C O M M U N I C A T I O N S
As there is now evidence for the existence of 1-3 and even 4,
we are hopeful that the last low-lying isomer on this PES, carbene
5, can also be prepared. In view of the remarkable tunneling
behavior of the parent hydroxycarbene HCOH,19 this is a worth-
while scientific goal that is currently being pursued in our
laboratories.
Acknowledgment. This study was supported by the DAAD
within the Partnership of the University of Lodz and the Justus-
Liebig University.
Supporting Information Available: IR spectra, computational
details, and additional references. This material is available free of
References
(1) Adam, W.; Bargon, R. M.; Mloston, G. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2003, 4012.
Adam, W.; Curci, R.; D’Accolti, L.; Dinoi, A.; Fusco, C.; Gasparrini, F.;
Kluge, R.; Paredes, R.; Schulz, M.; Smerz, A. K.; Veloza, L. A.; Weinko¨tz,
S.; Winde, R. Chem.sEur. J. 1997, 3, 105. Murray, R. W.; Singh, M. In
ComprehensiVe Heterocyclic Chemistry II; Padwa, A., Ed.; Pergamon:
Oxford, U.K., 1996; Vol. 1A, Chapter 1.14, p 429. Donahue, J. P. Chem.
ReV. 2006, 106, 4747.
Figure 2. (top) IR difference spectrum of the photolysis of d2-1 with λ >
360 nm (positive bands, products; negative bands, d2-1) in Ar at 11 K.
(bottom) computed CCSD(T)/cc-pVTZ IR spectrum of d2-1 (unscaled).
Inset: structure of d2-1.
(2) Schultz, A. G.; Schlessinger, R. H. J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun. 1970,
1051. Schultz, A. G.; Schlessinger, R. H. J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun.
1969, 1483. Schlessinger, R. H.; Schultz, A. G. Tetrahedron Lett. 1969,
10, 4513. Zwanenburg, B.; Wagenaar, A.; Strating, J. Tetrahedron Lett.
1970, 11, 4683.
(3) Carlsen, L.; Harrit, N.; Holm, A. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 1 1976,
1404.
(4) O’Sullivan, O. C. M.; Collins, S. G.; Maguire, A. R.; Bohm, M.; Sander,
W. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2006, 2918.
(5) Strating, J.; Thijs, L.; Zwanenburg, B. Tetrahedron Lett. 1966, 7, 65. Fisera,
L.; Huisgen, R.; Kalwinsch, I.; Langhals, E.; Li, X. Y.; Mloston, G.;
Polborn, K.; Rapp, J.; Sicking, W.; Sustmann, R. Pure Appl. Chem. 1996,
68, 789. Cerreta, F.; Lenocher, A. M.; Leriverend, C.; Metzner, P.; Pham,
T. N. Bull. Soc. Chim. Fr. 1995, 132, 67. Marriere, E.; Chevrie, D.; Metzner,
P. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 1 1997, 2019. Huisgen, R.; Mloston, G.;
Polborn, K.; Palacios-Gambra, F. Liebigs Ann./Recl. 1997, 187.
(6) Powers, D. E.; Arrington, C. A.; Harris, W. C.; Block, E.; Kalasinsky,
V. F. J. Phys. Chem. 1979, 83, 1890. Block, E.; Penn, R. E.; Olsen, R. J.;
Sherwin, P. F. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1976, 98, 1264.
(7) Decker, C. J.; Doerge, D. R.; Cashman, J. R. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 1992, 5,
726.
(8) Block, E. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1992, 31, 1135. Brodnitz, M. H.;
Pascale, J. V. J. Agric. Food. Chem. 1971, 19, 269. Kubec, R.; Cody, R. B.;
Dane, A. J.; Musah, R. A.; Schraml, J.; Vattekkatte, A.; Block, E. J. J.
Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 1121.
(9) Snyder, J. P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1974, 96, 5005. Carlsen, L.; Snyder, J. P.
J. Org. Chem. 1978, 43, 2216. Karlstro¨m, G.; Roos, B. O.; Carlsen, L.
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1984, 106, 1557.
(10) Carlsen, L.; Snyder, J. P.; Holm, A.; Pedersen, E. Tetrahedron 1981, 37,
1257.
Figure 3. Energies of CH2SO species [at the CCSD(T)/cc-pVTZ + ZPVE
level] relative to sulfine 2, the starting material for the preparation of 1 and
4 (energies not drawn to scale).
(11) Suzuki, E.; Ishiguro, R.; Watari, F. J. Mol. Struct. 1990, 238, 71.
(12) Schreiner, P. R.; Reisenauer, H. P.; Romanski, J.; Mloston, G. Angew.
Chem., Int. Ed. 2009, 48, 8133.
at the CCSD(T)/cc-pVTZ + ZPVE level] than the carbonyl oxide form.
This may be due to the much higher polarizability of sulfur and its
electropositivity relative to oxygen and carbon (see the table of contents
graphic, which shows the electrostatic potential around 1, indicating
the high positive polarization of the sulfur atom). This is in part
supported by the large reaction enthalpy of the homodesmotic reaction
shown in eq 1 [∆Hr ) -44.8 kcal mol-1 at the CCSD(T)/cc-pVTZ +
ZPVE level], which is also in line with the expectation that 1 should
be an excellent sulfur atom donor.1 In addition, this is also due to the
much higher CdO versus CdS bond energy in formaldehyde versus
thioformaldehyde.18
(13) Withers, N. Nat. Chem. 2009, 1, 682.
(14) Lahem, D.; Flammang, R.; Nguyen, M. T. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1997, 270, 93.
(15) Hocking, W. H.; Winnewisser, G. Z. Naturforsch. 1976, 31, 422. Hocking,
W. H.; Winnewisser, G. Z. Naturforsch. 1977, 32, 1108. Kalinowski, H. O.;
Hocking, W. H.; Winnewisser, B. P. J. Chem. Res., Synop. 1978, 260. Aly,
A. A.; Brown, A. B.; Hasaan, A. A.; El-Shaieb, K. M.; Bedaira, T. M. I.
ARKIVOC 2009, xiii, 66.
(16) All of the coupled-cluster computations were carried out with ACES2 and
CFOUR; for the complete references, see the SI.
(17) Crehuet, R.; Anglada, J. M.; Cremer, D.; Bofill, J. M. J. Phys. Chem. A
2002, 106, 3917.
(18) Molina, M. T.; Ya´n˜ez, M.; Mo´, O.; Notario, R.; Abbud, J.-L. M. In The
Chemistry of Double-Bonded Functional Groups; Patai, S., Ed.; Wiley:
Chichester, U.K., 1997; p 1358.
(19) Schreiner, P. R.; Reisenauer, H. P.; Pickard, F. C.; Simmonett, A. C.; Allen,
W. D.; Ma´tyus, E.; Csa´sza´r, A. G. Nature 2008, 453, 906.
JA100670Q
9
J. AM. CHEM. SOC. VOL. 132, NO. 21, 2010 7241