Lifetimes of Phenoxonium Cations
SCHEME 3. Electrochemical Oxidation Mechanism for
Tocopherols in CH3CN or CH2Cl2
SCHEME 4. Electrochemical Oxidation Mechanism for
Hydroquinones, Such as Dopamine, in Acidic Aqueous
Conditions
7,a
group in the para-position) cannot form quinones without
breaking an oxygen-carbon bond, which decreases the likeli-
hood of chemical reversibility on the CV time scale. Therefore,
the detection of a reverse (reductive) peak during CV experi-
ments on phenols that undergo two-electron oxidation (and only
contain one hydroxy group) is good evidence for the presence
of persistent phenoxonium cations.
a One resonance structure is displayed for each compound. R1, R2, R3 )
H or Me. R4 ) alkyl.
Thus, the forward oxidative process for (CH3)R-TOH in
Figure 1 is associated with two one-electron oxidations and one
proton loss to form the phenoxonium cation (CH3)R-TO+, while
the reductive process detected when the scan direction is
reversed is associated with the reverse reaction to regenerate
the starting phenol. The anodic to cathodic peak-to-peak
separation (∆Epp) for the CV of (CH3)R-TOH is much wider
than expected for a two-electron electrochemically reversible
transfer, because of the presence of the chemically reversible
deprotonation/protonation step shifting the Epox and Epred peaks.7f
The phenoxyl radicals (TO•) can also be produced by one-
electron oxidation of the phenolate anions (that can be prepared
by adding base to a solution of the phenols).7a,b,9 However, for
the conditions used in this study, the phenoxyl radicals only
have a short lifetime in solution: either being immediately
further oxidized to form the phenoxonium cations, or undergoing
protonation then being reduced back to the phenols, depending
on the applied potential.7
The chemically reversible nature of the two one-electron and
one-proton process is unusual compared to what is observed
for most phenols, which generally undergo chemically irrevers-
ible oxidations to form reaction products that are not readily
converted back to the starting material. Therefore, CVs per-
formed on phenols do not usually display a reverse cathodic
peak when the scan directions are reversed.7b Some exceptions
are (i) hydroquinones that can reversibly form quinones during
oxidation/reduction cycling, via a two-electron, two-proton
process,1b (ii) phenols with amine groups adjacent to the
hydroxyl group that undergo a chemically reversible proton
coupled one-electron transfer,10 and (iii) in organic solvents
containing strong acids some phenol cation radicals can be
stabilized against deprotonation resulting in chemically revers-
ible one-electron transfer.11
The electrochemical responses observed for the compounds
in Figure 1 can be interpreted based on the mechanism in
Scheme 3, with the lifetime of the phenoxonium cations
determining whether reverse cathodic peaks are detected within
0.3-0.4 V of the oxidation process. The degree of chemical
reversibility of the oxidation process in Scheme 3 can be
estimated by the anodic (ipox) to cathodic (ipred) peak current
ratio (ipox/ipred). For compounds where the oxidized forms are
red
stable (within the time scale of the CV), the ipox/ip ratio
approaches unity (although this relationship is complicated and
strictly depends upon the equilibrium constant for the proton-
transfer reaction).7f Compounds 4-10 show only very small
reverse cathodic peaks when the scan directions are reversed
red
(at a scan rate of 100 mV s-1), therefore, their ipox/ip ratios
are .1, indicating that their associated phenoxonium cations
are relatively short-lived and decompose/react before they can
be reduced back to the starting material. Many of the compounds
also displayed a small cathodic peak at ca. -0.2 to -0.4 V vs
Fc/Fc+ that was evident only when the scan direction was
reversed after the main oxidation process at ca. +0.5 V. The
peak at ca. -0.2 to -0.4 V vs Fc/Fc+ is due to a secondary
reaction product (but not the phenoxonium cations which occur
at ca. +0.2 V vs Fc/Fc+) and will be discussed in section 2.2.
The secondary reaction product does not show a reverse
oxidative peak when the scan direction is applied in the positive
potential direction (i.e., when the CV is conducted over three
scans), indicating that its reduced form is short-lived.
The conclusion that the observation of only a small reverse
peak (Epred) at potentials 0.3-0.4 V less positive than the
oxidation peak (Epox) for compounds 4-10 is because their
phenoxonium cations are short-lived is supported by variable
scan rate studies. For example, Figure 2 shows variable scan
rate CVs of compound 7 between ν ) 0.1 and 5 V s-1. As the
scan rate is progressively increased, the cathodic peak at ca.
+0.2 V becomes bigger, so that at a scan rate of 5 V s-1, the
CV of 7 has a very similar appearance to that observed for
(CH3)R-TOH at ν ) 0.1 V s-1 (compare Figures 1 and 2). The
close similarity in the voltammetry supports the presence of
the phenoxonium cation of 7 (albeit with a lesser lifetime
compared to (CH3)R-TO+). Concomitantly to the reductive peak
in Figure 2 at ca. +0.2 V vs Fc/Fc+ increasing with increasing
scan rate, the reductive peak at ca. -0.2 V becomes smaller
due to the faster scan rates outrunning the formation of the
secondary oxidized product. Similar variable scan rate results
were obtained for compounds 8 and 9 (the model compounds
of γ-TOH and δ-TOH), with the reverse reductive peaks at ca.
+0.2-0.3 V vs Fc/Fc+ increasing in size as the scan rate was
increased, so that at a scan rate of 10 V s-1, the voltammograms
The observation of a reverse reductive peak detected during
CV experiments, within 0.3-0.4 V of the oxidation process,
appears to be characteristic of the existence of phenoxonium
cations, as observed for R-TOH and â-TOH at ν ) 0.1 V s-1
and γ-TOH and δ-TOH at ν ) 10 V s-1 (ν ) scan rate).7d The
wide separation between the forward and reverse peaks is similar
to that observed during CV experiments on hydroquinones, such
as dopamine (a two-electron and two-proton process) (Scheme
4).12 However, phenols with one hydroxy group (and an ether
(10) (a) Costentin, C.; Robert, M.; Save´ant, J. M. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2006, 128, 4552-4553. (b) Rhile, I. J.; Markle, T. F.; Nagao, H.;
DiPasquale, A. G.; Lam, O. P.; Lockwood, M. A.; Rotter, K.; Mayer, J. M.
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 6075-6088.
(11) (a) Hammerich, O.; Parker, V. D.; Ronla´n, A. Acta Chem. Scand.
B 1976, 30, 89-90. (b) Hammerich, O.; Parker, V. D. Acta Chem. Scand.
B 1982, 36, 63-64.
(12) (a) Hawley, M. D.; Tatawawadi, S. V.; Pierkarski, S.; Adams, R.
N. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1967, 89, 447-450. (b) Sternson, A. W.; McCreery,
R.; Feinberg, B.; Adams, R. N. J. Electroanal. Chem. 1973, 46, 313-321.
J. Org. Chem, Vol. 73, No. 6, 2008 2171