NJC
Communication
is B12 at R.T. ([1b] = 1 mM; [PPh3] = 10 mM). A comparison of the
reaction rates measured with H-PQI and D-PQI shows a noticeable
H/D kinetic isotope effect (KIE = 1.8), demonstrating that proton
transfer and/or disruption of hydrogen bonding is involved in the
rate-determining step.11
Density functional theory (DFT) calculations were carried
out to understand the formation of the radical species (ESI†).
ꢀ
We found that neither the reaction 2 PQI - PQIHꢀ + PQI
ÀH
À
(DGr = 107.5 kJ molÀ1) nor the reaction PQI + PPh3 - PQIꢀ
+
PPh3 (DGr = 193.3 kJ molÀ1) was favored thermodynamically;
therefore, we expected direct complex formation (Fig. S9, ESI†)
by the reaction [PQI + PPh3]solvent cage - PQI–PPh3 (1), whose
activation barrier was 77.2 kJ molÀ1 and which resulted in a
stable intermediate I1 (À8.3 kJ molÀ1). This form could interact
with a second PQI resulting in the experimentally observed
stable 2bꢀ and PQIHꢀ through stable radical pairs (Fig. S10,
ESI†) in a solvent cage (2), which is thermodynamically favored
(DGr = À23.3 kJ molÀ1). After the separation of the radicals, the
resting PQIHꢀ could react with another PQIHꢀ predicting an
antiferromagnetic interaction. Taking into account the reaction
between forms having stacking interactions (3), the energetics
was exergonic (DGr = À11.4 kJ molÀ1). From I1 both the 2b
(À15.3 kJ molÀ1) and 3b (À26.4 kJ molÀ1) products could form
directly by internal hydrogen transfer or cyclization (4–5), where
+
ꢀ
Fig. 3 Reactions of 2,7-R-PQI derivatives with PPh3 in CH3CN under Ar.
(A) Vin versus [PPh3]0 for the formation of 3bꢀ at 25 1C ([1b] = 1 mM). (B) Vin
versus [1b]0 for the formation of 3bꢀ at 25 1C ([PPh3] = 10 mM). (C) Eyring
plot for the formation of 3bꢀ. (D) Vin versus [PPh3]0 for the formation of 3dꢀ
at 25 1C ([1d] = 1 mM). (B) Vin versus [1d]0 for the formation of 3dꢀ at 25 1C
([PPh3] = 10 mM). (C) Eyring plot for the formation of 3dꢀ.
the latter one had a significantly lower barrier by 25.3 kJ molÀ1
.
The formation of the final products 2b and 3b could also occur
by hydrogen transfers of the PQI derivatives; however, it was
ꢀ
N-Methyl- and N-phenyl-9,10-phenanthrenquinone monoi- found that the reaction 2bꢀ + PQI - 2b + PQI
was strongly
ÀH
mine did not react with triphenylphosphine under the same endergonic (DGr = 126.6 kJ molÀ1) while the quenching by
conditions, indicating that the hydrogen on the N-atom seems PQIHꢀ and PQIH2 was less unfavored with DGr = 16.3 and
to have a special role in this reaction. Phenanthrenequinone 15.7 kJ molÀ1 (6–7). Note that these values are lower by
monoxime reacted with triphenylphosphine in acetonitrile 11.1 kJ molÀ1 in the case of 3b (8–9); however, the latter one
under argon at room temperature and yielded triphenylpho- could be formed indirectly through I1. The formation of 2b or
sphine oxide (proved by IR n(P–16O) = 1191 cmÀ1
23 ppm and UV-vis spectroscopy (Fig. S7, ESI†)) and 9,10- PQIH2. Comparing the energies of the predicted intermediates,
phenanthrene quinone monoimine (n(N–H) = 3200 cmÀ1
the type of atom transfer was analyzed. We proposed SET-PT
,
31P-NMR 3b is depending on which side of 2bꢀ interacts with PQIHꢀ or
)
(Fig. S8, ESI†). Detailed kinetic studies on the reaction of 1b (single electron transfer-proton transfer) in the case of
(0.25–1 mM) with triphenylphosphine (2.5–20 mM) were quenching from PQIHꢀ and SPLET (sequential proton loss
carried out in CH3CN at 15–45 1C, and the formation (decay) of electron transfer) in the case of quenching from PQIH2.
the radical was followed as an increase (decrease) in absorbance at
The radical complex formation of the expected open-form
486 nm (Fig. 3 and Tables S1 and S2, ESI†). Under these oxazaphospholyl radical (PQI ꢀ + PPh3 - 2bꢀ) was significantly
ÀH
conditions, the reaction rate is directly proportional to the more preferred both kinetically (D‡G = 44.0 kJ molÀ1) and
concentration of PQI (1b) and shows Michaelis–Menten type thermodynamically (DGr = À147.7 kJ molÀ1); however, the
saturation kinetics with [PPh3]0 (Vmax = 1.54(5) Â 10À3 MsÀ1
,
,
formation of PQI
was very unfavored, see above. We
ꢀ
ÀH
KM = 10 mM, kc = 1.54(6) sÀ1 at 25 1C) with DH‡ = 33(3) kJ molÀ1
proposed that previously I1 formed, which is due to the relatively
DS‡ = À193(9) J molÀ1 KÀ1, and DG‡ = 91(5) kJ molÀ1, establishing low activation barrier.
intermediate complex (adduct) formation in an associative-type
These results predict slow formation of the non-radical
bimolecular reaction (Fig. 3A–C). A similar kinetic feature was species 2b and 3b and the long-term existence of 2bꢀ.
observed for 1d with Vmax = 1.95(1) Â 10À2 MsÀ1, KM = 11 mM, and
In summary, we proposed a mechanism according to the
following reactions:
kc = 19(2) sÀ1 at 25 1C with DH‡ = 14(1) kJ molÀ1, DS‡
=
À238(4) J molÀ1
K
À1, and DG‡ = 84(2) kJ molÀ1 (Fig. 3D–F).
[PQI + PPh3]solvent cage - I1
(1)
The activation enthalpy of 14(1) kJ molÀ1 and the calculated
Gibbs energy of 84(2) kJ molÀ1 observed for 1d are smaller than
those observed for 1b, which is consistent with the higher
reactivity of 1d with PPh3 (krel(1d/1b) = 15 at 25 1C). The relative
rate based on the formation and decay process (Vform/Vdec) of 2bꢀ
DGr = À8.3 kJ molÀ1
I1 + PQI - [RP1]solvent cage - 2bꢀ + PQIHꢀ
(2)
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry and the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 2021
New J. Chem.