Page 168 - Advanced Organic Chemistry Part A - Structure and Mechanisms, 5th ed (2007) - Carey _ Sundberg
P. 168

148               reactions of alkenes. Allylic strain and other conformational factors contribute to
                       the relative energy of competing TSs, and can lead to a preference for a particular
     CHAPTER 2         stereoisomeric product.
     Stereochemistry,      The preferred conformations of carbonyl compounds, like 1-alkenes, are eclipsed
     Conformation,
     and Stereoselectivity  rather than bisected, as shown below for ethanal and propanal. The barrier for methyl
                       group rotation in ethanal is 1.17 kcal/mol. 31  Detailed analysis has indicated that small
                       adjustments in molecular geometry, including  -bond lengthening, must be taken
                       into account to quantitatively analyze the barrier. 32  The total barrier can be dissected
                       into nuclear-nuclear, electron-electron, nuclear-electron, and kinetic energy   t ,as
                       described in Topic 1.3 for ethane. MP2/6-311+G(3df,2p) calculations lead to the
                       contributions tabulated below. The total barrier found by this computational approach
                       is very close to the experimental value. Contributions to the ethanal energy barrier in
                       kcal/mol are shown below.

                                               V nn            −10	621
                                               V               −5	492
                                                ee
                                               V               +18	260
                                                ne
                                               t               −0	938
                                                total          +1	209



                           In propanal, it is the methyl group, rather than the hydrogen, that is eclipsed
                       with the carbonyl group in the most stable conformation. The difference in the
                       two eclipsed conformations has been determined by microwave spectroscopy to be
                       0.9 kcal/mol. 33  A number of other aldehydes have been studied by NMR and found
                       to have similar rotameric compositions. 34  When the alkyl substituent becomes too
                       sterically demanding, the hydrogen-eclipsed conformation becomes more stable. This
                       is the case with 3,3-dimethylbutanal.


                                    H    O         CH 3  O            H    O
                                   H                H                H
                                    H    H           H   H        (CH ) C  H
                                                                     3 3
                                preferred conformations for ethanal, propanal, and 3, 3-dimethylbutanal

                           Ketones also favor eclipsed conformations. The preference is for the rotamer in
                       which the alkyl group, rather than a hydrogen, is eclipsed with the carbonyl group
                       because this conformation allows the two alkyl groups to be anti rather than gauche
                       with respect to the other carbonyl substituent.

                                                     O              O
                                               R'              H
                                                     R              R
                                               H               H
                                                 H               R'
                                              more stable     less stable

                        31	  I. Kleiner, J. T. Hougen, R. D. Suenram, F. J. Lovas, and M. Godefroid J. Mol. Spectros., 153, 578
                          (1992); S. P. Belov, M. Y. Tretyakov, I. Kleiner, and J. T. Hougen, J. Mol. Spectros., 160, 61 (1993).
                        32
                          L. Goodman, T. Kundu, and J. Leszczynski, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 117, 2082 (1995).
                        33	  S. S. Butcher and E. B. Wilson, Jr., J. Chem. Phys., 40, 1671 (1964).
                        34
                          G. J. Karabatsos and N. Hsi, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 87, 2864 (1965).
   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173