DCE, and in 30% yield in pure MeOH, is a carbene trapping
product: MeOH captures 11 in competition with fragmenta-
tion, producing ROCH(Cl)OMe, which yields orthoformate
the LYP correlation functional of Lee, Yang, and Parr.33
Computed gas-phase energies (unscaled) were corrected for
thermal effects at 298.15 K and for zero-point energy
differences. Normal coordinate analyses confirmed the nature
of the computed stationary points as either ground state (no
imaginary frequencies) or transition structures (one imaginary
frequency). Solvation effects in dichloroethane (ꢀ ) 10.36)
were simulated via single-point energy calculations and
6
,28
ROCH(OMe)
2
and HCl by acid-catalyzed hydrolysis.
Products RCl and ROMe, however, represent competition
+
+
between chloride return to R vs methanol capture of R in
ion pairs 12 and 13. These products (9, 10, 21, and 22)
represent ring expansion-fragmentation of 11, whereas ether
3
2
2
0 may stem from solvolytic fragmentation of the carbene.
In pure methanol, the product distribution from carbene
1 is chlorides 8 (3.0), 9, (26.0), and 10 (15.1); ethers 20
PCM methodology.
The fragmentation transition structures for the rearrange-
ments of carbene 11 to chlorides 9 and 10 are shown in
Figure 3; see Supporting Information. The computed activa-
tion energies at 298.15 K, converted from activation enthal-
pies, and corrected for zero-point energies, are 12.5 (9) and
13.8 (10) kcal/mol in vacuo and 4.84 (9) and 5.94 (10) kcal/
1
(1.3), 21 (10.5), and 22 (13.7); alcohol 23 (30.3). We note
first that, even in pure methanol, alkyl chloride formation
3
from carbene 11 persists; the total chloride/ether ratio is
44:26. Thus, the lifetimes of the putative ion pairs formed
upon carbene fragmentation (12 and 13 in Scheme 1) must
mol in simulated DCE solution. The computed E
rearrangements, 4.8-5.9 kcal/mol, are in excellent agreement
with the experimental (aggregate) E for the disappearance
of carbene 11 (5.1, kcal/mol, see above).
The computed E for the “unimolecular” fragmentation
of 11 to unrearranged 8 is 21.2 kcal/mol in vacuo and 15.3
kcal/mol in simulated DCE. The calculations therefore
suggest that the 11 f 8 pathway should not be competitive
with either the 11 f 9 or 11 f 10 rearrangements. The
finding of 7% of 8 from the fragmentation of 11 is most
a
’s for these
be comparable to the diffusive events that would remove
-
29,30
Cl and fully solvate the carbocations.
a
Furthermore, the bicyclo[2.2.2]octyl cation-chloride anion
pair (12) generated by carbene fragmentation-ring expansion
of carbene 11 in MeOH (Scheme 1) is not identical to the
a
“
1
same” ion pair generated by the direct fragmentation of
-bicyclo[2.2.2]octyloxychlorocarbene. Thus, the RCl/
6
ROMe product ratio (9/21) is 26:10.5 ≈ 2.5 from fragmenta-
tion-rearrangement of carbene 11, but only 19:48.6 ≈ 0.39
5
from fragmentation of 1-bicyclo[2.2.2]octyloxychlorocarbene.
likely the result of chloride ion-induced S
of the carbene, as suggested above.
N
2 fragmentation
Ion pair 12 “remembers” its carbene origin; its choice
between reaction with chloride or methanol depends on its
origin.
The migrating carbons of the transition structures for 9
and 10 lie midway along the reaction coordinates in contrast
to the “early” transition structures computed for the cyclo-
3
1
Similar results obtain for ion pair 18 in Scheme 2: the
RCl/ROMe ratio (15/1-Ad-OMe) is 37:15 ≈ 2.5 from the
fragmentation-ring expansion of carbene 17 but 54.2/37 ≈
3
4
propylmethyl analogue (E
1-adamantylmethyl system (E ) 5.6 kcal/mol). Whereas
a
) 3.0 kcal/mol) and the
a
5
,8
1
.5 from the direct fragmentation of 1-adamantyloxychloro-
strain relief provides a significant driving force for the
1-norbornylmethyl rearrangements, strain increases for the
1-adamantylmethyl rearrangement. On the other hand, incipi-
ent homoconjugation may provide significant stabilization
of the cycloproplymethyl system with relatively little geo-
metric change. What makes the present systems unique are
the locations of the chloride ion in the transition structures.
In most other computed transition structures for these
fragmentation reactions, the Cl- - -C terminus distance ranges
5
carbene. That the RCl/ROMe ratios are more nearly equal
when the selecting carbocation is more stable (i.e., 4 vs 3),
1
seems reasonable, but a more extensive study of these
phenomena is clearly needed.
In analogy with previous computational studies of alkoxy-
halocarbene fragmentation,4,6 we computed energies for cis-
carbene 11 and the three competing fragmentation transition
structures leading to 8, 9, and 10. All structures were fully
optimized by analytical gradient methods at the B3LYP/6-
4
,5,6,34
from 3.0 to 3.6 Å,
but in the present case it is more
32
tightly bound at distances of 2.6-2.8 Å. The contrast reflects
an unexpected variability in the geometry of “early” frag-
mentation transition structures.
3
1G(d) level using the Gaussian98 suite of programs. DFT
calculations used Becke’s three-parameter hybrid method and
(
25) The values of k2 for carbene 11 (in DCE) and n-butoxychlorocarbene
1
7
(
in MeCN) are identical.
(
26) This result was obtained as described for carbene 11. The correlation
Acknowledgment. We are grateful to the National
Science Foundation for financial support and to the Center
for Computational Neuroscience of Rutgers University
-
of kobs with [Cl ] had r ) 0.971 for 6 points.
27) Kropp, P. J.; Poindexter, G. S.; Pienta, N. J.; Hamilton, D. C. J.
Am. Chem. Soc. 1976, 98, 8135.
28) Smith, N. P.; Stevens, I. D. R. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2 1979,
298. The orthoformate cannot be isolated; see pp 1302-1303.
29) From carbocation trapping experiments with trimethoxybenzene,5
(
(
(Newark) for computational support.
1
,30
11
(
-
we could estimate the lifetimes of the cations of Scheme 1 as ∼7 × 10
Supporting Information Available: Figures 1-3. This
material is available via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
s in DCE. Thus, in methanol, the cations of the ion pairs react either with
their chloride counterions or with solvent molecules in the first shell of the
solvent cage.
OL020083J
(
30) Pezacki, J. P.; Shukla, D.; Lusztyk, J.; Warkentin, J. J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 1999, 121, 6589.
31) For examples of “memory effects” in carbocation rearrangements,
see: Berson, J. A. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1968, 7, 799.
32) Gaussian 98, revision A.9; Gaussian, Inc.: Pittsburgh, PA, 1998.
(
(33) (a) Becke, A. D. J. Chem. Phys. 1993, 98, 5648. (b) Lee, C.; Yang,
W.; Parr, R. G. Phys. ReV. B. 1998, 37, 785.
(34) Moss, R. A.; Zheng, F.; Johnson, L. A.; Sauers, R. R. J. Phys. Org.
Chem. 2001, 14, 400.
(
2344
Org. Lett., Vol. 4, No. 14, 2002