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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |