Is hyperconjugation responsible for the “gauche effect” in 1-fluoropropane and other 2-substituted-1-fluoroethanes? †

Abstract

The energies and geometries of a series of 2-substituted-1-fluoroethanes were computed at the MP2/6-311++G**(6D)//MP2/6-31+G* level of theory for both the maxima and minima of the rotation about the C–C bond. The results did not support the predictions of a hyperconjugative model, that both 1,2-difluoroethane and 1-chloro-2-fluoroethane would strongly prefer a gauche conformation, and that 1-fluoro-2-silylethane would strongly prefer an anti conformation. The existence of competing electrostatic interactions between the fluorine and the substituents at C-2 was indicated by the detailed geometries of the gauche conformers and by the calculated sensitivity of the gauche–anti energy differences to the presence of a polar solvent. However, Fourier analyses of the torsional potential energies were wholly consistent with hyperconjugative electron donation into the C–F σ* orbital contributing to the conformational preferences of these 1-fluoroethanes. Fourier analyses also showed that hyperconjugation contributes to the small variations in C–C and C–F bond lengths and in fluorine atomic charges that were computed. The torsional potential energies, variations in geometry and atomic charge, and sensitivity to solvent were all in accord with the expected ranking of hyperconjugative electron donating ability of bonds to carbon, C–Si > C–H > C–C > C–Cl > C–F.

References

1. S. Wolfe, Acc. Chem. Res., 1972, 5, 102.
2. E. Juaristi, J. Chem. Educ., 1979, 56, 438.
3. S. F. Nelsen, Acc. Chem. Res., 1978, 11, 14.
4. N. S. Zefirov, L. G. Gurvich, A. S. Shashkov, M. Z. Krimer and E. A. Vorob'eva, Tetrahedron, 1976, 32, 1211.
5. N. Sheppard, Adv. Spectrosc., 1959, 1, 288 (p. 295 in particular).
6. Y. Morino and K. Kuchitsu, J. Chem Phys., 1958, 28, 175.
7. T. N. Sarachman, J. Chem. Phys., 1963, 39, 469.
8. G. J. Szasz, J. Chem. Phys., 1955, 23, 2449.
9. K. N. Houk, J. E. Eksterowicz, Y.-D. Wu, C. D. Fuglesang and D. B. Mitchell, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1993, 115, 4170.
10. D. Parker, K. Senanayake, J. Vepsailainen, S. Williams, A. S. Batsanov and J. A. K. Howard, J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2, 1997, 1445.
11. T. K. Brunck and F. Weinhold, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1979, 101, 1700.
12. P. Dionne and M. St-Jacques, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1987, 109, 2616.
13. N. D. Epiotis, R. L. Yates, J. R. Larson, C. R. Kirmaier and F. Bernardi, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1977, 99, 8379.
14. For a discussion of negative hyperconjugation more generally, see: P. v. R. Schleyer and A. J. Kos, Tetrahedron, 1983, 39, 1141 and references therein.
15. W. T. Borden, Chem. Commun., 1998, 1919.
16. W. Caminati, A. C. Fantoni, F. Manescalchi and F. Scappini, Mol. Phys., 1988, 64, 1089.
17. L. Schäfer, M. Cao, M. Ramek, B. J. Teppen, S. Q. Newton and K. Siam, J. Mol. Struct., 1997, 413–414, 175.
18. H. Kunttu, T. Raaska and M. Rasanen, J. Mol. Struct. (THEOCHEM), 1989, 53, 277.
19. W. J. Archer, M. A. Hossaini and R. Taylor, J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2, 1982, 181.
20. H. Li and W. J. le Noble, Recl. Trav. Chim. Pays-Bas, 1992, 111, 199.
21. B. T. Cooney and D. A. R. Happer, Aust. J. Chem., 1987, 40, 1537.
22. H. C. Brown, M. Periasamy and P. T. Perumal, J. Org. Chem., 1984, 49, 2754.
23. U. Edlund, Org. Magn. Reson., 1978, 11, 516.
24. K. B. Wiberg, M. A. Murcko, K. E. Laidig and P. J. MacDougall, J. Phys. Chem., 1990, 94, 6956.
25. T. Hirano, S. Nonoyama, T. Miyajima, Y. Kurita, T. Kawamura and H. Sato, J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun., 1986, 606.
26. D. Freissen and K. Hedberg, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1980, 102, 3987.
27. L. Fernholt and K. Kveseth, Acta Chem. Scand., Ser. A, 1980, 34, 163.
28. W. C. Harris, J. R. Holtzclaw and V. F. Kalasinski, J. Chem. Phys., 1977, 67, 3330.
29. E. J. M. Van Schaick, H. J. Geise, F. C. Mijlhoff and G. Renes, J. Mol. Struct., 1973, 16, 23.
30. J. R. Durig, J. Liu, T. S. Little and V. F. Kalasinsky, J. Phys. Chem., 1992, 96, 8224.
31. K. B. Wiberg, T. A. Keith, M. J. Frisch and M. Murcko, J. Phys. Chem., 1995, 99, 9072.
32. K. B. Wiberg and M. A. Murcko, J. Phys. Chem., 1987, 91, 3616.
33. D. A. Dixon and B. E. Smart, J. Phys. Chem., 1988, 92, 2729.
34. L. Radom, J. Baker, P. M. W. Gill, R. H. Nobes and N. V. Riggs, J. Mol. Struct. (THEOCHEM), 1985, 126, 271.
35. D. A. Dixon, N. Matsuzawa and S. C. Walker, J. Phys. Chem., 1992, 96, 10740.
36. T. Miyajima, Y. Kurita and T. Hirano, J. Phys. Chem., 1987, 91, 3954.
37. K. Kveseth, Acta Chem. Scand., Ser. A, 1978, 32, 51.
38. G. F. Smits, M. C. Krol, P. N. van Kampen and C. Altona, J. Mol. Struct. (THEOCHEM), 1986, 139, 247.
39. (a) E. W. Colvin, Silicon in Organic Synthesis, Butterworth, London, 1981; (b) J. B. Lambert and R. B. Finzel, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1982, 104, 2020; (c) S. G. Wierschke, J. Chandrasekhar and W. L. Jorgensen, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1985, 107, 1496 and references to earlier calculations cited therein; (d) J. B. Lambert, G.-T. Wang, R. B. Finzel and D. H. Teramura, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1987, 109, 7838.
40. A. Skancke, D. A. Hrovat and W. T. Borden, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1998, 120, 7079.
41. At the MP2/6-31G*(optimized), the anti conformer of 1-fluoro-2-silylethane (–468.66157 Hartrees) is higher in energy than the gauche conformer (–468.66274 Hartrees) by 0.73 kcal mol^–1. The results of calculations using larger basis sets (at least an additional set of diffuse functions on heavy atoms), which we consider more reliable, appear in the tables.
42. (a) A. E. Reed, R. B. Weinstock and F. Weinhold, J. Chem. Phys., 1985, 83, 735; (b) A. E. Reed, L. A. Curtiss and F. Weinhold, Chem. Rev., 1988, 88, 899.
43. J. B. Joresman, T. A. Keith, K. B. Wiberg, J. Snoonian and M. J. Frisch, J. Phys. Chem., 1996, 100, 16098.
44. M. J. Frisch, G. W. Trucks, H. B. Schlegel, P. M. W. Gill, B. G. Johnson, M. A. Robb, J. R. Cheeseman, T. A. Keith, G. A. Petersson, J. A. Montgomery, K. Raghavachari, M. A. Al-Laham, V. G. Zakrzewski, J. V. Ortiz, J. B. Foresman, J. Cioslowski, B. B. Stefanov, A. Nanayakkara, M. Challacombe, C. Y. Peng, P. Y. Ayala, W. Chen, M. W. Wong, J. L. Andres, E. S. Replogle, R. Gomperts, C. Gonzalez, R. L. Martin, D. J. Fox, J. S. Binkley, D. J. Defrees, J. Baker, J. P. Stewart, M. Head-Gordon and J. A. Pople, GAUSSIAN94 (Revision C.2), Gaussian, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, 1995.
45. L. Radom, W. J. Hehre and J. A. Pople, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1972, 94, 2371.
46. P. R. Rablen, S. A. Pearlman and D. A. Miller, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1999, 121, 227.
47. P. Huber-Wälchli and Hs. H. Günthard, Spectrochim. Acta, Part A, 1981, 37, 285.
48. R. J. Abraham and R. H. Kemp, J. Chem. Soc. B, 1971, 1240.
49. A. R. H. Goodwin and G. Morrison, J. Phys. Chem., 1992, 96, 5521.
50. P. Huber-Wälchli and Hs. H. Günthard, Chem. Phys. Lett., 1975, 30, 347.
51. J. R. Durig, J. Liu and T. S. Little, J. Phys. Chem., 1991, 95, 4664.
52. J. Huang and K. Hedberg, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1990, 112, 2070.
53. H. Senderowitz, L. Golender and B. Fuchs, Tetrahedron, 1994, 50, 9707.
54. W. J. Hehre, L. Radom, P. v. R. Schleyer and J. A. Pople, Ab Initio Molecular Orbital Theory, Wiley, New York, 1986.
55. H. Takeo, C. Matsumura and Y. Morino, J. Chem. Phys., 1986, 84, 4205.
56. (a) C. C. Miller, S. C. Stone and L. A. Philips, J. Chem. Phys., 1995, 102, 75; (b) C. C. Miller, M. Shen and L. A. Philips, J. Phys. Chem., 1993, 97, 537.
57. M. Hayashi and M. Fujitake, J. Mol. Struct., 1986, 146, 9.
58. With DFE, CFE and FSE, hyperconjugation and electrostatics are in conflict and so the observed conformational preference for an anti or a gauche conformation is small. However, it is also possible to imagine molecules in which the two forces are in agreement. For instance, in the anionic species FCH₂CH₂BH₃^–, both factors favor the anti conformer. Since both the BH₃^– group and the fluorine atom bear negative charge, the electrostatic interaction is repulsive and favors the anti conformation. On the other hand, since boron is electropositive, the C–B bond is expected to be a better electron donor than a C–H bond and so hyperconjugation favors the anti conformation as well. In agreement with these predictions, MP2/6-311++G**(6D)//MP2/6–31+G* calculations indicate that the anti conformer is preferred over the gauche conformer by 5.95 kcal mol^–1.