Kinetics of ReVersible Alkoxide Ion Addition
J. Am. Chem. Soc., Vol. 122, No. 16, 2000 3827
Table 5. Normalized F Values (Fn) for Buffer-Catalyzed Methanol
Addition to 6-Cr-Za
errors or a real difference between the two kinds of complexes
cannot be decided. Because eq 8 is only an approximation, the
kR1 O values, and with them the KR1 O values, may indeed be
subject to significant systematic errors that are not reflected in
their standard deviations.
B-
Fn(kB)
Fn(kBH
)
1
-1
PhO-
0.62 ( 0.07
(0.60 ( 0.09)
0.58 ( 0.07
(0.46 ( 0.09)
0.59 ( 0.06
(0.67 ( 0.06)
-0.38 ( 0.07
(-0.40 ( 0.09)
-0.42 ( 0.07
(-0.54 ( 0.09)
-0.41 ( 0.06
(-0.33 ( 0.06)
4-BrC6H4O-
A major factor that is likely to contribute to the smaller
F(K1OR) and F(k1OR) values for the HCtCCH2O- reactions is
the higher polarity of 50% MeCN-50% water (ꢀ ) 58.8)25
compared to that of methanol (ꢀ ) 32.6). The change in
nucleophile may constitute an additional factor. Since the HCt
CCH2O group in 7-M-Z- is more electron withdrawing than
the MeO group, it contributes more to the stabilization of the
negative charge in 7-M-Z- and the transition state leading to it
than the methoxy group. This, just as is the case with a more
polar solvent, reduces the requirement for stabilization of the
charge by the Z-substituent.
3,5-Cl2C6H3O-
a First number, Fn based on all substituents; second number (in
parentheses), Fn based on excluding 4-F and 4-CF3, see text.
on the actual F and Fn values except for the buffer-catalyzed
reactions with 4-BrC6H4O- and 3,5-Cl2C6H3O- (Table 5), but
in most cases the standard deviations for the Fn values are
smaller than for the F values.
Hammett G Values. A. Reactions with MeO- and OH-.
On the basis of the Hammett plots including all substituents,
Gn and ânnuc. Is There a Transition State Imbalance?
The normalized F values for all reactions are all very close,
especially the ones obtained by excluding the 4-F and 4-CF3
substrates which are virtually indistinguishable, with an average
the F values for k1MeO, kMeO, and KM1 eO are, within the rather
-1
large experimental uncertainties, about the same for the
chromium and tungsten carbene complexes, i.e., in MeOH on
value of 0.56 for Fn(kOR) and -0.44 for Fn(k-RO1). Interestingly,
the order of 2.2-2.6 for kM1 eO, -1.6 to -1.0 for kMeO, 4.2 for
1
this is also very close to Fn(kRS) ) 0.54 for the reaction of
-1
KM1 eO, and 2.1 for k1MeO in 90% MeCN-10% MeOH. On the
other hand, based on the plots from which the 4-F and 4-CF3
derivatives are excluded, the standard deviations of most F
values are significantly smaller which allows some distinctions
1
HOCH2CH2S- with 9-W-Z26 even though the Hammett F values
between the two types of carbene complexes to be made. In
MeO
-1
particular, F(k ) for 6-Cr-Z (-2.24) appears to be signifi-
cantly more negative than that for 6-W-Z (-1.67) while
F(KM1 eO) is significantly larger for 6-Cr-Z (4.92) than for
6-W-Z (4.04); F(kM1 eO) is probably also larger for the chro-
mium carbene complexes, as suggested by the results in
methanol as well as in 90% MeCN-10% MeOH, although the
standard deviations are still too large for a definite conclusion.
The stronger substituent effect on the rate constant for oxyanion
addition to the chromium carbene complexes is also seen in
the larger F(kO1 H) values for 6-Cr-Z (2.23) compared to 6-W-Z
(1.68).
for this latter reaction are quite different. It appears that the
fraction of negative charge seen by the Z-substituent at the
transition state relative to the charge seen on the adduct is about
the same for all reactions, i.e., independent of the metal, the
leaving group or the nucleophile. What is less clear is whether
Fn(kRO) can be considered a measure of C-O bond formation
The smaller F(K1MeO) and F(kM1 eO) values for 6-W-Z com-
pared to 6-Cr-Z are consistent with the somewhat higher K1MeO
and kM1 eO values for the tungsten derivatives, especially those
with electron-donating substituents (Table 1). The enhanced
reactivity of the tungsten carbene complexes which has been
noted before4e probably reflects a somewhat stronger stabiliza-
tion of the negative charge by the (CO)5W moiety in 7-W-Z-
than by the (CO)5Cr moiety in 7-Cr-Z-. This reduces the
demand for further stabilization by the Z-substituent and lowers
the F values.
1
at the transition state. If the transitions state is imbalanced (see
eq 3), Fn(kRO) would not be such a measure. This is because
1
the closer proximity of the negative charge to the phenyl group
at the transition state compared to the situation in the adduct
tends to enhance Fn(kRO), i.e., bond formation will be less than
1
suggested by Fn(kRO).
1
The normalized ânuc values (ânnuc) summarized in Table 6
can shed some light on this question. Following traditional
views,27 ânnuc may be considered an approximate measure of
bond formation or charge transfer at the transition state.28
For the reactions of 6-Cr-Cl and 6-W-Cl with HCtCCH2O-
and CF3CH2O-, the ânnuc values are 0.46 (6-Cr-Cl) and 0.49
B. Reactions with HCtCCH2O- in 50% MeCN-50%
Water. The most notable feature of the reactions with
HCtCCH2O- is that the F(k1RO) and F(KR1 O) values are signi-
ficantly smaller than those for the reactions with MeO-,
especially for the chromium carbene complexes (Table 4). For
example, F(K1OR) ) 2.25 (2.45)24 for HCtCCH2O- vs 4.22
(4.92)24 for MeO-, or F(k1OR) ) 1.73 (1.68)24 for HCtCCH2O-
vs 2.20 (2.67)24 for MeO-. For the tungsten carbene com-
plexes, the differences in the F values for the two reactions
are smaller; whether this is an artifact caused by systematic
(6-W-Cl), respectively, i.e., somewhat lower than Fn(kRO) for
1
the reactions of HCtCCH2O- with 6-Cr-Z (0.59 (0.57)) and
6-W-Z (0.56 (0.55)). ânnuc might actually be still lower than the
values reported in Table 6, i.e., the latter should be considered
upper limits because the K1RO values (Table 3) were obtained
under the assumption that in eq 9 kM2 eO is negligible compared
RO
-1
to k
(see Results section). If kM2 eO were not negligible
(22) Bernasconi, C. F.; Ketner, R. J.; Chen, X.; Rappoport, Z. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 1998, 120, 7461.
(25) Moreau, C.; Douhe´ret, G. J. Chem. Thermodyn. 1976, 8, 403.
(26) Bernasconi, C. F.; Ali, M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999, 121, 11384.
(27) (a) Leffler, J. E.; Grunwald, E. Rates and Equilibria of Organic
Reactions; Wiley: New York, 1963; p 128. (b) Kresge, A. J. In Proton-
Transfer Reactions; Caldin, E. F., Gold, V., Eds.; Wiley: New York, 1975;
p 179. (c) Jencks, W. P. Chem. ReV. 1985, 85, 511.
(23) Fn values can also be obtained as F(kRO)/F(KR1 O) and F(kRO)/F(KR1 O
)
1
ratios, etc., but the direct determination from Brønsted plots r-ed1uces the
experimental uncertainty substantially.
(24) The numbers in parentheses are based on excluding the 4-F and
4-CF3 derivatives from the Hammett plots.
(28) The traditional view is not universally accepted.29