TABLE 3. Bro¨nsted ꢀlg Values for elimination from
(E)-2,4-(NO2)2C6H3CHdNOC(O)C6H4X Promoted by R2NH/R2NH2
in 70 mol % MeCN(aq) at 25.0 °C
+
R2NH Bz (i-Pr)NH
i-Bu2NH
18.2
-0.28 ( 0.02 -0.32 ( 0.01 -0.30 ( 0.01 -0.31 ( 0.01
i-Pr2NH
2,6-DMPb
a
pKa
16.8
18.5
18.9
ꢀlg
a Reference 5. b cis-2,6-Dimethylpiperidine.
SCHEME 1
FIGURE 1. Bro¨nsted plots for the elimination from (E)-2,4-
(NO2)2C6H3CHdNOC(O)C6H4X promoted by R2NH/R2NH2+ in 70 mol
% MeCN(aq) at 25.0 °C [X ) H (1a, b), p-OMe (1b, 9), m-Cl (1c,
2), p-NO2 (1d, 1)].
products and exhibited second-order kinetics, all but bimolecular
elimination pathways can be negated. The (E1cb)ip and internal
return mechanisms were ruled out by the observed general base
catalysis with the Bro¨nsted ꢀ values ranging from 0.28 to 0.32
because these mechanisms would exhibit either a specific base
catalysis or Bro¨nsted ꢀ values near unity.6,7 Hence, the most
likely mechanism for this bimolecular process is either E2 or
E1cb. If the reaction proceeds via a carbanion intermediate, the
rate equation can be expressed as kobs ) k1k2′[B]/(k-1[BH+] +
k2′) (Scheme 1).6 The (E1cb)R mechanism requires that the first
step must be reversible, i.e., k-1[BH+] . k2′, and the rate
expression can be simplified to kobs ) k1k2′[B]/(k-1[BH+]). This
would predict that the kobs should remain constant regardless
of the buffer concentration because [B]/[BH+] ) 1.0 is
maintained throughout the reaction. Therefore, the (Elcb)R
mechanism is ruled out by the linear dependence of the kobs
values on the base concentration. On the other hand, the ꢀ )
0.28-0.32 and |ꢀlg| ) 0.28-0.32 are consistent with an E2
mechanism with limited cleavage of the Cꢀ-H and
NR-OC(O)Ar bonds in the transition state, and a mechanism
in which k1 is the rate limiting [(E1cb)irr], for which a small or
negligible leaving group effect is expected.7
The distinction between the two mechanisms has been made
by the interaction coefficients. Table 2 shows that the ꢀ values
for 1a remain almost the same within experimental error
regardless of the base strength. The result can be described by
a negligible pxy interaction coefficient, pxy ) ∂ꢀ/∂pKlg ≈ 0, which
describes the interaction between the base catalyst and the
leaving group.6,8-11 The similar |ꢀlg| values for all bases is
another manifestation of this effect, pxy ) ∂ꢀlg/∂pKBH ≈ 0 (Table
3). On the More-O’Ferrall-Jencks energy diagram shown in
Figure 3, a change to a better leaving group will raise the energy
of the top edge of the diagram. The transition state on the
horizontal coordinate will remain at nearly the same position
because there is no diagonal character. This would predict
negligible change in ꢀ.8 Similarly, a change to a stronger base
will raise the energy of the right side of the diagram. The
FIGURE 2. Plots of log k2 versus p Klg values of the leaving group
for the elimination from (E)-2,4-(NO2)2C6H3CH)NOC(O)C6H4X (1a-
+
d) promoted by R2NH/R2NH2 in 70 mol % MeCN(aq) at 25.0 °C
[R2NH ) Bz(i-Pr)NH(9), i-Bu2NH(•), i-Pr2NH(2), 2,6-DMP(1)].
TABLE 2. Bro¨nsted ꢀ Values for Elimination from
(E)-2,4-(NO2)2C6H3CHdNOC(O)C6H4X (1a-d)a Promoted by
+
R2NH/R2NH2 in 70 mol % MeCN(aq) at 25.0 °C
X ) p-OMe
X ) H
20.7
0.32 ( 0.02
X ) m-Cl
X ) p-NO2
a
pKlg
21.3
0.27 ( 0.01
19.5
0.34( 0.04
18.7
0.32 ( 0.02
ꢀ
a Reference 4.
determined with i-Pr2NH, the rate increased with the base
strength of the promoting base and the leaving group ability.
The slower rate of eliminations from 1a-d with i-Pr2NH than
with i-Bu2NH as the base can be attributed to the greater steric
requirement of the former.
The plots of k2 values for 1a-d against the pKa values of
the base are depicted in Figure 1. The plots are linear with
excellent correlations, if the data for i-Pr2NH is excluded.
Therefore, the ꢀ values were calculated from the straight lines
without the data for i-Pr2NH. Similarly, the elimination rates
determined with different leaving groups correlated reasonably
well with the leaving group pKlg values (Figure 2). The ꢀ and
|ꢀlg| values are in the range of 0.27-0.32 and 0.28-0.32,
respectively. The ꢀ and |ꢀlg| values remained nearly the same
within experimental error for all leaving groups and bases
employed in this study (Tables 2 and 3).
(4) Coetzee, J. F. Prog. Phys. Org. Chem. 1965, 4, 45–92.
(5) Cho, B. R.; Lee, S. J.; Kim, Y. K. J. Org. Chem. 1995, 60, 2072–2076.
(6) Gandler, J. R. In The Chemistry of Double Bonded Functional Groups;
Patai, S., Ed.; John Wiley and Sons: Chichester, 1989; Vol. 2, Part 1, pp 734-
797.
(7) Lowry, T. H.; Richardson, K. S. Mechanism and Theory in Organic
Chemistry; Harper and Row: New York, 1987; pp 591-616.
(8) Jencks, W. P. Chem. ReV. 1985, 85, 511–527.
(9) Gandler, J. R.; Jencks, W. P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1982, 104, 1937–1951.
(10) Gandler, J. R.; Yokohama, T. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1984, 106, 130–135.
(11) Gandler, J. R.; Storer, J. W.; Ohlberg, D. A. A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1990,
112, 7756–7762.
Mechanism of Elimination. The mechanism of elimination
for 1a-d promoted by R2NH/R2NH2+ in 70 mol % MeCN(aq)
have been elucidated by the results of kinetic investigations and
product studies. Because the reactions produced only elimination
9452 J. Org. Chem. Vol. 73, No. 23, 2008