Dihydrogen Cleavage by Metal Oxo Compounds
Inorganic Chemistry, Vol. 40, No. 24, 2001 6279
tions of the partial loss of stereochemistry in benzylic oxidations
by permanganate7,8 can be explained by invoking the existence
of a separate pathway for carbon-based radical dissociation from
the singlet radical pair, which occurs at a finite rate. The toluene
oxidation transition state is obviously related to the [3 + 2]
transition state for the H2 cleavage calculated in this study; the
H2 addition transition state is “earlier” and more symmetric by
virtue of the greater exothermicity of the reaction and the
potential to form two MnO-H bonds. These differences result
in a purely concerted mechanism for the H-H activation, while
the benzylic C-H activation proceeds by a more asynchronous
mechanism resembling a hydrogen abstraction/oxygen rebound,
though the essential features of the two reactions are similar.
KIE Magnitudes. The KIEs of 3.8-4.5 for H2 versus D2
oxidation by MnO4- are substantial.64 The largest published KIE
for a related solution-phase reaction is 2.5, measured for the
hydrogenolysis of the neopentyl ligand of (C5Me5)2Th(CH2-
CMe3)(OCH2CMe3).72 Typical KIEs for the oxidative addition
of H2 to coordinatively unsaturated metal centers are smaller,
usually falling in the range 1.05-1.5.73 The reported KIE for
the gas-phase reaction of •OH radicals with H2/D2 is 2.6.74
Large primary KIEs are typically attributed to two factors:75
(1) similar degrees of bond formation and bond breakage in
the transition state and (2) the linear transfer of a hydrogen atom.
The energetically favored [3 + 2] addition transition state for
involves the transfer of two hydrogen atoms rather than just
one, so it is reasonable to question the validity of standard
rationalizations of KIE magnitudes on the basis of simple three-
atom models75 in this case.
We examined the KIE for H2/D2 activation by MnO4- using
our computational model. Calculated vibrational frequencies for
the H2 [3 + 2] addition transition state and the D2 analogue76
yielded a calculated KIE of 1.63,77 considerably lower than the
experimentally measured values. Even the use of a frequency
scale factor of 0.9, such as has been commonly employed to
make Hartree-Fock-computed frequencies more realistic,80,81
only increased the calculated KIE to 2.34, still in poor agreement
with experiment. The discrepancy could result from a systematic
error in the calculations, for example, poor modeling of low-
frequency isotopically sensitive vibrations.83 No significant
problems are apparent in the analysis of the experimental rate
data, and the use of an alternative method of rate calculation
gave similar KIE values.84 Another possible explanation for the
disparity is tunneling, which has most notably been invoked to
account for extraordinarily large KIEs of 20-50 in enzymatic
C-H activations85,86 but has also been used to explain H2
addition KIEs which were only moderately larger than those
predicted by classical models.73c Application of the standard
Wigner correction87 with the unscaled frequencies results in a
small but significant increase of the calculated KIE to 2.20. This
correction is based on an X-H-Y situation in the transition
state, and it is conceivable that the unusual X-H-H-Y
configuration in the [3 + 2] transition state might give rise to
a larger tunnel effect. However, pending the development of
-
MnO4 + H2 is relatively early (r(H-H) ) 0.876 Å) for the
computational model employed in this study and does not feature
linear hydrogen transfer. However, the reaction of interest
(64) KIEs for H2/D2 cleavages are generally significantly smaller than those
for the corresponding C-H/C-D scissions. Several examples of metal-
mediated C-H activation KIEs with magnitudes of 8-13 have been
reported.7,15a,19,65-69
(76) Experimental frequencies were used for H2 (4395 cm-1) and D2 (3118
cm-1). Moelwyn-Hughes, E. A. Physical Chemistry; Pergamon
Press: New York, 1961; p 427.
(65) A theoretical study by Abu-Hasanayn et al.70 suggested that the small
magnitudes of H2/D2 cleavage KIEs are due to the appearance of five
new isotopically sensitive vibrational modes in the transition state
relative to free H2. These vibrations produce significant inverse (<1)
EXC and ZPE factors which compensate for the large H2/D2 mass
moment of inertia (MMI) term of ∼5.7. Early transition states have
also been invoked to explain the small KIEs.71
(77) The same value is obtained using either the Bigeleisen expression33
or the Redlich-Teller product rule.78 The factored energetic contribu-
tions (KIE ) MMI × EXC × ZPE) are as follows: MMI ) 5.07,
EXC ) 0.78, ZPE ) 0.41. A previous study of equilibrium isotope
effects for hydrocarbon addition79 has shown that large substrate MMI
terms are effectively canceled by inverse EXC and ZPE factors from
“new” isotopically sensitive vibrational modes appearing upon sub-
strate binding or activation, which correspond to remnants of free
substrate rotation and translation. Accordingly, new isotopically
sensitive vibrations in the [3 + 2] H2 addition transition state account
for the entire EXC term of 0.78 and a factor of 0.11 in the ZPE term,
leaving a ZPE factor of 3.75 from the weakened H-H stretch.
(78) Schaad, L. J.; Bytautas, L.; Houk, K. N. Can. J. Chem. 1999, 77,
875-878.
(66) (a) Hjelmeland, L. M.; Aronow, L.; Trudell, J. R. Biochem. Biophys.
Res. Commun. 1977, 76, 541-549. (b) Groves, J. T.; McClusky, G.
A.; White, R. E.; Coon, M. J. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 1978,
81, 154-160. (c) Miwa, G. T.; Walsh, J. S.; Lu, A. Y. H. J. Biol.
Chem. 1984, 259, 3000-3004. (d) Lindsay-Smith, J. R.; Sleath, P. R.
J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2 1983, 621-628. (e) Jones, J. P.;
Korzekwa, K. R.; Rettie, A. E.; Trager, W. F. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1986,
108, 7074-7078. (f) Jones, J. P.; Trager, W. F. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
1987, 109, 2171-2173. (g) Jones, J. P.; Trager, W. F. J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 1988, 110, 2018. (h) Jones, J. P.; Rettie, A. E.; Trager, W. F. J.
Med. Chem. 1990, 33, 1242-1246.
(79) Slaughter, L. M.; Wolczanski, P. T.; Klinckman, T. R.; Cundari, T.
R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 7953-7975.
(80) (a) Flock, M.; Ramek, M. Int. J. Quantum Chem. 1993, 27, 331-
336. (b) Harris, N. J. J. Phys. Chem. 1995, 99, 14689-14699. (c)
Cundari, T. R.; Raby, P. D. J. Phys. Chem. 1997, 101, 5783-5788.
(81) Frequency scale factors required to bring density functional theory
calculated frequencies into close agreement with the experiment are
generally very close to unity,82 and thus, these frequencies are typically
reported unscaled.
(67) (a) Nappa, M. J.; McKinney, R. J. Inorg. Chem. 1988, 27, 3740-
3745. (b) Sorokin, A. B.; Khenkin, A. M. J. Chem. Soc., Chem.
Commun. 1990, 45-46. (c) Sorokin, A.; Robert, A.; Meunier, B. J.
Am. Chem. Soc. 1993, 115, 7293-7299.
(68) Wayland, B. B.; Ba, S.; Sherry, A. E. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1991, 113,
5305-5311.
(82) Rauhut, G.; Pulay, P. J. Phys. Chem. 1995, 99, 3093-3100.
(83) According to the density functional theory model, low-frequency
vibrations result in strongly inverse EXC and ZPE factors which
overcompensate for the large MMI term (see ref 77).
(69) Schaller, C. P.; Cummins, C. C.; Wolczanski, P. T. J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 1996, 118, 591-611.
(70) Abu-Hasanayn, F.; Goldman, A. S.; Krogh-Jespersen, K. J. Phys.
Chem. 1993, 97, 5890-5896.
(84) Initial rates calculated by polynomial fitting of Abs versus time data26
(see Experimental Section) gave KIEs of 4.3 for C6H5Cl solution and
3.1 for aqueous solution, though the calculated uncertainties were large
(35% and 55%, respectively).
(71) Collman, J. P.; Roper, W. R. AdV. Organomet. Chem. 1967, 7, 53-
94.
(72) Lin, Z.; Marks, T. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1987, 109, 7979-7985.
(73) (a) Chock, P. B.; Halpern, J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1966, 88, 3511. (b)
Vaska, L.; Wernecke, F. Trans. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1971, 33, 70. (c) Zhou,
P.; Vitale, A. A.; San Filippo, J.; Saunders, W. H. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
1985, 107, 8049-8054. (d) Bullock, R. M. In Transition Metal
Hydrides; Dedieu, A., Ed.; VCH: New York, 1992; pp 263-307.
(74) Paraskevopoulos, G.; Nip, W. S. Can. J. Chem. 1980, 58, 2146-
2149.
(75) (a) Lowry, T. H.; Richardson, K. S. Mechanism and Theory in Organic
Chemistry; Harper & Row: New York, 1987; pp 236-238. (b)
Carpenter, B. K. Determination of Organic Reaction Mechanisms;
Wiley: New York, 1984; pp 83-111.
(85) (a) Nesheim, J. C.; Lipscomb, J. D. Biochemistry 1996, 35, 10240-
10247. (b) Valentine, A. M.; Stahl, S. S.; Lippard, S. J. J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 1999, 121, 3876-3887.
(86) (a) Glickman, M. H.; Wiseman, J. S.; Klinman, J. P. J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 1994, 116, 793-794. (b) Glickman, M. H.; Klinman, J. P.
Biochemistry 1995, 34, 14077-14092. (c) Hwang, C.-C.; Grissom,
C. B. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1994, 116, 795-796. (d) Lewis, E. R.;
Johansen, E.; Holman, T. R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999, 121, 1395-
1396.
(87) (a) Wigner, E. Z. Phys. Chem., Abt. B. 1932, 19, 203. (b) Bell, R. P.
Tunnel Effect in Chemistry; Chapman & Hall: New York, 1980.