1
4,19
of benzene bound to tin, germanium, and lead.
Here the
hyperconjugation is for C-Si, C-Sn, C-Ge, and C-Pb
20,21
bonds. These indeed are much more effective than C-H.
Yet no serious suggestion of an aromatic component to the
stabilization was entertained.
In 1993, Schleyer provided computational evidence for
the aromatic character of σ-π electron delocalization in the
2
2
phenonium and benzenium ions. Subsequent studies,
including calculations of aromaticity indices for cyclopen-
tadienes substituted at the methylene group with Si, Sn, and
2
3
Ge substituents, have identified him as a consistent
advocate of hyperconjugative aromaticity. His conclusions
24,25
Figure 4
.
Influence of benzoannelation on carbocation stability
have not escaped criticism
by the present results.
but are emphatically endorsed
(
cycloheptadienyl charges indicate sites of reaction with water).
In view of its theoretical and experimental significance, it
seems appropriate to characterize aromatic hyperconjugation
by the term “hyperaromaticity”. This implies an analogy
between hyperconjugation and hyperaromaticity on the one
hand and homoconjugation and homoaromaticity on the
This might not seem remarkable. However, solvolysis of
substrates yielding benzylic carbocations normally occurs more
readily than that of those yielding structurally comparable allylic
12
cations. This difference in reactivity is opposite to that
expected from the effect of benzoannelation on the stability of
the benzenium ion.
2
6
other. The term would seem to be consistent with Mul-
27
liken’s original definition of hyperconjugation as “conjuga-
tion over and above that usually recognized”. It remains
remarkable that so apparently important a concept should
only now find extensive experimental support.
The unusual stability of the benzenium ion is confirmed by
6
comparison with the cycloheptadienyl cation in Figure 4. The
difference in pK for these two ions, -2.3 and -12.1, seems
R
too large to be accounted for by a difference in strain energies
but is consistent with a difference of aromatic from nonaromatic
hyperconjugation. Moreover, as indicated by the inferred values
Acknowledgment. The work was supported by the Sci-
ence Foundation Ireland (Grant No. 04/IN3/B581). The
authors thank Yitzhak Appeloig (Technion, Israel Institute
of Technology), Herbert Mayr (Ludwig Maximilian Uni-
versity of Munich), Paul Schleyer (University of Georgia),
and Patrick Fowler (University of Sheffield) for helpful
discussion and suggestions.
13
of pK
R
above, for the cycloheptadienyl cation benzoannelation
decreases from -11.8 to -8.7).
does increase its stability (pK
R
Electrophilic Aromatic Substitution. The benzenium ion
(
cyclohexadienyl cation, protonated benzene) is the parent
Wheland intermediate of electrophilic aromatic substitution
and is itself implicated in aromatic hydrogen isotope ex-
Supporting Information Available: Experimental pro-
cedures, kinetic measurements, and tables of rate constants
and product ratios (S1-S4) and of computational details
1
4
change. Stabilization of this ion by hyperconjugation
associated with significant aromatic character was originally
1
5
envisaged by Mulliken in 1953. Perhaps because the
magnitude of this stabilization was later thought to be
(Table S5). This material is available free of charge via the
Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
16
overestimated, and certainly because experimental implica-
tions were lacking or overlooked, the notion remained largely
dormant for 40 years. There is no mention of it in Dewar’s
OL1014027
1
7
(16) Ermier, W. C.; Mulliken, R. S.; Clementi, E. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
monograph on hyperconjugation in 1964 or Taylor’s
1
976, 98, 388–394
17) Dewar, M. J. S. Hyperconjugation; Ronald: NY, 1964
(18) Ahira, J. Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn. 1981, 54, 2268–2273
.
14
account of electrophilic aromatic substitution in 1990, while
(
.
18
a discussion by Ahira in 1980 attracted only two citations.
Hyperconjugation was invoked in the 1960s to account
for the high reactivity of trimethylsilylbenzene toward
protodesilylation and the much greater reactivity with acid
.
(
19) Eaborn, C.; Pande, K. C. J. Chem. Soc. 1960, 1566–1571
.
(
20) Panisch, R.; Bolte, M.; Muller, T. Organometallics 2007, 26, 3524–
3529
21) Lambert, J. B.; Zhao, Y.; Emblidge, R. W.; Salvador, L. A.; Liu,
X.; So, J.-H.; Chelius, E. C. Acc. Chem. Res. 1999, 32, 183–190
22) Sieber, S.; Schleyer, P. von R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1993, 115, 6987–
6988.
(23) Nyulazi, L.; Schleyer, P von R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999, 121, 6872–
6875.
(24) Stanger, A. Chem.sEur. J. 2006, 12, 2745–2751
(25) Olah, G. A.; Head, N. J.; Rasul, G.; Suraya Prakash, G. K. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 1995, 117, 875–882
.
(
.
(
(
11) Lawlor, D. A.; More O’Ferrall, R. A.; Rao, S. N. J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 2008, 130, 17997–12807.
12) Rao, S. N.; More O’Ferrall, R. A.; Kelly, S. C.; Boyd, D. R.;
Agarwal, R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1993, 115, 5458–5465.
13) Ceccon, A.; Gambaro, A.; Romanin, A.; Venzo, A. Angew. Chem.,
Int. Ed. 1983, 22, 559–560.
14) Taylor, R. Electrophilic Aromatic Substitution; John Wiley and
Sons: Chichester, 1990.
15) Pickett, L. W.; Muller, N.; Mulliken, R. S. J. Chem. Phys. 1953,
1, 1400–1401.
(
.
(
.
(
(26) Winstein, S. In Carbonium Ions; Olah, G. A., Schleyer, P. von R.,
Eds.; Wiley: New York, 1972; Vol. III.
(
(27) Mulliken, R. S.; Riecke, C. A.; Brown, W. G. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
1941, 63, 41–56.
2
Org. Lett., Vol. 12, No. 23, 2010
5553