Page 200 - Advanced Organic Chemistry Part A - Structure and Mechanisms, 5th ed (2007) - Carey _ Sundberg
P. 200

180                   The Cieplak model emphasizes an alternative interaction, between the   orbital of
                       the C−X bond and the antibonding orbital to the nucleophile. 118  In this case, a better
     CHAPTER 2         donor X should be the most stabilizing. Li and le Noble pointed out that both of these
     Stereochemistry,  hyperconjugative interactions will be present in the transition structure. 119  There is also
     Conformation,
     and Stereoselectivity  general agreement that addition of reactive nucleophiles have early transition states,
                       which would suggest that substituent effects might best be examined in the reactant.
                                                               Nu
                                               Nu

                                                                     O
                                                      O
                                               X              X

                                            Felkin-Ahn Model  Cieplak Model

                       One broad generalization is that when steric interactions are dominant the Felkin-
                       Ahn model is predictive. Thus steric approach control, the idea that the approaching
                       nucleophile will approach the carbonyl group from the least hindered direction, is the
                       first guiding principle. 120
                           The TS model emphasizing steric effects must be elaborated when there is a
                       polar substituent in the vicinity of the carbonyl group. At least three additional factors
                       may then be involved. There are stereoelectronic effects associated with heteroatom
                       substituents. Electronegative substituents such as halogen are assigned to the l position
                       in the Felkin-Ahn TS on the basis of presumed stronger stereoelectronic interactions
                                                                 ∗
                       with the C=O bond. According to this analysis, the   bond to the halogen stabilizes the
                       TS. An anti-periplanar arrangement maximizes this interaction. It is likely that there are
                       also electrostatic effects involved in controlling nucleophilic addition reactions, since
                       compounds such as decalones, 121  norbornan-7-ones, 122  and adamantanones, 123  which
                       have remote substituents that cannot directly interact with the reaction site, nevertheless
                       influence the stereoselectivity. It remains a point for discussion as to whether these
                       substituent effects are electrostatic in nature or are transmitted by hyperconjugation.
                       (See Topic 2.4 for further discussion.)
                           It should also be emphasized that the metal counterions associated with the
                       nucleophiles are active participants in carbonyl addition reactions. There are strong
                       interactions between the carbonyl oxygen and the metal ions in the TSs and interme-
                       diates. This effect can be recognized, for example, in the reactivity of borohydrides,
                                 +
                                     2+
                       where the Li ,Ca , and Zn 2+  salts are more reactive than the standard NaBH reagent
                                                                                     4
                       because of the greater Lewis acid strength of these cations.
                           The examples just discussed pertain to substituents that are on the carbon adjacent
                       to the carbonyl center and the stereoselectivity is referred to as 1,2-asymmetric
                       118
                          A. S. Cieplak, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 103, 4540 (1981).
                       119
                          H. Li and W. J. le Noble, Recl. Trav. Chim. Pays-Bas, 111, 199 (1992).
                       120	  W. G. Dauben, G. J. Fonken, and D. S. Noyce, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 78, 2579 (1956); H. C. Brown and
                          H. R. Deck, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 87, 5620 (1965).
                       121
                          Y.-D.Wu, J. A. Tucker, and K. N. Houk, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 113, 5018 (1991).
                       122	  G. Mehta and F. A. Khan, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 112, 6140 (1990); H. Li, G. Mehta, S. Padma, and W. J. le
                          Noble, J. Org. Chem., 56, 2006 (1991); G. Mehta, F. A. Khan, B. Ganguly, and J. Chandrasekhan, J.
                          Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans., 2, 2275 (1994).
                       123
                          C. K. Cheung, L. T. Tseng, M.-H. Lin, S.Srivastava, and W. J. Le Noble, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 108, 1598
                          (1986); J. M. Hahn and W. J. Le Noble, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 114, 1916 (1992).
   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205