Please do not adjust margins
ChemComm
Page 4 of 4
DOI: 10.1039/C8CC00241J
COMMUNICATION
Journal Name
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts to declare.
Notes and references
§ The salts 3 and 7 could not be examined at χ 0.85; they are
solids at the temperatures used and insufficiently soluble in the
small amounts of other species present.
¶
In this case, 292.2 K. The ionic liquids 1 and 9 not examined at
8
this temperature7, had rate constants interpolated from the
Eyring plots.
‡ Whilst hyperconjugation would result in some charge on the
adjacent carbon centres, and this would differ between the two
cations, this difference would be markedly less significant than
the difference in steric constraints.
Figure 3. The bimolecular rate constants for the reaction shown in Scheme 1 in
different proportions of either [bmmo][N(SO2CF3)2] 4, (ꢀ), [pe(mim)2][N(SO2CF3)2]2 10,
(ꢀ) or [bmim][N(SO2CF3)2] 9 (ꢀ)a in acetonitrile at 295.2 K. Uncertainties are reported
as the standard deviation of three replicates; some values fall within the size of the
markers used. a Data reproduced from Schaffarczyk McHale et al.11
†† Although the effects of the ionic liquids
examined at different mole fractions (0.85 and 0.70
respectively), the rate constant in salt is significantly higher
than that in salt ; given the mole fraction dependence of this
2 and 3 were
3
2
reaction, demonstrated here and elsewhere,11 increasing the
mole fraction would not be expected to change this argument.
§§ Whilst there is the potential for direct oxygen-cation
interactions, these have been shown to be markedly less than
with nitrogen13 and previous studies involving oxygen centred
nucleophiles show no significant interactions.14, 15 As such, the
inductive effect is considered much more likely.
In summary, the effects of a range of ionic liquids on a
bimolecular nucleophilic substitution reaction were
investigated. The ionic liquids were specifically chosen to
increase the rate constant for the reaction, based on
knowledge of what is required for rate enhancement: no steric
hindrance around cation and introduction of electron-
withdrawing substituents. The ionic liquid with the most
accessible charge led to the greatest rate constant
enhancement (ca. seven times that of the molecular solvent)
and ionic liquids that contained electron-withdrawing
substituents at various positions on the cation also saw
significant rate constant increases. Importantly, the activation
parameters confirm the microscopic origins of the effects and
the validity of the rationale for choosing these systems. These
results are significant, as they confirm that ionic liquids can be
designed to get the desired reaction outcome for this process.
Of the most effective ionic liquids, the ‘overall best’
solvents were chosen by considering stability of the salt, cost
and ease of synthesis. These salts demonstrated the same
trend in mole fraction dependence as the previously examined
case; this is significant as it further demonstrates the
effectiveness of the predictive principles being developed.
Overall, these results have show that the components of
ionic liquids can be rationally chosen to control the rate
constant for this reaction. These salts might be applied to
other processes where the same interactions were responsible
for reaction outcome, such as condensation reactions that
might be important for heterocycle synthesis.12 However, the
process is more general as when what is required for rate
enhancement is known, interactions can be exploited such
that ionic liquids can be designed for the reaction at hand,
allowing for solvent-controlled reactivity.
¶¶ This ionic liquid
3 can reach χ ca. 0.7 in acetonitrile; given the
mole fraction dependence of this reaction type (see literature11
and herein) this was not considered a limitation.
‡‡ This is unlikely due to mass transfer; see ESI for discussion.
1. J. P. Hallett and T. Welton, Chem. Rev., 2011, 111, 3508-3576.
2. R. R. Hawker, R. S. Haines and J. B. Harper, in Targets in
Heterocyclic Systems, eds. O. A. Attanasi, R. Noto and D. Spinelli,
Società Chimica Italiana, 2014, pp. 141-213.
3. S. T. Keaveney, R. S. Haines and J. B. Harper, in Encyclopedia of
Physical Organic Chemistry, ed. U. Wille, Wiley, 2017.
4. C. Chiappe and D. Pieraccini, J. Phys. Org. Chem., 2005, 18, 275-
297.
5. C. Hussey L, Pure Appl. Chem., 1988, 60, 1763-1772.
6. H. M. Yau, A. K. Croft and J. B. Harper, Faraday Discuss., 2012,
154, 365-371.
7. H. M. Yau, A. G. Howe, J. M. Hook, A. K. Croft and J. B. Harper,
Org. Biomol. Chem., 2009, 7, 3572-3575.
8. E. E. L. Tanner, H. M. Yau, R. R. Hawker, A. K. Croft and J. B.
Harper, Org. Biomol. Chem., 2013, 11, 6170-6175.
9. H. M. Yau, S. J. Chan, S. R. D. George, J. M. Hook, A. K. Croft and
J. B. Harper, Molecules, 2009, 14, 2521-2534.
10. R. R. Hawker, J. Panchompoo, L. Aldous and J. B. Harper,
ChemPlusChem, 2016, 81, 574-583.
11. K. S. Schaffarczyk McHale, R. R. Hawker and J. B. Harper, New J.
Chem., 2016, 40, 7437-7444.
12. S. T. Keaveney, K. S. Schaffarczyk McHale, R. S. Haines and J. B.
Harper, Org. Biomol. Chem., 2014, 12, 7092-7099.
13. S. T. Keaveney, K. S. Schaffarczyk McHale, J. W. Stranger, B.
Ganbold, W. S. Price and J. B. Harper, ChemPhysChem, 2016, 17,
3853-3862.
14. S. G. Jones, H. M. Yau, E. Davies, J. M. Hook, T. G. A. Youngs, J.
B. Harper and A. K. Croft, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2010, 12,
1873-1878.
RRH acknowledges the Australian Government (Research
Training Program Scholarship). JBH acknowledges the
Australian Research Council (DP130102331, DP10103682) and
UNSW (Faculty Research Grant). The support of the NMR and
BMSF facilities (UNSW) and Dr Hank De Bruyn and Dr Natasha
Sciortino (Sydney, DSC and TGA) are gratefully acknowledged.
15. B. J. Butler and J. B. Harper, New J. Chem., 2015, 39, 213-219.
4 | J. Name., 2012, 00, 1-3
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 20xx
Please do not adjust margins