Page 757 - Advanced Organic Chemistry Part A - Structure and Mechanisms, 5th ed (2007) - Carey _ Sundberg
P. 757

740               cyclopentadienyl cation is also calculated to be antiaromatic by magnetic suscep-
                       tibility and chemical shift criteria. 127  Its pK  has been estimated as –40, using
                                                             R+
     CHAPTER 8                              128
                       an electrochemical cycle.  The heterolytic bond dissociation energy to form the
     Aromaticity       cation from cyclopentadiene is 258 kcal/mol, which is substantially more than for
                       formation of an allylic cation from cyclopentene but only slightly more than the
                       252 kcal/mol required for formation of an unstabilized secondary carbocation. 64  The
                       high energy of the cyclopentadienyl cation is also indicated by ionization studies
                       in solution. A rate retardation of 10 −14  relative to cyclopentyl analogs has been
                       estimated from solvolytic rate data. 129  Solvolysis of cyclopentadienyl halides assisted
                       by silver ion is extremely slow, even though the halide is doubly allylic. 130  When
                       cyclopentadienyl bromide and antimony pentafluoride react at −78 C, an EPR

                       spectrum is observed, which indicates that the cyclopentadienyl cation is a triplet. 131
                       Similar studies indicate that the pentaisopropyl 132  and pentachlorocyclopentadienyl
                       cation are also triplets, but the ground state of the pentaphenyl derivative is a
                       singlet.
                           The relative stability of the anions derived from cyclopropene and cyclopentadiene
                       by deprotonation is just the reverse of the situation for the cations. Cyclopentadiene
                       is one of the most acidic hydrocarbons known, with a pK of 16.0. 133  The pK’s
                                                                         a
                       of triphenylcyclopropene and trimethylcyclopropene have been estimated as 50 and
                       62, respectively, using electrochemical cycles 134  (see Section 6.1). The unsubstituted
                       compound would be expected to fall somewhere between and thus must be about 40
                       powers of 10 less acidic than cyclopentadiene. MP2/6-311+G(2df,2pd) and B3LYP/6-
                       311+G(2df,2pd) calculations indicate a small destabilization of the cyclopropenyl
                       anion, relative to the cyclopropyl anion. 135  Thus the six  -electron cyclopentadienide
                       anion is enormously stabilized relative to the four  -electron cyclopropenide ion, in
                       agreement with the Hückel rule.
                           The Hückel rule predicts aromaticity for the six  -electron cation derived
                       from cycloheptatriene by hydride abstraction and antiaromaticity for the planar eight
                        -electron anion that would be formed by deprotonation. The cation is indeed very
                       stable, with a pK + of +4.7. 136  Salts containing the cation can be isolated as a result
                                     R
                       of a variety of preparative procedures. 137  On the other hand, the pK of cyclohep-
                       tatriene has been estimated at 36. 134  This value is similar to normal 1,4-dienes and
                       does not indicate strong destabilization. The seven-membered eight  -electron anion
                       is probably nonplanar. This would be similar to the situation in the nonplanar eight
                        -electron hydrocarbon, cyclooctatetraene.

                       127
                          H. Jiao, P. v. R. Schleyer, Y. Mo, M. A. McAllister, and T. T. Tidwell, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 119, 7075
                          (1997).
                       128   R. Breslow and S. Mazur, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 95, 584 (1975).
                       129
                          A. D. Allen, M. Sumonja, and T. T. Tidwell, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 119, 2371 (1997).
                       130   R. Breslow and J. M. Hoffman, Jr., J. Am. Chem. Soc., 94, 2110 (1972).
                       131   M. Saunders, R. Berger, A. Jaffe, J. M. McBride, J. O’Neill, R. Breslow, J. M. Hoffman, Jr.,
                          C. Perchonock, E. Wasserman, R. S. Hutton, and V. J. Kuck, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 95, 3017 (1973).
                       132
                          H. Sitzmann, H. Bock, R. Boese, T. Dezember, Z. Havlas, W. Kaim, M. Moscherosch, and L. Zanathy,
                          J. Am. Chem. Soc., 115, 12003 (1993).
                       133   A. Streitwieser, Jr., and L. L. Nebenzahl, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 98, 2188 (1976).
                       134
                          R. Breslow and W. Chu, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 95, 411 (1973).
                       135   G. N. Merrill and S. R. Kass, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 119, 12322 (1997).
                       136   W. v. E. Doering and L. H. Knox, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 76, 3203 (1954).
                       137
                          T. Nozoe, Prog. Org. Chem., 5, 132 (1961); K. M. Harmon, in Carbonium Ions, Vol. IV, G. A. Olah
                          and P. v. R. Schleyer, eds., Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1973, Chap. 2.
   752   753   754   755   756   757   758   759   760   761   762