Skip to Content
Merck
  • Monitoring of an esterification reaction by on-line direct liquid sampling mass spectrometry and in-line mid infrared spectrometry with an attenuated total reflectance probe.

Monitoring of an esterification reaction by on-line direct liquid sampling mass spectrometry and in-line mid infrared spectrometry with an attenuated total reflectance probe.

Analytica chimica acta (2014-10-11)
Andrew W Owen, Edith A J McAulay, Alison Nordon, David Littlejohn, Thomas P Lynch, J Steven Lancaster, Robert G Wright
ABSTRACT

A specially designed thermal vaporiser was used with a process mass spectrometer designed for gas analysis to monitor the esterification of butan-1-ol and acetic anhydride. The reaction was conducted at two scales: in a 150 mL flask and a 1L jacketed batch reactor, with liquid delivery flow rates to the vaporiser of 0.1 and 1.0 mLmin(-1), respectively. Mass spectrometry measurements were made at selected ion masses, and classical least squares multivariate linear regression was used to produce concentration profiles for the reactants, products and catalyst. The extent of reaction was obtained from the butyl acetate profile and found to be 83% and 76% at 40°C and 20°C, respectively, at the 1L scale. Reactions in the 1L reactor were also monitored by in-line mid-infrared (MIR) spectrometry; off-line gas chromatography (GC) was used as a reference technique when building partial least squares (PLS) multivariate calibration models for prediction of butyl acetate concentrations from the MIR spectra. In validation experiments, good agreement was achieved between the concentration of butyl acetate obtained from in-line MIR spectra and off-line GC. In the initial few minutes of the reaction the profiles for butyl acetate derived from on-line direct liquid sampling mass spectrometry (DLSMS) differed from those of in-line MIR spectrometry owing to the 2 min transfer time between the reactor and mass spectrometer. As the reaction proceeded, however, the difference between the concentration profiles became less noticeable. DLSMS had advantages over in-line MIR spectrometry as it was easier to generate concentration profiles for all the components in the reaction. Also, it was possible to detect the presence of a simulated impurity of ethanol (at levels of 2.6 and 9.1% mol/mol) in butan-1-ol, and the resulting production of ethyl acetate, by DLSMS, but not by in-line MIR spectrometry.

MATERIALS
Product Number
Brand
Product Description

Sigma-Aldrich
Acetic anhydride, JIS special grade
Sigma-Aldrich
Ethyl acetate, suitable for HPLC
Sigma-Aldrich
Ethyl acetate, JIS 300, ≥99.5%, for residue analysis
Sigma-Aldrich
Ethanol, ≥99.5%
Sigma-Aldrich
Ethyl acetate, SAJ first grade, ≥99.0%
Sigma-Aldrich
Ethanol, ≥99.5%, suitable for HPLC
Sigma-Aldrich
Pyridine, JIS special grade, ≥99.5%
Sigma-Aldrich
Ethanol, ≥99.5%, suitable for fluorescence
Sigma-Aldrich
Ethanol, JIS 300, ≥99.5%, for residue analysis
Sigma-Aldrich
Pyridine, suitable for hydroxyl value determination, ≥99.5%
Sigma-Aldrich
Ethanol, ≥99.5%, SAJ super special grade
Sigma-Aldrich
Ethyl acetate, JIS 1000, ≥99.5%, for residue analysis
Sigma-Aldrich
Ethanol, JIS 1000, ≥99.5%, for residue analysis
Sigma-Aldrich
Ethyl acetate, JIS special grade, ≥99.5%
Sigma-Aldrich
Acetic anhydride, Arxada quality, ≥99.5% (GC)
Sigma-Aldrich
Acetic anhydride, ReagentPlus®, ≥99%
Supelco
Ethanol standards 10% (v/v), 10 % (v/v) in H2O, analytical standard
Sigma-Aldrich
Pyridine, ≥99%
Sigma-Aldrich
Acetic anhydride, ACS reagent, ≥98.0%
Supelco
Pyridine, analytical standard
Sigma-Aldrich
Ethyl acetate, ReagentPlus®, ≥99.8%
Sigma-Aldrich
Ethyl acetate, ACS reagent, ≥99.5%
Supelco
Ethyl acetate, analytical standard
Sigma-Aldrich
Ethyl acetate, ≥99%, FCC, FG
Sigma-Aldrich
Ethyl alcohol, Pure, 200 proof, anhydrous, ≥99.5%
Sigma-Aldrich
Ethyl acetate, anhydrous, 99.8%
Sigma-Aldrich
Ethyl alcohol, Pure, 190 proof, meets USP testing specifications
Sigma-Aldrich
Pyridine, anhydrous, 99.8%
Sigma-Aldrich
Butyl alcohol, natural, ≥99.5%, FCC, FG
Sigma-Aldrich
Acetic anhydride, 99.5%