de Lijser and Rangel
even though 2-adamantanone gives the best results in
terms of acetal formation, cyclohexanone itself reacts
rapidly and forms the acetal in good yield. Other more
rigid structures such as the decalones, camphor, and
bicyclo[3.2.1]octan-2-one react poorly or give large amounts
of the enol ether. The observed reactivity of camphor and
bicyclo[3.2.1]octan-2-one is interesting and could possibly
be a result of the presence of the five- and seven-member
rings in these compounds. Substrates with five-mem-
bered rings are less reactive compared to six-membered
rings. Cyclopentanone reacts to give the acetal as the only
product albeit in low yield. Attaching an aromatic ring
in the â-position increases the reactivity, but now the
product mixture contains both the acetal and the enol
ether in a 1:1 ratio. These trends are similar to those
observed for cyclohexanone and the tetralones. Sub-
strates with seven-membered rings do not react; the
exception would be bicyclo[3.2.1]octan-2-one, although
this is more likely to be considered a substituted six-
membered ring. These results are in reasonable agree-
ment with those from the acid-catalyzed acetalization of
carbonyl compounds reported by Brown14 and Djerassi.15
In both studies it was observed that five- and seven-
membered rings react more slowly than six-membered
rings.
Steric effects are of major importance in these reac-
tions, as seen from the results of the reaction of aceto-
phenone. No reaction occurred, which is a dramatic
difference compared to benzaldehyde. It is well-known
that the acid-catalyzed acetalization of ketones is slower
than that of aldehydes, although the reaction can be
forced in the direction of the acetal.16 For example,
Roelofsen and van Bekkum reported that the acetaliza-
tion of ketones required larger amounts of the acid
catalyst in order to proceed.17 We have not yet been able
to increase the yield of acetal for unreactive ketones by
increasing the amount of CA. Irradiation of mixtures
containing acetophenone and various amounts of CA
(0.005, 0.015, and 0.025 M) did not result in the formation
of the acetal. The significant (steric) effect of a methyl
group can also be seen from the reactivity of 3-pentanone,
dibenzyl ketone, and benzylacetone. Even though the
phenyl group is further away from the carbonyl or even
completely absent, still no significant reaction can be
observed. This is consistent with a study by Wiberg et
al., which concluded that alkyl substitution stabilizes a
carbonyl group and destabilizes the acetal.18a
acetophenone does not yield any acetal, confirming the
predominance of steric effects in these reactions.
Mechanistic Interpretation. The most likely expla-
nation for these results is the in situ photogeneration of
an acidic species, which catalyzes the acetalization.
Others investigators have also observed the formation
of acetals in the photolysis of carbonyl compounds in
protic solvents.19,20 It these particular cases it was
proposed that the acetal is formed by means of an acid-
catalyzed process due to impurities in the solvent or via
a photoacid generation process. The formation of the
acetal was usually suppressed when using base-washed
glassware or when the reaction was carried out in the
presence of sodium bicarbonate.19a Kim and co-workers
observed the formation of 3-methoxycyclohex-2-en-1-one
from photolysis of 1,3-cyclohexanedione and p-benzo-
quinone in methanol and proposed an enol radical cation
intermediate.19c Hill and co-workers observed the forma-
tion of acetals upon photolysis of R-aryloxyacetones;
however, the reactions were not selective and the yields
were generally low.20 Clearly, the results reported here
cannot be due to impurities as the presence of a photo-
catalyst gives completely different (clean and reproduc-
ible) results. More evidence for the involvement of a
photogenerated acidic species came from an experiment
in which a sample was irradiated for only 1 min and then
placed in the dark. Analysis of the sample before and
after storage in the dark clearly shows that the reaction
continued on, although it was less efficient compared to
a sample that was irradiated for 30 min. An interesting
observation was the fact that almost identical results are
obtained when using CA or TCHQ, suggesting that the
latter is formed from CA and acts as the acid. This is
consistent with earlier observations. It was reported that
irradiation of CA in methanol or ethanol results in the
formation of TCHQ (major) and trichlorohydroxy-p-
benzoquinone (minor).21 Another important piece of
information is the fact that the reaction only requires a
catalytic amount of CA. We will discuss three mechanistic
schemes, each of which can explain these results.
The results presented in the tables above are very
similar to those observed for the classic acid-catalyzed
acetalization of carbonyl compounds.1 As such, a simple
mechanism generating an inorganic acid such as HCl
must be considered first. It has been reported that
photolysis of CA in aldehydes results in the formation of
acylhydroquinones and generates hydrogen chloride
(Scheme 1).22
In addition to the steric effects, we were also interested
to see if electronic effects were important for the reactions
of ketones. It is known that the introduction of electron-
accepting groups destabilize the carbonyl group and favor
formation of the acetal.18b Preliminary experiments sug-
gest that electronic effects are not predominant in these
reactions. For example, irradiation of 2,2,2-trifluoro-
In order for HCl to be formed, the acyl radical must
add to a chlorine-substituted ring carbon. Studies on CA
and different aldehydes have shown, however, that the
major product forms via reaction at the oxygen to produce
an ester. For example, the reaction of CA with acetalde-
hyde produces tetrachloroquinol monoacetate (73%) and
trichloroacetylquinol (1%).22 The reaction of CA with
benzaldehyde reportedly produced only the benzoate
(14) Brown, H. C.; Brewster, J. H.; Shechter, H. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
1954, 76, 467.
(15) Djerassi, C.; Mitscher, L. A.; Mitscher, B. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
1959, 81, 947.
(16) For examples, see: (a) Dauben, W. G.; Gerdes, J. M.; Look, G.
C. J. Org. Chem. 1986, 51, 4964. (b) Otera, J.; Mizutani, T.; Nozaki,
H. Organometallics 1989, 8, 2063. (c) Thurkauf, A.; Jacobson, A. E.;
Rice, K. C. Synthesis 1988, 233.
(17) Roelofsen, D. P.; van Bekkum, H. Synthesis 1972, 419.
(18) (a) Wiberg, K. B.; Morgan, K. M.; Maltz, H. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
1994, 116, 11067. (b) Bell, R. P. Adv. Phys. Org. Chem. 1966, 4, 1.
(19) (a) Yates, P. Pure Appl. Chem. 1968, 16, 93. (b) Coyle, J. D.
Introduction to Organic Photochemistry; John Wiley & Sons: New
York, 1989; p. 119. (c) Kim, S. S.; Chang, J. A.; Kim, A. R.; Mah, Y. J.;
Kim, H. J.; Kang, C. J. Photosci. 2000, 7, 111.
(20) (a) Dirania, M. K. K.; Hill, J. J. Chem. Soc. C 1968, 1311. (b)
Collier, J. R.; Dirania, M. K. M.; Hill, J. J. Chem. Soc. C 1970, 155. (c)
Dirania, M. K. K.; Hill, J. J. Chem. Soc. C 1971, 1213.
(21) Fisch, M.; Hemmerlin, W. M. Tetrahedron Lett. 1972, 3125.
(22) Bruce, J. M.; Ellis, J. N. J. Chem. Soc. C 1966, 1624.
8318 J. Org. Chem., Vol. 69, No. 24, 2004