Page 104 - Advanced Organic Chemistry Part A - Structure and Mechanisms, 5th ed (2007) - Carey _ Sundberg
P. 104

–
                                               +
                                 H 2 N– CH 2 X ↔ H 2 N =CH 2 X −                               83
                                 X          kcal/mol
                                                                                            TOPIC 1.2
                                 H            8 07                                         Heteroatom
                                 F           20 49                                      Hyperconjugation
                                 Cl          22 55                                    (Anomeric Effect) in
                                                                                       Acyclic Molecules
                                 Br          29 87
              Heteroatom hyperconjugation favors the anti alignment of the interacting orbitals.
          One way to estimate the magnitude of the stabilization is to compare the conforma-
          tions of individual molecules that are or are not properly aligned for hyperconjugation.
          Hyperconjugative stabilization is expected to have at least three interrelated conse-
          quences: (1) altered bond lengths; (2) enhanced polarity, as represented by the charged
          resonance structure; and (3) an energetic preference for the conformation that optimizes
          hyperconjugation. These issues have been examined for many small molecules,
          and we illustrate the analysis by considering a few, such as dimethoxymethane,
          fluoromethanol, fluoromethylamine, and diaminomethane.
              Dimethoxymethane prefers a conformation that allows alignment of an unshared
          pair on each oxygen (donor) with a C–O   orbital on the other. This condition is met
                                             ∗
          in the conformation labeled gauche, gauche. In contrast, the extended hydrocarbon-like
          anti, anti conformation does not permit this alignment.

                                                          CH 3
                                 O   O             O   O
                                               CH 3
                              CH 3      CH 3
                                 H   H             H   H
                                 anti, anti     gauche, gauche
                                 ∗
          Calculations using the 6-31 basis set found the gauche, gauche conformation to be
          about 5 kcal/mol more stable than the anti, anti. 111  Later MP2/6-311 ++G  ∗∗  and
          B3LYP/6-31G  ∗∗  calculations found the gauche, gauche arrangement to be about
          7 kcal/mol more stable than anti, anti. There are two other conformations that have
          intermediate (3−4 kcal/mol) energies. 112  Dissecting these conformational preferences
          to give an energy for the anomeric effect is complicated, but there is general agreement
          that in the case of dimethoxymethane it accounts for several kcal/mol of stabilization.
              Fluoromethanol also shows a preference for the gauche conformation. At the
          HF/6-31G ∗∗  level it is 4.8 kcal/mol more stable than the anti conformation and
          2.4 kcal/mol more stable than the eclipsed conformation. 113  Only the gauche confor-
          mation aligns an unshared pair anti to the C–F bond.

                                 H           F            F
                                   F                   H
                             H  O            O           O
                                 H        H  H  H      H    H
                              eclipsed      anti       gauche

                                                   ∗
              NPA analysis was used to isolate the n →   component and placed a value of
          18 kcal/mol on the heteroatom hyperconjugation. This is about 11 kcal/mol higher than
          111
             K. B. Wiberg and M. A. Murcko, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 111, 4821 (1989).
          112   J. R. Kneisler and N. L. Allinger, J. Comput. Chem. 17, 757 (1996).
          113
             U. Salzner and P. v. R. Schleyer, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 115, 10231 (1993).
   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109