Calvo et al.
JOCArticle
and (kTauNH
)
=(2.20 ( 0.07) ꢀ 106 M-2 s-1 for catalysis
been neglected. An apparent intrinsic barrier of ΔG0q
=
A-
2
by H2O and HPO42-, respectively, can be calculated from
6.9 kcal/mol for chlorine transfer can be determined by
substituting the observed values of (ΔGq)obsd = 6.1 kcal/
mol and (ΔGꢀ)obsd = -1.7 kcal/mol for the reaction of N-
protonated chlorotaurine with benzylamine (Scheme 3) into
eq 9, using the assumption that the observed activation
barrier corresponds entirely to the chemical transformation
of the reactants to the transition state (wr = wp = 0).
However, a better estimate of the chemical intrinsic barrier
may be obtained if we are able to evaluate the significance of
the work terms for this reaction.
(Ka)(CH ) NHClþ =0.2 M34 and (Ka)AH=3.55 ꢀ 10-7 M using
3
2
the relationships (kTauNH )o=(kTauNH )H (Ka)(CH ) NHClþ and
2
2
3 2
A-
(kTauNH
for Scheme 6.
)
= (kTauNH
)
((Ka)(CH ) NHClþ/(Ka)AH) derived
AH
3 2
2
2
We have previously suggested that the acid-catalyzed
reaction of N-chlorotaurine with the highly reactive sulfur
nucleophiles HOCH2CH2S- and SO32- follows a concerted
mechanism, which is enforced by the absence of a significant
lifetime of the protonated chloramine in the presence of the
nucleophile.16 The N and n nucleophilicity scales, predict
The reactant and product pairs are strikingly similar, and
it is reasonable to assume that there is not a significant
difference in the work terms for formation of the reactant
and product complexes (wr =wp). The work term wr should
include the entropic cost of bringing the two reactants
together, the cost of the partial desolvation required to create
a complex in which the chlorine atom of the chloramine and
the nitrogen of the amine are in contact with the correct
orientation for the transfer of chlorine to take place, and
possible interactions between the two species in the encoun-
ter complex. The free energy change involved in the ap-
proach of the two reactants to form a complex may be
estimated following the work of Hine39 as 2.8 kcal/mol,
assuming that there is only one possible position for the
nucleophilic nitrogen atom in the complex and that there are
no interactions between the two reactants. There is evidence
in the literature that complete desolvation of amines, to free
the lone electron pair, must occur before nucleophilic attack
takes place.40-42 Berg and Jencks have provided estimates of
the equilibrium constants for dissociation of amine-water
complexes and have shown that desolvation becomes less
favorable as the amine becomes more basic.43 Interpolation
of their data to a pKa = 9.5 gives an energetic cost for
breaking the hydrogen bond between water and benzylamine
of 1.8 kcal/mol. Finally, it is necessary to consider the
existence of stabilizing interactions between the amine and
the protonated chloramine within the precursor complex. It
is well-known that halogenated organic molecules form
weak complexes with electron donor species, in which the
halogen atom acts as an electron acceptor site.44-46 This type
of intermolecular interaction has been named halogen bond-
ing to stress that many of its properties parallel those of the
analogous hydrogen bonds. It is difficult to quantify the
strength of an interaction between the nucleophilic nitrogen
of the amine and the electrophilic chlorine atom of the
protonated chloramine in the reactive complex. However,
the stabilizing energy associated with formation of a chlorine
bond has been estimated to be not much different from that
involved in formation of a similar hydrogen bond.47-49
þ
that dimethylamine (N = 7.95,31 n = 5.8330) will show a
þ
reactivity toward electrophiles similar to that of SO3
2-
(N = 8.01,35 n = 5.6736). It is therefore likely that the
þ
barrier for collapse of an encounter complex between N-
protonated chlorotaurine and dimethylamine is insignifi-
cant, which forces chlorine transfer to occur through a
mechanism in which proton transfer to the nitrogen atom
of the chloramine and chlorine transfer merge into a single
step.
Intrinsic Barriers. The reversibility of the reaction between
N-chlorotaurine and benzylamine allowed the determination
of the corresponding rate and equilibrium constants for this
process. This set of data may now be analyzed in the context
of Marcus theory,37,38 which provides a relationship (eq 9)
between the activation barrier, ΔGq, and the thermodynamic
driving force for a reaction, ΔGꢀ, in terms of what is
commonly called the intrinsic activation barrier, ΔGq0, de-
fined as the kinetic barrier for the hypothetical thermoneu-
tral process (ΔGꢀ = 0). The Marcus eq 9 applies to the
chemical step of the reaction and, therefore, the observed
activation and thermodynamic barriers, (ΔGq)obsd and
(ΔGꢀ)obsd, should be corrected for the free energy changes
associated to formation of a reactive complex (wr) and
separation of the product complex to give free products
(wp) according to eqs 10 and 11.
!
2
ΔG0
4ΔGq0
ΔGq ¼ ΔGq0 1 þ
ð9Þ
ΔGq ¼ ðΔGqÞobsd - wr
ð10Þ
ð11Þ
ΔG0 ¼ ðΔG0Þobsd - wr þ wp
It is generally difficult to identify the different processes
involved in forming a reactive complex and to estimate their
energetic contributions to the observed reaction barrier. For
this reason, in most of the cases where the Marcus formalism
has been applied to organic reactions the work terms have
(29) Brotzel, F.; Chu, Y. C.; Mayr, H. J. Org. Chem. 2007, 72, 3679–3688.
(30) Bunting, J. W.; Mason, J. M.; Heo, C. K. M. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin
Trans. 2 1994, 2291–2300.
(39) Hine, J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1971, 93, 3701–3708.
(40) Jencks, W. P.; Haber, M. T.; Herschlag, D.; Nazaretian, K. L. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 1986, 108, 479–483.
(31) Heo, C. K. M.; Bunting, J. W. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2 1994,
2279–2290.
(32) Garcia-Rio, L.; Iglesias, E.; Leis, J. R.; Pena, M. E.; Rios, A. J.
Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2 1993, 29–37.
(33) Brotzel, F.; Mayr, H. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2007, 5, 3814–3820.
(34) Antelo, J. M.; Arce, F.; Franco, J.; Sanchez, M.; Varela, A. Bull. Soc.
Chim. Belg. 1989, 98, 85–89.
(41) Richard, J. P. J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun. 1987, 1768–1769.
(42) McClelland, R. A.; Kanagasabapathy, V. M.; Banait, N. S.; Steenken,
S. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1992, 114, 1816–1823.
(43) Berg, U.; Jencks, W. P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1991, 113, 6997–7002.
(44) Legon, A. C. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 1999, 38, 2687–2714.
(45) Metrangolo, P.; Neukirch, H.; Pilati, T.; Resnati, G. Acc. Chem. Res.
2005, 38, 386–395.
(35) Ritchie, C. D. Can. J. Chem. 1986, 64, 2239–2250.
(36) Koskikallio, J. Acta Chem. Scand. 1969, 23, 1477–1489.
(37) Cohen, A. O.; Marcus, R. A. J. Phys. Chem. 1968, 72, 4249–4256.
(38) Marcus, R. A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1969, 91, 7224–7225.
(46) Metrangolo, P.; Meyer, F.; Pilati, T.; Resnati, G.; Terraneo, G.
Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2008, 47, 6114–6127.
(47) Auffinger, P.; Hays, F. A.; Westhof, E.; Ho, P. S. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. U.S.A. 2004, 101, 16789–16794.
J. Org. Chem. Vol. 74, No. 15, 2009 5387