164
THIRUMOORTHI, BHUVANESHWARI, AND ELANGO
substituents react faster than the parent. The observed
U-shaped Hammett plot may be due to a change in
the relative importance of bond formation and bond
breaking in the transition state [19].
donor/electron pair acceptor interactions), is likely in
the present case [12].
To obtain a deeper insight into the various solvent–
solvent–solute interactions, which influence reactivity,
we have tried to adopt the solvatochromic compari-
son method developed by Kamlet and Taft [21]. This
method may be used to unravel, quantify, correlate,
and rationalize multiple interacting solvent effects on
reactivity. The kinetic data were correlated with the
solvatochromic parameters α, β, and π∗ characteristic
of the different solvents in the form of the following
linear solvation energy relationship (LSER):
Solvent–Reactivity Correlation
The Cr(VI) oxidation of benzylamines has been
studied, in varying mole fractions of benzene in
2-methylpropan-2-ol, with a view to understand the
effect of preferential solvation on the reaction. Solvent
mixtures are very useful for studying solvent effects on
reactions since the properties of the medium can be ad-
justed continuously by changing the composition of the
mixture. The rate constants (Table IV) were correlated
with solvent macroscopic parameters, viz. relative per-
mittivity [20] and Dimroth–Reichardt’s ETN [12]. The
plots of log kobs versus the above-mentioned solvent
parameters were nonlinear, and a representative plot is
shown in Fig. 4. This nonlinear dependence of the rate
with solvent macroscopic parameters indicated that no
single macroscopic physical parameter could possibly
account for the multitude of solute–solvent interac-
tions on the molecular microscopic level. These bulk
solvent properties have poorly described the microen-
vironment around the reacting species, which governs
the stability of the transition state and hence the rate
of the reaction. Hence, the operation of selective or
preferential solvation, which includes both nonspe-
cific solute–solvent association (caused by dielectric
enrichment in the solvation shell of solute ions or
dipolar solute molecules) and specific solute–solvent
association (such as hydrogen bonding or electron pair
log k = Ao + sπ∗ + aα + bβ
(2)
where π∗ in an index of solvent dipolarity/polariza-
bility, which measures the ability of the solvent to
stabilize a charge or a dipole by virtue of its dielectric
effect, α is the solvent HBD acidity, β is the solvent
HBA (hydrogen bond acceptor) basicity, and Ao is the
regression value of the solute property in the refer-
ence solvent cyclohexane. The regression coefficients
s, a, and b measure the relative susceptibilities of the
solvent-dependent solute property log kobs to the in-
dicated solvent parameter. The rates of oxidation for
all the compounds studied showed an excellent cor-
relation with solvent via the above-mentioned LSER
(Eq. (2)) with an explained variance of ca. 98%. Such
an excellent correlation indicated the existence of both
specific and nonspecific solute–solvent interactions in
the present study.
From the values of the regression coefficients, the
contributions of each parameter, on a percentage basis,
to reactivity were calculated and are listed in Table VI.
The weighted percentage contributions of these sol-
vatochromic parameters indicated that (i) the rate of
the reaction is strongly influenced by specific solute–
solvent interactions as indicated by the percentage con-
tributions of α and β parameters. (ii) The solvent HBD
acidity, as indicated by the α term, plays a dominant
role in governing the reactivity. It alone explains more
than 50% of the observed solvent effect. The nega-
tive sign of the coefficients of the α term suggests that
the specific interaction between the reactants and the
solvent (through the HBD property) is relatively more
than that between the transition state and the solvent.
Since 2-methylpropan-2-ol is a typical HBD solvent, it
forms a sheath of solvent shell around the lone pair of
electrons residing on N-atom (as shown below) through
H-bond donation or, in other words, acts as a very mild
form of a blocking reagent [4,7]. Thus restricting the
approach of the oxidant molecule to form the tran-
sition state and consequently retarded the rate of the
oxidation.
1/εr
ET
0.36
0.32
0.28
0.24
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
N
–5
–4
–3
log kobs
Figure 4 Plot of log kobs versus solvent macroscopic pa-
rameters.
International Journal of Chemical Kinetics DOI 10.1002/kin