catalytic advantage of the SDS micelle in acetal hydrolysis.
The KS value is unlikely to be greater than 1 M (although this
concentration would be unobtainable for SDS) so that an
estimate of the upper limit of the catalytic advantage of the
micelle is only (797 × 1)/61 ∼ 13-fold.
Comparison of the ρ parameter for kcat with that of kH
(Ϫ3.68 and Ϫ3.30 respectively) indicates that the reaction of
complexed acetal with Hϩ is slightly more sensitive to sub-
stituent than is that of the free acetal; this indicates that positive
charge development in the complexed acetal is slightly greater
than in the free acetal in the transition state for reaction with
the proton.
The kinetic parameter, kcat, registers the free energy difference
between complexed acetal and the transition state including
the proton (Scheme 1). The equilibrium constant for the
protonation of complexed acetal is included in kcat but its
measurement cannot be effected for the present results.
Nevertheless, the data indicate that there is no significant
electronic difference between complexed acetal and free acetal
for the binding to CTAB because there is no Hammett depend-
ence of Ki (eqn. (7)).
Fig. 5 Plots of kobs/[Hϩ] (normalised on the maximal rate constant)
versus [SDS] for non-compensated counterions. Data from Dunlap,
Ghanim and Cordes.5 , 4-NO2 (2.25); ᭹, 4-Cl (5.36); ꢀ, 4-F (4.76); ᭢,
H (5.36); ଙ, 4-CH3 (6.4); ᭜, 4-OCH3 (6.4). The cmc is not quoted in
Cordes’ paper for the experiments on SDS catalysed hydrolysis of
acetals.
If the oxocarbenium ion were formed as an intermediate at
the surface of the micelle it is possible that even the weakly
nucleophilic –SO3 head group would react to form the
acetals in SDS should exhibit maxima at SDS concentrations
with a wide range of values if the curvature were due to sub-
strate complexation. It is therefore likely that the curvature
previously observed in the SDS5 case is due to an ion exchange
effect of increasing [Naϩ] and expelling proton from the Stern
region rather than due to complexation although complex
formation will certainly be occurring (but not to saturation).
A change in cmc caused by change in ionic strength will also
cause non-linearity.
Ϫ
sulfonylal (Scheme 2). There are no data for the reactivity of a
sulfonylal (RSO2–O–CH(ORЈ)Ar)20 but if it were formed in
this system it would have to decay rapidly to aldehyde because
the product UV spectrum indicates that only aldehyde is
formed and gives no evidence for a stoichiometric amount of
intermediate. It is not possible to distinguish the stepwise pro-
Ϫ
cess from the one where the –SO3 group displaces methanol
from the protonated acetal in a concerted pathway (similar to
that of eqn. (9a)).
The small spread of Ki values determined for an analogous
neutral substrate (2-chlorophenyl acetate) with SDS over the
[Naϩ] range 0.07 to 0.42 M indicates that the structure of
the SDS micellar interface would not have much effect on
the binding of the neutral acetals. The values of Kexch. for the
exchange of Naϩ with the SDS micelle calculated from
the literature and that determined from the hydrolysis of the
4-isopropylbenzaldehyde dimethyl acetal (0.0281 M) are con-
sistent with the curvature of Fig. 5 being due to ion exchange
rather than substrate complexation.
The present data indicate that when the ionic atmosphere is
maintained constant the fit is to a linear equation up to 0.2 M
SDS in all the cases shown. This fact does not mean that com-
plexation is absent or is not important in the catalytic sequence
of reactions. It merely indicates that the complex between sub-
strate and micelle possesses a much larger dissociation constant
than can be determined at the concentrations of SDS available
in the experiments (without detergent precipitation). The lower
limit of the value of the dissociation constant of the complexed
acetal is 0.2 M, the maximum concentration of SDS employed
in the experiments.
The relative reactivity of complexed and free benzaldehyde
dimethyl acetals cannot be measured absolutely because the
value of a in eqn. (12) is unknown. However, a lower limit can
be determined for kcat from the maximum concentration of SDS
employed because KS > [SDS]max. Let us consider the parent
acetal where kSDS = 797 MϪ2 sϪ1. The lower limit on kcat is 0.2 ×
797 MϪ1 sϪ1 = 159 MϪ1 sϪ1 which compares with the value
61.1 MϪ1 sϪ1 for kH. The reaction of Hϩ with complexed acetal
is therefore >159/61 more efficient than with uncomplexed
substrate. It is possible to speculate on an upper limit of the
The method involved in dissection of kSDS into its component
kcat and KS parameters introduces uncertainty additional to that
of kSDS because the relationship between Ki and KS involves
non-systematic deviations caused by the different surfactant
systems. These uncertainties are reflected in the magnitudes of
the standard deviations for ρ and ρϩ in both SDS and AOT
cases. The value of ρ for kcat is more negative than that of kH
but the difference is within the confidence limits of both
measurements and little emphasis can be placed on the differ-
ences regarding the relative charges in the transition states.
The existence of only a small catalytic advantage in the
surfactant-catalysed reaction is consistent with this conclusion.
The relative values of ρr appear to indicate that there is a larger
resonance contribution in the transition state for the surfactant
catalysed reactions but the confidence limits on the measure-
ments indicate that it would be unsafe to conjecture on their
significance at this stage.
Conclusions
The saturation curve obtained in studies of the acid catalysed
hydrolyses of acetals in the presence of increasing concentra-
tions of SDS without Naϩ counterion compensation is due to
ion exchange by Naϩ depleting the proton concentration
within the micelle and is not due to a complexation effect with
the substrate. Values of the dissociation constants, KS, cannot
therefore be determined explicitly for this system. The differ-
ence in ρ and ρr between acid catalysed hydrolysis of free acetal
and complexed acetal indicates that there is a marginally greater
Scheme 2
1594
J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2, 2002, 1589–1595