Chemistry Halogenation of an alcohol (iodation)

Thread starter duchuy
Start date Dec 13, 2021
Tags

Alcohol

AI Thread Summary

To convert an alcohol (ROH) to an iodide (RI), using the Finkelstein reaction is preferred over direct iodination with PI3 due to cost considerations. The process involves first converting ROH to RBr using PBr3, followed by a reaction with NaI to yield RI and NaBr. While direct iodination with PI3 or HI is possible, it may not be economically viable. The discussion emphasizes the importance of evaluating the cost-effectiveness of different methods. Understanding these reactions is crucial for efficient synthesis in organic chemistry.

Dec 13, 2021

duchuy

Homework Statement: Turn R-OH to R-I

Relevant Equations: x

I don't understand why in order to make RI from ROH, you'd have to use FINSKELSTEIN condition:
ROH + PBR3 --> RBr
RBr + NaI --> RI + NaBr

and not directly
ROH + PI₃ --> RI

Thank you so much for your help!
Pardon me if my english is not correct.

<mentor edit>

Last edited by a moderator: Dec 13, 2021

Physics news on Phys.org

Dec 18, 2021

chemisttree

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

Gold Member

Sure, you could use PI3. You could also use HI. Your choice. Look at costs...

Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'

TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...

View full post »

Thread 'Prove that evolution is constant (Provide at least two arguments to support your position)'

I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...

View full post »