Cargando…

S(N)2 versus E2 Competition of F(–) and PH(2)(–) Revisited

[Image: see text] We have quantum chemically analyzed the competition between the bimolecular nucleophilic substitution (S(N)2) and base-induced elimination (E2) pathways for F(–) + CH(3)CH(2)Cl and PH(2)(–) + CH(3)CH(2)Cl using the activation strain model and Kohn–Sham molecular orbital theory at Z...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vermeeren, Pascal, Hansen, Thomas, Grasser, Maxime, Silva, Daniela Rodrigues, Hamlin, Trevor A., Bickelhaupt, F. Matthias
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Chemical Society 2020
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7656514/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33079542
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.joc.0c02112
_version_ 1783608395027185664
author Vermeeren, Pascal
Hansen, Thomas
Grasser, Maxime
Silva, Daniela Rodrigues
Hamlin, Trevor A.
Bickelhaupt, F. Matthias
author_facet Vermeeren, Pascal
Hansen, Thomas
Grasser, Maxime
Silva, Daniela Rodrigues
Hamlin, Trevor A.
Bickelhaupt, F. Matthias
author_sort Vermeeren, Pascal
collection PubMed
description [Image: see text] We have quantum chemically analyzed the competition between the bimolecular nucleophilic substitution (S(N)2) and base-induced elimination (E2) pathways for F(–) + CH(3)CH(2)Cl and PH(2)(–) + CH(3)CH(2)Cl using the activation strain model and Kohn–Sham molecular orbital theory at ZORA-OLYP/QZ4P. Herein, we correct an earlier study that intuitively attributed the mechanistic preferences of F(–) and PH(2)(–), i.e., E2 and S(N)2, respectively, to a supposedly unfavorable shift in the polarity of the abstracted β-proton along the PH(2)(–)-induced E2 pathway while claiming that ″...no correlation between the thermodynamic basicity and E2 rate should be expected.″ Our analyses, however, unequivocally show that it is simply the 6 kcal mol(–1) higher proton affinity of F(–) that enables this base to engage in a more stabilizing orbital interaction with CH(3)CH(2)Cl and hence to preferentially react via the E2 pathway, despite the higher characteristic distortivity (more destabilizing activation strain) associated with this pathway. On the other hand, the less basic PH(2)(–) has a weaker stabilizing interaction with CH(3)CH(2)Cl and is, therefore, unable to overcome the characteristic distortivity of the E2 pathway. Therefore, the mechanistic preference of PH(2)(–) is steered to the S(N)2 reaction channel (less-destabilizing activation strain).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7656514
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher American Chemical Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76565142020-11-12 S(N)2 versus E2 Competition of F(–) and PH(2)(–) Revisited Vermeeren, Pascal Hansen, Thomas Grasser, Maxime Silva, Daniela Rodrigues Hamlin, Trevor A. Bickelhaupt, F. Matthias J Org Chem [Image: see text] We have quantum chemically analyzed the competition between the bimolecular nucleophilic substitution (S(N)2) and base-induced elimination (E2) pathways for F(–) + CH(3)CH(2)Cl and PH(2)(–) + CH(3)CH(2)Cl using the activation strain model and Kohn–Sham molecular orbital theory at ZORA-OLYP/QZ4P. Herein, we correct an earlier study that intuitively attributed the mechanistic preferences of F(–) and PH(2)(–), i.e., E2 and S(N)2, respectively, to a supposedly unfavorable shift in the polarity of the abstracted β-proton along the PH(2)(–)-induced E2 pathway while claiming that ″...no correlation between the thermodynamic basicity and E2 rate should be expected.″ Our analyses, however, unequivocally show that it is simply the 6 kcal mol(–1) higher proton affinity of F(–) that enables this base to engage in a more stabilizing orbital interaction with CH(3)CH(2)Cl and hence to preferentially react via the E2 pathway, despite the higher characteristic distortivity (more destabilizing activation strain) associated with this pathway. On the other hand, the less basic PH(2)(–) has a weaker stabilizing interaction with CH(3)CH(2)Cl and is, therefore, unable to overcome the characteristic distortivity of the E2 pathway. Therefore, the mechanistic preference of PH(2)(–) is steered to the S(N)2 reaction channel (less-destabilizing activation strain). American Chemical Society 2020-10-20 2020-11-06 /pmc/articles/PMC7656514/ /pubmed/33079542 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.joc.0c02112 Text en © 2020 American Chemical Society This is an open access article published under a Creative Commons Non-Commercial No Derivative Works (CC-BY-NC-ND) Attribution License (http://pubs.acs.org/page/policy/authorchoice_ccbyncnd_termsofuse.html) , which permits copying and redistribution of the article, and creation of adaptations, all for non-commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Vermeeren, Pascal
Hansen, Thomas
Grasser, Maxime
Silva, Daniela Rodrigues
Hamlin, Trevor A.
Bickelhaupt, F. Matthias
S(N)2 versus E2 Competition of F(–) and PH(2)(–) Revisited
title S(N)2 versus E2 Competition of F(–) and PH(2)(–) Revisited
title_full S(N)2 versus E2 Competition of F(–) and PH(2)(–) Revisited
title_fullStr S(N)2 versus E2 Competition of F(–) and PH(2)(–) Revisited
title_full_unstemmed S(N)2 versus E2 Competition of F(–) and PH(2)(–) Revisited
title_short S(N)2 versus E2 Competition of F(–) and PH(2)(–) Revisited
title_sort s(n)2 versus e2 competition of f(–) and ph(2)(–) revisited
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7656514/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33079542
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.joc.0c02112
work_keys_str_mv AT vermeerenpascal sn2versuse2competitionoffandph2revisited
AT hansenthomas sn2versuse2competitionoffandph2revisited
AT grassermaxime sn2versuse2competitionoffandph2revisited
AT silvadanielarodrigues sn2versuse2competitionoffandph2revisited
AT hamlintrevora sn2versuse2competitionoffandph2revisited
AT bickelhauptfmatthias sn2versuse2competitionoffandph2revisited