model includes a stacking process the effective charge results
indicate that a significant component of ‡3 comes from an
electrophilic interaction at the phenolic oxygen atom. The
mechanism involving ‡3 in Scheme 4 explains why 2,6-lutidine is
not a catalyst because, although it can stack with 1 and has its
lone pair available for the proton transfer, there is no electro-
philic component available for interaction at the phenolic oxy-
gen. Proton transfer at the leaving oxygen is not a reasonable
activation process because consideration of the microscopic
reverse mechanism reveals that attack by phenol would involve
general base catalysis, an unlikely requirement under the
prevailing conditions of pH.
A process where the proton transfer from 1 to catalytic imid-
azole is “linear” would not allow any interaction with the leav-
ing aryl oxygen and would therefore not explain why the effect-
ive charge on the oxygen in the transition structure is more
positive than that in the transition structure for the uncatalysed
process (‡2).
k3 (ammonia catalysed ammonolysis) is 1.84. The value of 1.84
corresponds to the formation of the T intermediate as the
proton transfer step should not depend on σ. The lower value
of ρ2 is due to the k step being rate limiting having a transition
structure with substantial carbonyl bond formation bringing
the structure back closer to that of the reactant than T . The
value of 1.84 is similar to that observed for the addition of
nucleophiles to substituted benzoyl groups such as benzalde-
hydes.28 The existence of catalysis in a termolecular term by
tertiary amines precludes the mechanism described here for the
ammonolysis reactions of esters.
On the basis of the arguments for the special base catalytic
function of imidazole in imidazolysis of N-methylpyridinium-
4-carboxylate esters it is reasonable to postulate a similar
mechanism for the k3 term of the acetate5 and benzoate3 esters.
References
Although the mechanism involving rate limiting proton
transfer from T is excluded, rate limiting attack by the imid-
azolium ion on T (kϪ step in Scheme 1) would give the
1 T. C. Bruice and G. L. Schmir, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1957, 79, 1653.
2 M. L. Bender and B. W. Turnquest, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1957, 79,
1656.
3 M. Caplow and W. P. Jencks, Biochemistry, 1962, 1, 883.
4 J. F. Kirsch and W. P. Jencks, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1964, 86, 833.
5 T. C. Bruice and S. J. Benkovic, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1964, 86, 418.
6 A. C. Satterthwait and W. P. Jencks, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1974, 96,
7018.
7 J. J. Morris and M. I. Page, J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2, 1980, 220.
8 J. J. Morris and M. I. Page, J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2, 1980, 685.
9 M. I. Page and W. P. Jencks, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1972, 94, 8818–8828.
10 T. C. Bruice and M. F. Mayahi, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1960, 82, 3067.
11 J. F. Kirsch and A. Kline, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1969, 91, 1841.
12 T. C. Bruice, A. Donzel, R. W. Huffman and A. R. Butler, J. Am.
Chem. Soc., 1967, 89, 2106.
observed rate law (k3). The proton transfer step T
TϪ
would not give rise to a substantial solvent deuterium oxide
effect because it would be an equilibrium step. Thus, the
observed isotope effect of 4.43 would come from kϪ and indi-
cate rate limiting proton transfer to the departing aryl oxygen
leaving group. However a good leaving group such as an aryl
oxide ion should not require assistance from proton transfer as
indicated above.
The decomposition of 1 via ‡3 does not necessarily involve
concerted ArO–C bond fission and proton transfer steps. The
simplest explanation is that the decomposition involves proton
transfer to the catalytic imidazole in the rate limiting step and
the ArO–C fission occurs in a subsequent non-rate limiting
step. The effective charge on the aryl oxygen is more positive
than that in k2 due to an electrophilic interaction rather than to
a bond fission process.
The termolecular term is not seen with 4-nitrophenyl esters
of aliphatic acids nor with those of 4-methoxy- or 4-methyl-
benzoic acids and increasing the reactivity of the acyl function
promotes its observation. The termolecular term provides an
alternative route to direct expulsion of the phenolate anion (the
k2 term). As the acyl group becomes more reactive (electron
withdrawing) the decomposition of the intermediate 1 via k2
becomes less efficient (relative to k3) because the product acyl-
imidazolium ion becomes less stable. The proton transfer step
(k3) provides a more efficient pathway than that represented by
k2 because the initial product is the more stable acyl-imidazole
(rather than acyl-imidazolium ion) product.
13 M. J. Colthurst, M. Nanni and A. Williams, J. Chem. Soc.,
Perkin Trans. 2, 1996, 2285.
14 T. Deacon, A. Steltner and A. Williams, J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans.
2, 1975, 1778.
15 S. Hestrin, J. Biol. Chem., 1949, 180, 249.
16 S. L. Johnson, Adv. Phys. Org. Chem., 1967, 5, 237.
17 A. Williams, Concerted Organic and Bio-Organic Mechanisms,
CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2000, Section 4.1.
18 E. Chrystiuk and A. Williams, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1987, 109, 3040.
19 S. A. Ba-Saif, A. K. Luthra and A. Williams, J. Am. Chem. Soc.,
1987, 109, 6362.
20 J. P. Guthrie and D. C. Pike, Can. J. Chem., 1987, 65, 1951.
21 A. Williams, Adv. Phys. Org. Chem., 1992, 27, 1.
22 S. Thea and A. Williams, Chem. Soc. Rev., 1986, 15, 625.
23 Stacking phenomena are common between heterocyclic bases in
water particularly when there is potential for a π-donor–π-acceptor
interaction. In this article we refer to stacking as the result of an
interaction between two planar molecules rather than multiple
stacking as observed between heterocyclic bases in nucleic acids.
24 S. Scheiner, Acc. Chem. Res., 1994, 27, 402.
25 H. A. Staab and T. Saupe, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl., 1988, 27,
865.
26 M. A. Zirustein and H. A. Staab, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl., 1987,
26, 460.
27 E. Uggerud and J. Beache-Andreassen, Chem. Eur. J., 1999, 5,
1917; M. N. Glukhovtsev, A. Pross, H. B. Schlegel, R. D. Bach and
L. Radom, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1996, 118, 11258; E. Uggerud,
J. Org. Chem., 2001, 66, 7084; R. R. Sauers, J. Org. Chem., 2002, 67,
1221; P. R. Schreiner, P. v. R. Schleyer and R. K. Hill, J. Org. Chem.,
1994, 59, 1849; S. Harder, A. Streitwieser, J. T. Petty and P. v. R.
Schleyer, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1995, 117, 3253.
Bruice and Mayahi10 showed that the ammonolysis reaction
of substituted phenyl acetates has terms corresponding to gen-
eral base catalysis by ammonia (k3) and direct expulsion (k2).
The Brønsted slopes are Ϫ0.25 and Ϫ0.84 respectively; the
value of Ϫ0.84 measures the change in charge from reactant to
the transition structure of the k step. The βLg of Ϫ0.25 meas-
ures the change in charge to T although this value is very
uncertain due to the paucity of data and the small spread
of pKa values. Kirsch and Kline11 studied the ammonolysis of
4-nitrophenyl esters of substituted benzoic acids and found a
value of ρ2 (rate via k ) (see Scheme 1) of 1.08 whereas that for
28 S. L. Shames and L. D. Byers, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1981, 103,
6170.
O r g . B i o m o l . C h e m . , 2 0 0 3 , 1, 1 9 9 5 – 2 0 0 0
2000