Ab initio calculations for 1a and 3a showed that the
phenomenon can be understood in terms of destabilized trans
structure of 3a with a large torsion angle of the Ph-N bond,
due to the steric hindrance between the two methyl groups
and to electronic repulsion between the carbonyl and the
phenyl groups.7 From this result, it seems reasonable that
the electronic properties of the N-aromatic ring would affect
the stability difference between cis and trans conformers.
Substituent effects on amide rotational barriers have been
well studied by using dynamic NMR techniques,8,9 while no
significant dependency of cis/trans equilibrium on the
aromatic substituents was found.10 Our ab initio calculations
with the HF/6-31G* basis set showed that the relative
stability of the cis conformer of 3a was decreased by
introduction of a p-nitro group (data not shown). This result
led us to investigate the cis/trans energy differences (∆G°,
[∆G°cis - ∆G°trans]) of various N-methylacetanilides. All
monosubstituted N-methylacetanilides (3b-o) exist in two
conformers at low temperature.11 In each case, the major
conformer was assigned as cis (∆G° < 0), based on the
chemical shifts, and the ratio of the cis conformer decreases
as the group on the aromatic ring of 3 becomes more
electron-withdrawing. Significantly, the change of ∆G°
shows a good correlation (R ) 0.978) with the Hammett’s
σ values,12 with a slope of 1.01 (Figure 2). Considering this
σ ) 0.71 for one m-nitro group) exists in trans form as the
major conformer (∆G° ) 0.28 kcal/mol).
In contrast to the above results, the introduction of
substituents on the N-phenyl ring of benzanilides (4) only
slightly affects the cis conformational preference. The ∆G°
value for 4a or 4b with a p-methoxy group is -1.55.
1
Compound 4c with a p-nitro group showed an H NMR
spectrum at 193 K corresponding to a single conformer,
assigned as the cis form.2
The substituent effects on the confomation of N-methyl-
acetanilides (3) indicate that the electronic character of the
N-phenyl group contributes at least partially to cis confor-
mational preference. This means that the more electron-
deficient aromatic ring would prefer the cis relationship to
the carbonyl oxygen when the amide bears two different
N-aromatics. In fact, such conformations (named conformer
A, Figure 3) are observed in the crystals and in the
Figure 3. Solution equilibrium of N,N-diarylamides 5-7 in CD2-
Cl2.
predominant solution structures of N,N-diarylacetamides 5
and 6.13 The free energy difference between the two
conformers A and B of 5 (∆G° ) 1.13 kcal/mol) is larger
than that of 6 (∆G° ) 0.56 kcal/mol), as would be expected
Figure 2. Plot of ∆G° vs Hammett’s substituent constant (σ). The
substituent (X) is H (3a), p-N(CH3)2 (3b), p-OCH3 (3c), p-CH3
(3d), p-Br (3e), p-CF3 (3f), p-CN (3g), p-NO2 (3h), m-N(CH3)2
(3i), m-NH2 (3j), m-OCH3 (3k), m-Cl (3l), m-CF3 (3m), m-CN (3n),
and m-NO2 (3o). In the calculation of the fitting line (∆G° ) -1.40
+ 1.01 σ, R ) 0.978), the data of 3b, 3c, and 3i, having less than
2% of the minor conformer, were excluded.
(6) (a) Irie, M., Ed. Chem. ReV. 2000, 100, 1683-1890. (b) Pease, A.
R.; Jeppesen, J. O.; Stoddart, J. F.; Luo, Y.; Collier, C. P.; Heath, J. R.
Acc. Chem. Res. 2001, 34, 433-444. (c) Feringa, B. L. Acc. Chem. Res.
2001, 34, 504-513.
(7) Saito, S.; Toriumi, Y.; Tomioka, N.; Itai, A. J. Org. Chem. 1995,
60, 4715-4720.
(8) Oki, M. Applications of Dynamic NMR Spectroscopy to Organic
Chemistry; VCH Publishers: New York, 1985.
(9) Rao, K. G.; Rao, C. N. R. J. Mol. Struct. 1973, 15, 303-306.
(10) Waisser, K.; Palat, K., Jr.; Exner, O. Collect. Czech. Chem. Commun.
1999, 64, 1295-1306.
linearity, N-methylacetanilide bearing an electron-withdraw-
ing group (σ > 1.39) was expected to prefer the trans
conformation. Indeed, N-methyl-m,m-dinitroacetanilide (3p,
(11) The structures 3 and the rotational barrier (∆Gq) are shown in the
Supporting Information. The ∆Gq value of the para-substituted compounds
correlates well with the Hammett σ value, while the meta substitution affects
less on the ∆Gq value.
(4) (a) Pederson, B. F.; Pederson, B. Tetrahedron Lett. 1965, 2995-
3001. (b) Nanjan, M. J.; Kannappan, V.; Ganesan, R. Indian J. Chem. 1979,
18B, 461-463. (c) Itai, A.; Toriumi, Y.; Tomioka, N.; Kagechika, H.;
Azumaya, I.; Shudo, K. Tetrahedron Lett. 1989, 30, 6177-6180.
(5) Tanatani, A.; Yamaguchi, K.; Azumaya, I.; Fukutomi, R.; Shudo,
K.; Kagechika, H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1998, 120, 6433-6442 and references
cited therein.
(12) Smith, M. B.; March, J. March’s AdVanced Organic Chemistry:
Reactions, Mechanisms, and Structures, 5th ed.; John Wiley & Sons: New
York, 1999; p 370.
(13) The ratio of the conformers of 6 was determined by using 6-d5 in
which all hydrogen atoms on the unsubstituted phenyl group were replaced
by deuterium atoms, since the methyl group signals did not show complete
separation.
1266
Org. Lett., Vol. 5, No. 8, 2003