Talk:Fischer–Speier esterification

Catalyst Choice

There are specific recommendations for catalysts on the main article page. Why wouldn't other acids work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.155.13 (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How much excess to drive to completion?

The following was posted in the article page itself...moving it to talk...

If anyone knows how much of an excess of carboxylic acid is needed to drive the reaction to completion, or the yeild at different ratios, please edit this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.18.117.229 (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2006 UTC.

As in any chemical equilibrium, the position of the equilibrium (how far towards the product the reaction has progressed) is highly dependent upon the exact reaction in question. No general answer is really possible...sorry. DMacks 22:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title of article

I have no idea why this article was ever renamed. The reaction is called the "Fischer esterification" far, far more than it is called the "Fischer-Speier esterification". I have never owned a textbook or attended a lecture in which the latter name was used. A simple google search confirms this: 189,000 hits for Fischer esterification, but only 3060 for Fischer-Speier esterification. It's one thing to include a list of alternate names at the beginning of the article, but to claim that a minor variant is the "more accepted name" when it is in fact less common by a factor of 60 is really disingenuous. Does your last name happen to be Speier, by any chance?

In all seriousness, Mr. Physchim62, the perpetrator, seems to have a penchant for moving and merging articles, an exercise that is frequently pointless (cf. Talk:Association_football). This article should never have been renamed. -71.195.18.33 (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the most active you can be for suggesting an article name change? No potential name change button? I guess there is always messaging someone with the power to approve such changes, but I don't want to be the one to do that mainly because I don't know who to message JGHFunRun (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rate-limiting step?

I think it is useful to specify which step in the Fischer esterification mechanism is the slow or rate-limiting step. Pikalax 17:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pikalax (talk • contribs)

Picture

The picture on top has absolutely no content of information, it should be removed. --Supermole1 (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phenols-really a ‘textbook mistake’

Two sources are cited supporting the statement that Fischer esterification of phenols does proceed w/ near quantitative yields. However, a large number of quality sources (not only textbooks) would show otherwise (low equilibrium constant, low rate of rxn etc.).

Do said textbooks actually mention low yields (I haven’t noticed it in any one textbook I’ve used) or low K and rxn rates? After all, even a slow, low-K process can be performed w/ reasonable yields (that’s the point of reflux after all), it might just be that it isn’t practical.

I’d say it might need a slight rephrasing, something among the lines of ‘despite low rates of reaction and low equilibrium constants, the esterification of phenols can be performed w/ good to quantitative yields’ Vladbadu (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reference from 1980 opposing that " ... phenols cannot be esterified directly". They have a synthesis with phenol and acetic acid which gives a yield of approx. 55-60% by refluxing 4-24 h. But a new textbook - Smith, Michael B.; March, Jerry (2007), Advanced Organic Chemistry: Reactions, Mechanisms, and Structure (6th ed.), New York: Wiley-Interscience, p. 1414, ISBN 978-0-471-72091-1 - says: "Phenols can sometimes be used to prepare phenolic esters, but yields are generally very low". Btw. the 1980 article cite a 1958 article to support their claim, called "A Modern Approach to Organic Chemistry". I think we can reject a 60 year old article claiming what textbooks says :-). Christian75 (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]