated approaches: self‐optimization, design of experiments, and kinetic modeling. These approaches are complementary and provide differing information on the reaction: pareto optimal operating points, response surface models, and mechanistic models, respectively. The results are achieved using <10% of the material that would be required for standard flow operation. Finally, a chemometric model is built utilizing automated data handling and three subsequent validation experiments demonstrate good agreement between the slug flow reactor and a standard (larger scale) flow reactor.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Innovative Microfluidic and Catalytic Techniques Innovation · Microfluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis Applications · Analytical Chemistry and Chromatography
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Center for Continuous Flow Synthesis and Processing (CC FLOW) Research Center Pharmaceutical Engineering GmbH (RCPE) Inffeldgasse 13 Graz 8010 Austria
Institute of Chemistry University of Graz NAWI Graz, Heinrichstrasse 28 Graz 8010 Austria
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc 900 Ridgebury Road Ridgefield CT 06877 USA
Funding
Österreichische Forschungsförderungsgesellschaft
References (78)
Show source-provided references
1. a)For selected reviews and examples of data‐rich experimentation in batch see:.
2. 10.1021/acs.accounts.0c0073610.1021/acs.accounts.0c00736 ↗
3. 10.1021/jo502879m10.1021/jo502879m ↗
4. 10.1126/science.abc298610.1126/science.abc2986 ↗
5. 10.1021/acs.oprd.9b0014010.1021/acs.oprd.9b00140 ↗
6. 10.1038/s42004-021-00550-x10.1038/s42004-021-00550-x ↗
7. a)For selected reviews and examples of data‐rich experimentation in flow see:.
8. 10.1021/acscentsci.2c0020710.1021/acscentsci.2c00207 ↗
9. 10.1126/science.aaf133710.1126/science.aaf1337 ↗
10. 10.1126/science.aax156610.1126/science.aax1566 ↗
11. 10.1126/science.aat065010.1126/science.aat0650 ↗
12. 10.1021/acs.accounts.6b0026110.1021/acs.accounts.6b00261 ↗
13. a)For selected applications of modeling for synthetic chemistry applications see:.
14. 10.1126/science.aar516910.1126/science.aar5169 ↗
15. 10.1021/acscentsci.1c0053510.1021/acscentsci.1c00535 ↗
16. 10.1073/pnas.211845111910.1073/pnas.2118451119 ↗
17. a)For selected reviews and examples of high throughput synthetic chemistry experimentation see:.
18. 10.1021/acs.accounts.1c0011910.1021/acs.accounts.1c00119 ↗
19. 10.1126/science.125920310.1126/science.1259203 ↗
20. 10.1021/acsomega.2c0554610.1021/acsomega.2c05546 ↗
21. a)For discussion of axial dispersion in flow chemistry see:.
22. 10.1126/science.aap911210.1126/science.aap9112 ↗
23. 10.1021/op200349f10.1021/op200349f ↗
24. a)For selected applications of using inert gas to separate phases in flow reactors see:.
25. 10.1039/C6LC00728G10.1039/C6LC00728G ↗
26. 10.1002/aisy.20200024510.1002/aisy.202000245 ↗
27. 10.1002/anie.20171256810.1002/anie.201712568 ↗
28. 10.1039/C5CC03651H10.1039/C5CC03651H ↗
29. 10.1021/acs.oprd.8b0001810.1021/acs.oprd.8b00018 ↗
30. Slattery A. · ChemRxiv · 2023
31. 10.1002/cssc.20220033310.1002/cssc.202200333 ↗
32. 10.1021/acs.oprd.9b0023610.1021/acs.oprd.9b00236 ↗
33. 10.1021/acs.chemrev.2c0079810.1021/acs.chemrev.2c00798 ↗
34. a)For selected reviews and examples of self‐optimization in flow see:.
35. 10.1039/C9RE00209J10.1039/C9RE00209J ↗
36. 10.1039/C9RE00116F10.1039/C9RE00116F ↗
37. 10.1039/D3RE00272A10.1039/D3RE00272A ↗
38. 10.1021/acs.joc.9b0226310.1021/acs.joc.9b02263 ↗
39. 10.1038/s41586-021-03213-y10.1038/s41586-021-03213-y ↗
40. a)For discussion of DoE and response surface modeling see:.
41. 10.1016/j.aca.2009.06.01510.1016/j.aca.2009.06.015 ↗
42. 10.1021/op500169m10.1021/op500169m ↗
43. 10.1556/1846.2016.0001210.1556/1846.2016.00012 ↗
44. 10.1039/D2RE00208F10.1039/D2RE00208F ↗
45. 10.1039/D1RE00467K10.1039/D1RE00467K ↗
46. a)For selected reviews and examples of PAT in batch and flow see:.
47. 10.1002/anie.20210200910.1002/anie.202102009 ↗
48. 10.1021/ac900778y10.1021/ac900778y ↗
49. 10.1021/ac200974w10.1021/ac200974w ↗
50. 10.1039/C5CS00793C10.1039/C5CS00793C ↗
51. 10.1021/acs.oprd.5b0008810.1021/acs.oprd.5b00088 ↗
52. 10.1021/acs.oprd.2c0010210.1021/acs.oprd.2c00102 ↗
53. 10.1002/anie.20201600710.1002/anie.202016007 ↗
54. 10.1038/s41467-020-19926-z10.1038/s41467-020-19926-z ↗
55. 10.1039/C7LC00313G10.1039/C7LC00313G ↗
56. 10.1039/C4CC09595B10.1039/C4CC09595B ↗
57. a)For selected examples of automated flow reactors using HPLC see:.
58. 10.1002/anie.20221451110.1002/anie.202214511 ↗
59. 10.1021/acscentsci.3c0005010.1021/acscentsci.3c00050 ↗
60. 10.1039/C6RE00109B10.1039/C6RE00109B ↗
61. 10.2533/chimia.2019.81710.2533/chimia.2019.817 ↗
62. a)For selected reviews discussing chemometric processing see:.
63. 10.1016/S0169-7439(01)00155-110.1016/S0169-7439(01)00155-1 ↗
64. 10.1021/ac303193j10.1021/ac303193j ↗
65. 10.1021/ac00242a02310.1021/ac00242a023 ↗
66. 10.2533/chimia.2023.30010.2533/chimia.2023.300 ↗
67. a)For selected examples combining chromatographic and spectroscopic analysis see:.
68. 10.1039/D1RE00350J10.1039/D1RE00350J ↗
69. 10.1039/C9RE00087A10.1039/C9RE00087A ↗
70. 10.1039/C8RE00083B10.1039/C8RE00083B ↗
71. 10.1002/anie.20130223910.1002/anie.201302239 ↗
72. 10.1021/acs.joc.6b0224210.1021/acs.joc.6b02242 ↗
73. 10.1021/acs.oprd.0c0001810.1021/acs.oprd.0c00018 ↗
74. a)For selected publications using the TSEMO algorithm containing more detailed discussion on the algorithm itself see:.
75. 10.1016/j.cej.2019.12334010.1016/j.cej.2019.123340 ↗
76. 10.1016/j.cej.2018.07.03110.1016/j.cej.2018.07.031 ↗
77. 10.1002/advs.20210554710.1002/advs.202105547 ↗
78. The target concentration for these experiments was 0.328 mol/L. It should be noted that some DoE experiments were performed with 0.313 mol/L concentration (determined by UHPLC analysis) simply due to experimental error in stock solution concentration. Details can be found in the Supporting Information.