process that competes favorably with the desired unimo-
lecular homolytic decomposition process of 5.
Scheme 2
Although the intervention of this polar process lowers the
yield for the desired homolytic process, it should not affect
the diagnostic efficacy of the kinetically controlled ratio of
trapped products 3 and 4, which would derive strictly from
the homolytic process. Indeed, careful HPLC/ESI-MS
analysis of the aforementioned product mixture indicated the
presence of two products (ratio, ∼100:1) that had a molecular
weight consistent with their deriving from TEMPO trapping
of the radical species 1 and 2. To unambiguously identify
the minor (presumably non-ring-opened) product, 3 along
with presumed major product 4 were synthesized by alterna-
tive routes, the products were fully characterized,11 and
mixtures of the two authentic materials were subjected to
HPLC/ESI-MS analysis. Their retention times were coin-
cident with and their mass spectra were identical in all ways
with those of the two products from the TEMPO trapping
experiments of 5. Therefore, it appears that a successful
competitive trapping of 1 prior to its ring opening to 2 has
occurred.
To relate the experimental total ion count integration of 3
and 4 to their relative concentrations, it was necessary to
determine their relative sensitivities to the analytical method.
A relative response coefficient for 3 versus 4 of 0.71 ( 0.10
was obtained using pure samples of 2 and 3 under analytical
conditions that approximated those used in the competition
study.19 The actual competition study was carried out by
decomposing perester 5 (0.012 M in cyclohexane) at 99.3
°C in the presence of varying concentrations of TEMPO
(0.5-1.1 M) and observing the ratio of products 3 and 4 (as
measured by HPLC/ESI-MS) as a function of TEMPO
concentration.20 The obtained ratios of 3:4, after correction
by the response coefficient, ranged from 0.0069 at 0.5 M
TEMPO to 0.0139 at 1.1 M TEMPO. A plot of these ratios
versus [TEMPO] yielded a slope of 1.2 ( 0.2 × 10-2 (r2 )
0.945), which according to eq 1 (Scheme 2) is equal to the
ratio of kT/kr.
appeared to be the precursor of choice for this competition
study of 1 f 2. Perester 511 was synthesized readily from
3-butenyl benzoate via a novel difluorocyclopropanation
procedure12 followed by standard hydrolytic, oxidative, and
functionalization methodologies. When heated to 99.3 °C
in cyclohexane, in the absence of TEMPO, 5 underwent
smooth, first-order decomposition to give a product mixture
that, by 19F analysis, consisted only of ring-opened prod-
ucts.13 The mechanism of the thermal decomposition of
peresters (RCO3-tBu), in cases where R is a primary alkyl
group, is likely a two-step process involving reversible O-O
•
bond homolysis, followed by loss of CO2 by the RCO2
radical to form R•.14,15 The fact that the rate constant for
decomposition of perester 5 (kd ) 2.1 (( 0.2) × 10-5 s-1)
is only 5.5 times larger than that of tert-butyl peracetate16 is
consistent with the 2,2-difluorocyclopropylcarbinyl radical
not being a significantly stabilized radical, relative to a simple
primary system.
A 0.01 M solution of 5 in cyclohexane, containing a large
excess (0.6 M) of TEMPO, was observed to decompose with
enhanced rate,17 and two products could be detected by 19F
NMR, the ring-opened, TEMPO-trapped product 4 and the
ring-closed carboxylic acid 7 (ratios of 7:4 ) 2.3 and 3.5
for 0.6 and 1.0 M TEMPO, respectively) (Scheme 3).
Beckwith’s determined activation parameters9 for kT [log
kT ) 9.7 - 0.9θ] allow one to calculate the rate constant kT
Scheme 3
(11) Products are fully characterized by 1H, 13C, and 19F NMR
spectroscopy and by HRMS and/or elemental analysis.
(12) Tian, F.; Kruger, V.; Bautista, O.; Duan, J.-X.; Li, A.-R.; Dolbier,
W. R., Jr.; Chen, Q.-Y. Org. Lett. 2000, 2, 563-4.
(13) Ring-opened and non-ring-opened products are readily distinguished
by their distinctive 19F NMR signals: the former always appears as a single
fluorine signal, whereas the latter always appears as an AB pattern (two
fluorine signals).
(14) Koenig, T.; Huntington, J.; Cruthoff J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1970, 92,
5413.
(15) Neuman, R. C.; Behar, J. V. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1969, 91, 6024.
(16) Bartlett, P. D.; Hiatt, R. R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1958, 68, 1398.
(17) The overall rates of decomposition of 5 were found to be dependent
on [TEMPO], with pseudo-first-order kobs ) 4.0 and 4.9 × 10-5 s-1 for
[TEMPO] ) 0.6 and 1.0 M, respectively.
(18) Moad, G.; Rizzardo, E.; Solomon, D. H. Tetrahedron Lett. 1981,
22, 1165.
(19) Obtained by comparing ratios of experimental integrations of total
ion current for the respective products from the kinetic experiments with
the ratios for samples containing the two products in authentic ratios between
1:1 to 1:300, where the concentrations (total ion current) of the larger
component, 4, always approximated those in the kinetic study.
(20) To minimize chromatographic ambiguities by largely quenching the
t-BuO• radicals, 5 vol % of 1,4-cyclohexadiene was added to the mixture.
Carboxylic acid product 7 appears to have been formed via
the previously reported polar mechanism involving electron
transfer from TEMPO,18 a bimolecular, TEMPO-induced
836
Org. Lett., Vol. 2, No. 6, 2000