tions,8-10 including those reported below. These support the
view that negative charge is being transferred to the dioxirane
from cubane, thus leaving behind partial positive charge
distributed over the proximal hydrocarbon C-H centers.
As expected, due to the electron-withdrawing OH group
of cubanol (6), further TFDO “electrophilic” hydroxylation
to the diol 7 is slower under comparable conditions (eq 2),
as verified by the kinetic data reported in Table 1 (entries 2
and 5).
Actually, our initial B3LPY calculations, performed using
the parent dioxirane H2CO2 in lieu of TFDO as the oxidant,
failed to predict exclusive functionalization at C-4 of cubanol
(6). Further work is in order to clarify the origin of this
peculiar lack of congruence between computations and the
experimental result.
In an attempt to find if s-character in the tertiary C-H
bonds undergoing O-insertion is important, we determined
the dioxirane oxidation rate of cubane (4) in comparison with
that of two reference substrates, namely, adamantane (2)
(purely sp3 C-H) and cyclopropane (5) (C-H quasi sp2)
(Table 1).
Because of the high reactivity of TFDO and of the
volatility of most substrates (especially 5), kinetic runs were
performed most conveniently at subambient temperatures.
The data in Table 1 establish that dioxirane 1b reactivity
toward the given substrates is adamantane > cubane .
cyclopropane; even correcting for statistical factors, this is
in line with the increasing s character of the C-H bonds,
i.e., respectively, ca. 25, 30, and 33%. Nonetheless, as cubane
is more reactive than cyclopropane by a factor of over 105,
despite similar formal C-H hybridization, something more
must be important. Tentatively, one might envisage that this
small-ring compoundsin reaching a distorted dsp3 transition
state such as that sketched in Figure 2swould face a
considerable increase in endocyclic angle strain.
On closer analysis, we found that in fact no appreciable
amount of cyclopropanol, nor of ring-open oxidation prod-
ucts, could be detected by GC-MS or NMR after exposure
of cyclopropane to TFDO. Indeed, the first-order rate
constants measured for TFDO decay in the absence of
cyclopropane are k1 ) 2.8 × 10-6 s-1 at -19 °C and 10.7
× 10-6 s-1 at 0 °C, i.e., practically identical (within (15%)
with the pseudo-first-order rate constants estimated for TFDO
decay in the presence of excess cyclopropane (Table 1, note
c).
Table 1. Rates of Cubane and of Cubanol Monohydroxylation
by TFDO (1b) in Acetone, as Compared to Rates of
Adamantane and Cyclopropane
a
b
no.
substrate
t (°C)
k2 (M-1·s-1
)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
adamantane (2)
cubane (4)
”
”
cubanol (6)
cyclopropane (5)
”
- 19
- 19
- 10
0
- 19
- 19
0
1.80
0.084
0.150
0.300
0.035
c
< 0.8·10-6
c
< 2.8·10-6
a ( 0.2 °C. b Unless noted otherwise, kinetic data were obtained by
monitoring the decay with time of substrate concentration (calibrated GC).
Initial concentrations of the alkane and of TFDO were kept in the range (8
÷ 4) × 10-3 M and rate constants calculated from integrated second-order
rate-law plots linear to over 50-80% reaction. The data shown are average
values ((8%) from two or more independent runs. c Second-order constants
were estimated as k1/[cyclopropane]o, with k1 values ((10%) from experi-
ments run under pseudo-first-order conditions with [cyclopropane]o in 60-
fold excess over [1b]o (0.04 M); the decrease of TFDO concentration with
time was followed spectrophotometrically by monitoring the absorbance at
333 nm; with [5]o ) 2.43 M and [TFDO]o ) 0.04 M, the averaged first-
order rate constants were k1 ) 1.9 × 10-6 s-1 and 6.8 × 10-6 s-1
respectively, at -19 and 0 °C.
,
It seems unlikely, however, that distance from the electron-
withdrawing OH group would be sufficient to account for
the fact that the further hydroxylation of cubanol (6) to the
diol 7 is exclusiVely at C-4. It would be easier to understand
had this second hydroxylation occurred instead at C-3; the
ab intio 6-31G* calculations (including electron correlation)
by Borden and Hrovat11a on cubyl cation point to efficient
charge delocalization to the C-2 and C-4 positions transmitted
via the strained, p-rich cubane CC bonds,11 in agreement
with the results of Eaton et al. on the relative rates of
solvolysis of C-4 substituted cubyl tosylates.11b
As shown in Figure 3 and Table 2, the markedly higher
reactivity of cubane over cyclopropane with dioxiranes
TFDO (1b) and DDO (1a) is in agreement with ab initio
calculations for the gas phase and in solution at 25 °C (cf:
entry 1 and 2 with 5 and 6, Table 2).12
On the basis of the ∆∆G298+ values from data in Table 2,
one could estimate a relative rate of cubane/cyclopropane
of over 1011 at 25 °C in acetone!
In the cyclopropane case, it should be mentioned that the
possibility of dioxirane attack at the C-C bond (TS 3, Figure
3) can not be discounted a priori. However, inspection of
data collected in Table 2 points out that this avenue also
continues to be largely disfavored with respect to cubane
oxidation (entries 1 and 2).12
On the basis of these computational and experimental
results, formation of a positive charge at C-4 of 1-cubanol
(6) would be expected to be disfavored. Therefore, the
exclusive functionalization of cubanol at C-4 argues against
a transition structure in which much carbocationic character
is developed at this carbon.
In line with these results, one should recall that oxidative
scission of the cyclopropane ring was never observed when
a series of alkyl cyclopropanes1 or of some polycyclic
hydrocarbons encompassing a cyclopropane ring5 were made
to react with the powerful TFDO. It seems that the only
(9) (a) Freccero, M.; Gandolfi, R.; Sarzi-Amade´, M.; Rastelli, J. Org.
Chem. 2003, 68, 811–823. (b) Du, X. H.; Houk, K. N. J. Org. Chem. 1998,
63, 6480–6483. (c) Shustov, G. V.; Rauk, A. J. Org. Chem. 1998, 63, 5413–
5422
.
(10) For a comprehensive review of dioxirane computations, see:Bach,
R. D. In The Chemistry of Peroxides; Patai, S., Ed.; Wiley: New York,
2006; Vol 2, Chapter 1. See references therein.
(11) (a) Hrovat, D. A.; Borden, W. T. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1990, 112,
3227–3228. (b) Eaton, P. E.; Zhou, J. P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1992, 114,
3118–3120.
(12) For both TFDO and DDO oxidation, B3LYP/6-311+G(2d,p) data
are compared with those at the B3LYP/6-31G(d) level in the Supporting
Information.
3576
Org. Lett., Vol. 11, No. 16, 2009