Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation of Ethers, Sulfides, Amines, Carbonyls, and Functional Gr, Lecture notes of Chemistry

Organic ChemistryBiochemistryAnalytical Chemistry

An overview of mass spectrometry fragmentation patterns for various functional groups, including ethers, sulfides, amines, and carbonyl compounds. It covers fragmentation modes such as α-cleavage, inductive cleavage, rearrangement, McLafferty rearrangement, and loss of functional groups. The document also includes specific examples of fragmentation for various ethers, sulfides, amines, and functional groups.

What you will learn

  • What is the fragmentation pattern for ethers in mass spectrometry?
  • What is the fragmentation pattern for sulfides in mass spectrometry?
  • What is the difference between α-cleavage and inductive cleavage in mass spectrometry?
  • What is the difference between aliphatic and aromatic amines in mass spectrometry?
  • What is the McLafferty rearrangement in mass spectrometry?

Typology: Lecture notes

2021/2022

Uploaded on 09/12/2022

lana87
lana87 🇺🇸

4.4

(17)

58 documents

1 / 57

Toggle sidebar

Often downloaded together


Related documents


Partial preview of the text

Download Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation of Ethers, Sulfides, Amines, Carbonyls, and Functional Gr and more Lecture notes Chemistry in PDF only on Docsity! Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation Ethers & Sulfides ! ! ! ! ! Ethers • M+ usually stronger than corresponding alcohol; may be weak/absent • α-cleavage of an alkyl radical • Inductive cleavage • Rearrangement with loss of CHR=CHR’ Aryl Ethers • M+ strong • C-O cleavage β to aromatic ring with subsequent loss of CO • Cleavage adjacent to aryl ring also possible Sulfides • M+ usually stronger than corresponding ether • cleavage pattern similar to ethers Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation Ethers fragmentation patterns α-cleavage inductive cleavage rearrangement R CH2 O R' O H H R' R + R CH2 O R' +R CH2 O R' O CH2 H H CHR H + H2C=CHR O H H H Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation Ethers 2-ethyl-2-methyl-1,3-dioxolane O O MW = 116 101 M-15 87 M-29 M+ absent O O O O Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation Aryl Ethers anisole 93 M-15 m/z = 78 MW = 108 OCH3 m/z = 65 O loss of C O M (108) H H Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation Aryl Ethers fragmentation of aryl ethers O CH2 H m/z = 78 m/z = 77 O CH2 H H H - CH2O - H≡ O CH3 m/z = 93 m/z = 65 - CH3 O - CO Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation Amines fragmentation patterns α-cleavage ring formation NH2 R NH2R + n n R N R + N R" H HR' R" R' n = 1, m/z = 72 n = 2, m/z = 86 loss of H radical R N R N R' R" H R' R" + H M-1 Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation Amines ethylamine NH2 MW = 45 M (45) mz = 30 44 M-1 N H H H H base peak N H H H Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation Amines diethylamine N H MW = 73 M (73) 72 M-1 58 M-15 m/z = 30 N H H H H α cleavage N H Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation Cyclic Amines piperidine M (85) 84 M-1 MW = 85 N H 84 M-28 N H and N H Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation Aromatic Amines aniline M (93) 92 M-1 NH2 MW = 93 NH HH -HCN M-1 m/z = 66 m/z = 65 - H m/z = 65 Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation Carbonyl Compounds ! ! ! ! α-cleavage (two possibilities) β-cleavage McLafferty rearrangement Common Fragmentation Modes R G O C OR + G R G O C OGR + G O R R + G O G = H, R', OH, OR', NR'2 G OR H G OHR + Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation Aldehydes 2-ethylbutanal M (100) mz = 29 m/z = 72 C OH H O MW = 100 H OH Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation Aromatic Aldehydes benzaldehyde M (106) 105 M-1 mz = 77 H O MW = 106 Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation Aliphatic Ketones 2-hexanone O MW = 100 M (100) mz = 58 85 M-15 43 M-57 C O OH CH3CO McLafferty α cleavage α cleavage Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation Cyclic Ketones cyclohexanone O O H O H O + H O H m/z = 55 O + m/z = 42 - CO m/z = 70 Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation Carboxylic Acids, Esters & Amides ! ! ! Carboxylic Acids • M+ weak in aliphatic acids; stronger in aromatic acids • Most important α-cleavage involves loss of OH radical (M-17) • α-cleavage with loss of alkyl radical less common; somewhat diagnostic (m/z = 45) • McLafferty rearrangement in appropriately substituted systems (m/z = 60 or higher) • Dehydration can occur in o-alkyl benzoic acids (M-18) Esters • M+ weak in most cases; aromatic esters give a stronger parent ion • Loss of alkoxy radical more important of the α-cleavage reactions • Loss of an alkyl radical by α-cleavage occurs mostly in methyl esters (m/z = 59) • McLafferty rearrangements are possible on both alkyl and alkoxy sides • Benzyloxy esters and o-alkyl benzoates fragment to lose ketene and alcohol, respectively Amides • M+ usually observed; Follow the Nitrogen Rule (odd # of N, odd MW) • α-cleavage affords a specific ion for primary amides (m/z = 44? • McLafferty rearrangement observed when γ-hydrogens are present Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation Aliphpatic Carboxylic Acids butyric acid OH O MW = 88 M (88) mz = 45 71 M-17 weak M+ mz = 60 C O O OH H OHCO Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation Esters butyl butyrate M (144) absent 101 M-43 89 O O MW = 144 McLafferty + 1 Pr O O H H 71 M-73 McLafferty Pr O O H 88 Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation Esters fragmentation patterns McLafferty rearrangement McLafferty + 1 Pr O O H Pr O O H Pr O O H H Pr O O H H + m/z = 89 O O H Pr O O H + m/z = 88 O OH O OH +Bu Bu m/z = 116 (not observed) Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation Esters benzyl acetate M (150) 108 M-42 91 M-59 O O MW = 150 OH 43 M-108 α cleavage tropylium ion O Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation Amides N-ethylpropionamide M (101) 72 M-29 57 M-44 N H O MW = 101 mz = 29 86 M-15 mz = 30 N CH2 H H CH3CH2 N H O Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation Aryl Amides N-methylbenzamimde M (135) 105 M-29 mz = 77 N CH3 H O MW = 135 M-1 Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation Nitriles Nitriles • M+ may be weak/absent; strong M+ in aromatic nitriles; follow nitrogen rule • Fragment readily to give M-1 • Loss of HC≡N fequently obsterved (M-27); aromatic nitriles also show loss of •CN (M-26) • McLafferty rearrangement in nitriles of appropriate length (m/z = 41) Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation Nitro Compounds & Halides Nitro Compounds • M+ almost never observed unless aromatic; follow nitrogen rule • Principle degradation is loss of NO+ (m/z = 30) and loss of NO2 + (m/z = 46) • Aromatic nitro compounds show additional fragmentation patterns Halides • M+ often weak; stronger in aromatic halides • chloro and bromo compounds show strong M+2 peaks Cl – M : M+2 3 : 1 Br – M : M+2 1 : 1 • principle fragmentation is loss of halogen • Loss of HX also common • α-cleavage sometimes observed Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation Nitro Compounds fragmentation patterns R N O O R + N O O m/z = 46 R N O O R O N O R O N O m/z = 30 + NO2 O + NO C O+ m/z = 65m/z = 93 NO2 + NO2 HHC4H3 + m/z = 77 m/z = 51 Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation Nitro Compounds 1-nitropropane 43 M-46 MW = 89 NO2 M (89) absent mz = 30 mz = 46 N O N O O CH3CH2CH2 Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation Alkyl Halides 1-chloropropane M (78) mz = 49, 51 80 M+2 Cl MW = 78 42 M-HCl 43 M-Cl CH3CH2CH2 C Cl H H α cleavage Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation Alkyl Halides 2-chloropropane m/z = 63, 65 43 M-Cl Cl MW = 78 M (78) 80 M+2 C Cl H CH3 Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation Alkyl Halides 2-chloroheptane M (134) M+2 (136) m/z = 105, 107 56 M-78 Cl MW = 134 98 M - HCl Cl H Cl H Cl rearrngement Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation Alkyl Halides bromobenzene M (156) 158 M+2 mz = 77 Br MW = 157 Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation What Can the MS Tell You? ! Evaluation of UnknownCompounds by Mass Spectr 1. Get an overview of the spectrum. Is it simple? Complex? Are there groups of peaks? 2. Identify and evaluate the molecular ion. - Is M+ strong or weak? - Are their significant peaks due to isotopes (e.g. M+1, M+2, etc.)? - Is the molecular ion an odd number (Apply the Nitrogen Rule)? - Is there an M-1 Peak? - If a molecular formular is not provided, check tables or on-line calculators to determine possible formulas 3. Evaluate the major fragments - What mass is lost from M+ to give these peaks? - What ions could give these peaks? - If available, use IR data to identify functionality, and consider known fragmentation patterns of these groups. - Consider the loss of small neutral molecules (e.g. H2O, HOR, H2C=CH2, HC≡CH, HX, CO2, etc.) - Consider possible diagnostic peaks (e.g. m/z = 29, 30, 31, 39, 41, 44, 91, 45, 59, etc.) 4. Use fragmentation information to piece together possible structure Mass Spectrometry: Fragmentation Commonly Lost Fragments Pavia Appendix 11 Fragment lost Peak obtained Fragment lost Peak obtained “CH, Mf-15 “OCH, Mt. 31 “OH Mi-17 “cl Mt .35 “CN MP6 CH.C=o Mt- 43 H,C—= CH, Pag *OCH,CH, Mt. 45 *CH,CH, M?-29 Cp M? . oy in/z values lon miz= 43 cH—é=0 mi2=91 ‘O : O CH, + . n/z= M*-1 + Mass Spectrometry Reporting Mass Spec Data Low Resolution Mass Spec OCH3 O MW = 102 MS (EI, 75 eV): m/z 102 (M+, 1%), 87 (16), 74 (64), 71 (50), 59 (22), 43 (100) .... ionization technique/method mass peak assignment height of peak relative to base peak Mass Spectrometry Reporting Mass Spec Data ! ! ! ! ! High Resolution Mass Spec O CO2Et OH Mass Spectrometry Reporting Mass Spec Data High Resolution Mass Spec HRMS (ESI): calcd for C12H18O4Na ([M+Na]+) 249.1097; found 249.1094. ionization method exact mass calculated mass found molecular ion observed chemical formula of (quasi) molecular ion
Docsity logo



Copyright © 2024 Ladybird Srl - Via Leonardo da Vinci 16, 10126, Torino, Italy - VAT 10816460017 - All rights reserved