Page 331 - Advanced Organic Chemistry Part A - Structure and Mechanisms, 5th ed (2007) - Carey _ Sundberg
P. 331

312                   A good place to begin discussion of substituent effects on radicals is by
                       considering the most common measure of radical stability. Radical stabilization is
     CHAPTER 3         often defined by comparing C−H bond dissociation energies (BDE). For substituted
     Structural Effects on  methanes, the energy of the reaction should reflect any stabilizing features in the
     Stability and Reactivity
                       radical X−CH .
                                   2
                                                                 .    .
                                             X −CH −H → X −CH +H
                                                    2            2
                       The BDEs are usually tabulated as the enthalpy change for the reaction at 298 K. The
                       values can be determined experimentally 92  or calculated theoretically. Table 3.2 B
                       (p. 258) gives some C−H BDE for important C−H bonds. The BDEs become smaller
                       in the order CH > pri > sec > tert. The relatively low enthalpies of the dissociation
                                    3
                       for forming allyl and benzyl radicals by removal of hydrogen from propene and
                       toluene, respectively, is due to the stabilization of these radicals by delocalization.
                                                         2
                       On the other hand the C−H bond to sp (ethene, benzene) and sp (ethyne) carbon
                                                         3
                       are substantially stronger than bonds to sp carbon. The BDEs correlate with the ease
                       of formation of the corresponding radicals. 93  The reactivity of C−H groups toward
                       radicals that abstract hydrogen is pri < sec < tert. Vinyl and phenyl substituents at
                       a reaction site weaken the C−H bond and enhance reactivity. On the other hand,
                                                  2
                       hydrogen abstraction from an sp (vinyl or aryl) C−H bond or from a sp carbon in
                       a terminal alkyne is difficult because of the increased strength of the corresponding
                       C−H bonds.
                           The trend of reactivity tert > sec > pri is consistently observed in various
                       hydrogen atom abstraction reactions, but the range of reactivity is determined by the
                       nature of the reacting radical. The relative reactivity of pri, sec, and tert positions
                       toward hydrogen abstraction by methyl radicals is 1:4.8:61. 94  An allylic or benzylic
                       hydrogen is more reactive toward a methyl radical by a factor of about 9, compared
                       to an unsubstituted C−H. The relative reactivity toward the t-butoxy radical is pri:1,
                       sec: 10, tert: 50. 95  In the gas phase, the bromine atom is much more selective, with
                       relative reactivities of pri:1, sec: 250, tert: 6300. 96  Data for other types of radicals
                       have been obtained and tabulated. 96
                           The stabilizing effects of vinyl groups (in allylic radicals) and phenyl groups (in
                       benzyl radicals) are large and can be described in resonance terminology.
                                                           H .  H          H   H

                                       .       .
                                                                             .



                                                           H   H           H   H
                                                               .            .






                        92   J. Berkowitz, G. B. Ellison, and D. Gutman, J. Phys. Chem., 98, 2744 (1994).
                        93
                          J. A. Kerr, Chem. Rev., 66, 465 (1966).
                        94   W. A. Pryor, D. L. Fuller, and J. P. Stanley, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 94, 1632 (1972).
                        95   C. Walling and B. B. Jacknow, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 82, 6108 (1960).
                        96
                          A. F. Trotman-Dickenson, Adv. Free Radical Chem., 1, 1 (1965).
   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336