Journal of the American Chemical Society
Communication
the molecular level cannot be determined by the measurements
described here, field strengths on the order of 1 V/nm are
reasonable given the measured charge densities. Significantly
higher transient electric fields may also be accessible in the
vicinity of the electrolyte ions that accumulate at the interface.
The largest selectivity change observed here, a factor of 63,
corresponds to a 2.5 kcal/mol perturbation of the difference
between activation barriers leading to the two products. To
account for this perturbation with a field dipole model in which
the field is 1 V/nm, the difference in dipole moments between
the competing activation barriers (Δμ) must be 5.1 D along the
direction of the field. We hypothesize that the transition state
leading irreversibly to 2 has a dipole moment that is several
debye larger than the transition state leading to 3 and that the
reactants/transition states are readily aligned in the local field at
the interface. Thus, field−dipole interactions lower the barrier
to 2 relative to 3 to an extent that depends on the magnitude of
the local field but not its direction, accounting for the symmetry
of the selectivity changes at ±V. Interactions between the local
field and induced dipole moments as well as ordering of the
solvent molecules at the interface due to field−solvent dipole
interactions may also contribute to the selectivity changes.
research. The Eli Lilly New Faculty Award (M.K.), the
Benchmark Stanford Graduate Fellowship (C.G.), and the
Althouse Family Stanford Graduate Fellowship (E.B.) are also
gratefully acknowledged. We thank Profs. C. E. D. Chidsey and
J. Du Bois for helpful discussions and Prof. J. Brauman for a
thoughtful review of the manuscript.
REFERENCES
■
(1) Yudin, A. K.; Afagh, N. A. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2010, 49, 262.
(2) Young, I. S.; Baran, P. S. Nat. Chem. 2009, 1, 193.
(3) Boxer, S. G. J. Phys. Chem. B 2009, 113, 2972.
(4) Ohta, N. Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn. 2002, 75, 1637.
(5) Murgida, D. H.; Hildebrandt, P. J. Phys. Chem. B 2002, 106,
1
(
2
2814.
6) Harris, J. M.; Oklejas, V.; Uibel, R. H.; Horton, R. Anal. Chem.
008, 80, 1891.
(7) Blatter, F.; Frei, H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1994, 116, 1812.
(8) Blatter, F.; Sun, H.; Vasenkov, S.; Frei, H. Catal. Today 1998, 41,
297.
(9) Warshel, A.; Sharma, P. K.; Kato, M.; Parson, W. W. Biochim.
Biophys. Acta 2006, 1764, 1647.
10) Warshel, A.; Sharma, P. K.; Kato, M.; Xiang, Y.; Liu, H. B.;
Olsson, M. H. M. Chem. Rev. 2006, 106, 3210.
11) Shaik, S.; de Visser, S. P.; Kumar, D. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004,
26, 11746.
12) Shaik, S.; Hirao, H.; Chen, H.; Carvajal, M. A.; Wang, Y. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 2008, 130, 3319.
13) Shaik, S.; Lai, W. Z.; Chen, H.; Cho, K. B. J. Phys. Chem. Lett.
010, 1, 2082.
(
(
1
(
The results obtained for the reaction of 1 catalyzed by Al O3
2
in the parallel plate cell are not unique to this combination of
substrate and catalyst. In a preliminary examination of an
alternative substrate, a 30−40-fold change in the ratio of
aldehyde to ketone products is observed at ±4.5 V relative to 0
V if 2-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-phenyloxirane is used as the
substrate. In addition, a 2−7-fold change in the ratio of 2:3 is
(
2
(14) Vayenas, C. G.; Bebelis, S.; Pliangos, C.; Brosda, S.; Tsiplakides,
D. Electrochemical Activation of Catalysis: Promotion, Electrochemical
Promotion, and Metal-Support Interactions; Kluwer Academic: New
York, 2001.
observed at ±4.5 V relative to 0 V if an HfO layer is used as
2
the catalyst instead of Al O (see Supporting Information).
2
3
(
(
15) Vayenas, C. G.; Koutsodontis, C. G. J. Chem. Phys. 2008, 128.
16) Neophytides, S. G.; Tsiplakides, D.; Stonehart, P.; Jaksic, M. M.;
The breakdown voltage and interfacial capacitance of the
Al O -coated Si electrodes limit the maximum attainable
2
3
Vayenas, C. G. Nature 1994, 370, 45.
(17) Ploense, L.; Salazar, M.; Gurau, B.; Smotkin, E. S. J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 1997, 119, 11550.
interfacial field strength in the parallel plate cell. The use of
29
alternative insulating layers with higher dielectric constants or
30,31
alternative electrolytes such as ionic liquids
may enable the
(
(
(
18) Salazar, M.; Smotkin, E. S. J. Appl. Electrochem. 2006, 36, 1237.
19) Imbihl, R. Prog. Surf. Sci. 2010, 85, 241.
20) Toghan, A.; Rosken, L. M.; Imbihl, R. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.
application of substantially larger fields. For reactions in which
‡
E•Δμ contributes to ΔΔG , such increases would dramatically
improve the control over selectivity afforded by this approach.
Localizing other thin film, nanoparticle, or molecular
catalysts in interfacial fields will enable the study of field effects
across a wide spectrum of reactions. Furthermore, the design
principles of the parallel plate cell may in theory be extended to
flow reactors that enable field effects to be exploited on a
preparative scale. We anticipate that field effects will provide a
general approach toward controlling the selectivity of catalytic
reactions.
2010, 12, 9811.
(21) George, S. M. Chem. Rev. 2010, 110, 111.
(22) Bard, A. J.; Faulkner, L. R. Electrochemical Methods:
Fundamentals and Applications; John Wiley & Sons: New York, 2001.
(
23) Kahn, A.; Vaynzof, Y.; Dennes, T. J.; Schwartz, J. Appl. Phys.
Lett. 2008, 93, 103305.
24) Petrii, O. A.; Khomchenko, I. G. J. Electroanal. Chem. 1980, 106,
77.
25) In a simplified model, a charge density of 1 μC/cm on the
(
2
(
2
underlying Si electrode balanced by an oppositely charged plane of
ions in the double layer generates a field of 1.1 V/nm at the oxide
2
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
surface. The actual field at the oxide surface with 1 μC/cm on the
■
underlying Si deviates from this value depending on the diffusivity of
the double layer, the proportion of ions that are specifically adsorbed,
and the polarization of the reaction medium in the vicinity of the
surface. The field also fluctuates due to the mobility of ions in the
double layer.
*
S
Supporting Information
Experimental procedures, characterization data for the oxide-
(26) Becucci, L.; Guryanov, I.; Maran, F.; Guidelli, R. J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 2010, 132, 6194.
(
(
(
(
27) Kabalka, G. W.; Pagni, R. M. Tetrahedron 1997, 53, 7999.
28) Ruizhitzky, E.; Casal, B. J. Catal. 1985, 92, 291.
29) Leskela, M.; Ritala, M. Thin Solid Films 2002, 409, 138.
30) Li, J. H.; Liu, H. T.; Liu, Y. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2010, 12,
AUTHOR INFORMATION
1
685.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
(31) Simon, P.; Gogotsi, Y. Nat. Mater. 2008, 7, 845.
■
We thank Stanford University and the Air Force Office of
Scientific Research (FA9550-11-1-0293) for support for this
1
89
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja210365j | J. Am. Chem.Soc. 2012, 134, 186−189