This recent mini-review neither has a written nor a graphical abstract (at least not at the time of writing), but its kick-ass title forced me to download and check it out.

M. McLaughlin, S. Paul, A. Remirez, P. Richardson, J. M. Muhuhi, A. Zlota, J. Knight
“Some Items of Interest to Process R & D Chemists and Engineers”
Org. Process Res. Dev., 2013, Article ASAP (DOI: 10.1021/op300355j)

In a world where “novel”, “facile” and “innovative” (my personal favorite) have little credibility left, I think it is admirable when people step forth and describe science using the clearest language possible. When I say kick-ass title, I mean it – no sarcasm on my behalf.

The actual paper then? Just read it. It is jam-packed with goodies in many flavors for everyone who appreciates updates on advancements in practical organic synthesis. My only criticism at this point is that non-process chemists enjoy stuff like this too.

I am taking the liberty to post a couple of snapshots from it, so help me ACS, in hope to grab your attention. Now move that pointer towards the download link and – happy reading!

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

Example 4

Hm… Red-Al, toluene, aziridines… I feel a presence I haven’t felt since


9 Responses to Items of Interest

  1. p_orcital says:

    OPR&D does this almost every issue. Hardly a mini-review just a summary of what the collectors feel might be of interest. Covers patent literature as well…

  2. drfreddy says:

    Thanks for sorting that out. I was kindly informed on Twitter too 🙂

    The facts remain, though:

    a) “Items of interest” IS a kick-ass phrase
    b) these highlights (better than “mini-review”?) contain good shit, stuff that work in real life on scale
    c) I should spend more time with the literature

    • milkshake says:

      OPR&D is my favorite because as you observed “it is the stuff that works well on scale” and Trevor Laird is very serious about safety, scalability and reproducibility – I remember there was a group in India at a generic company publishing a modified route to (S)-citalopram, and the resolution of a key intermediate turned out to be irreproducible so their new alternative was a lot crappier than the original route. They got their arse reamed, by several back-to-back rebuttals from other groups in the following issues

      PS: how is the difluorothiophene coming along – did you buy it in the end?

  3. mamid says:


    I noticed that there’s a double link to New Reactions on your Good Stuff page. Just thought you’d like to save some space.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *