KIEs in Rotations of Alkenes and Allyl Radicals
J. Am. Chem. Soc., Vol. 118, No. 4, 1996 887
for both ethylene and allyl radical. Yamaguchi et al. calculated
the geometries and frequencies of planar and perpendicular
ethylene, using a 2-electron, 2-orbital (2e-/2o) active space and
a double-ú basis set.13 Also, 3-electron, 3-orbital (3e-/3o)
MCSCF calculations of planar allyl radical have been done,
including frequency calculations,14a,b and the barrier to -CH2
rotation in allyl radical has been calculated using UHF, MP4,
and CISD calculations with a variety of basis sets.14c,d Fre-
quency calculations of twisted allyl radical appear only to have
been done using UHF methods, however, and no zero-point
energy correction was applied to the rotational barrier. It
appears that no KIE calculations using MCSCF ab initio
geometries and force constants have been previously reported
for ethylene or allyl radical thermal isomerizations.
Figure 2. CASSCF/6-311G** [2e/2o] structures of ethylene: ground
state (left); transition state (right).
Structures of Ground States and Transition States
Ethylene calculations were carried out in D2h (ground state)
and D2d (transition state) symmetry (Figure 2; Tables 1 and 2),
using the 6-31G* and 6-311G** basis sets. The ground-state
geometries are in satisfactory agreement with experiment.20 The
transition state is 60.8 kcal/mol (6-31G* basis set) or 61.5 kcal/
mol (6-311G** basis set) higher in energy than the ground state
after zero-point energy correction, which is in good agreement
with experiment.21 Interestingly, previous calculations using a
similar method but different basis set predicted a 45-kcal/mol
barrier.13
As a complement to our theoretical studies, we have studied
the rate of alkene isomerization experimentally. cis-Stilbene
has been shown to isomerize to the trans isomer in a first-order,
unimolecular fashion in the gas phase.15 We have measured
the KIE upon gas-phase thermal isomerization of cis-stilbene
and R,R′-dideuterio-cis-stilbene. This was done in order to test
theoretical predictions concerning the magnitude and nature of
alkene rotational KIEs.
Computational Methods
Propene calculations were carried out in Cs symmetry for both
the ground state and transition state (Figure 3, Tables 1 and 2),
and also in C1 symmetry for the transition state, using the
6-31G* basis set. Both the ground-state geometry and the
barrier to rotation (62 kcal/mol) are in good agreement with
experimental values.22,23 The Cs transition structure of propene
(Figure 3) is a second-order saddle point. There is a large (1337i
cm-1) imaginary frequency associated with CdC bond rotation
and a second, smaller (195i cm-1) imaginary frequency that
corresponds to a pyramidalization of the radical at C2. The
methyl group in the transition state is staggered with respect to
the C1-C2 bond; when the methyl group is eclipsed with the
C1-C2 bond, there is an additional imaginary frequency
associated with this motion. Relaxation of the symmetry
constraint gives a transition structure (Figure 4) which is
pyramidalized at the central carbon by 18° (the angle formed
by the C-H bond with the C-C-C plane). The -CH2
terminus is pyramidalized by about 8° in both the C1 and Cs
structures. On a vibrationless energy surface, the C1 structure
is calculated to be 0.2 kcal/mol lower in energy than the Cs
structure; the Cs structure is the saddle point for interconversion
of the C1 structure shown in Figure 4 with its enantiomer.
However, after zero-point energy corrections are applied, the
Cs structure is lower in energy than the C1 structure by 0.3 kcal/
mol. The Cs structure probably better represents the “true”
transition-state structure, but KIEs were calculated for the C1
transition structure as well.
Ab initio calculations were performed using GAMESS16a or Gaussian
94.16b UHF Natural Orbital Analysis17 indicated a [2e-/2o] active space
for ethylene and propene and a [3e-/3o] active space for allyl radical.
In allyl radical, orbitals ψ10 and ψ11 were reordered in the ground state
species, so that ψ10 (a π orbital) was included and ψ11 (a σ orbital)
was excluded from the active space; if these reorderings were not done,
the calculations failed to reach self-consistency. No orbital reordering
was necessary for twisted allyl radical. When necessary, force constant
matrix contaminants resulting from molecular translation and rotation
were removed by use of internal rather than Cartesian coordinates for
frequency calculations. The CASSCF geometries and force constants
were used as input to QUIVER,18 which calculates the partition
functions for the Bigeleisen equation.19 In one test case, isotope effects
were calculated from free energies of activation calculated in Gaussian
94.16b
(12) (a) Hehre, W. J.; Radom, L.; v. R. Schleyer, P.; Pople, J. A. Ab
Initio Molecular Orbital Theory; Wiley-Interscience: New York, 1986. (b)
Roos, B. O. In Methods in Computational Molecular Physics; Diercksen,
G. H. F., Wilson, S., Eds.; D. Reidel Publishing: Dordrecht, The
Netherlands, 1983; pp 161-187. (c) Werner, H. J. In AdVances in Chemical
Physics; Lawley, K. P., Ed.; Wiley Interscience: New York, 1987; Vol.
69, pp 1-62. (d) Shepard, R. Ibid., pp 63-200.
(13) Yamaguchi, Y.; Osamura, Y.; Schaefer, H. F., III J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 1983, 105, 7506.
(14) (a) Takada, T.; Dupuis, M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1983, 105, 1713. (b)
Szalay, P. G.; Csa´za´r, A. G.; Fogarasi, G.; Karpfen, A.; Lischke, K. J. Chem.
Phys. 1990, 93, 1246. (c) Peeters, D.; Leroy, G.; Matagne, M. THEOCHEM
1988, 43, 267. (d) Hammons, J. H.; Coolidge, M. B.; Borden, W. T. J.
Phys. Chem. 1990, 94, 5468.
Allyl radical was calculated in C2V symmetry (ground state)
and Cs symmetry (transition state), using the 6-31G* basis set
(Figure 5). The geometry of the ground state is in reasonable
agreement with experiment,24 although the bond lengths are not
very close. This lack of close agreement may be attributable
to the use of electron diffraction to obtain internuclear distances.
The calculated barrier to rotation is 13.7 kcal/mol after zero-
point energy correction, which is in good agreement with the
experimental value.25
(15) (a) Kistiakowsky, G. B.; Smith, W. R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1934, 56,
638. (b) Schmiegel, W. W.; Lett, F. A.; Cowan, D. O. J. Org. Chem. 1968,
33, 3334.
(16) (a) GAMESS: Schmidt, M. W.; Baldridge, K. K.; Boatz, J. A.;
Koseki, S.; Jensen, J. H.; Gordon, M. S.; Nguyen, K. A.; Windus, T. L.;
Elbert, S. T. QCPE Bull. 1990, 10, 52. (b) Gaussian 94 (Revision A.1), M.
J. Frisch, G. W. Trucks, H. B. Schlegel, P. M. W. Gill, B. G. Johnson, M.
A. Robb, J. R. Cheeseman, T. A. Keith, G. A. Petersson, J. A. Montgomery,
K. Raghavachari, M. A. Al-Laham, V. G. Zakrzewski, J. V. Ortiz, J. B.
Foresman, J. Cioslowski, B. B. Stefanov, A. Nanayakkara, M. Challacombe,
C. Y. Peng, P. Y. Ayala, W. Chen, M. W. Wong, J. L. Andres, E. S.
Replogle, R. Gomperts, R. L. Martin, D. J. Fox, J. S. Binkley, D. J. Defrees,
J. Baker, J. P. Stewart, M. Head-Gordon, C. Gonzalez, and J. A. Pople;
Gaussian, Inc.: Pittsburgh, PA, 1995.
(17) Pulay, P.; Hamilton, T. P. J. Chem. Phys. 1988, 88, 4926.
(18) Saunders, M.; Laidig, K. E.; Wolfsberg, M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1989,
111, 8989.
(19) (a) Bigeleisen, J.; Wolfsberg, M. AdV. Chem. Phys. 1958, 1, 15. (b)
Bigeleisen, J.; Goeppert-Mayer, M. J. Chem. Phys. 1947, 15, 261.
(20) Kuchitsu, K. J. Chem. Phys. 1966, 44, 906.
(21) Douglas, J. E.; Rabinovitch, B. S.; Looney, F. S. J. Chem. Phys.
1955, 23, 315.
(22) Lide, D. R.; Christensen, D. J. Chem. Phys. 1961, 35, 1374.
(23) Flowers, M. C.; Jonathan, N. J. Chem. Phys. 1969, 50, 2805.
(24) Vajda, E.; Tremmel, J.; Rozsondai, B.; Hargittai, I.; Maltsev, A.
K.; Kagramanov, N.; Nefedov, O. M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1986, 108, 4352.