R-(Acyloxy)dialkynitrosamines
J. Am. Chem. Soc., Vol. 121, No. 9, 1999 1831
planation since the same order of reactivity (kHMe > kHEt > kH
The observed order of reactivity, Me > Et > i-Pr > t-Bu, is
the so-called “Baker-Nathan order”,27 which is widely observed
in organic reactivity.27,28 It was originally ascribed to a
hyperconjugative interaction,27 but this explanation has been
rejected.29-31 The notion that steric inhibition of solvation29
could account for the original observation was given credence
by the subsequent observation that the order was reversed in
the gas-phase equilibrium for protonation of alkylbenzenes.30
This observation indicates that the dominant equilibrium-
stabilizing factor in the gas phase is the well-known polariz-
ability effect. The observation led to the conclusion that the
Baker-Nathan order in solution was indeed due to hindrance
of solvation.30 This conclusion has since been generalized.31
i-Pr
> kHt-Bu) is observed in the acid-catalyzed decomposition
reaction that has been shown to involve loss of neutral acetic
acid with formation of the nitrosiminium ion. This mechanism,
illustrated in eq 9, is indicated by the acid-catalyzed acyloxy
This conclusion is not logically required by the observation
but rather is dependent on unverified assumptions. There is no
reason to expect that the relative strengths of various interactions
should be constant in going from the gas phase to polar liquids.
Group polarizability is strongly attenuated in polar liquid
media.32 Other types of stabilizing interactions, such as hyper-
conjugation, may have different dependencies on the influences
of solvent. Beyond this, it is currently unclear whether there
can be differential expressions of hyperconjugative and polar-
izability interactions in transition states compared to ground
states.
The experimental facts summarized above and elsewhere25,26
require that the transitions state stabilization by an adjacent C-H
bond is greater than that by an adjacent C-C bond. That this is
possible has been disputed.33 On theoretical grounds, with
optimal structure, the C-C bond interaction with an adjacent
carbocation is stronger.33,34 Again, however, the possibility of
differential expressions of â-H versus â-C hyperconjugative
interactions in transition states, due to intrinsic constraints on
heavy-atom motion or steric constraints, has not been addressed.
exchange and ether and hydroperoxide formation in alcoholic
solvents.19-21
Fourth, two observations are inconsistent with the notion that
steric bulk decreases reactivity by inhibition of solvation.
Compound 25 is 3-fold more reactive than 16 despite the greater
steric bulk at RC in the former. The Taft steric parameter of the
RC substituent is -1.74 for 25 and only -0.07 for 16. Similarly,
despite the greater steric bulk of the CH2C(CH3)3 (Es ) 1.74)
compared to the tert-butyl substituent (Es ) -1.54),22 the rate
constant for nitrosiminium ion formation is 100-fold greater with
the former substituent than with the latter in the case of the
N-nitrosoethylamino compounds (25 and 23).
The normal secondary â-deuterium kinetic isotope effects are
consistent with hyperconjugative stabilization of the developing
nitrosiminium ion character in the transition state. The values
of kH/kD )1.02 ( 0.01 and 1.05 ( 0.02 per D for the solvolysis
of 18 and 4, respectively, are in the direction expected for
loosening of the â-C-L bonds due to overlap in the transition
state with the adjacent electron-deficient center.23 The magnitude
of these effects is small compared to the largest effects reported
of kH/kD ) 1.14 per D. Small effects are expected in the case
of a developing cation that is strongly stabilized by electron
donation from the adjacent amino group.23 Secondary â-deu-
terium kinetic isotope effects of magnitude similar to those
observed here have been observed in the acid-catalyzed cleavage
of acetals in which electron donation by an adjacent oxygen
atom stabilizes the transition state for cleavage of the carbon
oxygen bond as in eq 10.24 The importance of C-H hypercon-
In the case of nitrosiminium ion formation from R-acetoxy-
dialkylnitrosamines, the extent of enhancement of the rate
constant by hyperconjugative stabilization is not a simple
function of the number of â-hydrogens, in contrast to what has
been reported in the case of acid-catalyzed acetal and ketal
hydrolysis.31 Thus, in Figure 2, at σ* ) 0, the increase in log
k1 as â-methyl groups are replaced by â-hydrogen atoms, going
from tert-butyl to methyl, is 0.96, 0.64, and 0.41 unit for each
successive replacement. These differences cannot be accounted
for by differences in polar effects upon each successive
replacement since each hydrogen-for-methyl replacement in-
(23) Westaway, K. C. In Isotopes in Organic Chemistry, Vol. 7;
Secondary and SolVent Isotope Effects; Buncel, E.; Lee, C. C., Eds.;
Elsevier: New York, 1987.
(24) Kresge, A. J.; Weeks, D. P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1984, 106, 7140.
Shiner, V. J.; Cross, S. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1957, 79, 3599. Shiner, V. J.
Tetrahedron 1959 5, 243.
(25) Kreevoy, M. M.; Taft, R. W. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1955, 77, 5590.
(26) Kreevoy, M. M. Tetrahedron 1959 5, 233.
(27) Baker, J. W.; Nathan, W. S. J. Chem. Soc. 1935, 1844.
(28) Berliner, E. Tetrahedron 1959 5, 202.
(29) Schubert, W. M.; Sweeney, W. A. J. Org. Chem. 1956, 21, 119.
(30) Herhe, W. J.; McIver, R. T.; Pople, J. A.; Schleyer, P. v. R. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 1974, 96, 7162.
(31) March, J. AdVanced Organic Chemistry, 4th ed.; J. Wiley and
jugative stabilization of the transition state for this reaction has
been emphasized by the work of Kreevoy and Taft.25,26
Sons: New York, 1992; p 69.
(32) Fujio, M.; McIver, R. T.; Taft, R. W. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1981, 103,
4017 and references within.
(19) Mochizuki, M.; Anjo, T.; Okada, M. Chem. Pharm. Bull. 1978, 26,
3905.
(20) Baldwin, J. E.; Scott, A.; Branz, S. E.; Tannenbaum, S. R.; Green,
L. J. Org. Chem. 1978, 43, 2427.
(21) Mochizuki, M.; Anjo, T.; Wakabayashi, Y. Tetrahedron Lett. 1980
21, 1761.
(33) Exner, O.; Bohm, S. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2 1997, 1235.
Glyde, E.; Taylor, R. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2 1977, 678. But see:
Cooney, B. T.; Happer, D. A. R. Aust. J. Chem. 1987, 40, 1537.
(34) Radom, L.; Pople, J. A.; Schleyer, P. v. R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1972,
94, 5935. Hoffmann, R.; Radom, L.; Pople, J. A.; Schleyer, P. v. R.; Hehre,
W. J.; Salem, L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1972, 94, 6221. Wierschke, S. G.;
Chandrasekhar, J.; Jorgensen, W. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1985, 107, 1496.
Ibrahim, M. R.; Jorgensen, W. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1989, 111, 819.
(22) Exner, O. In Correlation Analysis in Chemistry. Recent AdVances;
Chapman, N. B., Shorter, J., Eds.; Plenum: New York, 1978.