Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Pharmaceutical Fronts 2023; 05(04): e219-e226
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1777425
Review Article

A Review of the Applications of Artificial Intelligence in the Process Analysis and Optimization of Chemical Products

Runqiu Shen
1   Key Laboratory for Green Pharmaceutical Technologies and Related Equipment of Ministry of Education and Key Laboratory of Pharmaceutical Engineering of Zhejiang Province, Collaborative Innovation Center of Yangtze River Delta Region Green Pharmaceuticals, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, People's Republic of China
,
Weike Su
1   Key Laboratory for Green Pharmaceutical Technologies and Related Equipment of Ministry of Education and Key Laboratory of Pharmaceutical Engineering of Zhejiang Province, Collaborative Innovation Center of Yangtze River Delta Region Green Pharmaceuticals, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, People's Republic of China
2   Zhejiang Yangtze Delta Region Pharmaceutical Technology Research Park, Deqing, People's Republic of China
› Author Affiliations Funding This work was supported by the Zhejiang Provincial Key R&D Project (Grant No. 2019-ZJ-JS-03).
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints


Abstract

Continuous flow chemistry is an enabling technology for automated synthesis. Artificial intelligence (AI) is a powerful tool in various areas of automated synthesis in flow chemistry, including process analysis technology and synthesis reaction optimization. The merger of continuous flow chemistry and AI drives chemical production in a more intelligent, automated, and flexible direction. This review discusses the recent application of AI in analyzing and optimizing chemical products produced by continuous flow chemistry with the most innovative equipment and techniques.

Keywords

process analysis technology - self-optimization - artificial intelligence - flow chemistry


Publication History

Received: 31 July 2023

Accepted: 14 November 2023

Article published online:
08 December 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Hartman RL, McMullen JP, Jensen KF. Deciding whether to go with the flow: evaluating the merits of flow reactors for synthesis. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 2011; 50 (33) 7502-7519
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Tsubogo T, Oyamada H, Kobayashi S. Multistep continuous-flow synthesis of (R)- and (S)-rolipram using heterogeneous catalysts. Nature 2015; 520 (7547): 329-332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sagandira CR, Akwi FM, Sagandira MB, Watts P. Multistep continuous flow synthesis of stavudine. J Org Chem 2021; 86 (20) 13934-13942
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Simon LL, Pataki H, Marosi G. et al. Assessment of recent process analytical technology (PAT) trends: a multiauthor review. Org Process Res Dev 2015; 19 (01) 3-62
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Fabry DC, Sugiono E, Rueping M. Online monitoring and analysis for autonomous continuous flow self-optimizing reactor systems. React Chem Eng 2016; 1 (02) 129-133
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Musio B, Gala E, Ley SV. Real-time spectroscopic analysis enabling quantitative and safe consumption of fluoroform during nucleophilic trifluoromethylation in flow. ACS Sustain Chem& Eng 2018; 6 (01) 1489-1495
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Morin MA, Zhang WP, Mallik D, Organ MG. Sampling and analysis in flow: the keys to smarter, more controllable, and sustainable fine-chemical manufacturing. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 2021; 60 (38) 20606-20626
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Houhou R, Bocklitz T. Trends in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and chemometrics applied to chemical data. Anal Sci Adv 2021; 2 (3–4): 128-141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Bocklitz T, Juergen P, Schmitt M. Optical molecular spectroscopy in combination with artificial intelligence for process analytical technology. Spectroscopy (Springf) 2020; 35 (06) 28-32
    Google Scholar
  • 10 McGill C, Forsuelo M, Guan Y, Green WH. Predicting infrared spectra with message passing neural networks. J Chem Inf Model 2021; 61 (06) 2594-2609
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Lu W, Chen X, Wang L, Li H, Fu YV. Combination of an artificial intelligence approach and laser tweezers raman spectroscopy for microbial identification. Anal Chem 2020; 92 (09) 6288-6296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Lussier F, Thibault V, Charron B, Wallace GQ, Masson J. Deep learning and artificial intelligence methods for raman and surface-enhanced raman scattering. Trends Analyt Chem 2020; 124: 115796
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Sagmeister P, Poms J, Williams JD, Kappe CO. Multivariate analysis of inline benchtop NMR data enables rapid optimization of a complex nitration in flow. React Chem Eng 2020; 5 (04) 677-684
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Sagmeister P, Lebl R, Castillo I. et al. Advanced real-time process analytics for multistep synthesis in continuous flow. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 2021; 60 (15) 8139-8148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Sacher S, Castillo I, Rehrl J. et al. Automated and continuous synthesis of drug substances. Chem Eng J 2022; 177: 493-501
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Sagmeister P, Ort FF, Jusner CE. et al. Autonomous multi-step and multi-objective optimization facilitated by real-time process analytics. Adv Sci (Weinh) 2022; 9 (10) e2105547
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Bradford E, Schweidtmann AM, Lapkin A. Efficient multiobjective optimization employing gaussian processes, spectral sampling and a genetic algorithm. J Glob Optim 2018; 71 (02) 407-438
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Anton SD, Fraunholz D, Lipps C, Poh IF, Zimmermann M, Schotten HD. Two decades of scada exploitation: a brief history. Paper presented at: 2017 IEEE Conference on Application, Information and Network Security (AINS); November 13–14, 2017; Miri, Malaysia
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Sagmeister P, Hierzegger R, Williams JD, Kappe CO, Kowarik S. Artificial neural networks and data fusion enable concentration predictions for inline process analytics. Digit Discov 2022; 1 (04) 405-412
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Perera D, Tucker JW, Brahmbhatt S. et al. A platform for automated nanomole-scale reaction screening and micromole-scale synthesis in flow. Science 2018; 359 (6374): 429-434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Richmond CJ, Miras HN, de la Oliva AR. et al. A flow-system array for the discovery and scale up of inorganic clusters. Nat Chem 2012; 4 (12) 1037-1043
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Reizman BJ, Jensen KF. Feedback in flow for accelerated reaction development. Acc Chem Res 2016; 49 (09) 1786-1796
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Weissman SA, Anderson NG. Design of experiments (doe) and process optimization. A review of recent publications. Org Process Res Dev 2015; 19 (11) 1605-1633
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Nelder JA, Mead R. A simplex method for function minimization. Comput J 1965; 7: 308-313
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Huyer W, Neumaier A. Snobfit–stable noisy optimization by branch and fit. Acm T Math Software 2008; 35 (02) 1-25
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Jumbam DN, Skilton RA, Parrott AJ, Bourne RA, Poliakoff M. The effect of self-optimisation targets on the methylation of alcohols using dimethyl carbonate in supercritical co2. J Flow Chem 2012; 2 (01) 24-27
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Echtermeyer A, Amar Y, Zakrzewski J, Lapkin A. Self-optimisation and model-based design of experiments for developing a C-H activation flow process. Beilstein J Org Chem 2017; 13 (01) 150-163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Schweidtmann AM, Clayton AD, Holmes N. et al. Machine learning meets continuous flow chemistry: automated optimization towards the pareto front of multiple objectives. Chem Eng J 2018; 352: 277-282
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Jeraal MI, Sung S, Lapkin AA. A machine learning-enabled autonomous flow chemistry platform for process optimization of multiple reaction metrics. Chem Methods 2021; 1 (01) 71-77
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Cao L, Russo D, Felton K. et al. Optimization of formulations using robotic experiments driven by machine learning doe. Cell Rep Phys Sci 2021; 2 (01) 100295
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Felton KC, Rittig JG, Lapkin AA. Summit: benchmarking machine learning methods for reaction optimisation. Chem Methods 2021; 1 (02) 116-122
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Pomberger A, Jose N, Walz D. et al. Automated ph adjustment driven by robotic workflows and active machine learning. Chem Eng J 2023; 451: 139099
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Clayton AD, Schweidtmann AM, Clemens G. et al. Automated self-optimisation of multi-step reaction and separation processes using machine learning. Chem Eng J 2020; 384: 123340
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Manson JA, Chamberlain TW, Bourne RA. Mvmoo: mixed variable multi-objective optimisation. J Glob Optim 2021; 80 (04) 865-886
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Knox ST, Parkinson SJ, Wilding CYP, Bourne RA, Warren NJ. Autonomous polymer synthesis delivered by multi-objective closed-loop optimisation. Polym Chem 2022; 13 (11) 1576-1585
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Clayton AD, Pyzer-Knapp EO, Purdie M. et al. Bayesian self-optimization for telescoped continuous flow synthesis. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 2023; 62 (03) e202214511
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Jasrasaria D, Pyzer-Knapp EO. Dynamic control of explore/exploit trade-off in Bayesian optimization. In: Arai K, Kapoor S, Bhatia R. eds. Intelligent Computing. SAI 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 858. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2019: 1-15
    Google Scholar
  • 38 Kershaw OJ, Clayton AD, Manson JA. et al. Machine learning directed multi-objective optimization of mixed variable chemical systems. Chem Eng J 2023; 451: 138443
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Kondo M, Wathsala HDP, Salem MSH. et al. Bayesian optimization-driven parallel-screening of multiple parameters for the flow synthesis of biaryl compounds. Commun Chem 2022; 5 (01) 148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Liang R, Duan X, Zhang J, Yuan Z. Bayesian based reaction optimization for complex continuous gas–liquid–solid reactions. React Chem Eng 2022; 7 (03) 590-598
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Nandiwale KY, Hart T, Zahrt AF. et al. Continuous stirred-tank reactor cascade platform for self-optimization of reactions involving solids. React Chem Eng 2022; 7 (06) 1315-1327
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Baumgartner LM, Coley CW, Reizman BJ, Gao KW, Jensen KF. Optimum catalyst selection over continuous and discrete process variables with a single droplet microfluidic reaction platform. React Chem Eng 2018; 3 (03) 301-311
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Kandasamy K, Vysyaraju KR, Neiswanger W. et al. Tuning hyperparameters without grad students: scalable and robust Bayesian optimisation with dragonfly. J Mach Learn Res 2020; 21 (01) 3098-3124
    Google Scholar
  • 44 Nambiar AMK, Breen CP, Hart T, Kulesza T, Jamison TF, Jensen KF. Bayesian optimization of computer-proposed multistep synthetic routes on an automated robotic flow platform. ACS Cent Sci 2022; 8 (06) 825-836
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Coley CW, Thomas III DA, Lummiss JAM. et al. A robotic platform for flow synthesis of organic compounds informed by AI planning. Science 2019; 365 (6453): 6453
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Hickman RJ, Ruža J, Tribukait H, Roch LM, García-Durán A. Equipping data-driven experiment planning for Self-driving Laboratories with semantic memory: case studies of transfer learning in chemical reaction optimization. React Chem Eng 2023; 8: 2284-2296
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Coley CW, Eyke NS, Jensen KF. Autonomous discovery in the chemical sciences Part I: progress. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 2020; 59 (51) 22858-22893
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Kim H, Mnih A, Schwarz J. et al. Attentive neural processes. Paper presented at: ICLR 2019 New Orleans, LA, United States, May 6–9, 2019
    Google Scholar
  • 49 Dunlap JH, Ethier JG, Putnam-Neeb AA. et al. Continuous flow synthesis of pyridinium salts accelerated by multi-objective Bayesian optimization with active learning. Chem Sci (Camb) 2023; 14 (30) 8061-8069
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Hickman RJ, Aldeghi M, Häse F, Aspuru-Guzik A. Bayesian optimization with known experimental and design constraints for chemistry applications. Digit Discov 2022; 1: 732-744
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Häse F, Roch LM, Kreisbeck C, Aspuru-Guzik A. Phoenics: a Bayesian optimizer for chemistry. ACS Cent Sci 2018; 4 (09) 1134-1145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Aldeghi M, Häse F, Hickman RJ, Tamblyn I, Aspuru-Guzik A. Golem: an algorithm for robust experiment and process optimization. Chem Sci (Camb) 2021; 12 (44) 14792-14807
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar