Cargando…
In Melting Points We Trust: A Review on the Misguiding Characterization of Multicomponent Reactions Adducts and Intermediates
We discuss herein the problems associated with using melting points to characterize multicomponent reactions’ (MCRs) products and intermediates. Although surprising, it is not rare to find articles in which these MCRs final adducts (or their intermediates) are characterized solely by comparing melti...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9656178/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36364380 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules27217552 |
_version_ | 1784829369328336896 |
---|---|
author | Neto, Brenno A. D. Beck, Pedro S. Sorto, Jenny E. P. Eberlin, Marcos N. |
author_facet | Neto, Brenno A. D. Beck, Pedro S. Sorto, Jenny E. P. Eberlin, Marcos N. |
author_sort | Neto, Brenno A. D. |
collection | PubMed |
description | We discuss herein the problems associated with using melting points to characterize multicomponent reactions’ (MCRs) products and intermediates. Although surprising, it is not rare to find articles in which these MCRs final adducts (or their intermediates) are characterized solely by comparing melting points with those available from other reports. A brief survey among specialized articles highlights serious and obvious problems with this practice since, for instance, cases are found in which as many as 25 quite contrasting melting points have been attributed to the very same MCR adduct. Indeed, it seems logical to assume that the inherent non-confirmatory nature of melting points could be vastly misleading as a protocol for structural confirmation, but still many publications (also in the Q1 and Q2 quartiles) insist on using it. This procedure contradicts best practices in organic synthesis, and articles fraught with limitations and misleading conclusions have been published in the MCRs field. The drawbacks inherent to this practice are indeed serious and have misguided MCRs advances. We therefore suggest some precautions aimed at avoiding future confusions. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9656178 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-96561782022-11-15 In Melting Points We Trust: A Review on the Misguiding Characterization of Multicomponent Reactions Adducts and Intermediates Neto, Brenno A. D. Beck, Pedro S. Sorto, Jenny E. P. Eberlin, Marcos N. Molecules Review We discuss herein the problems associated with using melting points to characterize multicomponent reactions’ (MCRs) products and intermediates. Although surprising, it is not rare to find articles in which these MCRs final adducts (or their intermediates) are characterized solely by comparing melting points with those available from other reports. A brief survey among specialized articles highlights serious and obvious problems with this practice since, for instance, cases are found in which as many as 25 quite contrasting melting points have been attributed to the very same MCR adduct. Indeed, it seems logical to assume that the inherent non-confirmatory nature of melting points could be vastly misleading as a protocol for structural confirmation, but still many publications (also in the Q1 and Q2 quartiles) insist on using it. This procedure contradicts best practices in organic synthesis, and articles fraught with limitations and misleading conclusions have been published in the MCRs field. The drawbacks inherent to this practice are indeed serious and have misguided MCRs advances. We therefore suggest some precautions aimed at avoiding future confusions. MDPI 2022-11-04 /pmc/articles/PMC9656178/ /pubmed/36364380 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules27217552 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Review Neto, Brenno A. D. Beck, Pedro S. Sorto, Jenny E. P. Eberlin, Marcos N. In Melting Points We Trust: A Review on the Misguiding Characterization of Multicomponent Reactions Adducts and Intermediates |
title | In Melting Points We Trust: A Review on the Misguiding Characterization of Multicomponent Reactions Adducts and Intermediates |
title_full | In Melting Points We Trust: A Review on the Misguiding Characterization of Multicomponent Reactions Adducts and Intermediates |
title_fullStr | In Melting Points We Trust: A Review on the Misguiding Characterization of Multicomponent Reactions Adducts and Intermediates |
title_full_unstemmed | In Melting Points We Trust: A Review on the Misguiding Characterization of Multicomponent Reactions Adducts and Intermediates |
title_short | In Melting Points We Trust: A Review on the Misguiding Characterization of Multicomponent Reactions Adducts and Intermediates |
title_sort | in melting points we trust: a review on the misguiding characterization of multicomponent reactions adducts and intermediates |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9656178/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36364380 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules27217552 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT netobrennoad inmeltingpointswetrustareviewonthemisguidingcharacterizationofmulticomponentreactionsadductsandintermediates AT beckpedros inmeltingpointswetrustareviewonthemisguidingcharacterizationofmulticomponentreactionsadductsandintermediates AT sortojennyep inmeltingpointswetrustareviewonthemisguidingcharacterizationofmulticomponentreactionsadductsandintermediates AT eberlinmarcosn inmeltingpointswetrustareviewonthemisguidingcharacterizationofmulticomponentreactionsadductsandintermediates |