Posts Tagged ‘Chlorine’

Smoke and mirrors. All is not what it seems with this Sn2 reaction!

Thursday, April 4th, 2019

Previously, I explored the Graham reaction to form a diazirine. The second phase of the reaction involved an Sn2′ displacement of N-Cl forming C-Cl. Here I ask how facile the simpler displacement of C-Cl by another chlorine might be and whether the mechanism is Sn2 or the alternative Sn1. The reason for posing this question is that as an Sn1 reaction, simply ionizing off the chlorine to form a diazacyclopropenium cation might be a very easy process. Why? Because the resulting cation is analogous to the cyclopropenium cation, famously proposed by Breslow as the first example of a 4n+2 aromatic ring for which the value of n is zero and not 1 as for benzene.[1] Another example of a famous “Sn1” reaction is the solvolysis of t-butyl chloride to form the very stable tertiary carbocation and chloride anion (except in fact that it is not an Sn1 reaction but an Sn2 one!)

Here is the located transition state for the above, using Na+.6H2O as the counter-ion to the chloride. The calculated free energy of this transition state is 3.2 kcal/mol lower than the previous Sn2′ version (FAIR data collection, 10.14469/hpc/5045), with an overall barrier to reaction of 26.5 kcal/mol. This compares to ~24.5 kcal/mol obtained by Breslow for solvolysis of the cyclopropenyl tosylate. Given the relatively simple solvation model I used in the calculation (only six waters to solvate all the ions, and a continuum solvent field for water), the agreement is not too bad.

The animation above is of a normal vibrational mode known as the transition mode (click on the image above to get a 3D rotatable animated model). The calculated vectors for this mode (its energy being an eigenvalue of the force constant matrix) are regularly used to “characterise” a transition state. I will digress with a quick bit of history here, starting in 1972 when another famous article appeared.[2] The key aspect of this study was the derivation of the first derivatives of the energy of a molecule with respect to the (3N) geometrical coordinates of the atoms, using a relatively simply quantum mechanical method (MINDO/2) to obtain that energy. Analytical first derivatives of the MINDO/2 Hamiltonian were then used to both locate the transition state for a simple reaction and then to evaluate the second derivatives (the force constant matrix) using a finite difference method. That force constant matrix, when diagonalized, reveals one negative root (eigenvalue) which is characteristic of a transition state. The vectors reveal how the atoms displace along the vibration, and should of course approximate to the path to either reactant or product.

Since that time, it has been a more or less mandatory requirement for any study reporting transition state models to characterise them using the vectors of the negative eigenvalue. The eigenvalue invariably expressed as a wavenumber. Because this comes from the square root of the mass-weighted negative force constant, it is often called the imaginary mode. Thus in this example, 115i cm-1, the i indicating it is an imaginary number. The vectors are derived from quadratic force constants, which is a parabolic potential surface for the molecule. Since most potential surfaces are not quadratic, it is recognized as an approximation, but nonetheless good enough to serve to characterise the transition state as the one connecting the assumed reactant and product. Thousands of published studies in the literature have used this approach.

So now to the animation above. If you look closely you will see that it is a nitrogen and not a carbon that is oscillating between two chlorines (here it is the lighter atoms that move most). The vectors confirm that, with a large one at N and only a small one at C. So it is Sn2 displacement at nitrogen that we have located? 

Not so fast. This is a reminder that we have to explore a larger region of the potential energy surface, beyond the quadratic region of the transition state from which the vectors above are derived. This is done using an IRC (intrinsic reaction coordinate). Here it is, and you see something remarkable.

The Cl…N…Cl motions seen above in the transition state mode change very strongly in regions away from the transition state. On one side of the transition state, it forms a Cl…C bond, on the other side a Cl…N.

It is also reasonable to ask why the paths either side of the transition state are not the same? That may be because with only six explicit water molecules, three of which solvate the sodium ion, there are not enough to solvate equally the chloride anions either side of the transition state. As a result one chlorine does not behave in quite the same way as the other. The addition of an extra water molecule or two may well change the resulting reaction coordinate significantly.

The overall message is that there are two ways to characterise a computed reaction path. One involves looking at the motions of all the atoms just in the narrow region of the transition state. Most reported literature studies do only this. When the full path is explored with an IRC, a different picture can emerge, as here. The Cl…N…Cl Sn2 mode is replaced by a Cl…C/N…Cl mode. This example however is probably rare, with most reactions the transition state vibration and the IRC do actually agree!

References

  1. R. Breslow, "SYNTHESIS OF THE s-TRIPHENYLCYCLOPROPENYL CATION", Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 79, pp. 5318-5318, 1957. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja01576a067
  2. J.W. McIver, and A. Komornicki, "Structure of transition states in organic reactions. General theory and an application to the cyclobutene-butadiene isomerization using a semiempirical molecular orbital method", Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 94, pp. 2625-2633, 1972. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja00763a011

VSEPR Theory: Octet-busting or not with trimethyl chlorine, ClMe3.

Sunday, November 12th, 2017

A few years back, I took a look at the valence-shell electron pair repulsion approach to the geometry of chlorine trifluoride, ClF3 using so-called ELF basins to locate centroids for both the covalent F-Cl bond electrons and the chlorine lone-pair electrons. Whereas the original VSEPR theory talks about five “electron pairs” totalling an octet-busting ten electrons surrounding chlorine, the electron density-based ELF approach located only ~6.8e surrounding the central chlorine and no “octet-busting”. The remaining electrons occupied fluorine lone pairs rather than the shared Cl-F regions. Here I take a look at ClMe3, as induced by the analysis of SeMe6.

The difference between ClF3 and ClMeis that octet-excess electrons (two in this case) in the former can relocate into fluorine lone pairs by occupying in effect anti-bonding orbitals and hence end up not contributing to the central atom valence shell. With ClMe3 the methyl groups cannot apparently sustain such lone pairs, at least not distinct from the Cl-C bond region. So might we get an octet-busting example with this molecule? A ClMe3 calculation (ωb97xd/6-311++g(d,p)) reveals a molecule with all real vibrational modes (i.e. a minimum, FAIR data DOI: 10.14469/hpc/3241) and ELF (FAIR data DOI 10.14469/hpc/3242) basins as shown below:

Density-derived approach: Two of the C-Cl bonds each exhibit two ELF basins; one disynaptic basin (0.94e) and one monosynaptic basin (0.20e) closer to the chlorine. The former pair integrate to 1.88e, density which largely arises from carbon (natural charge -0.84) and which contribute to a total integration for these carbons of 7.17e. The latter pair contributes to a total chlorine integration of 7.19e. The angle subtended at chlorine for the two 2.68e “lone pair” basins is 141°. Thus an inner, octet-compliant, valence-shell for chlorine is revealed, plus an expanded-octet outer one into which the two additional electrons go. The latter contribute to forming an octet-compliant carbon valence shell, but may be considered as not contributing to the valence shell of the other atom of the pair, the chlorine. An endo lone-pair rather than the more usual exo lone-pair if you will. These results reveal that the molecular feature we know as a (single) “bond” may in fact have more complex inner structures or zones, something we do not normally consider bonds as having. In this model, these zones are not invariably considered as shared between both the atoms comprising the bond.

Orbital-derived approach: NBO analysis (FAIR data DOI: 10.14469/hpc/3241) reveals the chlorine electronic configuration as [core]3S(1.83)3p(4.67)4S(0.01)3d(0.03)5p(0.02,) showing very little population of the Rydberg shells (4s, 3d, 5p) occurs (0.13e in total). This method of partitioning the electrons allocates a chlorine Wiberg bond index of 2.00 and the methyl carbon bond index of  3.83. If the regular valence of Cl is taken as 1, then the central chlorine can be regarded as non-Rydberg hypervalent (the electrons in the 0.94e basins are taken as contributing to the chlorine bond index).

The carbon-halogen bond internal structures simplify for Br (DOI: 10.14469/hpc/3248, 10.14469/hpc/3250) and I (DOI: 10.14469/hpc/3249, 10.14469/hpc/3247); for each only a single ELF basin is located and the NBO Br and I bond indices are respectively 2.10 and 2.1. This is not due to incursion of  Rydberg hypervalence (Br: [core]4S(1.83)4p(4.46)5S(0.02)4d(0.03)6p( 0.01); I: [core]5S(1.82)5p(4.29)6S(0.02)5d(0.02)6p(0.01) ) but of a merging of the carbon and halogen valence basin such that the ELF contributions to each cannot be deconvoluted. In each case the NBO bond indices of ~2 suggest hypervalency for the halogen.

What have we learnt?  That the shared electron (covalent) bond can have complex internal features, such as two discrete basins for the apparently shared electrons. How one partitions these electrons can influence the value one obtains for the total shared electron count and hence whether the octet is retained or expanded for main group elements such as the halogens. And finally, that hypervalence and hyper-coordination are related in the orbital model at least. Thus along the series MenI (n= coordination number 1,3,5,7), the values of the Wiberg bond index at the halogen progress as 1.0, 2.1, 3.1 (DOI: 10.14469/hpc/3236) and 4.01 (DOI: 10.14469/hpc/3238), or one extra atom bond index per electron pair.  Given this, it seems useful to retain the distinction between the terms hypervalence and hyper-coordination, but also recognize that we still may have much to learn about the former.


See the previous post on SeMe6 for a more detailed discussion.

† The FAIR Data accompanying this blog post is organised in a new way here. All the calculations are collected together with an over-arching DOI: 10.14469/hpc/3252 associated with this post, with individual entries accessible directly using the DOIs given above. The post itself has a  DOI: 10.14469/hpc/3255 and the two identifiers are associated with each-other via their respective metadata.  A set of standards (https://jats.nlm.nih.gov) with implementation guidelines for e.g. repositories, authors and publishers-editors  are expected in the future to establish infra-structures for cross-linking narratives/stories with the data on which they are based.

VSEPR Theory: A closer look at bromine trifluoride, BrF3.

Tuesday, February 14th, 2017

I analysed the bonding in chlorine trifluoride a few years back in terms of VSEPR theory. I noticed that several searches on this topic which led people to this post also included a query about the differences between it and the bromine analogue. For those who posed this question, here is an equivalent analysis.

The calculation is done at the same level as before (ωB97XD/6-311++D(d,p)) for consistency (DOI: 10.14469/hpc/2160)

Click for 3D

  1. Basins 8 and 9 have electron populations of 2.33e (2.07e for the chlorine analogue) with an angle subtended at Br of 159°. The greater electron population and hence electron pair repulsion has the effect of increasing the angle compared to Cl (154°). The coordination is even more square pyramidal than with Cl.
  2. Basin 7 has a population of 0.73e, this time less than Cl (0.87e). 
  3. Basins 11 and 12 are 0.82e. With Cl, this single basin was replaced by a pair of split basins, each pair summing to 0.91e (the same effect happens with F-F). The angle 4-2-3 is 172° (174° for Cl) which suggests a slightly increased 2-electron-3-centre interaction between e.g. atoms 1-4 or 1-3 compared to Cl.
  4. The total basin count surrounding the Br is therefore 7.03e, compared to 6.84e with Cl, which suggests Br is slightly more electronegative in this context than Cl.

Bromine has a habit of springing surprises, but not so much in this example.