A R T I C L E S
Henze et al.
core structures. A first aggregation reactivity study comparing
very different degrees of aggregation in DEE and THF identified
contact ion pairs as reactive species.6 Then we found different
degrees of aggregation for the contact ion pairs in DEE,
standard conditions for synthetic procedures. The results show
that addition of THF has a different influence not only on
reactivity and disaggregation but also on the aggregate structure
of 1‚LiCN and 1‚LiI. Thus, for the first time different reactivities
of Gilman cuprates can be directly correlated to different
aggregate structures. Additionally, a direct dipolar interaction
with the CN- moiety in aggregates of 1‚LiCN is presented. In
principle, with NMR spectroscopy the structures of transition
states cannot be detected, but the investigation of the real
existing structures of reagents and intermediates is an essential
prerequisite to choose the ideal starting structures for theoretical
calculations.
depending on steric hindrance and the kind of salts.17
A
comparison with kinetic data derived by Bertz et al.16 suggested
an increase of reactivity through disaggregation by THF down
to the dimeric contact ion pair. However, such more refined
aggregation reactivity correlations lack direct comparability of
structural and kinetic data, which up to now have always been
performed under different experimental conditions. Additionally,
the influence of small amounts of THF on the aggregation and
the aggregation structure of organocuprates is unknown.3,7,17,18
As a second important point concerning organocuprates, the
core structure of the salt-containing dimethylcuprates in the
reactive species again came up as a subject in the discussion
during recent years. In the known X-ray structures of lithium
dialkylcuprates crystallized from salt-containing solutions6,11 and
in our NMR investigations of the pure reagents in solution,8
only homodimeric structures were found. Also, a recent study
about the control of electron transfer versus alkylation pathway
in the reaction of the Gilman reagent Me2CuLi‚LiI (1‚LiI) shows
that the lithium halide is not differentially involved in the
competition between these two reaction types.19 In contrast,
numerous theoretical calculations proposed heterodimeric core
structures20-22 of the Gilman reagents 1‚LiX (X ) I, CN) and
a recent theoretical publication suggested besides the involve-
ment of heterodimeric structures even the contribution of “higher
order” Lipshutz cuprates in the transition state of the addition
reaction of 1‚LiCN to acetylene.23 The main problem in the
discussion mentioned above is the lack of experimental evidence
about the position of the salt unit (LiI or LiCN) relative to the
organocuprate moiety in solution. The only information experi-
mentally available in solution is the coordination of the salt by
Li+, confirmed by previous 15N NMR9 and IR spectroscopic24
studies. The crystal structures,25-27 highly valuable in other
respects, showing different positioning possibilities of the salt
in organocuprates, are less meaningful for the aggregate structure
in solution, since significant differences of the aggregate
structures in the solid state and in solution were found.6,17
In this study experimental results for both subjects are
presented, concerning the correlation between disaggregation
via THF and reactivity of Gilman cuprates as well as regarding
the position of the salt units in solution. Thus, for the first time
kinetic studies and NMR structural investigations were per-
formed under identical experimental conditions, which are
2. Results and Discussion
2.1. Kinetic Data. The kinetic studies were carried out as
described previously.28 As model system we selected the 1,4-
addition of the Gilman cuprates 1‚LiX (X ) I, CN) to 4,4-
dimethylcyclohex-2-enone (2) in DEE at 210 K (Scheme 1).
The reaction mixture contained equimolar concentrations of the
reactants in the range of 0.025-0.1 M, as well as variable
amounts of THF and tetradecane as internal standard. The
progress of the reaction was determined by removing aliquots
at specific time intervals, which were hydrolyzed and analyzed
by gas chromatography. The substrate concentration showed an
exponential decrease against the reaction time (see Figure S1
in Supporting Information for an example), and the measured
values were fitted by use of the exponential function c ) c0
exp(-kt).28 The resulting first-order rate constants k typically
showed errors within 10% of the value of k.
Scheme 1. 1,4-Addition of the Gilman Cuprates 1‚LiX (X ) I, CN)
to 4,4-Dimethylcyclohex-2-enone (2) in DEE at 210 K Used as
Representative Model Reaction in the Kinetic Studies
In accordance with the “traditional” solvent effects in the
conjugate cuprate addition,6 we observed a continuous decrease
of the reaction rate for the 1,4-addition of the cyano-Gilman
cuprate 1‚LiCN to enone 2,1 as shown exemplarily in Figure 1.
This behavior proved to be independent of the concentration of
the reactants within the range examined here (see above and
Figure S2 in Supporting Information). In striking contrast to
this, the corresponding 1,4-addition of the copper iodide-derived
Gilman cuprate 1‚LiI to the standard enone 2 showed a
pronounced acceleration effect. At 0.1 M concentration of the
reactants, addition of just 0.25 equiv of THF caused a 2.5-fold
rate acceleration, and even in the presence of 1.0 equiv of THF
the reaction was slightly faster than in pure DEE (Figure 2).
This effect is in agreement with the observations of Bertz et
al.;16 however, they could not quantify the acceleration. We also
observed a strong dependence of the acceleration effect on the
concentration of the reactants: at 0.05 M, only a slight rate
increase (ca. 1.5-fold) was observed with the maximum at 1.0
(16) Bertz, S. H.; Chopra, A.; Eriksson, M.; Ogle, C. A.; Seagle, P. Chem. Eur.
J. 1999, 5, 2680-2691.
(17) Xie, X.; Auel, C.; Henze, W.; Gschwind, R. M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003,
125, 1595-1601.
(18) Mori, S.; Nakamura, E. Chem. Eur. J. 1999, 5, 1534-1543.
(19) Yang, J. K.; Cauble, D. F.; Berro, A. J.; Bauld, N. L.; Krische, M. J. J.
Org. Chem. 2004, 69, 7979-7984.
(20) Yamanaka, M.; Nakamura, E. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005, 127, 4697-4706.
(21) Mori, S.; Nakamura, E.; Morokuma, K. Organometallics 2004, 23, 1081-
1088.
(22) Yamanaka, M.; Nakamura, E. Organometallics 2001, 20, 5675-5681.
(23) Nakamura, E.; Yoshikai, N. Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn. 2004, 77, 1-12.
(24) Huang, H.; Alveraz, K.; Liu, Q.; Barnhart, T. M.; Snyder, J. P.; Penner-
Hahn, J. E. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 8808-8816 and 12252
(correction).
(25) Kronenburg, C. M. P.; Jastrzebski, J. T. B. H.; Boersma, J.; Lutz, M.; Spek,
A. L.; van Koten, G. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 11675-11683.
(26) Boche, G.; Bosold, F.; Marsch, M.; Harms, K. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed.
1998, 37, 1684-1686.
(27) Kronenburg, C. M. P.; Jastrzebski, J. T. B. H.; Spek, A. L.; van Koten, G.
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1998, 120, 9688-9689.
(28) Canisius, J.; Gerold, A.; Krause, N. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 1999, 38, 1644-
1646.
9
17336 J. AM. CHEM. SOC. VOL. 127, NO. 49, 2005