The acid-catalyzed rearrangement of deuterium-labeled 2,3-dimethylbutan-2-ol; the concentration of the intermediate cation

Abstract

The rate of rearrangement of hexadeuterated 2,3-dimethylbutan-2-ol 1A in sulfuric acid solution in D₂O was measured by means of ²H NMR. Kinetic data revealed that after the acid-induced formation of the carbocation intermediate, it rearranges through two parallel paths: (a) by way of a 1,2-hydride shift, and (b) by way of elimination of the methine proton and readdition of water. The elimination/addition reaction is approximately seven times slower than the rearrangement via the hydride shift, which is the major reaction pathway. In an experiment carried out with 2,3-dimethylbutan-2-ol-2-[¹³C] as a substrate in H₂¹⁸O, the ratio of the rearrangement rate and the rate of the exchange of the hydroxy oxygen was found to be k_–1/k₂ = 9.5. Consequently, the highest point on the energy surface in the overall rearrangement reaction presented in Scheme 1 is the hydrido-bridged 2,3-dimethylbutyl cation. The K_R⁺ = [ROH][H⁺]/[R⁺] = 2.2 × 10¹⁵ was obtained. The concentration of the carbocation 2 obtained under experimental conditions (20 vol% H₂SO₄ in D₂O at 40 °C) was calculated to be [R⁺] = 6 × 10^–15 M.

References

1. For reviews see (a) Molecular rearrangements, P. De Mayo, ed., Wiley, New York, 1963; (b) Molecular rearrangements, P. De Mayo, ed., Wiley, New York, 1970.
2. (a) J. A. March, Reactions, Mechanisms, and Structures, 3rd edn., John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1985, pp. 958–963 and references cited therein; (b) T. H. Lowry and K. S. Richardson, Mechanism and Theory in Organic Chemistry, 3rd edn., Harper & Row Publishers, New York, 1987.
3. This observation led to the first proposal of carbocations as reaction intermediates (H. Meerwein and K. van Emster, Ber., 1922, 55, 2520).
4. M. Saunders and M. R. Kates, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1978, 100, 7082.
5. (a) M. Saunders and G. W. Cline, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1990, 112, 3955; (b) M. Saunders, H. A. Jimenez-Vazquez and O. Kronja, in Stable Carbocation Chemistry, ed. G. K. Surya Prakash, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1997, pp. 297–321.
6. V. J. Nowlan and T. Tidwell, Acc. Chem. Res., 1977, 10, 252.
7. T. L. Mega and R. I. Ven Eten, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1988, 110, 6371.
8. L. P. Hammet, Physical Organic Chemistry, 2nd edn., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1970, ch. 9.
9. (a) V. J. Shiner, B. L. Murr and G. Heinemann, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1963, 85, 2413; (b) see also: Isotope Effects in Chemical Reactions, ACS Monograph, J. C. Collins and N. S. Bownamm, ed., Van Norstrand Reinhold, New York, 1970 and references cited therein.
10. C. D. Johnson, A. R. Katritzky and S. A. Shapiro, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1969, 91, 6654.
11. Unpublished results, Yale University.
12. (a) R. H. Boyd, R. W. Taft, A. P. Wolf and D. R. Christman, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1960, 82, 4729; (b) E. M. Arnett and T. C. Hofelich, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1983, 105, 2889; (c) D. D. M. Wayner, D. J. McPhee and D. J. Griller, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1988, 110, 132.