Formose reaction (FR) is of particular interest in prebiotic chemistry, as well as origin of life research, since it sets the grounds for non-biological chemical reactions producing sugar. In the formose process, which is based on the aldol condensation mechanism, low-carbon aldehyde molecules are transformed into polyol with higher carbon. Moreover, in an alkaline medium with a heterogeneous catalyst present, this process is sped up. This work assesses the efficiency of prebiotic synthesis of mono-ethylene glycol (MEG) via FR when fumed silica (Aerosil) catalyst was present in methanol polar solvent. Comparisons were then made with the same process in the presence of montmorillonite (MMT) as catalyst in water as solvent. The current study demonstrates that the amount of MGA production starts out low and gradually increases when Aerosil and MMT were used as mineral catalysts while methanol and water, respectively, functioned as solvents at pH values of 7.8 and 7.5. Generally speaking, the results indicated that if the target is to produce MEG, water is a better option as an excellent polar solvent in the FR. Consequently, outputs showed higher MEG production efficiency with FR when methanol and Aerosil rather than water when MMT were used as solvent and catalyst, respectively.
| Published in | American Journal of Physical Chemistry (Volume 12, Issue 2) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ajpc.20231202.11 |
| Page(s) | 17-21 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Origin of Life, Probiotic Chemistry, Formose Reaction, Mono-Ethylene Glycol, Montmorillonite
| [1] | A. Vojood, M. Khodadadi Moghaddam, G. Ebrahimzadeh-Rajaei, S. Mohajeri, A. Shamel, J. of Applied Chemistry., 2022, 17, 39-54. |
| [2] | Y. Zhang, N. Zheng, K. Wang, S. Zhang, J. Wu, J. Nanomater., 2013, 1-6. |
| [3] | H. Yue, Y. Zhao, X. Maa, J. Gong, Chem Soc Rev., 2012, 41, 4218-4244. |
| [4] | T. Klotzbucher, A. Kappler, K. L. Straub, S. B. Haderlein, Geothermics., 2007, 36, 348-361. |
| [5] | G. A Nematzadeh, M. J Eskandarloo, M. Muhammad-Bello, The Quran and Science. 2021, 15, 315-336, in Persian. |
| [6] | M. A. Siraj, M. A. K. Tayab (2017) In: K. V. Raju and S. Manasi (eds) Water and Scriptures, Springer, Heidelberg. |
| [7] | Pascal, R.; Pross, A. On the Chemical Origin of Biological Cognition. Life 2022, 12, 2016. |
| [8] | H. H. Smith, S. A. Hyde, D. N. Simkus, E. Libby, S. E. Maurer, H. V. Graham, C. P. Kempes, B. Sherwood Lollar, L. Chou, A. D. Ellington, G. M. Fricke, P. R. Girguis, N. M. Grefenstette, C. I. Pozarycki, C. H. House, S. S. Johnson, Life., 2021, 11, 498. |
| [9] | S. I Walker, N. Packard, G. D. Muhammad-Bello, Philos. Trans. R. Soc., A., 2017, 375, 1-11. |
| [10] | A. P´erez-Villaa, F. Pietruccia, A. Saitta, Phys. Life. Rev., 2021, 34-35, 105135. |
| [11] | S. Thripati, R. O. Ramabhadran, J. Phys. Chem., 2017, 121, 8659-8674. |
| [12] | K. Ruiz-Mirazo, C. Briones, A. De La Escosura, Chem. Rev., 2014, 114, 285-366. |
| [13] | A. Eschenmoser, Tetrahedron., 2007, 63, 12821-12844. |
| [14] | D. D. Sasselov, J. P. Grotzinger, J. D. Sutherland, Sci. Adv., 2020, 6, 1-9. |
| [15] | S. I. Walker, W. Bains, L. Cronin, S. DasSarma, S. Danielache, S. Domagal-Goldman, B. Kacar, N. Y. Kiang, A. Lenardic, C. D. Reinhard, W. Moore, E. W. Schwieterman, E. L. Shkolnik, H. B. Smith, Astrobiology., 2018, 18, 779–824. |
| [16] | A. Omran, C. Menor-Salvan, G. Springsteen, M. Pasek, Life., 2020, 10, 125. |
| [17] | M. Melosso, L. Bizzocchi, H. Gazzeh, F. Tonolo, J. C. Guillemin, S. Alessandrini, W. M. Rivilla, L. Dore, V. Barone, C. Puzzarini, Chem. Commun., 2022, 58, 2750-2753. |
| [18] | Z. R. Zhao, X. Wang, Chem., 2021, 7, 3292-3308. |
| [19] | S. Lamour, S. Pallmann, M. Haas, O. Trapp, Life., 2019, 9, 52. |
| [20] | A. Butlerow, Justus Liebigs Ann. Chem., 1861, 120, 295-298. |
| [21] | C. Appayee, R. Breslow, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2014, 136, 3720–3723. |
| [22] | A. Vojood, M. Khodadadi Moghaddam, G. Ebrahimzadeh-Rajaei, S. Mohajeri, A. Shamel, Iran. J. Chem. Chem. Eng. (IJCCE). 2021. doi: 10.30492/IJCCE.2022.527613.4665. |
| [23] | G. Banfalvi, Int. J. Mol. Sci., 2021, 22, 3857. |
| [24] | A. Vojood, M. Khodadadi Moghaddam, G. Ebrahimzadeh-Rajaei, S. Mohajeri, A. Shamel, Chem. Methodol., 2021, 5, 422-432. |
| [25] | A. K. Eckhardt, A. Bergantini, S. K. Singh, P. R. Schreiner, R. I. Kaiser, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2019, 58, 5663-5667. |
| [26] | G. Banfalvi, DNA Cell Biol., 2021, 39, 177–186. |
| [27] | A. H. Weiss, R. F. Socha, V. A Likholobo, M. M. Sakharov, Appl. Catal., 1981, 1, 237-246. |
| [28] | J. Castells, F. Lopez-Calahorra, F. Geijo, Carbohydr. Res., 1983, 116, 197-207. |
| [29] | G. B. Dalrymple, Geo. Soc. Lond., 2001, 190, 205-221. |
| [30] | S. A. Benner, E. A. Bell, E. Biondi, R, Brasser, T. Carell, H. J. Kim, S. J. Mojzsis, A. Omran, M. A. Pasek, D. Trail, Chem Systems Chem., 2021, 2, e1900035. |
| [31] | C. Appayee and, R. Breslow, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2014, 163, 3720–3723. |
| [32] | R. Breslow, V. Ramalingam and, C. Appayee, Orig Life EvolBiosph., 2013, 43, 323-329. |
| [33] | K. M. Li, J. G. Jiang, S. C. Tian, X. J. Chen, F. Yan, J. Phys. Chem. C., 2014, 118: 2454-2462. |
| [34] | V. Jafari, A. Allahverdi, J. Ultrafine Grained Nanostruct. Mater., 2014, 47, 105-112. |
| [35] | B. Tyagi, C. D. Chudasama, R. V. Jasra, Spectrochim. Acta, Part A., 2006, 64, 273-278. |
| [36] | A. AuxiliadoraTireli, L. do Rosário Guimarães, J. C. de Souza Terra, R. R. da Silva, M. C. Guerreiro, Environ Sci Pollut Res., 2015, 22, 870-881. |
| [37] | Z. Danková, A. Mockovčiaková, S. Dolinská, Desalin. Water Treat., 2014, 52, 5462-5469. |
| [38] | L. Li, Z. Shen, J. Wang, X. Chen, D. Li, Y. Wu, J. Dong, R. Zhao, W. Gou, J. Wang, S. Li, B. Wang, X. Zheng, Astrophys. J., 2017, 849, 115. |
| [39] | J. Yang, X. Fang, G. Ren, T. Yu, New J. Chem. 2023, 47, 558-562. |
| [40] | A. K. Eckhardt, M. M. Linden, R. C. Wende, B. Bernhardt, P. R. Schreiner , Nat. Chem., 2018, 10, 1141–1147. |
| [41] | M. Mohsen-Nia, H. Amiri, B. Jazi, J Solution Chem., 2012, 39, 701-708. |
| [42] | S. Machmudah, Wahyudiono, H. Kanda, M. Goto. In: H. D. González and M. J. González Muñoz (eds). Water Extraction of Bioactive Compounds, Elsevier: Amsterdam, 2018. |
| [43] | A. Krishnamoorthy, K. ichi Nomura, N. Baradwaj, K. Shimamura, P. Rajak, A. Mishra, S. Fukushima, F. Shimojo, R. Kalia, A. Nakano, P. Vashishta, Phys. Rev. Lett., 2021, 126, 216403. |
| [44] | S. Sachdeva, D. Soccol§, D. J. Gravesteijn, F. Kapteijn, E. J. R. Sudhölter, J. Gascon, L. C. P. M. de Smet, ACS Sens., 2016, 1, 1188–1192. |
| [45] | P. L. Luisi, Isr. J. Chem., 2015, 55, 906–918. |
| [46] | D. Kunnev, Life. 2020, 10, 269. |
| [47] | Pross A., What is Life? How Chemistry Becomes Biology, Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2012. |
| [48] | I. V. Delidovich, A. N. Simonov, O. P. Taran, V. N. Parmon, Phys. Rev. Lett., 2014, 7, 1833-1846. |
| [49] | M. A. M Paiva, S. Pilling, E. Mendoza, B. R. L Galvão, H. A. De Abreu, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 2023, 519, 2518–2527. |
| [50] | J. Kofoed, M. Machuqueiro, J. L. Reymond, T. Darbre, Chem. Comm., 2004, 1443-1557. |
| [51] | E. Camprubi, S. A. Harrison, S. F. Jordan, J. Bonnel, S. Pinna, N. Lane, Astrobiology, 2022, 22, 8981–991. |
APA Style
Arash Vojood. (2023). Comparison of Mono-Ethylene Glycol Prebiotic Synthesis Efficiency via Formose Reaction in Methanol and Water as Solvents: A Short Communication. American Journal of Physical Chemistry, 12(2), 17-21. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajpc.20231202.11
ACS Style
Arash Vojood. Comparison of Mono-Ethylene Glycol Prebiotic Synthesis Efficiency via Formose Reaction in Methanol and Water as Solvents: A Short Communication. Am. J. Phys. Chem. 2023, 12(2), 17-21. doi: 10.11648/j.ajpc.20231202.11
AMA Style
Arash Vojood. Comparison of Mono-Ethylene Glycol Prebiotic Synthesis Efficiency via Formose Reaction in Methanol and Water as Solvents: A Short Communication. Am J Phys Chem. 2023;12(2):17-21. doi: 10.11648/j.ajpc.20231202.11
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ajpc.20231202.11,
author = {Arash Vojood},
title = {Comparison of Mono-Ethylene Glycol Prebiotic Synthesis Efficiency via Formose Reaction in Methanol and Water as Solvents: A Short Communication},
journal = {American Journal of Physical Chemistry},
volume = {12},
number = {2},
pages = {17-21},
doi = {10.11648/j.ajpc.20231202.11},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajpc.20231202.11},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajpc.20231202.11},
abstract = {Formose reaction (FR) is of particular interest in prebiotic chemistry, as well as origin of life research, since it sets the grounds for non-biological chemical reactions producing sugar. In the formose process, which is based on the aldol condensation mechanism, low-carbon aldehyde molecules are transformed into polyol with higher carbon. Moreover, in an alkaline medium with a heterogeneous catalyst present, this process is sped up. This work assesses the efficiency of prebiotic synthesis of mono-ethylene glycol (MEG) via FR when fumed silica (Aerosil) catalyst was present in methanol polar solvent. Comparisons were then made with the same process in the presence of montmorillonite (MMT) as catalyst in water as solvent. The current study demonstrates that the amount of MGA production starts out low and gradually increases when Aerosil and MMT were used as mineral catalysts while methanol and water, respectively, functioned as solvents at pH values of 7.8 and 7.5. Generally speaking, the results indicated that if the target is to produce MEG, water is a better option as an excellent polar solvent in the FR. Consequently, outputs showed higher MEG production efficiency with FR when methanol and Aerosil rather than water when MMT were used as solvent and catalyst, respectively.},
year = {2023}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of Mono-Ethylene Glycol Prebiotic Synthesis Efficiency via Formose Reaction in Methanol and Water as Solvents: A Short Communication AU - Arash Vojood Y1 - 2023/06/27 PY - 2023 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajpc.20231202.11 DO - 10.11648/j.ajpc.20231202.11 T2 - American Journal of Physical Chemistry JF - American Journal of Physical Chemistry JO - American Journal of Physical Chemistry SP - 17 EP - 21 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2327-2449 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajpc.20231202.11 AB - Formose reaction (FR) is of particular interest in prebiotic chemistry, as well as origin of life research, since it sets the grounds for non-biological chemical reactions producing sugar. In the formose process, which is based on the aldol condensation mechanism, low-carbon aldehyde molecules are transformed into polyol with higher carbon. Moreover, in an alkaline medium with a heterogeneous catalyst present, this process is sped up. This work assesses the efficiency of prebiotic synthesis of mono-ethylene glycol (MEG) via FR when fumed silica (Aerosil) catalyst was present in methanol polar solvent. Comparisons were then made with the same process in the presence of montmorillonite (MMT) as catalyst in water as solvent. The current study demonstrates that the amount of MGA production starts out low and gradually increases when Aerosil and MMT were used as mineral catalysts while methanol and water, respectively, functioned as solvents at pH values of 7.8 and 7.5. Generally speaking, the results indicated that if the target is to produce MEG, water is a better option as an excellent polar solvent in the FR. Consequently, outputs showed higher MEG production efficiency with FR when methanol and Aerosil rather than water when MMT were used as solvent and catalyst, respectively. VL - 12 IS - 2 ER -
Email: