Article

A Simple and Efficient Protocol for Proline-Catalysed

Asymmetric Aldol Reaction
Marco Giuseppe Emma, Alice Tamburrini, Ada Martinelli, Marco Lombardo *,
Arianna Quintavalla * and Claudio Trombini
Department of Chemistry ’’G. Ciamician’’, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Via Selmi 2,
40126 Bologna, Italy; marcogiuseppeemma@[Link] (M.G.E.); [Link]@[Link] (A.T.);
ada.martinelli2@[Link] (A.M.); [Link]@[Link] (C.T.)
* Correspondence: [Link]@[Link] (M.L.); [Link]@[Link] (A.Q.); Tel.:
+390512099544 (M.L.); +390512099462 (A.Q.)

Received: 01 May 2020; Accepted: 07 June 2020; Published: 10 June 2020

Abstract: The proline-catalysed asymmetric aldol reaction is usually carried out in highly dipolar
aprotic solvents (dimethylsulfoxide, dimethylformamide, acetonitrile) where proline presents an
acceptable solubility. Protic solvents are generally characterized by poor stereocontrol (e.g.,
methanol) or poor reactivity (e.g., water). Here, we report that water/methanol mixtures are
exceptionally simple and effective reaction media for the intermolecular organocatalytic aldol
reaction using the simple proline as the catalyst.

Keywords: proline; organocatalysis; asymmetric aldol reaction; methanol/water mixtures;

sustainability

1. Introduction
The asymmetric intermolecular aldol addition catalysed by (S)-proline, proposed by List and
co-workers in 2000 [1], is the prototype of enamine-based organocatalysis [2,3]. Proline is the
smallest air- and water-stable bifunctional catalyst; it is inexpensive, non-toxic, and available in both
enantiomeric forms. It has been proven to catalyse enantioselective α-functionalizations of carbonyl
compounds (aldol and Mannich reactions, Michael additions, α-halogenations, oxygenations,
aminations, and so on), adopting reaction protocols that do not require inert atmosphere and
anhydrous conditions and are carried out at room temperature [4,5].
The proline-catalysed aldol reaction [4,6–19] has been object of in-depth analyses after the first
mechanistic rationale proposed by List and Houck [20], in particular, fundamental contributions
have been given by Seebach [21], Armstrong and Blackmond [22,23], Sharma and Sunoj [24],
Benaglia [25], and Gschwind [26,27]. However, proline scarce solubility in most organic solvents has
limited its use in dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO), acetonitrile, or dimethylformamide (DMF). Moreover,
proline often displays poor activity, requiring the use of high catalyst loadings and high reaction
times, sometimes with unsatisfactory stereocontrol [1,28–36]. Because, in several cases,
proline-catalysed aldol reactions are still underdeveloped, the last 15 years have witnessed an
intense effort aimed at modifying the proline scaffold, following two directions: (1) the carboxylic
group is replaced by a new hydrogen-bonding donor, such as a tetrazole, or by a sterically
demanding group, such as the Hayashi–Jørgensen diarylmethanol and related compounds, as
exhaustively reviewed by Trost [37]; and (2) the carboxylic group is retained and a supplementary
substituent is bound to the proline scaffold. The new substituent, generally installed on the 4-OH
group of 4-hydroxyproline, may play different roles: (i) it modifies the solubility profile of the parent
amino acid, expanding the solvent choice to further classes [38]; and/or (ii) it enhances the catalyst
activity and stereoselectivity, allowing a reduction of catalyst loading and reaction time; and/or (iii)

Catalysts 2020, 10, 649; doi:10.3390/catal10060649 [Link]/journal/catalysts

Catalysts 2020, 10, 649 2 of 22

it allows the catalyst immobilization on a solid support [39–56], adopting a biphasic condition
reaction protocol. Despite that high levels of reactivity and selectivity have been achieved with these
modified prolines, most of the aforementioned proline derivatives require multi-step syntheses,
dramatically increasing the catalyst cost, a severe limitation particularly when the catalyst cannot be
efficiently recycled.
After having contributed to the synthesis of prolines, mostly modified with the incorporation of
ionic tags on 4-position, and obtaining excellent results in terms of activity and stereoselectivity as
well as catalyst recyclability [57–66], we decided to go back to the parent unmodified (S)-proline. We
envisaged to improve the performance of this small, stable, inexpensive, non-toxic, and easily
available organocatalyst exploring new experimental conditions.
The role of the solvent in determining the aldol reaction efficiency was also addressed by other
authors. Invariably, the use of unmodified proline (without additives) forced to choose polar aprotic
solvents to obtain acceptable yields and selectivities [1,11,13–15,28–36,44,45]. A peculiar case was
represented by ionic liquids (ILs) [67–72], which allowed in a few cases to decrease the catalyst
loading (up to 1 mol%) and, during the work-up, to confine proline in a separate phase, enabling a
simple product isolation and the reuse of the catalytic system. In recent literature, attempts are
reported where proline is used in acetone/CHCl3 mixtures [73], in DMF at 4 °C (a condition that
often requires several days) [74], in tert-butyl methyl ether (MTBE) [75], in deep eutectic solvents
[76,77], or under solvent-free conditions, with [78–80] or without [81] the ball milling approach.
However, many issues associated with the use of proline remain unsolved and polar aprotic solvents
are characterized by several undesirable features (toxicity, high production cost, high environmental
impact, difficult product recovery) [82–84].
The use of unmodified proline can be also combined with additives [85,86], such as water [85–
87], acids [85,86,88], diols [89,90], amines [85,86], or thioureas [91–93]. In these cases, the additive can
tune the solubility, the reactivity, and/or the stereoselectivity of native proline, making the
asymmetric aldol process more efficient [18]. In one case, the addition of achiral guanidinium salts as
additives allows to switch the diastereoselectivity as a function of the counterion, for example,
tetrafluoroborate versus tetraphenylborate [94]. Nevertheless, the achieved performance is not
optimal yet (long reaction times, stereocontrol strongly depending on the substrate) and some
drawbacks are still present, such as high proline loadings and the cost of the not recovered chiral
additive. Significant advances were accomplished employing metal salts as additives [95–106]. In
particular, Reiser and co-workers developed a strategy based on cobalt(II)-proline complexes, which
ensured excellent results in direct aldol reactions involving aromatic aldehydes [106]. However,
several disadvantages lead the avoidance of the use of metals, especially at an industrial level (costs,
toxicity, environmental impact, limited sources) [107–109].
In the present work, we aim to avoid the use of both polar aprotic solvents and additives (being
sometimes expensive, mostly non-recoverable, and contaminants, used in non-generalizable
procedures), in order to develop an efficient and sustainable organocatalyzed aldol condensation
protocol, which can be interesting from a scale-up and an industrial point of view. In particular, our
goals are as follows: (1) a reduction of the process costs, related to employed solvents and reagents,
but also purification and waste disposal; and (2) an improved reactivity, especially for poorly
reactive substrates. We planned to achieve these objectives by using the following: (i) the native
proline, a small, stable, inexpensive, and non-toxic organocatalyst; and (ii) the minimum amount of a
low-cost, non-toxic reaction solvent, enabling a good process efficiency and a simple and
inexpensive final reaction work-up.
A number of research groups noticed that protic media were not suitable for aldol
condensations promoted exclusively by native proline [15,29–33,87]. However, despite a plethora of
studies focused on the use and the role of water (as solvent, co-solvent, or additive) [31,32,34,87,100–
105,110,111], very few authors extended their investigations to alcohols [15,29,31,42,102,106],
discouraged by the generally observed poor diastereo- and enantioselectivity. Only when proline
Catalysts 2020, 10, 649 3 of 22

was used in combination with metal salts as additives, the use of methanol as solvent [106] or
co-solvent [102] afforded acceptable results.
Intrigued by the few data available on the proline-mediated aldol condensation employing
methanol, a prototypical green solvent [84,112] also in terms of LCA (life-cycle assessment) [113], we
decided to explore in depth the impact of methanol on the asymmetric intermolecular aldol
condensation promoted by unmodified (S)-proline. It should be stressed, however, that efficient
organocatalyzed aldol condensations invariably require a large excess of a liquid donor ketone (5–10
equivalents) that must thus be considered as a part of the reaction solvent-system.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Optimization of the Reaction Protocol

As model reaction, we selected the (S)-proline–catalysed aldol condensation between
cyclohexanone 1a and aromatic aldehydes 2 (Scheme 1). At the outset, we confirmed the low
performance of proline in terms of stereocontrol in pure methanol, but soon we realized that the
simple use of a hydroalcoholic solution as the reaction medium was highly profitable. Here, we
report a comparison among (S)-proline–catalysed reactions between cyclohexanone 1a and four
different aromatic aldehydes 2a–d, carried out in methanol/water (2/1 V/V), pure water, and pure
methanol, respectively, all other parameters being kept identical (Table 1). The 2/1 V/V
methanol/water mixture composition ensures that the aldol reaction takes place under
homogeneous conditions.

Scheme 1. The benchmark aldol reaction.

Table 1. Comparison of different protic reaction media 1.

R (2) Solvent t [h] 3 Conversion [%] 2 ee [%] 3 anti/syn 2

MeOH/H2O 19 >99 98 93:7
4-NO2Ph (2a) H2O 19 25 99 95:5
MeOH 19 >99 76 59:41
MeOH/H2O 19 97 98 95:5
4-CNPh (2b) H2O 19 80 99 95:5
MeOH 19 >99 87 82:18
MeOH/H2O 19 43 99 97:3
4-ClPh (2c) H2O 19 5 >99 nd
MeOH 19 64 98 85:15
MeOH/H2O 30 58 97 88:12
Ph (2d) 4 H2O 30 20 >99 >99:1
MeOH 30 64 83 72:28
1Reaction conditions: 1a (5 equiv.), 2 (0.3 mmol), (S)-proline (10 mol%), rt, MeOH/H2O (20 µL/10 µL,
2/1 V/V) or H2O (10 µL), or MeOH (20 µL). 2 Determined by 1H NMR on the crude mixture. 3
Determined by chiral stationary phase (CSP)-HPLC on the crude mixture. 4 Here, 20 mol% of
(S)-proline was used. rt = room temperature, h = hours, nd = not determined.

The data collected in Table 1 demonstrate the crucial role of water; if in pure water conversions
are the lowest, enantioselectivity reaches the highest values. On the other hand, pure methanol
displays the highest reactivity and the poorest stereocontrol. The 2/1 V/V methanol/water solution is
Catalysts 2020, 10, 649 4 of 22

able to combine the pros of the two pure solvents, providing the same conversions of pure methanol
and almost the same ees and good drs observed in pure water.
In Table 2, the results are reported when the 2/1 V/V methanol/water solution was applied to
aldol reactions between cyclohexanone 1a and other aromatic aldehydes 2e–i (Table 2).

Table 2. MeOH/H2O-based protocol applied to different aromatic aldehydes 2 1.

R (2) t [h] 3 Conversion [%] 2 ee [%] 3 anti/syn 2

C6F5 (2e) 19 >99 97 >99:1
2-NO2Ph (2f) 19 93 95 95:5
4-BrPh (2g) 19 41 99 98:2
2-naphthyl (2h) 24 37 93 91:9
4-MeOPh (2i) 4 70 18 90 86:14
1Reaction conditions: 1a (5 equiv.), 2 (0.3 mmol), (S)-proline (10 mol%), MeOH/H2O (20 µL/10 µL), rt.
2Determined by 1H NMR on the crude mixture. 3 Determined by CSP-HPLC on the crude mixture. 4
Here, 20 mol% of (S)-proline was used.

With the most reactive electron-poor aldehydes (2a, 2b, 2e, and 2f), high conversion and high
stereocontrol were achieved in only 19 h. Moreover, these results are excellent if compared with
those reported in the literature for analogous transformations promoted by unmodified (S)-proline
and exploiting more complex protocols [114–117]. Unfortunately, the limitations of the
proline-catalysed aldol reactions were not completely overcome. In fact, electron-rich aromatic
aldehydes were confirmed to be less reactive, requiring longer reaction times. More in detail, for
substrates 2g and 2h, the conversions reached after 19 and 24 h, respectively, were modest;
nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that the enantio- and the diastereoselectivities were both higher
than those reported so far by proline-based protocols [118,119]. As far as the electron-rich p-methoxy
benzaldehyde 2i is concerned, the only example with proline (20 mol%) in DMSO reported a low
conversion (15%) and absence of diastereoselection [105]. The effect on product conversion was even
poorer when a Lewis acid and water were added. Exploiting our MeOH/H 2O-based protocol, the
product conversion remained poor (18%), but the reaction proceeded with good enantio- (90% ee)
and diastereoselectivity (anti/syn = 86:14).
Once the performance of native proline in 2/1 V/V methanol/water solution had been examined,
we explored the effect of a more methanol-rich aqueous mixture. In Table 3, aldol reactions of
cyclohexanone 1a and different aldehydes 2 in 2/1 V/V and 4/1 V/V solutions are compared.

Table 3. Optimization of the MeOH/H2O-based protocol 1.

MeOH/H2O
R (2) t [h] 3 Conversion [%] 2 ee [%] 3 anti/syn 2
[μL/μL]
20/10 4 3aa, 47 97 94:6
4-NO2Ph
40/10 4 3aa, 82 98 92:8
(2a)
20 + 20 4/10 4 3aa, 84 97 94:6
4-CNPh 20/10 4 3ab, 65 97 95:5
(2b) 40/10 4 3ab, 77 95 94:6
4-ClPh 20/10 19 3ac, 43 99 97:3
(2c) 40/10 19 3ac, 64 98 95:5
Ph 20/10 5 30 3ad, 58 97 88:12
(2d) 40/10 30 3ad, 75 96 90:10
C6F5 20/10 4 3ae, 63 97 >99:1
(2e) 40/10 4 3ae, 67 96 >99:1
2-NO2Ph 20/10 4 3af, 34 97 98:2
(2f) 40/10 4 3af, 59 97 97:3
4-BrPh 20/10 19 3ag, 41 99 98:2
(2g) 40/10 19 3ag, 88 96 94:6
Catalysts 2020, 10, 649 5 of 22

2-naphthyl 20/10 24 3ah, 37 93 91:9

(2h) 40/10 24 3ah, 72 93 92:8
4-MeOPh 20/10 68 3ai, 18 90 86:14
(2i) 5 40/10 68 3ai, 43 89 80:20
i-Pr
40/10 72 3aj, 63 >99 >99:1
(2j) 5
4-CF3Ph
40/10 4 3ak, 78 97 97:3
(2k)
2-thiophenyl
40/10 48 3al, 65 88 84:16
(2l) 5
4-CH3Ph
40/10 40 3am, 64 94 87:13
(2m)
1Reaction conditions: 1a (5 equiv.), 2 (0.3 mmol), (S)-proline (10 mol%), rt. 2 Determined by 1H NMR
on the crude mixture. 3 Determined by CSP-HPLC on the crude mixture. 4 Here, 20 μL of MeOH was
added after 2 h. 5 Here, 20 mol% of (S)-proline was used.

Doubling the methanol volume (40 μL), the conversions significantly improved with all the
tested aldehydes, while maintaining an excellent to remarkable level of enantiocontrol (Table 3). The
most reactive substrates (2a, 2b, 2e, and 2f) provided excellent conversions in only 4 h,
demonstrating an unprecedented reactivity of proline. Moreover, interesting amounts of product
were obtained exploiting these reaction conditions for less electrophilic aldehydes as well (2c,2d,
2g,2i; Table 3). Concerning the diastereocontrol, a slight drop of the anti/syn ratio was observed with
some aldehydes when the volume of methanol was increased. Conversely, for benzaldehyde 2d and
2-naphthyl aldehyde 2h, the diastereoselection lightly improved. In the case of benzaldehyde 2d, the
better performance could be the result of the reduced amount of catalyst (10 mol%), exploitable
thanks to the higher proline reactivity reached with larger amounts of methanol. In the case of the
most reactive 4-nitrobenzaldehyde 2a, we solved the problem of diastereoselectivity drop by adding
the methanol amount in two portions (one half after 2 h), completely restoring the diastereocontrol,
while maintaining a high reaction rate. In general, a good diastereoselectivity level is retained with
this protocol (4/1 V/V methanol/water) compared with the literature data [114–119]. At the same
time, reaction rates are significantly enhanced. Therefore, these reaction conditions represent the
best trade-off between reactivity and stereoselectivity. In Table 3, this optimized protocol was
extended to some other aldehydes (2j–m), with good results compared with the literature data [120–
123]. In particular, aliphatic aldehyde 2j, known as poorly responsive in this kind of organocatalysed
reaction, reached an interesting conversion (63%) and remarkably high stereochemical results (>99%
ee and anti/syn > 99:1), superior to those reported by other authors for unmodified proline [120].
The next step of our investigation was directed to the ketone partner 1 of the asymmetric aldol
condensation. In proline-catalysed aldol reactions, a typical drawback is represented by the excess of
ketone over the limiting aldehyde generally required to achieve good yields. To increase the
sustainability of the process, we planned to lower the ketone excess (Table 4).

Table 4. Effects of cyclohexanone 1a amount in the MeOH/H2O/(S)-proline-based protocol 1.

R (2) 1a [eq.] t [h] 3 Conversion [%] 2 ee [%] 3 anti/syn 2

5 4 82 98 92:8
4-NO2Ph 5 4 84 4 97 94:6
(2a) 2 19 99 95 92:8
1.05 19 92 97 90:10
4-CNPh 5 4 77 95 94:6
(2b) 2 24 98 91 90:10
C6F5 5 4 67 97 >99:1
(2e) 2 24 >99 92 >99:1
2-NO2Ph 5 4 59 97 97:3
Catalysts 2020, 10, 649 6 of 22

(2f) 2 24 92 93 94:6
4-BrPh 5 19 88 96 94:6
(2g) 2 24 97 91 90:10
5 4 78 97 97:3
4-CF3Ph
3 20 96 96 95:5
(2k)
2 24 93 94 93:7
1Reaction conditions: 2 (0.3 mmol), (S)-proline (10 mol%), MeOH/H2O (40 µL/10 µL), rt. 2

Determined by 1H NMR on the crude mixture. 3 Determined by CSP-HPLC on the crude mixture. 4

Here, 20 μL of MeOH was added after 2 h.

Some aldehydes characterized by high or medium reactivity were selected for this study, in
which the ketone amount was reduced to 2 equivalents. With almost all the tested substrates, high
conversions and excellent ee values were again obtained. Although longer reaction times were
required, the reaction rates remained worthy of note, especially when compared with the
performance of other protocols in similar conditions. The main drawback of this procedure was a
slight decrease of diastereoselectivity, an effect that is not immediately obvious. Benaglia, using the
reaction progress kinetic analysis (RPKA) approach [25], a technique that allowed Blackmond et al.
to define the kinetic rate law of proline-catalysed aldol reactions [23], proved the reversibility of the
aldol reaction. Lowering the ketone excess leads to the following: (i) longer reaction times to
preserve the same level of product conversion; and (ii) a less efficient opposition to the retroaldol
reaction, which is a slow process within the time scale of our reactions. Both factors promote
equilibrium on a little extent, likely accounting for the slightly decreased diastereocontrol observed
when reduced amounts of cyclohexanone 1a were used (Table 4). In conclusion, the high efficiency
achieved by MeOH/H2O/(S)-proline-based protocol allows to reduce the ketone excess, involving (i)
slight adverse effects on aldol reaction performance; and (ii) benefits, such as lower costs and easier
work up and product purification.

2.2. Application of the Protocol to Other Ketones

Afterwards, we focused on the application of the developed catalytic protocol to two different
donor ketones 1b,1c (Table 5). Considering the excellent performance (stereoselectivity and reaction
rate) achieved employing the MeOH/H2O/(S)-proline protocol in the presence of 5 equivalents of 1a,
we decided for convenience to apply these conditions to the ketones investigation.

Table 5. MeOH/H2O/(S)-proline-based protocol applied to ketones 1b,c 1.

(1) R (2) t [h] 3, Conversion [%] 2 ee [%] 3 anti/syn 2

4-NO2Ph (2a) 4 3ba, >99 94 61:39
4-NO2Ph (2a) 19 4 3ba, 91 94 78:22
4-BrPh (2g) 19 3bg, 64 93 75:25
(1b) Ph (2d) 30 3bd, 70 93 73:27

4-BrPh (2g) 24 3cg, 90 86 78:22

Ph (2d) 48 3cd, 82 86 77:23

(1c)
1Reaction conditions: 2 (0.3 mmol), 1 (5 eq.), (S)-proline (10 mol%), MeOH/H2O (40 µL/10 µL), rt. 2

Determined by 1H NMR on the crude mixture. 3 Determined by CSP-HPLC on the crude mixture. 4

Reaction carried out at 0 °C.

At first, we tested cyclopentanone 1b with highly reactive 4-nitrobenzaldehyde 2a, observing a

particularly high reaction rate, with the transformation being complete in only 4 hours. This result is
unprecedented in the presence of unmodified proline or most of its derivatives [124–127],
confirming once again the high reactivity achievable employing the MeOH/H 2O protocol. The
Catalysts 2020, 10, 649 7 of 22

corresponding product 3ba was obtained with excellent ee, but low diastereoselectivity. This
behaviour was expected because poorly diastereoselective aldol reactions catalyzed by proline or its
derivatives were regularly reported for cyclopentanone 1b [87,124–127]. To improve the
diastereoselctivity, we lowered the reaction temperature to 0 °C and we obtained a good 78:22
anti/syn ratio, maintaining a high conversion in a reasonable time.
Considering the excellent performance achievable with MeOH/H2O/(S)-proline-based protocol,
we were particularly interested in the results obtainable with less reactive aldehydes. In fact, 4-Br
benzaldehyde 2g and benzaldehyde 2d provided the corresponding products (3bg and 3bd,
respectively) with good conversions and diastereoselectivities, and, noteworthy, with the best
enantioselectivities ever achieved employing unmodified proline as catalyst [128].
As further confirmation, 2,2-dimethyl-1,3-dioxan-5-one 1c (Table 5) also displayed good
reactivity and stereoselectivity when reacted with less reactive aldehydes 2g and 2d. In particular,
our results represent the first examples of organocatalyzed aldol condensation between
2,2-dimethyl-1,3-dioxan-5-one 1c and 4-Br benzaldehyde 2g or benzaldehyde 2d, promoted by only
10 mol% of proline [129–133].
At last, we applied our protocol to acetone 1d as simple aliphatic ketone (Table S3, Section 2,
Supplementary Materials). Although with 4-NO2 benzaldehyde 2a, we obtained an unprecedented
high reaction rate if compared with the published corresponding transformations, the
enantioselectivity was poor, as commonly reported for the proline-catalysed aldol additions
involving these substrates.

2.3. Large-Scale Application of the Protocol

Our aim is the development of an efficient and sustainable organocatalyzed aldol condensation
protocol, which can be interesting from a scale-up perspective. Therefore, as a first step, we
confirmed the excellent performance of the MeOH/H2O/(S)-proline-based protocol by carrying out
the aldol condensation between moderately reactive benzaldehyde 2d and cyclohexanone 1a on a 10
mmol scale (gram scale). The desired product 3ad was isolated in 78% yield and with high
stereocontrol (90:10 dr, 95% ee), fully confirming the data obtained on small scale (Table 3).
The next step was the accomplishment of the same reaction on a 100 mmol scale of the limiting
reagent benzaldehyde 2d (Scheme 2) in order to study some aspects in more detail.

Scheme 2. Process scale-up on 100 mmol of limiting aldehyde 2d.

At first, we investigated the impact of the aldehyde addition rate on the reaction outcome
(Table 6). With benzaldehyde 2d not being very reactive, good conversions were recorded only after
23 h and we did not observe a significant difference depending on the addition rate of benzaldehyde
(Table 6).

Table 6. Process scale-up study 1.

Aldehyde addition rate t [h] Conversion [%] 2 anti/syn 2 ee [%] 3

23 72 86:14 96
45 min 28 78 87:13 -
47 83 85:15 94
Catalysts 2020, 10, 649 8 of 22

23 71 87:13 -
6h 28 80 85:15 -
47 85 84:16 -
1Reaction conditions: 2d (100 mmol), 1a (500 mmol), (S)-proline (10 mol%), MeOH/H2O (13.33
mL/3.33 mL), rt. Total volume = 79 mL. 2 Determined by 1H NMR on the crude mixture. 3 Determined
by CSP-HPLC on the crude mixture.

Then, we monitored product conversion and stereoselectivity for a longer reaction time (Table
6), to establish if a high conversion could be achieved without a significant loss in stereocontrol
exploiting our reaction conditions. Indeed, as previously mentioned, aldol reaction is reversible and
longer reaction times could make the retroaldol process competitive, providing a decreased
diastereomeric ratio. Actually, we observed a slow increase of the product conversion, achieving
85% after 2 days, without a significant erosion of anti/syn ratio (in comparison with small
scale-reactions, a slightly lower dr was recorded, which remained constant for the first 48 h). We
confirmed that even the enantiomeric excess of the product remained at high levels (94% ee after 47
h).
The results reported in Table 6 clearly show that the best reaction outcome is obtained at a
reaction time representing the best balance between product conversion and stereocontrol. To
further explore this effect, we compared the data obtained with different moderately or poorly
reactive aldehydes (Table 7).

Table 7. Study of the reaction outcome as a function of the reaction time 1.

R (2) t [h] Conversion [%] 2 anti/syn 2

24 75 86:14
Ph 46 81 84:16
(2d) 71 85 79:21
94 85 71:29
23 53 90:10
4-CH3Ph 45 65 87:13
(2m) 71 74 84:16
138 75 79:21
68 43 80:20
4-MeOPh
115 49 72:28
(2i) 3
164 52 66:34
1 Reaction conditions: 2 (50 mmol), 1a (5 eq.), (S)-proline (10 mol%), MeOH/H2O (6.67 mL/1.67 mL),
rt. 2 Determined by 1H NMR on the crude mixture. 3 Here, 20 mol% of (S)-proline was used.

Concerning the stereoselectivity, in this study, we focused our attention on diastereoselectivity

variation, which is much more impaired by retroaldol reaction (see Supplementary Materials for a
study on enantioselectivity variation). The data collected in Table 7 demonstrate that the aldol
transformation reaches a position, after which the product conversion no longer grows, while the dr
continues to drop. The time required to achieve this situation depends on the aldehyde reactivity.
On the other hand, the rate of retroaldol process is less affected by the aldehyde nature; therefore,
the retroaldol effects are less troublesome for reactive aldehydes (high conversion in short time with
high dr) and more marked for poorly reactive aldehydes (long time required to reach acceptable
conversion with low dr). This study proves that, in the asymmetric aldol process promoted by
proline, the reaction time providing the best performance (balance between conversion and
stereoselectivity) strongly depends on the substrate; therefore, a careful investigation should be
done before tackling a large-scale application.
A further point that we evaluated to increase the sustainability of our large-scale protocol was
the reduction of the ketone excess. For this purpose, we applied the MeOH/H2O/(S)-proline-based
protocol to moderately reactive benzaldehyde 2d (50 mmol) in the presence of only 2 equivalents of
cyclohexanone 1a, monitoring the results over the time. After 71 h, we achieved the highest product
Catalysts 2020, 10, 649 9 of 22

conversion (83%) with an excellent 89:11 dr. Prolonging the reaction time (98 h) only led to a drop in
dr (84:16). These findings suggest that, exploiting our protocol, a large excess of ketone (5
equivalents) only enhances the initial reaction rate, but it is not necessary for the achievement of an
excellent final performance.

2.4. Work-Up Investigations

As the last point, we investigated some different work-up approaches, in order to (i) compare
the results (also in terms of sustainability), and (ii) establish if part of the organocatalyst could be
easily recovered. The first 100 mmol-scale aldol condensation (Table 6, 45 min long aldehyde
addition) was stopped after 49 h and the reaction mixture (total volume = 79 mL) was divided in six
portions, treated as described in Table 8.

Table 8. Process work-up study 1.

Final volume
Method Conditions Crude analysis 2
(mL)
Reaction mixture = 18 mL (22.8 mmol) Conv. = 87%
A 242
filtered on a silica-pad, mobile phase = EtOAc dr = 84:16
Reaction mixture = 18 mL (22.8 mmol)
diluted with EtOAc, quenched with aqueous Conv. = 86%
B 90
NH4Cl, extracted with EtOAc, dried with Na2SO4 dr = 83:17
(washed with EtOAc)
Reaction mixture = 10 mL (12.6 mmol)
Conv. = 89%
diluted with EtOAc and placed at −15 °C for 36 h.
dr = 84:16
C 1° vacuum filtration. At −15 °C for 36 h. 46
Proline recovery:
2° vacuum filtration. Solution dried with Na2SO4
113.3 mg (78%)
(washed with EtOAc)
Reaction mixture = 10 mL (12.6 mmol)
Conv. = 90%
diluted with Et2O and placed at −15 °C for 36 h.
dr = 85:15
D 1° vacuum filtration. At −15 °C for 36 h. 52
Proline recovery:
2° vacuum filtration. Solution dried with Na2SO4
124.8 mg (86%)
(washed with Et2O)
Reaction mixture = 10 mL (12.6 mmol)
diluted with DCM and placed at −15 °C for 36 h. Conv. = 88%
E 36
Two liquid phases obtained, dried with Na2SO4 dr = 85:15
(washed with DCM)
Reaction mixture = 10 mL (12.6 mmol)
diluted with n-hexane and placed at −15 °C for 36 Conv. = 89%
F 43
h. Two liquid phases obtained, dried with Na 2SO4 dr = 86:14
(washed with n-hexane)
1 Aldol condensation carried out on 100 mmol of 2d, reaction conditions described in Scheme 2, reaction
stopped after 49 h, reaction mixture (total volume = 79 mL) divided in six portions and treated with six different
work-up methods. 2 Determined by 1H NMR on the crude mixture. EtOAc = ethyl acetate, Et2O = diethyl ether,
DCM = dichloromethane.

The first portion of reaction mixture (18 mL, 22.8 mmol) was filtered through a short pad of
silica to remove water and proline (method A, Table 8). EtOAc was used as mobile phase to elute
product 3ad (along with residual reagents 1a and 2d). Despite the significant polarity of EtOAc, a
large amount of solvent was required to recover all the product and an undesirable high volume of
organic solvent (242 mL) had to be evaporated under reduced pressure.
The second portion of reaction mixture (18 mL, 22.8 mmol) was subjected to a typical aqueous
work-up to remove water and proline (method B, Table 8). NH4Cl (2 equivalents with respect to
proline, solved in 20 mL of H2O) was employed to quench proline, the two phases were separated,
Catalysts 2020, 10, 649 10 of 22

and the aqueous phase was extracted two additional times with EtOAc, until complete recovery of
the product (checked by thin-layer chromatography). The solution was dried with Na2SO4, which
restrained a significant amount of aldol product 3ad, so that it was necessary to wash it three times
with EtOAc. A considerable volume of organic solvent (90 mL) had to be evaporated.
At this point, we tried to develop a work-up method that allowed us in a simple way not only to
remove the catalyst, but also to recover it, at least partially. Exploiting the very low amount of protic
polar solvents used in our MeOH/H2O/(S)-proline-based protocol, we envisaged that the addition of
a small portion of organic solvent could make the reaction environment sufficiently lipophilic to
trigger the catalyst precipitation. Four different organic solvents were tested: EtOAc (method C,
Table 8), Et2O (method D), dichloromethane (method E), and n-hexane (method F). The minimum
amount of solvent able to provide an opalescent solution was added to each portion (10 mL, 12.6
mmol) and the mixtures were stored at −15 °C for 36 h. In the portions treated with EtOAc and Et2O
(methods C and D, respectively), a white precipitate, corresponding to proline, was clearly
observed; therefore, it was filtered under vacuum and washed with a small amount of cold solvent.
The filtered solutions were stored at −15 °C for further 36 h and a second portion of catalyst was
recovered in both cases. Afterwards, the mixtures were dried with Na2SO4, which was required to be
washed three times with organic solvent. In these two cases (methods C and D), a considerable
amount of organic solvent also had to be evaporated (46 and 52 mL, respectively). In the portions
treated with DCM and n-hexane (methods E and F, respectively), two liquid phases were observed
and we decided to directly use Na2SO4 to remove the small water-based phase. Na2SO4 was washed
with solvent until complete recovery of the product (three times for DCM, four times for n-hexane).
In these two cases (methods E and F), the lowest amounts of organic solvent were employed (36 and
43 mL, respectively).
By comparing the results obtained with the tested work-up methods, we can infer the
following: (1) no work-up approach adversely affects reaction conversion and diastereoselectivity, in
fact all the crude mixtures showed comparable good results (Table 8). (2) The least suitable and
sustainable method to remove water and proline seems to be the silica-pad (method A), owing to the
large amount of solvent required to recover all the desired product; (3) when two organic and
aqueous phases are formed (methods B, E and F), the simplest and cheapest work-up appears the
dilution with a very small amount of DCM, cooling, and directly drying with Na2SO4 (method E).
This approach is practicable only thanks to the very low amount of protic polar solvents used in our
MeOH/H2O/(S)-proline-based protocol. (4) Among the tested work-up approaches, the most
convenient are those allowing an easy recovery of a large part of the organocatalyst (methods C and
D). In particular, method D employing Et2O reached 86% of proline recovery using an acceptable
volume of organic solvent. Moreover, this result is obtainable on the basis of very low amount of
protic polar solvents used in our protocol.
Although the tested work-up methods are not optimized and, therefore, can be further
improved, they give a clear indication of the advantages that our protocol can offer.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. General Information

H and 13C NMR spectra were recorded on Inova 400 NMR instrument (Agilent, Santa Clara,
1

CA, United States) with a 5 mm probe. Chemical shifts (δ) are reported in ppm, relative to the
residual peaks of deuterated solvent signals.
HPLC-MS analyses were performed on an Agilent Technologies HP1100 instrument (Agilent,
Santa Clara, CA, United States) coupled with an Agilent Technologies MSD1100 single-quadrupole
mass spectrometer (Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, United States). A Phenomenex Gemini C18, 3 μm (100
× 3 mm) column was employed for the chromatographic separation: mobile phase H2O/CH3CN,
gradient from 30% to 80% of CH3CN in 8 min, 80% of CH3CN until 22 min, and then up to 90% of
CH3CN in 2 min; flow rate 0.4 mL min−1 (Phenomenex, Torrance, CA, United States).
Catalysts 2020, 10, 649 11 of 22

Chiral stationary phase (CSP)-HPLC analyses were performed on an Agilent Technologies

Series 1200 instrument (Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, United States) using Daicel® chiral columns and
n-hexane/2-propanol (n-Hex/IPA) mixtures (Daicel, Osaka, Japan).
Optical rotation measurements were performed on a polarimeter Schmidt+Haensch UniPol
L1000 (Schmidt + Haensch GmbH & Co, Berlin, Germany).
Flash chromatography purifications were carried out using Merck silica gel 60 (230–400 mesh
particle size). Thin layer chromatography was performed on Merck 60 F254 plates (Merck,
Darmstadt, Germany).
Commercial reagents were used as received without additional purification, with exception of
liquid aldehydes, which were distilled and stored under nitrogen atmosphere to avoid the formation
of the corresponding acids. Dry methanol (Sure/Seal™ bottle) was used to ensure a reproducible
water content.
The diastereomeric and enantiomeric compositions were checked on the crude products against
the corresponding racemic products, obtained under the same reaction conditions using racemic
proline.

3.2. Synthetic Procedures.

3.2.1. General Procedure for the Small-Scale Aldol Condensation Between Aldehydes 2 and Ketones
1
The aldol reaction was carried out in a 2 mL vial. In a typical reaction, the vial was charged at
room temperature with the reactants in the following order: (S)-proline (0.03 mmol), methanol (40
µL), water (10 µL), the selected ketone 1 (1.5 mmol), and the selected aldehyde 2 (0.3 mmol). The
flask was capped with a stopper and sealed. Then, the reaction mixture was stirred at room
temperature for the desired time. The conversion was monitored by TLC (Merck, Darmstadt,
Germany) and 1H-NMR (a small portion was taken, diluted, and immediately analyzed) (Agilent,
Santa Clara, CA, United States). Then, the mixture was filtered on a short pad of silica with ethyl
acetate and concentrated under reduced pressure.
The product conversion with respect to the limiting aldehyde and the diastereomeric ratio were
determined by 1H-NMR in CDCl3 on the crude mixture. The enantiomeric excess was determined by
chiral stationary phase (CSP)-HPLC (Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, United States) on the crude mixture.
The study of the solvent role (Tables 1–3), the study of the effects of ketone amount (Table 4),
and the protocol application to other ketones (Table 5) were carried out following this general
procedure.

3.2.2. Procedure for the Aldol Condensation Between Benzaldehyde 2d and Cyclohexanone 1a on 10
mmol Scale
The aldol reaction was conducted in a 25 mL flask. The flask was charged with (S)-proline (115
mg, 1 mmol), methanol (1.33 mL), water (330 µL), and cyclohexanone 1a (5.18 mL, 50 mmol) and the
mixture was allowed to stir for 10 min at room temperature. Then, the mixture was cooled at 0 °C
and benzaldehyde 2d (1.02 mL, 10 mmol) was slowly added by means of a syringe. The flask was
capped with a stopper and sealed. The reaction mixture was stirred at room temperature for 30 h.
Then, the mixture was filtered on a pad of silica with ethyl acetate and concentrated under reduced
pressure. The conversion (85%) with respect to the limiting aldehyde and the diastereomeric ratio
(90:10) were determined by 1H-NMR in CDCl3 on the crude mixture. The obtained residue was
purified by column chromatography (ethyl acetate/cyclohexane = 2:8 as the eluent) to afford the
product 3ad in 78% yield. The enantiomeric excess (95% ee) was determined by CSP-HPLC on the
pure product.

3.2.3. Procedure for the Aldol Condensation between Benzaldehyde 2d and Cyclohexanone 1a on
100 mmol Scale (Table 6)
Catalysts 2020, 10, 649 12 of 22

The aldol reaction was conducted in a 250 mL flask. The flask was charged with (S)-proline
(1.15 g, 10 mmol), methanol (13.33 mL), water (3.33 mL), and cyclohexanone 1a (51.8 mL, 500 mmol)
and the mixture was allowed to stir for 15 min at room temperature. Then, the mixture was cooled at
0 °C and benzaldehyde 2d (10.2 mL, 100 mmol) was slowly added by means of (i) addition funnel
(addition rate = 45 min), or (ii) syringe for slow addition (addition rate = 6 h). Then, the flask was
capped with a stopper and sealed. The reaction mixture was stirred at room temperature. The
reaction performance was monitored over time (a small portion was taken, diluted, and immediately
analyzed); the product conversion with respect to the limiting aldehyde and the diastereomeric ratio
were determined by 1H-NMR in CDCl3 on the crude mixture, and the enantiomeric excess was
determined by CSP-HPLC on the crude mixture. After 49 h, the first reaction (addition rate = 45 min)
was stopped, the reaction mixture (total volume = 79 mL) was divided in six portions, and they were
treated as described in Table 8 (see below for details).

3.2.4. General Procedure for the Study of Reaction Outcome as a Function of Reaction Time (Table 7)
The aldol reaction was conducted in a 100 mL flask. The flask was charged with (S)-proline (575
mg, 5 mmol), methanol (6.67 mL), water (1.67 mL), and cyclohexanone 1a (25.9 mL, 250 mmol) and
the mixture was allowed to stir for 15 min at room temperature. Then, the mixture was cooled at 0 °C
and the desired aldehyde 2 (50 mmol) was slowly added by means of an addition funnel. Then, the
flask was capped with a stopper and sealed. The reaction mixture was stirred at room temperature.
The reaction performance was monitored over time (a small portion was taken, diluted, and
immediately analyzed); the product conversion with respect to the limiting aldehyde and the
diastereomeric ratio were determined by 1H-NMR in CDCl3 on the crude mixture, and the
enantiomeric excess was determined by CSP-HPLC on the crude mixture. At the reported time
(Table 7), the mixture was filtered on a pad of silica with ethyl acetate and concentrated under
reduced pressure. The obtained residue was purified by column chromatography (ethyl
acetate/cyclohexane = 2:8 as the eluent) to afford the pure product (3ad: 76% yield, 3am: 67% yield,
3ai: 43% yield).

3.2.5. Procedure for the Aldol Condensation between Benzaldehyde 2d (50 mmol) and
Cyclohexanone 1a (2 equivalents, 100 mmol)
The aldol reaction was conducted in a 100 mL flask. The flask was charged with (S)-proline (575
mg, 5 mmol), methanol (6.67 mL), water (1.67 mL), and cyclohexanone 1a (10.36 mL, 100 mmol) and
the mixture was allowed to stir for 15 min at room temperature. Then, the mixture was cooled at 0 °C
and benzaldehyde 2d (5.1 mL, 50 mmol) was slowly added by means of an addition funnel. Then,
the flask was capped with a stopper and sealed. The reaction mixture was stirred at room
temperature. The reaction performance was monitored over time (a small portion was taken,
diluted, and immediately analyzed); the product conversion with respect to the limiting aldehyde
and the diastereomeric ratio were determined by 1H-NMR in CDCl3 on the crude mixture, and the
enantiomeric excess was determined by CSP-HPLC on the crude mixture. After 99 h, the reaction
was stopped and it was filtered on a pad of silica with ethyl acetate and concentrated under reduced
pressure. The obtained residue was purified by column chromatography (ethyl acetate/cyclohexane
= 2:8 as the eluent) to afford the product 3ad in 76% yield. The enantiomeric excess (91% ee) was
determined by CSP-HPLC on the pure product.

3.3. Work-Up Procedures

3.3.1. Procedure for Filtration on a Silica-Pad (Method A, Table 8)

A portion (18 mL corresponding to 22.8 mmol) of the first reaction (addition rate = 45 min)
carried out on 100 mmol of limiting aldehyde 2d (see section 3.2.3) was filtered on a silica-pad: 1.5
cm height, 9.6 cm diameter, gooch porosity = 4 (10–16 μm), mobile phase = EtOAc. In the last EtOAc
portions (25 mL each), the presence of product was checked by TLC. The filtered reaction mixture
(total volume = 242 mL) was concentrated under reduced pressure. The product conversion (87%)
Catalysts 2020, 10, 649 13 of 22

with respect to the limiting aldehyde and the diastereomeric ratio (84:16 = anti:/syn) were
determined by 1H-NMR in CDCl3 on the obtained residue.

3.3.2. Procedure for Aqueous Work-Up Employing NH4Cl (Method B, Table 8)

A portion (18 mL corresponding to 22.8 mmol) of the first reaction (addition rate = 45 min)
carried out on 100 mmol of limiting aldehyde 2d (see section 3.2.3) was diluted with EtOAc (5 mL)
and treated with an aqueous solution of NH4Cl (242 mg, 2 equivalents with respect to proline, in 20
mL of H2O). The two layers were separated and the aqueous phase was further extracted with
EtOAc (2 x 20 mL, the complete product extraction was checked by TLC). The collected solution was
dried with Na2SO4 (1.15 g), and then it was filtered and washed with EtOAc (3 x 9 mL, the complete
product recovery was checked by TLC). The filtered reaction mixture (total volume = 90 mL) was
concentrated under reduced pressure. The product conversion (86%) with respect to the limiting
aldehyde and the diastereomeric ratio (83:17 = anti/syn) were determined by 1H-NMR in CDCl3 on
the obtained residue.

3.3.3. Procedure for Dilution with EtOAc and Cooling (Method C, Table 8).
A portion (10 mL corresponding to 12.6 mmol) of the first reaction (addition rate = 45 min)
carried out on 100 mmol of limiting aldehyde 2d (see Section 3.2.3) was diluted with EtOAc (4 mL)
and placed at −15 °C for 36 h. A white precipitate was formed, was filtered under vacuum, and
washed with cold EtOAc (2 × 4 mL). Here, 86.2 mg of white solid was recovered. The obtained
solution was placed at −15 °C for further 36 h. A second portion of white solid was filtered under
vacuum and washed with cold EtOAc (2 × 3 mL). Here, 27.1 mg of white solid was recovered. The
collected solution was dried with Na2SO4 (650 mg), and then it was filtered and washed with EtOAc
(3 × 6 mL, the complete product recovery was checked by TLC). The filtered reaction mixture (total
volume = 46 mL) was concentrated under reduced pressure. The product conversion (89%) with
respect to the limiting aldehyde and the diastereomeric ratio (84:16 = anti/syn) were determined by
1H-NMR in CDCl3 on the obtained residue. Total recovered proline = 113.3 mg (78%). The nature of

the white solid was confirmed by 1H-NMR spectroscopy (see Supplementary Materials) and optical
rotation measurement ([α]D 25 = −84; c = 0.135, water) in comparison with the commercial compound
([α]D 25 = −86; c = 0.133, water).

3.3.4. Procedure for Dilution with Et2O and Cooling (Method D, Table 8).
A portion (10 mL corresponding to 12.6 mmol) of the first reaction (addition rate = 45 min)
carried out on 100 mmol of limiting aldehyde 2d (see section 3.2.3) was diluted with Et2O (4 mL) and
placed at −15 °C for 36 h. A white precipitate was formed, it was filtered under vacuum and washed
with cold Et2O (2 × 4 mL). Here, 109.4 mg of white solid was recovered. The obtained solution was
placed at −15 °C for further 36 h. A second portion of white solid was filtered under vacuum and
washed with cold Et2O (2 × 3 mL). Here, 15.4 mg of white solid was recovered. The collected solution
was dried with Na2SO4 (650 mg), and then it was filtered and washed with Et2O (3 × 8 mL, the
complete product recovery was checked by TLC). The filtered reaction mixture (total volume = 52
mL) was concentrated under reduced pressure. The product conversion (90%) with respect to the
limiting aldehyde and the diastereomeric ratio (85:15 = anti/syn) were determined by 1H-NMR in
CDCl3 on the obtained residue. Total recovered proline = 124.8 mg (86%). The nature of the white
solid was confirmed by 1H-NMR spectroscopy (see Supplementary Materials) and optical rotation
measurement ([α]D 25 = −80; c = 0.131, water) in comparison with the commercial compound ([α]D 25 =
−86; c = 0.133, water).

3.3.5. Procedure for Dilution with DCM and Cooling (Method E, Table 8)
A portion (10 mL corresponding to 12.6 mmol) of the first reaction (addition rate = 45 min)
carried out on 100 mmol of limiting aldehyde 2d (see Section 3.2.3) was diluted with DCM (5 mL)
Catalysts 2020, 10, 649 14 of 22

and placed at −15 °C for 36 h. Two liquid phases were formed. The mixture was directly dried with
Na2SO4 (650 mg), and then it was filtered and washed with DCM (3 × 7 mL, the complete product
recovery was checked by TLC). The filtered reaction mixture (total volume = 36 mL) was
concentrated under reduced pressure. The product conversion (88%) with respect to the limiting
aldehyde and the diastereomeric ratio (85:15 = anti/syn) were determined by 1H-NMR in CDCl3 on
the obtained residue.

3.3.6. Procedure for Dilution with n-Hexane and Cooling (Method F, Table 8)
A portion (10 mL corresponding to 12.6 mmol) of the first reaction (addition rate = 45 min)
carried out on 100 mmol of limiting aldehyde 2d (see Section 3.2.3) was diluted with n-hexane (5 mL)
and placed at −15 °C for 36 h. Two liquid phases were formed. The mixture was directly dried with
Na2SO4 (650 mg), and then it was filtered and washed with n-hexane (4 × 7 mL, the complete product
recovery was checked by TLC). The filtered reaction mixture (total volume = 43 mL) was
concentrated under reduced pressure. The product conversion (89%) with respect to the limiting
aldehyde and the diastereomeric ratio (86:14 = anti:syn) were determined by 1H-NMR in CDCl3 on
the obtained residue.

3.4. Products Characterization.

All the synthesized products were known compounds and the obtained data were in agreement
with the published ones:
[134] for products 3aa, 3ab, 3ac, 3ad, 3af, 3ag, and 3ah;
[135] for products 3ae, 3ai, 3ak, and 3ba;
[106] for product 3aj;
[136] for product 3bd;
[137] for product 3cd;
[138] for products 3al and 3am;
[139] for product 3bg;
[129] for product 3cg.
As an example, the complete characterization of the most studied aldol product 3ad (anti
isomer) is reported in the Supplementary Materials. CSP-HPLC separation conditions and
chromatograms of all the aldol products 3 are reported in the Supplementary Materials.

4. Conclusions
Since 2000, the time the first seminal publication by List, Lerner, and Barbas III on the
intermolecular asymmetric aldol reaction catalyzed by proline appeared, a countless number of
papers focused on enamine organocatalysis with the aim to solve a few critical issues inherent in the
use of proline. Summarizing, high catalyst loading, long reaction times, solvent limitations owing to
proline solubility, variable stereocontrol mainly dependent on the donor-acceptor aldol partners,
difficult and/or expensive product isolation, and catalyst recovery characterize the proline-catalysed
aldol protocol. On the other hand, advantages have been previously underlined such as low cost, no
toxicity, no need for anhydrous solvents or controlled atmosphere, and process practicality.
Over these two decades, the greatest efforts have been dedicated to the design and synthesis of
new catalysts, mostly sharing with proline the chiral pyrrolidine scaffold. These derivatives allow to
enlarge the platform of solvent candidates, up to enabling the possibility of catalyst recycling.
Reaction kinetics improve with shorter reaction times and lower catalyst loadings. If these
improvements are beyond doubt, the costs coupled to their preparation are clearly a limiting factor.
On the other hand, it is known that a number of common solvents have been questioned in recent
years as their hazardous properties have come to light, for example, the environmental, safety, and
health issues associated to the use of DCM, toluene, DMSO, and others.
The work presented here shows that very good results can be simply achieved using
methanol/water mixtures as reaction medium. When only water is used, these reactions take place in
Catalysts 2020, 10, 649 15 of 22

a typical heterogeneous conditions (emulsions), where the interphase water has as many as about a
quarter of the O–H bonds not being involved in hydrogen bonding. According to Jung and Marcus
[140], the interactions of these unbound hydroxyl groups with organic reactants and, more
importantly, with the transition states, lower the activation energies, enabling rate and yield
enhancements. Faster reactions occur in pure methanol because of the homogeneous conditions,
which allow all the amount of proline used to participate to catalysis, but this superior reactivity is
characterized by a lower stereocontrol. Recent papers evidenced, by DFT calculations, the positive
effects of co-additives such as water or methanol in stabilizing the transition states of the aldol
reaction, with methanol displaying the larger effects [24,141–143]. These protic additives could
directly participate in the reaction mechanism, acting as an active proton transfer relay between the
proline carboxylic acid group and the incoming aldehyde. The amount and the nature of the protic
additive could significantly change the reactivity and stereoselectivity of this transformation, as
transition states with one, two, and even three molecules of the additive have been located and
described.
If both methanol and water as pure solvents give largely unsatisfactory results that discouraged
further investigations, we demonstrated that methanol/water mixtures provide the high reaction
rates (good yields in short reaction times) typical of methanol and the high stereocontrol typical of
water. The efficient, simple, and cost-effective reaction protocol proposed, easily scaled up here up
to the 100 mmol scale, as well as the safe handling of the methanol/water mixture, positively impact
the overall efficiency and sustainability of this proline-catalysed aldol protocol. However, we have
to observe that, also following this procedure, the recurring dependence of relative reaction rates
and stereochemical outcome on the nature of the donor-acceptor pair has not been overcome. Thus,
cyclohexanone is the best donor in terms of reactivity and stereocontrol, while cyclopentanone
works faster, but with a much lower stereocontrol. Electron-rich aromatic aldehydes are the slowest
reaction acceptors, requiring long reaction times, while electron-poor aldehydes are the best.
Nevertheless, given that the usual relative behavior of ketones and aldehydes is confirmed, the aldol
protocol in methanol/water can be considered a useful contribution, enabling the achievement of
performance never obtained before (also for less reactive compounds), employing the smallest and
cheapest organocatalytic species, proline.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at [Link]/2073-4344/10/6/649/s1, Table
S1: Enantioselectivity variation as a function of reaction time; Figure S1: 1H-NMR spectrum of commercial
proline; Figure S2: 1H-NMR spectrum of recovered proline employing work-up method C (Table 8); Figure S3:
1H-NMR spectrum of recovered proline employing work-up method D (Table 8), CSP-HPLC separation

conditions and chromatograms of aldols 3 (racemic and enantio-enriched), full characterization of anti aldol
product 3ad (CSP-HPLC chromatogram of enantio-enriched product, 1H-NMR spectrum, 13C-NMR spectrum,
HPLC-MS chromatograms, ESI-MS spectrum).

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.L., A.Q., and C.T.; methodology, M.L., A.Q., and C.T.; validation,
A.M. and A.Q.; investigation, M.G.E., A.T., and A.Q.; resources, M.L., A.Q., and C.T.; data curation, M.L., A.Q.,
and C.T.; writing—original draft preparation, A.Q.; writing—review and editing, A.M., M.L., A.Q., and C.T.;
visualization, A.M. and A.Q.; supervision, C.T.; project administration, M.L. and A.Q.; funding acquisition,
M.L., A.Q., and C.T.. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This research and the APC were funded by Università di Bologna (RFO) and MIUR (Rome).

Acknowledgments: We thank R. Miani for the execution of some experiments.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the
study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to
publish the results.

References
1. List, B.; Lerner, R.A.; Barbas, C.F. Proline-Catalyzed Direct Asymmetric Aldol Reactions. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2000, 122, 2395–2396, doi:10.1021/ja994280y.
Catalysts 2020, 10, 649 16 of 22

2. Melchiorre, P.; Marigo, M.; Carlone, A.; Bartoli, G. Asymmetric Aminocatalysis-Gold Rush in Organic
Chemistry. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2008, 47, 6138–6171, doi:10.1002/anie.200705523.
3. Macmillan, D.W.C. The advent and development of organocatalysis. Nat. 2008, 455, 304–308,
doi:10.1038/nature07367.
4. Pihko, P.M.; Majander, I.; Erkkilä, A. Enamine Catalysis. Topics in Current Chemistry 2009, 291, 145–200,
doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02815-1_21.
5. Schneider, J. F.; Ladd C. L.; Bräse, S. Chapter 5: Proline as an Asymmetric Organocatalyst , in Sustainable
Catalysis: Without Metals or Other Endangered Elements, Part 1, 2015, pp. 79-119, doi:
10.1039/9781782622093-00079
6. Yamashita, Y.; Yasukawa, T.; Yoo, W.-J.; Kitanosono, T.; Kobayashi, S. Catalytic enantioselective aldol
reactions. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2018, 47, 4388–4480, doi:10.1039/c7cs00824d.
7. Wang, L.; Liu, J. Recent Advances in Asymmetric Reactions Catalyzed by Proline and Its Derivatives.
Synth. 2016, 49, 960–972, doi:10.1055/s-0036-1588901.
8. List, B. Proline-catalyzed asymmetric reactions. Tetrahedron 2002, 58, 5573–5590,
doi:10.1016/s0040-4020(02)00516-1.
9. Barbas, C.F. Organocatalysis Lost: Modern Chemistry, Ancient Chemistry, and an Unseen Biosynthetic
Apparatus. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2008, 47, 42–47, doi:10.1002/anie.200702210.
10. Palomo, C.; Oiarbide, M.; García, J.M. Current progress in the asymmetric aldol addition reaction. Chem.
Soc. Rev. 2004, 33, 65−75. doi: 10.1039/B202901DH.
11. Wennemers, H. Peptides as Asymmetric Catalysts for Aldol Reactions. Chim. Int. J. Chem. 2007, 61, 276–
278, doi:10.2533/chimia.2007.276.
12. Notz, W.; Tanaka, F.; Barbas, C.F. Enamine-Based Organocatalysis with Proline and Diamines: The
Development of Direct Catalytic Asymmetric Aldol, Mannich, Michael, and Diels−Alder Reactions.
Accounts Chem. Res. 2004, 37, 580–591, doi:10.1021/ar0300468.
13. Mukherjee, S.; Yang, J.W.; Hoffmann, S.; List, B. Asymmetric Enamine Catalysis. Chem. Rev. 2007, 107,
5471–5569, doi:10.1021/cr0684016.
14. Alcaide, B.; Almendros, P. The Direct Catalytic Asymmetric Cross-Aldol Reaction of Aldehydes. Angew.
Chem. Int. Ed. 2003, 42, 858–860, doi:10.1002/anie.200390232.
15. Alcaide, B.; Almendros, P. The Direct Catalytic Asymmetric Aldol Reaction. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2002, 2002,
1595–1601, doi:10.1002/1099-0690(200205)2002:[Link];2-m.
16. Guillena, G.; Najera, C.; Ramón, D.J. Enantioselective direct aldol reaction: the blossoming of modern
organocatalysis. Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 2007, 18, 2249–2293, doi:10.1016/[Link].2007.09.025.
17. Geary, L.M.; Hultin, P.G. The state of the art in asymmetric induction: the aldol reaction as a case study.
Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 2009, 20, 131–173, doi:10.1016/[Link].2008.12.030.
18. Schetter, B.; Mahrwald, R. Modern Aldol Methods for the Total Synthesis of Polyketides. Angew. Chem. Int.
Ed. 2006, 45, 7506–7525, doi:10.1002/anie.200602780.
19. Mestres, R. A green look at the aldol reaction. Green Chem. 2004, 6, 583, doi:10.1039/b409143b.
20. Bahmanyar, S.; Houk, K.N.; Martin, H.J.; List, B. Quantum Mechanical Predictions of the
Stereoselectivities of Proline-Catalyzed Asymmetric Intermolecular Aldol Reactions. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2003, 125, 2475–2479, doi:10.1021/ja028812d.
21. Seebach, D.; Beck, A.K.; Badine, D.M.; Limbach, M.; Eschenmoser, A.; Treasurywala, A.M.; Hobi, R.;
Prikoszovich, W.; Linder, B. Are Oxazolidinones Really Unproductive, Parasitic Species in Proline
Catalysis? – Thoughts and Experiments Pointing to an Alternative View. Helvetica Chim. Acta 2007, 90, 425–
471, doi:10.1002/hlca.200790050.
22. Zotova, N.; Franzke, A.; Armstrong, A.; Blackmond, D.G. Clarification of the Role of Water in
Proline-Mediated Aldol Reactions. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 15100–15101, doi:10.1021/ja0738881.
23. Zotova, N.; Broadbelt, L.J.; Armstrong, A.; Blackmond, D.G. Kinetic and mechanistic studies of
proline-mediated direct intermolecular aldol reactions. Bioorganic Med. Chem. Lett. 2009, 19, 3934–3937,
doi:10.1016/[Link].2009.03.112.
24. Sharma, A.K.; Sunoj, R.B. Enamine versus Oxazolidinone: What Controls Stereoselectivity in
Proline-Catalyzed Asymmetric Aldol Reactions? Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2010, 49, 6373–6377,
doi:10.1002/anie.201001588.
25. Orlandi, M.; Ceotto, M.; Benaglia, M. Kinetics versus thermodynamics in the proline catalyzed aldol
reaction. Chem. Sci. 2016, 7, 5421–5427, doi:10.1039/c6sc01328g.
Catalysts 2020, 10, 649 17 of 22

26. Haindl, M.H.; Hioe, J.; Gschwind, R.M. The Proline Enamine Formation Pathway Revisited in Dimethyl
Sulfoxide: Rate Constants Determined via NMR. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2015, 137, 12835–12842,
doi:10.1021/jacs.5b03420.
27. Renzi, P.; Hioe, J.; Gschwind, R.M. Enamine/Dienamine and Brønsted Acid Catalysis: Elusive
Intermediates, Reaction Mechanisms, and Stereoinduction Modes Based on in Situ NMR Spectroscopy
and Computational Studies. Accounts Chem. Res. 2017, 50, 2936–2948, doi:10.1021/[Link].7b00320.
28. Notz, W.; List, B. Catalytic Asymmetric Synthesis ofanti-1,2-Diols. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 7386–7387,
doi:10.1021/ja001460v.
29. List, B.; Pojarliev, P.; Castello, C. Proline-Catalyzed Asymmetric Aldol Reactions between Ketones and
α-Unsubstituted Aldehydes. Org. Lett. 2001, 3, 573–575, doi:10.1021/ol006976y.
30. Sakthivel, K.; Notz, W.; Bui, T.; Barbas, C.F. Amino acid catalyzed direct asymmetric aldol reactions: a
bioorganic approach to catalytic asymmetric carbon-carbon bond-forming reactions. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2001, 123, 5260–5267, doi:10.1021/ja010037z.
31. Córdova, A.; Notz, W.; Barbas, C.F. Direct organocatalytic aldol reactions in buffered aqueous media.
Chem. Commun. 2002, 24, 3024–3025, doi:10.1039/b207664k.
32. Pihko, P.M.; Nyberg, A.I.; Usano, A. Proline-Catalyzed Ketone-Aldehyde Aldol Reactions are Accelerated
by Water. Synlett 2004, 2004, 1891–1896, doi:10.1055/s-2004-831296.
33. Peng, Y.-Y.; Ding, Q.-P.; Li, Z.; Wang, P.G.; Cheng, J.-P. Proline catalyzed aldol reactions in aqueous
micelles: an environmentally friendly reaction system. Tetrahedron Lett. 2003, 44, 3871–3875,
doi:10.1016/s0040-4039(03)00692-0.
34. Darbre, T.; Machuqueiro, M. Zn-Proline catalyzed direct aldol reaction in aqueous mediaElectronic
supplementary information (ESI) available: experimental details. See
[Link] Chem. Commun. 2003, 1090–1091, doi:10.1039/b301117h.
35. Hayashi, Y.; Tsuboi, W.; Shoji, M.; Suzuki, N. Application of high pressure, induced by water freezing, to
the direct asymmetric aldol reaction. Tetrahedron Lett. 2004, 45, 4353–4356, doi:10.1016/[Link].2004.03.190.
36. Wu, Y.-S.; Shao, W.-Y.; Zheng, C.-Q.; Huang, Z.-L.; Cai, J.; Deng, Q.-Y. Studies on Direct Stereoselective
Aldol Reactions in Aqueous Media. Helvetica Chim. Acta 2004, 87, 1377–1384, doi:10.1002/hlca.200490125.
37. Trost, B.M.; Brindle, C.S. The direct catalytic asymmetric aldol reaction. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2010, 39, 1600–32,
doi:10.1039/b923537j.
38. Li, Z.-Y.; Chen, Y.; Zheng, C.-Q.; Yin, Y.; Wang, L.; Sun, X.-Q. Highly enantioselective aldol reactions
catalyzed by reusable upper rim-functionalized calix[4]arene-based l -proline organocatalyst in aqueous
conditions. Tetrahedron 2017, 73, 78–85, doi:10.1016/[Link].2016.11.052.
39. Benaglia, M. Recoverable and Recyclable Catalysts, 1st ed.; Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2009.
40. Liu, Y.-X.; Sun, Y.-N.; Tan, H.-H.; Tao, J.-C. Asymmetric Aldol Reaction Catalyzed by New Recyclable
Polystyrene-supported l-proline in the Presence of Water. Catal. Lett. 2007, 120, 281–287,
doi:10.1007/s10562-007-9281-8.
41. Liu, Y.-X.; Sun, Y.-N.; Tan, H.-H.; Liu, W.; Tao, J.-C. Linear polystyrene anchored l-proline, new recyclable
organocatalysts for the aldol reaction in the presence of water. Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 2007, 18, 2649–2656,
doi:10.1016/[Link].2007.10.032.
42. Gruttadauria, M.; Giacalone, F.; Marculescu, A.M.; Meo, P.L.; Rielaa, S.; Noto, R. Hydrophobically
Directed Aldol Reactions: Polystyrene-SupportedL-Proline as a Recyclable Catalyst for Direct Asymmetric
Aldol Reactions in the Presence of Water. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2007, 2007, 4688–4698,
doi:10.1002/ejoc.200700586.
43. Lu, A.; Smart, T.P.; Epps, T.H.; Longbottom, D.A.; O’Reilly, R.K. l-Proline Functionalized Polymers
Prepared by RAFT Polymerization and Their Assemblies as Supported Organocatalysts. Macromol. 2011,
44, 7233–7241, doi:10.1021/ma201256m.
44. Benaglia, M.; Cinquini, M.; Cozzi, F.; Puglisi, A.; Celentano, G. Poly(Ethylene Glycol)-Supported Proline:
A Versatile Catalyst for the Enantioselective Aldol and Iminoaldol Reactions. Adv. Synth. Catal. 2002, 344,
533–542, doi:10.1002/1615-4169(200207)344:[Link];2-y.
45. Benaglia, M.; Celentano, G.; Cozzi, F. Enantioselective Aldol Condensations Catalyzed by Poly(ethylene
glycol)‐Supported Proline. Adv. Synth. Catal. 2001, 343, 171−173. doi:
10.1002/1615-4169(20010226)343:[Link];2-3.
Catalysts 2020, 10, 649 18 of 22

46. Calderón, F.; Fernández, R.; Sánchez, F.; Fernández-Mayoralas, A. Asymmetric Aldol Reaction Using
Immobilized Proline on Mesoporous Support. Adv. Synth. Catal. 2005, 347, 1395–1403,
doi:10.1002/adsc.200505058.
47. Giacalone, F.; Gruttadauria, M.; Marculescu, A.M.; Noto, R. Polystyrene-supported proline and
prolinamide. Versatile heterogeneous organocatalysts both for asymmetric aldol reaction in water and
α-selenenylation of aldehydes. Tetrahedron Lett. 2007, 48, 255–259, doi:10.1016/[Link].2006.11.040.
48. Font, D.; Jimeno, C.; Pericàs, M.A. Polystyrene-Supported Hydroxyproline: An Insoluble, Recyclable
Organocatalyst for the Asymmetric Aldol Reaction in Water. Org. Lett. 2006, 8, 4653–4655,
doi:10.1021/ol061964j.
49. Yang, H.; Zhang, X.; Li, S.; Wang, X.; Ma, J. The high catalytic activity and reusability of the proline
functionalized cage-like mesoporous material SBA-16 for the asymmetric aldol reaction proceeding in
methanol–water mixed solvent. RSC Adv. 2014, 4, 9292–9299, doi:10.1039/c3ra47262k.
50. Angeloni, M.; Piermatti, O.; Pizzo, F.; Vaccaro, L. Synthesis of Zirconium Phosphonate
SupportedL-Proline as an Effective Organocatalyst for Direct Asymmetric Aldol Addition. Eur. J. Org.
Chem. 2014, 2014, 1716–1726, doi:10.1002/ejoc.201301673.
51. Aghahosseini, H.; Ramazani, A.; Ślepokura, K.; Lis, T. The first protection-free synthesis of magnetic
bifunctional l-proline as a highly active and versatile artificial enzyme: Synthesis of imidazole derivatives.
J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2018, 511, 222–232, doi:10.1016/[Link].2017.10.020.
52. Doyagüez, E.G.; Calderón, F.; Sánchez, F.; Fernández-Mayoralas, A. Asymmetric Aldol Reaction
Catalyzed by a Heterogenized Proline on a Mesoporous Support. The Role of the Nature of Solvents. J.
Org. Chem. 2007, 72, 9353–9356, doi:10.1021/jo070992s.
53. Campisciano, V.; Giacalone, F.; Gruttadauria, M. Supported Ionic Liquids: A Versatile and Useful Class of
Materials. Chem. Rec. 2017, 17, 918–938, doi:10.1002/tcr.201700005.
54. Kong, Y.; Tan, R.; Zhao, L.; Yin, D. l-Proline supported on ionic liquid-modified magnetic nanoparticles as
a highly efficient and reusable organocatalyst for direct asymmetric aldol reaction in water. Green Chem.
2013, 15, 2422, doi:10.1039/c3gc40772a.
55. Ferré, M.; Pleixats, R.; Man, M.W.C.; Cattoën, X. Recyclable organocatalysts based on hybrid silicas. Green
Chem. 2016, 18, 881–922, doi:10.1039/C5GC02579F.
56. Aprile, C.; Giacalone, F.; Gruttadauria, M.; Marculescu, A.M.; Noto, R.; Revell, J.D.; Wennemers, H. New
ionic liquid-modified silica gels as recyclable materials for l-proline- or H–Pro–Pro–Asp–NH2-catalyzed
aldol reaction. Green Chem. 2007, 9, 1328, doi:10.1039/b709471j.
57. Lombardo, M.; Trombini, C. Ionic Tags in Catalyst Optimization: Beyond Catalyst Recycling.
ChemCatChem 2010, 2, 135–145, doi:10.1002/cctc.200900256.
58. Lombardo, M.; Quintavalla, A.; Chiarucci, M.; Trombini, C. Multiphase Homogeneous Catalysis:
Common Procedures and Recent Applications. Synlett 2010, 2010, 1746–1765, doi:10.1055/s-0030-1258114.
59. Lombardo, M.; Pasi, F.; Easwar, S.; Trombini, C. An Improved Protocol for the Direct Asymmetric Aldol
Reaction in Ionic Liquids, Catalysed by Onium Ion-Tagged Prolines. Adv. Synth. Catal. 2007, 349, 2061–
2065, doi:10.1002/adsc.200700136.
60. Lombardo, M.; Pasi, F.; Easwar, S.; Trombini, C. Direct Asymmetric Aldol Reaction Catalyzed by an
Imidazolium-Tagged trans -4-Hydroxy- l -proline under Aqueous Biphasic Conditions. Synlett 2008, 2471–
2474, doi:10.1055/s-2008-1078055.
61. Lombardo, M.; Easwar, S.; Pasi, F.; Trombini, C. The Ion Tag Strategy as a Route to Highly Efficient
Organocatalysts for the Direct Asymmetric Aldol Reaction. Adv. Synth. Catal. 2009, 351, 276–282,
doi:10.1002/adsc.200800608.
62. Bhati, M.; Upadhyay, S.; Easwar, S.; Srinivasan, E. Exploring “Through-Bond” Proximity between the Ion
Tag and Reaction Site of an Imidazolium-Proline Catalyst for the Direct Asymmetric Aldol Reaction. Eur.
J. Org. Chem. 2017, 1788–1793, doi:10.1002/ejoc.201700021.
63. Rosso, C.; Emma, M.G.; Martinelli, A.; Lombardo, M.; Quintavalla, A.; Trombini, C.; Syrgiannis, Z.; Prato,
M. A Recyclable Chiral 2‐(Triphenylmethyl)pyrrolidine Organocatalyst Anchored to [60]Fullerene. Adv.
Synth. Catal. 2019, 361, 2936–2944, doi:10.1002/adsc.201900009.
64. Bottoni, A.; Lombardo, M.; Miscione, G.P.; Montroni, E.; Quintavalla, A.; Trombini, C. Electrosteric
Activation by using Ion-Tagged Prolines: A Combined Experimental and Computational Investigation.
ChemCatChem 2013, 5, 2913–2924, doi:10.1002/cctc.201300399.
Catalysts 2020, 10, 649 19 of 22

65. Montroni, E.; Lombardo, M.; Quintavalla, A.; Trombini, C.; Gruttadauria, M.; Giacalone, F. A
Liquid-Liquid Biphasic Homogeneous Organocatalytic Aldol Protocol Based on the Use of a Silica Gel
Bound Multilayered Ionic Liquid Phase. ChemCatChem 2012, 4, 1000–1006, doi:10.1002/cctc.201200125.
66. Montroni, E.; Sanap, S.P.; Trombini, C.; Dhavale, D.D.; Lombardo, M.; Quintavalla, A. A New Robust and
Efficient Ion?Tagged Proline Catalyst Carrying an Amide Spacer for the Asymmetric Aldol Reaction. Adv.
Synth. Catal. 2011, 353, 3234–3240, doi:10.1002/adsc.201100595.
67. Loh, T.-P.; Feng, L.-C.; Yang, H.-Y.; Yang, J.-Y. l-Proline in an ionic liquid as an efficient and reusable
catalyst for direct asymmetric aldol reactions. Tetrahedron Lett. 2002, 43, 8741–8743,
doi:10.1016/s0040-4039(02)02104-4.
68. Kotrusz, P.; Kmentov??, I.; Gotov, B.; Toma, ??tefan; Sol????niov??, E.; Kmentova, I.; Solčániová, E.
Proline-catalysed asymmetric aldol reaction in the room temperature ionic liquid [bmim]PF6Electronic
supplementary information (ESI) available: experimental details and 1H-NMR spectra of the prepared
compounds. Chem. Commun. 2002, 2510–2511, doi:10.1039/b206911c.
69. Gruttadauria, M.; Rielaa, S.; Aprile, C.; Meo, P.L.; D’Anna, F.; Noto, R. Supported Ionic Liquids. New
Recyclable Materials for theL-Proline-Catalyzed Aldol Reaction. Adv. Synth. Catal. 2006, 348, 82–92,
doi:10.1002/adsc.200505227.
70. Kitazume, T.; Jiang, Z.; Kasai, K.; Mihara, Y.; Suzuki, M. Synthesis of fluorinated materials catalyzed by
proline or antibody 38C2 in ionic liquid. J. Fluor. Chem. 2003, 121, 205–212,
doi:10.1016/s0022-1139(03)00032-0.
71. Córdova, A. Direct catalytic asymmetric cross-aldol reactions in ionic liquid media. Tetrahedron Lett. 2004,
45, 3949–3952, doi:10.1016/[Link].2004.03.080.
72. Miao, W.; Chan, T.-H. Ionic-Liquid-Supported Organocatalyst: Efficient and Recyclable
Ionic-Liquid-Anchored Proline for Asymmetric Aldol Reaction. Adv. Synth. Catal. 2006, 348, 1711–1718,
doi:10.1002/adsc.200606059.
73. List, B.; Martínez, A.; Zumbansen, K.; Döhring, A.; Van Gemmeren, M. Improved Conditions for the
Proline-Catalyzed Aldol Reaction of Acetone with Aliphatic Aldehydes. Synlett 2014, 25, 932–934,
doi:10.1055/s-0033-1340919.
74. Trajković, J.M.; Milanovic, V.D.; Ferjančić, Z.; Saicic, R.N. On the Asymmetric Induction in
Proline-Catalyzed Aldol Reactions: Reagent-Controlled Addition Reactions of
2,2-Dimethyl-1,3-dioxane-5-one to Acyclic Chiral α-Branched Aldehydes. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2017, 6146–
6153, doi:10.1002/ejoc.201701073.
75. Rougeot, C.; Situ, H.; Cao, B.H.; Vlachos, V.; Hein, J.E. Automated reaction progress monitoring of
heterogeneous reactions: crystallization-induced stereoselectivity in amine-catalyzed aldol reactions.
React. Chem. Eng. 2017, 2, 226–231, doi:10.1039/C6RE00211K.
76. Brenna, D.; Massolo, E.; Puglisi, A.; Rossi, S.; Celentano, G.; Benaglia, M.; Capriati, V. Towards the
development of continuous, organocatalytic, and stereoselective reactions in deep eutectic solvents.
Beilstein J. Org. Chem. 2016, 12, 2620–2626, doi:10.3762/bjoc.12.258.
77. Martínez, R.; Berbegal, L.; Guillena, G.; Ramón, D.J. Bio-renewable enantioselective aldol reaction in
natural deep eutectic solvents. Green Chem. 2016, 18, 1724–1730, doi:10.1039/C5GC02526E.
78. Rodriguez, B.; Bruckmann, A.; Bolm, C. A Highly Efficient Asymmetric Organocatalytic Aldol Reaction in
a Ball Mill. Chem. - A Eur. J. 2007, 13, 4710–4722, doi:10.1002/chem.200700188.
79. Bruckmann, A.; Krebs, A.; Bolm, C. Organocatalytic reactions: effects of ball milling, microwave and
ultrasound irradiation. Green Chem. 2008, 10, 1131, doi:10.1039/b812536h.
80. Veverková, E.; Modrocká, V.; Sebesta, R. Organocatalyst Efficiency in the ?-Aminoxylation and
?-Hydrazination of Carbonyl Derivatives in Aqueous Media or in a Ball-Mill. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2017, 1191–
1195, doi:10.1002/ejoc.201601357.
81. Kumar, A.; Gupta, M.K.; Kumar, M. l-Proline catalysed multicomponent synthesis of 3-amino alkylated
indolesvia a Mannich-type reaction under solvent-free conditions. Green Chem. 2012, 14, 290–295,
doi:10.1039/c1gc16297g.
82. Curzons, A.D.; Constable, D.J.C.; Cunningham, V.L. Expanding GSK?s Solvent Selection
Guide?application of life cycle assessment to enhance solvent selections. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy
2004, 7, 42–50, doi:10.1007/s10098-004-0245-z.
Catalysts 2020, 10, 649 20 of 22

83. Byrne, F.; Jin, S.; Paggiola, G.; Petchey, T.H.M.; Clark, J.H.; Farmer, T.J.; Hunt, A.J.; McElroy, C.R.;
Sherwood, J. Tools and techniques for solvent selection: green solvent selection guides. Sustain. Chem.
Process. 2016, 4, 1034, doi:10.1186/s40508-016-0051-z.
84. Henderson, R.K.; Jiménez-González, C. (Conchita); Constable, D.J.C.; Alston, S.R.; Inglis, G.G.A.; Fisher,
G.; Sherwood, J.; Binks, S.P.; Curzons, A.D. Expanding GSK’s solvent selection guide – embedding
sustainability into solvent selection starting at medicinal chemistry. Green Chem. 2011, 13, 854,
doi:10.1039/c0gc00918k.
85. Pihko, P.M.; Laurikainen, K.M.; Usano, A.; Nyberg, A.I.; Kaavi, J.A. Effect of additives on the
proline-catalyzed ketone–aldehyde aldol reactions. Tetrahedron 2006, 62, 317–328,
doi:10.1016/[Link].2005.09.070.
86. Kaur, N.; Kishore, D. Synthetic Strategies Applicable in the Synthesis of Privileged Scaffold:
1,4-Benzodiazepine. Synth. Commun. 2014, 44, 1375–1413, doi:10.1080/00397911.2013.772202.
87. Ward, D.; Jheengut, V. Proline-catalyzed asymmetric aldol reactions of tetrahydro-4H-thiopyran-4-one
with aldehydes. Tetrahedron Lett. 2004, 45, 8347–8350, doi:10.1016/[Link].2004.09.061.
88. Cai, J.; Wu, Y.-S.; Chen, Y.; Deng, D.-S. Proline-Catalyzed Asymmetric Direct Aldol Reaction Assisted by
d-Camphorsulfonic Acid in Aqueous Media. Synlett 2005, 1627–1629, doi:10.1055/s-2005-869864.
89. Zhou, Y.; Shan, Z. (R)- or (S)-Bi-2-naphthol assisted, l-proline catalyzed direct aldol reaction. Tetrahedron:
Asymmetry 2006, 17, 1671–1677, doi:10.1016/[Link].2006.06.022.
90. Zhou, Y.; Shan, Z. Chiral Diols: A New Class of Additives for Direct Aldol Reaction Catalyzed byl-Proline.
J. Org. Chem. 2006, 71, 9510–9512, doi:10.1021/jo060802y.
91. Reis, O.; Eymur, S.; Reis, B.; Demir, A.S. Direct enantioselective aldol reactions catalyzed by a proline–
thiourea host–guest complex. Chem. Commun. 2009, 1088, doi:10.1039/b817474a.
92. El-Hamdouni, N.; Companyó, X.; Rios, R.; Moyano, A. Substrate-Dependent Nonlinear Effects in
Proline-Thiourea-Catalyzed Aldol Reactions: Unraveling the Role of the Thiourea Co-Catalyst. Chem. - A
Eur. J. 2010, 16, 1142–1148, doi:10.1002/chem.200902678.
93. Demir, A.S.; Basceken, S. Study of asymmetric aldol and Mannich reactions catalyzed by proline–thiourea
host–guest complexes in nonpolar solvents. Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 2013, 24, 515–525,
doi:10.1016/[Link].2013.03.014.
94. Martinez-Castaneda, A.; Rodriguez-Solla, H.; Concellón, C.; Del Amo, V. Switching Diastereoselectivity in
Proline-Catalyzed Aldol Reactions. J. Org. Chem. 2012, 77, 10375–10381, doi:10.1021/jo3020352.
95. Xu, Z.; Daka, P.; Wang, H. Primary amine-metal Lewis acid bifunctional catalysts: the application to
asymmetric direct aldol reactions. Chem. Commun. 2009, 6825, doi:10.1039/b912728c.
96. Daka, P.; Xu, Z.; Alexa, A.; Wang, H. Primary amine-metal Lewis acid bifunctional catalysts based on a
simple bidentate ligand: direct asymmetric aldol reaction. Chem. Commun. 2011, 47, 224–226,
doi:10.1039/c0cc00917b.
97. Paradowska, J.; Stodulski, M.; Mlynarski, J. Direct Catalytic Asymmetric Aldol Reactions Assisted by Zinc
Complex in the Presence of Water. Adv. Synth. Catal. 2007, 349, 1041–1046, doi:10.1002/adsc.200600581.
98. Lu, Z.; Mei, H.; Han, J.; Pan, Y. The Mimic of Type II Aldolases Chemistry: Asymmetric Synthesis of
β-Hydroxy Ketones by Direct Aldol Reaction. Chem. Boil. Drug Des. 2010, 76, 181–186,
doi:10.1111/j.1747-0285.2010.00998.x.
99. Itoh, S.; Kitamura, M.; Yamada, Y.; Aoki, S. Chiral Catalysts Dually Functionalized with Amino Acid and
Zn2+Complex Components for Enantioselective Direct Aldol Reactions Inspired by Natural Aldolases:
Design, Synthesis, Complexation Properties, Catalytic Activities, and Mechanistic Study. Chem. - A Eur. J.
2009, 15, 10570–10584, doi:10.1002/chem.200900733.
100. Kofoed, J.; Darbre, T.; Reymond, J. Dual mechanism of zinc-proline catalyzed aldol reactions in water.
Chem. Commun. 2006, 1482, doi:10.1039/b600703a.
101. Kofoed, J.; Machuqueiro, M.; Reymond, J.; Darbre, T. Zinc–proline catalyzed pathway for the formation of
sugars. Chem. Commun. 2004, 1540, doi:10.1039/b404465g.
102. Fernandez-Lopez, R.; Kofoed, J.; Machuqueiro, M.; Darbre, T. A Selective Direct Aldol Reaction in
Aqueous Media Catalyzed byZinc-Proline. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2005, 5268–5276, doi:10.1002/ejoc.200500352.
103. Kofoed, J.; Reymond, J.; Darbre, T. Prebiotic carbohydrate synthesis: zinc–proline catalyzes direct aqueous
aldol reactions of α-hydroxy aldehydes and ketones. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2005, 3, 1850, doi:10.1039/b501512j.
104. Akagawa, K.; Sakamoto, S.; Kudo, K. Direct asymmetric aldol reaction in aqueous media using
polymer-supported peptide. Tetrahedron Lett. 2005, 46, 8185–8187, doi:10.1016/[Link].2005.09.113.
Catalysts 2020, 10, 649 21 of 22

105. Penhoat, M.; Barbry, D.; Rolando, C. Direct asymmetric aldol reaction co-catalyzed by l-proline and group
12 elements Lewis acids in the presence of water. Tetrahedron Lett. 2011, 52, 159–162,
doi:10.1016/[Link].2010.11.014.
106. Karmakar, A.; Maji, T.; Wittmann, S.; Reiser, O. L-Proline/CoCl2-Catalyzed Highly Diastereo- and
Enantioselective Direct Aldol Reactions. Chem. - A Eur. J. 2011, 17, 11024–11029,
doi:10.1002/chem.201101299.
107. Zhang, Q.; Hou, Q.; Huang, G.; Fan, Q. Removal of heavy metals in aquatic environment by graphene
oxide composites: a review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 27, 190–209, doi:10.1007/s11356-019-06683-w.
108. Singh, S.; Kumar, V.; Datta, S.; Dhanjal, D.S.; Sharma, K.; Samuel, J.; Singh, J. Current advancement and
future prospect of biosorbents for bioremediation. Sci. Total. Environ. 2020, 709, 135895,
doi:10.1016/[Link].2019.135895.
109. Vareda, J.P.; Valente, A.J.; Durães, L. Assessment of heavy metal pollution from anthropogenic activities
and remediation strategies: A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 246, 101–118,
doi:10.1016/[Link].2019.05.126.
110. Lindström, U.M. Stereoselective Organic Reactions in Water. Chem. Rev. 2002, 102, 2751–2772,
doi:10.1021/cr010122p.
111. Sinou, D. Asymmetric Organometallic-Catalyzed Reactions in Aqueous Media. Adv. Synth. Catal. 2002,
344, 221–237, doi:10.1002/1615-4169(200206)344:3/[Link];2-n.
112. Prat, D.; Pardigon, O.; Flemming, H.-W.; Letestu, S.; Ducandas, V.; Isnard, P.; Guntrum, E.; Senac, T.;
Ruisseau, S.; Cruciani, P.; et al. Sanofi’s Solvent Selection Guide: A Step Toward More Sustainable
Processes. Org. Process. Res. Dev. 2013, 17, 1517–1525, doi:10.1021/op4002565.
113. Capello, C.; Fischer, U.; Hungerbühler, K. What is a green solvent? A comprehensive framework for the
environmental assessment of solvents. Green Chem. 2007, 9, 927–934, doi:10.1039/b617536h.
114. Clegg, W.; Harrington, R.W.; North, M.; Pizzato, F.; Villuendas, P. Cyclic carbonates as sustainable
solvents for proline-catalysed aldol reactions. Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 2010, 21, 1262–1271,
doi:10.1016/[Link].2010.03.051.
115. Tan, R.; Li, C.; Luo, J.; Kong, Y.; Zheng, W.; Yin, D. An effective heterogeneous l-proline catalyst for the
direct asymmetric aldol reaction using graphene oxide as support. J. Catal. 2013, 298, 138–147,
doi:10.1016/[Link].2012.11.024.
116. Qian, Y.; Zheng, X.; Wang, X.; Xiao, S.; Wang, Y. An Efficient Ionic Liquid Additive for Proline-catalyzed
Direct Asymmetric Aldol Reactions between Cyclic Ketones and Aromatic Aldehydes. Chem. Lett. 2009, 38,
576–577, doi:10.1246/cl.2009.576.
117. Rodriguez, B.; Rantanen, T.; Bolm, C. Solvent-Free Asymmetric Organocatalysis in a Ball Mill. Angew.
Chem. Int. Ed. 2006, 45, 6924–6926, doi:10.1002/anie.200602820.
118. Obregon, A.; Milán, M.; Juaristi, E. Improving the Catalytic Performance of (S)-Proline as Organocatalyst
in Asymmetric Aldol Reactions in the Presence of Solvate Ionic Liquids: Involvement of a Supramolecular
Aggregate. Org. Lett. 2017, 19, 1108–1111, doi:10.1021/[Link].7b00129.
119. Martínez-CastañedaA.; Poladura, B.; Rodriguez-Solla, H.; Concellón, C.; Del Amo, V. Direct Aldol
Reactions Catalyzed by a Heterogeneous Guanidinium Salt/Proline System under Solvent-Free
Conditions‡. Org. Lett. 2011, 13, 3032–3035, doi:10.1021/ol200890r.
120. Szőllősi, G.; Fekete, M.; Gurka, A.A.; Bartók, M. Reversal of Enantioselectivity in Aldol Reaction: New
Data on Proline/γ-Alumina Organic–Inorganic Hybrid Catalysts. Catal. Lett. 2013, 144, 478–486,
doi:10.1007/s10562-013-1177-1.
121. North, M.; Villuendas, P. A Chiral Solvent Effect in Asymmetric Organocatalysis. Org. Lett. 2010, 12, 2378–
2381, doi:10.1021/ol1007313.
122. Hayashi, Y.; Aratake, S.; Itoh, T.; Okano, T.; Sumiya, T.; Shoji, M. Dry and wet prolines for asymmetric
organic solvent-free aldehyde–aldehyde and aldehyde–ketone aldol reactions. Chem. Commun. 2007, 957–
959, doi:10.1039/b613262f.
123. Guo, G.; Wu, Y.; Zhao, X.; Wang, J.; Zhang, L.; Cui, Y. Polymerization of l-proline functionalized styrene
and its catalytic performance as a supported organocatalyst for direct enantioselective aldol reaction.
Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 2016, 27, 740–746, doi:10.1016/[Link].2016.06.014.
124. Zhang, X.; Wang, L.; Wang, Z.; Yan, J. Merrifield Resin Supported Ionic Liquids/l-Proline as Efficient and
Recyclable Catalyst Systems for Asymmetric Aldol Reaction. Synthesis 2009, 3744–3750,
doi:10.1055/s-0029-1217013.
Catalysts 2020, 10, 649 22 of 22

125. Yang, H.; Li, S.; Wang, X.; Zhang, F.; Zhong, X.; Dong, Z.; Ma, J. Core–shell silica magnetic microspheres
supported proline as a recyclable organocatalyst for the asymmetric aldol reaction. J. Mol. Catal. A: Chem.
2012, 363, 404–410, doi:10.1016/[Link].2012.07.017.
126. Yacob, Z.; Nan, A.; Liebscher, J. Proline-Functionalized Magnetic Core-Shell Nanoparticles as Efficient and
Recyclable Organocatalysts for Aldol Reactions. Adv. Synth. Catal. 2012, 354, 3259–3264,
doi:10.1002/adsc.201200359.
127. Liebscher, J.; Shah, J.; Khan, S.; Blumenthal, H. 1,2,3-Triazolium-Tagged Prolines and Their Application in
Asymmetric Aldol and Michael Reactions. Synthesis 2009, 3975–3982, doi:10.1055/s-0029-1217039.
128. Kucherenko, A.S.; Struchkova, M.I.; Zlotin, S.G. The (S)-Proline/Polyelectrolyte System: An Efficient,
Heterogeneous, Reusable Catalyst for Direct Asymmetric Aldol Reactions. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2006, 2000–
2004, doi:10.1002/ejoc.200500888.
129. Ibrahem, I.; Zou, W.; Xu, Y.; Córdova, A. Amino Acid-Catalyzed Asymmetric Carbohydrate Formation:
Organocatalytic One-StepDe Novo Synthesis of Keto and Amino Sugars. Adv. Synth. Catal. 2006, 348, 211–
222, doi:10.1002/adsc.200505323.
130. Suri, J.T.; Mitsumori, S.; Albertshofer, K.; Tanaka, F.; Barbas, C.F. Dihydroxyacetone Variants in the
Organocatalytic Construction of Carbohydrates: Mimicking Tagatose and Fuculose Aldolases. J. Org.
Chem. 2006, 71, 3822–3828, doi:10.1021/jo0602017.
131. Grondal, C.; Enders, D. Direct asymmetric organocatalytic de novo synthesis of carbohydrates. Tetrahedron
2006, 62, 329–337, doi:10.1016/[Link].2005.09.060.
132. Majewski, M.; Niewczas, I.; Palyam, N. Acids as Proline Co-catalysts in the Aldol Reaction of
1,3-Dioxan-5-ones. Synlett 2006, 2387–2390, doi:10.1055/s-2006-950421.
133. Ibrahem, I.; Córdova, A. Amino acid catalyzed direct enantioselective formation of carbohydrates:
one-step de novo synthesis of ketoses. Tetrahedron Lett. 2005, 46, 3363–3367, doi:10.1016/[Link].2005.03.084.
134. Gong, Z.; Wei, C.; Shi, Y.; Zheng, Q.; Song, Z.; Liu, Z. Novel chiral bifunctional l-thiazoline-amide
derivatives: design and application in the direct enantioselective aldol reactions. Tetrahedron 2014, 70,
1827–1835, doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.01.006.
135. Miura, T.; Kasuga, H.; Imai, K.; Ina, M.; Tada, N.; Imai, N.; Itoh, A. Highly efficient asymmetric aldol
reaction in brine using a fluorous sulfonamide organocatalyst. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2012, 10, 2209,
doi:10.1039/c2ob06955e.
136. Han, X.; Wang, Y.; Gai, X.; Zeng, X. Highly Enantio- and Diastereoselective l-Proline Derived
Acetylglucose Amide Catalyzed Aldol Reaction of Ketones to Aldehydes under Solvent-Free Conditions.
Synlett 2015, 26, 2858–2862, doi:10.1055/s-0035-1560701.
137. Majewski, M.; Gleave, D.M.; Nowak, P. 1,3-Dioxan-5-ones: synthesis, deprotonation, and reactions of their
lithium enolates. Can. J. Chem. 1995, 73, 1616–1626, doi:10.1139/v95-201.
138. Ying, A.; Liu, S.; Li, Z.; Chen, G.; Yang, J.; Yan, H.; Xu, S. Magnetic Nanoparticles-Supported Chiral
Catalyst with an Imidazolium Ionic Moiety: An Efficient and Recyclable Catalyst for Asymmetric Michael
and Aldol Reactions. Adv. Synth. Catal. 2016, 358, 2116–2125, doi:10.1002/adsc.201600145.
139. Sai, M.; Yamamoto, H. Chiral Brønsted Acid as a True Catalyst: Asymmetric Mukaiyama Aldol and
Hosomi–Sakurai Allylation Reactions. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2015, 137, 7091–7094, doi:10.1021/jacs.5b04168.
140. Jung, Y.; Marcus, R.A. On the Theory of Organic Catalysis “on Water.” J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 5492–
5502, doi:10.1021/ja068120f.
141. Armstrong, A.; Boto, R. Álvarez; Dingwall, P.; Contreras-Garcia, J.; Harvey, M.J.; Mason, N.; Rzepa, H.
The Houk–List transition states for organocatalytic mechanisms revisited. Chem. Sci. 2014, 5, 2057–2071,
doi:10.1039/C3SC53416B.
142. Patil, M.P.; Sunoj, R.B. Insights on Co-Catalyst-Promoted Enamine Formation between Dimethylamine
and Propanal through Ab Initio and Density Functional Theory Study. J. Org. Chem. 2007, 72, 8202–8215,
doi:10.1021/jo071004q.
143. Wheeler, S.E.; Seguin, T.J.; Guan, Y.; Doney, A. Noncovalent Interactions in Organocatalysis and the
Prospect of Computational Catalyst Design. Accounts Chem. Res. 2016, 49, 1061–1069,
doi:10.1021/[Link].6b00096.

© 2020 by the authors. 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 ([Link]