results were obtained with norephedrine (ee 61%). The use
of (+)-norephedrine afforded the optical antipode of the
photoproduct produced by the use of (-)-norephedrine,
indicating that the system is well behaved. Similar to our
observations with other systems, the ee obtained was
7
dependent on the water content of the zeolite. When the
above-prepared zeolite complex was intentionally made
“
wet” by adsorption of water, the ee was low relative to the
8
ee obtained under dry conditions (dry, 61%; wet, <2%).
While the ee obtained in this study is the highest thus far
reported for the photoreduction of any achiral ketone, we
do not fully understand the mechanism of chiral induction.
The following observations (Table 1) are noteworthy: (a)
despite the entire reaction occurring within chirally modified
cages, the ee is not quantitative; (b) there is a significant
variation in ee between the two diastereomers (compare
ephedrine and pseudoephedrine) and (c) among the two
closely related chiral inductors ephedrine and norephedrine.
The less than quantitative ee obtained in this study is most
likely related to the multistep nature of the reaction, which
involves at least two distinct intermediates (Scheme 2).2
,9
Figure 3. GC traces of the product mixtures (Supelco â-dex 350/
701 custom-made column). The dependence of the inter- and
1
intramolecular hydrogen abstraction products from 1 on the loading
level of the chiral inductor, pseudoephedrine, within NaY. The ee
remains the same under the two conditions. 〈S〉 indicates the number
of chiral inductor molecules per cage. The first of the two
enantiomeric peaks on the GC is marked as A.
Scheme 2
observation supports the view that reduction occurs only in
cages containing the chiral inductor. The ee would have
increased with increased loading levels of the chiral inductor
had there been intermolecular reduction (to yield racemic
products) in cages that do not contain pseudoephedrine.
The ability to restrict the reduction reaction to the cages
containing both the reactant and the chiral inductor allows
one to examine, for the first time, chiral induction within a
zeolite without any interference from reactions that occur in
cages lacking the chiral inductors. Thus far, chiral induction
within a zeolite has been complicated by racemic reactions
5
within cages that do not contain the chiral inductor. By
restricting the photoreaction to cages containing the chiral
inductor, we have achieved moderate chiral induction during
the photoreduction of 1. The ee obtained in this study is
noteworthy, as earlier attempts to achieve chiral induction
during photoreduction of aryl alkyl ketones by chiral amines
6
resulted in ee values of less than 8% (at room temperature).
Furthermore, the major products in earlier studies were
pinacols (diols) and not the ketone-derived alcohols. The
results obtained with various chiral inductors are summarized
in Table 1. Of the various chiral inductors tested, the best
Both the starting ketone and the intermediate radical 5
(Scheme 2) possess pro-chiral faces. In solution, the equally
likely addition of hydrogen to both faces of 5 results in
racemic product. In the absence of a chiral inductor, ketone
1
is unlikely to show preference for adsorption from either
(
5) The chiral auxiliary approach has been employed to keep the reactant
1
0
and the chiral inductor together within a cage, and this has yielded high
de. (a) Joy, A.; Uppili, S.; Netherton, M. R.; Scheffer, J. R.; Ramamurthy,
V. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 728.
face onto the zeolite surface.
On the other hand, the presence of a chiral inductor might
allow the reactant ketone to differentiate between the two
(
6) (a) Cohen, S. G.; Laufer, D. A.; Sherman, W. V. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
964, 86, 3060. (b) Pitts, J. N., Jr.; Letsinger, R. L.; Taylor, R. P.; Patterson,
J. M.; Recktenwald, G.; Martin, R. B. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1959, 81, 1068.
c) Seebach, D.; Daum, H.J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1971, 93, 2795. (d) Seebach,
1
(
(7) Joy, A.; Scheffer, J. R.; Ramamurthy, V. Org. Lett. 2000, 2, 119.
(8) The extent of ee depends on the water content of the zeolite. The ee
will be in the range between 0 and 61% if the sample is not dried properly.
D.; Oei, H.-A.; Daum, H. Chem. Ber. 1977, 110, 2316. (e) Horner, L.;
Klaus, J. Liebigs. Ann. Chem. 1979, 1232.
Org. Lett., Vol. 2, No. 7, 2000
939