Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 217

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Unification of Reaction Metrics for Green Chemistry: Applications to Reaction Analysis

Andraos, John·2005·Organic Process Research & Development

Abstract

A formalism is presented which unifies key reaction metrics associated with “greenness” in chemical reactions with respect to raw materials usage. The fundamental basis of this treatment begins with balanced chemical reactions in which byproducts are identified. The primary or kernel metrics are reaction yield, scale of reaction, stoichiometric factor (SF), and Trost's atom economy (AE). The stoichiometric factor is a new metric that is defined to account for reactions run under nonstoichiometric conditions, that is, with one or more reagents in excess. A general relation for reaction mass efficiency (RME) is derived which shows that this metric is a composite of the aforementioned primary metrics and takes into account solvent usage in the reaction and postreaction phases (workup and purification). The Sheldon environmental impact factor E is treated at various levels of complexity according to what is constituted as waste and is shown to be related to RME by a simple inverse expression. A flowchart is presented which shows other simple relationships connecting all metrics. Raw material costs, optimum conditions for recycling or reclaiming catalysts and reaction and postreaction solvents, and the handling of reactions giving isomeric products are also assessed. General algorithms are proposed for determining kernel reaction metrics for linear and convergent sequences that can be used to compare the intrinsic, or best-case scenario, green performances of synthetic plans to a common target structure. All key relationships can be implemented in a spreadsheet format from which reaction histograms or “maps” can be generated. Individual reaction RME performances can be gauged, ranked, and decomposed according to AE, SF, and reaction yield kernel metrics. This allows for the easy identification of best and worst reactions in a process or sequence. Example applications of the present methodology include the following: (a) a comparative analysis of the synthesis of quinine by the classic Woodward−Rabe and the modern greener Stork methods; (b) the analysis of the industrial synthesis of sildenafil (Viagra) by a convergent strategy; and (c) the analysis of kinetic resolution of racemic alcohols by a successive oxidation and recycling reduction cycle.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/op049803n

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. Trost B. M., 1991, Science, 254, 1471, 10.1126/science.1962206 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Trost B. M., 2002, Acc. Chem. Res., 35, 695, 10.1021/ar010068z · DOI · Paper page
  3. Trost B. M., 1995, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl., 34, 259, 10.1002/anie.199502591 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Sheldon R. A., 2001, Pure Appl. Chem., 72, 1233, 10.1351/pac200072071233 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Sheldon R. A., 1994, ChemTech, 24, 38
  6. Sheldon R. A., 1992, Chem. Ind. (London), 903
  7. Sheldon R. A., 1997, Chem. Ind. (London), 12
  8. Curzons A. D., 2001, Green Chem., 3, 1, 10.1039/b007871i · DOI · Paper page
  9. Anderson N. G., 2000, Practical Process Research and Development
  10. Constable D. J. C., 2002, Green Chem., 4, 521, 10.1039/B206169B · DOI · Paper page
  11. Constable D. J. C., 2001, Green Chem., 3, 7, 10.1039/b007875l · DOI
  12. Eissen M., 2003, Green Chem., 5, G25, 10.1039/b301753m · doi:10.1039/b301753m
  13. Lee, S.; Robinson, G.Process Development: fine chemicals from gramsto kilograms; Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1995; p 13. · doi:10.1093/hesc/9780198558248.001.0001
  14. Cann M. C., 2000, Real World Cases in Green Chemistry
  15. Anderson N. G., 2004, Org. Process Res. Dev., 8, 260, 10.1021/op034165e · doi:10.1021/op034165e
  16. Andraos J., 2003, J. Phys. Chem. A, 107, 2374, 10.1021/jp0272365 · DOI
  17. Woodward R. B., 1945, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 67, 860, 10.1021/ja01221a051 · doi:10.1021/ja01221a051
  18. Rabe P., 1911, Chem. Ber., 44, 2088, 10.1002/cber.19110440318 · doi:10.1002/cber.19110440318
  19. Rabe P., 1931, Chem. Ber., 64, 2487, 10.1002/cber.19310640927 · doi:10.1002/cber.19310640927
  20. Stork G., 2001, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 123, 3239, 10.1021/ja004325r · doi:10.1021/ja004325r
  21. Anastas P. T., 1998, Green Chemistry: Theory and Practice
  22. Lancaster, 2002, Handbook of Green Chemistry and Technology
  23. Matlack A. S., 2001, Introduction to Green Chemistry
  24. Hermling D., 1996, Patent 5,527,966
  25. Lechtken P., 1996, Patent 5,481,041
  26. Dunn P. J., 2004, Green Chem., 6, 43, 10.1039/B312329D · DOI · Paper page
  27. Dale D. J., 2000, Org. Process Res. Dev., 4, 17, 10.1021/op9900683 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Ferreira E. M., 2001, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 123, 7725, 10.1021/ja015791z · doi:10.1021/ja015791z
  29. Stoltz B. M., 2004, Chem. Lett., 33, 362, 10.1246/cl.2004.362 · doi:10.1246/cl.2004.362

Cited by

See all 217

Metadata

Authors
Andraos, J.
Venue
Organic Process Research & Development
Published
2005-02-11
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
149-163
ISSN
  • 1083-6160 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-586X
OpenAlex
W1986599228
Cited by
217
References
0
FWCI
6.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Unification of Reaction Metrics for Green Chemistry: Applications to Reaction Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/op049803n
The paper
Andraos, J. (2005). Unification of Reaction Metrics for Green Chemistry: Applications to Reaction Analysis. Organic Process Research & Development. https://doi.org/10.1021/op049803n

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.