About this Author
DBL%20Hendrix%20small.png College chemistry, 1983

Derek Lowe The 2002 Model

Dbl%20new%20portrait%20B%26W.png After 10 years of blogging. . .

Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases. To contact Derek email him directly: Twitter: Dereklowe

Chemistry and Drug Data: Drugbank
Chempedia Lab
Synthetic Pages
Organic Chemistry Portal
Not Voodoo

Chemistry and Pharma Blogs:
Org Prep Daily
The Haystack
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
Electron Pusher
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blogs
Chemiotics II
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
Realizations in Biostatistics
ChemSpider Blog
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Fragment Literature
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Eye on FDA
Chemical Forums
Symyx Blog
Sceptical Chymist
Lamentations on Chemistry
Computational Organic Chemistry
Mining Drugs
Henry Rzepa

Science Blogs and News:
Bad Science
The Loom
Uncertain Principles
Fierce Biotech
Blogs for Industry
Omics! Omics!
Young Female Scientist
Notional Slurry
Nobel Intent
SciTech Daily
Science Blog
Gene Expression (I)
Gene Expression (II)
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Transterrestrial Musings
Slashdot Science
Cosmic Variance
Biology News Net

Medical Blogs
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
Respectful Insolence
Diabetes Mine

Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem

Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Belmont Club
Mickey Kaus

Belles Lettres
Uncouth Reflections
Arts and Letters Daily
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

In the Pipeline

« Testosterone, Carbon Isotopes, and Floyd Landis | Main | The Last Word on Eerie Glowing Labs »

August 2, 2006

A Law of the Lab: Yields and Variations

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

The "Law of the Lab" I alluded to the other day is:

Yields go down faster and more unexpectedly than they go up.

My synthetic organic readers will all know what I'm talking about here. We've all had the experience of running a reaction that we've done many times before, only to find it suddenly giving half the yield that it usually does. One of the most important jobs of a process chemist is to iron things like this out, making sure that they don't happen by either tracking down the variables responsible, or ditching the reaction entirely for something more reliable.

But med-chem types like me don't always have enough time to spend on that sort of thing, so we have a lot of reactions that are in a sort of unstable equilibrium with respect to reproducibility. As long as the different factors involved - purity of the starting material, rate of addition of reagents, efficiency of heating, cooling, and stirring, etc. - are within their (sometimes narrow) green zones, things are OK. But let one or more of them wander off, and the fuses start to blow. All reactions will go to pieces on you if you push such variables too much off their mark, but the difference is that a robust one will stand up to all the variations that you'd usually encounter. A wonky reaction is just one sensitive to something that can be over the line under normal conditions.

And there sure are a lot of them. And the different chemistry that starts happening when things cut loose has a far greater chance of messing things up than it has of improving them. Most organic chemistry reactions are very artificial systems - we're using energetic reagents and conditions to make molecules go down particular paths that they wouldn't do to any useful degree by themselves. There are so many other things they can find to do otherwise, and they'll explore those pathways if they get the chance.

So while it's not completely unknown for a random variation to improve a reaction, it sure is rare. Most of them lead to yet another synthesis of the sticky brown gunk which seems to be a universal thermodynamic sink of organic chemistry. You're threading your way through a swamp of that stuff when you do synthesis, and liable to sink down into it at any moment.

Comments (17) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Lowe's Laws of the Lab


1. GC on August 2, 2006 10:09 PM writes...

My favorites are the occasional synthesis papers where they report that once they tried to optimize a reaction (and REALLY rigorously exclude water), it goes to hell. They then found out adding 500ppm water to the reaction mixture helps out after all.

Permalink to Comment

2. Process Wannabe on August 2, 2006 10:17 PM writes...

I've got a gripe with quite a few total synthesis papers I've read recently. The text quotes a lot of good yields, but the actual experimental section tells a different tale. The first few steps will be on the 50-100 mg scale, with very good yields. All of a sudden, 50 mg jumps up to grams! I find this dishonest. Unless you actually sit there and run 100 of the 50 mg scale reactions to get to your 5 grams, just list the yield of the gram scale reaction, it's what you used to get your material for Pete's sake! This goes along with those finicky variables for a reaction, scale-up can be a wonk.

Permalink to Comment

3. Black Knight on August 2, 2006 10:23 PM writes...

Heh. From a biological perspective,

"So while it's not completely unknown for a random mutation to benefit a species, it sure is rare. Most of them lead to yet another synthesis of the sticky brown gunk which seems to be a universal thermodynamic sink"

and you have a pretty good description of natural selection in action.

Permalink to Comment

4. Pete on August 3, 2006 12:34 AM writes...

Process Wannabe: I'm willing to bet in a lot of those cases that the small-scale reactions were run just for the analytical data, i.e. with rigorous purification to get nice clean spectra and pass elemental analysis. If the authors are pushing through grams of material at the beginning of the synthesis, it's likely that at some point the material is just "clean enough", so there the yield would be misleading.

Permalink to Comment

5. Tot. Syn. on August 3, 2006 4:10 AM writes...

In my experience, the yeild always goes to hell just when you think you've sorted the reaction out. For example, you did the reaction on a 50mg scale, then a 250mg scale, and all was well. Then lump a couple of grams at it, and boom, there goes the yeild. The bugger always catches you out.
I've actually just had the trouble of the reverse scenario. One of the first steps in my synthesis is rubbish, and has remained rubbish through most of my runs, *except one*. Yep, one time it went in >85%, and I have no idea what I did differently. The only thing I can suggest is that the solvent I used came from a different bottle - always new, but this time Fluka rather than Aldrich... argh!!!!

Permalink to Comment

6. syn on August 3, 2006 9:25 AM writes...

If you guys were working for my PhD advisor, he'd "kill" you for that kind of unproducibility. I was made to feel like I was the only person this sort of things happen to. Now I feel better :)

Permalink to Comment

7. syn on August 3, 2006 9:26 AM writes...

If you guys were working for my PhD advisor, he'd "kill" you for that kind of unproducibility. I was made to feel like I was the only person this sort of things happen to. Now I feel better :)

Permalink to Comment

8. Painful experience on August 3, 2006 9:34 AM writes...

It has to be one of the worst catch 22 situations you can be in as a grad student: 1st time important reaction gives 85%, 2nd time and on gives 5-25%. I spent 3 months a few years back trying to get a reaction to work. Eventually, we just ditched it and all the while my advisor makes me feel like I am an idiot!

Permalink to Comment

9. Milo on August 3, 2006 10:43 AM writes...

My favorite comment from my advisor was: "Milo, this reaction must give a higher yield, try it again." Paper chemistry is always quantitative.

Permalink to Comment

10. secret milkshake on August 3, 2006 3:47 PM writes...

Yea, I knw this knid of boss attitude. It is caused by overexposure to conference lectures and articles. Published/presented stuff is sold in tidied-up form and if your boss lives on such a diet too long without doing synthetic chemistry with his hands, he starts getting unrealistic.

It is easy for such a boss to get a student-girlfriend that knows how to *realy* improve the yields.

Permalink to Comment

11. MTK on August 3, 2006 5:35 PM writes...

One time in grad school I was trying to do a reaction for about a month. I was setting up 10 reactions at a time in vials, tlc-ing them, then tossing them when all I saw was about 10 spots. Finally, I had one reaction go to one big major spot. I isolated the product in ~85% yield.

I then spent the next two weeks trying to repeat it, only to see 10 frickin' spots every time. Of course, I did the obvious thing which was go back and scrupulously purify all my raw materials, buy new solvents, etc. Same stinkin' 10 spots.

I then figured well if an impurity isn't causing the 10 spots, maybe an impurity is causing the one spot. Went back to my notebook and noticed a different reaction I was running on the day of the success had a Cu catalyst. I reran my one 10 spot reaction, but added a speck of the Cu catalyst. Bingo! One spot. Best little piece of science I've done til this day. Told the story at a job interview and the interviewer almost offered me a job right there.

Feel free to use it.

Permalink to Comment

12. Dustin James on August 3, 2006 6:18 PM writes...

Milo and others: a corrolary to Murphy's Law: "Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself." Been known for a long time--my Dad, who was an Engineer at Enjay (before Exxon), had a copy of it in his desk.

Permalink to Comment

13. syn on August 4, 2006 1:41 PM writes...


Interesting. Care to share what reaction it was?

Permalink to Comment

14. syn on August 4, 2006 1:42 PM writes...

MTK, I like you following comments, very insightful actually.

"I then figured well if an impurity isn't causing the 10 spots, maybe an impurity is causing the one spot. "

Permalink to Comment

15. MTK on August 5, 2006 2:03 PM writes...

It was a Pd catalyzed coupling. The whole copper thing ended up being funny in that it helped in some cases and had no effect on other cases. As far as we could tell, there was an effect with electron deficient sp2 halides, but had no effect with others.

Now that I think about it, we never did run the control reaction without Pd. Hhhmmm.

Permalink to Comment

16. Syn on August 7, 2006 12:45 PM writes...

Ah, CuTC is known to mediate Stille and Suzuki (Liebskin, Emory). Maybe you were seeing a similar thing?

Permalink to Comment

17. on June 25, 2013 11:43 PM writes...

Missouri Dexter Breeders assistant athletic director Mike
Carroll reports that Presley's family was given a check for more than ten years, faced disciplinary action after a change in their scheduling rules no longer accommodated his observance. Photos: Just about everyone around missouri dexter breeders, Tex.

Permalink to Comment


Remember Me?


Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):

The Last Post
The GSK Layoffs Continue, By Proxy
The Move is Nigh
Another Alzheimer's IPO
Cutbacks at C&E News
Sanofi Pays to Get Back Into Oncology
An Irresponsible Statement About Curing Cancer
Oliver Sacks on Turning Back to Chemistry