Posts Tagged ‘Physical organic chemistry’

Impossible molecules.

Monday, April 1st, 2019

Members of the chemical FAIR data community have just met in Orlando (with help from the NSF, the American National Science Foundation) to discuss how such data is progressing in chemistry. There are a lot of themes converging at the moment. Thus this article[1] extolls the virtues of having raw NMR data available in natural product research, to which we added that such raw data should also be made FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) by virtue of adding rich metadata and then properly registering it so that it can be searched. These themes are combined in another article which made a recent appearance.[2]

One of the speakers made a very persuasive case based in part on e.g. the following three molecules which are discussed in the first article[1] (the compound numbers are taken from there). The question was posed at our meeting: why did the referees not query these structures? And the answer in part is to provide referees with access to the full/primary/raw NMR data (which almost invariably they currently do not have) to help them check on the peaks, the purity and indeed the assignments. I am sure tools that do this automatically from such supplied data by machines on a routine basis do exist in industry (and which is something FAIR is designed to enable). Perhaps there are open source versions available?

17 18 19

 
328[3] 348 713

Here I suggest a particularly simple and rapid “reality check” which I occasionally use myself. This is to compute the steric energy of the molecule using molecular mechanics. The mechanics method is basically a summation of simple terms such as the bond length, bond angle, torsion angle, a term which models non bonded repulsions, dispersion attractions and electrostatic contributions. The first three are close to zero for an unstrained molecule (by definition). The last three terms can be negative or positive, but unless the molecule is protein sized, they also do not depart far from zero. A suitable free tool that packages all this up is Avogadro.

The procedure is as follows

  1. Start from the Chemdraw representation of the molecule. If the publishing authors have been FAIR, you might be able to acquire that from their deposited data. Otherwise, redraw it yourself and save as e.g. a molfile or Chemdraw .cdxml file.
  2. Drop into Avogadro, which will build a 3D model for you using stereochemical information present in the Chemdraw or Molfile.
  3. In the  E tool (at the top on the left of the Avogadro menu) select e.g. the MMFF94 force field. This is a good one to use for “organic” molecules for which the total steric energy for “normal” molecules is likely to be < 200 kJ. Calculate that for your system; this normally takes less than one minute to complete. The values obtained for the three above are shown in the table. All three are well over 200 kJ/mol, which should set alarm bells ringing.
  4. A “more reasonable” structure for 17 is shown below. This has a steric energy of 152 kJ/mol, some 176 kJ/mol lower than the original structure. This does not of itself “prove” this alternative, but it is a starting point for showing it might be correct.Of course mis-assigned but otherwise reasonable structures are unlikely to be revealed by the steric energy test. But impossible ones will probably always be flagged as such using this procedure. 

Postscript: Hot on the heels of writing this, the molecule Populusone came to my attention.[4] On first sight, it seems to have some of the attributes of an “impossible molecule” (click on diagram below for 3D coordinates).

However, it has been fully characterised by x-ray analysis! The steric energy using the method above comes out at 384 kJ/mol, which in the region of impossibility! This can be decomposed into the following components: bond stretch 30, bend 51, torsion 32, van der Waals (including repulsions) 177, electrostatics 87 (+ some minor cross terms). These are fairly evenly distributed, with internal steric repulsions clearly the largest contributor. The C=C double bond is hardly distorted however, which is in its favour. Clearly a natural product can indeed load up the unfavourable interactions, and this one must be close to the record of the most intrinsically unstable natural product known!

References

  1. J.B. McAlpine, S. Chen, A. Kutateladze, J.B. MacMillan, G. Appendino, A. Barison, M.A. Beniddir, M.W. Biavatti, S. Bluml, A. Boufridi, M.S. Butler, R.J. Capon, Y.H. Choi, D. Coppage, P. Crews, M.T. Crimmins, M. Csete, P. Dewapriya, J.M. Egan, M.J. Garson, G. Genta-Jouve, W.H. Gerwick, H. Gross, M.K. Harper, P. Hermanto, J.M. Hook, L. Hunter, D. Jeannerat, N. Ji, T.A. Johnson, D.G.I. Kingston, H. Koshino, H. Lee, G. Lewin, J. Li, R.G. Linington, M. Liu, K.L. McPhail, T.F. Molinski, B.S. Moore, J. Nam, R.P. Neupane, M. Niemitz, J. Nuzillard, N.H. Oberlies, F.M.M. Ocampos, G. Pan, R.J. Quinn, D.S. Reddy, J. Renault, J. Rivera-Chávez, W. Robien, C.M. Saunders, T.J. Schmidt, C. Seger, B. Shen, C. Steinbeck, H. Stuppner, S. Sturm, O. Taglialatela-Scafati, D.J. Tantillo, R. Verpoorte, B. Wang, C.M. Williams, P.G. Williams, J. Wist, J. Yue, C. Zhang, Z. Xu, C. Simmler, D.C. Lankin, J. Bisson, and G.F. Pauli, "The value of universally available raw NMR data for transparency, reproducibility, and integrity in natural product research", Natural Product Reports, vol. 36, pp. 35-107, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7np00064b
  2. A. Barba, S. Dominguez, C. Cobas, D.P. Martinsen, C. Romain, H.S. Rzepa, and F. Seoane, "Workflows Allowing Creation of Journal Article Supporting Information and Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR)-Enabled Publication of Spectroscopic Data", ACS Omega, vol. 4, pp. 3280-3286, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.8b03005
  3. A.I. Savchenko, and C.M. Williams, "The Anti‐Bredt Red Flag! Reassignment of Neoveratrenone", European Journal of Organic Chemistry, vol. 2013, pp. 7263-7265, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejoc.201301308
  4. K. Liu, Y. Zhu, Y. Yan, Y. Zeng, Y. Jiao, F. Qin, J. Liu, Y. Zhang, and Y. Cheng, "Discovery of Populusone, a Skeletal Stimulator of Umbilical Cord Mesenchymal Stem Cells from <i>Populus euphratica</i> Exudates", Organic Letters, vol. 21, pp. 1837-1840, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.orglett.9b00423

Free energy relationships and their linearity: a test example.

Sunday, January 13th, 2019

Linear free energy relationships (LFER) are associated with the dawn of physical organic chemistry in the late 1930s and its objectives in understanding chemical reactivity as measured by reaction rates and equilibria.

The Hammett equation is the best known of the LFERs, albeit derived “intuitively”. It is normally applied to the kinetics of aromatic electrophilic substitution reactions and is expressed as;

log KR/K0 = σRρ (for equilibria) and extended to log kR/k0 = σRρ for rates.

The equilibrium constants are normally derived from the ionisation of substituted benzoic acids, with Kbeing that for benzoic acid itself and Kthat of a substituted benzoic acid, with σR being known as the substituent constant and ρ the reaction constant. The concept involved obtaining the substituent constants by measuring the ionisation equilibria. The value of σis then assumed to be transferable to the rates of reaction, where the values can be used to obtain reaction constants for a given reaction. The latter would then be assumed to give insight into the electronic nature of the transition state for that reaction.

The term log kR/k(the ratio of rates of reaction) can be related to ΔΔG = -RT ln kR/kand this latter quantity can be readily obtained from quantum calculations, where ΔΔG is the difference in computed reaction activation free energies for two substituents (of which one might be R=H). The most interesting such Hammett plots are the ones where a discontinuity becomes apparent. The plot comprises two separate linear relationships, but with different slopes. This is normally taken to indicate a change of mechanism, on the assumption that the two mechanisms will have different responses to substituents. 

A test of this is available via the calculated activations energies for acid catalyzed cyclocondensation to give furanochromanes[1] which is a two-step reaction involving two transition states TS1 and TS2, either of which could be rate determining. A change from one to the other would constitute a change in mechanism. In this example, TS1 involves creation of a carbocationic centre which can be stabilized by the substituent on the Ar group; TS2 involves the quenching of the carbocation by a nucleophilic oxygen and hence might be expected to respond differently to the substituents on Ar. As it happens, the reaction coordinate for TS2 is not entirely trivial, since it also includes an accompanying proton transfer which might perturb the mechanism.

Fortunately for this reaction we have available full FAIR data (DOI: 10.14469/hpc/3943), which includes not only the computed free energies for both sets of transition states but also the entropy-free enthalpies for comparison. This allows the table below to be generated. For each substituent, the highest energy point is in bold, indicating the rate limiting step. The span of substituents corresponds to a range of rate constants of almost 1010, which in fact is rarely if ever achievable experimentally.

Highest free energy overall route for HCl catalysed mechanism,

trans stereochemistry

Sub ΔH/ΔG Reactant ΔH/ΔG, TS1 ΔH/ΔG, TS2 RDS
p-NH2 0.2/6.36 0.0/0.0 0.15/4.0 0.2/6.4 TS2/TS2
p-OMe 2.7/8.48 0.0/0.0 2.7/8.45 2.1/8.48 TS1/TS2
p-Me 5.5/10.00 0.0/0.0 5.5/9.9 3.9/10.00 TS1/TS2
p-Cl 7.7/12.28 0.0/0.0 7.7/12.28 5.9/11.84 TS1/TS1
p-H 7.6/13.01 0.0/0.0 7.6/13.01 5.5/11.51 TS1/TS1
p-CN 10.6/18.02 0.0/0.0 10.6 /17.61 10.5/18.02 TS1/TS2
p-NO2 12.4/19.85 0.0/0.0 12.4/18.24 12.0/19.85 TS1/TS2

For the free energies, you can see that TS2 is the rate limiting step for the first two electron donating substituents, and the last two electron withdrawing ones, whilst TS1 represents the rate limiting step for the middle substituents. This represents two changes of rate limiting step over the entire range of substituents. A different picture emerges if only the enthalpies are used. Now TS1 is rate limiting for essentially all the substituents. The difference of course arises because of significant changes to the entropy of the transition states. The Hammett equation, and its use of  σconstants to try to infer the electronic response of a reaction mechanism, does not really factor in entropic responses. Nor is it often if at all applied using a really wide range of substituents. So any linearity or indeed non-linearity in Hammett plots may correspond only very loosely to the underlying mechanisms involved.

Starting in the 1940s and lasting perhaps 40-50 years, thousands of different reaction mechanisms were subjected to the Hammett treatment during the golden era of physical organic chemistry, but very few have been followed up by exploring the computed free energies, as set out above. One wonders how many of the original interpretations will fully withstand such new scrutiny and in general how influential the role of entropy is.

References

  1. C.D. Nielsen, W.J. Mooij, D. Sale, H.S. Rzepa, J. Burés, and A.C. Spivey, "Reversibility and reactivity in an acid catalyzed cyclocondensation to give furanochromanes – a reaction at the ‘oxonium-Prins’ <i>vs.</i> ‘<i>ortho</i>-quinone methide cycloaddition’ mechanistic nexus", Chemical Science, vol. 10, pp. 406-412, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8sc04302g

Dispersion-induced triplet aromatisation?

Thursday, January 3rd, 2019

There is emerging interest in cyclic conjugated molecules that happen to have triplet spin states and which might be expected to follow a 4n rule for aromaticity.[1] The simplest such system would be the triplet state of cyclobutadiene, for which a non or anti-aromatic singlet state is always found to be lower in energy. Here I explore some crystal structures containing this motif for possible insights.

My search query is shown below, and the search is constrained so that the four substituents are Si, C or H.


The results show three clusters. The top left and bottom right have one long bond length ~1.6Å and the other much shorter at ~1.35Å (Δr ~0.25Å) The central region contains two examples, 2 where the difference between the two lengths is rather smaller and 1 where they are equal.

The first example 1[2] is in fact the di-anion of cyclobutadiene and as a 6π aromatic, one indeed expects the C-C bonds to be equal in length. The second 2 is tetra t-butylcyclobutadiene as reported in 1983.[3] At room temperature the two C-C bond lengths are 1.464 and 1.483Å, at -30°C, 1.466 and 1.492Å and at -150°C 1.441 and 1.526Å (Δr 0.085Å). These results led to the conclusion that this species was not intrinsically square but rectangular, as expected of singlet cyclobutadiene. The equalisation was attributed to equal populations of two disordered rectangular orientations averaging to an approximately square shape at higher temperatures.

But why is the behaviour of this particular cyclobutadiene different from the others in the plot above? Perhaps the answer lies these in the results of the Schreiner group[4], in which the dispersion attractions of substituents such as t-butyl can have substantial and often unexpected effects on the structures of molecules. So it is reasonable to pose the question; could the room temperature bond length differences of 2 be smaller compared with the other more extreme examples as a result of dispersion effects?

Here I have computed the singlet geometry of tetra t-butylcyclobutadiene at the B3LYP+D3BJ/Def2-TZVPP level (i.e. using the D3BJ dispersion correction, FAIR data DOI: 10.14469/hpc/4924). Δr for this singlet state is 0.264Å, larger than apparently from the crystal structure, but in agreement with the other crystal results as seen above.

The origins of the measured structure of 2 must be in the barrier to the automerisation of the singlet state. For normal cyclobutadienes, this must be relatively high since the transition state is presumably anti-aromatic. High enough that the averaging of the two rectangular structures is slow enough that it manifests as two different bond lengths. But in 2, as the temperature of the crystal increases, the bonds become more equal, suggesting a lower barrier to the equalisation than the other examples. This is also supported by the apparent identification of a triplet square state for the tetra-TMS analogue of tetra-tert-butyl cyclobutadiene derivative [5] which again suggests that dispersion might favour a square form over the rectangular one.

To finish, I show the crystal structure search for the 8-ring homologue of cyclobutadiene, plotted for the two adjacent C-C lengths and (in colour) the dihedral angle associated with the three atoms involved and the fourth along the ring. Cluster 1 represents various boat-shaped derivatives with very different C-C bond lengths. Cluster 2 are all ionic, and as per above represent a planar 10π-electron ring. Cluster 3 are mostly “tethered” molecules in which additional rings enforce planarity. 

COT

Unfortunately, none of these derivatives include tert-butyl or TMS derivatives in adjacent positions around the central ring. Perhaps octa(t-Bu)cyclo-octatetraene or its TMS analogue would be interesting molecules to try to synthesize!

References

  1. A. Kostenko, B. Tumanskii, Y. Kobayashi, M. Nakamoto, A. Sekiguchi, and Y. Apeloig, "Spectroscopic Observation of the Triplet Diradical State of a Cyclobutadiene", Angewandte Chemie International Edition, vol. 56, pp. 10183-10187, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201705228
  2. T. Matsuo, T. Mizue, and A. Sekiguchi, "Synthesis and Molecular Structure of a Dilithium Salt of the <i>cis</i>-Diphenylcyclobutadiene Dianion", Chemistry Letters, vol. 29, pp. 896-897, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1246/cl.2000.896
  3. H. Irngartinger, and M. Nixdorf, "Bonding Electron Density Distribution in Tetra‐<i>tert</i>‐butylcyclobutadiene— A Molecule with an Obviously Non‐Square Four‐Membered ring", Angewandte Chemie International Edition in English, vol. 22, pp. 403-404, 1983. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.198304031
  4. S. Rösel, H. Quanz, C. Logemann, J. Becker, E. Mossou, L. Cañadillas-Delgado, E. Caldeweyher, S. Grimme, and P.R. Schreiner, "London Dispersion Enables the Shortest Intermolecular Hydrocarbon H···H Contact", Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 139, pp. 7428-7431, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.7b01879

Epoxidation of ethene: a new substituent twist.

Friday, December 21st, 2018

Five years back, I speculated about the mechanism of the epoxidation of ethene by a peracid, concluding that kinetic isotope effects provided interesting evidence that this mechanism is highly asynchronous and involves a so-called “hidden intermediate”. Here I revisit this reaction in which a small change is applied to the atoms involved.

Below are two representations of the mechanism. The synchronous mechanism involves five “curly arrows”, two of which are involved in forming a bond between oxygen and carbon, and three of which transfer a proton to the group X (X=O). The second variation asynchronously stops at the half way stage to form a pseudo ion-pair (the “hidden intermediate”) and the proton transfer only occurs in the second stage. If the ethene is substituted with deuterium, experimentally an inverse kinetic isotope effect is observed, which provides strong evidence that at the transition state, no proton transfer is occurring

Before I go on, I should say that you will not find the mechanism as shown in either variation above in very many text books, which tend to practice “curly arrow economy” by employing only four arrows. I will not pursue this aspect here, except to note that as drawn above, the synchronous mechanism resembles that of a pericyclic reaction in a variation known as coarctate, as I noted in the original post (DOI: 10.14469/hpc/4807).

Now I introduce a veritable variation into this reaction, known as Payne epoxidation[1], which replaces the peracid with a reagent generated by adding hydrogen peroxide to a nitrile to generate a transient species which can be represented by X=NH above. How does this change things? The model below also uses propene rather than ethene (M062X/Def2-TZVPPD/SCRF=dichloromethane). This transition state (ΔG298 31.3 kcal/mol) shows two C-O bond formations, and as before the proton is clearly not yet transferred to the nitrogen (X=NH). Because of this asynchrony, the reaction could also be called a coarctate pseudo-pericyclic reaction.

Asynchronous concerted mechanism. Click for 3D

However, the proton transfer is nonetheless part of a concerted mechanism, as shown by the IRC profile.

The gradient norm most clearly shows the “hidden ion-pair intermediate” at IRC = -1, and the proton transfer only occurs after this point is passed.

This is even more spectacularly illustrated with a plot of dipole moment along the IRC;

In truth, no real differences are yet revealed between the Payne reagent and the peracid. In fact, this is a real surprise, since the NH of the Payne reagent should be very much more basic than the carbonyl oxygen of the peracid. But more exploration of the potential energy surface reveals another transition state!

Stepwise mechanism. Click for 3D

This is seen forming the two C-O bonds AFTER the proton transfer from oxygen to nitrogen. It is 4.2 kcal/mol lower than the first transition state, which corresponds to the scheme below.

The new ion-pair shown above is 7.1 kcal/mol higher than the previous reactant, but is so much more basic than before that the overall activation energy is indeed lowered. Two distinctly separate IRCs can be constructed for this alternative, the first a pure proton transfer (not shown) and the second a pure C-O bond forming process (below). This second step is both concerted and almost purely synchronous.

So now we see how a small change to the reactant molecules (X=O to X=NH) can induce a reaction for which two quite different mechanisms can operate, an asynchronous one albeit with a hidden intermediate and a fully stepwise one in which a quite different, but this time real, intermediate is involved. Nevertheless for both the peracid mechanism and the peroxyimine variation shown here, the proton transfer is NOT involved in the rate limiting step. So for this variation too, inverse kinetic isotope effects would be expected.


FAIR data for the calculations at DOI: 10.14469/hpc/4909 Thanks Ed for pointing this out.

References

  1. G.B. PAYNE, P.H. DEMING, and P.H. WILLIAMS, "Reactions of Hydrogen Peroxide. VII. Alkali-Catalyzed Epoxidation and Oxidation Using a Nitrile as Co-reactant", The Journal of Organic Chemistry, vol. 26, pp. 659-663, 1961. https://doi.org/10.1021/jo01062a004

Organocatalytic cyclopropanation of an enal: (computational) assignment of absolute configurations.

Saturday, September 1st, 2018

I am exploring the fascinating diverse facets of a recently published laboratory experiment for undergraduate students.[1] Previously I looked at a possible mechanistic route for the reaction between an enal (a conjugated aldehyde-alkene) and benzyl chloride catalysed by base and a chiral amine, followed by the use of NMR coupling constants to assign relative stereochemistries. Here I take a look at some chiroptical techniques which can be used to assign absolute stereochemistries (configurations).

I will focus on the compound 4a, the major stereochemical product of this student laboratory reaction, with the stereochemistry as represented in e.g. the abstract of the main article[1] and shown below with added CIP (Cahn-Ingold-Prelog) notation as (1S,2R,3R);

Its enantiomer (not shown in the article) is of course;

In the article supporting information[1]), the major diasteromer of 4a deriving from use of the S stereoisomer of the prolinol catalyst is reported as having an optical rotation (ORP) [α]D25 of -62.4°, p6 or -58.1°, p5), but the stereo-labels are not added there. On  p1 (“based on a student report”) 4a was however labelled as (1R,2S,3S) and the chirality (S) of the catalyst used was also noted in the adjacent experimental procedure. One might then reasonably match (1R,2S,3S)-4a to the S-catalyst and hence (1S,2R,3R)-4a to the R-catalyst.  However, in a laboratory environment where both S and R catalysts are in circulation, it is always useful to have procedures available for independent checks.

There are two methods of assigning absolute chirality, crystallography and chiroptical spectroscopy. The former does require crystalline samples; the latter can use solutions. To cut to the chase, the former method was used for a related compound where the n-heptyl group above is replaced by a p-chlorophenyl substituent (perhaps because the latter imparts suitable crystallinity). On p S123 of the SI of an earlier article[2] the assignment for the p-chlorophenyl derivative was as (1R,2S,3S)-4a for S-catalyst (see DOI: 10.5517/ccdc.csd.cc1mcqg5 OZAXEU). But this procedure is not entirely foolproof; the stereochemistry is decided by interactions between often bulky substituents at the transition state and it might be that here the p-chlorophenyl derivative has different properties from n-heptyl. Moreover bulk solutions may be different in their composition from single crystals. So it is useful to obtain independent proof.

An absolute assignment procedure based on chiroptical methods was first famously used by Kirkwood in 1951 (the Fischer convention is confirmed as a structurally correct representation of absolute configuration).[3] Such calculations need to take into account e.g. rotational conformers about the two bonds labelled in red above. In the previous post, I had noted variation of up to 2Hz in the calculated 3JHH coupling constants as a result of this mobility. This variation is probably too small to really influence any relative stereochemical interpretations, but is the same true for chiroptical assignments?

In Table 1 we can see whether this is still true for the predicted optical rotation of compound 4a, using two different functionals for the calculation (B3LYP and M062X respectively). The results rather surprised me; a simple bond rotation of an aryl or carbonyl group can invert the sign of the rotation. Clearly the observed optical rotation of -62.4° arises from a suitable combination of different Boltzmann populations of the individual bond rotamers, but to combine these accurately you would need to know the solution populations themselves very accurately and that is quite a challenge. So at this stage, we do not really have totally convincing independent evidence of whether the observed negative optical rotation corresponds to (1S,2R,3R)-4a or to its enantiomer (1R,2S,3S).

Table 1. Calculated Optical rotations for (1S,2R,3R)-4a. 

FAIR Data DOI: 10.14469/hpc/4678

Conformer

ORP [α]D, B3LYP+GD3BJ/Def2-TZVPP/SCRF=chloroform

ORP [α]D, M062X/Def2-TZVPP/SCRF=chloroform

4 +376 +238
3 -335 -301
2 -247 -223
1 +710 +522

Next, another chiroptical technique, electronic circular dichroism, or ECD. Here, the sign of the difference in absorption of polarized light (Δε), and known at the Cotton effect, characterises the specific enantiomer. The experimental Cotton effect for compound 4a obtained from S-catalyst (known as 3d in the SI, p S142[2]) can be simply summarised as +ve@315nm and -ve@275nm. Comparison with calculated spectra (Figure S17, p S146-7[2])  was performed using a Boltzmann-averaging (albeit based on enthalpies rather than the formally correct free energies), for three significant populations and this procedure matched to (1R,2S,3S).  Since the reported calculations were apparently for gas phase (and replacing n-heptyl with methyl) here I have repeated them in the actual solvent used (acetonitrile) and with the heptyl present. Although the ECD responses can still be severely dependent on the conformation, three of the spectra qualitatively agree that the responses at ~300nm and 260 nm are respectively -ve and +ve. This confirms that (1S,2R,3R)-4a is the wrong enantiomer for S-catalyst and that the correct assignment is therefore (1R,2S,3S), as was indeed reported.[2]

Table 2. Calculated electronic circular dichroism for

 (1S,2R,3R)-4a. FAIR Data DOI: 10.14469/hpc/4678

Conformer

ECD calculation, ωB97XD/Def2-TZVPP

4
3
2
1

It is still true that the overall the fit between chiroptical experiment and theory can be sensitive to the Boltzmann population, as obtained from e.g. ΔΔG = -RT ln [1]/[2]), where 1 and 2 are two different conformers. ΔΔG is a difficult energy difference to compute accurately. Here is a suggested exercise in the statistics of error propagation. How does an error in ΔΔG propagate to the ratio of concentrations of two conformers [1]/[2]? Or, how accurately must ΔΔG be calculated in order to predict conformer populations to say better than 5%.

One more go at chiroptics, this time Vibrational Circular Dichroism, or VCD. The nature of the chromophore is different, but the principle is the same as ECD. I have deliberately truncated the spectrum to cut off all vibrations below 1000 cm-1 (these being the modes associated with group rotations) but to no avail, the four conformations all still look too different to avoid doing a Boltzmann averaging.

Table 3. Calculated VCD spectra for (1S,2R,3R)-4a. 

Conformer Spectrum
4
3
2
1

A modern VCD instrument does have one trick up its sleeve for coping with the conformer problem. The sample (as a thin-film) can be annealed down to very low temperatures before the spectrum is recorded. This effectively removes all higher energy forms, leaving just the most stable conformation as the only species present. However, that is an expensive experiment (and instrument!) to use.

There are perhaps some 2 million scalemic molecules (substances where one chiral form is in excess over the mirror image) for which chiroptical properties have been reported, but probably <50,000 crystal structures where absolute configurations have been assigned. Thus the vast majority of absolute configuration assignments have been done either chiroptically or by synthetic correlations (chemical transformations from molecules of known absolute configuration, with the assumption that you know how each transformation affects the chiral centres present). Given some of the difficulties and challenges noted above, it is tempting to conclude that a significant proportion of those 2 million molecules may have been mis-assigned (I once estimated up to 20%). However, we may conclude that the molecules discussed here are safely assigned correctly! 


No CIP-stereolabels appear in the article itself.[1] Perhaps this assignment is omitted in order to provide a student exercise? There are many errors in stereochemical assignments in the literature. A good many of them may be the result of simple sample mis-labelling.[4] The caption to Figure S17 states All the simulations are for the 1R,2R,3S absolute configuration. This is probably an error and should read 1R,2S,3SA correction of ~+15nm is sometimes applied to these values, but not done here.

 

References

  1. M. Meazza, A. Kowalczuk, S. Watkins, S. Holland, T.A. Logothetis, and R. Rios, "Organocatalytic Cyclopropanation of (<i>E</i>)-Dec-2-enal: Synthesis, Spectral Analysis and Mechanistic Understanding", Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 95, pp. 1832-1839, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00566
  2. M. Meazza, M. Ashe, H.Y. Shin, H.S. Yang, A. Mazzanti, J.W. Yang, and R. Rios, "Enantioselective Organocatalytic Cyclopropanation of Enals Using Benzyl Chlorides", The Journal of Organic Chemistry, vol. 81, pp. 3488-3500, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.joc.5b02801
  3. W.W. Wood, W. Fickett, and J.G. Kirkwood, "The Absolute Configuration of Optically Active Molecules", The Journal of Chemical Physics, vol. 20, pp. 561-568, 1952. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1700491
  4. H.S. Rzepa, "The Chiro-optical Properties of a Lemniscular Octaphyrin", Organic Letters, vol. 11, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1021/ol901172g

Tetrahedral carbon and cyclohexane.

Wednesday, August 22nd, 2018

Following the general recognition of carbon as being tetrahedrally tetravalent in 1869 (Paterno) and 1874 (Van’t Hoff and Le Bell), an early seminal exploitation of this to the conformation of cyclohexane was by Hermann Sachse in 1890.[1] This was verified when the Braggs in 1913[2], followed by an oft-cited article by Mohr in 1918,[3] established the crystal structure of diamond as comprising repeating rings in the chair conformation. So by 1926, you might imagine that the shape (or conformation as we would now call it) of cyclohexane would be well-known. No quite so for everyone!

When The Journal of the Imperial College Chemical Society (Volume 6) was brought to my attention, I found an article by R. F Hunter;

He proceeds to argue as follows:

  1. The natural angle subtended at a tetrahedral carbon is 109.47°.
  2. “The internal angle between the carbon to carbon valencies of a six-membered ring cyclohexane will, if the ring is uniplanar, be … 120°.
  3. “When the cyclohexane ring is prepared … we must therefore have the pushing apart of two of the valencies”.
  4. The object of the experiments commenced in this College in 1914 was “to find what effect the pushing apart of the valencies …must have on the angle between the remaining pair of valencies“.
  5. You do wonder then why the assumption highlighted in red above was never really questioned during the twelve-year period of investigating angles around tetrahedral carbon.

The article itself is quite long, reporting the synthesis of many compounds in search of the postulated effect. Of course around twenty years later, Derek Barton used the by then generally accepted conformation of cyclohexane to explain reactivity in what become known as the theory of conformational analysis.

These two articles dating from 1926, and probably thought lost to science, show how some ideas can take decades to have any influence, whilst others can take root very much more quickly.


The chair cyclohexane structure is easily discerned from Figure 7 in the Braggs’ paper![2]

References

  1. H. Sachse, "Ueber die geometrischen Isomerien der Hexamethylenderivate", Berichte der deutschen chemischen Gesellschaft, vol. 23, pp. 1363-1370, 1890. https://doi.org/10.1002/cber.189002301216
  2. W.H. Bragg, and W.L. Bragg, "The structure of the diamond", Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character, vol. 89, pp. 277-291, 1913. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1913.0084
  3. E. Mohr, "Die Baeyersche Spannungstheorie und die Struktur des Diamanten", Journal für Praktische Chemie, vol. 98, pp. 315-353, 1918. https://doi.org/10.1002/prac.19180980123

The conformation of enols: revealed and explained.

Thursday, April 6th, 2017

Enols are simple compounds with an OH group as a substituent on a C=C double bond and with a very distinct conformational preference for the OH group. Here I take a look at this preference as revealed by crystal structures, with the theoretical explanation.

First, a search of the Cambridge structure database (CDS), using the search query shown below (DOI: 10.14469/hpc/2429)


The first search (no errors, no disorder, R < 0.05) is unconstrained in the sense that the HO group is free to hydrogen bond itself. The syn conformer has the torsion of 0° and it has a distinct preponderance over the anti isomer (180°). There is the first hint that the most probable C=C distance for the syn isomer may be longer than that for the anti, but this is not yet entirely convincing.
To try to make it so, a constrained search is now performed, in which only structures where the HO group has no contact (hydrogen bonding) interaction are included. This is achieved using a “Boolean” search;

The number of hits approximately halves, but the proportion of syn examples increases considerably. There is an interesting double “hot-spot” distribution, which amplifies the lengthening of the C=C bond compared to the anti orientation.

The next constraint added is that the data collection must be <100K (to reduce thermal noise) which reduces the hits considerably but now shows the lengthening of the C=C bond for the syn isomer very clearly.

A final plot is of the C=C length vs the C-O length (no temperature, but HO interaction constraint). If there were no correlation, the distribution would be ~circular. In fact it clearly shows that as the C=C bond lengthens, the C-O bond contracts.

Now for some calculations (ωB97XD/Def2-TZVPP, DOI: 10.14469/hpc/2429) which reveal the following:

  1. The free energy of the syn isomer is 1.2 kcal/mol lower than that of the syn. The effect is small, and hence easily masked by other interactions such as hydrogen bonding to the OH group. Hence the reason why removing such interactions from the search above increased the syn population compared to anti.
  2. The syn C=C bond length (1.325Å) is longer than the anti (1.322Å). 
  3. The syn isomer has one unique σO-Lp*C-C NBO orbital interaction (below) with a value of E(2) 7.7 kcal/mol, which is absent in the anti form. As it happens, a πO*C=C interaction is present in both forms but is also stronger in the syn isomer (E(2)= 46.8 vs 44.2 kcal/mol).
    unoccupied NBO, σ*C-C
    Occupied NBO, σO-Lp
  4. The overlap of the filled σO-Lp with the empty σ*C-C orbital is shown below (blue overlaps with purple, red overlaps with orange).

    To view the overlap in rotatable 3D, click on any of the colour diagrams above.

It is nice to see how experiment (crystal structures) and theory (the calculation of geometries and orbital interactions) can quickly and simply be reconciled. Both these searches and the calculations can be done in just one day of “laboratory time” and I think it would make for an interesting undergraduate chemistry lab experiment.


This visualisation uses Java. Increasingly this browser plugin is becoming more onerous to activate (because of increased security) and some browsers do not support it at all. The macOS Safari browser is one that still does, but you do have to allow it via the security permissions.


What is the (calculated) structure of a norbornyl cation anion-pair in water?

Saturday, April 1st, 2017

In a comment appended to an earlier post, I mused about the magnitude of the force constant relating to the interconversion between a classical and a non-classical structure for the norbornyl cation. Most calculations indicate the force constant for an “isolated” symmetrical cation is +ve, which means it is a true minimum and not a transition state for a [1,2] shift. The latter would have been required if the species equilibrated between two classical carbocations. I then pondered what might happen to both the magnitude and the sign of this force constant if various layers of solvation and eventually a counter-ion were to be applied to the molecule, so that a bridge of sorts between the different states of solid crystals, superacid and aqueous solutions might be built.

I augmented the model in stages. The results are summarised in the table below.

  • Firstly, adding a self-consistent-reaction-field (SCRF) continuum model for water.
  • Then adding to that four explicit water molecules symmetrically arranged around the four C-H groups mostly likely to be solvated via hydrogen bonds.
  • The final model added a chloride anion to complete the ion pair and a further three water molecules to act as its solvation sphere. A search of the Cambridge structure database for any instances of a molecule with a designated C+ and a nucleophilic halide with zero coordination number (a free halide anion) reveals no hits; such ion-pairs are clearly very unstable towards covalent bond formation, existing if at all only as transient species or when the counter-ion is non-nucleophilic such as R4B.
Calculated geometries, Def2-TZVPP/SCRF=water

Model

Apical C-C

distance,Å

Basal C-C

distance,Å

ν [1,2]

cm-1

DataDOI
Vacuum, cation
B3LYP+D3BJ
1.888 1.388 +140 10.14469/hpc/2410
Vacuum, cation
ωB97XD
1.830 1.388 +235 10.14469/hpc/2409
Vacuum, cation
B2PLYPD3
1.872 1.390 +194 10.14469/hpc/2238
SCRF, cation
ωB97XD
1.819 1.387 +236 10.14469/hpc/2413
SCRF, cation
B2PLYPD3
1.858 1.388 +202 10.14469/hpc/2243
SCRF+4H2O, cation
B2PLYPD3
1.838 1.390 +254 10.14469/hpc/2246
SCRF+7H2O+Cl ion pair
B3LYP+D3BJ
1.593, 2.485 1.510 10.14469/hpc/2408
SCRF+7H2O+Cl ion pair
ωB97XD
1.795, 1.817 1.385 +249 10.14469/hpc/2411

As the solvation and environment of the cationic model improves, the apical distance shortens significantly. But the crunch comes when a chloride counter-anion is added to desymmetrise this environment. Using the veritable B3LYP functional, but with an added dispersion term (D3BJ) and starting from a partially optimised ion-pair geometry, this geometry optimisation (shown animated below) rapidly quenches the ion-pair to form a covalent norbornyl chloride. It is noteworthy that the magnitude of the [1,2] vibration force constant (140 cm-1) is rather smaller using B3LYP than the other methods explored. 

The next method tried was ωB97XD, which contains a built-in dispersion term (D2) and also reveals a larger force constant for the gas phase [1,2] shift (≡235 cm-1). Starting from the same initial geometry as the B3LYP calculation, optimisation of the ion-pair proceeds remarkably slowly (even using the recalcfc=5 keyword to recompute the force constant matrix/search direction every five cycles to improve behaviour), suggesting that the potential energy surface is very flat indeed. The final geometry retains the ion-pair character (dipole moment 23D) but reveals distinct asymmetry in the resulting bridged structure, for which the [1,2] shift is ν 249 cm-1.

It is clear that the structure of the norbornyl ion-pair is balanced on a knife-edge. Perturbations such as change of density functional (e.g. B3LYP+D3BJ) can topple it over that edge. Weaker asymmetry can also be induced by the presence of the contact-anion and water molecules. I have selected just one solvation model, which includes seven water molecules and an explicit anion. Clearly a more statistical and dynamical approach to the number of waters and their orientation around the norbornyl ring system would sample a much larger set of models. It may be that some of them do again topple the symmetric bridge structure off its delicate perch whilst others retain it. Perhaps this is why the results from the enormous range of solvolysis mechanisms are so difficult to always reconcile. A crystal structure may also be a relatively large perturbation to the solution structure of this species!

The title of one of the last articles published (posthumously) with Paul Schleyer as a co-author[1] is “Norbornyl Cation Isomers Still Fascinate“. True indeed.


This renders refinement using the B2PLYPD3 double-hybrid method[2] an exceptionally slow process, since computing the force constant matrix using this method is very computationally intensive at the selected triple-ζ level.

References

  1. P.V.R. Schleyer, V.V. Mainz, and E.T. Strom, "Norbornyl Cation Isomers Still Fascinate", ACS Symposium Series, pp. 139-168, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2015-1209.ch007
  2. L. Goerigk, and S. Grimme, "Efficient and Accurate Double-Hybrid-Meta-GGA Density Functionals—Evaluation with the Extended GMTKN30 Database for General Main Group Thermochemistry, Kinetics, and Noncovalent Interactions", Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, vol. 7, pp. 291-309, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1021/ct100466k

Silyl cations?

Thursday, March 23rd, 2017

It is not only the non-classical norbornyl cation that has proved controversial in the past. A colleague mentioned at lunch (thanks Paul!) that tri-coordinate group 14 cations such as R3Si+ have also had an interesting history.[1] Here I take a brief look at some of these systems.

Their initial characterisations, as with the carbon analogues, was by 29Si NMR. The first (of around 25) crystal structures appeared in 1994 (below) and they continue to fascinate to this day. I decided to focus on searching the Cambridge structure database (CSD), using the search query shown below (NM = non-metal). For a planar system the three angles subtended at the Si would of course total to 360°.

The first such structure, published in 1994[2] is shown in 2D representation below

However, the three angles subtended at the Si are 113, 115 and 114°. Could it be that these types of cation are not planar but pyramidal (a ωB97XD/Def2-TZVPP calculation of SiH3+ certainly gives it as planar). Below is a plot of the three angles:

Ringed in red are two systems where all three angles are ~120° (the ones with red dots). The blue circle contains examples where all three angles are <110°. So I took a closer look at the first of these published[2] and known by the code HAGCIB10 (angles of 113, 115 and 114°). The Si appears to be connected to a toluene present in the crystals via an Si-C bond (blue arrow). If correct, that would account for the angles around Si being <120° and indeed closer to tetrahedral, but it would also mean that the species was actually an arenium cation, otherwise known as a “Wheland intermediate”. That extra bond means that it is not a tri-coordinate silicon, but a four-coordinate silicon and that perhaps the indexing in the CSD needs correcting (as was done here).

Looking further, quite a few of the 25 examples contain so-called “N-heterocyclic carbene” ligands, as below (DOI for 3D model: 10.5517/CC12FWM0[3]).

Again one might question the location of the formal +ve charge. Perhaps it might instead reside on the nitrogen as per below, in which case we again do not have a true tri-coordinate silicon cation for systems with such ligands.

This cannot be the whole story, although I would note that Si=C bonds can contain pyramidalised Si. The bonding clearly needs more investigation! 

Very probably each of the 25 examples identified by this search as a silylium or silyl cation has its own story to tell. But in unravelling these stories, one should always perhaps take the 2D representations shown in both the CSD and the original publications with a pinch of salt until other possibly better representations such as the one above are excluded.

References

  1. J.B. Lambert, Y. Zhao, H. Wu, W.C. Tse, and B. Kuhlmann, "The Allyl Leaving Group Approach to Tricoordinate Silyl, Germyl, and Stannyl Cations", Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 121, pp. 5001-5008, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja990389u
  2. J.B. Lambert, S. Zhang, and S.M. Ciro, "Silyl Cations in the Solid and in Solution", Organometallics, vol. 13, pp. 2430-2443, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1021/om00018a041
  3. T. Agou, N. Hayakawa, T. Sasamori, T. Matsuo, D. Hashizume, and N. Tokitoh, "Reactions of Diaryldibromodisilenes with N‐Heterocyclic Carbenes: Formation of Formal Bis‐NHC Adducts of Silyliumylidene Cations", Chemistry – A European Journal, vol. 20, pp. 9246-9249, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1002/chem.201403083

Expanding on the curious connection between the norbornyl cation and small-ring aromatics.

Sunday, March 12th, 2017

This is another of those posts that has morphed from an earlier one noting the death of the great chemist George Olah. The discussion about the norbornyl cation concentrated on whether this species existed in a single minimum symmetric energy well (the non-classical Winstein/Olah proposal) or a double minimum well connected by a symmetric transition state (the classical Brown proposal). In a comment on the post, I added other examples in chemistry of single/double minima, mapped here to non-classical/classical structures. I now expand on the examples related to small aromatic or anti-aromatic rings.

Examples of symmetric energy potentials
System Classical with 1 imaginary normal mode Non-classical with 0 imaginary modes
Norbornyl cation TS for [1,2] sigmatropic Minimum, this post
Singlet [6], [10]; 4n+2 annulenes Minimum with Kekulé vibration
Singlet [4], [8]; 4n annulenes TS for bond shift, 1 imaginary normal mode
Triplet [4], [8]; 4n annulenes Minimum, with Kekulé vibration (?)
Semibullvalenes TS for [3,3] sigmatropic Minimum
Strong Hydrogen bonds TS for proton transfer Minimum
SN2 substitutions TS for substitution (C) Minimum (Si)
Jahn-Teller distortions Dynamic Jahn-Teller effects No Jahn-Teller distortions

In the table above, you might notice a (?) associated with the entry for (aromatic) triplet state 4n annulenes. Here I expand the ? by considering triplet cyclobutadiene and triplet cyclo-octatetraene (ωB97XD/Def2-TZVPP, 10.14469/hpc/2241 and 10.14469/hpc/2242 respectively). Each has a normal vibrational mode shown animated below, which oscillates between the two Kekulé representations of the molecule with wavenumbers of 1397 and 1744 cm-1 respectively. These Kekulé modes are both real, which indicates that the symmetric species (D4h and D8h symmetry) is in each case the equilibrium minimum energy position (rCC 1.431 and 1.395Å). For comparison the aromatic singlet state 4n+2 annulene benzene (rCC 1.387Å) has the value 1339 cm-1. Notice that both the triplet state wavenumbers are elevated compared to singlet benzene, because in each case the triplet ring π-bond orders are lower, thus decreasing the natural tendency of the π-system to desymmetrise the ring.[1]

To complete the theme, I will look at singlet cyclobutadiene. According to the table above, the symmetric form should be a transition state (TS) for bond shifting, with one imaginary normal mode. To calculate this mode, one has to use a method that correctly reflects the symmetry, in this case a CASSCF(4,4)/6-311G(d,p) wavefunction (DOI: 10.14469/hpc/2244). The mode (rCC 1.444Å) shown below has a wavenumber of 1477i cm-1; its vectors of course resemble those of the triplet mode, but its force constant is now negative rather than positive!

At first sight any connection between the property of the norbornyl cation at the core of the controversies all those decades ago and aromatic/antiaromatic rings might seem tenuous. But in the end many aspects of chemistry boil down to symmetries and from there to Évariste Galois, who started the ball rolling.

References

  1. S. Shaik, A. Shurki, D. Danovich, and P.C. Hiberty, "A Different Story of π-DelocalizationThe Distortivity of π-Electrons and Its Chemical Manifestations", Chemical Reviews, vol. 101, pp. 1501-1540, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr990363l