Home One-pot synthesis of 1-(benzothiazolylamino)aryl methyl-2-naphthols and 3-benzothiazolyl 2,3-dihydroquinazolinones using a magnetically recoverable core–shell nanocomposite as catalyst
Article Publicly Available

One-pot synthesis of 1-(benzothiazolylamino)aryl methyl-2-naphthols and 3-benzothiazolyl 2,3-dihydroquinazolinones using a magnetically recoverable core–shell nanocomposite as catalyst

  • Yousef Mardani , Zahed Karimi-Jaberi ORCID logo EMAIL logo and Mohammad Jaafar Soltanian Fard ORCID logo
Published/Copyright: May 26, 2021
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

Nano-magnetite-supported sulfated polyethylene glycol (Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H) was prepared, characterized and utilized as a magnetically recoverable heterogeneous catalyst for the one-pot, three-component reaction of 2-aminobenzothiazole, aldehydes and 2-naphthol/isatoic anhydride resulting in efficient formation of 1-(benzothiazolylamino)arylmethyl-2-naphthol or dihydroquinazolinones derivatives. The significant features of this method include green conditions, operational simplicity, minimizing production of chemical waste, shorter reaction times and good to high yields. In addition, the nanocatalyst can easily be separated from the reaction mixture by application of a magnetic field and reused without significant deterioration in its catalytic activity.

1 Introduction

Magnetic nanoparticles have attracted much attention in biomedical fields, electronics, and catalytic processes due to their unique features [1], [2]. Catalytic magnetic nanoparticles have the notable advantage to be simply separable from a reaction mixture by application of a magnetic field. Some have been shown to be of advantage in terms of easy synthesis, reusability, high catalytic activity and excellent thermal and chemical stability in various organic solvents and chemical processes [3], [4]. Considering these aspects, magnetic core–shell nanocomposites have attracted much attention in green organic synthesis [5], [6]. These composite systems have shown remarkable potential in practical applications [7], [8]. In particular, various organic/inorganic materials as the shell supported on magnetite (Fe3O4) nanoparticles as the core have been synthesized and utilized as catalysts in diverse organic transformations [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16].

2-Aminobenzothiazoles are widely used in the formation of a variety of fused heterocyclic compounds, which have gained attention in medicinal and biological chemistry [17]. Benzothiazole derivatives have shown a wide spectrum of pharmacological applications in particular for their antiinflammatory, anticonvulsant, antitumor, and antitubercular activities [18], [19], [20]. Furthermore, they are also commercially important as antioxidants [21], vulcanization accelerators [22], and a dopant in light-emitting organic electroluminescent devices [23].

Various protocols have been developed for the synthesis of functionalized benzothiazoles [24], [25]. Among them, 1-(benzothiazolylamino)aryl-methyl-2-naphthols have two biologically active parts, 2-aminobenzothiazole and aminoalkyl naphthols (Betti Base). Aminoalkyl-2-naphthols have provided convenient access to some useful synthetic building blocks through their amino and phenolic hydroxy functional groups [26].

In the literature, 1-(benzothiazolylamino)arylmethyl-2-naphthols have been synthesized by three-component condensation reactions of 2-aminobenzothiazole, aldehydes and 2-naphthol. Catalysts utilized for these syntheses include maltose [27], heteropoly acids [28], oxalic acid [29], Fe3O4@SiO2-ZrCl2 [12], imidazolium ionic liquids [30], [31] and magnetic heterogeneous catalysts [32], [33], [34].

Quinazolinone derivatives are of particular value because of their promising biological and pharmacological activities such as anticancer, antidiuretic, anticonvulsant and sedative behavior [35], [36]. Due to these advantages of the quinazoline scaffold, some marketed drugs like Quinethazone, Gefitinib, Fenquizone, Proquazone, Febrifugine and Erlotinib are derived from this structure [37]. A large number of synthetic approaches to dihydroquinazolinones has been advanced [38], [39], [40], [41], [42].

However, it is deemed worthwhile to explore a convenient protocol for the synthesis of 1-(benzothiazolylamino)arylmethyl-2-naphthols and 3‐benzothiazolyl 2,3-dihydroquinazolinones. As a continuation of our interest in catalytic applications of solid acid catalysts in organic synthesis, we herein report the three-component reaction of 2-aminobenzothiazole, aldehydes and 2-naphthol/isatoic anhydride with a magnetite (Fe3O4) nanocomposite coated with sulfonated polyethylene glycol (Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H) as a magnetically recoverable heterogeneous catalyst (Scheme 1).

Scheme 1: Synthesis of 1-(benzothiazolylamino)arylmethyl-2-naphthols 5 and 3‐benzothiazolyl 2,3-dihydroquinazolinones 6.
Scheme 1:

Synthesis of 1-(benzothiazolylamino)arylmethyl-2-naphthols 5 and 3‐benzothiazolyl 2,3-dihydroquinazolinones 6.

2 Results and discussion

The magnetite nanoparticles were prepared by the chemical coprecipitation of Fe2+ and Fe3+ according to a method reported previously [12]. In the next step, the nanoparticles were coated with polyethylene glycol to give Fe3O4@PEG. Finally, the surface of these nanoparticles was reacted with chlorosulfonic acid using a procedure modified with respect to the one given in Ref. [14] (Scheme 2). This procedure led to the introduction of SO3H as a functional group on the Fe3O4@PEG nanoparticles in the form of Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H. As it is indicated in Schemes 1 and 2, SO3H is bound as a sulfuric acid mono ester ROSO2(OH) to the PEG outer shell. The such prepared magnetic nanocomposite was characterized by energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX), scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and vibrating sample magnetometry (VSM).

Scheme 2: Preparation of the core–shell nanocomposite Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H.
Scheme 2:

Preparation of the core–shell nanocomposite Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H.

As can be seen in Figure 1, EDX analysis of Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H proves that the nanostructure is composed of carbon, oxygen, sulfur and iron and gives some indication for the existence of a PEG-SO3H shell on the surface of Fe3O4.

Figure 1: EDX spectrum of Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H.
Figure 1:

EDX spectrum of Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H.

The particle size and morphology of the synthesized Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H nanoparticles was investigated by SEM. The SEM image (Figure 2) shows that the main structure of the nanocomposite has a sphere-like morphology with an average sphere size of about 25 nm.

Figure 2: SEM image of core–shell Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H.
Figure 2:

SEM image of core–shell Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H.

The magnetization hysteresis of Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H was studied with a VSM. The result is shown in Figure 3. The saturation magnetization value of Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H (∼31.3 emu g−1) is lower than that of Fe3O4 nanoparticles (∼59.2 emu g−1), which is in accord with the presence of a diamagnetic outer shell (PEG-SO3H). Nevertheless, such magnetizations are sufficient to allow the magnetic separation of the catalyst from the reaction mixture.

Figure 3: The magnetization curve of (a) Fe3O4 and (b) Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H.
Figure 3:

The magnetization curve of (a) Fe3O4 and (b) Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H.

In order to screen the catalytic activity of the nanocomposite, the reaction of benzaldehyde, 2-aminobenzothiazole, and 2-naphthol was studied as a model reaction under a variety of different conditions. The results are summarized in Table 1. They clearly indicate that the Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H nanocatalyst allows for much shorter reaction times and better yields as compared to the catalysis by nano-Fe3O4 or PEG-SO3H alone or the uncatalyzed reaction.

Table 1:

Optimization of synthesis of 1-(benzothiazolylamino)phenyl methyl-2-naphthol 5a.

EntryCatalystReaction conditionsTime (min)Yield (%)a
1NoneEtOH, reflux24040
2Nano-Fe3O4 (50 mg)EtOH, reflux6060
3PEG-SO3H (50 mg)EtOH, reflux6085
4Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H (5 mg)EtOH, reflux3080
5Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H (10 mg)EtOH, reflux1595
6Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H (15 mg)EtOH, reflux1595
7Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H (10 mg)EtOH, r.t.180Trace
8Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H (10 mg)H2O, reflux18040
9Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H (10 mg)CHCl3, reflux18030
10Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H (10 mg)DMF, reflux10055
11Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H (10 mg)CH3CN, reflux12045
12Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H (10 mg)Solvent-free, 100 °C18040
  1. aBenzaldehyde (1 mmol), 2-aminobenzothiazole (1 mmol), 2-naphthol (1 mmol) and solvent (5 mL).

The amount of Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H catalyst required has been optimized next. The maximum yield of 1-(benzothiazolylamino)phenyl methyl-2-naphthol 4a (95%) was obtained when the reaction was performed with 10 mg of catalyst under ethanol reflux conditions with a reaction time of 15 min (entry 5, Table 1). Further increase of the amount of catalyst gave no pronounced enhancement of the yield.

The effect of different protic and aprotic solvents such as EtOH, H2O, CHCl3, DMF, CH3CN as well as solvent-free conditions were studied next (Table 1, entries 8–12). The results suggest that good product yields are obtained in ethanol under reflux conditions. However, it should be mentioned that the condensation reaction is not effective at room temperature (entry 7).

In order to study the applicability of the three-component reaction catalyzed by Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H various aromatic aldehydes were used. The resulting products are outlined in Table 2. Different aldehydes with electron-donating or electron-withdrawing groups were investigated. The condensation reaction proceeds efficiently under mild conditions to give the corresponding 1-(benzothiazolylamino)aryl methyl-2-naphthols 5al in excellent yield in short times (10–15 min) in the presence of 10 mg of Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H nanocomposite. As can be seen, the nature of the aromatic substituents on the ring does not strongly effect the reaction in terms of yields under the selected conditions. Moreover, the condensation of polycyclic aromatic aldehydes such as 1-naphthaldehyde with 2-aminobenzothiazole, and 2-naphthol can also be carried out successfully and the corresponding 1-(benzothiazolylamino)aryl methyl-2-naphthol 5k was obtained in high yield. The direct three-component reaction also works well with thiophene-2-carbaldehyde as a heterocyclic aldehyde (Table 2, 5l). All of the products are known and were characterized using melting point, IR and NMR spectra [27], [28], [29], [30], [31] (see Supplementary material available online).

Table 2:

Synthesis of 1-(benzothiazolylamino)aryl methyl-2-naphthols in the presence of Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H nanocomposite.

Time: 15 minTime: 15 minTime: 10 minTime: 15 min
Yield: 95%Yield: 94%Yield: 94%Yield: 85%
M. p.: 203–204 °CM. p.: 202–203 °CM. p.: 207–209 °CM. p.: 215–216 °C
Ref. [30]Ref. [27]Ref. [27]Ref. [31]
Time: 10 min

Yield: 92%

M. p.: 206–207 °C
Time: 15 min

Yield: 93%

M. p.: 189–191 °C
Time: 15 min

Yield: 94%

M. p.: 205–206 °C
Time: 10 min

Yield: 92%

M. p.: 190–192 °C
Ref. [27]Ref. [27]Ref. [27]Ref. [12]
Time: 15 minTime: 15 minTime: 15 minTime: 15 min
Yield: 91%Yield: 88%Yield: 90%Yield: 85%
M. p.: 175–176 °CM. p.: 181–183 °CM. p.: 207–209 °CM. p.: 192–194 °C
Ref. [27]Ref. [12]Ref. [30]Ref. [27]

The resulting optimized protocol can be summarized as follows. The reaction can be carried out in a simple manner, just by mixing the three components and Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H in EtOH and heating the mixture at reflux. The products are formed in excellent yield within 10–15 min followed by a simple work-up. After completion of the reactions the catalyst is easily separated by an external magnet. Recyclability and durability are crucial criteria in designing an efficient catalytic system from the viewpoint of green chemistry. The recovered magnetic nanoparticles were washed several times with ethanol, dried at 80 °C under reduced pressure for 2 h and reused in the next cycle. Figure 4 indicates that the catalyst could be reused with good activity even after eight consecutive cycles.

Figure 4: Reusability of catalyst for the synthesis of 5a.
Figure 4:

Reusability of catalyst for the synthesis of 5a.

These good results encouraged us to extend our study to other organic transformations. Accordingly, we attempted the efficient synthesis of 3-benzothiazolyl 2,3-dihydroquinazolinones. With the optimized conditions in hand (10 mg of Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H nanoparticles, ethanol, reflux), the one-pot three-component reaction of 2-aminobenzothiazole, isatoic anhydride and alde-hydes was carried out to afford 3-benzothiazolyl 2,3-dihydroquinazolinones (Table 3). Substrates with various functional groups tolerated the reaction conditions and resulted in good to excellent yields in rather short reaction times.

Table 3:

Synthesis of 3-benzothiazolyl 2,3-dihydroquinazolinones in the presence of Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H

EntryRProductTime (min)Yield (%)M. p. (°C)Ref.
1C6H56a1090228–230[39]
24-ClC6H46b592199–201[38]
34-CH3C6H46c1587198–200[38]
44-CH3OC6H46d1589185–187[38]
54-BrC6H46e1090224–226[40]
64-NO2C6H46f595240–242[38]
73-BrC6H46g1090186–190[38]
82,4-Cl2C6H36h588184–186[42]
93,4-(CH3O)2C6H36i2085132–134[40]
102-Pyridyl6j2083228–230[41]
11CH36k2582220–222[38]
12CH3(CH2)56l2580222–224[41]

As can be seen in Table 3, hetero-aromatic aldehydes (such as pyridine-2-carbaldehyde, entry 10) afford the corresponding dihydroquinazolinones without by-products. The reaction is compatible with aliphatic aldehydes such as acetaldehyde and heptanal (entries 11, 12, Table 3).

Based on a literature survey [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], a plausible mechanism for the synthesis of 3‐benzothiazolyl 2,3-dihydroquinazolinones is shown in Scheme 3. The role of the catalyst is believed that the acid groups distributed on the surface of the Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H nanoparticles activate the carbonyl groups of isatoic anhydride and the aldehydes. The first step involves the condensation of the activated isatoic anhydride 4 with 2-aminobenzothiazole 2 followed by decarboxylation to give the corresponding 2-aminobenzamide under the effect of the nanocatalyst. Afterwards, the activated aldehyde 1 reacts with the amino group of 2-aminobenzamide to the imine, which undergoes cyclization and tautomerization to furnish the desired products 6.

Scheme 3: Proposed mechanism for the synthesis of 3‐benzothiazolyl 2,3-dihydroquinazolinones.
Scheme 3:

Proposed mechanism for the synthesis of 3‐benzothiazolyl 2,3-dihydroquinazolinones.

The utility of the current work in comparison to previous studies for the synthesis of 1-(benzothiazolylamino)phenyl methyl-2-naphthol 5a and 3-(2ʹ-benzothiazolyl)-2-phenyl-2,3-dihydroquinazolin-4(1H)-one 6a is summarized in Table 4. The data indicate that the Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H appears to catalyze the reaction more effectively than a number of other reported catalysts, particularly in terms of the reaction time and the obtained yields. Moreover, this synthetic protocol avoids disadvantages of the other procedures, such as difficult preparation of the catalyst, expensive reagents, and tedious separation of the catalyst.

Table 4:

Comparison of the efficiency of Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H with other reported catalysts.

EntryCatalystReaction conditionsProductTime (min)Yield (%)Ref.
1Fe3O4@SiO2-ZrCl2 (30 mg)Solvent‐free

100 °C
5a1590[12]
2Maltose (20 mol.%)Solvent‐free

80 °C
5a1089[27]
3[(CH2)3SO3HMIM][HSO4] (10 mol.%)Solvent‐free

100 °C
5a587[30]
4Rice husk ash-[pmim]HSO4 (12 mol.%)Solvent‐free

100 °C
5a493[31]
5Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H (10 mg)Ethanol, reflux5a1595This work
6[bmim]Br (0.3 g)Solvent‐free, 130 °C6a3093[38]
7Al(H2PO4)3 (0.05 g, 16 mol.%)Solvent‐free

100 °C
6a2085[39]
8[n-Bu3PCH2C(O)OH]+[FeCl3Br] (10 mol.%)Solvent‐free

80 °C
6a2090[40]
9Ionic liquid-functionalized SBA-15 (0.02 g)Solvent‐free

130 °C
6a1581[42]
10Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H (10 mg)Ethanol, reflux6a1090This work

3 Conclusion

In conclusion, nano-magnetite-supported sulfated polyethylene glycol (Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H) as a magnetically recoverable heterogeneous catalyst has been used for the one-pot, three-component reaction of 2-aminobenzothiazole, aldehydes and 2-naphthol/isatoic anhydride resulting in efficient formation of 1-(benzothiazolylamino)arylmethyl-2-naphthol or dihydroquinazolinones derivatives. The significant features of this method include green conditions, operational simplicity, minimizing production of chemical waste, shorter reaction times and good to high yields. Mild reaction conditions, the broad substrate scope, short reaction times, easy performance and good yields make this method versatile and showing its practical synthetic value. The excellent catalytic performance, thermal stability and easy separation and reusability of the catalyst make this green and eco-friendly method a superior alternative to existing protocols.

4 Experimental

4.1 Materials and apparatus

All starting materials and reagents were commercially available and used without further purification. Thin-layer chromatography (TLC) was performed on aluminum plates pre-coated with Merck silica gel. Melting points were measured by an Electrothermal type 9100 melting point apparatus (Electrothermal Engineering Ltd, U.K.). The infrared (IR) spectra were recorded on a Bruker Tensor 27 FTIR spectrophotometer as KBr disks. NMR spectra were determined on a Bruker AC 500 MHz instrument as DMSO-d6 solutions at room temperature. The EDX measurements were performed with a SAMx analyzer (France). SEM images were taken with a MIRA3-TESCAN (Germany). The magnetic properties of nanoparticles were measured with a VSM (BHV-55, Riken, Japan).

4.2 Preparation of Fe3O4 nanoparticles

Fe3O4 nanoparticles were synthesized by the coprecipitation method as reported in Ref. [12]. Initially, a mixture of FeCl2·4H2O (2 g), FeCl3·6H2O (5.2 g) was dissolved in 25 mL of deionized water containing 0.85 mL of HCl. Then, it was added dropwise to a solution of sodium hydroxide (NaOH, 15 g) in 25 mL of deionized water with vigorous stirring to make a black solid product. The resultant mixture was heated in a water bath for 4 h at 80 °C. The black solid magnetic Fe3O4 nanoparticles were isolated using an external magnet and washed with deionized water and ethanol three times and then dried at 80 °C for 6 h.

4.3 Preparation of Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H nanocomposite

Fe3O4 nanoparticles (1 g) were dispersed in 100 mL of deionized water in an ultrasonic bath for 20 min. Then polyethylene glycol (PEG400, 1 g) was added, and the mixture was stirred overnight at room temperature. The obtained Fe3O4@PEG nanoparticles were isolated as a dark solid using an external magnet, washed several times with deionized water and ethanol and dried at 80 °C in an oven.

The Fe3O4@PEG nanoparticles were sulfated using chlorosulfonic acid (ClSO3H) [14]. Fe3O4@PEG (1 g) was added to a flask equipped with a dropping funnel containing the chlorosulfonic acid (0.5 mL). The mixture was dispersed in dry CH2Cl2 (50 mL) in an ultrasonic bath for 20 min. Subsequently, chlorosulfonic acid (0.5 mL) was added dropwise over a period of 30 min at room temperature. Upon completion of the addition, the mixture was stirred for 6 h at room temperature. The resulting nanocomposite was separated from the suspension by an external magnet, washed several times with CH2Cl2 and diethyl ether and then dried to afford Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H (Scheme 2).

4.4 General procedure for the synthesis of 1-(benzothiazolylamino)aryl methyl-2-naphthols 5a–l

A mixture of the aldehyde (1 mmol), 2-aminobenzothiazole (1 mmol), 2-naphthol (1 mmol) and Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H(10 mg) in ethanol (5 mL) was stirred at reflux for the appropriate times indicated in Table 2 until the reaction was complete as monitored by TLC. After completion of the reaction, the mixture was cooled to room temperature, diluted with ethanol and the catalyst was separated by an external magnet. The residue was recrystallized from aqueous ethanol to afford the pure product 5. See Supplementary material available online for the spectral data of compounds 5.

The recovered Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H nanoparticles were washed several times with ethanol, dried at 80 °C under reduced pressure for 2 h and reused for the next cycle.

4.5 General procedure for the synthesis of 3-(2ʹ-benzothiazolyl)-2,3-dihydroquinazolin-4(1H)-one derivatives 6a–l

A mixture of the aldehyde (1 mmol), 2-aminobenzothiazole (1 mmol), isatoic anhydride (1 mmol) and Fe3O4@PEG-SO3H(10 mg) in ethanol (5 mL) was stirred under reflux for the appropriate times indicated in Table 3. Upon completion of the reaction as monitored by TLC, the reaction mixture was cooled to room temperature, diluted with ethanol and the catalyst was separated from the reaction medium with an external magnet. The crude product was recrystallized from ethanol to provide the pure product 6. See Supplementary material available online for the spectral data of compounds 6.

5 Supporting information

Spectral data of the products 5al and 6al are given as supplementary material available online (https://doi.org/10.1515/znb-2021-0010).


Corresponding author: Zahed Karimi-Jaberi, Department of Chemistry, Firoozabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Firoozabad, Iran, E-mail:

  1. Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

  2. Research funding: None declared.

  3. Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding this article.

References

1. Zamani Kouhpanji, M. R., Stadler, B. J. Sensors 2020, 20, 2554 (37 pages). https://doi.org/10.3390/s20092554.Search in Google Scholar

2. Amiri, M., Salavati-Niasari, M., Akbari, A. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2019, 265, 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2019.01.003.Search in Google Scholar

3. Zhou, K., Zhou, X., Liu, J., Huang, Z. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2020, 188, 106943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2020.106943.Search in Google Scholar

4. Xiao, D., Lu, T., Zeng, R., Bi, Y. Microchim. Acta 2016, 183, 2655–2675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00604-016-1928-y.Search in Google Scholar

5. Khatami, M., Alijani, H. Q., Nejad, M. S., Varma, R. S. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 411. https://doi.org/10.3390/app8030411.Search in Google Scholar

6. Gawande, M. B., Goswami, A., Asefa, T., Guo, H., Biradar, A. V., Peng, D. L., Zboril, R., Varma, R. S. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2015, 44, 7540–7590. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5cs00343a.Search in Google Scholar

7. Chaudhuri, R. G., Paria, S. Chem. Rev. 2012, 112, 2373–2433.10.1021/cr100449nSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

8. Kothandapani, J., Ganesan, S. S. Curr. Org. Chem. 2019, 23, 313–334. https://doi.org/10.2174/1385272823666190312152209.Search in Google Scholar

9. Hassani, H., Nasseri, M. A., Zakerinasab, B., Rafiee, F. Appl. Organomet. Chem. 2016, 30, 408–413. https://doi.org/10.1002/aoc.3447.Search in Google Scholar

10. Maleki, A., Zand, P., Mohseni, Z. RSC Adv. 2016, 6, 110928–110934. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6ra24029a.Search in Google Scholar

11. Safaei-Ghomi, J., Shahbazi-Alavi, H., Babaei, P. Z. Naturforsch. 2016, 71b, 849–856. https://doi.org/10.1515/znb-2016-0041.Search in Google Scholar

12. Kamali, F., Shirini, F. Appl. Organomet. Chem. 2018, 32, e3972 (12 pages). https://doi.org/10.1002/aoc.3972.Search in Google Scholar

13. Abarghooei, M. A., Mohebat, R., Karimi-Jaberi, Z., Mosslemin, M. H. J. Chem. Res. 2017, 41, 408–412. https://doi.org/10.3184/174751917x14967701767012.Search in Google Scholar

14. Bonyasi, F., Hekmati, M., Veisi, H. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2017, 496, 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2017.02.023.Search in Google Scholar

15. Maleki, A., Firouzi-Haji, R. Inorg Nano-Met. Chem. 2019, 49, 132–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/24701556.2019.1577258.Search in Google Scholar

16. Ashraf, M. A., Liu, Z., Peng, W. X., Zhou, L. Catal. Lett. 2020, 150, 1128–1141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10562-019-02973-7.Search in Google Scholar

17. Bondock, S., Fadaly, W., Metwally, M. A. J. Sulfur Chem. 2009, 30, 74–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/17415990802588033.Search in Google Scholar

18. Hutchinson, I., Chua, M. S., Browne, H. L., Trapani, V., Bradshaw, T. D., Westwell, A. D., Stevens, M. F. G. J. Med. Chem. 2001, 44, 1446–1455. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm001104n.Search in Google Scholar

19. Keri, R. S., Patil, M. R., Patil, S. A., Budagumpi, S. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2015, 89, 207–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmech.2014.10.059.Search in Google Scholar

20. Gjorgjieva, M., Tomašič, T., Kikelj, D. L., Masic, P. Curr. Med. Chem. 2018, 25, 5218–5236.10.2174/0929867324666171009103327Search in Google Scholar PubMed

21. Payaz, D. U., Küçükbay, F. Z., Küçükbay, H., Angeli, A., Supuran, C. T. J. Enzyme Inhib. Med. Chem. 2019, 34, 343–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/14756366.2018.1553040.Search in Google Scholar

22. Hopper, R. J. Rubber Chem. Technol. 1993, 66, 623–633. https://doi.org/10.5254/1.3538334.Search in Google Scholar

23. Zhang, X. H., Wong, O. Y., Gao, Z. Q., Lee, C. S., Kwong, H. L., Wu, S. K. Mater. Sci. Eng. B 2001, 85, 182–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0921-5107(01)00607-9.Search in Google Scholar

24. Prajapati, N. P., Vekariya, R. H., Borad, M. A., Patel, H. D. RSC Adv. 2014, 4, 60176–60208. https://doi.org/10.1039/c4ra07437h.Search in Google Scholar

25. Dadmal, T. L., Katre, S. D., Mandewale, M. C., Kumbhare, R. M. New J. Chem. 2018, 42, 776–797. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7nj03776g.Search in Google Scholar

26. Cardellicchio, C., Capozzi, M. A., Naso, F. Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 2010, 21, 507–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tetasy.2010.03.020.Search in Google Scholar

27. Adrom, B., Maghsoodlou, M. T., Hazeri, N., Lashkari, M. Res. Chem. Intermed. 2015, 41, 7553–7560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11164-014-1843-y.Search in Google Scholar

28. Javanshir, S., Ohanian, A., Heravi, M. M., Naimi-Jamal, M. R., Bamoharram, F. F. J. Saudi Chem. Soc. 2014, 18, 502–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jscs.2011.10.013.Search in Google Scholar

29. Maghsoodlou, M. T., Karima, M., Lashkari, M., Adrom, B., Aboonajmi, J. J. Iran. Chem. Soc. 2017, 14, 329–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13738-016-0981-0.Search in Google Scholar

30. Shaterian, H. R., Hosseinian, A. Res. Chem. Intermed. 2015, 41, 793–801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11164-013-1230-0.Search in Google Scholar

31. Seddighi, M., Shirini, F., Mamaghani, M. Comp. Rend. Chim. 2015, 18, 573–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crci.2014.09.003.Search in Google Scholar

32. Lati, M. P., Shirini, F., Alinia-Asli, M., Rezvani, M. A. J. Iran. Chem. Soc. 2018, 15, 1655–1662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13738-018-1364-5.Search in Google Scholar

33. Damghani, F. K., Pourmousavi, S. A., Kiyani, H. Curr. Org. Synth. 2019, 16, 1040–1054. https://doi.org/10.2174/1570179416666190725101422.Search in Google Scholar

34. Torabi, M., Yarie, M., Zolfigol, M. A., Azizian, S. Res. Chem. Intermed. 2020, 46, 891–907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11164-019-03996-w.Search in Google Scholar

35. Badolato, M., Aiello, F., Neamati, N. RSC Adv. 2018, 8, 20894–20921. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8ra02827c.Search in Google Scholar

36. Khan, I., Ibrar, A., Abbas, N., Saeed, A. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2014, 76, 193–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmech.2014.02.005.Search in Google Scholar

37. Hameed, A., Al-Rashida, M., Uroos, M., Ali, S. A., Ishtiaq, M., Khan, K. M. Expert Opin. Ther. Pat. 2018, 28, 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/13543776.2018.1432596.Search in Google Scholar

38. Shaabani, A., Rahmati, A., Moghimi, R. Comp. Rend. Chim. 2008, 11, 759–764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crci.2007.11.007.Search in Google Scholar

39. Shaterian, H. R., Oveisi, A. R., Honarmand, M. Synth. Commun. 2010, 40, 1231–1242. https://doi.org/10.1080/00397910903064831.Search in Google Scholar

40. Anizadeh, M. R., Zolfigol, M. A., Yarie, M., Torabi, M., Azizian, S. Res. Chem. Intermed. 2020, 46, 3945–3960. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11164-020-04183-y.Search in Google Scholar

41. Khurana, J. M., Kumar, S. Green Chem. Lett. Rev. 2011, 4, 321–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/17518253.2011.571718.Search in Google Scholar

42. Ziarani, G. M., Seiedakbari, L., Gholamzadeh, P., Badiei, A. Iran. J. Catal. 2017, 7, 137–145.Search in Google Scholar


Supplementary Material

The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/znb-2021-0010).


Received: 2021-01-23
Accepted: 2021-04-29
Published Online: 2021-05-26
Published in Print: 2021-07-27

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 25.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/znb-2021-0010/html
Scroll to top button